Europe vs. China, why the difference?

[bushbush]

if i may make a pretty general assumption, Europe and China in terms of size and population do have some similarities in history. Geography is just as diverse, so do cultures (yes regional differences among chinese population are quite significant). In the ancient world, both had giant empires unifying much of the land, with Rome in the West and Han in the East. But soon after, there is the divergence.

Europe would never have another empire of similiar dominance and so much land and population under one state; today it has over two dozen countries. China on the other hand would have more dynasties to come and unifying the land, to this day.

why this difference?

[Banana Jelly]

You really think the chinese empire was huge? Try Mongol Empire

[bushbush]

You really think the chinese empire was huge? Try Mongol Empire

similar in size of europe....not exact the thread question

Why? Chinese concentrated on similarities between regions, Europe on differences. religious, ethnic, social, whatever, as long as they all had their own petty leaders. Even today, no one will say "Yay, we all speak Indo-European language", it will always be "yay, we speak Slavic/Germanic/Romance" etc etc.

Of course, there are many other socio-economic reasons throughout the centuries which I'm too tired to name, but it comes down to differences. Even today, Europe isn't just united, it's united in DIVERSITY. We just can't not complicate.

not exactly true, during warring state, chinese kingdoms had different written system (different oral too), different measurement system and many other cultural differences. To this day, people of different parts of china are classified often as their own because of these differences. I really don't think a shanxi person have that much in common with a guangdong person (difference is probably as big as a german and a french if u ask me) except their common written system.

I think the reason they held together is more due to the bureaucracy system of selecting officials all over china, the education system that indoctrinate the elites with similar ideology and written system.

[Aru]

Why? Chinese concentrated on similarities between regions, Europe on differences. religious, ethnic, social, whatever, as long as they all had their own petty leaders. Even today, no one will say "Yay, we all speak Indo-European language", it will always be "yay, we speak Slavic/Germanic/Romance" etc etc.

Of course, there are many other socio-economic reasons throughout the centuries which I'm too tired to name, but it comes down to differences. Even today, Europe isn't just united, it's united in DIVERSITY. We just can't not complicate.

[Aru]

not exactly true, during warring state, chinese kingdoms had different written system (different oral too), different measurement system and many other cultural differences. To this day, people of different parts of china are classified often as their own because of these differences. I really don't think a shanxi person have that much in common with a guangdong person (difference is probably as big as a german and a french if u ask me) except their common written system.

I think the reason they held together is more due to the bureaucracy system of selecting officials all over china, the education system that indoctrinate the elites with similar ideology and written system.

I'm not saying Chinese don't have differences, but that they press more on similarities.

Look at my country. Europe is as diverse as it is. We're just a small 4.6 million country in it yet we have 3 big dialects (two of which I barely understand), dozens of subdialects, regional identity is very important and Dalmatians and Zagorje people can't stand one another, Slavonians have nothing in common with Istrians, Dubrovnik people want nothing to do with the rest, Zagreb people think they are superior, no one knows what Međimurje people think because no one understands them, and if that's not enough, in my native region of Slavonija (pop 900 000) people of Slavonski Brod would rebel if they would be under the authority of city of Osijek while people of my town of Vinkovci don't even consider Slavonski Brod true Slavonians (full of Bosnians), and despise Osijek, yet condescend on Županja which is barely 10 miles away. And this goes all the way to the smallest village.

No one wants to be ruled by their nearest village or city, let alone country. And they will always point out to how others are different and not "one of our own". One may say we're just Balkan as Balkan is, but Europe is one big Balkan, and Balkanized to the core. Difficulties with something as useful as EU show this more clearly then anything.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Chinese always striked me as people who would disregard differences for the greater good. Or at least Chinese governments if not people themselves.

[bushbush]

Maybe I'm wrong, but Chinese always striked me as people who would disregard differences for the greater good. Or at least Chinese governments if not people themselves.

good post Aru, but i think what you see is actually result of many years of unification, people become trained to think "we are as one and it's not normal if we aren't as one". But that doesn't explain why they became unified more often FROM THE START. Your example of different dialects actually apply to china too. China has dozens of different dialects taht people can't communicate even with one another orally. Even in my home province shanxi, often villages have different dialects (but those are understandable).

i think the mentality you describe is due to the bureaucracy system and selection of bureacracy. Starting from Han dynasty, officials were selected all over china based on learning Confucian text. This unified elite ideology, loyalty and education, created this idea of all heaven under one.

[Aru]

i think the mentality you describe is due to the bureaucracy system and selection of bureacracy. Starting from Han dynasty, officials were selected all over china based on learning Confucian text. This unified elite ideology, loyalty and education, created this idea of all heaven under one.

And now consider Europe in Roman Empire. They didn't have ideology of unifying Europe. It just happened due to the need of the day and expansion wasn't planned ahead. Caesar needed wealth and fame so he conquered Gaul. Simple as that.

After Rome fell Byzantium had ideology of restoring Western territories for a while, but both East and West were already settled with new peoples. Eventually unity was found in Christianity. That was enough for Europe. Franks tried to restore Western Empire, at least by getting Imperium from the Pope (Charlemagne), but it was simply for the sake of getting as much power as possible in the hands of one leader. With his death it was again divided.

Actually now that I wrote it I think it comes down to religion. As far as any kind of ideology of uniting Europe was considered, it was in Christianity, and it wasn't about Europe itself, but about simply spreading the fate. One could say that medieval Europe was one Christian empire and it concerned only religion. Not until Napoleon did any one leader have an ambition to rule Europe in its entirety and even with Napoleon it's debatable what exactly did he want. Perhaps Hitler was the only one who had a unifying plan for entire Europe, and EU after him. No one else in entire European history.

While in the case of China, ever since it was first made empire every dinasty and every emperor had one thing in mind. To rule entire empire. No one would be satisfied with just a piece of it, or ifone was, it was only because he couldn't conquer the rest. But he wanted to, and none of them simply gave up on part of China. Byzantines, for instance, gave up on Western half. Perhaps if they had the means to expand again they would try (actually almost certainly they would, that's what empires do). But instead they just kept shrinking and being happy they have any empire to rule at all.

edit: this post is a total mess, sorry I'm dead tired.

edit2: Shorter said, after the China was first united the Chinese emperors had the "manifest destiny" to hold China united. No one had that with Rome, or Europe. Neither it was united at the scale of China. Yeah, that's shorter and clearer version of that babble I wrote up.

[bushbush]

And now consider Europe in Roman Empire. They didn't have ideology of unifying Europe. It just happened due to the need of the day and expansion wasn't planned ahead. Caesar needed wealth and fame so he conquered Gaul. Simple as that.

After Rome fell Byzantium had ideology of restoring Western territories for a while, but both East and West were already settled with new peoples. Eventually unity was found in Christianity. That was enough for Europe. Franks tried to restore Western Empire, at least by getting Imperium from the Pope (Charlemagne), but it was simply for the sake of getting as much power as possible in the hands of one leader. With his death it was again divided.

Actually now that I wrote it I think it comes down to religion. As far as any kind of ideology of uniting Europe was considered, it was in Christianity, and it wasn't about Europe itself, but about simply spreading the fate. One could say that medieval Europe was one Christian empire and it concerned only religion. Not until Napoleon did any one leader have an ambition to rule Europe in its entirety and even with Napoleon it's debatable what exactly did he want. Perhaps Hitler was the only one who had a unifying plan for entire Europe, and EU after him. No one else in entire European history.

While in the case of China, ever since it was first made empire every dinasty and every emperor had one thing in mind. To rule entire empire. No one would be satisfied with just a piece of it, or ifone was, it was only because he couldn't conquer the rest. But he wanted to, and none of them simply gave up on part of China. Byzantines, for instance, gave up on Western half. Perhaps if they had the means to expand again they would try (actually almost certainly they would, that's what empires do). But instead they just kept shrinking and being happy they have any empire to rule at all.

edit: this post is a total mess, sorry I'm dead tired.

edit2: Shorter said, after the China was first united the Chinese emperors had the "manifest destiny" to hold China united. No one had that with Rome, or Europe. Neither it was united at the scale of China. Yeah, that's shorter and clearer version of that babble I wrote up.

good post again aru, i think the degree of centralization and selection of bureaucrats were a lot different. IN imperial china, the selection was based on studying of confucian classics, that meant elites around the country had to be indoctrinated with the same ideal, same world view and same perception of china as a civilization that SHOULD be unified somehow. This thinking was probably reason why there were always men who tirelessly tried to unify the country after a dynasty fell.

[Banana Jelly]

Umm europe in ancient times had barbarians, China had civilized

[bushbush]

Umm europe in ancient times had barbarians, China had civilized

actually if u look at the map of Warring state and later Qin dynasty or even early Han, much of even "china proper" that land that chinese dynasties would hold for many more generations to come, were still populated by ethnic groups later destroyed or assimilated by expanding chinese states. Not to mention the constant threat from the northern hordes and central asian steppes.

how does that produce the difference?

[ShADoW]

I guess Europeans had the idea of "Divide and Conquer "

[sephodwyrm]

It is far easier to unify China than Europe.
In China, local technological skills (canal building and bridge building) as well as the presence of large navigable rivers (especially Yangzi) make it possible to extend political or military influence over the area quickly. The Yellow River plains is also not very difficult to travel around, if you have the necessary hooves.

[pannonian]

It is far easier to unify China than Europe.
In China, local technological skills (canal building and bridge building) as well as the presence of large navigable rivers (especially Yangzi) make it possible to extend political or military influence over the area quickly. The Yellow River plains is also not very difficult to travel around, if you have the necessary hooves.

Also, once disunity has set in for long enough, it may perpetuate itself. China never went for excessively long without reunifying, and thus the default story that everyone is comfortable with is a united China. Europe has been disunited for so long that, even without conflicts, and even with strong transport, economic and political links, no-one seriously wants to unite Europe.

[Aetius]

Might be due to geography. Look at how flat China is (the valuable parts anyway) It was relatively easy to conquer and the geography isnt too much different. Europe on the other hand developed more into a sea-based culture due to the pennisulas and good harbors and the many mountain ranges divided them all.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also the Qin Army was badass

[bushbush]

Might be due to geography. Look at how flat China is (the valuable parts anyway) It was relatively easy to conquer and the geography isnt too much different. Europe on the other hand developed more into a sea-based culture due to the pennisulas and good harbors and the many mountain ranges divided them all.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

difficult case to make though, a bunch of giant rivers, a number of high mountains, chinese coasts are pretty flat but series of mountains followed in the central part. Even the japanese army in ww2 didn't get much further from the coast. I am not 100% geography is a good case to make. In fact, i think the presence of Mediterranean sea probably made europe easier to get around and conquer, someone corrects me if i am wrong.

you can see this map..for the extensive mountain range and rivers that form great natural barriers.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_full_res.jpg

Also the Qin Army was badass

propaganda film for the win

[shadyrome]

Seems like everyone answered the question. I want to know this, if you don't mind bushbush, If china was like european divide, Would Far east be a much better place as in, term of financial and living standard.

[Aru]

Europe wins at geography. Much sea (sailing is best mode of travel when you don't have motor vehicles) and huge web of navigable rivers with only one really problematic mountain range, the Alps. Besides few mountain ranges, most of Europe are flatlands, and quite fertile at that. In fact Europe is so people-friendly that it didn't need advanced civilizations when Mesopotamia had them (though they were quite a few in Europe soon after, they just lived in wooden houses and left very few remains because of that) because people could easily live of hunting and gathering. At least until agriculture arrived from Mid East.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Feudalism was largely responsible for the fracturing of Europe into lots of tiny states. China was far less feudal and so didn't have that issue.

[Romano-Dacis]

Feudalism was largely responsible for the fracturing of Europe into lots of tiny states. China was far less feudal and so didn't have that issue.

Feudalism was actually the result, not the cause.

The reason why Europe is the way it is today in comparison to China boils down to the following reasons:
1) Europe is Divided into Penninsulas: Looking at Europe we see several penninsulas: Iberian, Italic, Nordic, Balkan. It is not surprising that civilizations within these Penninsulas are largely homogenous with each other but very different from those in other Penninsulas. The linguistic similarity of the Italians, Southern Slavs, Nordic languages, and even between Portuguese and Spanish shows quite clearly how penninsulas create homogenous cultures within then and separate them from their mother basal culture (Indo-European). There are a few exceptions but they actually make sense. For instance, Greek is different from the Southern Slavic languages, but that is because Greece is kind of a penninsula sprouting off another penninsula.
2) Many mountain ranges: It is not surprising that we see a huge amount of cultural divisions right along mountains. Italy is separated from Europe by the Alps, Spain is separated from France by the Pyrenees, more mountains separate the the cultures of the Iberian Penninsula, the Balkans are a classic example of mountains separating cultures, and the you have the low mountains that separate Wales from the rest of Britain. The Carpathian arc is one of the few mountain ranges to show an exception, in which homogenous cultural groups can be found on both sides of the mountains (West Slavs, Romanians).
3) Imperial Division: Of the large linguistic families of Europe, the divide between Romance and Germanic was caused by the Roman Empire being unable to conquer all of Europe.
4) Barbarian Migrations: The next important linguistic and cultural divisions were caused by barbarian migrations. The new cultures introduced include Slavic, Turkic, and Finno-Ugric languages.

That largely explains cultural divisions. Political divisions are to some extent caused by cultural divisions, but more immediately were the result of the Dark Ages.

Anyway, I actually think China (and India) is the anomaly, not Europe, in that it is so huge yet its population is so diverse. I guess it all depends on where you set your frame of reference.

[bleach]

Anyway, I actually think China (and India) is the anomaly, not Europe, in that it is so huge yet its population is so diverse. I guess it all depends on where you set your frame of reference.

I agree with most of your points, but how is India anything like China? India is far more like Europe than China; thousands of ethnic groups, hundreds of languages, a heavily regionalized history. Post-Raj the subcontinent has already divided once along religious lines, but even the divided states are still too diverse to maintain a functional democracy. China is the only real anomaly.