When thinking about Europe's (and in a smaller scale ,Renaissance Italy's, if we talk about culture) cultural/imperial domination for over 500/400 years, I've often heard that it was the mutual competition that made them so strong (OK, Italy doesn't count here, because the Spanish/Naples, Germans, French, Venice, Milan, Florence and the Pope were struggling for power there). Now that's a typical liberal point of view (Americans, beware, it's liberal in the European sense!- kinda Neo-Kantian or Hegelian):
struggle and competition finally end up in improvement and advance. While the reason for Europe's dominance cannot be traced back on the competition of several, strong nation-states or multiethnic empires alone, do you think that this was a crucial reason for the Occident's rise? Or would a united Medieval/Renaissance Europe (like the Roman Empire), unified by the Angevins, Burgundy (if Charles had survived), Habsburg or whomever have ended up stronger?

What would China have become like, if Ying Zheng already died in, let's say, 250 BC? Wouldn't we have has a Far Eastern Europe then- a "continent" with a common cultural background, but overshadowed by national/ethnic rivalries? And: Would such a kind of China dominated the world ? Remember that the Zhanguo/Chunqiu eras were, despite all that strife, also an era of philosophical, cultural and technological innovation- if we speak in Civ terms, it was China's first Golden Age (ironically)...

The period of division between the Han and Sui dynasties was also a period of innovation. The mariner's compass and Chinese wheelbarrow invented then, and gunpowder may have been as well, although I've also seen it dated to the Tang Dynasty. It was also a period with a lot of migration to the south.

The period of division between the Han and Sui dynasties was also a period of innovation. The mariner's compass and Chinese wheelbarrow invented then, and gunpowder may have been as well, although I've also seen it dated to the Tang Dynasty. It was also a period with a lot of migration to the south.

Are you referring to the 'Three Kingdoms' period there, following the collapse of the Han?

Yes, but after the Sanguo Era a far longer era of disunion was to follow. While the Jin (Sima clan) dynasty managed to unify China for quite some time, the war of the Eight princes and barbarian invasions shattered all their achievements. 16 States were founded on formerly Jin territory in the North; finally Tibetan and Xianbei/Tuoba peoples were dominating Northern China. In the South, many Han sought refuge- the Jin also survived as Eastern Jin, but were finally expelled from the throne. Soon enough, two major factions carved up: the Tuoba-ruled Northern China and the Han Southern China (which wasn't even fully sinicized back then), which is why the era is known as Nanbei Chao: Northern and Southern Dynasty. Each geographical regions had to face several, brutal changes in dynasties, and finally civil wars (two Southern, two Northern dynasties claiming to be the rightful rulers of China= four dynasties) which made it easy for the Sui to unify the Middle Kingdom once again. Nonetheless it was an era of cultural assimilation (the tuoba), militarization and the spreading of Buddhism and religious Daoism- one of China's most vivid eras in intellectual and cultural history. And that's what's keeps me puzzled!

Are you referring to the 'Three Kingdoms' period there, following the collapse of the Han?

More the Northern and Southern Dynasties period after the Jin dynasty briefly reunited the country.

Sorry, yes, I misread a bit. I was thinking about the period of time between the Han and it's successor (whose name escapes me at present).

Europe's rise is due to division, which is a result of geography. No matter what, geography also dictates unity in China. Perhaps a division between north and south along the Yangyze could have arisen, but I doubt it.

When Han fell, China was divided into Wei in the North, Wu in the southeast, and Shu Han in the southwest in Yizhou and Hanzhong. Wei was replaced by the Jin Dynasty which briefly reunited China in 280. In 291, Jin fell into a civil war called the War of the Eight Princes, which lasted until 306. It lost its western capital in 311 and its eastern capital in 316, at which point it lost control of northern China, but lasted in southern China as the Eastern Jin until 420. The North became a collection of petty states called the sixteen Dynasties. The north was mostly united by the Northern Wei dynasty in 440 AD (which had building itself up since 386). Eastern Jin was replaced by Liu Song in 420, which is the beginning of the Northern and Southern Dynasties period which lasted until the reunifaction of China by the Sui Dynasty in 589 AD.

There was another North/South division from 907 until 960 where the Five Dynasties ruled the North and the 10 Kingdoms ruled the south. (There were actually more than 10; that's just what it's called. It's like the Crazy 88's in Kill Bill.) There was another split beginning around 1127 when the Jurchen Jin Dynasty took over Northern China. This ended when Kublai Khan conquered the Southern Song in 1279.

*or Chin, not to be confused with the famous Qin or Ch'in dynasty of Shi Huang-Ti, the Later Jin of the Five Dynasties period, or the Jurchen Jin Empire which took Northern China from the Song, or the Jin Dynasty of the Manchus, which became the Qing Dynasty. China has entirely too many Chins in its history. There was also a kingdom of Jin during the Spring and Autumn period, whose division initated the Warring States period.

Taking China into account, if it is true that in 1421 China had large ships sailing the world before any other nation, does this not mean that the quasi-unification of China was indeed largely beneficial to it?

An interesting article to read which is almost relevant to this subject... HERE (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13123358/site/newsweek)

Taking China into account, if it is true that in 1421 China had large ships sailing the world before any other nation, does this not mean that the quasi-unification of China was indeed largely beneficial to it?
Graeme Menzies book is mostly crap. China did have big ships that crossed the Indian Ocean and sailed through Indonesia, but that was about the extent of it.

Chinese society was often quite vigorous after its unifications. The building of the Great Wall and the Grand Canal took place right after the two most important unifications. I don't tend to think of China stagnating until the middle 15th century when the Ming retreated from the outside world.

Graeme Menzies book is mostly crap. China did have big ships that crossed the Indian Ocean and sailed through Indonesia, but that was about the extent of it.

I've not done enough reading against this subject yet... any chance of a non-Wiki related link? I'm somewhat a fan of Chinese history.

Well there is the book's website (http://www.1421.tv), which includes a list (http://www.1421.tv/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=119) of links about the topic.

China most certainly did *not* discover America; all reputable historians that I know of are agreed on this. They did have massive, 400 foot, very seaworthy and technologically advanced ships, but the primary purpose of the "treasure ship" voyages was to reestablish the might of the Chinese Empire throughout the Indian Ocean.

A good book on the subject is When China Ruled the Seas, by Louise Levathes.


As to the original subject, it can be bad, and it can be good. A fully unified state can be very innovative, but since the authority of a single figure can overrule innovation, that can fail. On the other hand, the Dark Ages in Christianity, the shattering of the Abbasid Caliphate, and the splintering of the Mongol Empire did not lead to the same effects--while religious fanaticism can be blamed in the first two, it really cannot in terms of the Mongol Empire.

Disunity is not necessarily the way to go, either. Innovation can occur in either. The main thing to keep in mind is that Europe, with a very long coastline and large internal bodies of water, was very conducive to advancements in naval technology. It also was neatly connected to the Eurasian trade network, yet relatively far away from the menaces of the steppe--more or less giving it free technology, with little risk.

Disunity could have remained in China; keep in mind that there were hundreds of years at times when it was divided into many petty kingdoms. The main "problem" that led to overall unity was the cultural homogenity, which was reinforced by the conquest of the Warring States by the Qin. Take the Qin away, in my opinion, and you have potential for a disunified China.