Ever since I read Guns, Germs & Steel I've been wondering what factors allowed China to become politically unified from such an early point and, for the most part, remain so. Whereas Northern continental Europe (i.e. Germany, France, Poland, etc.), a smaller area than was under the control of the Han Dynasty, for the vast majority of it's history consisted of tiny states and a couple of short lived empires. Also, how well do you think the Romans would have faired if they had won at Teutoberg Forrest and decided to keep expanding past the Rhine?

Interesting question, I'll think it over. But now it seems to me that Confucianism played a significant role in the Chinese unification

I believe geography played an important part here. Europe happens to be split by mountain ranges , seas and forests into "modern-country-sized" regions, only ever united by the Roman Empire through the Mediterranean. Whereas China has large regions united by river systems. The maintenance of large-scale irrigation systems (which did not and could not exist in Europe) requires a large territorial state, and such a large state would eventually form the core of an empire.

China did have its share of political divisions, like Europe. Yet it tended to unite, unlike Europe. Geography can't explain it all. It's interesting to note that in Europe the idea of the Roman Empire endured, with attempts to rebuild an empire going from the Charlemagne, the Byzantines, the HRE, the papacy, to Napoleon, Hitler, and now the EU. In Europe all these diverse attempts failed. Religious divisions certainly played a role: the HRE was shattered by them (divine power vs. legal power), so was Byzantium's effort to hold together the Roman Empire (all those religions divisions, starting with arianism and ending with the orthodox/catholic schism), and later the Hapsburg attempt at controlling Europe (catholicism vs. protestantism). Arguably the Hapsburgs also failed because they were unable to build up an empire in the Mediterranean, due to the big division formed with the now muslim southern and eastern shore - that sea would henceforth divide instead of uniting. The Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire also failed due to religion divisions (christianity vs. islam, different branches of islam).

So it was probably a combination of geography and historical accidents that led to ideological divisions capable of frustrating all would-be conquerors.

@ Innonimatu: While your comments on geographical features such as mountain ranges and river systems are for the portion of Europe on the mediterranean rim they aren't for the countries that I mentioned (Germany, Poland, etc.). I chose those specifically because, in my opinion atleast, they are relatively flat (Poland is pretty much one giant plain) and are criss-crossed by many navigable rivers (the Rhine, Main, Vistula, etc) and thus present a similar situation to that of China.

Not really similar. The climate is harsher that that of the chinese river systems, and in roman times those lands were covered by forest that was hard to remove with the tools then available.

But the question of why german lands and those eastern plains were disunited during and after the late middle ages (the resident poles will drop by to lecture about the greatness of the polish-lithuanian commonwealth in 4, 3, 2, 1...) is a good one, and I won't risk an answer.

The problem with the HRE was that it had no real officials. Germany was a union of tribes (and in the end not only Germanic). During the reign up to the Stauffer the emperors had many central power. The kings of France and the English kings were regarded as vassals! Then this system broke. They needed officials. So who to use? There were not many schools. You need at leas a bit educated people and trustworth ones. The only who could do the job were the priests. That's why the emperor demanded to appoint them and not the pope. So for centuries fights and wars came. Eventually the pope was victorious.
After that few emperors had many power. One of the few was Charles V. Under his reign Germany and Spain were united. There were also some German colonies in South America (Venezuela). But again religion became an issue. The schism of protestantism and catholicism meant the end of the dreams of a more united power. Had he helped Luther to reform the Church, was is still a need, he might have been able to ally with him and to form an alliance to unite Europe.
From that on the religious split of the German states and the decline of central power lead to a dying system. Perhaps a last chance would have been the marriage of Frederic the Great with Maria Theresia, which was proposed but did not happen. However that is pure speculation.
The next attempts were rude attempts by force. The Ottomans, Napoleon, Hitler and eventually Stalin failed. The modern European Union is trying to do that by economic means. However if they have guys like the Kaczinskys or Thatcher in it is doubtful if they are successful. Especially as one most important means is missing: An own language!

Adler

Good point, the lack of a stable bureaucracy. China developed a bureaucratic system extending over the whole chinese territory quite early, Europe never had any (correction, the church did had one, but never managed to capture temporal power throughout Europe), not even during roman times (emperors tended to build their own administrative systems, seldom inherited them).

As for language, I think we should keep in mind that most of the present european languages and "national cultures" are products of 19th century nationalism. Demolishing them to ease the creation of union will not be as easy as it was creating them, but it can be done. The EU is discreetly doing it, using the same powerful tool nationalism once used: state-controlled education. The real purpose of initiatives such as the Bologna process goes beyond making education "more compatible", it's about encouraging student (and, in the future, worker) mobility in Europe, starting with higher education. That logic will be gradually extended and national identities will be diluted in a few generations. A necessary byproduct of the process will be the appearance of one (or at the most a few) lingua franca - guess which one.

Why was China unified? Probably because 1. geography allows it, 2. common language, 3. militarism on the part of some of the factions, particular the Qin Dynasty, 4. a bureaucratic tradition and maybe 5. threats from outside the border (eg Xiong-Nu tribes).
Why did China managed to reunified? Probably because a strong national identity was developed during the time of the Qin and Han Dynasties, while in Europe (under the Romans) it didn't happen. And while Confucianism didn't play a part in bringing the Qin to power (unless you count the Confucian scholars purged during Qin Shi Huang's reign) it did later play a part in reaffirming a national identity, especially in the Han and Ming dynasties.

The almost universal nature of the written word surely had some significance. Because of the character based, rather than phoneme based, written structure, edicts could be read anywhere, by any literate person.

Government service exams were given centrally, and the applicant did not need to be able to speak the language at the capital to participate. To say that the civil service was a unifying factor would be an understatement.

J

I believe geography played an important part here. Europe happens to be split by mountain ranges , seas and forests into "modern-country-sized" regions, only ever united by the Roman Empire through the Mediterranean. Whereas China has large regions united by river systems. The maintenance of large-scale irrigation systems (which did not and could not exist in Europe) requires a large territorial state, and such a large state would eventually form the core of an empire.The geographical divisions between the Yellow River and the Yangzi are as significant and formidable as any in Europe. This is not even counting in regions like Sichuan (an inland highland plateau, ringed by mountains), or the Pearl River region, or the mountainous coastal province of Fujian.

One further point to consider is that Chinese 'imperial' rule is relatively light, in terms of the tax burden. And officials are to work with the local gentry in each province, who provided the administrative apparatus most of the time (which saved a lot of costs). Most of whom would just want security and hence will stick to any Chinese imperium strong enough to provide that security.

ionnuminatu,

The nationalism is no product of the 19th century. It already existed before. I can tell here only the developing of the German nation as such.
The Germanic tribes were united under Carolus Magnus (who had his main castle at Aachen and spoke the ancient form of German). Shortly after because of the Frankish heritage law, the empire was split. At the so called Straßburg oath for the first time ancient French and German are both documented. While the western part became eventually France and a single central governement was introduced the other became a federation of tribes. With the death of the last eastern Carolingian heir a Saxon was elected king of the HRE: Henry I. Already at this time Bohemia, a non Germanic country, became member of the Reich and eventually Bohemians became German Kaiser (although Eicke v. Repgow's Sachsenspiegel denies them the ability as they are no Germans). The HRE expanded in that time east and several Slavic tribes were absorbed and mostly assimilated. The Sorbs are the last remnants to keep an own culture within nowaday Brandenburg and Saxony. In that times the Germans saw themselves more as Saxons or Franks. But already the tie to be German became stronger. It was neverthless not so fast as centuries later. In that times foreigners started to determine the Germans mostly by the language used. The Polish name is for example Niemcy, meaning the ones no one can understand. The English word German or the French allemand are someway too vague as not only Germanics but also Slavs and Baltic people became German. The German word, Deutsch, originally means only belonging to the people.
With the end of the medievel times German students at the Italian universities formed like the other students of other nations clubs in which they were organised. One member was btw. Copernicus.
This was only a small prelude and ended with the schism of catholics and protestants. Religion became divorcing Germany. After 1648 nevertheless the nationalism began to develope. Only 100 years later Frederic the Great attacked Maria Theresia not doing her job as German Empress. And she had to defend herself. But the ties were not that strong and indeed the people felt more Prussians or Bavarians than German. That changed dramatically with Napoleon. He indeed united Europe- against him. The German nationalism broke through and lead Germany to the victory over France together with the Allies. Not coincidentally black read and yellow have their origins in the colours of the uniforms of the Lützower Freikorps (black uniforms, red inlay and golden buttons; although the old HRE flags had the same colours, too).
This nationalism lead over a revolution (1848) finally to the foundation of the German Reich in 1867/70/71.
Nationalism and language are much older barriers. A lingua franca for the EU is a must. There I propose the language spoken by the most poeple in the EU. Erm did I tell, it is German? ;) :D :mischief:

Adler

There I propose the language spoken by the most poeple in the EU. Erm did I tell, it is German?

German as a 1st language maybe, but more EU'ers know English than German.

No. As 1st and 2nd language more EU citizens know German more!

Adler

to add to nationalism, i personally think the Egyptians, too, had a degree of nationalism in their civilization - which is, i think, a reason why it lasted for a good, long time, even as other empires around it rose and fell.

anyhow, on China, it was already up to 2500 years old (if one takes the Xia dynasty into account) by the time of the Qin and Han dynasties - during this time, the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties slowly, but surely, spread their influence all around. The reason for China's "disunification" in the first millenia BC was, i think, the fuedalistic system the Zhou kept, which, of course, led to local lords getting more and more independent. nevertheless, they all still had a common culture. even during the Qin and Han dynasties, the local lords and officers and what not were under the Emperor, much like the Pope in Medieval Europe, but, unlike the Pope, the Emperor was clearly and explicitly a political figure (yes, the Pope was political too, but he was supposed to only be religious).

well, thats what i think, but, regardless of the reason, by the Three Kingdoms, China was "unified" enough that the warring factions fought each other - not for independence or survival in the traditional sense, but to unify the others under its banner.

was china ever a long lived unified state?

^it was constantly divided on the outside, but always united on the inside, if you know what i mean. :)

nevertheless, they all still had a common culture. even during the Qin and Han dynasties, the local lords and officers and what not were under the Emperor, much like the Pope in Medieval Europe, but, unlike the Pope, the Emperor was clearly and explicitly a political figure (yes, the Pope was political too, but he was supposed to only be religious).The Chinese emperor was also a religious figure, being the head priest of the state cult and the 'conduit' betw Heaven and Earth. One of the Six Boards was the Rites Board, which dealt with religious ceremonies in this regard.

well, thats what i think, but, regardless of the reason, by the Three Kingdoms, China was "unified" enough that the warring factions fought each other - not for independence or survival in the traditional sense, but to unify the others under its banner.It's the concept of the Mandate of Heaven. It's one ruler over 'All Under Heaven' or none. Your legitimacy as a ruler would be suspect if there're other rulers who controlled parts of what was expected to constituted 'China' at that point in time.

Perhaps of the Frankish law was another, that the heritage was not devided, but like the Lex Salica, Europe, or at least Western Europe, might have been united.

Adler

^true. however, the mandate of heaven concept of China, as stated by Knight-Dragon above, was already existent for at least a thousand and a half years before Shi Huangdi even came to power. therefore, it was already pretty established. the Frankish law, on the other hand, however, was relatively new, and whether it would suceed in uniting Western Europe was, for lack of better wording, unknown

Frankish law was also require to co-exist with Roman law and Canonic law.

By he time we get to that situation, we already have massive European fragementation.

It wasn't necessarily bad for Europe. The complex legal situation led to the rise of the Medieval Universities, as a direct response to a very practical demand for legal experts among the courts of Europe. This is why Medieval historians at times refer to the 13th c. as "The century of the lawyer".

As such it would be part of this European diversity, political mostly, which at times, on the assumption that it begat a particular dynamism, is pointed out as one possible factor in the Europe's favour over unified China.

Au contraire: The legal system of the universities in that days were teaching the Roman Law (or at least the remnants in the form of the codex iuris civilis). The law of the states was not taught there. Indeed the Roman Law still remained a base for law until 1900 in Germany if there were no other laws existing.

Adler

To go on a bit beyond the original topic, i would like to present my ideas on why Europe ruled the world and not China.

Personally, i think China was even more ready and capable than Europe to rule the world - however, there was one simple reason that was its advantage, but, sadly, that same reason also turned into a disadvantage.

The reason is the fact it is "unified". Because it is "unified", practically China was under a very central leadership - even all the surrounding nations paid some level of tribute or submitted to China somehow.

Europe, on the other hand, was very split - hundreds of petty states.

For China, its circumstances was a bonus in that it could do something, anything, with tons of resources and manpower, and there was unity in it, no matter how broken. But so too could this turn the other way - if China didn't want to expand power and conquer the world, then all of it, and Asia as well, didn't go expanding world dominance.

In Europe, on the other hand, disunity led to competition, a drive to expand - but also, even if a few states didn't feel like expanding, there were always a good number more that did.

So because China, for better or worse, decided to isolate itself and pretty much all of Asia, we speak a European language now and not Chinese.

I guess that was kinda confsing, but what do you all think?

Au contraire: The legal system of the universities in that days were teaching the Roman Law (or at least the remnants in the form of the codex iuris civilis). The law of the states was not taught there. Indeed the Roman Law still remained a base for law until 1900 in Germany if there were no other laws existing.

Adler
All three legal systems were in use in Europe and the demand for legal expertise still applied.

@Cyberxkhan- I'd agree with that. The Chinese Emperors were usually content to lord it over China, their interest in other nations generally limited to stabilising their borders and establishing a few basically autonomous vassal states. In Europe, by contrast, there was always a continuous scramble for power ever since the collapse of the Roma Empire, with colonisation of foreign lands being a major part of that after the Age of Discovery.

although i do have to add - just because China was stable and content doesn't mean they didn't want to go, depending on the ruler and his plans in question. its just that once the central government said "no, let's not bother", everyone followed it.

of course, these days, theres chinese world domination goin' on - different look, same great taste. :)

Verbose: Yes, there were these three laws concurring. But in the universities of that time only the Roman Law was tought.

Adler

Most europe = Democracy

Most China = Evil Commies

did you even bother to read anything else but the topic? :-)

Verbose: Yes, there were these three laws concurring. But in the universities of that time only the Roman Law was tought.

Adler
Afaik Bologna did Canon Law as well, and since that was the great hub of legal studies in Europe it's kind of significant.

And the point after all is that the demand for legal professionals didn't come from the universities, or from Roman law, but from all the decentralised little administrative hubs around all of western Europe, grappling with a confused situation. The application of Roman law, or some form of it, was apparently pitched as the best tool for clearing things up.

This started out as being about what might be beneficial in the European decentralisation iirc.:)

To go on a bit beyond the original topic, i would like to present my ideas on why Europe ruled the world and not China.

Personally, i think China was even more ready and capable than Europe to rule the world - however, there was one simple reason that was its advantage, but, sadly, that same reason also turned into a disadvantage.

The reason is the fact it is "unified". Because it is "unified", practically China was under a very central leadership - even all the surrounding nations paid some level of tribute or submitted to China somehow.

Europe, on the other hand, was very split - hundreds of petty states.

For China, its circumstances was a bonus in that it could do something, anything, with tons of resources and manpower, and there was unity in it, no matter how broken. But so too could this turn the other way - if China didn't want to expand power and conquer the world, then all of it, and Asia as well, didn't go expanding world dominance.

In Europe, on the other hand, disunity led to competition, a drive to expand - but also, even if a few states didn't feel like expanding, there were always a good number more that did.

So because China, for better or worse, decided to isolate itself and pretty much all of Asia, we speak a European language now and not Chinese.

I guess that was kinda confsing, but what do you all think?

I agree with you but I'd like to add that the disunity of Europe very much helped the intelectual development. If what you said wasn't appreciated by the rulers in China then tough luck, you're dead. In Europe you could always flee to some other country. Many of the medieval intelectuals that challanged the pope would've been burnt if they weren't protected by some local ruler.

Verbose: True the situation in Europe demanded a base of law. That became, except in Britain, the Roman Law based upon the corpus iuris civilis. Concurring the corpus iuris canonici of the Church was developed. But both were similar (although I think you're right concerning the teaching of the canonical law in Bologna this was only an addendum. The main teaching subject was still the Roman Law).
In this time a system of statutes were invented in which the persons were the main point. So if you were from Genua and had trouble with someone of Bologna and you was tried in Bologna the right of Genua was chosen. This system was eventually exchanged by v. Savigny, who took the actions as main point of determination of the law. So if you're an Italian buying something in Brussels from a German, German law is ruling the treaty, as the delivery of the goods is the characteristical element if you buy something (in contrast of giving the money to the seller).
Today most of the European Law systems are basing, more or less, upon the Roman Law.

Adler

I agree with you but I'd like to add that the disunity of Europe very much helped the intelectual development. If what you said wasn't appreciated by the rulers in China then tough luck, you're dead. In Europe you could always flee to some other country. Many of the medieval intelectuals that challanged the pope would've been burnt if they weren't protected by some local ruler.

i do agree with the "general" point.

however, i think the philosophy of both China vs. Europe also had a very important role, mainly what they thought about the human race in general.

Europe, influenced by Christian theology (even into the Reinessance and Englightenment), believed that man was above nature. thus, he could manipulate resources as he needed, and thus, possibly make it easier for industrial development and such.

China, on the other hand, had a different approach, believing that man was a part of nature, meaning that he had no authority over it, and sometimes even less. because of this, they didn't go around doing stuff to their environment the way the Europeans did. in a way, that is why i think if China colonized the Native Americans and not the Europeans, the N.A. beliefs would not really conflict with the Chinese' as much, and the N.A. would have been easily assimilated.

whether this would have led to better or more effective development is not the point here, but the point is the viewpoints of the Western and Eastern world obviuosly led them to want to do things in different ways and with different ambitions. if Ashoka had spread Buddhism into the Middle East effectively, and converted even only half of the Romans, then definitely the Europeans would not have been as they were. ANd if Chrsitianity spread eastward, towards China and India, and stayed as an important influence, then definitely the Eastern world would not be as it was.

Hope that was easy to understand. :)

did you even bother to read anything else but the topic? :-)

No, i just popped by...

I think language played a big part. Of course, China doesn't have a unified language even to this day, contrary to what some have said. But since the times of Qin, it's had a written script that could be used and understood by speakers of any Chinese language.

It's all a quirk of history. Europe adopted an alphabet, China didn't. So even though most of Europe shares a common latin script, this doesn't help speakers of different languages to understand each other. This creates division and seperate identities.

Guns, Germs and Steel rather rudely referred to the Chinese script as primitive and inefficient, but it actually has huge benefits over a phonetic script, especially for a large country with diverse dialects.

Geography, religion and the balance between major powers all played a big role too.

To throw my two cents in, I think that slow Chinese expansion has to do with a number of factors...

1) Size - the size of China means two things: constant peasant uprisings, and distance from borders. The first means that military resources would be marshalled mostly to suppress internal strife, and the second means that it becomes difficult to march on campaign (since rulers don't spend too much time away from the capital).

2) Steppe peoples - they were a constant thorn in the side for Chinese dynasties (even the ones that came from the steppes). This focused Chinese resources on the north, instead of possibly expanding by sea. Traditionally, the seat of Chinese power has usually been in the North, which does explain why there was such a bias towards dealing with the Mongols in preference to, say, conquering the Philippines.

3) Geography - China is pretty much bounded on all sides by territory that is difficult to march through. Desert/steppe/tundra to the north/northwest, the Himalayas to the west, jungle to the south/southwest, and ocean to the east. Nothing conductive to marching armies through. Big naval operations were a rarity until the modern era - the European colonies relied heavily on diplomacy rather than conquest to expand. If you want to think about Chinese "expansion", then southern China has mostly been an acquisition of the last millenia. It wasn't until the southern Song when the southern provinces (which are rather rugged and forested... or were, back then) became Sinicized. Regions like Yunnan, Guangxi and Taiwan were only Sinicized in Ming and Qing times. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that the growing number of ethnic Chinese in Xinjiang and Tibet are simply the modern extension of the same trend.

4) The Chinese already thought they were the rulers of the world. China still calls itself 'the Middle Kingdom.' Recall that when the Russians first made contact, they were treated as vassals. The Qing didn't even have a foreign office until the 1800s; previously, all foreign "powers" were treated as tribute-paying vassals.

The almost universal nature of the written word surely had some significance. Because of the character based, rather than phoneme based, written structure, edicts could be read anywhere, by any literate person.

Government service exams were given centrally, and the applicant did not need to be able to speak the language at the capital to participate. To say that the civil service was a unifying factor would be an understatement.

J

I think language played a big part. Of course, China doesn't have a unified language even to this day, contrary to what some have said. But since the times of Qin, it's had a written script that could be used and understood by speakers of any Chinese language.

It's all a quirk of history. Europe adopted an alphabet, China didn't. So even though most of Europe shares a common latin script, this doesn't help speakers of different languages to understand each other. This creates division and seperate identities.

This was my point. Perhaps I phrased it badly. Interestingly the Chinese had movable type first, using wood blocks of the characters.

J