Chinese Unification vs. European Unification

[Shibbyman]

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?

 

[General_CFR]

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

 

[innonimatu]

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.

 

[Shibbyman]

@ 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.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

 

[Adler17]

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

 

[innonimatu]

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.

 

[Tee Kay]

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.

 

[onejayhawk]

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

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

 

[Adler17]

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?

Adler

 

[warpus]

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.

 

[Adler17]

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

Adler

 

[cybrxkhan]

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.

 

[Vietcong]

was china ever a long lived unified state?

 

[cybrxkhan]

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

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

 

[Adler17]

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

 

[cybrxkhan]

^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

 

[Verbose]

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.