Chinese Unification vs. European Unification

[Adler17]

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

 

[cybrxkhan]

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?

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

@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.

 

[cybrxkhan]

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.

 

[Adler17]

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

Adler

 

[Love]

Most europe = Democracy

Most China = Evil Commies

 

[holy king]

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

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[ibn sina]

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.

 

[Adler17]

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

 

[cybrxkhan]

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.

 

[Love]

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

No, i just popped by...

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

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.

 

[Shadowstrike]

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.

 

[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

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