If in a Civ game China was represented by a dynasty ...

[Kraznaya]

That's the general convention amongst the people around me and I assumed it's generally so; I am so very sorry that it ruffled your Sinophile feathers!

Would you really be surprised that Singaporean expatriates would have a special amity for the most mercantile, commercial, and Southern-oriented dynast? The myopia is quite easily traced. I wouldn't really count myself a Sinophile, by the way... more like, just a Sino.

Any casual peruse of material related to the Song will easily inform you why it is usually considered the pinnacle of Chinese cultural, economic and technological accomplishments so I will not dwell on this.

On what basis? The creation of the most influential Chinese imperial institutions, including the imperial examinations, the scholar-gentry, and the land distribution systems were all established centuries before the Song dynasty. The cultural flowerings and technological achievements of the Han and Tang periods can easily rival the Song's. Why would you even credit technological advancement before the industrial period with the merit of a dynasty, in any case? It's not like we credit the spread of the printing press in the west to greatness of the Republic of Mainz.

My own guess is this was the period when the ordinary Chinese person felt the most secured and empowered (when the poorest kid can really rise to become the prime minister of the land thru the exam system, when there're at least one school in every village so literate levels were at their highest, when the emperor system was at its weakest and it's the different factions of scholar-officials calling the shots etc), so people tend to look back at this period in nostalgia.

Not only is a merit of dynasty detached from how egalitarian or prosperous the lower classes are (Is Wuyue one of the greatest Chinese states of all time, then?), but that seems like an overly romanticized view of Song life.

In any case, the generations which were overrun by Jurchen and Mongol barbarians north of the Yangzi would very likely take issue with how idyllic life was under their Emperor.

The Hanren moniker is fairly recent I believed. Probably in Manchu times, to differentiate themselves from their Manchu dynastic overlords. Prior, the Chinese had usually referred to themselves by whatever dynasty was in power I think. Or so watching historical TV dramas in pre-Qing settings have (mis)led me to believe!

There surely can't be a reason they chose the Han and Tang as their ethnonymic representatives! It must just be a fluke!

 

[BananaLee]

I'm tempted to say the Ming for reasons which will get me an infraction so I shan't.

Regardless of whether there is a basis or not, the Song Dynasty is seen popularly as said pinnacle of Chinese cultural achievements before the Mongols came along.

Of course, if you ask a Song man, he'll probably tell you anything after Zhou shouldn't be bothered about.

Military-wise, you can't go wrong with Tang or Qing but Civ isn't really a game of nothing but military... Oh wait...

 

[aronnax]

But why would somebody like to replace "China" with individual dynasties when they are all part of Chinese history and national identity? It's like replacing England with Angevins or Tudors.

 

[Leoreth]

Or Germany and France with Germany, France, and the Holy Roman Empire

 

[Mango Elephant]

Chinese people will generally like to have the Song dynasty, as our representative, since we view this as our most accomplished dynastic period. Culturally, economically and technologically inclined players will pick this as well I think.

Oh, that is interesting. Thank you for posting this, because I'm looking up the Song right now and they do seem to be very interesting. I don't know much about Chinese history, and it seems very large, and it seems like a daunting to learn about Chinese history because I don't know where to start, and there are so many parts, so I never knew which parts to look up before, because some would be boring and some would be interesting, but I never knew which ones were boring and which ones were interesting before.

But why would somebody like to replace "China" with individual dynasties when they are all part of Chinese history and national identity? It's like replacing England with Angevins or Tudors.

Because China is such an ancient nation, that depending on the period, its different phases can be very different I guess.

This, but also China in the civilization games are a bit too modern with city names like Beijing and Shanghai, when modern China is only a small subset in all of Chinese history, and since so many dynasties are so different from one another (I think) I think it would be more specific I guess to limit it to one or two dynasties. That's just my opinion, I don't think it'll ever be implemented, and I'm sure Chinese buffs can destory any of my opinions about China, but this thread is just to discuss 'what if'.

 

[Dachs]

I don't know much about Chinese history, and it seems very large, and it seems like a daunting to learn about Chinese history because I don't know where to start, and there are so many parts, so I never knew which parts to look up before, because some would be boring and some would be interesting, but I never knew which ones were boring and which ones were interesting before.

You will have to decide which parts are boring and which are interesting for yourself.

This, but also China in the civilization games are a bit too modern with city names like Beijing and Shanghai, when modern China is only a small subset in all of Chinese history, and since so many dynasties are so different from one another (I think) I think it would be more specific I guess to limit it to one or two dynasties.

How are "Beijing" and "Shanghai" "too modern"? What's "modern" about them?

Some dynasties were really different, some of them were basically carbon copies, and most fell somewhere in between. Highlighting this for the Chinese is kinda silly though, because it affects most of the civilizations in the Civilization games. For some reason people think China is affected by it more than any other modern country, probably because of the myth that these dynasties controlled all of China (none did until the Qing) or the myth that China spent most of its time unified under one dynasty or another (China has spent more time disunited than united since the Qin). (The perception of political disunity as abnormal, though, is prevalent in China, and has been for a very long time.)

 

[Kraznaya]

Oh, that is interesting. Thank you for posting this, because I'm looking up the Song right now and they do seem to be very interesting. I don't know much about Chinese history, and it seems very large, and it seems like a daunting to learn about Chinese history because I don't know where to start, and there are so many parts, so I never knew which parts to look up before, because some would be boring and some would be interesting, but I never knew which ones were boring and which ones were interesting before.

.

This wasn't the question you were asking in the OP. Interesting doesn't necessarily equate being representative of the Chinese imperial legacy and cultural tradition; in fact, so often what people find "interesting" would be cases that deviate "interestingly" from the norm. For example, Greeks in India.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Clearly the best and most truthful choice to represent all of China is Taiwan.

 

[Dachs]

This wasn't the question you were asking in the OP. Interesting doesn't necessarily equate being representative of the Chinese imperial legacy and cultural tradition; in fact, so often what people find "interesting" would be cases that deviate "interestingly" from the norm. For example, Greeks in India.

Or, indeed, Chinese in the so-called Three Northeast Provinces.

 

[aronnax]

For some reason people think China is affected by it more than any other modern country, probably because of the myth that these dynasties controlled all of China (none did until the Qing)

Well, only Qing China controlled all of modern China. Anything past of Gansu, perhaps South of Vietnam and North of Inner Mongolia wasn't generally considered to be part of China until modern times. So yeah, it is not a myth that these dynasties controlled all of China.

the myth that China spent most of its time unified under one dynasty or another (China has spent more time disunited than united since the Qin). (The perception of political disunity as abnormal, though, is prevalent in China, and has been for a very long time.)

For the fun of it, I did the math. If you consider Southern Song still one unified China (as 2/3 of China was still under its rule), since 220BC, China spent, in varying degrees of unity, 1880 out of a possible 2231 years united.

Qin - 15
W. Han, Xin, E. Han - 424
W. Jin, E. Jin - 155
Sui - 37
Tang - 289
N.Song, S.Song 319 (167 for just N. Song)
Yuan - 90-97
Ming - 276
Qing - 268

Thats 1880 years out of 2200ish years. That's 84% of the time united. Hardly a myth of Chinese unity.

 

[Dachs]

Well, only Qing China controlled all of modern China. Anything past of Gansu, perhaps South of Vietnam and North of Inner Mongolia wasn't generally considered to be part of China until modern times. So yeah, it is not a myth that these dynasties controlled all of China.

To pull a LightSpectra, this isn't what that amorphous blob of "most modern idiots" believe, and judging by the effort to convince everybody that Turkestan and Tibet and Manchuria have been Chinese Since Time Immemorial, it's not going to go away any time soon.

For the fun of it, I did the math. If you consider Southern Song still one unified China (as 2/3 of China was still under its rule), since 220BC, China spent, in varying degrees of unity, 1880 out of a possible 2231 years united.

Qin - 15
W. Han, Xin, E. Han - 424
W. Jin, E. Jin - 155
Sui - 37
Tang - 289
N.Song, S.Song 319 (167 for just N. Song)
Yuan - 90-97
Ming - 276
Qing - 268

Thats 1880 years out of 2200ish years. That's 84% of the time united. Hardly a myth of Chinese unity.

I misremembered the talking point, because it was referencing the Xia, not the Qin; the author went on to comment about how, between 220 and 1912, China spent nearly eight hundred years disunited and slightly over nine hundred in theoretical political unity, most of which was spent with various amounts of central control anywhere from Spring and Autumn-esque stuff to the proper myth of an orderly bureaucratic state with the Son of Heaven at the top and the scholar-gentry diligently stealing from the peasants (in a better-organized way than those western barbarians of course).

 

[aronnax]

To pull a LightSpectra, this isn't what that amorphous blob of "most modern idiots" believe, and judging by the effort to convince everybody that Turkestan and Tibet and Manchuria have been Chinese Since Time Immemorial, it's not going to go away any time soon.

I misremembered the talking point, because it was referencing the Xia, not the Qin; the author went on to comment about how, between 220 and 1912, China spent nearly eight hundred years disunited and slightly over nine hundred in theoretical political unity, most of which was spent with various amounts of central control anywhere from Spring and Autumn-esque stuff to the proper myth of an orderly bureaucratic state with the Son of Heaven at the top and the scholar-gentry diligently stealing from the peasants (in a better-organized way than those western barbarians of course).

Fair enough.

 

[Tee Kay]

How are "Beijing" and "Shanghai" "too modern"? What's "modern" about them?

Shanghai is definitely quite a modern city by Chinese standards, only becoming important around the time of the Ming Dynasty, and only a large city in the 20th century.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Yuan Dynasty

 

[ParkCungHee]

Also, aren't your numbers just based on Dynasty Began -> Dynasty Collapse Aronnax?
You have 268 years for the Qing, but that would require every year between 1644 and 1912 to have represented "political unity".
I'd hardly consider the 14 years of the Taiping Rebellion an era of political unity.

 

[Mango Elephant]

I thought Peking was renamed Beijing in 1949 or around then, which would make the name 'Beijing' modern, but when I searched google that was actually when Beijing became the capital of communist China, so I don't know, but I've always associated the name Beijing with modernness and Peking as the old name.

 

[Kraznaya]

I thought Peking was renamed Beijing in 1949 or around then, which would make the name 'Beijing' modern, but when I searched google that was actually when Beijing became the capital of communist China, so I don't know, but I've always associated the name Beijing with modernness and Peking as the old name.

Are you even reading the posts? Peking -> Beijing is not a renaming.

 

[Dachs]

Shanghai is definitely quite a modern city by Chinese standards, only becoming important around the time of the Ming Dynasty, and only a large city in the 20th century.

Same applies to Beijing; this is, though, rather like objecting to Berlin as a German city name or Madrid as a Spanish one. (Or Washington as an American one, teehee.) There really is little "modern" about the early Ming period. The objection was founded on a false premise anyway.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Are you even reading the posts? Peking -> Beijing is not a renaming.

Ok, rewording.

 

[Dachs]

Ok, rewording.

It's just a different kind of transliteration. (You know, because Chinese doesn't use the Latin alphabet. Barbarians. ) They're pronounced the exact same way.