Qin Shih Huang and his impact on China

[Archbob]

Prickling into Chinese history some here.
In my original list of top world leaders ever, I left this guy out in favor of the Tang emperor. While I still do believe that the Tang emperor, the Song emperor, and Kangxi among others were better emperor-wise, this guy probably had a greater impact on Chinese history than any other just by the sole fact that he finally unified China and the Han dynasty and ethnic homogenity in China may have never bee realized without him.

What are you guy's takes?

By the ways, he's a much better conquerer than Napolean or Hitler because he, too, won in the end.

 

[Tee Kay]

Well he managed to unite a host of squibbling states and create a unified, strong and well-run empire in a few short years. And China have been pretty much unified (culturally) ever since.

 

[Emperor2]

He unified the culture and created a lasting empire that managed to hold itself together through strife. But he was an evil self and national destructive wrecking ball and basket case.
In terms of modern china, apart from the whole unification thing, he inspire Mao, who is largley (in cop-operation with D. Xiaoping) responsible for modern China.

 

[Maniac]

He unified the culture and created a lasting empire that managed to hold itself together through strife.

His empire fell apart right after his death. The Hàn which came right after him can probably be considered better rulers.

 

[Emperor2]

His empire fell apart right after his death. The Hàn which came right after him can probably be considered better rulers.

What I mean is that he managed to unify it for the first time and set a precedent for most of the great dynasties later on.

 

[The Yankee]

The groundwork for one unified Chinese empire was laid, even as the Qin fell apart due to its intensely authoritarian Legalist views and the vacuum that was left after the death of Qinshihuang, with fighting over the throne. Thus thereafter, you had Chu and Han fighting it out to restore the empire. I'd say that's quite an impact.

 

[Tecibbar]

He ended feudalism and "invented" beaucracy. All the other Chinese emperors followed his way of ruling. Without him, China could be a "Sino Union", instead of a united nation.

 

[aronnax]

Yeah, China would be as segerated as Europe, 1600 years of European history shows that a thousand states jammed next to each other creates havoc

 

[Verbose]

Yeah, China would be as segerated as Europe, 1600 years of European history shows that a thousand states jammed next to each other creates havoc

Well, the counter-argument is that alongside the havoc, it creates one heck of a dynamical situation, with a pluralism of opportunities, views and ways of going about things. Fragmentation breeds competition, for good and bad.

 

[Ciceronian]

Well, the counter-argument is that alongside the havoc, it creates one heck of a dynamical situation, with a pluralism of opportunities, views and ways of going about things. Fragmentation breeds competition, for good and bad.

I agree that Europe's fragmentation was decisive in creating the competition which propelled to dominance after the Middle Ages. China lacked this, and just one arbitrary decision like the one to stop the naval expedition in 1421 could have far-reaching consequences for the rest of the world.

Though Qin Shi Huang's empire fell apart soon, it laid the foundation for modern China, and ever since China has been unified, excepting interruptions when it was fragmented. But Qin Shi Huang's most important legacies are the construction of the Great Wall, which could keep out invaders and ensure inner peace and prosperity, the Grand Canal which greatly increased trade and commerce, and, probably most importantly, the standardisation of Chinese characters which allowed for easier communication and the ability to identify as "Chinese".

 

[aronnax]

The Grand Canal was not created by Qin Shi Huang, it was created by several Kings and Emperors in different places and time and joined together during succesive dynasty.

The first one canal was built in 486BC a long time before Qin

 

[Archbob]

He unified the culture and created a lasting empire that managed to hold itself together through strife. But he was an evil self and national destructive wrecking ball and basket case.
In terms of modern china, apart from the whole unification thing, he inspire Mao, who is largley (in cop-operation with D. Xiaoping) responsible for modern China.

Those are your own personal opinions of him. Please try to be objective on history. Xiaoping and Mao are very difference. China owes alot of what it has today to what Xiaoping did in the 80's and early 90's. The country wouldn't be nearly as powerful as it is today without him. He was a great leader.

As for Mao, he was a military genious, he just went mad with power after he won the war.

 

[Verbose]

Those are your own personal opinions of him. Please try to be objective on history. Xiaoping and Mao are very difference.

No, afaik those are rather the vedicts of Chinese history in general. The First Emperor did lose The Mandate of Heaven for his many exigencies and general vile character. That was the verdict of the Han-dynasty great Chinese historian Sima Qian, who set the tenor for the following 2000 years of history.

And iirc Mao the iconoclast revolutionary consciously held up The First Emperor as a model for himself, to accentuate how different the new Communist regime was from previous regimes. So Mao did reevaluate 2000 years of Chinese history writing to "rehabilitate" the first emperor.

 

[Archbob]

It was Qin's son, not Qing, that lost the mandate of heaven.

His personal opinion I was referrering to

But he was an evil self

Not that I disagree or anything, but that is an opinion

 

[Verbose]

It was Qin's son, not Qing, that lost the mandate of heaven.

Well, the general in charge of building Qin's great wall is recorded as having claimed the project was in it self too large as NOT to anger the heavens. They felt they were railroading nature itself. A bunch of outrageous things about the rule of the First Emperor were like that.

So it's the First Emperor himself who is traditinally regareded as The Problem. Which was why Mao thought it was a good idea to fly in the face of tradition by exonerating him. He got to be regarded as rule-breaker on a cosmic scale. By comparison his son was a non-entity, hardly in a position to anger anyone much.

 

[Archbob]

Well, the first emperor had such absolute power and authority that no one dared to rebel or defy him. His son had non of the authority.

 

[Verbose]

Well, the first emperor had such absolute power and authority that no one dared to rebel or defy him. His son had non of the authority.

Yeah, and it's not good for a human to have divine powers, which was how the First Emperor saw things, as he actively strove to become immortal and divine.

The later Han-dynasty had some very scathing things to say about him on the issue.

 

[sydhe]

The Grand Canal was not created by Qin Shi Huang, it was created by several Kings and Emperors in different places and time and joined together during succesive dynasty.

The first one canal was built in 486BC a long time before Qin

The two Sui emperors are the ones given the credit for the Grand Canal, in much the same sense Shih Huang Ti is given credit for the Great Wall. That is, they joined together previous canals, greatly extended them, and a lot of workers died in that effort. The deaths mostly occured under the reign of the second Sui Emperor, Yang, who had a lot of Shih Huang Ti's nastier characteristics. He also restored the Great Wall, with many more deaths.

The first Sui Emperor, Sui Wen Ti, was more restrained and one of China's greatest emperors. Yang is a classic example of a tyrant over-extending his resources, although it took three failed expeditions against Koguryu to destroy him.

 

[sydhe]

What I mean is that he managed to unify it for the first time and set a precedent for most of the great dynasties later on.

Kao-Tsu or (or Gaozu, originally Liu Bang), the first Han emperor, used a toned-down version of Qin Shih Huang Ti's unification. He shucked the Legalist system and the extremely draconian laws, which were one of the major reasons for the revolt. The result was extremely successful.

 

[Traitorfish]

Though Qin Shi Huang's empire fell apart soon, it laid the foundation for modern China, and ever since China has been unified, excepting interruptions when it was fragmented.

Although a valid point, the exact language here struck me as kind of odd... "It was always [blank], except when it wasn't"?

Of course, as I said, it's a valid point. After Qin, China was a unified nation undergoing occasional periods of disunity, rather than a disunited set of nations undergoing occasional periods of unity.