Best Chance to Balkanise China permanently?
- Thread starter Othniel
- Start date
- Status
Faeelin
Banned
I guess that depends on what you call China, isn't it? I mean Taiwan wasn't part of China til the late 17th century anyway.
Mmm. I wonder. My guess would be after the fall of the Han; once the Tang have been restored, I just think the idea of China is too firmly entrenched.
Rockingham
Banned
Try telling the PRC that...
What about the 1900's? China split apart by colonial powers, and then when given independance they dont reunify...bright day for the west
What about the 1900's? China split apart by colonial powers, and then when given independance they dont reunify...bright day for the west
Flood the earth to balkanize china. China will always be united in a way that europe can never be becuase its goegraphy is to different. If the polar ice caps melt, then china is split up into several iselands, penninsulas and divided up lands. Eventually, it will diffuse from a homogenous population to a heterogenous one.
Possibly at the time of the Three Kingdoms period? If the Wei, Shu, and Wu states had not collapsed seperatly and been unified under Sima, and the Jin Dynsasty. If all three kingdoms had not been able to get a advantage over each other, and each had lost or one certain battles....then possible.
Faeelin
Banned
I think the idea of the Han could end up like the Roman Empire, without the Tang; an ideal that's aspired to but never reached.
But the Tang... it's like if Charlemagne had been able to unite the Roman Empire, conquer the Saxons, and establish a solid administrative base and strong central government.
By 1000 Europeans would be calling themselves Romans.
Hmmm, what about during the Five Dynasties a Mongol type invasion happens in the North but with smaller kingdoms like the Khitan, Jurchen and Xi Xia (or is it Xia Xi)?
Rockingham
Banned
Not really. Look at China as an example of this. There's plenty of non chinese speakers, and their is several chinese dialects. In a place like Europe where the geography favours many disconnected states, the "lose" ethnicities would eventually become independant, and the areas that considered themselves roman would eventually separate, new dialects would form, which would then become new languages-and new cultures. This is exactly what happpened OTL. Roman empire, the very first time it fractured, was never ressurected, and the language of latin collapsed into several different langauges. Even if Chalemagne succeeded, this would eventually be repeated. China collpased countless times, but because of its geography reunified by before the people considered themselves to be different ethnicities.
The proof of this: Roman empire existed as unified state once then split into 2 states(east and west) then continued to collapse. It was destroyed by invading tribes, like China was so many times. This happened once and Rome was never restablished. How many times has china been reunified again?
Faeelin
Banned
Hey, it came back after the crisis in the 3rd century AD.
Why?
I'm not convinced. What makes it more difficult to unite the Mediterranean region than places as far apart as Beijing and Guangzhou?
Natural barriers. Italy is naturally separated from the Germanies and France by the Alps; Spain is naturally separated by the Pyrenees, and then there's the English Channel and a great honking thing called the Mediterranean.The ethnocultural divisions in Europe are largely matched by geographical ones, though this isn't always the case. China doesn't have many of those natural barriers, and lends itself to political unity that way, as it's harder to maintain borders outside the civilization's natural frontiers (the gobi desert, etc).
Faeelin
Banned
This explains Europe, somewhat. But I specifically asked about the Mediterranean.
How does a large body of water suitable for moving goods long distance hinder unification?
(This is actually an interesting question).
In the aftermath of the fall of the Qin, the Han (I think) claimant faced a coalition of several regional states and crushed them.
Had they won, China would have returned to a pre-Qin divided state.
Had they won, China would have returned to a pre-Qin divided state.
The Sandman
Banned
The Ming somehow hold on in the south, with the north going to the Qing? Then both states are more thoroughly shredded by the Europeans due to their lessened ability to resist outright conquest?
Typo
Banned
Historically China was ethnically balkanized before the warring states period. And most politically balkanized during the spring/autumn period (hundreds of states). China graudually became more and more monolithic, ethinically and culturally, towards the first unification under the Qin. Afterwards the most notable split would be along the north-south lines (even today, coastal southern cities still have Cantonese as well as (or instead of) Mandarin as their primary language). There have been numerous instances of more than two states springing up (three kingdoms after the Han, 5 kingdoms after the Tang, era of the warlords after the Qing etc) with none of them lasting for even a century. The longest split have always been a north/south split somewhere along the Yangze river, with a long period of unification afterwards. Basically China had numerous chances for Balkanization, but it was more than chance that brought them together, rather, it is the fundamental enviromental/geographical setting that eventually brought about unification time and time again.
China actually did lapse into a pre-Qin state immediately after the weakening of the Qing. Complete with the old warring state noble families ruling over their old areas. But it pretty quickly became two major states (one of which claimed links to the old warring state of Chui) another one been the Han. Even if the Han have somehow been defeated (I don't think that's really a good possibility though, new Dynasties general are pretty strong early on, which is why they managed unification in the first place) someone else would have pulled it together.
Or increased, due to the fact it would be hard to survive each other without remaining militirically innovative against each other. There is actually one scenerio where the Ming loyalist who conquers Taiwan doesn't die early and conquers the Philipines (like he planned to OTL), which results in a successful rebellion of the three feudaries in southern China. Resulting in as much as 4 Chinese states in China proper during the late 1600s-early 1700s, plus a martime Chinese Empire based in Philipines and Taiwan. Even if that resulted in a fragmanted China today, there is no saying someone wouldn't pull it back together in say, a century.
Last edited:
Rockingham
Banned
-Key word:crisis, not proper collapse.Hey, it came back after the crisis in the 3rd century AD.
Why?
I'm not convinced. What makes it more difficult to unite the Mediterranean region than places as far apart as Beijing and Guangzhou?
-Chalemagnes empire wasn't going to be permanent. Hell, it only lasted a generation before getting split. Even if it managed to some how take iberia and east rome as well,and not get split on his death, it would collapse eventually, theres not a state that hasn't. Europes abundance of peninsulas, mountains etc. would prevent unification again, and charlemagne was never going to get north africa.
How many empires have attempted to recraet Rome's glory in Europe since Rome's collapse: Ottomans, Napoleon, Holy Roman Empire, German Empire, France before Napoleon, Islamic caliphates, Hapsburg's, Chalemagne, East Roman Empire. How many succeed? None. Now, how many times did an "emperor of china" attempt to unify china and succeed? Countless times.
-Take a look at the geography:
First, China proper(the coast, and the areas between the rivers) are largely fertile plains. Compare this to Rome proper: mostly unfertile deserts(north africa bar egypt, levant, much of spain) and mountainous regions(the rest of spain, Italy, the balkans, Anatolia...)so really the exceptions are france, England and egypt. The same is true about the rest of Europe.
Secondly, Europe has countless seas wich get in the way of expansion
(med, baltic, etc.), requiring a nation to be a great sea power as well as land power to unify it.(the bane of napoleon, Germany, Russia, eventually the Ottomans and others. The region is also very conductive to sea powers(ie. venice) making it very difficult for a power to become naval hegemon, which was only achieved by britain(which was by no definition a military power). And rather then having one stretch cost like china, it has many.
Not only do the seas get in the way of land expansion, but the many penisulas get in the way of sea expansion(while the movement of china's navy along it's coast involve only it's movement in a vertical direction up and down the coast). In other words, the movemnt of a navy(or any ship) along china's cost is only a matter of distance, not geography.
I will repeat what I said: The Euro-mediterranean region has been united only once, and even then not completely, how many times has the china region collapsed and reunified?
Rockingham
Banned
It's not that suitable, really. How long does it take for a ship to get from venice to genoa? In other words, China has a monolithic coastline, while the med has a great many penisulas that must be navigated around, and a great many straits that can be blockaded. It is rather difficult to move accross. Consider that Russia spent most of the 19th century trying to get an outlet from an outlet to the med. With one, it could have dominated Europe. Also consider that the British had the potential to strangle all mediterranean transportation... and to dominate, let alone control euro/mediterannean, you need to have land and sea power(which the british and russians respectively did not have). Naval power simply doesn't matter in an attempt to unify china.
Also, with the Med you come up with the problem all powers had: even with military and naval dominance, you have your back to the coast. The crusaders could not hold the levant, the moors could not hold spain, the venetians could not hold morea. Their are a few exceptions(ie the seemingly untakable gibraltar). With china, However, you really only needed to push in one or two directions. The regin does not lend itself to hundreds of fragmented states.
How much chance would the Ottomans have at taking iberia, even when they were the dominant naval and military power in Europe? Not much. What about expanding into France? None whatsoever.
Only foreign intervention can balkanise china, unless you include islands like hainan and taiwan. Even on the 1920's, when china collpased completely, it took only two decades for two "dynasties" to emerge: the ROC and PRC(not including the japanese puppets.)
Last edited:
- Status