Comparison of Han and Roman Empires?

[Jacob]

Euros journeyed all over the world, probably mainly at first by following coastlines, going to Asia. For trade, exploration/curiosity. Vikings with lesser technology made journeys across the frigid north Atlantic ocean, away from coastlines, to found colonies on Iceland, Greenland and the coast of Canada. I'm just still quite surprised that the more advanced Chinese never made significant journeys to N. America following the coastlines. However, there would be a lot of ice and freezing weather and that may have discouraged them, especially if attempted in colder climate times. They could have put ashore to resupply water, food, and repair boats.

But as others say here, the Chinese basically weren't interested in that, or the logistics of the trip was too difficult. Understandable, but then, Vikings did it in similar conditions, so I will remain a bit surprised that China never did.

I think the Euros, including the Vikings, did so specifically in search of trade or settling opportunities.  Those were both available to China through other venues.

[grumbler]

Yeah I was about to say.  The largest war in the 18th century was China's long and difficult war over Tibet and the central steppe with the Dzungars.  A huge war of bloody conquest that killed hundreds of thousands on both sides doesn't exactly sound like the actions of an insular nation to me.

This was was a pretty standard Chinese response to invasion (when the opportunity offered): they counter-attacked and conquered neighboring nomads so that the invader wouldn't threaten them again.

It isn't like they set out in 1700 to conquer East Turkestan, and the "long and difficult war" lasted four years in its first phase and three in its second.  The 1750s revolt by the Dzungers was when the butchery really took place - the area was pretty much depopulated.  But that was not a factor in insularity nor imperialism.  it was just the outcome of the war.

But my argument (and those of others) about China's ability to conquer the world was certainly no longer true by 1700, and would not be true again through today or the forseeable future, so insularity by that point was no longer an issue.

[Malthus]

Euros journeyed all over the world, probably mainly at first by following coastlines, going to Asia. For trade, exploration/curiosity. Vikings with lesser technology made journeys across the frigid north Atlantic ocean, away from coastlines, to found colonies on Iceland, Greenland and the coast of Canada. I'm just still quite surprised that the more advanced Chinese never made significant journeys to N. America following the coastlines. However, there would be a lot of ice and freezing weather and that may have discouraged them, especially if attempted in colder climate times. They could have put ashore to resupply water, food, and repair boats.

But as others say here, the Chinese basically weren't interested in that, or the logistics of the trip was too difficult. Understandable, but then, Vikings did it in similar conditions, so I will remain a bit surprised that China never did.

I think the Euros, including the Vikings, did so specifically in search of trade or settling opportunities.  Those were both available to China through other venues.

Yup, there are plenty of "overseas Chinese" trading in SE Asia during the Han and T'ang.

The explaination as to why they did not attempt Viking-style trips through the arctic is pretty simple - such trips were hard even on the Vikings, who were a more northern people - they soon gave them up in favour of raiding and settling southwards, a la the Kievian Rus. For the Chinese, they already had plenty of opportunities elsewhere, why would anyone want to send expeditions to Kamchatka? The Euros only ventured into the arctic later in hopes of finding a northwest passage to China. 

It is of course possible that such expeditions were sent, but records did not survive - the records of the Viking expedition to Newfoundland only survived by a miracle. Or conversely they may have been sent but did not return - discouraging future attempts.

[grumbler]

I'd also recommend against explaining "the Chinese" as having one constant character across character across time and geography, including being "insular".

True, but I'd recommend against dismissing insularity as a reason for why China failed to expand outside the Han homeland during the Han reign.  The popularity of ancient China revisionism based on the behavior of the Chinese in the 17th and 18th centuries doesn't mean that it is valid, just that it is popular.

[The Brain]

I'm amazed that neither China especially, nor Japan found and settled/traded/got resources from North America. Both very advanced tech and societies, and pretty much just had to follow the coastline to N. America. Maybe they made some journeys, probably did, but I'm not aware of any signicificant history there.

Of course it did. Even the Vikings made more perilous journeys and colonized Iceland, Greenland and some parts of present coastal Canada. The Chinese being a lot more advanced and industrious could possibly have made a journey along the coastlines more easily. But as others point out, for what ever reasons the Chinese weren't that interested in heading in that direction, or the logistics were too difficult. It's just surprising to me that it never happened and they could pretty much have followed the coasts, putting ashore for food, water, boat repairs. However, also, there may have been periods of colder weather causing too much ice that far north, which could have prevented them from going too far (even though the Vikings did manage it, it surely was a treacherous journey).


China was so large and self-sufficient that there was no pressure to get resources from elsewhere.  It had everything it wanted.

Yes but curiosity at the least. And to find what was there, even just individuals exploring along coastlines, not necessarily a government action. Just doesn't make a lot of sense really.

Curiosity like that didn't happen in Europe, why would it happen in China?

Euros journeyed all over the world, probably mainly at first by following coastlines, going to Asia. For trade, exploration/curiosity.

Trade, yes. Exploration? Not until the 18th century, if not the 19th. Curiosity? I don't see it. IIRC Viking Atlantic exploration was often of the "blown off course, happens to discover cool shit" kind.

[Jacob]

True, but I'd recommend against dismissing insularity as a reason for why China failed to expand outside the Han homeland during the Han reign.  The popularity of ancient China revisionism based on the behavior of the Chinese in the 17th and 18th centuries doesn't mean that it is valid, just that it is popular.

"Insularity" isn't much of a reason, it's more a description.  If someone wants to argue that the Han dynasty was insular they may have a very good case.  My caution is merely against explaining insular periods of Chinese history as the result (or indication) of some sort of timeless Chinese national insular character.

There is no doubt that Chinese governments at various points in time have been very inward looking.  In my admittedly superficial knowledge of China, that's usually been the result of either internal chaos or periods of complacency of later and weaker imperial successors.

[Malthus]

I'd also recommend against explaining "the Chinese" as having one constant character across character across time and geography, including being "insular".

True, but I'd recommend against dismissing insularity as a reason for why China failed to expand outside the Han homeland during the Han reign.  The popularity of ancient China revisionism based on the behavior of the Chinese in the 17th and 18th centuries doesn't mean that it is valid, just that it is popular.

They certainly expanded later - the south Chinese sometimes refer to themselves as the "Men of T'ang" (as opposed to the North Chinese "Men of Han") because the rice-farming areas of South China were expanded into during the T'ang, displacing or absorbing the indigenous people who lived there ... relations along the steppe border were more fluid because of the military prowess of the steppe nomads.

[grumbler]

Trade, yes. Exploration? Not until the 18th century, if not the 19th. Curiosity? I don't see it. IIRC Viking Atlantic exploration was often of the "blown off course, happens to discover cool shit" kind.

Agree.  Exploration as an intellectual pursuit was too expensive until the Nineteenth Century.

[Jacob]

One point Keay made in his book, which I found interesting and which would probably be somewhat controversial to most present Chinese senses of history is that the idea of China as a unitary state was not nearly as fixed and inevitable as the various official histories (usually written under the purview of a centralizing unifier who'd want to emphasize those qualities) imply.

He argues that China historically, has spent just as long as various independent states as a unified realm: Warring States, Jin Dynasty, 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms era and so on.  The practice of dynastic reckoning also extends the semblance of apparent unity as in many cases both the beginning and ends of the various dynastic periods consisted of many de-facto independent realms either being absorbed or breaking off again.

In a sense it's comparable to a Europe where more vigorous hypothetical Roman successors managed to unify Europe in the name of Rome before breaking apart again.

[Malthus]

One point Keay made in his book, which I found interesting and which would probably be somewhat controversial to most present Chinese senses of history is that the idea of China as a unitary state was not nearly as fixed and inevitable as the various official histories (usually written under the purview of a centralizing unifier who'd want to emphasize those qualities) imply.

He argues that China historically, has spent just as long as various independent states as a unified realm: Warring States, Jin Dynasty, 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms era and so on.  The practice of dynastic reckoning also extends the semblance of apparent unity as in many cases both the beginning and ends of the various dynastic periods consisted of many de-facto independent realms either being absorbed or breaking off again.

In a sense it's comparable to a Europe where more vigorous hypothetical Roman successors managed to unify Europe in the name of Rome before breaking apart again.

I guess another major difference between the Chinese and Euro experience is that, as a civilization, China was never until the modern era in striking distance of a civilization which compared to it as a civilization, while Rome/Christendom always was - first Persia, then Islam.

China was surrounded either by violent barbarians, or by civilizations which more or less adopted Chinese cultural patterns. The major Chinese cultural import prior to modernity was Buddhism, which was imported from a very long way away - and in fact mostly died out in its Indian homeland. 

[Jacob]

I guess another major difference between the Chinese and Euro experience is that, as a civilization, China was never until the modern era in striking distance of a civilization which compared to it as a civilization, while Rome/Christendom always was - first Persia, then Islam.

China was surrounded either by violent barbarians, or by civilizations which more or less adopted Chinese cultural patterns. The major Chinese cultural import prior to modernity was Buddhism, which was imported from a very long way away - and in fact mostly died out in its Indian homeland.

That's an interesting point.  Do you know of any decent books that explores it in further detail?

[Malthus]

I guess another major difference between the Chinese and Euro experience is that, as a civilization, China was never until the modern era in striking distance of a civilization which compared to it as a civilization, while Rome/Christendom always was - first Persia, then Islam.

China was surrounded either by violent barbarians, or by civilizations which more or less adopted Chinese cultural patterns. The major Chinese cultural import prior to modernity was Buddhism, which was imported from a very long way away - and in fact mostly died out in its Indian homeland.

That's an interesting point.  Do you know of any decent books that explores it in further detail?

Not off the top of my head - it just strikes me as a reasonable explaination for the Chinese 'tude noticed by Euros in particular - that China was the centre of the world, etc.

Certainly the Euros had plenty of 'tude of their own, but they were always aware that they weren't the only civilization out there - there was always the eastern challenge, right from the beginning of Euro history (for example, Heroditos's Histories is all about the Greek-Persian conflict).

From China's perspective, other civilizations equal to their own was just a distant rumor most of its history - the Euros had to deal with Turks at the gates of Vienna and the like.

[Jacob]

Not off the top of my head - it just strikes me as a reasonable explaination for the Chinese 'tude noticed by Euros in particular - that China was the centre of the world, etc.

Certainly the Euros had plenty of 'tude of their own, but they were always aware that they weren't the only civilization out there - there was always the eastern challenge, right from the beginning of Euro history (for example, Heroditos's Histories is all about the Greek-Persian conflict).

From China's perspective, other civilizations equal to their own was just a distant rumor most of its history - the Euros had to deal with Turks at the gates of Vienna and the like.

Definitely interesting.  I'm somewhat wary of generalized macro explanations like that, but with I'm sure the proximity/distance of other "great civilizations" has influenced China and Europe in a number of ways.  It'd be interesting to explore the notion further.

[Malthus]

Definitely interesting.  I'm somewhat wary of generalized macro explanations like that, but with I'm sure the proximity/distance of other "great civilizations" has influenced China and Europe in a number of ways.  It'd be interesting to explore the notion further.

Not sure what books explore that theme. Certainly there are some that explore Euro outrage about being treated as a bunch of ignorant barbarians by the Chinese gov't, made to kow-tow, etc. and the unfortunate reaction to the same ("Call us 'barbarians', will they?! Let's beat the shit out of them, burn down their Summer Palace, and make them buy our drugs! That'll learn 'em !!"  ).

[Josquius]

I'd also recommend against explaining "the Chinese" as having one constant character across character across time and geography, including being "insular".

There have definitely been periods of insularity, but it has not been constant - just look at the far flung communities of overseas Chinese for example.  However, to me, on striking difference with Western powers is the lack of distant, directly administered colonies.  Perhaps the explanation is that China has always had nearby "uncivilized people" to subject to it's imperialism in its hinterland, rather than having to look abroad for it?

Thats just it.
The only remaining western empires are the Russian and American ones- empires which happened to be land based rather than far flung across the oceans. China would fall into that too.

But it doesn't quite explain China. I like Malthus' reason.