Lately I've been getting a bit more interested in China (mostly due to Fallows' excellent blog at the Atlantic, and when I stumbled upon this odd Wikipedia article comparing the Han and Chinese Empire ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires ) I started thinking how interesting it would be to read a book on the subject; two Empires, both alike in dignity, ruling over two of the greatest parts of the world in (relatively) similar ways and (eventually, with the Roman adoption of heavy cavalry) even fighting in similar ways. Would also find this interesting as I want to know more about Steppe history of the period (the Chinese interaction with the Xiongnu seems particularly interesting).
Any books to recommend on Han history? Any great history books specifically draw comparisons?
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Dunno how you would account for the insularity of the Chinese, though. China was pretty much in a position to conquer the world several times, but always drew back because The World was "icky."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zizhi_Tongjian
I read this when I was a kid. The book is epic in scale. Only a part is on the Han dynasty. Pretty comprehensive, but it has nothing on the Romans.
Oh and, don't trust Romance of the 3 kingdoms as a history source ;)
Quote from: Lucidor on March 28, 2009, 04:59:49 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 28, 2009, 03:28:55 AM
Romans of the 3 kingdoms
:D
That would be Rome: Total War, where you played as Julii, Brutii or Claudii (?)
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2009, 02:22:53 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Dunno how you would account for the insularity of the Chinese, though. China was pretty much in a position to conquer the world several times, but always drew back because The World was "icky."
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.
Quote
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.
China was so large and self-sufficient that there was no pressure to get resources from elsewhere. It had everything it wanted.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 28, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
China was so large and self-sufficient that there was no pressure to get resources from elsewhere. It had everything it wanted.
Hell, it wasn't until the Brits made the Chinese into a nation of drug addicts that they even began buying foreign goods and letting that sweet, sweet gold of theirs leave the country.
You might enjoy this story Spellus.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1541421/Roman-descendants-found-in-China.html
Quote from: KRonn on March 28, 2009, 05:30:09 PM
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.
It's a big ocean. The Chinese didn't even know Japan was there for good while. I guess they were just homebodies.
Quote from: KRonn on March 28, 2009, 05:30:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2009, 02:22:53 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Dunno how you would account for the insularity of the Chinese, though. China was pretty much in a position to conquer the world several times, but always drew back because The World was "icky."
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.
The Europeans made the great journeys of discovery because they wanted access to the riches of the Indies and China. The Chinese had no similar carrot.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 28, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
China was so large and self-sufficient that there was no pressure to get resources from elsewhere. It had everything it wanted.
Yup, and that of course helped lead to China's incredible insularity. For instance in 1793, Emperor Qian Long sent his famous letter George III, telling him, "as your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures." Of course, the next 100 years would show the idiocy of that mentality....
Quote from: Monoriu on March 28, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
China was so large and self-sufficient that there was no pressure to get resources from elsewhere. It had everything it wanted.
Which was why everybody else kept invading.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F417YZ0YH0YL._SL500_AA240_.jpg&hash=191eed94cfbbbb197ac3452561daaba755f94554)
http://www.amazon.com/Records-Grand-Historian-Han-Dynasty/dp/0231081650 (http://www.amazon.com/Records-Grand-Historian-Han-Dynasty/dp/0231081650)
from wiki:
QuoteZhang Qian (張 (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BC%B5)騫 (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%A8%AB); Wade-Giles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade-Giles) Chang Ch'ien) was an imperial envoy to the world outside of China in the 2nd century BCE, during the time of the Han Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty). He was the first official diplomat to bring back reliable information about Central Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia) to the Chinese imperial court, then under Emperor Wu of Han (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Wu_of_Han), and played an important pioneering role in the Chinese colonization and conquest of the region now known as Xinjiang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang). Today Zhang Qian's travels are associated with the major route of transcontinental trade, the Silk Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road). In essence, his missions opened up to China the many kingdoms and products of a part of the world then unknown to the Chinese. Zhang Qian's accounts of his explorations of Central Asia are detailed in the Early Han historical chronicles, Records of the Grand Historian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_of_the_Grand_Historian) or Shiji, compiled by Sima Qian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sima_Qian) in the 1st century BCE . Today Zhang Qian is considered a national hero and revered for the key role he played in opening China to the world of commercial trade.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 28, 2009, 06:09:02 PM
You might enjoy this story Spellus.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1541421/Roman-descendants-found-in-China.html
:rolleyes: They're not Romans... they're far more likely to be of Tocharian descent given their appearance and location.
Chung Kuo: the Middle Kingdom. Pretty good sci-fi series about a China that has seemingly taken over the world during Roman times.
http://www.amazon.com/Chung-Kuo-Kingdom-David-Wingrove/dp/0440613868/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238291098&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Chung-Kuo-Kingdom-David-Wingrove/dp/0440613868/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238291098&sr=8-1)
Quote from: Caliga on March 28, 2009, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 28, 2009, 06:09:02 PM
You might enjoy this story Spellus.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1541421/Roman-descendants-found-in-China.html
:rolleyes: They're not Romans... they're far more likely to be of Tocharian descent given their appearance and location.
Was thinking the exact same thing. You end up with people like this in the Tarim Basin even today
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F90%2FUyghur_girl.jpg&hash=957a91ac6f644bf85f73a18070da0982d679226a)
Besides, hook-nosed, blonde Romans? Looks more like my avatar (a Saka) than a Roman.
Thanks for the book recommendations people. Interesting stuff.
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2009, 02:22:53 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Dunno how you would account for the insularity of the Chinese, though. China was pretty much in a position to conquer the world several times, but always drew back because The World was "icky."
IDK about that; I think the insularity of China was more an ideal than a reality, the result of having to constantly fight nomadic people at the borders. China's art was certainly influenced by the Greco-Bactrians and various nomadic peoples, for instance.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Europa Barbarorum is a fraud. I never managed to get it to work.
Quote from: Siege on March 28, 2009, 10:18:19 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Europa Barbarorum is a fraud. I never managed to get it to work.
Your grandmother was a fraud.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 28, 2009, 10:18:19 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Europa Barbarorum is a fraud. I never managed to get it to work.
Your grandmother was a fraud.
You never got her to work?
Quote from: The Brain on March 28, 2009, 06:46:38 PM
The Europeans made the great journeys of discovery because they wanted access to the riches of the Indies and China. The Chinese had no similar carrot.
Yep as they knew Europe was a shit hole. ^_^
Quote from: katmai on March 28, 2009, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 28, 2009, 06:46:38 PM
The Europeans made the great journeys of discovery because they wanted access to the riches of the Indies and China. The Chinese had no similar carrot.
Yep as they knew Europe was a shit hole. ^_^
From what I've read from what they knew of the Romans and Persians they seem to have respected. From my (very cursory) readings it almost seemed like they regarded them as their civilized counterparts on the other side of the world. At least those who visited (or came close to visiting) thought as much.
That said, it seems there were generally more European and Arab explorers than Chinese ones (with a few big exceptions, most of them Muslim anyway).
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 28, 2009, 10:18:19 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Europa Barbarorum is a fraud. I never managed to get it to work.
Your grandmother was a fraud.
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?
Quote from: Siege on March 28, 2009, 10:59:20 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 28, 2009, 10:18:19 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Europa Barbarorum is a fraud. I never managed to get it to work.
Your grandmother was a fraud.
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?
My name is from Moby-Dick and I've spent most of this thread cumming over Steppe history. Who do you think I am?
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2009, 11:03:43 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 28, 2009, 10:59:20 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 28, 2009, 10:18:19 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Europa Barbarorum is a fraud. I never managed to get it to work.
Your grandmother was a fraud.
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?
My name is from Moby-Dick and I've spent most of this thread cumming over Steppe history. Who do you think I am?
I know who you were, but I don't know who you ARE.
People that change their names deserve to be fed to CdM's cats.
I FUCKING HATE YOU!!!!!!1111
NAME CHANGER!!!!111
TRAITOR!!!!!!1111
RAHR
Quote from: Monoriu on March 28, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2009, 07:40:03 PM
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.
It's the same with Greeks/Romans, Phoenicians and Africa. Perhaps they just didn't have our modern curiosity but I guess it was more a matter of technical limitations, including:
- Drinkable water. Ancient fleets needed to replenish their water supply incredibly often, due to the big number of oarmen (that was the reason galley fleets followed the coastlines even during the XVI and XVII centuries), scarce cargo space, and lack of any reliable way to store liquids - even barrels weren't a perfect solution, only appeared from the 3rd century AC, and back then they were very expensive.
- This applies to food too. The trouble with water was more pressing, but getting regularly healthy food for so many men was a matter for serious concern too.
- Lack of any reliable way to determine the position. Stars weren't good enough, changed if they travelled for long to the north/south, and couldn't be seen when they needed them the most, when the weather got rough. This was even more serious than it seems because it meant they couldn't draw accurate maps, each traveller had to start almost from scratch.
- Diseases. Even in quite recent times (well known examples come from the American Civil War) getting together 1,000 young men was guaranteed to cause an outbreak of diseases amongs them, and they came roughly from the same area. Now imagine a fleet with thousands of sailors, dirty, weak, hungry, packed like sardines, and not even one hippocratic 'doctor' aboard, reaching a completely unknown location and contacting a new human group and its very own set of illnesses.
Add to that unfriendly natives, unscrupulous local rulers, other powers willing to keep some routes secret and even pirates, and the explorer's lot was not a happy one...
Quote from: KRonn on March 28, 2009, 05:30:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2009, 02:22:53 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:40 PM
Also, is it just me, or would some kind of R:TW (or, to be honest, a Europa Barbarorum) that included Europe, the Middle East, India AND China from about 300 BC to the birth of Christ be about the coolest fucking thing ever?
Dunno how you would account for the insularity of the Chinese, though. China was pretty much in a position to conquer the world several times, but always drew back because The World was "icky."
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.
Myeh, after another hundred miles of shitty Siberian (or whatever the far east of Russia is called) landscape you start to get bored and say lets go home.
Heading south and west on the otherhand you had a bunch of lesser states with which to trade and/or extort.
Quote from: Siege on March 28, 2009, 11:07:09 PM
I know who you were, but I don't know who you ARE.
People that change their names deserve to be fed to CdM's cats.
Why would you wish such a fate on yourself, name-changer?
The insularity of the Chinese has been much exaggerated. There were certainly Chinese explorers and traders, it is just that they quite naturally headed south to where the money was - in SE Asia (Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, India ...). They had no particular motive to explore northwards to where there was nothing but a bunch of fierce barbarians.
This lead to large communities of "overseas Chinese" merchants and traders in places like Indonesia.
The Europeans headed in the direction of North America as a short-cut to the riches of "the Indies"; the Chinese were already there.
Certainly the Chinese became more officially insular during the Ming and Ch'ing dynasties - but this was as a result, firstly, on a program of countering the central asian nomad threat, and secondly as a result of growing fear of the european barbarians. The Chinese of the Han and T'ang were not necessarily motivated in the same ways (in fact, one major motive for T'ang exploration was essentially Buddhist - to seek relics and texts from India/Central Asia).
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.
Hippie
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2009, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 28, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
Quote
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.
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?
Saw this some time ago and it really shed a lot of light on China. Explains it very well:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstrangemaps.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F06%2Fchina-island-400_2.jpg%3Fw%3D400%26amp%3Bh%3D300&hash=2d70dad4c6fa88810d3e4a7599f2d8ea41d4e7bb)
QuoteChina has land borders with 14 other countries – a world record*. And yet you should not think of China as particularly well-integrated with its neighbours. In fact, as shown in this dramatic map, you should rather consider China to be an island.
That stark image can be found illustrating this article on John Mauldin's Outside the Box, a blog at Investors Insight, which is a website dedicated to 'Financial Intelligence for the Informed Investor'. On his blog, Mr Mauldin hebdomadally profiles one of the many articles he reads each week, to challenge and stimulate investors to 'think outside the box'. What follows is a very brief summary of the article he recently highlighted: 'The Geopolitics of China', taken from a series of Geopolitical Monographs by Stratfor.
The Chinese heartland, pictured here as the part of China above water, is favourable to agriculture and has traditionally held the bulk of the Chinese population (i.e. the ethnic Han, whom we think of as 'the' Chinese); Over a billion people live here, in an area half the size of the US. The heartland's northern part is dominated by the Yellow River and speaks Mandarin, the southern part by the Yangtze River and by Cantonese.
Population pressure has always pushed China to expand into Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia and Manchuria. Another factor is the historical threat emanating from this non-Han 'shell' surrounding the Han heartland, for example from the nomad Mongol horsemen that have long threatened and occasionally dominated the sedentary, agricultural Han.
In the past, when the Chinese state was strong, it managed to conquer and rule these outlying areas, providing a defensive buffer for the heartland. When central authority was weak, these fringes broke off – leaving the heartland vulnerable to invasion. China is strong again, even up to the point where the fringes now are the target of large migrations of Han, much to the chagrin of the native peoples.
This Han-ification of the Chinese fringe does not necessarily imply that the Chinese have more contact with the countries beyond their borders. Only in three places are the Chinese borders naturally permeable: at the Vietnamese frontier, via the Silk Road, and near Russian Far East. Hilly jungles separate China from Laos and Burma, the Himalayas shield it from the Indian subcontinent, almost impassable deserts divide it from Central Asia and the forbidding expanses of Siberia have never appealed to Chinese expansionism (until now, as the Russians fear).
With the exception of the Ming dynasty's sponsorship of admiral Zheng He's naval expeditions (as far away as Sri Lanka, Arabia and Africa) in the early 15th century, China has never attempted to be a naval-based power – so for most of its history, China's ports on the Pacific were hardly windows on the world either.
China's relative isolation, combined with the size of its population (1 in every 5 humans is Chinese), means China is virtually impossible to subdue militarily (as the Japanese discovered to their disadvantage in the 1930s). It also means China can – and often has – turned its back on the world, existing in splendid isolation.
Its size and its penchand for autarkism dictate China's three main geopolitical objectives:
* maintain unity of the Han heartland;
* maintain control over the non-Han buffer zone;
* deflect foreign encroachment on the Chinese coast.
Clearly isolationist, these objectives also condemn China to poverty: as a densely populated country with limited arable land, China needs internatioal trade to prosper. The paradox is that prosperity will lead to instability. Prosperity will tend to be concentrated in the areas trading with the outside world (i.e. the coastal regions), creating economic tensions with the poorer interior. This might destabilise the Han heartland.
This is exactly what happened during an earlier ouverture towards the outside world, in the early 20th century. And this is why Mao's revolution first failed in the coastal areas, and only succeeded after his Long March towards the poorer interior. Mao's victory allowed him to reassert central control from Beijing (also over the buffer regions which had 'drifted away', such as Tibet). He also 're-isolated' the country, in the process making everybody equally poor again.
In the late 1970s, early 1980s, Deng Xiaoping took the gamble of reopening China in order to make it prosperous again. He counted on Mao's strong, centralised, single-party state system to keep the country together. Time will tell whether he was right, for the main threat to China's geopolitical goals has again become the economic bifurcation of the Han heartland, with 400 million Chinese living in the relatively wealthy coastal areas, and 900 million in the often still desperately poor interior.
China is now less isolated than it once was – although its points of contact remain coastal rather than terrestrial, meaning the insularity portrayed in this map has not completely vanished. But what makes the Chinese leadership nervous is that its Deng-instigated preference for prosperity over stability is precariously linked to circumstances beyond Beijing's total control: the health and growth of the global economy. What will happen if a global recession threatens the Chinese model? Will the fringe rebel, will the heartland fracture? Or will the center hold – if necessary by again choosing the stability of an isolationist, hardline dictatorship over openness and prosperity?
Many thanks to Eric Johnson for providing a link to this map.
* North Korea, Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar/Burma, Laos and Vietnam. China shares the world record with Russia, which also borders 14 countries: Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea.
Makes it even more Roman really....
STFU Tim.
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2009, 11:48:39 AM
Saw this some time ago and it really shed a lot of light on China. Explains it very well:
What's the source? :)
Kevin
Quote from: Eochaid on March 30, 2009, 11:54:59 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2009, 11:48:39 AM
Saw this some time ago and it really shed a lot of light on China. Explains it very well:
What's the source? :)
Kevin
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/
Quote from: Queequeg on March 27, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
Lately I've been getting a bit more interested in China (mostly due to Fallows' excellent blog at the Atlantic, and when I stumbled upon this odd Wikipedia article comparing the Han and Chinese Empire ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires ) I started thinking how interesting it would be to read a book on the subject; two Empires, both alike in dignity, ruling over two of the greatest parts of the world in (relatively) similar ways and (eventually, with the Roman adoption of heavy cavalry) even fighting in similar ways. Would also find this interesting as I want to know more about Steppe history of the period (the Chinese interaction with the Xiongnu seems particularly interesting).
Any books to recommend on Han history? Any great history books specifically draw comparisons?
John Keay's
China: A History is excellent, I highly recommend it.
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?
Quote from: The Brain on March 30, 2009, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2009, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 28, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
Quote
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. 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.
Also, while not being about the Han I enjoyed Genhgis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford.
Definitely shows a non-isolationist side to a Chinese dynasty, though of course it was Mongol based. That said, I think any understanding of China has to include the push and pull between the settled agriculturalists of the Han heartland and the various peoples of the "buffer zones", whether it be the various nomads and semi-nomads or the Tibetans.
Apparently Khublai Khan (IIRC) sent an ambassador to England and the Vatican.
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2009, 12:48:23 PMEuros 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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2009, 08:58:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2009, 12:58:40 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2009, 12:48:23 PMEuros 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.
Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2009, 12:37:29 PM
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.
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2009, 12:48:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 30, 2009, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2009, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 28, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
Quote
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2009, 01:14:10 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2009, 01:14:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2009, 12:37:29 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on March 30, 2009, 01:20:20 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2009, 01:35:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2009, 01:39:48 PMI 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?
Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2009, 01:43:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2009, 01:39:48 PMI 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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2009, 01:51:32 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2009, 01:59:50 PM
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 !!" :lol: ).
Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2009, 12:37:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2009, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2009, 01:35:43 PM
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.
I would love to find a book on the Buddhism of the Greco-Bactrians/Indians and the influence they had the Hindu Kush and beyond; a lot of Steppe weapons are adaptations of Greco-Bactrian ones, and to this day the Buddha is generally depicted wearing a toga...
Not sure I agree, Malthus. The Indian subcontinent was civilized when they and the Chinese encountered one another c. 300 BCE, and retained that status throughout the Han period. Nonetheless, the Romans were also in India during the Han period, and there were even Romans (supposedly, but believed by both sides) in China, while there were no Chinese that made it to the Roman Empire. Even the Silk Road trade was carried out by local intermediaries, not Chinese. The Han simply seemed to have no interest in long-range exploration nor direct trade. In part, this was due to the Han practice of heavily controlling and taxing merchants, but in part it may also have been that they simply didn't see that much in foreign trade that they could not get in internal trade. It might also have been due to a preference to have the Indian merchants bring the goods to China, so as to be in the superior bargaining position (as the transport of goods had already then been paid for).
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2009, 04:45:28 PM
Not sure I agree, Malthus. The Indian subcontinent was civilized when they and the Chinese encountered one another c. 300 BCE, and retained that status throughout the Han period. Nonetheless, the Romans were also in India during the Han period, and there were even Romans (supposedly, but believed by both sides) in China, while there were no Chinese that made it to the Roman Empire. Even the Silk Road trade was carried out by local intermediaries, not Chinese. The Han simply seemed to have no interest in long-range exploration nor direct trade. In part, this was due to the Han practice of heavily controlling and taxing merchants, but in part it may also have been that they simply didn't see that much in foreign trade that they could not get in internal trade. It might also have been due to a preference to have the Indian merchants bring the goods to China, so as to be in the superior bargaining position (as the transport of goods had already then been paid for).
Most of what I have read agrees with Malthus, throughout this period the Chinese would send missions into India mostly for religious purposes. Most of our best sources on this period of Northern Indian history are Chinese; they kept marvelous accounts of Hindu-Buddhist, Greco-Saka-Yuezhi-Native relations, etc..
QuoteThe heartland's northern part is dominated by the Yellow River and speaks Mandarin, the southern part by the Yangtze River and by Cantonese.
This is blatently untrue. Cantonese is spoken in Guangdong province, and that's pretty much it. Actually, a lot of people in the province don't really speak it. There are like thousands of dialects in Southern China, and none of them is dominant.
One comment on the cultural side - merchants, explorers, traders and soldiers are generally looked down upon in traditional Chinese culture. In China, scholars are very highly regarded. Even peasants enjoy higher social status than merchants, because they are seen to be producing something tangible. Merchants were simply scum that took advantage of others without adding any value.
The traditional and proper way to fame and fortune was to take part in imperial examinations and become an official, not to go on foreign adventures.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2009, 04:45:28 PM
Nonetheless, the Romans were also in India during the Han period, and there were even Romans (supposedly, but believed by both sides) in China, while there were no Chinese that made it to the Roman Empire. Even the Silk Road trade was carried out by local intermediaries, not Chinese. The Han simply seemed to have no interest in long-range exploration nor direct trade.
This is an excerpt from a wiki article on Zhang Qian that I found interesting:
QuoteFollowing Zhang Qian's embassy and report, commercial relations between China and Central as well as Western Asia flourished, as many Chinese missions were sent throughout the end of the 2nd century BCE and the 1st century BCE, initiating the development of the Silk Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road): "The largest of these embassies to foreign states numbered several hundred persons, while even the smaller parties included over 100 members... In the course of one year anywhere from five to six to over ten parties would be sent out." (Shiji, trans. Burton Watson). Many objects were soon exchanged, and travelled as far as Guangzhou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangzhou) in the East, as suggested by the discovery of a Persian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire) box and various artifacts from Central Asia in the 122 BCE tomb of the Chinese King Wen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Wen_of_Nanyue) of Nanyue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanyue).
Murals in Mogao Caves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogao_Caves) in Dunhuang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunhuang) describe the Emperor Han Wudi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Wudi) (156-87 BCE) worshipping Buddhist statues, explaining them as "golden men brought in 120 BCE by a great Han general in his campaigns against the nomads", although there is no other mention of Han Wudi worshipping the Buddha in Chinese historical literature.
China also sent a mission to Parthia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia), which were followed up by reciprocal missions from Parthian envoys around 100 BCE: "When the Han envoy first visited the kingdom of Anxi (Parthia), the king of Anxi dispatched a party of 20,000 horsemen to meet them on the eastern border of the kingdom... When the Han envoys set out again to return to China, the king of Anxi dispatched envoys of his own to accompany them... The emperor was delighted at this." (Shiji, 123, trans. Burton Watson). The Roman historian Florus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florus) describes the visit of numerous envoys, including Seres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seres) (Chinese), to the first Roman Emperor Augustus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Augustus), who reigned between 27 BCE and 14: "Even the rest of the nations of the world which were not subject to the imperial sway were sensible of its grandeur, and looked with reverence to the Roman people, the great conqueror of nations. Thus even Scythians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians) and Sarmatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians) sent envoys to seek the friendship of Rome. Nay, the Seres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seres) came likewise, and the Indians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) who dwelt beneath the vertical sun, bringing presents of precious stones and pearls and elephants, but thinking all of less moment than the vastness of the journey which they had undertaken, and which they said had occupied four years. In truth it needed but to look at their complexion to see that they were people of another world than ours." ("Cathay and the way thither", Henry Yule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Yule)). In 97 the Chinese general Ban Chao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Chao) dispatched an envoy to Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome) in the person of Gan Ying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gan_Ying).
Several Roman embassies to China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_embassies_to_China) followed from 166, and are officially recorded in Chinese historical chronicles.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2009, 04:15:05 PM
I would love to find a book on the Buddhism of the Greco-Bactrians/Indians and the influence they had the Hindu Kush and beyond; a lot of Steppe weapons are adaptations of Greco-Bactrian ones, and to this day the Buddha is generally depicted wearing a toga...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb8%2FGandhara_Buddha_%2528tnm%2529.jpeg%2F364px-Gandhara_Buddha_%2528tnm%2529.jpeg&hash=e59624b100cc894c5f8a13d4b09100dd1539063a)
Gandhara Buddha 1st-2nd century CE
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.askasia.org%2Fimages%2Fteachers%2Fmedia%2F678.jpg&hash=ecc33fe58b76b1e9039772772e3d3082d7ddb636)
Amida Buddha, Japan; Kamakura period
I found these books on Amazon:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51QJB0VCJSL._SS500_.jpg&hash=14a9477435c55281db9528fc849ba14999d53f25)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51XWJksOIYL._SS500_.jpg&hash=41d943958c60d876bfda6c443d139de24be07a49)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fg-ecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fciu%2F11%2F05%2F978e619009a09e0716e46110.L.jpg&hash=42f84ec2cb4c218d63945577c701b2e9b2916aad)
Quote from: citizen k on March 30, 2009, 11:00:34 PM
This is an excerpt from a wiki article on Zhang Qian that I found interesting:
QuoteFollowing Zhang Qian's embassy and report, commercial relations between China and Central as well as Western Asia flourished, as many Chinese missions were sent throughout the end of the 2nd century BCE and the 1st century BCE, initiating the development of the Silk Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road): "The largest of these embassies to foreign states numbered several hundred persons, while even the smaller parties included over 100 members... In the course of one year anywhere from five to six to over ten parties would be sent out." (Shiji, trans. Burton Watson). Many objects were soon exchanged, and travelled as far as Guangzhou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangzhou) in the East, as suggested by the discovery of a Persian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire) box and various artifacts from Central Asia in the 122 BCE tomb of the Chinese King Wen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Wen_of_Nanyue) of Nanyue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanyue).
Murals in Mogao Caves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogao_Caves) in Dunhuang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunhuang) describe the Emperor Han Wudi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Wudi) (156-87 BCE) worshipping Buddhist statues, explaining them as "golden men brought in 120 BCE by a great Han general in his campaigns against the nomads", although there is no other mention of Han Wudi worshipping the Buddha in Chinese historical literature.
China also sent a mission to Parthia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia), which were followed up by reciprocal missions from Parthian envoys around 100 BCE: "When the Han envoy first visited the kingdom of Anxi (Parthia), the king of Anxi dispatched a party of 20,000 horsemen to meet them on the eastern border of the kingdom... When the Han envoys set out again to return to China, the king of Anxi dispatched envoys of his own to accompany them... The emperor was delighted at this." (Shiji, 123, trans. Burton Watson). The Roman historian Florus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florus) describes the visit of numerous envoys, including Seres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seres) (Chinese), to the first Roman Emperor Augustus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Augustus), who reigned between 27 BCE and 14: "Even the rest of the nations of the world which were not subject to the imperial sway were sensible of its grandeur, and looked with reverence to the Roman people, the great conqueror of nations. Thus even Scythians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians) and Sarmatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians) sent envoys to seek the friendship of Rome. Nay, the Seres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seres) came likewise, and the Indians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) who dwelt beneath the vertical sun, bringing presents of precious stones and pearls and elephants, but thinking all of less moment than the vastness of the journey which they had undertaken, and which they said had occupied four years. In truth it needed but to look at their complexion to see that they were people of another world than ours." ("Cathay and the way thither", Henry Yule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Yule)). In 97 the Chinese general Ban Chao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Chao) dispatched an envoy to Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome) in the person of Gan Ying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gan_Ying).
Several Roman embassies to China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_embassies_to_China) followed from 166, and are officially recorded in Chinese historical chronicles.
Other than the attempt to show that the "Seres" were Chinese (which is not supported by other sources, who insist that the single han embassy to Rome never made it), this is consistent with what I said: the han sent out embassies, but didn't send out traders to buy things; rather, they allowed foreign traders to come to China.
I see no evidence that the Han leadership, unlike that of Rome, felt any impulse to conquer the world.
If I remember correctly even during the I century AC Roman writers were already worried that too much silver was leaving the Empire to pay for spices, silk and other Asiatic products, mainly Chinese. This strongly suggests the Mediterranean basin didn't produce anything than the Chinese really wanted, other than precious metals.
Actually some modern economic historians seem to have concluded that the Roman empire did run a serious trade deficit in its relations with China - which is IMHO ridiculous; silver is just another ware, the Empire wasn't becoming indebted, Chinese firms weren't buying Roman ones, and the denarius wasn't diving in the currency markets. The Empire 'silver drain' could become a problem if it caused scarcity of coined money, but the economy wasn't developed enough for trade deficits to happen.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2009, 06:21:12 AM
I see no evidence that the Han leadership, unlike that of Rome, felt any impulse to conquer the world.
I dunno if the differences are that striking. How did the Han and Roman empires at their respective heights compare?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_empire
QuoteIn China's first known nationwide census taken in 2 CE, the population was registered as having 57,671,400 individuals in 12,366,470 households.
In contrast, the population of Rome in 25 BC is estimated at 56,800,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire
Which is a remarkable coincidence to say the least!
We tend to think of "China" as a single country and "Rome" as an empire, but in reality "China" was historically
many countries - I think quite comparable to the Europe-Middle East of Rome. Of course China has more often been unified than Europe-Middle East, where replicating the Roman acheivement was often the goal but never, after the fall of Rome, the reality.
I'm not sure that the Han were really less militant than the (Imperial) Romans - certainly Repulican Rome was
extremely militant, but that better compares to China during the so-called "warring states" period, which as the name suggests was pretty warlike - and no one ever accused Shih Huang Ti of being a pacifist, exactly.
At their imperial peaks, both systems sought stability with some extentions or conquests to be sure (Claudius in Britain, etc.) but nothing like the Alexanderian or Caesarian attempt at serious world conquest.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 30, 2009, 09:00:34 PM
One comment on the cultural side - merchants, explorers, traders and soldiers are generally looked down upon in traditional Chinese culture. In China, scholars are very highly regarded. Even peasants enjoy higher social status than merchants, because they are seen to be producing something tangible. Merchants were simply scum that took advantage of others without adding any value.
The traditional and proper way to fame and fortune was to take part in imperial examinations and become an official, not to go on foreign adventures.
This is pretty much how merchants were viewed in traditional western society also. With churchmen and soldiers replacing scholars and bureaucrats as favored along with the farmers and peasants.
In fact in the West as soon as a merchant became successful his chief goal was to find a way to stop being a merchant so his family could gain respectability. Since the Dutch were already scum hated by the powers that be they somewhat relished turning that traditional view on its head.
Quote from: Alatriste on March 31, 2009, 06:59:56 AM
This strongly suggests the Mediterranean basin didn't produce anything than the Chinese really wanted, other than precious metals.
Alternatively (or coincidingly) this could suggest that potential wares outside of silk and spices were sufficiently hard to transport in big quantities that it just didn't make any sense in trading them. Regardless of wether they were chinese or Roman.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 31, 2009, 10:12:37 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on March 31, 2009, 06:59:56 AM
This strongly suggests the Mediterranean basin didn't produce anything than the Chinese really wanted, other than precious metals.
Alternatively (or coincidingly) this could suggest that potential wares outside of silk and spices were sufficiently hard to transport in big quantities that it just didn't make any sense in trading them. Regardless of wether they were chinese or Roman.
Precious metals are a produce ... ;) But yes you are correct: only very high value low bulk things could possibly be sold at a profit over such vast distances. That pretty well means things like spices, silks, gems, and precious metals.