Reunification in ancient China and Rome

[ray245]

I refer to Scheidel 's The ‘First Great Divergence', 2007 as the main source of inspiration in starting this discussion.

The document is freely available at this link:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/sc ... 100706.pdf

One of the main centre piece of his works in regards to comparative history of the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire was when the two Empires sharply diverge. While the Chinese manage to reunify as one Empire after the fall of the Han and Jin dynasty, Justinian and his successors failed to fully recapture the lost provinces in the west. Furthermore, no other empire nor kingdom in the west/near east post the fall of the Western Roman Empire ever manage to control an Empire comparative to the Romans at their height.

One of the main arguments why China was able to achieve reunification while the Mediterranean world failed was the centralisation of the Chinese successor states after the end of the Han Dynasty. Instead of granting more autonomy to local leaders due to a weak core of central professional army in the various Gothic and Germanic kingdoms, a number of Chinese kingdoms all retained a strong professional army. This allowed the central government to enforce their will on the various provincial leaders.

He further argued against the possibility of Justinian being able to fully retain any lost provinces even if Visigoths and the Franks were fully subjugated.

So I am interested in hearing what are your thoughts on this matter, and what are your views on why did China manage to reunify while the Mediterranean world failed to do so?

[Pelranius]

Well, a lot of Chinese internal transportation is carried by rivers, which are easier to control than the entirety of the Mediterranean.

[Stark]

I can't even imagine how simpleminded the question is. Does it just assume that because the two empires share broad characteristics ('are empires', 'are big', 'got a lot of guys I guess') that they should have similar histories? Why?

[ray245]

I can't even imagine how simpleminded the question is. Does it just assume that because the two empires share broad characteristics ('are empires', 'are big', 'got a lot of guys I guess') that they should have similar histories? Why?

No, that's not what comparative history is all about. Rather, the reason for comparing the two empires was to highlight and contrast the differences between two large empires that has lasted for a similar length in time.

This allows us to better identify the factors that played a role in shaping the history of the Empire, in light of how the two empires differ in method for ruling the empire, how and why the two empire fell and how historian interpret the history of two such empire. It doesn't have to be necessary between Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire, but the two empire is one of the most convenient examples to use.


Schiedel also published another paper on the benefits of comparing Rome and China here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/sc ... 040601.pdf

[Zinegata]

Offhand, I'd say the idea that China "reunified" due to a strong standing army is a rather gross oversimplification of the situation. The idea that China was "unified" during some periods / dynasties is in fact a not entirely true statement (since many dynasties had to deal with massed revolts, or even warlords controlling large portions of the country).

[ray245]

Offhand, I'd say the idea that China "reunified" due to a strong standing army is a rather gross oversimplification of the situation. The idea that China was "unified" during some periods / dynasties is in fact a not entirely true statement (since many dynasties had to deal with massed revolts, or even warlords controlling large portions of the country).

But China as a whole did manage to avoid the balkanisation of their empire for a long duration of time as opposed to what happened in Europe and the near east.

[PainRack]

Offhand, I'd say the idea that China "reunified" due to a strong standing army is a rather gross oversimplification of the situation. The idea that China was "unified" during some periods / dynasties is in fact a not entirely true statement (since many dynasties had to deal with massed revolts, or even warlords controlling large portions of the country).

But China as a whole did manage to avoid the balkanisation of their empire for a long duration of time as opposed to what happened in Europe and the near east.

Errr.... the six dynasties era? That was 3 centuries worth of disorder right there.

And its even more significant when one considers that the Sui Dynasty didn't reconquer the whole of Han China either..... although to be fair, that's not a really significant comparison since the lost parts of Han china were themselves imperial conquests as opposed to a successfully transplanted Han colony.

[Simon_Jester]

The Six Dynasties period- well, it's as if Charlemagne had succeeded in reuniting the Empire; three centuries later the pieces were successfully stitched back together.

Many of the Roman possessions never came back to the 'Western' cultural sphere with the rise of Islam about 150-200 years after Rome fell. Others became independent and remained so for all future history (Britain). There were some half-credible attempts to preserve or reunite the empire (Justinian, Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire under the Habsburgs), but it never really worked.

Looking at the causes and consequences of that, yeah, interesting.

[ray245]

Errr.... the six dynasties era? That was 3 centuries worth of disorder right there.

And its even more significant when one considers that the Sui Dynasty didn't reconquer the whole of Han China either..... although to be fair, that's not a really significant comparison since the lost parts of Han china were themselves imperial conquests as opposed to a successfully transplanted Han colony.

In comparison to Europe and the Mediterranean, most of China did last for a longer time as a unified empire.

The fact that lost/former provinces of the Han Dynasty can be conquered by one dynasty is a stark contrast to any western kingdoms/empires' effort to reconquer all the former provinces of the Roman Empire.

[DarkArk]

It might well be because the Romans had to fight another nation that was mostly their equal in terms of power and military might: Sassanid Persia. It required a significant investment of military and political capital to keep them at bay, even when they weren't openly fighting. Unlike the northern barbarians the Persians directly threatened the most populous and profitable provinces of the Empire so they constantly had to be dealt with, and most of Rome's military was arrayed to fight Persian invasions. Further it was the open war between the two empires that lead to both of them losing to the Muslims. Without that constant threat at its border, Rome most likely could have held on in some fashion.

China comparatively didn't have a large basically equal threat on its border, allowing it to focus more on internal issues. So when the whole damn thing falls apart for a century or two, there isn't a neighbor that can really take the opportunity. Geographically China is mostly an island surrounded by water or mountains.

[PainRack]

That might have been a good hypothesis, but the actual history muddies the waters. The northern plains of China was China most populous and economically important area during the Han dynasty. It was also why Wei was never at risk of becoming defeated once the lines had stabilised. The defences that prevented Wei from rolling over Shu Han and Wu also allowed Wei to fortify her borders and once she did so, the country was simply too populous and economically prosperous to be simply defeated.


So, when the Wu Hu uprising began during the Jin dynasty(of the six dynasties period), it did pose a vital threat to the traditional power territories of China. And by this era, the nomadic tribes did possess significant power to threaten the Jin, especially after they successfully carved out existing Chinese territories and splintered the state.

There was no equivalent of the ERE here but the Eastern Jin state which emerged after the ruckus merely capitalised on the prior decades of destruction and economic shift to the south to shift their political centre south. What I'm saying is that it would be wrong to say that China didn't have a strong enough enemy that could extinguish her, her foes were traditionally weaker than her but it was the successful.. intergration of the south that vitalised the South to hold fast.