>Most powerful empire of its time
>does nothing
Why are chinese like this? Their strongest competitors were a past its prime 1/2 of the roman empire and a few random dark age european powers.

>>20845
They fought and won a civil war and expanded from this to all that. Seems, dare I say, impressive. Until some general sperged out and they were forced to eat themselves.

After a certain point it's just not worth it

>>20845
A huge swathe of that land was for all intents and purposes fucking barren, barely suited for nomadic herdsmen.

>>20848
korea, japan and the fertile crescent were all up for grabs though. They could probably conquer the latter with like 1/10th of their military.

>>20849
They tried the latter with, putting it euphemistically, mixed success.

>>20845
>Why are chinese like this?
taoism i think

>>20851
I sometimes wonder at the source of that meme.

because you really couldn't power project that much during those times, sure you get the occasional mongol empire but even then they pretty much fell apart as soon as they rose, this is the time where getting a simple message from an outpost could easily take months

>>20853
pretty sure by this point they had the military highway which had outposts every xx km with fresh horses and couriers. You could get a message from the borders of the empire to the capital extremely fast as they would basically gallop fullspeed to the next outpost and then change horses or even run them to death.

>>20854
Even then there's still a difference between being able to deliver a scroll and marching an army from A to B

>>20845
The real China is nothing like the China they portray themselves as being, and never was.
There's a big difference between internal power structures and power that can projected, especially in a culturally fractured society that valued things like illusions of grandeur and perceived honor over real martial might or logistics.
Their greatest achievement was a colossal failure. There's your first clue.

>>20845
Just governing and administering the territory they had was a massive undertaking that they couldn't accomplish (see the An Lushan rebellion). Someone like Genghis Khan could sweep up entire continents in a couple of decades, but the resulting empire would necessarily break down into smaller, more manageable kingdoms.

>>20855
>>20856
>>20857
That explains why it would fail but not why they wouldn't try, history is full of conquerors biting off more than they can chew, even extremely smart and competent ones.

>>20858
>why they wouldn't try
Because they were interested in ruling China, not riding over more ungovernable and untaxable land.

>biting off more than they can chew
China was already more than the Chinese emperor and his civil service could chew.

>>20845
>>Most powerful empire of its time
u fookin wot m8?

>>20860
A large chinese bandit warband in 700BC could probably conquer britain of the same time lol, are you some kind of ESL?

>>20845
Pretty sure this is a /his/ topic but, I imagine the chinese political system had a natural cap on the size of their actual control. China had extremely powerful hereditary rulers who governed dominions within the country, who were ranked below the Emperor but could be difficult to control. It was not abnormal for provinces to war against each other while the emperor looked on, perhaps favoring one side, perhaps indifferent (this in particular varies between eras iirc). The disunity of China was exacerbated by the fact that the Chinese heartland is, geographically speaking, largely cut off from the southern and western portions of the country; you can only exert so much political pressure over territories separated from your heartland by mountain ranges and deserts, especially in those days. Rome, too, was limited geographically - there is a reason they struggled to hold any region too far from the Mediterranean. But geography is only part of the puzzle, as the Chinese heartland showed much of the same warring and disunity in many periods of Chinese history, even when the emperor was relatively strong. However the Romans had arguably a better grasp of logistics basically from the very beginning, and while both countries had meritocratic education systems in place, I'd argue that Rome was better academically too, since Chinese education often had an autistic focus on classical literature, with things like military strategy and engineering being considered inferior and less important subjects of education.

Basically, the Chinese system was significantly less stable than most people tend to realize, and they lacked an ability to project and maintain power and logistics on the scale of other great empires. They were content to sit back and collect tributebux from the nations around them that feared invasion, but realistically speaking, they had little to no capability to actually hold those areas long term and integrate them into the empire.

>>20858
When you spend your time and resources desperately trying to hold what you have then you don't have the ability to expand.
You seem to think that China was actually like the kung fu movies portrayal of that time period. It was nothing like that.

>>20862
There is also the Chinese cultural differences. The petty squabbling, the exaggeration of their wisdom and skill, the outright lies about their achievements and history.
We see this mindset even today with them.

>>20852
>bc"e"
prolly a retard

>>20856
I don't know what you're actually referring to, but the historical estimates of aspects of Ancient China are very good because of their extensive bureaucracy. There are millions of pages of records from the Ming dynasty alone, covering everything from tax records to minutes of court meetings

>>20862
Rome did not have a meritocratic education system, they had a tutelage system copied from Greece, which focused on music and philosophy. Only rich nobles would give an education to their kids.

>>20865
>prolly a retard
You're the retard, that's an edit.
Also, BCE is accepted usage in academia and any non-Christian country. Why the fuck would a Taoist meme use Christian terminology for their dates?

>>20867
>Rome did not have a meritocratic education system, they had a tutelage system copied from Greece, which focused on music and philosophy. Only rich nobles would give an education to their kids.
Where did the Roman army learn their engineering skills?

>>20845
Their strongest competitors were drunken local shitheels and they expanded until they found proper civilization to beat their ass.
It was pathetic.

>>20868
I think it was grafitti by some anti-authoritarian anime character. The only "Trash Man" I recall is in The Stand.

>>20867
It was meritocratic for the era, meaning that families could progressively improve standing across generations. You had emperors whose families were likely peasants centuries prior. Even if it took generations, this is a lot better than most of the world had it

>>20856
What the fuck are you rambling about

>>20862
>The disunity of China was exacerbated by the fact that the Chinese heartland is, geographically speaking, largely cut off from the southern and western portions of the country; you can only exert so much political pressure over territories separated from your heartland by mountain ranges and deserts
This

Not to mention northern, central, eastern, southern and coastal China are like five different continents, culturally-speaking, because of the different biomes
Coastal people are born traders and merchants to this very day (Guangzhou is still the richest province in China), northerners are rough and ready steppe nomad types, central plainsmen are what Brits of an age would call simple yeomen stock, etc

It's like trying to lump millennia of Dalmatian, Carthaginian, Pictish and Helvetian culture all into one. Just not going to happen

>>20864
As opposed to the famed European unity?

>>20845
>does nothing
Fought each other, like Europeans did

>>20868
>Why the fuck would a Taoist meme use Christian terminology for their dates?
because for 1.4 billion people, theyre insignificant compared to a single white westerner.

>>20868
>in academia and any non-Christian country
so exactly the "people" that shouldn't be heard or listened to ever

>>20845
>does nothing
This meme needs to die.
That empire is massively over-extended. The only reason it's able to function is because most of the territory it owns is indefensible, but actually conquering China spreads any administration thin.
The owner of the country is rich beyond all belief and has everything needed to enjoy the peak of prosperity forever. There is no incentive for further expansion once you reach the bounds of China, not only because everything else is difficult to conquer, but also because those outlying regions are poor and possible to integrate with your bureaucracy without assuming direct control.
If you mean cultural or technological developments, China is responsible for some of the biggest ones around. The fact that their civics didn't directly influence Europe doesn't change that.
The only major concern is the Needham question, and that was answered ages ago: The aristocracy was too consistently powerful (largely due to the hegemonic nature of the Chinese state) for a middle class of merchants to emerge and threaten their social order.

>>20876
>Needham question, and that was answered ages ago: The aristocracy was too consistently powerful (largely due to the hegemonic nature of the Chinese state) for a middle class of merchants to emerge and threaten their social order
whoever answered that is a gweilo idiot
the answer is we got fucking Manchu'd and them the Manchus decided to USSR the country forever and suppress the merchant and intelligentsia classes to stop them from successfully rebelling and de-Manchu-ising the country, and we never recovered from that
Confucian China was mutted in the 13th century and never de-mutted

>>20872
The education itself had nothing to do with that. Education didn't have any impact on what positions you could get, unlike in China's imperial examination system.

>>20862
>However the Romans had arguably a better grasp of logistics basically from the very beginning
No, they just had more favorable terrain. Chinese investments in infrastructure ran deeper and went higher. The Grand Canal is the best proof of this.
Over the same timeframe as Rome's existence, they created a maritime highway that actually ran through the country to better enable taxation and troop deployment.
>>20877
>the answer is we got fucking Manchu'd
Brother, you can't just blame Da Jurchenz for everything. Han rule was restored in the 14th century and you had all the technology required to industrialize. The fact that you didn't is an outworking of politics and economics, not some Manchurian conspiracy to keep the Han ignorant forever.

>>20878
>Education didn't have any impact on what positions you could get
it helped good hereditary rulers make the best out of their countries, especially in the 15th century. the meritocratic countries which prized education were the ones that led the way into the Renaissance
the ones that didn't were Darwin'd out by conquest and backstabbery
>unlike in China's imperial examination system
don't think that Imperial China's government was not free from the usual court politics and all that. famed for it, really. also, the ones with the most resources to study for the exams (or bribe the examiners) were the upper-class. this was a known trope; there are Prince-And-Pauper type tales about farmers's sons and aristocrats' sons swapping places for the exams and all the ensuing hijinks

>>20879
>Han rule was restored
"Han"-ness is a political meme created by Manchus to pretend "we are all European", the exact same thing being done now with you-know-whom
>you had all the technology required
but none of the political backing, which Michael Porter identifies as essential

>>20880
>"Han"-ness is a political meme created by Manchus to pretend "we are all European", the exact same thing being done now with you-know-whom
Okay, then I guess the answer is just that Han have been the pet slave race of the Manchus since the Jin dynasty and always will be.
>but none of the political backing, which Michael Porter identifies as essential
This is exactly what I just said.

>>20881
>since the Jin dynasty
Yuan
>and always will be
as I told my friends recently, we based and trad Confucians have been fighting a war we've been losing since the 13th century and we are probably one of if not the last generation, I'm resigned to my kids growing up as ABC bananas

>>20876
>The only major concern is the Needham question
the answer is the question is fallacious bullshit, exactly like everything else that came out of this quack's asshole
>for a middle class of merchants to emerge
chinks lacked precious metals to trade and develop meaningful trade networks beyond administrative lines which is why they were so so hungry for european silver once it started flowing

>>20879
>Over the same timeframe as Rome's existence, they created a maritime highway that actually ran through the country to better enable taxation and troop deployment.
Romans had an actual maritime highway and it was called the Roman lake aka mediterranean sea which they managed to conquer because unlike chinks they could into naval technology and logistics.

entire Rome was fed on grain shipped by sea.

>>20883
>the answer is the question is fallacious bullshit, exactly like everything else that came out of this quack's asshole
It's not unreasonable to believe China should've been able to expand on its technological lead before Europe caught up.
>chinks lacked precious metals to trade and develop meaningful trade networks beyond administrative lines which is why they were so so hungry for european silver once it started flowing
Those Europeans only got that silver right when it started flowing into China. If you want to argue that Chinese can't into currency, you may want to look at the history of paper money.
>>20884
>Romans had an actual maritime highway and it was called the Roman lake aka mediterranean sea which they managed to conquer because unlike chinks they could into naval technology and logistics.
Obviously, you don't have to conquer and secure an inland route (unless you're facing the British), so your argument amounts to Romans being superior because they lived next to a natural body prior to becoming an empire.
>entire Rome was fed on grain shipped by sea.
Grain shipped from Egypt, whose outputs were only enabled by a geographical glitch in Central Africa and whose terrain made it utterly indefensible.
Neither of these depended on Roman ingenuity.
By contrast, expansion into and retention of control over the Chinese breadbaskets in the south and the isolated southwest required logistical infrastructure to be built as an extension of ever-changing natural features.
Chinese had to fight for control over these areas just so they could build up the tools they used to control them. Romans essentially got carried by geography until they sold out their country to foreigners.
I guess we could call that an anomaly, but something tells me it won't be the last time whites do that.

>>20845
Maybe not fighting pointless wars of aggression might have something to do with a prosperity of a nation?

>>20845
They spend much more time controlling their own population to do anything else. And also China naturally has pretty much everything with the exception of fuel. From the perspective of people ruling China, it is not worth the effort of possibly causing a massive rebellion

>>20884
>Rome
Not a true blue water power
>mediterranean
You could navigate that with simple galleys and not give a toss for storms, it's a giant fucking lake

>>20883
>silver is the only metal you need
Bollocks

If Ming Dynasty China had conducted more trade with Europe they would have, like Sengoku Japan (which did), adopted matchlocks sooner and more broadly. Fact is that they didn't need commerce with Europe (they thought, wrongly), they had their hands full trying to subjugate and maintain an empire the size of the whole fucking European continent, and the endless wars and rebellions kept the nation from prospering and encouraged an isolationist policy that hindered technology from developing at European rates

>>20860
Easily.

>>20885
Not just Egypt. Modern day Tunisia was a breadbasket too. Once the empire split, egypt fed the senior half and tunis fed the junior. When the vandals took it, that was more than anything else the end of the junior half.

>>20888
>Not a true blue water power
china isn't even a true brown water power by that metric
>You could navigate that with simple galleys and not give a toss for storms
they could ship 100 ton obelisks across it, galleys my ass
>silver is the only metal you need
silver is the most available precious metal useful for trade. it's no coincidence that chinks had dynastic shift-tier upheavals whenever the flow of European silver stopped.

>>20888
>If Ming Dynasty China had conducted more trade with Europe they would have, like Sengoku Japan (which did), adopted matchlocks sooner and more broadly.
Both conducted extensive trade with China, but since the Japanese had a silver surplus, much of that trade made them net importers. China was used as a deflationary trade partner. You got large quantities of whatever they had, gave them your silver, then resold them in Europe for a net profit.
Also, the Chinese government obviously wouldn't (unless incapable of preventing it) permit the free sale of weapons to its subjects. The Ming actually did adopt European and Turkish weaponry relatively quickly. They fell behind only during the Qing dynasty, when novel developments widened the gap between what was necessary and what commonplace to a hopeless degree.

>>20884
>Wisconsin doesn't know jack shit about agriculture and logistics because they never had to import food by sea
Idiot

>>20885
>It's not unreasonable to believe China should've been able to expand on its technological lead
there was no such lead and china didn't expand even on the few technologies that did reach them because lol zero trade and no amount of dead papers made by some wanker in the capital that reached nowhere and were forgotten until some communist quack decided to dig them up and inflate them to no end don't change that.
>Those Europeans only got that silver right when it started flowing into China.
europe had 100 times the silver chinks had even before discovering the new world.
> If you want to argue that Chinese can't into currency, you may want to look at the history of paper money.
thanks for proving my point by bringing up utterly worthless fiat that only further dismembered the non existent chink trade.
>Grain shipped from Egypt, whose outputs were only enabled by a geographical glitch in Central Africa
entire asia feeding on rice is that "geographical glitc" along with breeding like maggots.
>Chinese had to fight for control over these areas just so they could build up the tools they used to control them. Romans essentially got carried by geography until they sold out their country to foreigners.
lol, what pathetic cope. somehow conquering and outcompeting all the neighboring countries that also got carried by geography is just a coincidence while chinkland jobbing to every single nomad that managed to reach their isolated shithole is the result of hard effort and igenuity.