Why did the Chinease not expand and create a colonial empire?

[Emperor Julian]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

This is complicated, and so worth exploring.

I mean, China is currently led by a nationalist regime whose founding mythos was created by a German Jew and imported by way of Russia. One of its major religious traidtions was imported from India.

So, what's appreciably different?

Europe's founding mythos isn't created by a German Jew and imported by way of Russia, and their religion comes from the Levant, not India? It's a completely different culture.

And we are talking back in the colonial days presumably, not modern times, when the cultural differences would be even greater.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

This is complicated, and so worth exploring.

I mean, China is currently led by a nationalist regime whose founding mythos was created by a German Jew and imported by way of Russia. One of its major religious traidtions was imported from India.

So, what's appreciably different?

I would not claim to have any great understanding of the Chinese idea of national identity, which to some extent has been exported to other Asian countries. It is often misunderstood in the West as pure arrogance alone in painting the country as the centre of the world; of course the truth is far more complex. In some ways Chinese nationalism is closer to Roman nationalism than modern European nationalism, which makes a lot of sense if you buy the theory that Han China viewed Rome as its equal counterweight and doppelganger in the west, and therefore all of us small countries now making up what used to be Rome are just barbarians with pretensions towards civilisation. To the Chinese I think it is fair to say that civilisation and unity are intertwined and to some extent even synonymous: division means 'time of troubles' periods, squabbling warlords, death and destruction and misery (but excellent literature arising from it). Like the Romans, there is some ethnic element to Chinese nationalism but it also accepts the idea that other races can gradually achieve a state of Chinese nationhood and citizenship, as well as starting from the assumption that the superiority of that nationhood and citizenship is self-evident to all. China can accept the idea of higher learning stemming from outside the core empire (Buddhism from India, just as Rome accepted philosophy from Greece) but not higher civilisation or development.

Naturally we must be careful with words here because we can't say "China thinks X" anymore than we can say "Britain thinks X" or "America thinks X": I am talking about a general (perhaps over-generalised) national idea here rather than something that is necessarily shared by every individual.

The Roman comparison also applies if you consider the idea of 'Civis Romanus Sum': overseas Chinese are generally (though it depends on the period) still considered Chinese even if they are separated by multiple generations, and Chinese citizenship is considered something that barbarians should fear and respect.

I believe it is this fundamental commitment to unity as the cornerstone of civilisation that informs Chinese approaches to local geopolitics in the modern world, even though revolutions and civil wars have changed much of the rest of the country beyond recognition. The One China policy and One China Two Systems are not simply the result of the PRC being eeeeevil imperialists, it is the idea that Chinese civilisation is not truly complete, has not cast of the last vestiges of the 'time of troubles' that came with the period of European colonialism and the ensuing humiliation, until all the territories considered Chinese are reunited under a single sovereignty (if not necessarily a single government; the PRC might well accept a Taiwan with democratic self-government equivalent to Hong Kong if that was the price for formal reunification). Until and unless that reunification happens, from the Chinese perspective any temporal power gained by sabre-rattling in (say) the Middle East or dominating African economies is worthless, just a game of checkers you play on the side while waiting for your opponent to make his next move in the chess grandmaster competition.

As I say, this is just my own reading of the idea, and I would welcome critiques from anyone with a deeper understanding of these things, especially if they are Chinese themselves.

[Thande]

At the same time, of course, you can argue that if the underlying purpose of this discussion was to suggest that Chinese and European ideas of ethnocentrism are different, it falls down in one respect: the idea that unity=the only true civilisation is not dead in Europe either. The 'Dream of Rome' is certainly far weaker and less universally held there than its corresponding impulse in China, which is unsurprising given China has been united more often than not for the past 1500 years whereas all European attempts to reverse the fragmentation of the Roman Empire and build a new one in its place have failed. Yet it remains, as the fundamental assumptions behind the EU's more starry-eyed advocates will readily reveal.

[Elfwine]

One thing I'd also note on Europe vs. China: It's not just silk and spice that Europeans eagerly sought out, it's things like furs and cod.

The equivalent of that - did an equivalent even exist? - didn't work to drive China into expanding beyond "China".

[Malta Shah]

Silver. It crashed their economy.

Though it depends. Ming merchants made a supreme killing smuggling out Chinese goods, notably the porcelain, and selling it.

Granted I am focusing on the Ming here. Toward the beginning of Chinese civilization the focus was Horses. Trade and economics shifted and demand changed.

[democracy101]

I'll try to respond by quoting some of my earlier posts, and although most of the issues focused more on Korea, and might not be directly relevant, the points are still generally related to this thread. If anyone wants more specifics, I'll try to reply over the weekend.

However, generally speaking, I think that it's also important to consider why and how China would expand, and not just necessarily focus on if expansions were possible. It's also important to realize that although China Proper roughly covered the area between the Yellow and the Yangtze Rivers from the late Zhou to the Han, it gradually began incorporating the areas south of the Yangtze until the tribes in the area were fully assimilated by the time that the Sui came to power, so it did technically expand.

Regarding the Han/Sui/Tang:

Originally Posted by democracy101

[S]outhern Manchuria and the Korean peninsula were fragmented among numerous culturally and linguistically related tribes, and your suggestion is similar to saying that it wouldn't have been a problem for the Roman Empire to occupy Germania. In both cases, although it might have been possible to occupy a significant amount of territory, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to take over the entire area because of frequent raids and occasional uprisings.

At best, Han control was limited to the Liaodong peninsula and a small portion of northwestern Korea . . . two of the four commanderies were lost within 25 years, while another's (Xuantu) capital was lost within that time period, and its borders were shifted further north. This suggests that another entity in the area, most likely Goguryeo, had raided the commanderies to the point where the Han thought that it was unprofitable to retain all of them, and were content with a looser control over the region as a whole. The Samguk Sagi also suggests that the Lelang commandery, which lasted until 313, was briefly conquered around 30 AD before the Han recaptured it . . . there was a prolonged power struggle between the Han and the natives for over 300 years, and this would need to be completely butterflied away in order for the Han to even think about expanding into the southern part of the peninsula.

[T]he Han was already preoccupied with the Xiongnu for over 200 years, and in fact, the Han invaded Gojoseon because it had allied with the latter, and had also cut off trade relations. The prolonged conflict, along with other ones to the west and south, would be much more important to the Han than taking over fragmented states in the peninsula, then invading what is now Japan in order to conquer more fragmented states. Also, by the time that the Xiongnu collapsed as a whole in 89 AD, Goguryeo would have been developed enough for the Han to just retain loose control over them, as it learned in 172 during the Battle of Jwawon.

Originally Posted by democracy101

Emperors Wendi of Sui and Taizong of Tang had never lost a campaign until they invaded Goguryeo. In both cases, they were able to take several Goguryeo border fortresses, but failed to advance any further. Had Goguryeo been defeated earlier than in OTL, either the Sui or the Tang would have had to face a probable Baekje-Silla alliance, which would have been hard to conquer based on how Silla repulsed the Tang in OTL.

There's a very good reason why Goguryeo held out against the Sui and Tang for 70 years and six expeditions. Although there was a 30-year break in between, 40 years is still a long time for a state to resist another that was about 10 times its population. All eligible males in Goguryeo were trained to fight in case of a war, so there was no problem with conscription. Goguryeo also either allied with or maintained tributary relations (usually in Goguryeo's favor) with Khitan and Mohe tribes, and also allied with the Turks, urging them to revolt against the Tang so that Goguryeo would have breathing space. In other words, you would need to make sure that Goguryeo would be isolated from its allies, then break through two lines of fortresses to successfully invade Pyongyang, and finally subdue the southern kingdoms. By the time that someone accomplishes or attempts to accomplish this, it's very likely that there would be border issues with bordering states to the north or west, or an uprising protesting against such a long and exhausting campaign or campaigns.

As a sidenote, both the Sui and the Tang were intent on conquering Goguryeo because it was the only state that refused to submit to either one.

Originally Posted by democracy101

[Negotiations with the Xiongnu] was probably the only time that a Chinese dynasty acknowledged another state as its equal . . . It did temporarily establish commandaries in Central Asia and southern Manchuria/northern Korea, but unless the Chinese migrated in large numbers into either or both regions, it would have been hard for the Han to retain the temporary gains for a significant amount of time. It failed in Central Asia because the environment was mostly inhospitable, and in Korea because of raids from states such as Goguryeo.

It would have been extremely hard for the Tang to perform significantly better than in OTL for similar reasons. It controlled a significant amount of Central Asia as well, but lost most of it after the An Shi Rebellion. It might have been possible to avert the disaster, but I think it would have been highly unlikely for all of the generals to remain loyal when some of them had control over a significant amount of territory and army, not to mention political factors. It would also have been hard for the rulers to maintain control over all of its regions when some of them tried to rebel, and bordering states tried to seize Chinese territory. Although the Tibetans sacked the capital after the dynasty was greatly weakened, the fact that foreigners were able to temporarily seize control of the political center suggests that the Tang barely held itself together during its latter years.

Meanwhile, although Goguryeo had been vanquished by the Tang with help from Silla, which was crucial, Balhae was established around the same area only 30 years later. This was probably possible because Wu Zetian had taken control, which meant that the dynasty could have been politically unstable. In addition, Silla was unwilling to help after they recently pushed the Tang out of the Korean peninsula, and because the residents in southern Manchuria were treated harshly, it was hard for the Tang to bring the revolt under control because the various tribes in the region unified in order to push the Chinese out. It's also important to note that around this time, Silla's population was around 6-7 million, while the population of Balhae when it was founded was at least half that number. In other words, their combined population would have been about 1/3 or 1/4 that of the Tang when it lost control of the northeast.

Regarding the Ming/Qing:

Originally Posted by democracy101

After 1000, China . . . [was] continuously occupied with the Khitan, Jurchen, Mongols, and the Manchu . . . Dissidents might have traveled to Siberia by sea, but unless there were significant tangible benefits to living there, it would be very hard to convince the government.

The Qing was originally a Manchu dynasty that was eventually assimilated into Chinese culture around the mid-18th century, and significant migration to Manchuria did not occur until the 19th century when the Qing allowed the Han Chinese to relocate in response to Russian incursion. Until then, the Manchus had planned on closing off Manchuria to settlement in case of a Han Chinese resurgence that would force the Qing out of China proper. Meanwhile, the Qing was more concerned with states elsewhere, conquering Xinjiang and Tibet, while invading Nepal, Burma, and [Vietnam]. In other words, even if the Qing attempted to expand into Siberia, it would be hard for them to actively colonize the area as they were not focused on mass settlement at the time.

Originally Posted by democracy101

In terms of general trade, the continuously devastating wokou raids from Japan, and possibly other countries, forced the Ming to ban overseas trade altogether. Zheng He's expeditions also convinced the government that generally speaking, there was nothing substantial outside of China that it could profit from, so they decided to refocus their efforts in confronting the nomads in Mongolia and Manchuria. Unless these factors can be butterflied away, it would be extremely difficult for China to look outward between 1350-1650 in terms of economic trade. Later, the Qing was focused on subjugating or vassalizing states to the north and south, instead of aiming for trade overseas, so their outlook would have to be greatly altered in order for maritime trade to flourish.

I hope that helps.

Originally Posted by Thande

The 'Dream of Rome' is certainly far weaker and less universally held there than its corresponding impulse in China, which is unsurprising given China has been united more often than not for the past 1500 years whereas all European attempts to reverse the fragmentation of the Roman Empire and build a new one in its place have failed.

Yes, but China's history didn't begin in 500 AD. China was divided from around 800 to 221 BC, then again from 190/220 to 589 AD, with a brief exception from 280 to 304 under the Sima Jin, so that's roughly 950+ years of division, out of about 1400 years, from 800 BC to 589 AD. However, it was then divided again during 907-960, and lastly from 1125 to 1279, when the Mongols unified China under the Yuan in 1279, and China did generally remain united until the Qing fell in 1911.

As to why this was probably the case:

Originally Posted by democracy101

I can see about 2-5 states in China Proper maintaining a rough balance of power for at least several centuries if they were militarily on a similar level, but I can't imagine it being balkanized and remaining so for more than three centuries. This was probably because of the nature of Chinese characters, which forced outsiders to learn a complex writing system if they wanted to communicate with or rule over a portion of China Proper. This also meant that foreigners were easily assimilated, as the writing system was closely tied to culture. In other words, barring the absence of other writing systems introduced through the nomadic invasions from the north through the Sixteen Kingdoms Period, it would be extremely difficult to permanently break up China's general cultural norms into smaller regional ones.

[satilisu]

For what it's worth, Zheng He's fleet, while consisting of impressive ships, wasn't exploratory. It sailed around seas Chinese merchants already navigated. Furthermore, European naval exploration was motivated by the closure of the Silk Road. Most merchants couldn't penetrate beyond the Mediterranean coast, and European animosity with the historic controllers of said road basically closed off the land routes. There's a reason the earliest Portuguese explorers sailed down and around the coast of Africa rather than striking off into the Atlantic.

[Emperor Julian]

Perhaps you could have the post-Yuan China, instead of being united behind one Chinese dynasty, divided between three? With one of the three only bordering the other two and the ocean, so it has no small states to conquer. All three will want to unify China, but the one with only a coastline and borders with the others can't get external resources. So they are forced to turn to the ocean, and they begin to send ships to the Indonesian islands and elsewhere in the Pacific. By intentional design or some storm or miscalculation, one fleet manages to reach the Americas and return safely. The Emperor of the Maritime Dynasty sends more fleets to inspect this strange land, and they discover the Aztecs and the Incas. Knowing the wealth of these nations could give them an advantage in the war, the Chinese conquer them. With the wealth from the Aztecs and Incas, the ocean-faring dynasty manages to defeat the other two and reunite China. However, as they already have extensive territories in the Americas, they aren't going to give them up and slowly begin to expand them.

[Malta Shah]

Well, if the Ming could just not let Neo Confucians take hold and go right to the Middle Ming who re-opened Overseas Trade.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

One thing I'd also note on Europe vs. China: It's not just silk and spice that Europeans eagerly sought out, it's things like furs and cod.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yR_...201700&f=false

33,000 Chinese people in Batavia in 1733.

Then of course in OTL the Chinese were so eager to move around that we had the Chinese Exclusion Acts...

[Badshah]

Mainly because whatever China needed, China had. One has to remember that in a lot of ways, the Ottomans were the catalysts to the discovery of the New World.....after all, alternative routes become important when your only route to Asia and all those goodies is through a potentially hostile country.

Furthermore, one also has to remember that Europe didn't have everything it needed, and in a lot of ways transformed some of the poorest lands (Portugal, England) into the richest and most powerful.....but that doesn't change the fact that they were in essence dirt poor in the beginning.

China never really had that.....there was never a lack of wealth, and so, China didn't need to venture out much....

[Emperor Julian]

Originally Posted by trollhole

China never really had that.....there was never a lack of wealth, and so, China didn't need to venture out much....

So what about my idea of one fraction of China being cut off from land routs by others, and needed to venture out in the sea to get the resources to defeat their rivals?

[Malta Shah]

Originally Posted by trollhole

China never really had that.....there was never a lack of wealth, and so, China didn't need to venture out much....

Well, they really lacked for horses, gold, and pearls.

[democracy101]

Originally Posted by Emperor Julian

Perhaps you could have the post-Yuan China, instead of being united behind one Chinese dynasty, divided between three? With one of the three only bordering the other two and the ocean, so it has no small states to conquer. All three will want to unify China, but the one with only a coastline and borders with the others can't get external resources. So they are forced to turn to the ocean, and they begin to send ships to the Indonesian islands and elsewhere in the Pacific. By intentional design or some storm or miscalculation, one fleet manages to reach the Americas and return safely. The Emperor of the Maritime Dynasty sends more fleets to inspect this strange land, and they discover the Aztecs and the Incas. Knowing the wealth of these nations could give them an advantage in the war, the Chinese conquer them. With the wealth from the Aztecs and Incas, the ocean-faring dynasty manages to defeat the other two and reunite China. However, as they already have extensive territories in the Americas, they aren't going to give them up and slowly begin to expand them.

How, though?

Generally speaking, there were regional differences between North and South China, making it unlikely that a state would control both areas solely along the coastline without being torn apart by internal and external factors. Also, if I remember correctly, the coastline itself contained the vast majority of the population by the Song or so, so it would be more likely for such a state to conquer the rest and unify China, instead of a situation where there are several states that are unable to take advantage over the others.

[Elfwine]

Faeelin: 33,000 compared to the Chinese population is so miniscule as to be less than the margin of error for population censuses.

And the Chinese Exclusion Acts are are long after China has missed the boat to colonial empire.

[Flocculencio]

I'm not going to get into the cultural discussions...

The simple answer was that there was no need to- China (like the Indian polities) was well supplied with the goods that drove the Europeans to seek international trade. Until the Industrial Revolution there wasn't really anything that Europe had that Indians or Chinese wanted (except for precious metals)

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

I'm not going to get into the cultural discussions...

The simple answer was that there was no need to- China (like the Indian polities) was well supplied with the goods that drove the Europeans to seek international trade. Until the Industrial Revolution there wasn't really anything that Europe had that Indians or Chinese wanted (except for precious metals)

That leaves out the boring mundane stuff Europe went out into the world looking for like cod, though. Why didn't China - where land per household is ever shrinking - seek for more land for those purposes?

[Badshah]

Originally Posted by Emperor Julian

So what about my idea of one fraction of China being cut off from land routs by others, and needed to venture out in the sea to get the resources to defeat their rivals?

The whole idea of multiple Chinese states competing against each other could work.

Originally Posted by King of Malta

Well, they really lacked for horses, gold, and pearls.

They switched back to paper money, though, did they not? Furthermore, they did get silver from Japan, and silver is what they traded for in general....land while they lacked these specific things, much poorer European nations lacked a hell of a lot more, meaning they had to go looking....and China just never reached that stage.

Furthermore, Indian Ocean trade generally had a different character before the Europeans came in, and there was clearly Chinese and Indian activity throughout......but you never saw colonies.....it didn't work that way....

John Greene's Crash Course world history had an interesting episode on the subject.

[LeoXiao]

Posters above me have already pointed out many of the reasons for why China didn't go colonial overseas, in short, it's because they already were busy with colonizing areas around them. In the earliest dynasties, China really only consisted of the area between the Yellow and Yangtze rivers. Now look at it. That is colonization.

I don't really have much knowledge of the specifics of technological development in ancient China but I would guess that it occurred, as in other states, on the basis of necessity. If you had a bunch of wars to fight against comparable opponents you will be naturally interested in more advanced weaponry. Following this logic, you would need China to undergo some more turmoil to get them to become desperate enough to mess around overseas. IOTL, after the 13th century China was no longer divided among long-lasting warring states. If it were divided, it follows that the different states will be trying to conquer each other and spending time and energy making new developments in order to do so. Let's say there is some coastal state in Guangdong that is sworn enemies with a Sichuan state. The Guangdong state might well be interested in developing long-range fleets and all the tech associated with it to establish trading relations with other lands, so that it will be able to maintain its position in China and perhaps someday unite the country.

Another possibility is that during these wars of reunification, many Chinese would naturally be disenfranchised and want to escape the country to avoid chaos. If Guangdong state from above discovers a place like Australia or New Zealand, it might become a good place to immigrate to - lots of land, no war (except against natives), and if there is something valuable there the government might even sponsor your trip.

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

That leaves out the boring mundane stuff Europe went out into the world looking for like cod, though. Why didn't China - where land per household is ever shrinking - seek for more land for those purposes?

I'm not really sure that overpopulation was that much of a problem. You did get Chinese settlers overseas but mainly as part of a mercantile class (the Peranakan chinese of Malaya, the Indonesian Chinese etc). The carrying capacity of the Chinese lowlands is massive.

As for the mundane stuff- yes, the Chinese did trade for stuff like that. Furs came from Manchuria, sea slugs and shellfish from the Philippines, cloth from India and so forth.

The difference is that Europe was on the far end of the global supply route whereas China (and India and the Islamic world) had a long established trade system going through the East Indies and the Arabian Sea. Europe was cut off from the other end of its trade route and so had to take the long way 'round, so to speak.