A ~300-years-old Chinese Dynasty

And making Ming wealthier and stronger from 15th century on might make Imjin war shorter.
But note: Korea also has dynastic change, yet Choson dynasty unlike Ming did survive the aftermath of Imjin war and Manchu invasion, clocking 300 years in 1692.

Re: the Ming Dynasty specifically, there's one major (and overlooked) reason why just 'wealthier' wouldn't be a cure-all for the Ming, and it's also why I used the Ming Dynasty's collapse as an example of overcentralization/bureaucratization.

The Ming Dynasty was founded by Zhu Yuanzhang, who dished out frontier lands to his sons as fiefdoms. That ended in tears with Yongle's rebellion in the 15th Century, so that was quickly revoked. But now what do you do with all these royals around, all with potential claims to the throne?

You subsidize them. And that's a major reason why the Ming Dynasty was in dire straits during its twilight years: court expenditure was massive. The imperial-plantation to non-imperial plantation ratio in the country was 1:12.9 in the late 1400s, and it was 1:4 by the mid 1500s. Imperial plantations made up 50% of Henan's agricultural lands and 70% of Sichuan's, all there to subsidize the needs of a burgeoning royal family (like Saudi Arabia nowadays). That's good land that could have been used to fund the Ming military or social aid.

Even worse, each new addition of imperial land usually meant forcing out/dispossessing its original owners, which meant more rebellions and suchlike. More wealth that would just mean more of it being siphoned off to the royal family.
 
What about the Han Dynasty?

The East Han got a ridiculous poor bad luck...

Their emperors always died young... they are mostly 0/0/0 emperors after the first two... a lot of the time is in regency.. the regency are also mostly 0/0/0 and corrupt.... and of coz the famine does not really help.

I believe that Han can last a lot longer if a few of their emperors can last longer... East Han did not suffer too much from barbarian invasions at that time.. after the West Han banged them really hard.
 
An easier POD would be Genghis Khan just did not make it.

The internal wars of Mongolia are so fierce that for him the unification war of Mongolia is actually more difficult than those external conquest.

Let him died in one of the battles that he lose, Mongolia stayed fragmented and the Jin-Song balance just stayed on... Song could probably last a lot longer.
 
Re: the Ming Dynasty specifically, there's one major (and overlooked) reason why just 'wealthier' wouldn't be a cure-all for the Ming, and it's also why I used the Ming Dynasty's collapse as an example of overcentralization/bureaucratization.

The Ming Dynasty was founded by Zhu Yuanzhang, who dished out frontier lands to his sons as fiefdoms. That ended in tears with Yongle's rebellion in the 15th Century, so that was quickly revoked. But now what do you do with all these royals around, all with potential claims to the throne?

You subsidize them. And that's a major reason why the Ming Dynasty was in dire straits during its twilight years: court expenditure was massive. The imperial-plantation to non-imperial plantation ratio in the country was 1:12.9 in the late 1400s, and it was 1:4 by the mid 1500s. Imperial plantations made up 50% of Henan's agricultural lands and 70% of Sichuan's, all there to subsidize the needs of a burgeoning royal family (like Saudi Arabia nowadays). That's good land that could have been used to fund the Ming military or social aid.

Even worse, each new addition of imperial land usually meant forcing out/dispossessing its original owners, which meant more rebellions and suchlike. More wealth that would just mean more of it being siphoned off to the royal family.

But with the huge imperial harems, and princes also allowed to be polygamists, the proliferation of younger sons of younger sons should have been a problem for EVERY long-lived dynasty. Han, Tang, Song, Qing.
How did these 4 handle the long term financial support of imperial princes?
 
But with the huge imperial harems, and princes also allowed to be polygamists, the proliferation of younger sons of younger sons should have been a problem for EVERY long-lived dynasty. Han, Tang, Song, Qing.
How did these 4 handle the long term financial support of imperial princes?

I know the Qing system was much more nuanced than the Ming system. On one hand, the Qing had a habit of 'taking back' privileges once the first-generation imperial offspring died out, instead of the indefinite subsidies that the Ming gave out to almost every descendant. On the other, there was a much more definite separation of 'emperor' and 'state' in the Qing Dynasty. The Qing Emperor could not give away state possessions on a whim, and often if he had to subsidize kinsmen he would have to pay for it from his own estates.

I'm not so sure about the others, but I would argue that the social system of the Eastern Zhou (公>侯>伯>子>男) probably carried on to the Han, with the firstborn inheriting his father's status and the others passing down one level. It might not have been as formalized, but it clearly happened or else you wouldn't get imperial descendants like Liu Bei selling shoes in a frontier market.

Song dynasty expenditure would have been curtailed by the bureaucracy, since that period was the high-point of bureaucratic control over China's monarchs.

I'm least sure about the Tang, but it seems the more senior of them became jiedushi (so like local commanders), which would then make the Tang system a sort of feudal system where land was parcelled out to heirs.
 

Admiral Matt

Gone Fishin'
One thing is a must, the Chinese must somehow overcoming the firmly planted Confucian Conservativeness and Centralized State Ideals...

perhaps with more successful Buddhist Influences... or even the coming of Christianity / Islam...

Why? How many Christian, Islamic, or Buddhist dynasties lasted in power over a major imperial state more than 300 years? There's the Hapsburgs, and.... That's all I have.

Now to save the Qing, sure, pursuit of Confucius has become a problem. But the idea that it was a major problem for the stability of a dynasty earlier precisely contradicts the facts.

Confucian systems were practiced primarily in China, Korea, and Japan. In China it resulted in four dynasties that approached the three century mark. If you count the Han who instituted it as a single dynasty (admittedly arguable), you have a four-century dynasty right there. In Japan it seems they've only ever had the one imperial dynasty (though Shoguns, blah, blah). But witness Korea, the most consistently Confucian of the three. Korea's preunification dynasties both lasted roughly 700 years, the dynasty that did the unification almost made it to the 1000-year mark, the last two made it 474 and 618 years, and the shortest dynasty was 228 years long! Of course Korea is also closer to the size of European kingdoms, which occasionally did have long dynastic reigns.

Now I'm not going to argue that Confucian conservatism was why they all lasted so long, but that's only because I dont have my books with me. What I will say is that, whatever the cause of China's dynasties' failures, we can rest assured it wasn't their core national ideology.
 
Why? How many Christian, Islamic, or Buddhist dynasties lasted in power over a major imperial state more than 300 years? There's the Hapsburgs, and.... That's all I have.

Well... you forgot the Ottomans, the Abbasids, the Piasts and the Romanovs (just!). Also it's quite difficult to place the Eastern idea of 'dynasties' in a European sense, because there's so much continuity in Europe. You could say that the Capetians have ruled for over a millennium now (in its Valois/Bourbon instantiations), and similarly so for every British monarch since James I.

But I agree with you on Confucian conservatism. You can place too much emphasis on the influence of Confucius on Chinese history, even though I think there are valid places where the national creed has had an effect (like in explaining how China fell behind, that's another story).
 
The East Han got a ridiculous poor bad luck...

Their emperors always died young... they are mostly 0/0/0 emperors after the first two... a lot of the time is in regency.. the regency are also mostly 0/0/0 and corrupt.... and of coz the famine does not really help.

I believe that Han can last a lot longer if a few of their emperors can last longer... East Han did not suffer too much from barbarian invasions at that time.. after the West Han banged them really hard.


The early emperors of East Han (particularly the first three) are actually among the most competent emperors in Chinese history; they are also close to the people.

And yes, the really big problem is the fact that they die young.
 
Confucian systems were practiced primarily in China, Korea, and Japan. In China it resulted in four dynasties that approached the three century mark. If you count the Han who instituted it as a single dynasty (admittedly arguable), you have a four-century dynasty right there. In Japan it seems they've only ever had the one imperial dynasty (though Shoguns, blah, blah). But witness Korea, the most consistently Confucian of the three. Korea's preunification dynasties both lasted roughly 700 years, the dynasty that did the unification almost made it to the 1000-year mark, the last two made it 474 and 618 years, and the shortest dynasty was 228 years long! Of course Korea is also closer to the size of European kingdoms, which occasionally did have long dynastic reigns.

Joseon lasted 618 years, while Goryeo lasted 474, as you stated. However, Silla lasted around 600 years post-consolidation, of which only 267 were "post-unification." The record-holder is probably Goguryeo, which arguably lasted well over 700 years if the foundation date is assumed to be closer to 50 BC, instead of the 37 BC date as stated by the Samguk Sagi, as the regional nomenclature first appears in Chinese records in 113 BC. The dates are uncertain before 668, as Goguryeo was consolidated in 37 BC, AD 3, 313-4, 396, and 427, while it was not until the mid-4th century or so that Baekje, Gaya, and Silla fully absorbed the remaining Mahan, Byeonhan, and Jinhan statelets, respectively.

In addition, while Gojoseon was arguably founded in 2333 BC, it probably underwent two main periods of consolidation around 1500 and 700 BC, according to archeological evidence, although it probably remained as a close confederation of various statelets. On the other hand, there is no consensus on how long Buyeo lasted, and the widest range extends from the 5th century BC to AD 494, although it appears in Chinese records in the 3rd century BC, and was greatly weakened soon after Goguryeo first began to expand during the 1st century BC. Goguryeo and Baekje also both incorporated Buyeo's founder (King Dongmyeong) into their state ideologies as well, further blurring the distinctions.

The other three dynasties were the Jin, which lasted around the 3rd-2nd centuries BC before becoming the Samhan (Three Han), Balhae, which existed concurrently with "Unified Silla" during the North-South States Period for 228 years, and Later Baekje, which only lasted 44 years. As a result, Later Baekje was arguably the shortest lasting dynasty.

To sum up, the longest dynasty was Goguryeo, while the longest unified one was Joseon, and Goryeo only lasted 456 years if pre-unification is ignored. Most of the reason for this was that Buyeo, Goguryeo, Baekje, Gaya, and Silla were able to withdraw to their core regions during times of extreme crisis, along with taking advantage of strife between or among other rivals, significantly extending their durations. On the other hand, Goryeo fell earlier than Joseon did because it endured invasions from the Liao, Jurchen, and the Mongols, and eventually collapsed after a coup was staged before a suicidal invasion of the Ming had been carried out. In comparison, Joseon only suffered two major invasions (Japan under Hideyoshi, along with the Manchu), which were collectively less destructive than those of Goryeo, allowing it to remain highly stable for the longest period of time.
 
Top