DBWI: United China, Balkanized Rome?

Rome, through its history, seems to have been always able to bounce back even if it has experienced numerous periods of disunity, civil wars and even collapses of central government. In contrary to this, China has since the end of Han period stayed almost continually disunited, even though there have been many attempts to unify the whole region, last time during the 20th century. What are reasons for this difference? Could it be reversed?

I know that the enduring Chinese Empire is a sort of cliché here but we have had usually rather interesting discussions about the topic.
 
It always seemed bizarre that with such a long mountain range and a desert that China WAS invaded so often, elsewhere they seem to be natural barriers.

Perhaps a better policy regarding nomads might have paid off, rather than inviting them to settle in parts of the Empire, keep them fighting each other north of the mountains, that way they don't lead to the cultural differences we see even in the Plain of Many Colours (OOC : North China Plain). It wasn't a terrible idea at first glance, giving the North the additional manpower to invade the south and neutering the northern threat at the same time - but then the Tang decided that that wasn't enough and tried to push for the Taklamakan Desert. - Massive overreach that the tribes weren't interested in. That really was the death knell to a united China. If instead they'd just paid some tribute and bribes to keep the tribes fighting each other, the North could have overwhelmed the south in time. Now we have the North in fragments, and The Pearl Republic just the latest iteration of Pearl-River focused countries.

How a united China leads to a divided Rome though goes beyond me. Perhaps flip the strategies? China goes for bribery and distraction, while Rome goes for imported manpower? Maybe have Constantine not convert to Christianity and re-write the Roman civil system - prior to that the civil wars were much more common.
 
Rome is not as monolithic as often percieved. The distinct Latin dialects could count as langauges of their own, and there are many cultural differences between someone in Hispania and someone in Constantinople.

Meanwhile, the cultural barriers between North and South China are more pronounced; even in the South there exists a patchwork of mutually unintellegible languages. The lack of a unifying national religion like in Rome is also a factor: China has everything from non-codified traditional beliefs to Buddhism, Yueism*, Elementalism*, Chinese Hinduism, Taoism and Nestorian Christianity, among countless others. The Roman state is based on the One True Church, One True State principle. That does not exists in China.

*ATL Chinese religions that flourished after the fall of the Tang dynasty.
 

Deleted member 94708

Worth noting that North and South China are both still pretty massive, and Rome is still a fraction of its classical peak, not even having held the city for centuries. The Rome of today may be part of a continuous chain dating all the way back to Romulus and Remus, but it's still limited to Hellas, Anatolia and Bulgaria.

A divided China was probably inevitable given the disastrous attempt to meddle in the politics of the Xianbei. Without that chain of humiliating defeats against the Xianbei back in the 200s, just as Christianity was beginning to take root in Rome, China's probably in a much better position. If nothing else you wouldn't end up with a northern China that became demonstrably and identifiably Khitan and Donghu in their cultural makeup.

OOC: Could we at least attempt to read prior posts before diving in? I haven't seen a DBWI that was even passingly entertaining in months because everyone can't cooperate on world building for five posts in a row...
 
It always seemed bizarre that with such a long mountain range and a desert that China WAS invaded so often, elsewhere they seem to be natural barriers.

Perhaps a better policy regarding nomads might have paid off, rather than inviting them to settle in parts of the Empire, keep them fighting each other north of the mountains, that way they don't lead to the cultural differences we see even in the Plain of Many Colours (OOC : North China Plain). It wasn't a terrible idea at first glance, giving the North the additional manpower to invade the south and neutering the northern threat at the same time - but then the Tang decided that that wasn't enough and tried to push for the Taklamakan Desert. - Massive overreach that the tribes weren't interested in. That really was the death knell to a united China. If instead they'd just paid some tribute and bribes to keep the tribes fighting each other, the North could have overwhelmed the south in time. Now we have the North in fragments, and The Pearl Republic just the latest iteration of Pearl-River focused countries.

How a united China leads to a divided Rome though goes beyond me. Perhaps flip the strategies? China goes for bribery and distraction, while Rome goes for imported manpower? Maybe have Constantine not convert to Christianity and re-write the Roman civil system - prior to that the civil wars were much more common.

That sounds like the Roman idea in the 400s...
 

Deleted member 94708

No culture in history has been as successful in long-term management of peripheral, nomadic cultures (aka. Barbarians) as Rome.

Moreover, its relatively uniform cultural matrix and massive population have enabled it to essentially drown any successful outside invaders in a sea of "Romantic identity". Even the invasion of the "Second Huns" in the early 1200's that left the whole empire excepting Britain under their rule saw them Romanized by 1400 and a Romano-British dynasty taking the throne by 1450.

As @Planet of Hats noted, the last time the Chinese had the cultural prestige among their neighbors to implement the Roman "Let barbarian blood barbarian" method of control was prior to their defeats by the Xianbei in the 200's. While the Su nearly managed to restore imperial control over modern Luoyang and its hinterlands by 550, it was very much their last gasp before the Yue migrations permanently sundered the cultures of the Yellow River and Changjiang River valleys.

Without the loss of control in the North it is entirely possible that we see a unified China expand southward rather than being besieged from that direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Note that getting a dis-unified Rome and a unified China are really mostly two separate PODs.

I write mostly, because with a more effective imperial Chinese policy towards handling their nomads, maybe the nomads would have gone to the western end of the Eurasian steppe and caused trouble!

But even if you don't have various Turkish and Mongoloid nomads showing up at the Danube, you could have a POD where Rome has more problems dealing with the nomads in the Saharan and Arabian deserts, which is almost better since they can get to the Mediterranean. The ability to use that inland sea for communications was a big driver in keeping the Roman Empire fairly united, so just cutting that would do the trick. So would the Persians if they had established themselves in Syria and Egypt permanently.

The Roman Empire actually divided themselves several times, and at one point most of the western part was being governed by German tribal leaders subservient to the imperial government in name only, but repeatedly one half always reasserted control over the second. So I think more pressure from nomads, before gunpower solved the problem, would be the key.

Maybe something could be done with the inability of the nomads to assimilate Chinese culture even when they tried too.
 
I seem to remember that there were some nomads who headed for the Pontic Steppe, but most of them never really got further than Dacia before being pushed back. A lot of the population of modern-day Taurica is influenced by that - the people there are an admixture of Romanized Greeks, Crimean Goths and migrating Turcomanni,[1] and they have a really distinct culture because of it. And of course there were the Second Huns.

That said, China was a much more tempting target for the eastern Turcomanni and other nomads after the Xianbei Events put so much of the Yellow River in the hands of like-minded people. Maybe if a lot of those cultures didn't gradually settle down in China, you could see a lot more nomads continuing to roam the steppe and wander west. It was pretty tempting for many of these nomads to go over the wall and settle in the north, especially given China's tendency to just settle tribes of nomads wholesale.


[1] Turkic peoples.
 
Balkanizing Rome is impossible due to the different doctrines of public law.

China was always made up of different kingdoms, only loosely controlled by the so-called emperor. The kings were nothing more than nominal vassals of the emperor, often fighting against each other or even against the empire. Within their kingdom, the kings were absolute monarchs, checked only by tradition and their advisors.
Rome however is a republic, even if it was ruled by a emperor until recently. Even if the emperor ruled without senatorial or popular control, the emperor was legally nothing more than a simple magistrate of the republic. The Roman Emperor couldn't "divide" his empire among his sons (since it wasn't his private property), he could only appoint his sons emperors of different parts of the united empire. Even if there were, for military or administrative purposes, multiple emperors, there was always only one Roman people and one Roman Republic.

Another reason is geography. The core of the Roman Empire is the Mediterranean Sea and its coasts. Both capitals of the Empire, Rome and Constantinople, as well as the most important cities like Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria or Massilia are located on the sea. If it wasn't for the Mediterranean, which facilitated trade and troops movements, Rome may well have fallen to the opposing interests of its provinces. Never forget how close Rome came to balkanization when during the industrialization its economic focus shifted towards the north! Discussions about secession from the "backward agricultural south" were common in Colonia, Treverorum, Londinium or Eburacum as late as 1950!
China however has no such uniting sea. It has rivers, that's right, but they're linking only the west with the east, not the north with south. Therefore, they are often borders between northern and southern kingdoms, and the cultural differences between northern and southern China are very distinctive.

Add to that diplomatic reasons (Japan, Mongolia and India always schemed to prevent a Chinese reuinfication, while no European powers could ever have balkanized Rome) and cultural reasons (the different languages of China compared to the different dialects of Latin) and you understand that the balkanization of China was multicausal, but somewhat inevitable.
 
I just realized this isn't an AHC. We have been focusing on the reasons why the Latin and Greek world stayed united, while China fragmented, but no speculation on the effects.

Many historians have addressed this question, and there is an argument that the famous conservatism of Roman culture and politics was facilitated by continued central control. In contrast, the competition between the Chinese kingdoms fostered innovation. This is the explanation often given why the western end of Eurasia kept lagging the eastern end in technology.

There would have been considerable butterflies in the Western Hemisphere. Notoriously, once the Kingdom of Vinland became established, the Romans started sending expeditions to the Western hemisphere that established a series of provinces in Mexico and the neighboring islands. But the Emperors were more interested in maintaining control of these areas than expanding them, and reined in over-ambitious governors. In the meantime, once the Chinese kingdoms started sending fleets across the Pacific, they wound up dominating the southern continent.

Now reverse this, and a unified Chinese empire would have probably established colonies on the Pacific Coast of both continents, but not got beyond the high mountain ranges paralleling the coasts. There would have been much more substantial European settlement. But maybe the Chinese would have sent out expeditions earlier and the Europeans later. A timeline would feature really substantial butterlfies in this part of the world.
 
It always seemed bizarre that with such a long mountain range and a desert that China WAS invaded so often, elsewhere they seem to be natural barriers.

Perhaps a better policy regarding nomads might have paid off, rather than inviting them to settle in parts of the Empire, keep them fighting each other north of the mountains, that way they don't lead to the cultural differences we see even in the Plain of Many Colours (OOC : North China Plain). It wasn't a terrible idea at first glance, giving the North the additional manpower to invade the south and neutering the northern threat at the same time - but then the Tang decided that that wasn't enough and tried to push for the Taklamakan Desert. - Massive overreach that the tribes weren't interested in. That really was the death knell to a united China. If instead they'd just paid some tribute and bribes to keep the tribes fighting each other, the North could have overwhelmed the south in time. Now we have the North in fragments, and The Pearl Republic just the latest iteration of Pearl-River focused countries.

How a united China leads to a divided Rome though goes beyond me. Perhaps flip the strategies? China goes for bribery and distraction, while Rome goes for imported manpower? Maybe have Constantine not convert to Christianity and re-write the Roman civil system - prior to that the civil wars were much more common.

Sounds about right, yeah.

Rome is not as monolithic as often percieved. The distinct Latin dialects could count as langauges of their own, and there are many cultural differences between someone in Hispania and someone in Constantinople.

Meanwhile, the cultural barriers between North and South China are more pronounced; even in the South there exists a patchwork of mutually unintellegible languages. The lack of a unifying national religion like in Rome is also a factor: China has everything from non-codified traditional beliefs to Buddhism, Yueism*, Elementalism*, Chinese Hinduism, Taoism and Nestorian Christianity, among countless others. The Roman state is based on the One True Church, One True State principle. That does not exists in China.

*ATL Chinese religions that flourished after the fall of the Tang dynasty.

And certainly much more so here in Hesperia where we have many of the Indigenous languages still spoken on a regular basis.

OOC: Could we at least attempt to read prior posts before diving in? I haven't seen a DBWI that was even passingly entertaining in months because everyone can't cooperate on world building for five posts in a row...

OOC: Yeah, it's one of the reasons why I've come to the conclusion why the most workable DBWIs are always "controlled" to an extent.
 

Deleted member 94708

Many historians have addressed this question, and there is an argument that the famous conservatism of Roman culture and politics was facilitated by continued central control. In contrast, the competition between the Chinese kingdoms fostered innovation. This is the explanation often given why the western end of Eurasia kept lagging the eastern end in technology.


This is not the historical consensus, not really. India was just as divided as China and fell far behind in terms of organization, though not really technologically. By 1850 the Chinese states, particularly the Southern Chinese states, were organizationally superior to any other area on the planet with the exception of Dongzhou, which is an offshoot of Southern China itself. By organization, I mean to say the innovations in finance, taxation, industrial mass production, etc. which made modern society possible. They were almost all developed in China, though Rome and its periphery occasionally did contribute; the concept of a shareholder venture arose from Roman merchants undertaking the very dangerous journey to the East for spices and trade goods, for example. In any case, to get back to the original point, by 1750 the Chinese states had higher per capita productivity than Rome or India, were better able to extract taxes from said productivity, had slightly superior weapons and vastly superior power projection due to better naval technologies, and were politically more cohesive and more democratic than Rome. That said, Rome never fell behind to such a degree that anyone was able to colonize it in the way that it and the Chinese states carved up the rest of the planet.


There's no good consensus explanation for why China pulled ahead or Rome fell behind; the closest thing to a consensus that I've heard is that the Chinese, because of the geography of the region and their population density, were forced to develop organizational and technological methods of supporting a large population, which at some point became a self-sustaining process which sought better methods for the sake of doing so and led to the modern scientific method. Additionally, because of their location at the end of the Eurasian continent, they could not rely on trade and a mercantile middleman status as a source of wealth. Meanwhile, while Rome had many of the same traits, it's fundamental political continuity led it to a series of incremental improvements in agriculture and technology which culminated in it being caught in a middle-productivity trap and foreclosed many options which were open to more fragmented and chaotic Greater China. It wasn't until the mid-18th century that Rome was really shocked out of its lethargy by the sudden appearance of Chinese "trading fleets" which were sufficiently well armed to take on Roman naval detachments in the New World. Even then, its modernization proceeded in fits and starts, hindered by imperial politics and the safety of the Eternal City.
 
Rome however is a republic, even if it was ruled by a emperor until recently. Even if the emperor ruled without senatorial or popular control, the emperor was legally nothing more than a simple magistrate of the republic. The Roman Emperor couldn't "divide" his empire among his sons (since it wasn't his private property), he could only appoint his sons emperors of different parts of the united empire. Even if there were, for military or administrative purposes, multiple emperors, there was always only one Roman people and one Roman Republic.

Erm, what about Constantine?
 
His sons were only emperors of parts of the united empire.

True, but the Constantinians were infamous for their sibling rivalries. Constantine II hated Constans, and Constantius was jealous of them both. Any 'unity' was therefore purely symbolic. So while the Empire was still technically unified, their was no personal union to hold the partitions together.
 
Top