The same reason why they decided not to explore the east Sino-Centrism, only under the Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing did the China even decide to take over the area that is Tibet. They only sent a military expedition to the west under Ban Chao during the Han Dynasty, so I don't think China would even want to expand to west.
The same reason why they decided not to explore the east Sino-Centrism, only under the Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing did the China even decide to take over the area that is Tibet. They only sent a military expedition to the west under Ban Chao during the Han Dynasty, so I don't think China would even want to expand to west.
OK. Could the Chinese, going west, have beat the Russians, coming east? Possibly. But then you'd need Chinese equivalents of Cossacks, only partly under central control - and as others have pointed out, that wasn't consistent with the way the Chinese empire was run.
Why did the Chinese rulers think that way? What is the philosophical basis for it? Both the Russians and various Europeans were comfortable with military/commercial commands where it could take well over a year for a round trip message to happen. What was different in the mind of a chinese emperor compared to a European king? I can see it not being worth the trouble of having a Chinese Africa Company, but to have a basic philosophy insisting on strong central control of things so far away seems odd.
A single mission with that kind of lag time? sure.Why did the Chinese rulers think that way? What is the philosophical basis for it? Both the Russians and various Europeans were comfortable with military/commercial commands where it could take well over a year for a round trip message to happen. What was different in the mind of a chinese emperor compared to a European king? I can see it not being worth the trouble of having a Chinese Africa Company, but to have a basic philosophy insisting on strong central control of things so far away seems odd.
That indeed did happen under the Mongols.