Liu Bang (Temple Name Gaozu,) was the first Emperor of the Han Dynasty. Had he not established the Han Dynasty, what would have risen in its place? Another Dynasty? Another Period of the Warring States? Or an Earlier Three States Period?
No Liu Bang
- Thread starter Stuyvesant
- Start date
The obvious answer would be Xiang Yu, the Overlord of Western Chu. Chu-Han conflict was a prominent theme after the fall of Qin.
In the lands of Chu, there were a strong sentiment harking back to the old days before the Qin conquest, which had happened just a few decades before. Xiang Yu was a descendant of a famous Chu general who died in the battle against Qin's conquest. Using his military and strategic acumen, he successfully rallied the Chu people and established a short reign before Liu Bang and his own tyranny did him in.
If Western Chu had persisted, I'd imagine that it wouldn't last long either given Xiang Yu's cruel tendency, heavy-fisted governance and relative lack of talents (Partly due to Xiang Yu's own proneness to kill off people who slightly displeased him). If we look back to how Qin fall, Western Chu was probably heading exactly where Qin's going, even without Liu Bang's push. Besides, it is unknown that whether Xiang Yu wanted to establish a new dynasty as we know it, or was just content in being a strong regional power that claimed lordship over all other feudal lords. If things had started to fall apart again, there would likely be widespread rebellions and another shake-up of power.
Agreed on the rebellions part, but I have to voice my suspicions that Xiang Yu would have contented himself with being just a regional hegemon. He seems like the type of person who would have done whatever it took in order to secure his own power (hence the reason a comparison between Western Chu and Qin would be so apt), so it just doesn't seem like his personality would allow him to graciously relinquish power.
Well, he may have an enormous ego and very high ambition, but he probably don't have unification (at least on the level we saw later in early Han) in his mind at the time. His being a member of old nobility, meaning his basically copying of the old feudal model and enfiefing generals after Qin's demise was a given, plus he thought he could placate Liu Bang by demarcating at the Hung Gou, probably showing glimpse of his 'separatist' (if you could call it that) tendency. But you can never know whether he would want to increase centralization at a later point.
Maybe he did, and he may well attempt to build a new dynasty. But he still needed to manage his connections to the old feudal lords, and most importantly, he was ultimately a brutal military dictator, not the kind of ruler who knows talented from mediocre, and the pacifier (one who pacifies, not the one which goes into the mouth
) needed for the people to recuperate after the tyranny of Qin. Unrest was bound to be brewing under his rule.Well, he may have an enormous ego and very high ambition, but he probably don't have unification (at least on the level we saw later in early Han) in his mind at the time. His being a member of old nobility, meaning his basically copying of the old feudal model and enfiefing generals after Qin's demise was a given, plus he thought he could placate Liu Bang by demarcating at the Hung Gou, probably showing glimpse of his 'separatist' (if you could call it that) tendency. But you can never know whether he would want to increase centralization at a later point.
Maybe he did, and he may well attempt to build a new dynasty. But he still needed to manage his connections to the old feudal lords, and most importantly, he was ultimately a brutal military dictator, not the kind of ruler who knows talented from mediocre, and the pacifier (one who pacifies, not the one which goes into the mouth
Liu Bang also enfeoffed generals and relatives as kings too. And he used the names of the old states, which seems pretty much the old feudal model. I assume you mean later Western Han, post-Rebellion of the Seven States, which should serve as a reminder that even if a dynasty starts out decentralized, it can very well end up highly centralized.
That sounds about right. So do you think Xiang Yu had a shot at starting a lasting dynasty after all?
I've been thinking about the ramifications of a victorious or resurgent Chu. For example, do you think without Liu Bang, Confucian thoughts would still gain traction like IOTL? Or would it be Laozi's idea getting credit instead, seeing that he came from Chu and.had bigger support there?
Well, this is a late reply.
Anyways, I would imagine Xiang Yu could create a dynasty that lasts at least as long as the two centuries that Western Han did. Being cruel isn't always a detriment when it comes to dynasties: Zhao Kuangyin came to power in a coup, Zhu Yuanzhang was probably as authoritarian as Stalin, etc. However, I hesitate to say anything with certainty, due to the fact that pretty much all we know about the guy comes from Han Dynasty sources.
I can't say too much about the rest, but I don't think Confucianism was adopted anywhere else in China at this time, right? If Xiang wants to mark a break from Legalism, he could still take it up, but I can't think of any reason at this moment why Xiang wouldn't be a standard Legalist.