PODs for a United Europe
- Thread starter quixo
- Start date
And none of those amount to anything like the Yellow and Yangtze in terms of how many people they support, do they?
Having a lot more going for them than food production doesn't mean that their role here isn't an asset to being of assistance in Chinese unification, which is the point to mentioning that aspect as if it was the defining characteristic. Not to dismiss the other aspects.
A freak of terrain plus that attitude will go a lot further than that attitude in circumstances where such ambitions can be resisted as was the case in Europe with the emperors from Charlemagne on wanted to believe they were successors to the Western Roman Emperor, with decreasing accuracy in terms of how much of the Western-Central parts they controlled despite believing that they had a legitimate claim.
Or hell how the ERE saw itself as the one and only Roman Empire, but Justinian I is pretty unique for trying to rebuild the whole Empire.
Its not as if there was never ever an idea of dominating Europe, but it kept failing over and over again, versus in China succeeding over and over again.
Why is Eastern Europe being excluded? Its part of the region called Europe as much as the West.
At least Scandinavia and the Islands can be deemed peripheral, but excluding a fair sized chunk of the European world - and its not as if in any other discussion we'd count what became Hungary and Poland or the Balkans+Greece as nonEuropean (different culturally than other regions, but so what?) as nonEuropean.
Whatever the case, the Yellow and Yangtze alluvial plains are the primary agricultural region of China - as you say not much bigger than France and Germany combined - and they supported a population which exceeded that of Northwestern Europe several times over for thousands of years. Clearly, some difference exists which allows the former to produce so much more food - doubtless better state organization helped a great deal but the land was more productive too.
Talking about European agriculture in a modern context is pointless in this case, but either way my comment was directed at the poster broadly equating the North European and North China plains as potential cradles of political power. The parts of the North European plain northeast of the Rhine were much less suited for agriculture than those in France and the Rhineland, mostly due to the climate. These parts of Europe retained a low carrying capacity until the introduction of new crops and techniques in the medieval and pre-modern periods.
And how were they able to do this so easily time and again, while Europe failed just as often. Think of all the powerful European states claiming to be the legitimate successors to the Roman Empire - every one was stopped short of this objective. Am I to believe it's just coincidence, or are those difficult little historical factors like geography and demographics at work here. I don't see why their impact is so hard to accept when it's so obviously present.
EDIT: looks like most of my points got ninja'd by Elfwine.
scholar
Banned
Actually, they support a hell of a lot more. As I have stated already quite a lot of times the Yellow River and the Yangze river provide little in terms of agricultural production. Those are channels and smaller rivers. Those major rivers are used for commerce, war, and fishing.
The Yangze and Yellow River's agricultural benefits to China were pathetic when compared to rivers and channels production. This is what I don't get, why the hell are you saying that the Yellow River and the Yangze river lead to the unity of China based on the food they made when they were almost totally commercial and military assets. Please, stop entertaining the modern notion that the yangze and yellow river were used for major agricultural production. Those were their tributaries and channels and more minor rivers. The reason why those rivers were so important was because of transportation, commerce, and war.
There were no freaks of terrain...
And besides, there is a difference from claiming to be a successor state and claiming to be that state. There was only China, Tianxia, all under heaven. There was nothing else. Anyone claiming to be your rival had to be eliminated or your claim on being ruler of all under heaven was nominal only. It's why they never stopped waging wars even when it bankrupt them and lead to their dynasty being replaced. Now each Dynasty is a very distinctive entity from any other Dynasty, but they all claim to be the same nation. This isn't a case of Eastern Rome just not recognizing Charlemagne. This would be Eastern Rome taking an army and spending all its money and resources on destroying Charlemagne.
Eastern Rome, by and large, saw itself as Rome. It didn't have to conquer lands that they saw little value in or being too much trouble for their worth. All rivals claiming to be the Empire of Rome were called Kings of their respective lands instead. Rome had an elitist irrelevance towards them. That's basically it. There was never any drive to reconquer the Roman Empire apart from maybe a few decades in its entire existence. It was much too busy fighting Persians, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols to care about much else.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the rivers themselves were used for agriculture. After all, it's hard to plant crops on running water.
Whenever a river is being used for agriculture, it's by tributaries and channels and irrigation. This is universally the case. When one says "the Yangtze and Yellow rivers provided the means for massive agricultural production" one is of course talking about the alluvial plains and not just about the main course of the river... It's the exact same principle as veins and arteries in the human body: the vessels themselves do not directly transport the blood to the cells - that is done by diffusion outwards on branches of capillaries. But at the same time, without the larger blood vessel no flow and diffusion of blood into the tissue would be possible.
scholar
Banned
Tangerine I'll respond to you in a bit.
But I just want to remind everyone here that the reason why China was so much more able to produce more food than Europe was based on the fact that the climate was so much warmer and that the empire was basically at peace. When this doesn't happen the population shrinks drastically. 60 Million of the Han at its height becomes 5-17 Million after just 80 years of warfare.
But I just want to remind everyone here that the reason why China was so much more able to produce more food than Europe was based on the fact that the climate was so much warmer and that the empire was basically at peace. When this doesn't happen the population shrinks drastically. 60 Million of the Han at its height becomes 5-17 Million after just 80 years of warfare.
Not saying this is realistic, but... If the Caliphate conquered everything north of the Mediterranean and everything west of the Urals, would that not be a United Europe? Culture doesn't matter, a United Europe is the goal of the thread.
The OP also excludes Russia.
scholar
Banned
Production directly from the Yellow River and Yangze is rather minimal compared to regional rivers that stretch across the entirety of China. Those two main rivers are almost always used for transport, commerce, and military purposes while smaller, lesser, rivers and tributaries were used for transport and commerce, yes, but mostly for agriculture.
Tangerine beat me to it on this, but I want to point out that those rivers being important for transportation, commerce, and war doesn't equal being irrelevant in that regard. A river, including its tributaries and channels, can do both after all.
Just the conspicuous absence of anything like a either river-based civilizations or enormous plains dominated by horsemen as a basis for European unity.
Which is fundamentally contrary to everything pre and post Rome...and reinforcing the arguments of those arguing China was culturally uniform as relates to this and drawn towards unity. Unless that's the point.
And we're arguing on what again?
Xwarq said:
I'd count that as a united Europe, if more "Europe conquered by someone else" kind of united.
Still, it does qualify as uniting the (sub)continent we call Europe.
Better to compare Mediterranean Civilization and Chinese and their ability to unify than European and Chinese I think. The Mediterranean is a far greater geographic factor towards unity than anything that China posses. However the rise of Islam split the Mediterranean world into two unremittingly hostile religious camps. If Islam is butterflied away I think that there's a much better chance for a civilization to reunify the Mediterranean basin and be able to project power further into the European hinterland.
Let me put it this way. Justinian reconquered how much? At what expense? And it took how long for the Lombards to mess that up?
I wouldn't say a Mediterranean reconquest is entirely impossible, but that does have to be noted.
This wouldn't just be a problem for Justinian and even kindly events don't eliminate all the issues - let alone the issues with holding it securely enough to move from the Mediterranean to the rest of Iberia to Gaul to Germania (using Roman terms because, well, the polity in a position to reconquer was a Roman polity).
AS for unremittingly hostile religious camps: The ERE seems to have been able to work with Muslim neighbors about as well as it worked with anyone else, which is to say it fought them regularly but not with the implacable can't-stand-your-very-existence attitude the West was so good at developing.
But its not as if everything was going perfectly and then suddenly the plague came out of nowhere or that such a plague wouldn't occur sooner or latter anyway. Those things happened for their own reasons and often at inconvenient times.
A major reconquest is a very tough project given that Persia is eager to nibble at the frontier with or without a plague.
scholar
Banned
Your missing the point, one that I've been trying to explain over and over and over again.
Whatever agriculture came from those two rivers and their direct tributaries and channels is minor in comparison to the food production gained from smaller rivers, lakes, channels, etc.
France to Poland is all rivers and all plains. We have the Alps and the Pyrenees. Two mountain ranges. We have some Balkan mountains too. China has mountain ranges too, they were not as high, but the mountains were just as good a buffer as they were for Europe and the lands they protected was very valuable and able to support wealthy nations apart from almost everything else.
And China was not dominated by Horsemen, that's a major misconception. Cavalry was important among the central plains, the northern steppe, and Liang region. Cavalry was worthless in Southern China.
About as culturally uniform as Europe was. We are talking about a Government structure and how legitimacy of that is viewed. That is shared by almost all European powers, its just China's perception of it was different.
Your missing the point, one that I've been trying to explain over and over and over again.
Whatever agriculture came from those two rivers and their direct tributaries and channels is minor in comparison to the food production gained from smaller rivers, lakes, channels, etc.
Then a suggestion would be to post detailed, specific information backed up by reasonable sources. You haven't done that.
Or you can keep repeating the same point over and over and over again.
For example, although just a wikipedia map, it shows you where most early Chinese sites are found:
Your missing the point, one that I've been trying to explain over and over and over again.
Whatever agriculture came from those two rivers and their direct tributaries and channels is minor in comparison to the food production gained from smaller rivers, lakes, channels, etc.
Again, whether or not this is true, the North China Plain dominated by the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers is one of the world's best agricultural areas. The actual direct source of that food production in the area is inconsequential.
In short, this isn't relevant to the debate...
Your missing the point, one that I've been trying to explain over and over and over again.
Whatever agriculture came from those two rivers and their direct tributaries and channels is minor in comparison to the food production gained from smaller rivers, lakes, channels, etc.
I'm going to let Tangerine and his map answer this.
Rivers, forested plains, and hills and other such obstacles.
http://www.kidsmaps.com/geography/images/fullsized/europe_topography_map1.png
I'm sure there are better maps, but this is not "all plains" in a very useful way.
Its far from being just the Alps, Balkans, and Pyrenees.
I'm not saying it was. I'm saying that's something Europe conspicuously lacks - one of the ways you can easily get a huge area covered in one state.
A government structure based on a cultural idea that there is no such thing as a legitimate "(Region)" as opposed to All China Must Belong to You Or You're Not Doing It Right.
This has to indicate some pretty serious cultural tendencies towards unity and cohesiveness even if the cultures in north and south (and smaller divisions) are distinct, the idea that "all under Heaven" IS both is apparently stronger and closer to universal than any such thing was in Europe.
Which I'm not sure if you're arguing with or not.
Last edited:
scholar
Banned
My argument has never been about China not being formed around the Yellow River, just that for China itself, when it has expanded to the extent of the warring states era, that the amount of food production from those two rivers were minimal in comparison to the whole. I wish I could throw half a dozen internet sources at you, but I've only got Books and I don't even know where they are.Then a suggestion would be to post detailed, specific information backed up by reasonable sources. You haven't done that.
Or you can keep repeating the same point over and over and over again.
For example, although just a wikipedia map, it shows you where most early Chinese sites are found:
So, instead, I'll put forward a map, it's a bit wrong, but it's good enough for my purposes.
All of those states, in spite of their size, are have been roughly on even terms for centuries. Do you notice a problem with the idea that it is the Yellow and Yangze river that provide most of the food and that leads towards unification? The Yellow River cuts through Qi and Wei and provides a border between Wei/Zhao and Qin. The Yangze river is just a southern River that stretches great lengths, but most of the land around it is inhospitable swampland or populated by rather hostile natives. The Qin doesn't even bother to include most of the rivers in its lands, instead it just grabs what it needs for commerce, transport, and military applications with Chu. Once more, the Qin conquered the two states that were in the southern lands they now control, which had the benefit of the Yangze and wide vast mountain ranges to the north. Instead of the Yangze, the Huai, Wei, and Han rivers are where most of the cities are located around. This is because those three rivers were actually more agriculturally productive at the time. Wuxi is based around a lake Tai. Ba and Shu are centered around the fertile valley region of Sichuan, not around the Yangze river.
Instead of going through a list of all the cities and how they are connected and important you should at least notice that all of the cities are far more spread out than the initial settlements where we don't even know where most cities are.
Actually, the North China plain was not dominated by the Yangze river. Which is why I'm having such a hard time with this. The Yangze river is surrounded my mountains, swamps, and jungles. And, the actual food we get out of it is directly related to this debate. If you are arguing that it is the best agricultural areas in the world, it actually matters if this was true in the past. It was not. Especially the Yangze, until the age the Empire of Wu, and even then it wouldn't be fully utilized until until the Northern and Southern Dynastic period. SO... it is extremely relevant.
You don't think that this was equal, or even far worse, in China?
China had well over ten thousand rivers, thick jungles and forests, hills, mountains, deserts, etc.
Name all the major obstacles apart from forests and rivers from France to Poland.
Actually there is a well defined analog, the only reason why it doesn't work as well in Europe is because the climate is different, food production isn't as high.
It most definitely supports unity, but if Europe were to adopt a similar idea then there is really no way for Europe to remain divided forever. In Europe there was never really the option of taking over a monarchy, taking all its land, and banishing or duking the King. Instead it was because that they were equal monarchies a Kingdom or Empire could lose badly but only really lose a small amount of land. There was no drive to destroy countries that opposed you or claimed to be your equal, in fact they readily recognized them as such. Instead they committed to war for prestige, strategic lands, and old claims. This was an obstacle towards any unification of the continent, no one really wanted to unite it. The few that did failed miserably.
My argument has never been about China not being formed around the Yellow River, just that for China itself, when it has expanded to the extent of the warring states era, that the amount of food production from those two rivers were minimal in comparison to the whole. I wish I could throw half a dozen internet sources at you, but I've only got Books and I don't even know where they are.
Speaking for myself (Tangerine's argument may diverge from mine here) the point is that the Yellow River provided a base to form a large "Chinese" state around which would serve as a base for unification. The Rhine for instance not so much.
Not that China, as a whole, is dependent on the Yellow and Yangtze for food and thus he who controls the rivers, controls the food supply.
I don't think that China is struggling with this and the conspicuous absence of any broad wide open plains or river lands or any other such factors that would make it easy to take a given area as a strong conqueror.
Did you look at the topographical map, or are we going to have to get into an argument on what counts as "major" because "significant enough to foster local power centers as opposed to a wide sprawling state between France and Poland" is not good enough?
And that it is considerably more rugged than the kind of wide open plains of say, southern Russia or the middle of the United States (the so-called Great Plains). Not rugged to the point of uncrossable, but rugged enough to divide.
You don't need high food production for wide open plains to be easily overrun by lots of horsemen, but you need more wide open plains than Europe had/has. See for instance the Cumans to the east.
As for Europe remaining divided forever: Yeah. Right. Sure. We'll just ignore all the issues with conquering all of Europe that are stumbling blocks even for the Roman Empire or someone wanting to reconstruct said Empire and assume ideology will triumph over reality.
Having the different small proto-states able to maintain their independence played more of a role in why France to Poland isn't one empire than a lack of desire to control more.
"Europe was different in that each of the rival forces was able to gain access to the new military techniques, so that no single power ever possessed the decisive edge. The services of the Swiss and other mercenaries, were on offer to anyone who was able to pay for them. There was no single center for the production of crossbwos, or for that of cannon - whether of the earlier bronze guns or the later, cheaper cast-iron artillery; instead such armaments were being made clsoe to the ore deposits on the Weald, in central Europe, in Malaga, in Milan, in Liege, and later in Sweden. Similarly, the proliferation of shipbuilding skills in various ports ranging from the Baltict o the Black Sea made it extremely difficult or any one coutnry to monopolize maritime power, which in turn helped prevent the conquest and elimination of rival centers of armaments production lying across the sea."
The "different" is compared to Japan and (Mogul) India specifically, along with unnamed "elsewhere"; and Muscovy is offered as another example of "how great states could be fashioned by leaders who secured the firearms and the cannon with which to compel all rivals to obedience."
Presumably, China has less of this, or no amount of commitment to the idea of All Under Heaven would have been able to (re)absorb all the other competitors, time after time. The Habsburgs put forth a century and a half or so into their "bid for mastery" - surely if it was possible to impose authority as they wished without a major POD it would have happened.
Saying without a major POD because "but what kind of POD would actually tip the scales in their favor for their big goals?" is hard to answer. Unification is challenging (in China, India, Japan, England, Germany, China...anywhere that has fused together separate states into one for any length of time).
Speaking of China, if we're comparing it to Europe in terms of...well, anything related to this, what is All Under Heaven for the bulk of the period since there has been such a concept as the One True State?
That is, when we refer to "China being united", do we just mean whatever was held by the last dynasty of "all under heaven" as good enough?
Just wondering, since China's expansion of the years has meant that you could control a truly formidable area and fall short of "All China", just as the Roman Empire did in regards to "all Europe".
Last edited: