Was any Chinese dynasty as impressive as Ancient Rome at its peak?

Maoistic

Banned
That's a pretty silly comparison because they weren't even the same Huns in any meaningful sense. All it really tells us is that China had nothing resembling the Germanic nations on their border.
I don't know about you, but the peoples of Central, Northern and South Asia like the Di, the Rong, the Xianyu, among others of the Zhou and Han times appear to me to be just like the Germanics the Romans faced.
 
Angus Maddison in his "The World Economy: A Millenial Perspective", p. 261, puts Han China's GDP in the year 0 at higher than that of all of Europe, basically the Roman Empire. Granted, Maddison's definition of "China" is rather doubtful as are his numbers about Europe for that year, but I think this is enough to show that Han China and pre-Constantinian Rome had about the same GDP, both in general and per capita, meaning that their "scale + division of labour + mobility of the extractive and trade economy and in bulk state engineering and in urbanisation of society" was very much the same.

Isn't that just a function of assumptions of higher population and universally low GDP/capita rates though, among the vast bulk of the population, and that they were fairly insensitive to the factors I've mentioned, prior to the modern era?

How? Nothing of note was developed by the Antigonids and Seleucids. Pergamon developed parchment if I'm not wrong, but what did it do other than that? The most innovative is Ptolemaic Egypt with the development of small steam engines and automatas, but when you have blast furnaces and paper making for the Chinese, and aqueducts for the Romans, it is hard to say Ptolemaic Egypt was more innovative.

IRC, the Hellenistic world saw the origins of (in West Eurasia); watermills, wheel/screw operated presses, shipbuilding, weaponry (development of new forms of catapults, ballistas, siege towers), chain drives, lighthouses. I'll freely admit this is a little impressionistic (and perhaps superficial) though, and not based on any kind of systematic review.
 
By that logic, neither did the deposition of Chinese dynasties.

Yet, the states totally disintegrated during periods of disunity, reforming afterward. If, say, the crisis of the third century ended with the Palmyreme Empire re-uniting the Roman Empire, I’d say you had a point. But it didn’t. The political center held, for 1200 years.
 
In terms of how the empire’s organized however,I have to say that China wins hands down 100% of the time.The Chinese bureaucracy was much better organized and structured than the Roman one.To my knowledge,the Roman government relied much more on people with no official government offices like freedslaves and the emperor or magistrate’s associates to help govern the empire much more than China did.
 
Last edited:
May I present to you the Four Barbarians? A lot of people believe that the Chinese have always been fighting themselves,but this is an anachronistic belief sometimes supported by the PRC for the sake of racial ‘harmony’.The truth is that most non-Chinese have been vanquished and assimilated.

How is this relevant? This is some level of analysis, you know? We had generic barbarians and you had generic barbarians, ergo, directly comparable! (despite being centuries apart). I meant specifically 5th-6th c. Germans. They were the ones that were able to follow up and take advantage of the Roman disintegration. China at the time of the Xiongnu had no real equivalent.

But even if you all insist: the (European) Huns were no more successful against the Romans than the Xiongnu against Han anyway. Even that way the comparison doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
How is this relevant? This is some level of analysis, you know? We had generic barbarians and you had generic barbarians, ergo, directly comparable! (despite being centuries apart). I meant specifically 5th-6th c. Germans. They were the ones that were able to follow up and take advantage of the Roman disintegration. China at the time of the Xiongnu had no real equivalent.

But even if you all insist: the (European) Huns were no more successful against the Romans than the Xiongnu against Han anyway. Even that way the comparison doesn't work.
They had that as well.
 

Those are quite clearly post-Xiongnu states that formed long after the main threat had self-liquidated, not things that pre- and post-dated the "comparison point."

Seriously, all you're saying is, "both Empires had some state formation happening along their borders." That's all this means. And yes, it's correct, but so what?

Needless to say, even this isn't a particularly favourable comparison for China, because most of the country was occupied by various foreign peoples for centuries afterwards by the "equivalents" of the "Germans".

I literally see no point in this exercise.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Isn't that just a function of assumptions of higher population and universally low GDP/capita rates though, among the vast bulk of the population, and that they were fairly insensitive to the factors I've mentioned, prior to the modern era?

They both had the same amount of population, with just a difference of a few million more or less. GDP per capita is just the division of the GDP by the amount of population. What you seem to be talking about is wealth distribution, which was indeed very low and badly spread in both empires as far as I know. So in the end, both China and Rome were very much the same in both GDP and GDP per capita, meaning their manufacturing capacity and productivity were the same.

IRC, the Hellenistic world saw the origins of (in West Eurasia); watermills, wheel/screw operated presses, shipbuilding, weaponry (development of new forms of catapults, ballistas, siege towers), chain drives, lighthouses. I'll freely admit this is a little impressionistic (and perhaps superficial) though, and not based on any kind of systematic review.

Saying the "origins" sounds like something a 19th century historian would say, and almost all that you listed preceded the Hellenistic empires. Han China had all those things as well with the exception of lighthouses and maybe screw drivers (but then, seeing their massive canal building and irrigation projects, they should at least have the equivalent), and in any case, I'm pretty sure that the lighthouses were something completely theoretical and never actualised.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Yet, the states totally disintegrated during periods of disunity, reforming afterward. If, say, the crisis of the third century ended with the Palmyreme Empire re-uniting the Roman Empire, I’d say you had a point. But it didn’t. The political center held, for 1200 years.

There was no central authority during the third century crisis, the establishment of the Tetrarchy is a different state from the Principate, and the Tetrarchy itself was fully replaced by Constantine. The political center in Rome also didn't survive since it was overthrown by Alaric in the late 5th century, while the political center in Byzantium was replaced with the overthrowing of Justinian II. The only thing that remained was institutional elements from prior administrations, which also happened in China where the dynasties kept the same institutions as the prior ones, but keeping the same institutions doesn't mean the governments weren't overthrown. The point is that there is no political continuity, even if there is reformation.
 
If I knew more about Chinese military history, I could speak more authoritatively, but I think its a slight point in Rome’s favor that they maintained political continuity for ~1200 years (being slightly arbitrary, but Augustus to the fourth crusade), in no small part to their military flexibility.

If you're going to count the Byzantium of the Fourth Crusade as the same entity as Augustan Rome, I think you'd have to count Republican and Monarchical Rome as the same entity, too, making the continuity more like 1,900 years for the Romans.
 
There was no central authority during the third century crisis, the establishment of the Tetrarchy is a different state from the Principate, and the Tetrarchy itself was fully replaced by Constantine. The political center in Rome also didn't survive since it was overthrown by Alaric in the late 5th century, while the political center in Byzantium was replaced with the overthrowing of Justinian II. The only thing that remained was institutional elements from prior administrations, which also happened in China where the dynasties kept the same institutions as the prior ones, but keeping the same institutions doesn't mean the governments weren't overthrown. The point is that there is no political continuity, even if there is reformation.
I’d say there were four distinctive breaks in Chinese Imperial history.The fall of Qin was a break.The Sui conquest of Southern Chen was a break.The fall of Southern Song was a break.The Fall of Ming was also a break.
 
There was no central authority during the third century crisis, the establishment of the Tetrarchy is a different state from the Principate, and the Tetrarchy itself was fully replaced by Constantine. The political center in Rome also didn't survive since it was overthrown by Alaric in the late 5th century, while the political center in Byzantium was replaced with the overthrowing of Justinian II. The only thing that remained was institutional elements from prior administrations, which also happened in China where the dynasties kept the same institutions as the prior ones, but keeping the same institutions doesn't mean the governments weren't overthrown. The point is that there is no political continuity, even if there is reformation.

You're simply incorrect.

The government in Rome continued through the various usurpations as each dynasty ended. The Senate still met and was the repository of legitimacy and jurisprudence. This continued even in the Crisis of the Third Century, as it was the Emperors who were recognized by the Senate that re-unified the Empire (and, had a Gallic Emperor done it, then they would not have been legitimate until the Senate recognized them as such). That one of those Emperors then went on to totally re-organize the Empire into the Tetrarchy is entirely irrelevant to political continuity. That is not to say nobody realized there was a big change going on, they certainly did. By the time Alaric sacked Rome, the political center had moved, and Rome was just a museum piece. I'm so unimpressed by the idea that Justinian II's overthrow was something special that I don't even know how to address it. The only thing special about him was that he reclaimed his position.

I have a hard time accepting a similar degree of political continuity in China, given how many times the empire broke up into independent states, and how, during those periods, there was either no Emperor, or multiple Emperors, all of whom could bring themselves to engage their counterparts. Even without that, the Yuan, even if acknowledged as a legitimate dynasty, is most certainly a political break as they were an external power that totally conquered China from the outside. The best parallel I can imagine is if the Carolingians were able to unite the Roman Empire, strictly through military means (even the Latin Empire could claim a better political continuity than Charlemagne).

If you're going to count the Byzantium of the Fourth Crusade as the same entity as Augustan Rome, I think you'd have to count Republican and Monarchical Rome as the same entity, too, making the continuity more like 1,900 years for the Romans.

I'm dealing with a guy that thinks that overthrowing a single Emperor is a complete political break. One step at a time, even if I do agree with you.
 

Maoistic

Banned
The government in Rome continued through the various usurpations as each dynasty ended.

So what? The point is that Rome's governments were overthrown, and it's not the same government when it receives drastic overhauls, as happened with the Tetrarchy which is not the same system instituted by Augustus nor the same dynasty.


The Senate still met and was the repository of legitimacy and jurisprudence.

The various state institutions of China also continued working after the overthrowing of dynasties as well. Why do you think they had overall the same structure?


This continued even in the Crisis of the Third Century, as it was the Emperors who were recognized by the Senate that re-unified the Empire (and, had a Gallic Emperor done it, then they would not have been legitimate until the Senate recognized them as such).

Keyword is reunify. If it had to be reunified is because there was a break. And it so happens that Rome's central government, which wasn't governed by Augustus' dynasty either, wasn't recognised by the various states that broke off during this period.

That one of those Emperors then went on to totally re-organize the Empire into the Tetrarchy is entirely irrelevant to political continuity.

No, it's not, because it's not the same government, not the same system and it's different from the Principate established by Augustus. It's not even his original dynasty.


That is not to say nobody realized there was a big change going on, they certainly did. By the time Alaric sacked Rome, the political center had moved, and Rome was just a museum piece.

That's precisely what I'm saying, since the political center wasn't Rome anymore, you can't claim continuity anymore.

I'm so unimpressed by the idea that Justinian II's overthrow was something special that I don't even know how to address it.

Why? It was a break with the traditional line of rulers of Byzantium. No different than Alaric conquering the Western Roman Empire.


The only thing special about him was that he reclaimed his position.

Had the last Han emperor reclaimed his position, would you say that there was no break as well?


I have a hard time accepting a similar degree of political continuity in China, given how many times the empire broke up into independent states

Which happened to the Roman Empire as well, see the Third Century Crisis, see Alaric, see the Visigoths, see the Arab conquests.

, and how, during those periods, there was either no Emperor, or multiple Emperors, all of whom could bring themselves to engage their counterparts.

Multiple emperors as it happened to Rome disproves the idea of continuity to begin with.


Even without that, the Yuan, even if acknowledged as a legitimate dynasty, is most certainly a political break as they were an external power that totally conquered China from the outside. The best parallel I can imagine is if the Carolingians were able to unite the Roman Empire, strictly through military means (even the Latin Empire could claim a better political continuity than Charlemagne).

That would give the Chinese Empire if we take the Han as a starting point a duration longer than the Roman Empire if we accept your idea that it wasn't until the Fourth Crusade conquest that a break actually occurred.
 
So what? The point is that Rome's governments were overthrown, and it's not the same government when it receives drastic overhauls, as happened with the Tetrarchy which is not the same system instituted by Augustus nor the same dynasty.

I disagree. The legitimacy of any Roman regime did not derive from the Emperor, but from the Senate and other such political institutions. That is where the continuity comes in.

The various state institutions of China also continued working after the overthrowing of dynasties as well. Why do you think they had overall the same structure?

What is the specific institution, actual and concrete, (or multiple ones) that tied every dynasty together?

Keyword is reunify. If it had to be reunified is because there was a break. And it so happens that Rome's central government, which wasn't governed by Augustus' dynasty either, wasn't recognised by the various states that broke off during this period.

There was no break, there were territories lost, and reconquered.

No, it's not, because it's not the same government, not the same system and it's different from the Principate established by Augustus. It's not even his original dynasty.

Dynasties barely mattered in Rome, other than as a convenience. People preferred to have a son succeed a father, simply because it made things easy to predict, but the amalgamation of offices that comprised the Imperial position were not tied into any dynastic claim.

That's precisely what I'm saying, since the political center wasn't Rome anymore, you can't claim continuity anymore.

Incorrect. There was as much political continuity as any other state that moved its capital. Like Spain moving from Toledo to Madrid. Or any number of Chinese dynasties that moved their capitals.

Why? It was a break with the traditional line of rulers of Byzantium. No different than Alaric conquering the Western Roman Empire.

There was no 'traditional line of rulers of Byzantium.' The Heraclians had been in power for awhile, and the Justinianic dynasty had preceded them, and so on and so forth. You haven't given me anything that makes Justinian II special, particularly when compared to other last emperors in a given dynasty. Why Justinian II and not Maurice, or Nero, or Domitian, or Commodus, or Julian, or anyone else?

Had the last Han emperor reclaimed his position, would you say that there was no break as well?

That would depend on the circumstances, possibly (ignoring that murky area that was Wang Mang's dynasty).

Which happened to the Roman Empire as well, see the Third Century Crisis, see Alaric, see the Visigoths, see the Arab conquests.

Nope. The Empire persisted, with the political capital remaining free of foreign control. Losing the periphery does not break continuity. Alaric sacked a prestigious city, he didn't sack the seat of political power in the West, let alone the East.

Multiple emperors as it happened to Rome disproves the idea of continuity to begin with.

Incorrect. Nobody claiming the title of Roman Emperor every acknowledged the legitimacy of any other Roman Emperor, as an independent ruler. The only times other Emperors were acknowledged as Emperors were co-Emperors, who were governing the Empire in conjunction with each other. Thats no more a break in continuity than the Roman consuls were.

That would give the Chinese Empire if we take the Han as a starting point a duration longer than the Roman Empire if we accept your idea that it wasn't until the Fourth Crusade conquest that a break actually occurred.

Except for the Three Kingdoms, the Northern and Southern dynasties, and the 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms. And, though Chinese history is not my area of expertise, it is my understanding that the ushering in of a new dynasty claiming the Mandate of Heaven was seen as a slightly bigger deal than a given Roman general winning a civil war and being ratified as Emperor by the Senate.
 
I disagree. The legitimacy of any Roman regime did not derive from the Emperor, but from the Senate and other such political institutions. That is where the continuity comes in.



What is the specific institution, actual and concrete, (or multiple ones) that tied every dynasty together?
My friend,may I present to you the shanrang concept of 禪讓 (shanrang).Back when China was still a collection of tribal entities,leaders would often pass the mantle of leadership to the most able individual,who was not necessarily related to him. Deriving from this concept,emperors following the Han dynasty would claim legitimacy via being the 'chosen' successor of the emperor of the previous dynasty.
 

Maoistic

Banned
I disagree. The legitimacy of any Roman regime did not derive from the Emperor, but from the Senate and other such political institutions. That is where the continuity comes in.
Even if that was the case (the Senate was just a figurehead and progressively lost even more power and importance with the passing years), overthrowing an emperor is still a great overhaul that counts as a break.

What is the specific institution, actual and concrete, (or multiple ones) that tied every dynasty together?

Principally, the scholar bureaucracy that operated under the idea of the Mandate of Heaven.

There was no break, there were territories lost, and reconquered.

By this logic, the Three Kingdoms is no break of the Han regime either since the regime left by the Han actually kept operating under Cao Pi as the state of Cao Wei, with the different territories that broke into the Three Kingdoms then reunified under the Sui-Wei. Fact is, in the crisis of the 3rd century, the emergence of multiple emperors outside of Rome and the deposing of emperors in Rome is as much a break as the deposition of the last Eastern Han emperor that led to the Three Kingdoms.

Dynasties barely mattered in Rome, other than as a convenience. People preferred to have a son succeed a father, simply because it made things easy to predict, but the amalgamation of offices that comprised the Imperial position were not tied into any dynastic claim.

You're partially right (the same thing can be said of Chinese dynasties after all), I'm merely adding dynastic claims to the heap of why there was political break in the empire in the third century crisis or with the Tetrarchy at the very least. Complete overhauling of emperors, officials and changes in the governing system are breaks from the prior regime.

Incorrect. There was as much political continuity as any other state that moved its capital. Like Spain moving from Toledo to Madrid. Or any number of Chinese dynasties that moved their capitals.

Not in this case when Constantine completely overhauled the entire Tetrarchy system which is further signified by changing the capital from Rome to Byzantium. And I would agree that changes of capitals are breaks in political continuity anyway.

There was no 'traditional line of rulers of Byzantium.' The Heraclians had been in power for awhile, and the Justinianic dynasty had preceded them, and so on and so forth. You haven't given me anything that makes Justinian II special, particularly when compared to other last emperors in a given dynasty. Why Justinian II and not Maurice, or Nero, or Domitian, or Commodus, or Julian, or anyone else?

You shoot yourself in the foot when you agree that there had been at least two prior dynasties. Moreover, Justinian II's is especial not only because there were three emperors in quick succession (Justinian, Leontios and Tiberios) but because his final overthrow by Philippikos Bardanes led to the further deposition of the Christian Patriarch (at a time when the Church had pretty much completely replaced the Senate) and the establishment of a heresy as the official religion of the empire (monotheletism). No different than the deposition of Xian of Han by Cao Pi that led to the Three Kingdoms period, or the prior deposition of Qin Shi Huang by Liu Bang.

That would depend on the circumstances, possibly (ignoring that murky area that was Wang Mang's dynasty).

For the record I would accept Wang Mang's overthrow of the Western Han as a break, as you so strongly seem to be inclined to accept.

Nope. The Empire persisted, with the political capital remaining free of foreign control. Losing the periphery does not break continuity. Alaric sacked a prestigious city, he didn't sack the seat of political power in the West, let alone the East.

Again, by this logic, the Qin empire continued with the Han which continued with Cao Wei which continued with the Sui-Wei, and so on, if you're going to say that all those examples are just loss of territory when we also see complete unrecognition and even deposition. And if Alaric's taking of Rome doesn't count, there's still Odoacer's conquest in 476 which is traditionally marked as the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Also, periphery? The Arabs took all of North Africa, including Egypt, and the Eastern Mediterranean, which composed the majority of the Roman Empire. The Palmyrenes beforehand had taken Egypt and as far as southern Asia Minor. By your logic, the rival states of Cao Wei also only took the "periphery".

Incorrect. Nobody claiming the title of Roman Emperor every acknowledged the legitimacy of any other Roman Emperor, as an independent ruler. The only times other Emperors were acknowledged as Emperors were co-Emperors, who were governing the Empire in conjunction with each other. Thats no more a break in continuity than the Roman consuls were.


If anything the non-recognition between rival emperorst only reinforces my argument that there was a break contrary to your argument that Rome lasts until the Fourth Crusade.

Except for the Three Kingdoms, the Northern and Southern dynasties, and the 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms. And, though Chinese history is not my area of expertise, it is my understanding that the ushering in of a new dynasty claiming the Mandate of Heaven was seen as a slightly bigger deal than a given Roman general winning a civil war and being ratified as Emperor by the Senate.

If anything, the idea of the Mandate of Heaven provided a myth of unstopped political continuity for the Central State (Zhongguo) that ruled All Under Heaven (Tianxia). You can see this in the Shujing where, for instance, the overthrowing of the Shang by the Zhou is not seen as a break, just a change of one immoral dynasty to a moral one; basically, it's seen in the same way as the assassination of Caligula which is not a political break according to you.
 
Honestly, this is just too tedious, responding paragraph by paragraph, and your idea of political breaks is totally different than mine. Plus, I already had the ‘when did Roman political continuity end’ argument a few months ago with someone equally intractable in the face of all disagreement, and it was one of the most obnoxious debates I ever was involved in here. I don’t have the patience to go through that again.

So, Roman political continuity ran from 31 BC to AD 1204, at minimum, with the starting date going back to 509 BC (assuming we accept the traditional date) in actuality.
 

Infinity

Banned
The period from the accession of Augustus in 30 BC to the death of Alexander in 235 was pretty peaceful.
Persecution of Christians and Jews wasn't exactly peaceful. Secondly, near the end of Ammianus Macellinus' book, he mentions wars in the time of Marcus Aurelius, and 100,000 inhabitants of Philippopolis slain.

That's a pretty silly comparison because they weren't even the same Huns in any meaningful sense.
Does it really matter whether or not they were the same people? The main point is that the east dominated the west. The Huns crushed the Germanic barbarians which previously had caused so much trouble to the Roman Empire. Then they went on to wreak havoc in western Europe and strike terror into the heart of Rome. No other menace to the empire can compare to Attila the Hun. Nor does China have a parallel. Sure, they had their barbarians. Yet, they never faced as great an existential threat from distant lands as the Romans faced from Atila the Hun. Had the Asian nomad not played his part in history, the western Roman empire probably wouldn't have fallen in the 5th century.

Only the Mongols surpassed the Huns at humbling a seemingly invincible empire. Yet the Huns did so with the a single ruler while the Mongols had many.
 
Last edited:
Top