Printable View
Could it be because of the Pope who discouraged such actions? Before and after a time when Europeans listened to the Pope, the Romans, the French and the Germans came close to conquering Europe. But other European factions allied together and prevented this from happening. Meanwhile, China and India expanded in to giant nations. They managed to maintain their territories to this day. Would it have been possible for an European nation to do the same?
Both of your comparison examples are false.
The modern nation of India is 100% a creation of the British. They brought it together and split it up. Southern India hadn't ever been controlled by any empire for very long periods. The British simply took control of the Muhgal empire (from their footholds in port cities like Bombay) then exerted their influence over the southern princes and integrated them into what became modern India.
The PRC was created 55 years ago by Mao. When ever a dynasty has ended in China it means that the old state collapeses, totally, and a new one similar but not exactly like it rises in it's place.
The reason is obvious: The HRE of German nation was in the centre of Europe. And the German were to mighty to be conquered and too peaceful to expand :laugh4: (Sorry, just kidding).
I do not think that the authority of the pope was too big. The German Kaiser did not care too much about him. Often they made war against him. One had the plan to take the pope from Rome to Nürnberg to have a better control.
The main reason why Germany did not conquer many parts was, that it was extremly decentralized. The noblemen had many rights, they were jealous and were often the Kaiser or König had to fight against internal enemies. Even when he fought against foreign enemie, some of his followers did not follow or even tried to use the situatio for a rebellion.
Well theres also so many different cultures and people in Europe which creates boundaries and language barriers that make occupying foriegn territory farther. The ambitions of powerful generals and subject lords is also a very key factor. Only in really recent history has it become feasible that a single "nation" could conquer and hold the whole of Europe but certainly not indefinately.
And as for China and India as stated earlier they are "new" nations. For most of their histories they have been infighting and not really a single nation. The Chinese have also been under foriegn rule for long periods of their history, the Mongols and the Manchus (Qing Dynasty) and then a period of warlords before the PRC kicked the Nationalist chinese out of the mainland (Now know as Taiwan). India was also a larger province under British control including Pakistan, Burm, and the many mountain nations to the north and for a brief period Afghanistan.
The pope would have gladly had a united Europe so long as it was under vatican control, so long as it isn't they have never really supported the Kingdoms of Europe unless they were persuaded to do so under extreme duress.
Well China has as many cultures as europe. But the were united for longer periods. Culturally speaking there only like 4-5 cultural groups in europe. Germanic, Celtic, Latin, and Slavic (and maybe Uraltic). And the influence of the Han was much more pervasive than that of the Germans or Latins.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Islam played a pretty big part too. In the medieval ages you had the crusades taking up most of your resources, then latter on the ottomans were still a fair threat. Also war was expensive and it was hard to keep a standing army in a field for a long time.
The cultures at this time were even more split up than just German or Celtic, it was normans, franks, southern franks, swabians, saxons, lombards, hungarians, moravians, scots, welsh, irish, flems, rus, etc...
Only in the later medieval period when central governments gained power at the expense of the counts did national identies arise and take importance over tribal identies.
The Crusades actually were more helpful than hurtful for western Europe. For one it gave the younger brothers a place to fight for land outside of his families area. The renewed trade with the Middle East made Europe richer and allowed some Kings to consolidate power (France, Spain) while others became more divided (HRE).
The Qing fell, China was under KMT rule, which was eventually overthrown by the Communist Party. Please don't state things you're not sure about. China has still got the conquests made during the Qing dynasty, the land before it, and Tibet.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
China has different ethnicities, but NOT different cultures. Please do your research before claiming something like this. Also, China was united even before your European states existed. Much of Europe was still in control of the Roman Republic, when most of Europe consisted of barbarian tribes, so please don't say that China is a new nation. China has still got the lands of the Qing Dynasty plus Tibet, Hong Kong and Macau.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
I don't think comparing China with Europe is a fair comparison. A single faction conquering Europe is more like a single faction conquering all of China, India and Mongolia IMO.
Oh but I am sure. And your data is slightly flawed. The KMT was one of the political factions that were forced to work togehter to fight the warlords and eventually the Japanese. Mao's communits and red army were part of the "government" headed by the KMT. The republic of China was a joke. It was the interim chaos until a new political dynasty took over. As usually happens when an old dynasty crumbles. I only said that the PRC was created 55 year ago by Mao. I was off by 2 years but that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
And the PRC is missing about 1/6 of the Qing empire. The Qings ruled over all of the PRC (Tibet is part of the PRC so get over it) and Taiwan. Plus Mongolia, and the only reason neithre Mao nor Chang Kai-shek went after it was because of mother Russia supporting Mongolian independance. And both Koreas.
I'm well aware that China and India has had periods of unity well before Europeans were even aware that they existed. The PRC is a new nation that has existed for only a short while, same goes for the current goverment of India. I didn't mean that they were "new" nations such as they have never had those same national boundaries when I'm more referring to their political systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
And I didn't say that China has different cultures, I was referring to EUROPE. I was trying to point out that one of the contributors to Europe being fragmented was it's different cultures and ethicities. One of the amazing things about China as opposed to the rest of the world is how there has never been much strife between Confucisium, Taoism, and Buddhism even though these were introduced when China was again in the midst of civil wars, something that would never be seen in Europe.
China though from the time of the mongol takeover of china (mid 1200s) to the Republic of China (1900s) there has only dynasty that wasn't foriegn and that was the Ming which overthrew the Mongols but later were ousted by the Manchus. The later years of the Qing dynasty involded lots of peasant revolts and European intervention and in many ways China was only a nation in name. Then during the years of the Republic up to the communist takeover China was fragmented by warlords.
China has been for 2000 years, and having foreign rulers makes no difference about the identity of it. England's and therefore Britain's monarchs now are German, does this mean that Britain is not Britain now? No it does not.
Mao was not part of the KuoMinTang and was against it. The Communists fought against Japan as well, not just KMT. Don't even bother to argue lars, I'm Chinese. I know my history better than you do.
The SOVIET Red Guard were part of the Provisional Government, the Chinese Red Army was not part of the KMT. They fought against the Japanese, but not under the KMT.
Appearantly not. As you have some details backward. The KMT doesn't even exist until the 20's. When Sun Yat-sen st up his RC government in Nanking he fromed the KMT. Mao's communits were part of the KMT's government, not messiarily part of the party but part of the government. Until Chiang Kai-shek decided he liked Facisim better and got rid of the communists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Quote:
In the early days, the Kuomingtang was advised by the Soviets, starting with the Comintern agent Maring in 1921 and then with Mikhail Borodin starting in 1923. At the time the Northern Expedition began in 1926, the Nationalist Army had 150,000 Russian advisers. The Communists were told by Moscow to participate in the Kuomingtang Party and government. Soon this went bad, and the Communists were expelled from the Kuomingtang in 1927.
The KMT was founded in 1894 by Sun Yat-Sen. The Communists were NOT part of the KMT I repeat, just allies.
Checked wiki, only certain party members joined the KMT. Not the whole party. Anyway, being part of the government does not equate to being part of the party that runs it. If you believe it does, then does it mean that the whole US senate is republican and suddenly became so after Bush became president?
Think things through before talking.
That would depend on whether you mean communists as in the politcal entity headed by Mao or communists as in people who believe in the theories of Marx and Engles. As Mao's communist party worked with the KMT and communists worked in the KMTgovernment as ministers and beuaraucrats. As ordered by the leader of the international communits revolution in moscow. Until Chiang went fascist and got his blue shirts (inspired by the Italian black shirts and German brown shirts) to purge the communits. And Sun founded a revolutionary party that wasn't the KMT (I don't remember the name but i do remember that it wasn't even called the KMT) in 1894 in exile. The KMT comes later after (around 1920) Sun returns to China.
The Revive China Society. Which eventually became the KMT after merging and changing its name.