JustForLaughs
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2010
- Messages
- 190
- Likes
- 0
here is real Chinese history in terms of Han nationalist view. and yes, it disregard Yuan and Qing. even so, China has it much better under this lens than Macedonia vs "real" Greek states. and India is many times worse in terms of single entity.
Anti-China nationalists like to argue that China was often conquered by foreign peoples, and that therefore the Chinese are a weak people who can't fight.
I will prove in this thread that this is not the case, and that their false perceptions exist strictly because they fail to correctly understand history and to define what they mean.
Definitions
In order to measure how often China was conquered by foreign peoples, we must first define what is China and what is Chinese. This is common sense, yet most anti-China nationalists fail at it like they fail at life. If you are the sort that says, "well, Shang lived in the region of Dongyi and must therefore have been non-Chinese, so we must say that Chinese were enslaved by Shang" then I would rather punch you in the face than try to argue with you because it's obvious you are simply retarded. Besides the historical errors with that statement, you can't fundamentally be "non-Chinese" before there was a concept of "Chinese," and you can't expect the "Chinese" to defend "China" before such a state existed. The Shang, like the Zhou and the Xia, were proto-Chinese and must be treated as such. You would not say that Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla conquering each other's land is an example of Koreans being conquered, would you? Then why say it of Chinese?
So how do we define Chinese? Well, the first mention of Zhongguo, the Central Kingdom, comes from Shangshu, which was written around the 6th century BC. It was around this time that the idea of civilized Chinese and uncivilized barbarians first arose, so it is this time that must be treated as the rise of China and the Chinese identity. Actually, the Shangshu was speaking of opinions held during the Eastern Zhou (Spring and Autumn, ~770 BC) or earlier, when the civilization around the Central Plains pulled ahead of their neighbors in sophistication and power. Even though China was still divided between many states at this time, I will start my count here because it is possible to talk about Chinese and non-Chinese.
Count
From 770 BC - 221 BC, China was never conquered by a foreign people. The various aristocratic houses of the Warring States were all linked by common belief in their inheritance of the splendid Chinese civilization that was the relic of the three proto-Chinese dynasties (San Dai) of Xia, Shang, and Zhou.
So far, ratio of Chinese:foreigner is 550:0.
Beginning in 238 BC, the state of Qin began a campaign to conquer China. In 221 BC, it was completed. The next fifteen years, Qin ruled. Now, many people say that Qin was semi-barbarian - of Rong or partial Rong stock. For the sake of consistency in defining Chinese and non-Chinese, I will pretend that Qin was non-Chinese even though Qin was mostly developed by Central Plains administrators (ie Shang Yang). This is because we are measuring how often the core of China was conquered by peoples considered barbaric or semi-barbaric to it.
So, the ratio is now 550:15.
Next, Qin was overthrown and Liu Bang, a northern Jiangsu native, assumed power. Liu Bang started the Han Dynasty, which lasted for the next four hundred years. In all this time, never was China conquered by a foreign people. Instead, China expanded in all directions, conquering many foreign peoples.
The ratio is now 950:15.
In 200 AD, the Han Dynasty collapsed. People often think this was the time China was conquered by northern nomads. This is not true. Western Jin Dynasty lasted at least until 300 AD.
The ratio is now 1050:15.
Now comes the first period in which China was actually conquered by a foreign people. But was China really conquered? As I said in other thread, it was Jin Dynasty's policy of settling barbarians in China that resulted in China's northern provinces being slowly taken over by nomads. Thus, we cannot say that nomads conquered China by invading it. Still, they did manage to shake off Chinese rule so I will give it to them, even though:
1. Southern China was never lost
2. Many of China's northern regions, even cut off from Jin Dynasty help, managed to hold off the nomads for a long time
Age of Fragmentation lasted until 600 AD.
The ratio is now 1050:315.
Next part is where anti-China nationalists once again fails to have a clue. Sui and Tang Dynasties rise to power. Because Sui and Tang emperors apparently have Xianbei blood, to them that means non-Chinese conquered China. This is plainly retarded. Sui and Tang emperors were not foreigners. Even the Xianbei part of their family had been in China for several centuries. They did not conquer China from the outside. They raised Chinese armies and identified as Chinese. Sui and Tang emperors never claimed to be non-Chinese; instead they claimed descent from Han Dynasty nobles. In judging a people's ability to resist conquest it is imperative to figure out whether they had any cause to resist. Chinese had no cause to resist Sui and Tang emperors because they were regarded as Chinese. So Sui and Tang Dynasty cannot be considered as conquest by non-Chinese.
The ratio is now 1350:315.
With the collapse of Tang in 900 AD, there was a period of about 60 years in which five dynasties ruled northern China. Three of these were non-Chinese, while two were Chinese. It must be noted that none of these dynasties managed to conquer all of China. Indeed many only held parts of China in the far north. Moreover, they claimed to be legitimate successors of the Tang, a Chinese dynasty, which actually put them in power (as local princes) in the first place. But to be consistent, I will count them as non-Chinese.
The ratio is now 1350:345.
Northern Song came to power next. Northern Song held northern China for 150 years. However, some parts of northern China were held at this time by Khitan Liao, ceded to them by treacherous Shatuo Turk from five dynasties, and Tangut Xi Xia. But Khitan Liao and Xi Xia actually didn't hold much Chinese core territory.
They certainly didn't hold Chinese capitol at the time, so can't be considered conqueror. Losing some territory != being conquered, or else Korea would be conquered for most of its history.
The ratio is now 1500:345.
Jurchen Jin came next. Jurchen Jin was conquest dynasty of Jurchens. It lasted 120 years in northern China. But not all of China was conquered by Jurchen Jin - like with Age of Fragmentation, Southern China survived this whole time. Still, I will count it for consistency.
The ratio is now 1500:465.
Next was Mongol Yuan, which lasted 100 years. All of China was conquered by Mongols. It was first true conqueror dynasty and treated Chinese as occupied people.
The ratio is now 1500:565.
Next was Ming Dynasty, which lasted 300 years.
The ratio is now 1800:565.
Finally, Qing was Manchu conquest dynasty for 250 years. Second dynasty to conquer all of China and treat Chinese as occupied people (though better than Mongols; Manchus eventually adopted most Chinese ways).
The ratio is now 1800:815.
ROC + PRC is 100 years. Note Japan never conquered all of China, but since Japanese held Chinese capitol I will include it for consistency sake (8 years).
The ratio is now 1900:823.
From this, we can see that Chinese controlled core of China 70% of the times in last three thousand years of history. Only 30% of the times was Chinese northern core conquered, and Southern China was only conquered by foreigners for about 350 years total, or 12.8% of its history.
We see that Chinese are hardly pushovers. It is only by playing ethnic ancestry games that anybody can argue with my analysis, but such games are clearly besides the point. We are talking about Chinese ability to defend their country. If Chinese don't rise to defend their country because emperor is considered Chinese, how does that reflect Chinese weakness? All it really does is reflect ignorance by other people of Chinese way: Mandate of Heaven based on merit, no matter ethnicity, so long as person follows Chinese culture and self-identifies as Chinese.
To those who disagree: let me ask - Obama is half-black. Does that mean blacks conquered US?
Get real.
this is to not even get into how Greeks (macedonia), Egyptians (too many, but greeks as example), India (foreign muslims covers more) have more issues under this lens. frankly put, China was more of a unified single entity than its historic peers throughout the same time frame.
Anti-China nationalists like to argue that China was often conquered by foreign peoples, and that therefore the Chinese are a weak people who can't fight.
I will prove in this thread that this is not the case, and that their false perceptions exist strictly because they fail to correctly understand history and to define what they mean.
Definitions
In order to measure how often China was conquered by foreign peoples, we must first define what is China and what is Chinese. This is common sense, yet most anti-China nationalists fail at it like they fail at life. If you are the sort that says, "well, Shang lived in the region of Dongyi and must therefore have been non-Chinese, so we must say that Chinese were enslaved by Shang" then I would rather punch you in the face than try to argue with you because it's obvious you are simply retarded. Besides the historical errors with that statement, you can't fundamentally be "non-Chinese" before there was a concept of "Chinese," and you can't expect the "Chinese" to defend "China" before such a state existed. The Shang, like the Zhou and the Xia, were proto-Chinese and must be treated as such. You would not say that Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla conquering each other's land is an example of Koreans being conquered, would you? Then why say it of Chinese?
So how do we define Chinese? Well, the first mention of Zhongguo, the Central Kingdom, comes from Shangshu, which was written around the 6th century BC. It was around this time that the idea of civilized Chinese and uncivilized barbarians first arose, so it is this time that must be treated as the rise of China and the Chinese identity. Actually, the Shangshu was speaking of opinions held during the Eastern Zhou (Spring and Autumn, ~770 BC) or earlier, when the civilization around the Central Plains pulled ahead of their neighbors in sophistication and power. Even though China was still divided between many states at this time, I will start my count here because it is possible to talk about Chinese and non-Chinese.
Count
From 770 BC - 221 BC, China was never conquered by a foreign people. The various aristocratic houses of the Warring States were all linked by common belief in their inheritance of the splendid Chinese civilization that was the relic of the three proto-Chinese dynasties (San Dai) of Xia, Shang, and Zhou.
So far, ratio of Chinese:foreigner is 550:0.
Beginning in 238 BC, the state of Qin began a campaign to conquer China. In 221 BC, it was completed. The next fifteen years, Qin ruled. Now, many people say that Qin was semi-barbarian - of Rong or partial Rong stock. For the sake of consistency in defining Chinese and non-Chinese, I will pretend that Qin was non-Chinese even though Qin was mostly developed by Central Plains administrators (ie Shang Yang). This is because we are measuring how often the core of China was conquered by peoples considered barbaric or semi-barbaric to it.
So, the ratio is now 550:15.
Next, Qin was overthrown and Liu Bang, a northern Jiangsu native, assumed power. Liu Bang started the Han Dynasty, which lasted for the next four hundred years. In all this time, never was China conquered by a foreign people. Instead, China expanded in all directions, conquering many foreign peoples.
The ratio is now 950:15.
In 200 AD, the Han Dynasty collapsed. People often think this was the time China was conquered by northern nomads. This is not true. Western Jin Dynasty lasted at least until 300 AD.
The ratio is now 1050:15.
Now comes the first period in which China was actually conquered by a foreign people. But was China really conquered? As I said in other thread, it was Jin Dynasty's policy of settling barbarians in China that resulted in China's northern provinces being slowly taken over by nomads. Thus, we cannot say that nomads conquered China by invading it. Still, they did manage to shake off Chinese rule so I will give it to them, even though:
1. Southern China was never lost
2. Many of China's northern regions, even cut off from Jin Dynasty help, managed to hold off the nomads for a long time
Age of Fragmentation lasted until 600 AD.
The ratio is now 1050:315.
Next part is where anti-China nationalists once again fails to have a clue. Sui and Tang Dynasties rise to power. Because Sui and Tang emperors apparently have Xianbei blood, to them that means non-Chinese conquered China. This is plainly retarded. Sui and Tang emperors were not foreigners. Even the Xianbei part of their family had been in China for several centuries. They did not conquer China from the outside. They raised Chinese armies and identified as Chinese. Sui and Tang emperors never claimed to be non-Chinese; instead they claimed descent from Han Dynasty nobles. In judging a people's ability to resist conquest it is imperative to figure out whether they had any cause to resist. Chinese had no cause to resist Sui and Tang emperors because they were regarded as Chinese. So Sui and Tang Dynasty cannot be considered as conquest by non-Chinese.
The ratio is now 1350:315.
With the collapse of Tang in 900 AD, there was a period of about 60 years in which five dynasties ruled northern China. Three of these were non-Chinese, while two were Chinese. It must be noted that none of these dynasties managed to conquer all of China. Indeed many only held parts of China in the far north. Moreover, they claimed to be legitimate successors of the Tang, a Chinese dynasty, which actually put them in power (as local princes) in the first place. But to be consistent, I will count them as non-Chinese.
The ratio is now 1350:345.
Northern Song came to power next. Northern Song held northern China for 150 years. However, some parts of northern China were held at this time by Khitan Liao, ceded to them by treacherous Shatuo Turk from five dynasties, and Tangut Xi Xia. But Khitan Liao and Xi Xia actually didn't hold much Chinese core territory.
They certainly didn't hold Chinese capitol at the time, so can't be considered conqueror. Losing some territory != being conquered, or else Korea would be conquered for most of its history.
The ratio is now 1500:345.
Jurchen Jin came next. Jurchen Jin was conquest dynasty of Jurchens. It lasted 120 years in northern China. But not all of China was conquered by Jurchen Jin - like with Age of Fragmentation, Southern China survived this whole time. Still, I will count it for consistency.
The ratio is now 1500:465.
Next was Mongol Yuan, which lasted 100 years. All of China was conquered by Mongols. It was first true conqueror dynasty and treated Chinese as occupied people.
The ratio is now 1500:565.
Next was Ming Dynasty, which lasted 300 years.
The ratio is now 1800:565.
Finally, Qing was Manchu conquest dynasty for 250 years. Second dynasty to conquer all of China and treat Chinese as occupied people (though better than Mongols; Manchus eventually adopted most Chinese ways).
The ratio is now 1800:815.
ROC + PRC is 100 years. Note Japan never conquered all of China, but since Japanese held Chinese capitol I will include it for consistency sake (8 years).
The ratio is now 1900:823.
From this, we can see that Chinese controlled core of China 70% of the times in last three thousand years of history. Only 30% of the times was Chinese northern core conquered, and Southern China was only conquered by foreigners for about 350 years total, or 12.8% of its history.
We see that Chinese are hardly pushovers. It is only by playing ethnic ancestry games that anybody can argue with my analysis, but such games are clearly besides the point. We are talking about Chinese ability to defend their country. If Chinese don't rise to defend their country because emperor is considered Chinese, how does that reflect Chinese weakness? All it really does is reflect ignorance by other people of Chinese way: Mandate of Heaven based on merit, no matter ethnicity, so long as person follows Chinese culture and self-identifies as Chinese.
To those who disagree: let me ask - Obama is half-black. Does that mean blacks conquered US?
Get real.
this is to not even get into how Greeks (macedonia), Egyptians (too many, but greeks as example), India (foreign muslims covers more) have more issues under this lens. frankly put, China was more of a unified single entity than its historic peers throughout the same time frame.
Last edited: