A while ago, I saw a lecture from a UCLA professor who said that the Sinosphere was actually extremely peaceful (like one or two wars over the course of a thousand years). The conflict between East Asian countries began when the West started to interfere and introduced their ideas about international relations. Do you think this is true?
A while ago, I saw a lecture from a UCLA professor who said that the Sinosphere was actually extremely peaceful (like one or two wars over the course ...
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
The countries rarely fought each other directly and instead constantly had insane civil wars and rebellions, Chinese history is basically Warhammer
>Chinese history is basically Warhammer
Isn't the empire in a constant state of warfare with chaos and the other races in both WH40k and WHF?
You can consider that to be the steppenaggers
Kowtowing formed an order.
Monarchs avoided playing an active hand at various points, as a failed policy could be pinned on them and dishonour the institution
Technically he's right I guess. But a lot of the time they we're preoccupied by potential peasant revolts, barbarian invasions, and preventing famine and catastrophic floods. Also Mongolia shouldn't be considered a Sinic culture at all.
>Builds a wall 1000 miles long because Mongolians are actual psychopathic chaosmongers who won't leave you the fuck alone
> The conflict between East Asian countries began when the West started to interfere and introduced their ideas about international relations.
Yup. Just ignored yellow turban rebellion, warring states, 3 kingdoms period, barbarian kingdoms period, nurchen invasion, mongol conquest, imjin war, manchu conquest, sengoku oeriod. Your professor is a $oy slurping libshit.
>all wars are just civil wars wich happen every few hundred years
Prof defined war as war between nation states and then made the brilliant point that proto-nation-states at that time barely went to war. This is the power of cleverness. Making nonsense points through convoluted, non-intuitive reasoning.
Yes he is sort of correct. Compared to European & Middle Eastern conflicts, wars between East Asian states were relatively few.
>Japan vs. China
Tang intervention in Korea.
Maaaybe the Yuan invasion of Japan (Japs blame the Mongols for the war, the Chinese don't consider it very much as well)
1st Sino Jap
2nd Sino Jap/WWII
>China vs. Korea
Han invasion of Gojoseon
Cao Wei's invasion of Korea
Tang Silla Wars.
Yuan Invasion of Korea
Maaaybe Zhu Yuanzhang's stay in north Korea.
Qing Invasion of Korea
>Korea vs. Japan
Silla vs, Yamato Japan war.
Anti-Jap Pirate Raids (big Maybe)
1st Sino-Jap War
Annexation of Korea.
This, however, ignores the tonnes of civil wars within China/Korea/Japan, and Steppenaggers were a constant source of conflict.
>Sogdian Barbarian mutt
No anon, you're the moron
The An Lushan Rebellion is a literal civil war and I mentioned the Sui-Goguryeo War
Damn these are literally all the battles you'd know from watching youtube videos and browsing r/historymemes
Song China was constantly at war with the Liao and Jin dynasties
This isn't even history, it's just math
There's how many countries in Europe?
But even by your broadest definition, there's what, half a dozen East Asian countries?
Of course they have civil wars instead when almost every ethnicity is part of China
Did he know about the Manchu conquest?
The Sinosphere (minus Japan) was about as peaceful as the Roman Empire, and for the same reason. When China was unified it had no real peers (usually). It used small amounts of military force to manage frontiers which were set by logistical considerations (the Tang managed Uyghur remnants and the Eastern Han managed the Xiongnu, much like how the Romans managed their borders with the border legions), and had to deploy greater amounts of military force if a strong power suddenly emerged beyond the frontier, until that power collapsed (such as the Xiongnu, Tibetans, Gokturks, Uyghurs, Khitan Liao, and Northern Yuan when it was having a good day for the Chinese; Dacia, Marcomanni, Sassanids, Goths, and Huns for the Romans). Usually the actual state was not under immediate threat. And in both states civil wars occasionally occurred and were the worst thing that ever happened to anyone.
Now, the difference is that China was cursed with more powerful adversaries than the Romans were. No adversary of Rome ever got Rome to declare their vassalage, as Xiongnu did to Han and Khitan Liao did to Song. Nor did Rome ever get conquered in a war. It shed territories to many different barbarian groups and then got toppled by its own barbarian mercenaries. The Mongols and Jurchens succeeded where the Huns totally failed. In addition, Chinese civil wars were generally longer and more destructive.
So yeah, the sinosphere was relatively peaceful, but it wasn't as peaceful as Rome, and it did have frequent conflicts.
>Chyna is muh Rome
Prove me wrong
Rome was a failed broken China actually
China is a shithole no one cares so shills must compare them to Rome for muh revelant
comparing China to Rome is a bit of an insult to China, actually. Rome only lasted several centuries. China is a literal 2,000-year Reich.
Except it still exists and has continuity for over 4000 years. While Rome only lasted for 1000 years and is a dead society wannabes hark back to in order to derive some shred of legitimacy for their wannabe empires.
Rome is literally the most long-lived empire in history. Cope more
>but muh 4000 years
China is the second most powerful country in the world. At least.
how do you define powerful?
People take their government's interests into consideration for no other reason than that they are the Chinese government's interests and they're worried about how the Chinese government might react to their actions.
countries will always weigh whatever decisions they make against how other countries will react.
that's not an indication of power it's just how the world works. you think india is more powerful than the US because they got america to waive sanctions on them after they bought s-400's from russia?
No, but the sheer volume of the influence China exerts indicates power.
you think china exerts more global influence than the UK france or germany?
I don't really see the "sheer volume" of influence at all.
Yes, they do. The UK is rapidly declining into irrelevance. France and Germany have spheres of influence but no one truly cares what they think outside of them. China is a superpower that exerts influence worldwide.
are you chinese?
there's no way you could be this delusional without having massive bias.
*tips 50 yuan*
If china is so great then stop leeching off Canada Wu
China isn't great to live in. It's powerful; there's a difference.
And their chairman just got dabbed on by a kike granny. No one cares for the sloppy second.
Countries just fought internally...
People will still fight for control over "the world", but "the world" might be smaller than a continent.
Inferior complex. Like how people say “you might not know but this actor is the tom cruise of china” not “omg he is the ping pong ling long of murica”. Try harder.
Who said anything about acting, you raging, unstable schizoshart?
What did the mutt mean by this?
Cause it’s always “CHYA IS THE ROME OF XYZ”.
Rome is dead and irrelevant. China has existed for 4000 years.
>The Roman empire actually was extremely peaceful. Sure they had shittons of civil wars but those don't count. And yeah they were constantly invaded by germanic tribes but those weren't like nation states so it doesn't count either. Really they only had a couple wars with the parthians and that was it.
Your professor is full of shit.
That's the problem.
>like one or two wars over the course of a thousand years
And those two wars led to 12 gorillion dead, 14 quintillion cannibalized