Asian History

Huanglukuzhu wrote:
To be honest, we who live in east asian has less interest in europe history. Only if my mod include civs like China, Japan, Korea, people will play it.

Ah, I share that sentiment, I'd love to see a good Asian mod, not only with China Japan and Korea, but also Siam, Aceh, Vietnam, Persia, Buthan, Burma, etc...

I kinda got oversaturated of Europe stuff, everything's so focused on it it get annoying...

Hoop Thrower wrote:

Huanglukuzhu wrote:
To be honest, we who live in east asian has less interest in europe history. Only if my mod include civs like China, Japan, Korea, people will play it.

Ah, I share that sentiment, I'd love to see a good Asian mod, not only with China Japan and Korea, but also Siam, Aceh, Vietnam, Persia, Buthan, Burma, etc...

I kinda got oversaturated of Europe stuff, everything's so focused on it it get annoying...

Great, but i think persia is not a kind of east asian countries , is it?

I said good asian mod, I never said East Asia...

Well, WotTA Delta will include, what's it, seven civs with territory in Asia, with Japan, Korea, China, India, Russia, the Ottoman Empire and Egypt, so there's no shortage there, I should think.

I've personally always struggled to see why Chinese history is interesting... I mean, I can see why Japanese and Korean history have some interesting points in them, but Chinese history is just a bland and dull continuation of dynasty after dynasty with terribly little conflicts going on. The most interesting part of Chinese history is probably the Boxer Rebellion, which is a bit sad... I think that's why people like European history, because instead of one massive empire, there were relatively large kingdoms, tiny city states, even some tribal societies, loads of invasions and conflicts, cultural clashes, arms races, all sorts. Chinese history has none of it...


peugeot407

peugeot407 wrote:Well, WotTA Delta will include, what's it, seven civs with territory in Asia, with Japan, Korea, China, India, Russia, the Ottoman Empire and Egypt, so there's no shortage there, I should think.

I've personally always struggled to see why Chinese history is interesting... I mean, I can see why Japanese and Korean history have some interesting points in them, but Chinese history is just a bland and dull continuation of dynasty after dynasty with terribly little conflicts going on. The most interesting part of Chinese history is probably the Boxer Rebellion, which is a bit sad... I think that's why people like European history, because instead of one massive empire, there were relatively large kingdoms, tiny city states, even some tribal societies, loads of invasions and conflicts, cultural clashes, arms races, all sorts. Chinese history has none of it...


peugeot407

Well, a comment like that show how little you know about Chinese history, there's been many, many times where China was shared by various Warlords instead of true dynasties, without mentioning the times there were more than one Dynasty on charge (Three Kingdoms Period anyone?) and that's not even mentioning the oddities like Koxinga's Taiwan or the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.

Puny little civil wars don't make for interesting history, I think...


peugeot407

peugeot407 wrote:Puny little civil wars don't make for interesting history, I think...


peugeot407

I believe anyone from the United States would disagree.

I know this is not my forum, but we're getting waaay off topic

Of course, and I like to use their pathetic little conflict as an example of how unimportant civil wars are.


peugeot407

peugeot407 wrote:Of course, and I like to use their pathetic little conflict as an example of how unimportant civil wars are.


peugeot407

Maybe that one, the Taiping Rebellion... not, for starters, many, many more people died there, and the chinese were so troubled by the rebels that they had to call for foreign aid. And that ladies (HAH) and gentlemen, is how the downfall of the Qing Dynasty started showing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's nothing of interest in Chinese history, but compared to the over two thousand years of conflict that form European history, it is a bit dull...


peugeot407

peugeot407 wrote:Of course, and I like to use their pathetic little conflict as an example of how unimportant civil wars are.

Bolshevik Revolution, Cromwell, Post-Alexander Hellenic principalities, wars of Roman succession, etc...

peugeot407 wrote:Puny little civil wars don't make for interesting history, I think...


peugeot407

Well, you don't know them.
The history of china is a little like the history of rome.
At the begining, china is a kingdom, not empire, and its name is not china as well. There are 7 main kingdoms, at war with each other, was united by Qin. Then, the king of Qin created a new title for himself called emperor.
From then, china is united and its major enemy changed to Huns and Turks - one of them in west and the other in north, similar to Celt and German to Rome. Terrible things then happened. After civil war called 3 kingdoms war, chinese was weak. Most elite warrior were dead in the war last for 100 years. Then, barbarians invaded, take half of china and built their own kingdoms.
At first, china have kept half of the old empire, but as new barbarians nation appear, their land was smaller and smaller, and finally, destroyed by a barbarians kingdom after 600 years struggling.
This is the history before Tang dynasty was established. Is it boring?

lol, how about the Three Kingdoms era, the Yuan Invation, the Xing Hai Revolution, Eight Years War against Japan, and the 1949 Civil War? Cultural clashes is dominant in China, seeing its long history of dealing with barbarians, seeing the long history of Wu Hu Luan Hua period, the invasion of Mongols and Manchus, as well as Han campaign against the Huns...?

Civil Wars (if that's how you'd like to refer to) in China are in rather massive scales, not to mention the idea that back then most opposing political bodies does not truly see themselves as a difference between the government and the rebels, but rather in equal identity. (Eg. Three Kingdoms era being the era to have THREE, even FOUR, at some point, of emperors who each view their region of control as the legit successor of the previous dynasty.) In fact, history of China is not really the successions of Chinese dynasties, but rather the study of the region, the ethnic group, as well as its sphere of cultural influence.

How if Hoop himself seems don't care about this thing...

Well, since there was not much activity in this forum I didn't have much reason to visit this thread, it's not that I lost interest really.

My Chinese history is a bit rusty, but isn't their a civil war/rebellion at the end of every dynasty?

You could say it like that. There is Manchu "rebellion" at the end of Ming, Boxer rebellion and Taiping at the end of Qing, well... too much.

There are some examples of transition of peace.... For example, the Late Easter Han period, the Emperor of Han, Han Xian Di, voluntarily (at least, what was recorded) gave his throne to Cao Pi, a warlord of the kingdom of Wei in the north of China. This marks the end of the Han Dynasty and the start of the Wei Dynasty.

Don't forget the Xin Hai Revolution that marks the end of Qing, and the establishment of Republic of China (1st Republic in Chinese history) by 1912.

Which was subsequently ended by the Communists in another sort of rebellion. If I have my Asian history right, which is a tiny bit out of my normal area of expertise.

Yes, thus founding PRC and limiting ROC's are of reign to Taiwan.

One does wonder; what if China had become a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic? Would it have been possible to stave off the Communists?


peugeot407

There have been scholars who suggested the concept, including Liang Chi Chao and Kung Yo Wei (I dunno the pinyin, as we don't use them in ROC/Taiwan), to the Qing Dynasty. The court promised to switch from absolute monarchy into a constitutional one. However, much was disappointed at the results. For example, the ratio of Han and Qing officers were highly disproportional, while controlling more of the important wings of the government (such as the military and diplomatic departments). As a result, the civil force that supports constitutional monarchy (The Bao Huang Pai) and the Han officers switch to support a full revolution against Qing Dynasty. Further requests of reformation are forcefully stopped by the Manchu government as well, leading into more hatred between the Bao Huang Pai.

Personally, I feel that the Qing Dynasty focused too much on the concept of saving its "Manchu-ness" inside the court. They are most likely afraid that, just like India during English's "divide and rule tactic", as a smaller population ruling over a majority of Han population, they will face difficulties if the court has more Han than Manchurian. They tried their best to make sure that the Manchu will composed the majority of the government in hope that they can fortify their power.... and well, history prove it wrong.

as a smaller population ruling over a majority of Han population, they will face difficulties if the court has more Han than Manchurian.

Happened anywhere else. Like in Indonesia, the how Dutch didn't gave us power till they open a building named Volksraad.

Ikr? these people just won't learn

Please, stop using those abbreviation to me.