The Greatest Emperor: Qin Shi Huang.

[Ender Wiggin]

I watched a show on the Discovery Channel and I believe that this man was the greatest man to have ever ruled Imperial China, uniting China under a single centralized beaurocracy that lasts till this day, made China to what it is and started many civil projects such as the Great Wall of China and reformed the system of writing into a single written language where once before the symbol for swords had 12 different ways of writting it!

Its a shame that he was fed mercury tablets in the hopes of increasing longivity.

[MIGleader]

I kinda got the impression he was insane...wanting to prolong life. Btw, his name is just Qin Shi. The last two parts, Huang di denote "king".

You must realise this guy killed more people than Caesar and hussein combined, in both wars and the building of the wall.

[Ender Wiggin]

Ah he did slowly become mad due to mercury poisoning.

Aside from that he created China, he unified all the warring states and unified China under a single system. His tomb is now the only surviving world wonder that is still largely intact, he was the greatest, some things may have been terrible but he was still great.

[Skycom Type 2]

Do you mean the one after the Chinese mega dam? I watched that to.

His wanting immortality could hardy be described as unusual, most great rulers want immortality in one form or another after they become truly successful. Napoleon is a somewhat recent example he loved his wife but since she could give him a child, he went through a lot of stuff to get one.

Granted the great wall and the super tomb weren't really that useful, and killed a lot of people...

but hey a unified language really brings a lot of benefits. My physics teacher was always telling us how the main thing holding India back, not that it isn't doing well, was the fact that people from different towns simply cannot understand each others language.

[Azn boi]

Isn't the movie The Myth based during the Qin Dynasty? Its a good movie.^_^

[Ender Wiggin]

I know that "Hero" with I think Jet Li is also based on the Qin. At the end the reason why the Assasin doesn't kill the King is because of the words "Under Heaven" or "Our Land"? inwhich ending war and strife was to his mind more important then preserving the independance of the Zhao.

[T-U-P]

it doesn't matter what you guys think, to me, he is not the greatest emperor. the only real achievement he made is to unite china... for a very brief period of time. sure he started the great wall, but it costed both many many lives and his empire. it is one of the most important reason why Qin dynasty collapsed, too many slave labour and inhuman rules. if he was born any other time, he would not have been as well recieved. the fact that he is so popular now is because he was the first emperor to unite china, but he is in no way the only one. china was divided once again immediately after the fall of Qin and that's where the Chu and Han conflict came from.

[ordinary dude]

The way He ruled was very well documented and there is no dispute that he ruled with an iron fist. His single-mindedness was his undoing, but it is also the reason why he can be considered the greatest of all emperors. The linking of the Great Wall, for the first time provided the chinese plains to have a tangible defense against the north. The Grand Canal he ordered still serve china today. But most importantly, he proved to the chinese culture that China can be ruled as one and its not a dream. He did more to unify the chinese culture than anyone else in history.

[IDonT]

I know that "Hero" with I think Jet Li is also based on the Qin. At the end the reason why the Assasin doesn't kill the King is because of the words "Under Heaven" or "Our Land"? inwhich ending war and strife was to his mind more important then preserving the independance of the Zhao.


You should watch "The Emperor and the Assassin", its the best movie about him IMO.

The First emperor's main accomplishment is the establishment of a unified language, writing system, legal system, and beaurocracy that remained mostly unchanged until today. For example, provinces were ruled by 1 civilian governer, who was chosen by the central goverment, and 1 military governor. The military governer is ALWAYS subbordinate to the civilian one. The same system is in place today in many parts of the world, including the USA.

After the QIn Dynasty fell, the "mandate of heaven" changed to the HAN, but they still used the same systems and beaurcracy of the Qin.

[sumdud]

Well, I have not learn of his mercury intake, but if he did, I hope his terror was caused by the mercury.

He could've been quite great.........

But he went around slaughtering instead...

He may have united China, but he did not have to kill civilians. He wiped the Zhou off the world!

[Kampfwagen]

Ya know, from what I hear, this guy is comparable to Stalin. Uniting the nation, great archetectual feats, improvements in general upon his nation all at the cost of milions of lives. He also had a bit of a mental defect like Stalin (Qin's obsession with immortality in comparison to Stalin's clinical paranoia. Of course, you cant compare the two conditions but both are mental defects.)

[ordinary dude]

The first emperor tried to do too much within hie reign, he totally disregarded the socail strains placed on his people enorder to complete his magnifiscant projects. Qin Shi Huang was tooooo efficient with his rule and he demanded the same from his subjects.

[IDonT]

Well, I have not learn of his mercury intake, but if he did, I hope his terror was caused by the mercury.

He could've been quite great.........

But he went around slaughtering instead...

He may have united China, but he did not have to kill civilians. He wiped the Zhou off the world!

In his defence, what he did was not that uncommon for people in of his time. During his reign, Rome destroyed Carthage, killed all of its male citizens, sold women to slavery, and salted its fields so nothing would grow.
Don't get me started on what Rome did to the Gauls.

[crobato]

Yes, standards were pretty low at that time. But QSHD must have brought cruelty to a whole new level even for the people at that time to be really pissed off at him. Ironically, the same 'loyal' generals and soldiers whose faces he iconized into the terra cotta army to bring with him to heaven, would later slaughter his family and end his wretched bloodline forever.

It is for that reason why Chinese are proud to call themselves "Han" as for the Han Dynasty, but not "Qin".

[muyang523]

It's ashame Qin shi Huang's son is so useless. I think the problem with the qin dynasty was it was to cruel, not too many people liked them, corruption and Rebellion.

[Red Guard]

I kinda got the impression he was insane...wanting to prolong life. Btw, his name is just Qin Shi. The last two parts, Huang di denote "king".

You must realise this guy killed more people than Caesar and hussein combined, in both wars and the building of the wall.


you should be shamed of yourself to be a chinese.
Qin Shi huang's name isn't Qin Shi, his name is Ying Zheng, Qin Shi, Qin is the country's name, "Qin", Shi means "the beginning". he was also called, "Shi Huang Di", in english, "the starting emporer".
and no, he was not poisoned by mecury.......he died just like every single man would. and about his cruelness, well....back to Rome times, it's the same isn't it? That's how human was like at that stage of era...........

so i just left the forum for about a couple month..........

[lookandsay]

it doesn't matter what you guys think, to me, he is not the greatest emperor. the only real achievement he made is to unite china... for a very brief period of time. sure he started the great wall, but it costed both many many lives and his empire. it is one of the most important reason why Qin dynasty collapsed, too many slave labour and inhuman rules. if he was born any other time, he would not have been as well recieved. the fact that he is so popular now is because he was the first emperor to unite china, but he is in no way the only one. china was divided once again immediately after the fall of Qin and that's where the Chu and Han conflict came from.
you are a historian.
china was to unify the country once again immediately .
it's my faith.................................:china:

[drunkhomer]

You must realise this guy killed more people than Caesar and hussein combined, in both wars and the building of the wall.

well obviously since caesar only killed in battle...

[IDonT]

it doesn't matter what you guys think, to me, he is not the greatest emperor. the only real achievement he made is to unite china... for a very brief period of time. sure he started the great wall, but it costed both many many lives and his empire. it is one of the most important reason why Qin dynasty collapsed, too many slave labour and inhuman rules. if he was born any other time, he would not have been as well recieved. the fact that he is so popular now is because he was the first emperor to unite china, but he is in no way the only one. china was divided once again immediately after the fall of Qin and that's where the Chu and Han conflict came from.

Though the QIN dynasty lasted only for a short time...the First emperor's reforms and the beaurcratic institutions he placed lasted until the 20th century. Yes there were wars and periods of disunity after the fall of a dynasty (such as the 3 kingdoms period, etc) but China always managed to reform itself. There was never a repeat of the Warring states era, where multiple states exist for hundreds of years.

To put this into context, Han China and Rome exist at the same period in history. Both emerged and fell at the same time. The only difference is that Han China was reformed, keeping the same beaucracy, language, and institutions, within a hundred years in the Tang dynasty. Western Rome was never reconstituted, its language forgotten (save for the catholic priesthood), its emperial institutions regressed back into fuedalism.

Why did China keeps reforming itself? It was thanks to the reforms of the First Emperor.

[KYli]

I would say Qin Shi Huang is one of the greatest emperor of china, because he had united China, builded the great wall and united china under single language. He is great for his achievement and the profound effect on China, but he is also one of most cruel emperor. Qin shi Huang ruled Qin dynasty with iron fist, and he took cruelty with whole new level. Many people was killed, and more dead as slave labor for Great wall. I doubt any people are fond of him at that time, but he probably save china many times from nomads invaded. He also probably made china more united, so people did not busy fighting themselves because of different ideology. So it really had to with your perspection when you judge him.

[FuManChu]

Ya know, from what I hear, this guy is comparable to Stalin. Uniting the nation, great archetectual feats, improvements in general upon his nation all at the cost of milions of lives.

Indeed, I think that films like "Hero" were extremely one-sided in the view they created of him. He united the old kingdoms but only by defeating them and absorbing them into his own kingdom. To say he "united" them implies that he got around a table with the other leaders and they agreed to work together. Suffice to say that isn't what happened.

It's a nice story that helps make people all weepy with patriotism, but there are better, more selfless (and peaceful!) leaders in Chinese history.

[KYli]

The film "heros" is just a movie, no need to play too much implication into it. I think "Untied" is the right word, because Qin shi Huang was defeating kingdoms that belong to one single nation. So he was untied a nation that were splited into small parts. United doesn't only mean got around table and agreed to work together, it also implies united something that were already split together. So no need to make a fuss about nothing:D .

As I already said Qin Shi Huang is someone couldn't easily judge, he had done lot of cruelty things. But some people might see the positive effects he had, since lot of things he did profoundly affects what is now China.

[Skycom Type 2]

i am sorry if my history is a bit rusty, but if i recall correctly then lasting unity only ever comes from military conquest. The current exception being the EU, and it only took a world war to do it. When the Europeans peacefully left their colonies, infighting immediately broke out (i am thinking Africa), when they were kicked out by force it was peaceful (U.S for example).

[FuManChu]

i am sorry if my history is a bit rusty, but if i recall correctly then lasting unity only ever comes from military conquest. The current exception being the EU, and it only took a world war to do it. When the Europeans peacefully left their colonies, infighting immediately broke out (i am thinking Africa), when they were kicked out by force it was peaceful (U.S for example).

That is a gross oversimplification of world history. I don't know where to begin.

1. The EU was formed only after two world wars and countless European conflicts. It was because the mentality of our leaders changed, not because war brought us together. What we wanted was joint prosperity - most members joined up for the free-trade area, not because they were paranoid about the future.

2. You can't achieve "unity" through war - only conquest. One man's unity is another's slavery, servitute or submission.

3. War begets war, not peace. Look at Chechnya, for example.

4. We left Canada, Australia and New Zealand without fighting over them. And they turned out fine.

5. We actually tried to hold on to many of our African and Asian colonies, even fighting insurgent movements. Most European nations resisted independence even more fiercely. The whole Vietnamese conflict started because the French wouldn't give up their possessions.

Generally the reason Africa is in the way it is now was because we didn't consider them looking after themselves until it was too late to do anything. If we'd actually tried to properly reform the place rather than just ignore/shoot the locals whenever they kicked up a fuss, things might have been better.

I am sure that some Chinese have a similar view as you do towards Taiwan - that the only way to get it back for keeps is to invade it. Well if that happened I can promise you that at some point the mainland would lose it forever, as Taiwanese would make it their mission to gain formal independence at some point.

[KYli]

Hi Fumanchu

:off

Please do not bring up the Taiwan topic, this will create a lot of flame.

BTW I do not agree of what you said:D .

[Obcession]

Yes, that will create alot of flamming, but I will refrain from doing so.
I completely disagree in regards to your Taiwan view, but I will say no more. If you want to know my views, PM me.

[crobato]

This Emperor is a true innovator and genius in addition to his cruelty.

For example he innovated the use of serial numbers and quality control procedures in the creation of the Great Wall.

Each brick used on the wall is stamped with a series of numbers that allows you to trace when and which army unit manufactured the brick. Thus if the brick fails to meet the standards of quality, they will know whose heads will roll for it.

[Gollevainen]

Thats a nice insigth to htere Fumanchu, expecially about the EU and its nature about uniting the people...too bad the reality has proven that the noble ideas have still lot to go on before they could face the european reality...
But about that in other thread, perhaps...so lets try to keep on the topic shall we?? and we all agree that trolling goes for both way, so if one wants to avoid flame war, try to keep the nationalistic bursts out of here, so the 'other' side wouldnt become agitated...

and yes, You WILL keep the Taiwan out of this...Am I beeing clear enough??

[Skycom Type 2]

inadequate, i want the unification of the entire world under one government, as soon as possible, but thats another story...

one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

I think unity is a good thing, you seem to think its a bad thing, very well, lets take a tour through empires made by military force.

The roman empire, seems like a good place to start, as pointed out by others they achieved their empire through conquest and genocide, the people conquered of course rebelled, it naturally took a couple of generations before they completely forgot about any other way of life except under the romans. Recall also the golden age of Rome happened after Caesar ousted the senate.

So what happened after it fell? Europe was plunged into a dark age which took around a 1000 years to crawl out of. Vast amount of knowledge was lost and superstition became the norm. i don't know about you but but any place where people only bathe once a year has got to stink at least.

So where did the vast amounts knowledge come from to boast Europe out of the dark ages?

A portion of it came from a military campaign called the crusades, the purpose of which was genocide of a race in order to gain access to eternal paradise. The Europeans lost but they still gained quite a bit of knowledge in military and other matters, it was also a great trade booster.

Another chuck of knowledge came from, the sacking of Constantinople by its suppose allies. The loot eventually found its way to Italy and gave the Renaissance thinkers a vast amount of information lost by the wayward western half of the roman empire.

Recently China's rise has also been compared to Germany's rise. Bismark is the key figure here, through political trickery and a war against France he united Prussia, and turn it into a powerful Germany. So powerful it forced France and Britain forgo yet another decade long war and join forces.

Napoleon united Europe again through military conquest, people rose up against him. But his empire fell to external influences, and his own mistakes, not internal discord. Nevertheless the Napoleonic code was a major achievement containing much of the knowledge won through the bloody days of the French revolution.

So in my opinion Canada, Austria and New Zealand disuniting from their respective empires is inherently by itself a bad thing, the fact that they turned out well is good for them, be proud.

So should the Confederacy have been allowed to separate from the Union? After all the president didn't even get 50% of the popular votes, hell every south state electoral college voted against him.

(switches to best angry orator voice)

“we are fighting for our independence, who is that upstart Lincoln think he is? Making a law against secession. It clearly shows how our majority system is superior to their two party system. It doesn't matter that they have 4 times the manpower, and 3 times the industry, we'll get our good friends the British and the French to help us out they need our cotton. Never mind the fact that we fought for freedom against them a century ago, and how they burned down D.C some 50 years ago. We are fighting for freedom and our natural rights, including the ownership of slaves, no that is above natural it is divine right as clearly indicated by manifest destiny.”

(returns to normal)

also note that according to wiki,

"

The Confederacy's failure to fully use its advantages in guerrilla warfare against Union communication and transportation infrastructure. However, as Lee warned, the Union was ready for large-scale guerilla warfare with tactics it had perfected in Missouri. It would herd hundreds of thousands of Confederate civilians into concentration camps, burn the houses and barns, kill the livestock, and send massive cavalry units to shoot everyone seen outside the camps. The new strategy would destroy most of the guerrillas, lead to terrible suffering among the incarcerated families, and permanently damage the economy of affected areas. Unlike the Russians who used scorched earth against Napoleon, the Confederates were less willing to see their families and communities destroyed.

"

So back to topic Qin Shi was a truly great ruler as his empire reunited itself fairly quickly after his death, while most other leaders empires soon fall back into their previous warring states.

[Troika]

That is a gross oversimplification of world history. I don't know where to begin.

While I agree that Skycom Type 2 has oversimplified matters, it is unfortunate that you should give the refutations you did:

1. [cut, since I agree with it on all points]

2. You can't achieve "unity" through war - only conquest. One man's unity is another's slavery, servitute or submission.

This is semantic quibble at best, I think. It is not necessary that unification carries with it the moral implication in which you seem to invest, nor is unification and conquest exclusive mutually. It simply means from its Latin roots the formation into single entities. Its use is more appropriate when the unit was at some point previously one unit under either politically or culturally, so in that sense it is quite correct to state Qin Shi Huang Di unified China.

To use two examples in nineteenth century that is most famous, for example, German unification was more or less peaceful, while Italian unification was not.

3. War begets war, not peace. Look at Chechnya, for example.

This is a soundbyte approach to what should be serious discussion. Worse, it gives only one example, not to disprove, where it would be appropriate, but to establish, where it is most manifestly not. Great War contributed to another greater War, but World War II left Europe more peaceful than any time it has known for past few centuries. Bismarck's Austrian War begot not war, but an eventual alliance with the Hapsburgs, which was not to be broken until the Austro-Hungarian Empire itself was no more. To use even more extreme example, Carthage was very peaceful after the third Punic War.

War does not always achieve unity, but it is just as overly simplistic and inaccurate to claim that war always beget war.

4. We left Canada, Australia and New Zealand without fighting over them. And they turned out fine.

Out of context of Qin Shi Haung Di. It is my understanding that the British Empire was not constantly fighting amongst itself to achieve dominance over one another.

5. We actually tried to hold on to many of our African and Asian colonies, even fighting insurgent movements. Most European nations resisted independence even more fiercely. The whole Vietnamese conflict started because the French wouldn't give up their possessions.

Generally the reason Africa is in the way it is now was because we didn't consider them looking after themselves until it was too late to do anything. If we'd actually tried to properly reform the place rather than just ignore/shoot the locals whenever they kicked up a fuss, things might have been better.

I am sure that some Chinese have a similar view as you do towards Taiwan - that the only way to get it back for keeps is to invade it. Well if that happened I can promise you that at some point the mainland would lose it forever, as Taiwanese would make it their mission to gain formal independence at some point.

Again, you arguement here is overly simplistic. For every Baltic State and Ukraine which held on to its own identity through thick and thin, there are Komis and Tartars and Cherokees which hadn't a hope in hell of formal independence. In this respect the Chinese actually have a fairly good track record - no murmuring of Manchu independence, or Yunnan, and so on. It may be wrong, but assimilation, forced or otherwise, does work.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Many of you have cited the unification of China as Qin Shi Huangdi's greatest achievement. This is true, for it is in fact one of the monumental milestones of not only Chinese, but world history.

First let us take a look at Rome. Rome had been one of the greatest powers on earth, in command of vast resources and masters of upwards of 50 million people. Having developed one of the most efficient and powerful war machines the world has ever seen, Rome had managed to defeat all civilized opponents it has been in contact with. However, once in that position, Rome stagnated and Roman society as well as the Roman military began to decay. The Romans fell to decadence and indulgence, and its political and military institutions fell prey to corruption and nepotism. The Romans would stay in a period of stagnation for around two centuries, before new barbarian hordes managed to overrun the empire, thus brining an end to one of the greatest states to exist on this earth.

Now let us turn our eye to the rise of Europe and the Renaissance, the general trend that can be seen is competition among states. The various kingdoms and principalities of Europe were in near constant conflict, and it was not unusual for millions to be killed in conflict annually. As has been said many times, the battlefield is the best classroom, and over the course of the centuries the European states made rapid advancements in strategy, tactics, technology, logistics, and organization. Inevitably, the competition would mean that the more adaptive states would eventually edge out the ones less receptive to change. Even states that had been formally powerful, such as Poland and the Ottoman Empire would find themselves unable to compete with newer powers such as Great Britain and Prussia as the centuries passed. Furthermore, the colorful institution of patronage led to a flourishing of the arts and sciences during the Renaissance. As various courts attempted to woo the most promising young artists and thinkers, culture and learning began to spring up throughout the European continent. Economically powerful states and those that invested more in developing the sciences and arts such as France and the Italian states would therefore have great cultural influence. Thus when East met West in the 19th century, the European nations had already been tempered and strengthened by centuries of competition.

China, on the other hand, has been a largely stagnant society since the latter half of the Ming dynasty. Shockingly introverted, the Ming and Qing exhibited a phobia for change, and did whatever they could to maintain things the way the were. Politically, socially, and militarily, the main institutions of both the Ming and the Qing would show decay and corruption, and would be slowly eroded after decades of stagnation. The civil service examinations that had been used to supply the governing bureaucracy with the brightest young minds of the nation were hopelessly outdated and extremely prone to corruption. Furthermore, the Chinese upper class was decadent and incapable of providing the nation with leadership, as was the imperial government, headed by incompetent emperors who only cared for the pleasures offered by their extravagant palaces. Chinese scholars and thinkers of the period were also very backwards, who continued to follow old paths of Confucian thought. Unlike their European counterparts whom looked back upon Greek and Roman principles before developing them further and advance new schools of thought, Chinese were unwilling to budge from millennia-old Confucian philosophy. Believing themselves to be the most advanced civilization in the world, the Chinese became complacent and failed to innovate. Under the Qing, the Chinese military organizations would fall to shambles, with the banner armies growing lazy and fat and reliant on obsolete weaponry and tactics, while the Chinese militia system was hoplessly inadequate when confronted with the professional armies of Europe. Thus when the Europeans finally clashed with the Qing, the result was the complete destruction of the Qing armies, as well as an end to Chinese cultural and political hegemony over East Asia

However, one could only speculate what would’ve happened if China was not united under Qin Shi Huang. It is very possible that if China remained a collection of small states throughout its history, the effects of a competitive environment under the premises of social Darwinism would’ve created much more modern societies that would’ve been able to compete with European societies on an even playing field. After all, China enjoyed its greatest philosophical and cultural flowering during the Warring States Period, under which there were hundreds of schools of thought, as opposed to one (Confucianism) afterwards. Perhaps China would have been more willing to explore the world and visit new lands. If you remember, China was at the world’s forefront of naval and navigation technology as well as enjoying an impressive lead in oceanic voyaging and exploration during the early decades of the Ming. The Zheng He expeditions far outstripped any European explorations at the time. In fact, there is evidence that the Chinese have landed on the Americas. Think of how the world would be different if that was the case. The states of China would be a counterbalance to the states of Europe, and war among the states of either side would be unlikely due to the threat of the other side. Also, the current superpowers of Russia and the United States would not be. Due to the timeframe of Chinese exploration and European colonization, it would be extremely likely that the Chinese and Europeans would began colonizing the Americas at the same time, and the continent would most likely be split between the two civilizations. Similarly, Russia would not have been able to dominate so much of the Russian Far East if a powerful Chinese state to the North had been there to counter Russian expansion. However, this is pure speculation, for a lot of factors would come into play during the shaping of civilizations. This is nothing but a mere indulgence I have allowed myself into the realm of alternate history and a whole range of infinite what-ifs that exist in history.

[PiSigma]

here's my counterpoint to friedricenspice's point.

during the Han and Tang dynasties when china is united under one empire, there were drastic cultural, scientific, and military improvements. Also during the Ming dynasty when china's naval and navigation reached its peak in the ancient world, it is also united under one nation.

It is not necessarily competition that made the european nations develop so fast. it is more trade and the sharing of knowledge and international interaction. Remember china produced 1/3 of the world's GDP during the early qing dynasty, but knowledge is controlled tightly by the government and isolationist policies forced its downfall.

during the han and tang dynasties, there were a lot of interaction with other cultures, which allowed china to learn from other nations and grow. but under the qing, china viewed it self as the center of the world and didn't want to learn from others until it was too late.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I agree with PiSigma's points- the are not directly in conflict with the ones I have made earlier.

Contact with other cultures is another main factor for the rise of Europe. Not only did European cultures exchange ideas with one another, but also traded with the Middle East following the Crusades and sought out new sea routes. The Chinese, however believe themselves to be the most advanced and civilized and felt little need to share ideas with other cultures. They were resistant to change, and beleived that all other cultures were inferior, and thus exchange with such cultures would be of no particular value. The end result was a retardation of Chinese development.

[renmin]

Qin Shi is actually not his real name, I dont know why he is called that or what his real name is (my aplogies). The english name China actually came from the first emperor, Qin is pernounced in english Chin which leads to China.
Anyway, Qin is a very crazy guy, the only good things he proabably did was unite China and build the Great Wall

[Troika]

Qin Shi is actually not his real name, I dont know why he is called that or what his real name is (my aplogies). The english name China actually came from the first emperor, Qin is pernounced in english Chin which leads to China.
Anyway, Qin is a very crazy guy, the only good things he proabably did was unite China and build the Great Wall

I cannot help but comment on the last bit. That is a bit like saying, Ivan IV didn't do much good apart from create the nation we today know as Russia.

To put it another way, Qin Shi Huang Di was a great tsar.

[Troika]

here's my counterpoint to friedricenspice's point.

during the Han and Tang dynasties when china is united under one empire, there were drastic cultural, scientific, and military improvements. Also during the Ming dynasty when china's naval and navigation reached its peak in the ancient world, it is also united under one nation.

It is not necessarily competition that made the european nations develop so fast. it is more trade and the sharing of knowledge and international interaction. Remember china produced 1/3 of the world's GDP during the early qing dynasty, but knowledge is controlled tightly by the government and isolationist policies forced its downfall.

during the han and tang dynasties, there were a lot of interaction with other cultures, which allowed china to learn from other nations and grow. but under the qing, china viewed it self as the center of the world and didn't want to learn from others until it was too late.

I think this is oversimplification of Qing. First of all, the Qing were far less centralized than the Ming, with a much smaller bureaucracy, so there is a limit to its supposed control even if it really wanted to. Secondly, as first dynasty in China to deal with near-modern Europe (I remind you that it was Qing Dynasty which first signed a Western-style treaty with a Western power - Russia - in the late seventeenth century), it has displayed considerable flexibility. There is the aforesaid treaty, there is the fact that trade exists, albeit somewhat regulated (contrast this with Ming trade, which was so badly managed that it contributed to making the Japanese trade turned into piracy afflicting China for almost a century), and that it was also under Qing dynasty which saw large Chinese migration to South East Asia. Also under the auspice of Qing was the agricultural revolution seeing China's population boom to reach some four hundred millions souls by the nineteenth century. And if you look at late eighteenth early nineteenth century Chinese trade patterns with West it was tea, porcelein, silk - luxuries - and in exchange mostly cash, but also opium and some manufactured goods. None of this is characteristic of a government that somehow regulates knowledge. Rather I think it is expanding demographic pressure then that stagnated growth - at that scale much resource had to be devoted to basic survival, which also I think inflated China's estimated GDP figures then.

[KYli]

Qin Shi is actually not his real name, I dont know why he is called that or what his real name is (my aplogies). The english name China actually came from the first emperor, Qin is pernounced in english Chin which leads to China.
Anyway, Qin is a very crazy guy, the only good things he proabably did was unite China and build the Great Wall
The first emperor is call Qin shi Huangdi ying Zheng. He is not crazy at all, maybe ruthless and tough but he is very smart. If you ever read more about history, Qin shi is not the most cruel empoeor that many people have you believe.

[KYli]

I think this is oversimplification of Qing. First of all, the Qing were far less centralized than the Ming, with a much smaller bureaucracy, so there is a limit to its supposed control even if it really wanted to.
I agreed that Qing have more land to rule, so they were less centralized but they do have more resources and people against the western.


Secondly, as first dynasty in China to deal with near-modern Europe (I remind you that it was Qing Dynasty which first signed a Western-style treaty with a Western power - Russia - in the late seventeenth century), it has displayed considerable flexibility. There is the aforesaid treaty, there is the fact that trade exists, albeit somewhat regulated (contrast this with Ming trade, which was so badly managed that it contributed to making the Japanese trade turned into piracy afflicting China for almost a century), and that it was also under Qing dynasty which saw large Chinese migration to South East Asia.
That is just not true. You are making up of things.

The reasons behind the isolation is because China used most of the resources to keep the Mongols to the north. Secondly, China could produce and create most of it needed. So no outside contact was needed. Thirdly, Ming only began to isolate itself after Japanese priates attacks off the coast of China. Japanese pirates had been harrassing the coast of China and the Ming Dynasty decided to close the door to outside world in order to prevent japanese piracy. You are trying to twist things in the other way around. Also the Ming never truely stopped all the contact, do you know that there are trade with the Manila, Macau and the british. More important by the the very late Ming, Ming had lifted the ban on private maritime trade with the southeast Asia, even though the ban on trade with Japan remained. The isolation is not what you think, china may stop the explorers but the migration from china had never truely stop. Ming might grow more comfortable with what they had. they didn't needed to go beyond the south china sea to get what they needed. Ming had been actively trading with the Spainish and Portugese in Macau. Qing is not the first who sign treaty with the western. Ming had allowed the Portugese to stay at Macau. So please do not make things up.


Also under the auspice of Qing was the agricultural revolution seeing China's population boom to reach some four hundred millions souls by the nineteenth century. And if you look at late eighteenth early nineteenth century Chinese trade patterns with West it was tea, porcelein, silk - luxuries - and in exchange mostly cash, but also opium and some manufactured goods. None of this is characteristic of a government that somehow regulates knowledge. Rather I think it is expanding demographic pressure then that stagnated growth - at that scale much resource had to be devoted to basic survival, which also I think inflated China's estimated GDP figures then.

Ming have much more technology acheivement than Qing ever was, Ming has play more attention to firearms. But I won't say Qing caused the chinese to fall behind the west, whether Qing do not see the use of Firearms. They pay more attention to soilders morale, disclipe and training. Which is not bad, but the firearms evolution in the west became very dramatic that weapons became more important. It is hard to say who should bear the responsibility, but Ming and Qing are the beginning of the falling behind for chinese.

[Troika]

I agreed that Qing have more land to rule, so they were less centralized but they do have more resources and people against the western.

Not just that. The Ming bureaucracy was larger than the Qing, pound for pound. Qing saw dramatic cuts in central authority over local administrations, and the monitor branch was also much smaller. There was also no equivalent to the Ming's internal security apparatus.


That is just not true. You are making up of things.

This is serious accusation you made. We will see if it carries merit:


The reasons behind the isolation is because China used most of the resources to keep the Mongols to the north.

This does not make sense. Keeping a strongly guarded Northern border does not lead to isolation. The Song, one of the most maritime and outward-looking of China's dynasties, had to keep a strongly guarded Northern border at all times.


Secondly, China could produce and create most of it needed. So no outside contact was needed.

By what do you mean 'need'? Even Europe, very few places actually 'need' the things imported in the sense that they will die if they don't. Trade isn't about just what you need, but arbitrage, quality of living, and above all, profit.


Thirdly, Ming only began to isolate itself after Japanese priates attacks off the coast of China. Japanese pirates had been harrassing the coast of China and the Ming Dynasty decided to close the door to outside world in order to prevent japanese piracy. You are trying to twist things in the other way around.

I do not 'twist things around'. It is you who confused Japanese piracy. You mixed up the two periods of significant pirate activities. The first period was between Ming dynasty establishment and Zheng He's voyages, result of remnant anti-Mongol forces and Japanese refugees fleeing triumph of Ashikaga Shogunate. It ended with Ming's seapower expansion and improving relations with the third Ashikaga Shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu with whom the Ming arranged normal trade relations, and who cut down on Japanese pirate activities. It was during this period that Ming adopted close door policy, to be opened again of course by the Emperor Yongle. The second period started more than a century later, in 1523, after the corruption event of trade commission at Ningbo caused abolishment of that comission and outlawing of Japanese trade, and subsequent piracy. This period lasted about two decades. The second one was by far the worse, which was what I referred to, since it saw the sacking of Hangzhou, amongst other important cities, and was caused by endemic corruption in Ming's trade commission.


Also the Ming never truely stopped all the contact, do you know that there are trade with the Manila, Macau and the british.

Strawman attack, and inaccurate also. I never claimed the Ming stopped all contact. This was what I said:

There is the aforesaid treaty, there is the fact that trade exists, albeit somewhat regulated (contrast this with Ming trade, which was so badly managed that it contributed to making the Japanese trade turned into piracy afflicting China for almost a century)...

Comparing regulatory policies, not actual contact. In fact, I referred to Ming 'trade', which clearly implies it exist.


More important by the the very late Ming, Ming had lifted the ban on private maritime trade with the southeast Asia, even though the ban on trade with Japan remained. The isolation is not what you think, china may stop the explorers but the migration from china had never truely stop. Ming might grow more comfortable with what they had. they didn't needed to go beyond the south china sea to get what they needed. Ming had been actively trading with the Spainish and Portugese in Macau. Qing is not the first who sign treaty with the western. Ming had allowed the Portugese to stay at Macau. So please do not make things up.

Beautifully argued, and completely irrelevant. See above. I will assume that you simply did not read what I said carefully, and not malicious intent to twist what I said.


Ming have much more technology acheivement than Qing ever was, Ming has play more attention to firearms. But I won't say Qing caused the chinese to fall behind the west, whether Qing do not see the use of Firearms. They pay more attention to soilders morale, disclipe and training. Which is not bad, but the firearms evolution in the west became very dramatic that weapons became more important. It is hard to say who should bear the responsibility, but Ming and Qing are the beginning of the falling behind for chinese.

Debatable. The Ming initially established state arsenals to develop weapons, but a combination of corruption and bureaucratic infighting caused it to become increasingly reliant upon imports so that by the late Ming cannons were bought from Dutch and Portuguese. The Qing at tried numerous times to import manufacturing process from the West, from the Jesuits at the beginning to the Hanyang Arsenal towards the very end of the dynasty. THis is of course only on firearms. As for other technologies, it does not seem to me the Ming were any more markedly innovative than the Qing. The Ming's shipbuilding and maritime technology was largely inherited and at any rate they proceeded to merrily let it atrophy. Astronomy-wise, again it saw very little improvement from the pinnacle of Chinese astronomy, the Song Orrery Tower, and it was actually the Qing's introduction of Jesuit astronomy that once more got things improving. Borrowed, you say, but borrowing seems to me at least an awareness of superior technology, better than simple stagnation.

[renmin]

The first emperor is call Qin shi Huangdi ying Zheng. He is not crazy at all, maybe ruthless and tough but he is very smart. If you ever read more about history, Qin shi is not the most cruel empoeor that many people have you believe.By crazy I meant cruel, he did kill many people, I just saying, what makes him important, is that he created China:o I know that Qin is not the worst;) The great wall too helped protect China from outer invaders.

[KYli]

Not just that. The Ming bureaucracy was larger than the Qing, pound for pound. Qing saw dramatic cuts in central authority over local administrations, and the monitor branch was also much smaller. There was also no equivalent to the Ming's internal security apparatus.
Sorry to tell you that Qing make little refrom to the Old Ming system especially in the area of taxation and economy. When Manchu come to power, they lack the administrative experience and simply want to gain effective control. They did tighten up administrative discipline but avoid major reforms especially pratices. The only significant modification is to permanent freezing of ting quota. The Qing system was only derived from Ming with little changes. Only one slight change the Qing make was dual staffing for high staffing for important positions such as ministries, provincial chief. To staffs its' civil government. The Qing relied on the civil service examination as conducted in the Ming. Most of Ming officials just became Qing officials.
This is serious accusation you made. We will see if it carries merit:

Sorry Troika, I might use a too strong words.



This does not make sense. Keeping a strongly guarded Northern border does not lead to isolation. The Song, one of the most maritime and outward-looking of China's dynasties, had to keep a strongly guarded Northern border at all times.
After Ming used most of their resources for the North, they didn't have funds for the sea expedition. That also mean they will have difficult time to fight the Piracy.


By what do you mean 'need'? Even Europe, very few places actually 'need' the things imported in the sense that they will die if they don't. Trade isn't about just what you need, but arbitrage, quality of living, and above all, profit.
Europe want silk, china and many things from China. What Europe offered to China that China is interest at that time. Remember one of the reason Britain needed to sell opium to China, because China is only exporting. China do not need import much from britain. So britain came up with the Opium, because they didn't had good product to offer. The trade is profitable for Ming, so ming do have some sort of trade even in isolation.



I do not 'twist things around'. It is you who confused Japanese piracy. You mixed up the two periods of significant pirate activities. The first period was between Ming dynasty establishment and Zheng He's voyages, result of remnant anti-Mongol forces and Japanese refugees fleeing triumph of Ashikaga Shogunate. It ended with Ming's seapower expansion and improving relations with the third Ashikaga Shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu with whom the Ming arranged normal trade relations, and who cut down on Japanese pirate activities. It was during this period that Ming adopted close door policy, to be opened again of course by the Emperor Yongle. The second period started more than a century later, in 1523, after the corruption event of trade commission at Ningbo caused abolishment of that comission and outlawing of Japanese trade, and subsequent piracy. This period lasted about two decades. The second one was by far the worse, which was what I referred to, since it saw the sacking of Hangzhou, amongst other important cities, and was caused by endemic corruption in Ming's trade commission.
I knew you are talking about the later period one. The Ningbo incident caused by the Hosokawa trading party in Ningbo attaked its rival mission from the Quchi family and then proceeded to loot the city. It seized a number of ships and sail away. The ming commander sent to catch them was killed in a sea battle. This event has costed the Ming to consider the Japan as a threat to China. By the time in 1539, the tribute trade system broke down altogether. This is the beginning of major piracy when Japanese fleets sailing to china to do trade with privates. The violence grow with this kind of trades and many problems were created because of payments. This cycle of violent continued for two decades. Many people wanted the ban to be lifted, but instead the Ming dynasty felt the ban needed to be tighten. It is just you felt the privates were caused by the ban, but I would argue that the pirvacy had forced Ming to think that a ban is necessary. They might saw it as differnt perspective, that the trade had erupted more violence and pirvacy.
So whether the pirvacy caused the ban or the ban caused the pirvacy are debateable.



Debatable. The Ming initially established state arsenals to develop weapons, but a combination of corruption and bureaucratic infighting caused it to become increasingly reliant upon imports so that by the late Ming cannons were bought from Dutch and Portuguese. The Qing at tried numerous times to import manufacturing process from the West, from the Jesuits at the beginning to the Hanyang Arsenal towards the very end of the dynasty. THis is of course only on firearms. As for other technologies, it does not seem to me the Ming were any more markedly innovative than the Qing. The Ming's shipbuilding and maritime technology was largely inherited and at any rate they proceeded to merrily let it atrophy. Astronomy-wise, again it saw very little improvement from the pinnacle of Chinese astronomy, the Song Orrery Tower, and it was actually the Qing's introduction of Jesuit astronomy that once more got things improving. Borrowed, you say, but borrowing seems to me at least an awareness of superior technology, better than simple stagnation.
The problem is Qing only seriously trying to import manufacturing process from the West in the early Kangxi period. By the time of late Qianlong, the Jesuits were expel, the Qing had fall behind every aspects of technology. One of most corrupted official in the chinese history were He shen which is well trusted by Qiang Long. That why by Jiang Qing reign, he was busy cleaning up the mess from his father and surpressing revolts and improving financial situation. The gad between Ming and the West are not as great as Qing with the West. So I would hold Qing accountable for not having much technology innovation.

[mindreader]

I kinda got the impression he was insane...wanting to prolong life. Btw, his name is just Qin Shi. The last two parts, Huang di denote "king".

You must realise this guy killed more people than Caesar and hussein combined, in both wars and the building of the wall.

Um, actually his name is Ying Zheng. Like a descendents of the former imperial Zhou dynasty, his last name is Ying. As for Qin Shi Huang Di, Qin is the dynasty name, shi is beginning/first, huang di is emperor. The fact that people, including western historians can't get this simple little fact right p1sses the hell out of me.

[mindreader]

it doesn't matter what you guys think, to me, he is not the greatest emperor. the only real achievement he made is to unite china... for a very brief period of time. sure he started the great wall, but it costed both many many lives and his empire. it is one of the most important reason why Qin dynasty collapsed, too many slave labour and inhuman rules. if he was born any other time, he would not have been as well recieved. the fact that he is so popular now is because he was the first emperor to unite china, but he is in no way the only one. china was divided once again immediately after the fall of Qin and that's where the Chu and Han conflict came from.

Greatest of all emperors is very subjective and debatable, but still, you must be kidding me.

His unification of China is a far greater achievement than those that followed him. What sets him apart is far greater than simply building a large army and rolling everyone, but the fact that he established the idea (along with the Han dynasty) of China. The work he started with finished by the Han, which is why the ethnic majority today in China call themselves "Han."

Others have built empires all over the world. Few survived through history. China stands alone. The Greeks and Romans were strong in their limited ways too. But now they are mere history. When you talk about the first emperor, he's not just some tinpot dictator that just happened to unify a country.

[mindreader]

Well, I have not learn of his mercury intake, but if he did, I hope his terror was caused by the mercury.

He could've been quite great.........

But he went around slaughtering instead...

He may have united China, but he did not have to kill civilians. He wiped the Zhou off the world!

I'm assuming you meant Zhao...

[mindreader]

Yes, standards were pretty low at that time. But QSHD must have brought cruelty to a whole new level even for the people at that time to be really pissed off at him. Ironically, the same 'loyal' generals and soldiers whose faces he iconized into the terra cotta army to bring with him to heaven, would later slaughter his family and end his wretched bloodline forever.

It is for that reason why Chinese are proud to call themselves "Han" as for the Han Dynasty, but not "Qin".

It's merely the reflection that the Qin dynasty was so damn short. They really weren't allowed to finish their work.

[mindreader]

I think this is oversimplification of Qing. First of all, the Qing were far less centralized than the Ming, with a much smaller bureaucracy, so there is a limit to its supposed control even if it really wanted to. Secondly, as first dynasty in China to deal with near-modern Europe (I remind you that it was Qing Dynasty which first signed a Western-style treaty with a Western power - Russia - in the late seventeenth century), it has displayed considerable flexibility. There is the aforesaid treaty, there is the fact that trade exists, albeit somewhat regulated (contrast this with Ming trade, which was so badly managed that it contributed to making the Japanese trade turned into piracy afflicting China for almost a century), and that it was also under Qing dynasty which saw large Chinese migration to South East Asia. Also under the auspice of Qing was the agricultural revolution seeing China's population boom to reach some four hundred millions souls by the nineteenth century. And if you look at late eighteenth early nineteenth century Chinese trade patterns with West it was tea, porcelein, silk - luxuries - and in exchange mostly cash, but also opium and some manufactured goods. None of this is characteristic of a government that somehow regulates knowledge. Rather I think it is expanding demographic pressure then that stagnated growth - at that scale much resource had to be devoted to basic survival, which also I think inflated China's estimated GDP figures then.

Um no. The Mings were bad, the Qings were worse. We can argue all day long about the semantics of bureaucracy, but that does not change the fact that the Qings were even more bureaucratic than the Mings, just in a different form. Much as the Mings pretty much fell apart after Yong Le, the Qing was done after (I would say) Shun Zhi (and yes, I did purposefully leave out Qian Long).

Rampant corruption aside, let's look at how pathetic the Qings were. During the early Ming era, China was the most advanced in terms of fire arms in the world. Even post industrial revolution, despite the great floods, the Mings have more or less caught up with Europe in that aspect. In comes the Qings. The ethnic Hans are the ones with the superior knowledge in fire arms, so it must be banned. Hell, I'm glad that Kang Xi had a fascination in fire arms, or the Opium War would have gotten even uglier.

Following China's defeat during the Opium Wars, the Qing dynasty still refused to organize militia and local forces to counter the faster moving British (and other European) fleets. The reason for this is they were afraid such organization, which would undoubtedly carried out by ethnic Hans could be used against them. In other words, they'd rather that all of China get screwed as long as they can hold on to a bit of power, ignoring that the Europeans were more dangerous than the Chinese populace at that time.

I also don't need to mention that some ethnic Hans were kept out of key positions. Not all, just some of the military ones.

Tea trades, silk trades, all that is great, but guess what, that says nothing about limiting or not limiting knowledge. When it was clear that China was far behind Europe in the 1860's, Guang Xu tried to reform. Guess what happened? He was imprisoned for the rest of his life and his concubine jumped in a well. If you think the Qings didn't limited knowledge, you must be nuts.

And who could forget what that b1tch Ci Xi said after she took much needed navy funds:

"Whoever makes me uncomfortable during my 60th birthday, I'll make him uncomfortable for life."

[mindreader]

I agreed that Qing have more land to rule, so they were less centralized but they do have more resources and people against the western.


That is just not true. You are making up of things.

The reasons behind the isolation is because China used most of the resources to keep the Mongols to the north. Secondly, China could produce and create most of it needed. So no outside contact was needed. Thirdly, Ming only began to isolate itself after Japanese priates attacks off the coast of China. Japanese pirates had been harrassing the coast of China and the Ming Dynasty decided to close the door to outside world in order to prevent japanese piracy. You are trying to twist things in the other way around. Also the Ming never truely stopped all the contact, do you know that there are trade with the Manila, Macau and the british. More important by the the very late Ming, Ming had lifted the ban on private maritime trade with the southeast Asia, even though the ban on trade with Japan remained. The isolation is not what you think, china may stop the explorers but the migration from china had never truely stop. Ming might grow more comfortable with what they had. they didn't needed to go beyond the south china sea to get what they needed. Ming had been actively trading with the Spainish and Portugese in Macau. Qing is not the first who sign treaty with the western. Ming had allowed the Portugese to stay at Macau. So please do not make things up.



Ming have much more technology acheivement than Qing ever was, Ming has play more attention to firearms. But I won't say Qing caused the chinese to fall behind the west, whether Qing do not see the use of Firearms. They pay more attention to soilders morale, disclipe and training. Which is not bad, but the firearms evolution in the west became very dramatic that weapons became more important. It is hard to say who should bear the responsibility, but Ming and Qing are the beginning of the falling behind for chinese.

Buddy, you got the chicken and egg problem wrong. The Mings did not become weak because of Japanese pirates. It got troubles from Japanese pirates because it had become weak.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Um, actually his name is Ying Zheng. Like a descendents of the former imperial Zhou dynasty, his last name is Ying. As for Qin Shi Huang Di, Qin is the dynasty name, shi is beginning/first, huang di is emperor. The fact that people, including western historians can't get this simple little fact right p1sses the hell out of me.

If you read the first few pages of this you will see that someone has already made that statement.

I'm assuming you meant Zhao...

I beleive he meant the Zhou royal family.

Once again, just a reminder to dont doublepost. You can include multiple quotes in the same post.

[mindreader]

If you read the first few pages of this you will see that someone has already made that statement.



I beleive he meant the Zhou royal family.

Once again, just a reminder to dont doublepost. You can include multiple quotes in the same post.

I'm new here and I'm still fiuring things out. Haven't found the quote button yet except the one on the bottom of each post. Will be more careful in the future.

Reading his post, where he said:

"He may have united China, but he did not have to kill civilians. He wiped the Zhou off the world!"

I find it hard to believe that he meant the royal family. The Zhou king was one that was in name only. His domain contained only Luoyang and the immediate surroundings. I would have thought that if the original poster wanted to chastisize the first emperor, he would have picked a larger population.

Besides, the Zhou was wiped out my the Qin, so was Qi, Chu, Yan, Han, Zhao and Wei. I don't see why he would have singled out the Zhou. Hence I thought he meant Zhao, the kingdom that Qin was involved in constant conflict with for some 250 years, where a helluva lot of civilians died.

But that's just part of my pointless drivel...

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Its ok, welcome to the forum by the way.
Feel free to introduce yourself in the "New member's introduction thread." We'd like to know more about you! :) :nana:

[KYli]

Buddy, you got the chicken and egg problem wrong. The Mings did not become weak because of Japanese pirates. It got troubles from Japanese pirates because it had become weak.
Hi mindreader, welcome to SDF.

Actually I already answer this question from my replies to Troika, you should check the post number 41.:) But I didn't said that Mings got weak because of pirates, my implication was that the pirates were one of the main reasons for the ban of trade.

[mindreader]

Its ok, welcome to the forum by the way.
Feel free to introduce yourself in the "New member's introduction thread." We'd like to know more about you! :) :nana:

Thanks. Will do.

[SteelBird]

I kinda got the impression he was insane...wanting to prolong life. Btw, his name is just Qin Shi. The last two parts, Huang di denote "king".

You must realise this guy killed more people than Caesar and hussein combined, in both wars and the building of the wall.


MiGLeader:

I don't know why your name is marked with *Banned*, may be you're banned for posting... I don't know.

But I'd like to remind you that Qin Shi Huang is not a name. It's his title! Qin is the name of the dynasty, Shi Huang mean first emperial. So, he was the first man who set up the first imperial system in China, and his real name was "Ying Zheng".

[FriedRiceNSpice]

He finds it amusing to change his title to, "banned." As a senior member :roll: , he is allowed to edit his title to say whatever the hell he wants it to say. :mad:

[DarkCLoud]

Qin Shihuang is one of the greatest emperor of China. When young, he was under the control of the prime minister and his mother. he manage to seize power back and started his plan to conquer the other six states.

Due to the harsh law of Qin, qin is the strongest among other states, after "Shang Yang's changes of the law". after the unification of china, the law was made even tougher to prevent rebel from the other six conquered states.

the killing of zhao civilians is due to the bad blood between qin and zhao.
during qin zhao wang ruling, qin attack zhao and killed over 400k zhao troops.
Zhao civilian hated qin to the core. when ying zheng was young, he suffered great humiliation as a hostage together with his mother in zhao. this caused his hatred to zhao. so when ying zheng attack zhao, zhao due to their hatred to qin, put up a hell of a fight. therefore, when ying zhao conquered the capital of zhao, he ordered the massacre of zhao people.

Qin Shihuang may be cruel, but at that time, cruelty is one of the reasons he unified china.

[sumdud]

Yes, I meant Zhao.........

That's what happens when you are outside China, your pinyin sucks, and world history is poorly covered.

OK, welcome to the forum, Mindreader. Please introduce yourself at the Clubroom and read the forum rules. The quote button looks like a yellow talking button w/ a tail and some lines in it.

And I don't really like Qin Shi Huang. Other than the unification part, I find much of his reign like that of...............Cambodnia back in '76...........

It's amazing that he did not even inherent his throne by blood. I mean, what's his step-dad doing?!

[mindreader]

Yes, I meant Zhao.........

That's what happens when you are outside China, your pinyin sucks, and world history is poorly covered.

OK, welcome to the forum, Mindreader. Please introduce yourself at the Clubroom and read the forum rules. The quote button looks like a yellow talking button w/ a tail and some lines in it.

And I don't really like Qin Shi Huang. Other than the unification part, I find much of his reign like that of...............Cambodnia back in '76...........

It's amazing that he did not even inherent his throne by blood. I mean, what's his step-dad doing?!

Apples and oranges. Cambodia was a tiny country and still is a tiny country. Its people share much more of common heritage than "Chinese" people three millennia ago. Whereas Cambodia in '76 can be described as a stage of multiple warlords, China during the early times are distince countries with different culture, heritage, language, etc. The two cannot be made into common comparison.

A far more suitable comparison would be China and Europe. For example, if the Greeks and Romans had the strength of culture to keep their empires together, that would be a western version of China today. Thus, you are selling the first emperor far short of what he deserves.

Not to mention the man is an administrative genius. Much is made of his conquests and little made of his other achievements. To ignore this is to be short sighted. Overall, I'm not certain that he is the greatest (the topic being subjective and all) but he certainly is right up there. Hell, he would even be right up there in the entire world, not just China.

Furthermore, regarding his bloodline, I suppose you are referring to Lu Buwei. Let me remind you that it is nothing more than a myth. There was never any evidence to suggest its truth thus I don't think it holds much water.

But even it were true, it says nothing about Zichu's intelligence. You get a woman, she gets pregnant 12 months later and you are supposed to doubt the kid is yours?

[SteelBird]

Apples and oranges. Cambodia was a tiny country and still is a tiny country. Its people share much more of common heritage than "Chinese" people three millennia ago. Whereas Cambodia in '76 can be described as a stage of multiple warlords, China during the early times are distince countries with different culture, heritage, language, etc. The two cannot be made into common comparison.

A far more suitable comparison would be China and Europe. For example, if the Greeks and Romans had the strength of culture to keep their empires together, that would be a western version of China today. Thus, you are selling the first emperor far short of what he deserves.

Not to mention the man is an administrative genius. Much is made of his conquests and little made of his other achievements. To ignore this is to be short sighted. Overall, I'm not certain that he is the greatest (the topic being subjective and all) but he certainly is right up there. Hell, he would even be right up there in the entire world, not just China.

Furthermore, regarding his bloodline, I suppose you are referring to Lu Buwei. Let me remind you that it is nothing more than a myth. There was never any evidence to suggest its truth thus I don't think it holds much water.

But even it were true, it says nothing about Zichu's intelligence. You get a woman, she gets pregnant 12 months later and you are supposed to doubt the kid is yours?

I think there's nothing wrong for you to call Cambodia as a "tiny country", yeah, it's still a tiny country today. But as I understand, what he meant to compare the Qin's to Cambodia in '76 (Khmer Rouge Regime) was the massacre. But again, I think it's not right to make such a comparison. The Qin's led the country with harsh law the led to massacre. But the Khmer Rouge killed people just for killing, or we can say for no reason!!!

[Gaginang]

I think there's nothing wrong for you to call Cambodia as a "tiny country", yeah, it's still a tiny country today. But as I understand, what he meant to compare the Qin's to Cambodia in '76 (Khmer Rouge Regime) was the massacre. But again, I think it's not right to make such a comparison. The Qin's led the country with harsh law the led to massacre. But the Khmer Rouge killed people just for killing, or we can say for no reason!!!

it is completely wrong to call cambodia a tiny country, in the time of cambodian empire, Guongdong, sichuan, vietnamese north and south, laos, thai, seame, burma, mon, malay and bits and peace of bangladash is cambodia.

3 millions cambodia died mostly from starvation, diseases and hatred for rich ethnic chinese, naturally cambodia only grow rice once a year to feed its peoples, in the time of Moas backed PolpoT(half chinese/haft cambodia)cambodian grew rice 3 seasons in one year, but most of the food we ship to china. those dies there cham (native of southern vietname), Chaoren (gaginang) ethnic chinese, vietnamese, and cambodia. chinese ultimately have responsibility of the masaccre.

Let go back to topic again, Qin shi Huang is not the greatest, i believe confusious is greatest because his values is still follow by chinese around the world. in term of atrocity Qin shi Huang killed far less than the time of the crazy christain rebel in the time of the taiping.

[sumdud]

I think there's nothing wrong for you to call Cambodia as a "tiny country", yeah, it's still a tiny country today. But as I understand, what he meant to compare the Qin's to Cambodia in '76 (Khmer Rouge Regime) was the massacre. But again, I think it's not right to make such a comparison. The Qin's led the country with harsh law the led to massacre. But the Khmer Rouge killed people just for killing, or we can say for no reason!!!Yes, I was pointing to the Khmer Rough, but no, they did not Cambodnian comrades for nothing. They were worked to death (like those working on the Great Wall) or killed by unit......721? (Please correct me) because they were accused of being traitors (like Qin Shi Huang had any direct direct traitors. He killed people too for suspecting them of being traitors.)
Qin Shi Huang's killings might not be as large of a scale, but I think it's a good comparison though.

[Red-Star]

Is it true Qin shi haung send a group of people to find the medication for long life, but in the end those people never came back instead they lived on an island and become Japanese???

I also heard that Emperor Li Shi Ming was a great Emperor too.

[mindreader]

Yes, I was pointing to the Khmer Rough, but no, they did not Cambodnian comrades for nothing. They were worked to death (like those working on the Great Wall) or killed by unit......721? (Please correct me) because they were accused of being traitors (like Qin Shi Huang had any direct direct traitors. He killed people too for suspecting them of being traitors.)
Qin Shi Huang's killings might not be as large of a scale, but I think it's a good comparison though.

Still quite inappropriate. By the time the killings started, the first emperor was arguably going crazy. Last time I checked, no court in the world would convict a nutcase.

Is it true Qin shi haung send a group of people to find the medication for long life, but in the end those people never came back instead they lived on an island and become Japanese???

I also heard that Emperor Li Shi Ming was a great Emperor too.

Sent them yes. What become of them is anybody's guess. Becoming the Japanese is a legend at best.

Don't double post, there is an edit button!!

[Tassadar]

I thought Tang Taizong Li shiming was the greatest emperor of Ancient china. Although Qin shihuang Ying Zhen was great, he was no way the greatest.

[theworld]

In my opinion qinshihuang may be brutal but he was the person that created China.

Before him, the piece of land now called China is many states comparable to Europe. Had he not united China, it would be something like Europe today, the different states sharing the same roots but quite different from each other.

Indeed, Japan and Korea are very good examples. In the past, Japan was a part of China until it seperated. Korea was not part of China but it almost became part of it(it did not assimilate into china becos it had its own written language invented in time). Supposedly Qinshihuang did not unite China, then you would find many many "Japans" and "Koreas" in the northeast asia today.

So how can the 'creator' of the country not be the greatest?

[BLUEJACKET]

In the past, Japan was a part of China until it seperated. Korea was not part of China but it almost became part of it(it did not assimilate into china becos it had its own written language invented in time).
Japan (http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e641.html) was never (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2547) part of China although formaly chinese emperor was recognized as the main figure by many in the Far East, and the Japanese borrowed many of China's ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan
Part of what is now Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea#History) was colonized by the Chinese, but it never became part of China either, even though the people there were greatly influenced by the Chinese. Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam#History) was ruled by China for about 1K years but had many rebellions, repelled Kubilay Khan invasion and never became part of China (or any other empire, for that matter!). The Thais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_people) left Southern China and settled in what is now Thailand, an independent kingdom - the only Asian country that never got colonized by outsiders. Taiwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#History) was colonized by the mainlanders & Japan but was always on the fringe and a base for pirates/rebels. In China itself, regionalism is strong, with many mutually unintelligable languages (called dialects). Only the written characters/measures/money are the same, and there is only one time zone from Sinkiang & Tibet to Harbin & Hong Kong.
I've read this saying about China: "what's devided must unite; what's united must devide!" In his young years, Mao Ze Dong the last great unifier and "savior" of the people, had a different opinion before he conquered the Forbidden City. In 1920, when the 27-year-old Mao was a frustrated nobody full of patriotic ideas, he wrote a piece in a local newspaper calling for the secession and independence of his home province of Hunan. "The final solution to the construction of Hunan is in a Hunan republic. I am against a greater republic of China but for a republic of Hunan," Mao said in Hunan's Da Gong Bao; the newspaper is still published in Hong Kong by Beijing, the well-known Ta Kung Po. Every province for itself, Mao argued, so that Hunan would no longer suffer along with the rest of war-torn, corruption-stricken China.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FI04Ad03.html

And how many Chinese were sent during his reign to their early grave during the Cultural Revolution (http://library.thinkquest.org/26469/cultural-revolution/victim.html)-anyone?
Mao: The Unknown Story (Hardcover) by Jung Chang, Jon Halliday (http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Story-Jung-Chang/dp/0679422714/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-4508593-4211321)
So, we can argue both ways- the unified China is a good thing, or maybe, in the long run, isn't so good or even a very bad thing! If the written language, measures, money,Main Schools of Thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_philosophy#Main_Schools_of_Thought) , ,main religions (http://www.china.org.cn/e-china/religions/belief.htm) and the CCP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party) are the only things that unites the country, one day it may fall like a house of cards!

On the subject of discoveries by the Chinese, check these books:
PALE INK, Two Ancient Records of Chinese Exploration in America
and Gods from the Far East (http://www.amazon.com/s/102-4508593-4211321?ie=UTF8&index=books&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank&field-author-exact=Mertz%2C%20Henriette): How the Chinese discovered America

Dr. Xu has been able to read Chinese words on some artifacts located in the National Museum of Mexico. The words mention people and events related to the Shang dynasty, which ended about 1,200 B.C., whereupon thousands of refugees possibly fled to what is now Central America. Dr. Xu believes these people founded the Olmec civilization.
http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue1...erwriters.html

When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433
http://www.amazon.com/When-China-Rul.../dp/0195112075

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news141.htm

BUDDHIST MISSION VISITS AMERICA BEFORE COLUMBUS http://www.saigon.com/~hoasen/mission.htm

Ultimate Journey: Retracing the Path of an Ancient Buddhist Monk Who Crossed Asia in Search of Enlightenment (http://www.amazon.com/Sailing-Paradi.../dp/0684812975).

http://english.people.com.cn/200603/25/eng20060325_253401.html

[moroko]

I kinda got the impression he was insane...wanting to prolong life. Btw, his name is just Qin Shi. The last two parts, Huang di denote "king".


Qin Shi Huang

Qin means Qin dynasty
Shi means the first
Huang means king

Qin Shi Huang name is Ying Zheng （嬴政）

[Inst]

I'm personally of the opinion that Qin Shi Huang invented China. If it weren't for him, China would have ended up like Europe, with each of the individual states developing their own unique cultures.

Japan was never part of China. Parts of Korea were temporarily under Chinese control, but even the Great Tang couldn't beat the Koreans. Weird.

[Gollevainen]

chinese general geographic features created china, not single individuals, If it wuoldn't have been Qin Shi Huang....it would have been someone else;)

[Inst]

But certainly things would be different; the individual cultures would have had more time to develop by themselves, and perhaps nationalism would arise to the point where unification would be impossible.

[Gollevainen]

well movments of nations are always huge motions are not inflicted by the acts of individuals but societies themselves. Its generally aknowlidged fact that geology of china has been really favorable to form strong and united complexes and thats the reason why china managed to rise as first reall super power.
But if speaking of factors that forges nations, you really cannot go much deeper reason, becouse all those proximate reasons that some guy did something can be tracked back to the bigger reasons.

If it wouldnt have happened then, I dont believe that there would have born any suprise conditions that would have prevented the creation of united reing, those reasons or elements would have born before Qin Shi Huang, if they were mented to born in china at any place

[whsie]

there is no way Qin Shi Huang is the greatest emperor. I will concur that Qin Shi Huang might be the most important emperor in chinese history since he was the one that got it out of the feudal period, but his political skills, ruling skills are no where the best in chinese history. Tang Taizong, Kangxi, Sui Wendi are just a few that were far superior as an emperor.

[Ernst]

Qin Shi Huang is the first emperor in Chinese history. He has build a perfect regime, which last more than 500 years including Qin Han und Jin. And this army is strongest in Chinese History, because of perfect law, which was set up by Shangyang, and the competent general. such as Baiqi, Wangjian, Mengtian and zhanghan.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I'm personally of the opinion that Qin Shi Huang invented China. If it weren't for him, China would have ended up like Europe, with each of the individual states developing their own unique cultures.

China had been united under the Shang and the Zhou dynasties, both of which preceded the Warring States Period. European nations, on the other hand, devloped from totally different groups of people settling on different regions of the continent. The reason for Europe being so culturally heterogeneous, I beleive, is the tribal history of many European peoples. The Chinese found agriculture rather early, and built permanment settlements and could support large armies and the administrative institutions to rule an empire. Europeans, on the other hand, lived in wandering tribes until the middle ages. The various "groups," of tribes (ie Franks, Vandals, Gauls) had little direct contact with one another, and they failed to build large permanent setttlement.

[Bright_As_Sun]

The reason Europeans could not united as one was because they were babarians. They tended to conqure one another though they were in fact from the same root.

Another reason was that they technically lacked behind, that was they didn't have wheels. Therefore doing bussiness was impossible. Thought they could transport goods with shippings, yet their navies were usually pirates. When they came to a place that was not mindful in defence, the merhants became pirates. When somewhere was a kingdom, the pirates became merchants. Not to mention their navies always battled one another on the trade routes; since that merchants were pirates, and pirates were merchants.:nono:

Qin Shi Huang could united China was mainly Chinese were not aggressive to foreigners, and China was already structurally united. Add more, Qin was of Chinese cultured. So Shi Huang had no problem staying in China until the brutal Qin law caused the people to revolt. Qin collapped, but China was still united as one.

The greatest emperor in China could not possibly be Qin Shi Huang. For Qin was only strong in military, yet it lasted no more than 20 years after its unification with China. Then there arised the most powerful armed force in then world - Han, totally Chinese.

Han could expel the babarian tribes from Asia, which Qin couldn't.

[hongkongpride]

The way He ruled was very well documented and there is no dispute that he ruled with an iron fist. His single-mindedness was his undoing, but it is also the reason why he can be considered the greatest of all emperors. The linking of the Great Wall, for the first time provided the chinese plains to have a tangible defense against the north. The Grand Canal he ordered still serve china today. But most importantly, he proved to the chinese culture that China can be ruled as one and its not a dream. He did more to unify the chinese culture than anyone else in history.

I totally agree with you on the Great Canal one, but the Great Wall that Shi built was totally useless from a military point of view and cost MANY lives as well as being unable to keep out the Nomads that kept on raiding China during the Han dynasty. The Great Wall that looks nice today was built by the Ming dynasty and even that could not stop that traitor Wu Sangui from opening the gates to the Manchu invaders. While Shi unified the Chinese script (or got some of his scholars to do it as accounts suggest he was semi-literate:p ) and unified China by terror, laying the foundations for a strong, totalitarian state still being seen today, it was Confucius that unified Chinese culture-his thoughts and teachings influencing following dynasties and even the "anti-Confucius" CCP which today is promoting "confucius Institutes" to spread Chinese culture-LOL:roll:

"The Strongest Fortress is only as good as the men that guard it."

[Lewer7]

I kinda got the impression he was insane...wanting to prolong life. Btw, his name is just Qin Shi. The last two parts, Huang di denote "king".

You must realise this guy killed more people than Caesar and hussein combined, in both wars and the building of the wall.

his name is Yin zheng as Yin is the surname of royal Qin family

Qin, the tiltle of the kindom and the later empire was derived from name of fiefdom that Qin shi huang's ancestor received roughly around 800 BCE

Shi means 'the first' and Huang means 'the emperor'.

you should not be quite suprised that he was fascinated by the idea of extenting his life through some ritual means...as western people was fascinated by the idea of alchemy:)

BTW, i could not agree with what Bright_as_sun said in his thread about the reason that european could not get unified... surely the Babarian was one key point. however id say... the most important reason is the Phonetic alphabet system that people in Europe use. with changing the order of spelling, u could easily change the pronouncation as well as meaning of the words. it creates a great issue of communication among people in Europe with different dialects, even in the time of christianity when most part of Europe was religiously unified.

On the other hand... where china also have thousands of different dialects,and never religiously unified, however, the Chinese written system seized the possibility of misunderstanding to a very low level, surely u might not understand what others saying, but once it had been wirtten down, everyone knows what it is. and through thousands of years of implementing such practice that chinese people has been bounded together. Thus, the greatest work Qin shi huang has ever done was not put those kingdoms into one empire but unified the chinese character which chinese people is still using today( may not be percisely the same, but certianly u could find familiarity between morden character and those anicent one), it is those little character assured China could stand as the most long lived civilization in the world

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The reason Europeans could not united as one was because they were babarians.

Yes.. but I didn't want to say it directly for it may offend some members, and because barbarian is a very subjective term. But they did not develop a system of writing, which could preserve history and a common cultural history; they lived in tribal societies, which were fiercely independent of one another except in times when one great leader would rise up and take control; and they did not live in permanment settlements; so they were unable to develop the resources and control necessary to keen an empire together.