That does not mean anything, and notice the year 1825, that is the time when China was getting weak and Japan was getting strong,
It does, mean something. When rome was replaced by newer empires which thought itself as rome, rome was in decline. Exactly the same thing that Japan thought itself as "china" during the Qing's decline. The year does not matter, what happened is more or less the same.
it sees itself able to reform while China was not, so it entertain the notion that itself was now the new China in spirit, but notice this, they didn't say I am now the "new Japan", instead they said I am now the new "Old China" Why would they do that?
Where did you get the Old and New from? Did HRE and the Russian Empire declare themselves as the "new" rome? They only inferred themselves as the continuation of Rome; just as Japan did in regards to China.
They do it because at the time the identity of China still represents power and center of Mandate of Heaven order, so for them to do this is nothing but an affirmation of desire for power than anything else. And just like HRM, Tazr Russia, Turke, Arabs who also think they are the new Rome, they were not, because Rome have fallen and never to get back up. However no matter how weak China was, China was still there, so again... no matter what Japan think, it cannot replace something that is already here.
Rome as a nation fell, Rome obviously still exist today as a city of Italy. The concept of Rome; like the concept of China lives on.
The word China and its concept which many scholars believed came from the Qin dynasty; is also a relic of a fallen empire like Rome. Qin fell; but the concept of China remains.
But the obvious is, does one need to be gone before it can be replaced? Let me ask you a simple question from Chinese history, Why do Chinese historians consider the Ming a successor to the Yuan, when the direct successor of Yuan was still an entity as the Northern Yuan Which still controlled a significant portion of land mass of the Yuan Dynasty?
Likewise, the Peoples Republic of China cannot replace the Republic of China as a representation of China because the ROC is still a hold out?
And now notice Japan's attitude post WW2, they think themselves as none-Asians, at one time they seriously consider to give a bid to join EU, and very much looking down on their fellow Asians who were so backwards, and maybe people would argue that even today, Japan still views Asia and China as backward and not worthy of their consideration. So what does this mean? It means Japan seek power, it wants to belong to whoever is the top dog, when China was top dog for 2000 years, then it seeks to became more like China, when Western nations are now top dog now Japan seeks to be more like them.
We are not here to discuss what Japan or China wants, we are here to discuss the fact that the concept of China had been assumed by other nations as the concept of Rome have been assumed by other states.
There is a big difference, the Slavic peoples migration into Eastern Europe and Russia is a relatively recent phenomenon, and the Russian identity itself was not developed until 1000s. And before that due to geographic remoteness and harsh climate, those places was pretty uninhabited, so the migrating Slavic soon either totally displaced the locals or settling in the new land. So they were not facing the challenges China have faced throughout it is history, where everywhere was fertile land and have large indigenous populations already present.
Again dates do not matter. Actually I question your understanding of Chinese History. China is not all fertile land with a large indigenous population. The geography of China changed a lot over the past 2000 years, The area south of the yangtze river was generally swampy land around 0 BC there was a small moderate indigenous population; the southern barbarians living there. This land was gradually turned into arguable land by men and nature. To the north is the plains which is unsuitable for farming, and to this day more suitable for grazing. To the west, is generally hills and mountains which required terrace farming; the East is the sea.As such, if we take China proper as the area between the Yellow river and the Yangtze river - which is the food bowl of China, the N, S, E, W of China cannot sustain a large indigenous people.
And as you have previously pointed out before, the "Han" population greatly over number the other races in the region, There were a million or so Tibetans, a million or so Mongols, a million or so Manchus, a million or so Uyghiirs - compared to the hundred of millions of "han" in the time of the Ming - I will not call those indigenous population large.
And same thing for England, why did you choose to start counting from Anglo-Saxon period? Why not pre-Roman Celts tribes? which who's culture did NOT survive in the invasion of Rome and became the Britannia province, and guess what? After Rome fall, their tradition was once again replaced by invading Angles, Saxons and Jutes people, which is another break. Also you can very much argue that Norman conquest of England in 1066 was also another significant break where almost all the existing nobility were replaced by the invading French-speaking aristocracy.
Are you not nit picking? I can ask you the same,
Why do you consider the Liao, the Qing and the Yuan not a significant break in "Chinese" culture? Each of these Chinese dynasties saw the entire "chinese" aristocracy be replace by Mongols, Khitens and Manchu ones. The Mongols and Manchus introduced Mandarin into China which displace the then han/tang chinese language (which is more common to modern Cantonese) and guess what, Mandarin is the official tongue of China. This is not withstanding the fact that each dynasty brought with them their own set of rules, measures and customs. the Qipao dress is a derative of the manchu dress. China as an identity changed significantly with each break.
So it is kinda unfair that you pick two civilization which are so different from China, but only pick one period in which they share similarly with China and claim everything else is the same.
Where did I make that equation? ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter if everything is he same or not and that there will not be carbon copies in history especially at the same period of time; what matters is the base philosophy and understanding. The Chinese identity changed over time; just as what it means to be Roman changed over time.
