The Greatest Emperor: Qin Shi Huang.

D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Kampfwagen said:
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

Brigadier
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

New Member
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).
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Skycom Type 2 said:
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

Brigadier
Hi Fumanchu

:eek:ff

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

Junior Member
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

Colonel
VIP Professional
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

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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

New Member
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

Junior Member
FuManChu said:
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:

FuManChu said:
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.

FuManChu said:
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.

FuManChu said:
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.

FuManChu said:
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.
 
Top