Emperor Qin did more then that besides creating a single currency and writing system, he also standardized measurement system which includes distant and weight. All of this allows China to act as one country and allow commerce to flourish as the country grew bigger. He basically laid down the foundation for China for centuries to come. The last step which is the adaptation of a national language was only achieved recently.
History of Ancient Chinese Technology
- Thread starter Infra_Man99
- Start date
Emperor Qin did more then that besides creating a single currency and writing system, he also standardized measurement system which includes distant and weight. All of this allows China to act as one country and allow commerce to flourish as the country grew bigger. He basically laid down the foundation for China for centuries to come. The last step which is the adaptation of a national language was only achieved recently.
maozedong
Banned Idiot
China ancient times the Yandi and Huangdi, China's primitive society alliance of tribal leaders, until the leader Dayu established first slave society countries - Xia, because the habits of primitive society, Xia dynasty needs these tribal manage their internal affairs, so a lot of these tribes as a small country, but take orders from the Xia Dynasty, which has been used to Zhou Dynasty,in the end of Zhou, the tribe small counties more than 100 in China,these small country through the struggle, through the annexation, after 500 years of war, and the remaining seven the Kingdom of Qin, Chu, Yan, Zhao, Han, Wei, Qi, the seven kingdoms does not have any ancestors of identity, six of kingdoms even think Qin is uncivilized barbarians, after China's first emperor Qin Shi Huang unification of China, he needs the implementation of a unified text, so that Qin SHI Huang changed the history of China, in the absence of the Qin Dynasty unification of China, the Chinese may be the same as in Europe.
if you look at chapter II, III and chapter 4, you can see the described of Qin production of weapons, standardization, dvision of a large-scale production,
if you look at chapter II, III and chapter 4, you can see the described of Qin production of weapons, standardization, dvision of a large-scale production,
Last edited:
Infra_Man99
Banned Idiot
I think China would have been better off unified than a region of nations locked in internecine conflicts. European history claims their divisions gave them more freedom or more ideas, but I think this is more propaganda than reality.
European history ignores how Western Europe and the western half of the Middle East greatly benefited from the Mongol Empire. The Mongol Empire connected vast portions of the world and allowed Western Europeans and Middle Easterners from the western half to travel around the Mongol Empire and learn about the old world, but the Mongol Empire was much more restrictive over the people they conquered, especially China.
European history claims Columbus sailed West in search of friendly trade with India and China, but actual historical documents I have read in the library shows that Columbus and Europe was searching for trade, political allies, and military allies in India and China to battle against their enemies. When Columbus reached the American lands, he and other Europeans quickly realized they found a huge source of raw resources and slaves to increase the power of their nations or kingdoms. Columbus was NOT a friendly trader or explorer.
Middle Easterners from the western half of the Middle East traveled around northern Africa and around the Middle East in search of trade, allies, and raw resources. They were able to dominate these regions under the Ottoman Empire. They were very successful for a long time, so they felt no need to go after other regions or to conquer the rest of the world.
The next centuries involved the Western Europeans expanding their empire under colonialism from America to Africa to South Asia to Southeast Asia to East Asia. Western Europeans profited enormously with their international empire or colonies, but Western Europeans didn't have a perfect ride. They had to repeatedly fight against rebellions, such as the American Revolutionary War. Western Europeans also fought against each other (such as Napoleon), but, overall, Europeans wars were mainly over colonies, not European lands. This will change. In the events leading to WWI and WWII, a few empires started to focus on launching wars of conquest in Europe.
Eventually, the European empires/colonial kingdoms went to war against the Ottoman Empire, and a relatively tiny German empire that wanted to a be great empire like other European empires/kingdoms. I am referring to World War I. WWI was NOT fought over some stupid assassination or over something mysterious. The truth is the Europeans don't want to admit the dirty truth: Europeans were NOT liberating the world. Europeans were trying to conquer the world and live under amazing wealth with their international empires or colonies. This backfired when Europeans started fighting for power against each other: the large European empires vs. the regional Ottoman Empire and the German upstarts. In the background, was the great rise of America and capitalism. After WWI, the Ottoman Empire was broken and Germans were denied.
WWII was fought because the Germans made a second attempt to be a great empire. German acquired the help of Italy, which dreamed of restarting a Roman Empire. Japan also wanted to be a great empire.
Thankfully, America and Russia won WWII. If America did not win the world wars, then the world would be suffering under some type of empire or colonial system ruled by some European empire or under communism.
America textbooks too often ignore or understate Russia's role in WWI and WWII, although Russia played very important indirect and direct roles. WWI and WWII ruined the old European empires, and allowed America to replace Europe's international empires with CAPITALISM and Russia wanted COMMUNISM. Most of the world strongly preferred American capitalism and Russian communism over European colonialism. No surprise here.
This led to the Cold War. American capitalism dominated Russian communism without direct wars between the two nations.
In summary, Europe Empire and the Ottoman Empire had the opportunity to explore the world to various extents under the Mongol Empire. America had the opportunity to explore the world, because America was founded by Europeans who wanted freedom from past oppressions and freedom to live new lives. The difference is the European and Ottoman Empires used their knowledge to conquer the world (this led to their suicides), but America and Russia used their knowledge to conquer some parts of the world and to work as friends other parts of the world, but America was A LOT more open-minded or friendly than Russia.
Now China is tossing off its oppressive, anti-intellectual systems (such as legalism's dogma of the elite dumbing down the masses to turn the masses into the elite's servants). China has been replacing it with a system based on acquiring knowledge for as many people as possible, but China still has problems with legacy systems.
Generally speaking, factual knowledge is power. Exploration is the gaining of power.
How does this relate to ancient Chinese technology? Ancient China prospered because ancient Chinese had an insatiable appetite to learn or master the Way to improve their lives and to defend against attacks. Qin had a powerful military, but an oppressive economy, political system, and cuture, so the Chinese quickly overthrew the Qin Dynasty with the much more balanced Han Dynasty. By the end of the Han Dynasty, China became to complacent, decadent, arrogant, or narrow-minded. Chinese rulers saw cannons and Zheng He as a threat to their power over their Chinese servants. China's rulers did everything they could to hold onto their wealth and power by preventing their Chinese servants from becoming smart and independent. In the long run, China's rulers were ruining themselves and the rest of China.
Last edited:
Violet Oboe
Junior Member
@Infra Man99:
Yeah, the Americans are really friendly and openminded guys, they are even sending the US Marine Corps (never mind the US Army!
) paying a nice friendly visit to your cozy family home as long as you only live in such inconvenient places like Baghdad, Kandahar, Mosul, Basra, Kabul, Ramadi etc. etc. Just as the old saying goes: "Visit America, before America gets a chance to visit you!":rofl:
Do you really think that the Chinese state was anti-intellectual for a significant period in the 20th century? From my POV this is actually unfair towards luminaries like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush who developed the art of ´anti-intellectual´ leadership to lofty new heights! Being anti-intellectual won Ronald Reagan a landslide victory in the 1984 election against that ´brainy nut´ Walter Mondale, so I really do not understand how you dare to adorn China with borrowed plumes nonetheless!
"In the long run, China's rulers were ruining themselves and the rest of China." Exactly Infra Man99! I am awed by your brilliant analysis since Chinese rulers were indeed so successful in ruining their millennia old nation that today China is the lone survivor of dozens of great peoples and empires being once powerful but now lingering on only in dusty pages of history books. Nevertheless even for China appears to be true that "in the long run" everyone will be dead.
Yeah, the Americans are really friendly and openminded guys, they are even sending the US Marine Corps (never mind the US Army!
) paying a nice friendly visit to your cozy family home as long as you only live in such inconvenient places like Baghdad, Kandahar, Mosul, Basra, Kabul, Ramadi etc. etc. Just as the old saying goes: "Visit America, before America gets a chance to visit you!":rofl:Do you really think that the Chinese state was anti-intellectual for a significant period in the 20th century? From my POV this is actually unfair towards luminaries like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush who developed the art of ´anti-intellectual´ leadership to lofty new heights! Being anti-intellectual won Ronald Reagan a landslide victory in the 1984 election against that ´brainy nut´ Walter Mondale, so I really do not understand how you dare to adorn China with borrowed plumes nonetheless!
"In the long run, China's rulers were ruining themselves and the rest of China." Exactly Infra Man99! I am awed by your brilliant analysis since Chinese rulers were indeed so successful in ruining their millennia old nation that today China is the lone survivor of dozens of great peoples and empires being once powerful but now lingering on only in dusty pages of history books. Nevertheless even for China appears to be true that "in the long run" everyone will be dead.
Last edited:
Infra_Man99
Banned Idiot
@Infra Man99:
Yeah, the American's are really friendly and openminded guys, they are even sending the US Marine Corps (never mind the US Army!
Do you really think that the Chinese state was anti-intellectual for a significant period in the 20th century? From my POV this is actually unfair towards luminaries like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush who developed the art of ´anti-intellectual´ leadership to lofty new heights! Being anti-intellectual won Ronald Reagan a landslide victory in the 1984 election against that ´brainy nut´ Walter Mondale, so I really do not understand how you dare to adorn China with borrowed plumes nonetheless!
I never said America was perfect, but I think a person is being ridiculous by saying that, between 1500 to 1990, America was less open-minded and less friendly than China or many other nations. Between 1500 to 1990, compare America and China, and I see how China was excessively inward looking (because the rulers obsessively controlled the mass and feared an intelligent or independent-minded mass), had basic space knowledge, ruled by extremely selfish leaders who took advantage of the clueless mass, and so arrogant that they ignored most of the world.
America made a huge error in murdering millions of Native Americans and enslaving blacks and only helped Caucasians, but look at how the Chinese rulers and people killed each other and oppressed each other in the millions. Notice how America struggled severely to improve human rights for every citizen. In China, human rights is still a problem.
Look at how America made huge technological advances between 1500 and 1990, but China progressed very slowly and took many steps backwards. America is a young nation but it has advanced very quickly. Between 1500 to 1990, the average American had better lives and more opportunities than the average Chinese. American presidents have become useful idiots (IMHO) to fool American voters into thinking voters have major choices, but American presidents don't have as much abusive power as Chinese emperors, presidents, or dictators. America's Congress, corporations, and lobbies are very powerful (too powerful), but they are still not as powerful as China's legislature, corporations, and non-profit institutions. From 1500 to 1990, America was more open-minded and friendly than China, overall. In some ways China was better, but, overall, America was a lot better.
You can disagree with me, but I know lots of Chinese who agree with me. The older generation tells me China between 1950s to 1990 was not the land of freedom and opportunity. China was a land of rulers forcing the mass to be stupid and easily manipulated, and the mass was too stupid to build a better government. America wasn't perfect, but it was better than China, so lots of Chinese wanted to move to America or wanted to move to America. Now, China is improving by learning about worldly facts to improve itself and Chinese respect each other and others a lot more.
America is currently having lots of problems, but America is still at the top. China is rising quickly, but China has lots of legacy problems it still needs to fix. China is rising quickly because of many reasons, and one of those reasons is Chinese people are learning so much about the whole world from inside China to outer space, and Chinese are being more friendly with each other and other nations. Like Deng said, it doesn't' matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. This is my point. Ancient China and other civilizations progress depended on people learning about facts, using those facts to achieve their goals, being friendly with each other, and not starting too many unnecessary fights or wars.
The Qin Dynasty was a military powerhouse, and, IMO, the best overall military system in the world at the time. The Qin Dynasty was so powerful because it learned whatever it needed to build the most powerful military society, a total war nation. This allowed Qin to become the first Chinese hegemony, but the Chinese people did not like Qin's severe system, so the Qin quickly fell, and was replaced by the Han Dynasty. The Han Dynasty was similar to the Qin Dynasty, but less strict and less likely to wage unnecessary wars. The Han easily outlasted the Qin. Eventually, the Han become "fat in the head" and collapsed.
This is true, though in more ways than you think.
What happened when ancient Athens created its democracy?
It quickly deteriorated into chaotic mob rule.
What happened when Rome gave more power to its plebian assembly?
The Roman Republic came to an end.
My point is that sometimes we have to realize that the people might not be able to build a better government, this is particularly the case when we are talking about a large nation with significant percentage of uneducated people.
From my experience, China is still facing this problem.
There are those out spoken individuals who are supposedly fighting for more democracy, but if you look at them carefully you would realize most of them are very narrow minded.
These people are troublesome because they can inspire people, but not to any constructive purpose.
Violet Oboe
Junior Member
Obviously the late Qing emperors were degenerates and their bureaucrats like Li Hongzhang made things even worse with their well intended but insufficient half measures. (Only a radical break with the old system would have saved China during this period just like the Japanese demonstrated with their Meiji revolution in 1868 and the liquidation of the Samurai caste after the Satsuma rebellion (1877).)
@Infra Man99:
Basically you are describing historic developments like the US ascension to Hyperpower status and the long and painful downfall of China from a major power (1800) to semi colonial status (1900). There is nothing wrong with that though your chronology appears inconsistent since you do not appreciate that China's history is a long drawn out process of cycles of ascendancy and decay. Of course the Han empire collapsed after four centuries but many years later came the Tang and made the empire more powerful than ever though after 300 years they also met their fate. Chaos ensued but the Song dynasty restored the country and they led China to prosperity, scientific (even you should have heard of famous Song era mathematicians like Jia Xian and Yang Hui!) and industrial (gun powder, guns, rockets, book printing) progress. ...and the cycle went on for many more centuries until today and possibly some guys will have a discussion about Chinese history on this day in hundred years!
@Infra Man99:
Basically you are describing historic developments like the US ascension to Hyperpower status and the long and painful downfall of China from a major power (1800) to semi colonial status (1900). There is nothing wrong with that though your chronology appears inconsistent since you do not appreciate that China's history is a long drawn out process of cycles of ascendancy and decay. Of course the Han empire collapsed after four centuries but many years later came the Tang and made the empire more powerful than ever though after 300 years they also met their fate. Chaos ensued but the Song dynasty restored the country and they led China to prosperity, scientific (even you should have heard of famous Song era mathematicians like Jia Xian and Yang Hui!) and industrial (gun powder, guns, rockets, book printing) progress. ...and the cycle went on for many more centuries until today and possibly some guys will have a discussion about Chinese history on this day in hundred years!
Violet Oboe
Junior Member
I agree with your thesis since first of all many of those ´democrats´ conduct no constructive analysis and have consequently no applicable solutions for any palpable problems. Furthermore they do not understand how a multiparty system works and have no clue whatsoever how western liberal democracy has irrevocably transformed asian societies like Japan, South Korea or Taiwan.
(Most funny during a recent discussion was a guy who was insisting with me that the introduction of liberal democracy in China would curb the power of the ´Princelings´ (offspring of high ranking party officials). Well, the story of a certain family called Bush was probably already news for him but after learning that almost half of the Japanese Diet members of the ruling LDP are actually family members of party elders he had to admit that imitating the West is certainly no miracle cure for Chinese woes! :rofl
Infra_Man99
Banned Idiot
I agree with your thesis since first of all many of those ´democrats´ conduct no constructive analysis and have consequently no applicable solutions for any palpable problems. Furthermore they do not understand how a multiparty system works and have no clue whatsoever how western liberal democracy has irrevocably transformed asian societies like Japan, South Korea or Taiwan.
(Most funny during a recent discussion was a guy who was insisting with me that the introduction of liberal democracy in China would curb the power of the ´Princelings´ (offspring of high ranking party officials). Well, the story of a certain family called Bush was probably already news for him but after learning that almost half of the Japanese Diet members of the ruling LDP are actually family members of party elders he had to admit that imitating the West is certainly no miracle cure for Chinese woes! :rofl
I totally agree with you, and was fully aware of this idea.
Ancient European philosophers such as Plato was even aware of the fact that the mass was NOT ready to rule themselves or other people, thus Plato ranked governments in this order: intelligent and moral oligarchy > self-serving oligarchy > democracy (which Plato described as mob rule) > dictatorship. To be clear, the first on the list is the best and the last is the worst. Socrates understood the limited knowledge everyone possessed. Aristotle's government ranking was something like this (correct me if I am wrong 'cuz I haven't read Aristotle in a LONG time) (from best to worst): king who was moral, smart, and cared about everyone > oligarchy that was moral, smart, and cared about everyone > enlightened democracy = democracy ONLY for people who were moral, smart, and caring about everyone. Aristotle then says the worst governments were in this order (from least bad to most bad): democracy for everyone > oligarchy that was immoral, dumb, and self-serving > king who was immoral, dumb, and self-serving. Aristotle chose the middle route and picked democracy as the best government, because its adequate or the least worst (the safe choice). Nothing great, but nothing disastrous.
Ancient Chinese philosophers like the Confucists, Mohists, Legalists, Daoists, and so forth also intensely debated this issue. Some wanted a moral, smart king who looked after everyone, some wanted an oligarchy of moral, smart people who looked after everyone, and some wanted a completely loose society consisting only of friendly individuals living in friendly towns and cities with no states or empires. Then there was the dark side: some Chinese philosophers advocated the rule of the most powerful or the most manipulative. Many Chinese philosophers knew letting a few rule over the mass is too risky, so they supported the Mandate of Heaven, which basically states that any time a nation or the people have too many problems, then they should get rid of the old leader and find a new leader.
In the end, all of these systems never worked well enough due to various reasons.
I also agree with you about certain Chinese who think they are doing a good thing by protesting about democracy when they are actually making things worse. I have met these people and talked to them. They think democracy is a miracle system when pure democracy is horrible. They complain about human rights but if they were in power, they would rule like tyrants or ignorant disasters (IMHO).
The general point I am making is that a nation that seeks facts and knows facts empower the nation is better off than a nation with abusive rulers dominating a naive mass. A nation that builds a military for defense, is better than a nation that starts unnecessary wars and doesn't know when to stop fighting. Ancient China is an example of nation(s) pursuing facts and realizing the importance of having a good military but only using the military to end invaders.
Ancient China created vast education systems to make as many people as possible moral, intelligent, and constructive for everyone, but too often, the education system fell into a common problem: too much focus on memorizing information or obeying the set ideas and rules, too much focus on obeying and worshiping high-ranking people, and too little focus on finding and clarifying facts, using facts to help you, being constructive (not abusive) towards other people, and how to stop abusive people or criminals.
Infra_Man99
Banned Idiot
Obviously the late Qing emperors were degenerates and their bureaucrats like Li Hongzhang made things even worse with their well intended but insufficient half measures. (Only a radical break with the old system would have saved China during this period just like the Japanese demonstrated with their Meiji revolution in 1868 and the liquidation of the Samurai caste after the Satsuma rebellion (1877).)
@Infra Man99:
Basically you are describing historic developments like the US ascension to Hyperpower status and the long and painful downfall of China from a major power (1800) to semi colonial status (1900). There is nothing wrong with that though your chronology appears inconsistent since you do not appreciate that China's history is a long drawn out process of cycles of ascendancy and decay. Of course the Han empire collapsed after four centuries but many years later came the Tang and made the empire more powerful than ever though after 300 years they also met their fate. Chaos ensued but the Song dynasty restored the country and they led China to prosperity, scientific (even you should have heard of famous Song era mathematicians like Jia Xian and Yang Hui!) and industrial (gun powder, guns, rockets, book printing) progress. ...and the cycle went on for many more centuries until today and possibly some guys will have a discussion about Chinese history on this day in hundred years!
I have read Chinese history and other societies' histories.
I think ancient China had the fastest progress when you consider its lack of experience compared to medieval China, and after the Han Dynasty, China STILL progressed or advanced forward, but not as fast as the ancient dynasties when you consider what they had to work with.
Overall, ancient China built the foundations for later China, and later dynasties and systems added on top of the ancient foundations, until the modern intellectuals came and rebuilt new foundations.
Let me put it this way: The Tang was great, but its foundations was created by the Han Dynasty. Every later dynasty was based on the Han Dynasty. The Song was advanced, but it underestimated the importance of the military, unlike the Qin and Han. The Yuan was mighty, but it did not understand much beyond military affairs, unlike most other Chinese dynasties.
IMO, if the Qin or Han acquired cannons and large ships like China between 1000 AD and 1500 AD, they would have taken full advantage of them in economic functions, cultural aspects, technological means, civilian needs, government goals, and military purposes. Instead, the later Chinese rulers saw cannons and large, exploratory fleets as wasteful and a threat to their power over China, so the rulers minimized or banned their development and popularity. I know this is a ridiculous statement because it involves time travel, but I can hypothesize, can't I?
The pre-Qin Chinese made China's first city-states and states. The Qin Dynasty saw the importance of a unified China, and created the first unified China. Then the Han balanced military and civilian affairs. Ancient China set the foundation for the rest of China until the late 1800s.