zhu ge liang vs huang rong (with a side order of steppemen vs. agrarians debate)

[pannonian]

Why did they not happy with that. I thought ancient Chinese lifestyle was full of luxuries. It's so much better than the Mongolian lifestyle during that era.

Same reason why some mid-republic Romans despised the Greeks.

[Banh Mi]

Why did they not happy with that. I thought ancient Chinese lifestyle was full of luxuries. It's so much better than the Mongolian lifestyle during that era.

Because the luxerious life of the emperor is weak. Surrounding themselves with women and immasculinated eunichs is no way for a man to live. A Mongolian is born and raised on horse back.

[Trien Chieu]

The Mongolian leaders were afraid that they would suffer the same fate as the Khitans and Jurchens before them: they would adopt Chinese habits and Chinese vices, and become decadent and lose the discipline and martial character that had enabled them to achieve victory in the first place.

In the end, those fears materialized: the Yuan rulers who lost China to the resurgent Hans led by Chu Yeun Cheung and other rebels were *nothing* in character like Temujin and his sons.

Because the luxerious life of the emperor is weak. Surrounding themselves with women and immasculinated eunichs is no way for a man to live. A Mongolian is born and raised on horse back.

Perhaps you two were right about this. At first, the invaders looked down on the Chinese emperor lifestyle and considered it as weakness. However, once they on power, pretty much all invaders or their descendants would eventually adopt the Chinese emperor way of life and abandon their own. The Khitans, Jurchens, Mongos and the Jurchens(Manchu) were pretty much share the same fate. I guess they didn't learn it from history . Even in modern days, some of the Chinese officials adopt such lifestyle through corruption.

[Ken Cheng]

Perhaps you two were right about this. At first, the invaders looked down on the Chinese emperor lifestyle and considered it as weakness. However, once they on power, pretty much all invaders or their descendants would eventually adopt the Chinese emperor way of life and abandon their own. The Khitans, Jurchens, Mongos and the Jurchens(Manchu) were pretty much share the same fate. I guess they didn't learn it from history . Even in modern days, some of the Chinese officials adopt such lifestyle through corruption.

Pretty much. It's been said that although the warrior cultures of the steppes occasionally defeated the Han Chinese militarily, ultimately, the Han Chinese defeated the steppe men culturally. That was a consistently recurring theme throughout Chinese history. Some steppe leaders with foresight attempted to order their men to maintain the steppe lifestyle even after conquering China, but never was such a strategy successful in the long run.

[pannonian]

Pretty much. It's been said that although the warrior cultures of the steppes occasionally defeated the Han Chinese militarily, ultimately, the Han Chinese defeated the steppe men culturally. That was a consistently recurring theme throughout Chinese history. Some steppe leaders with foresight attempted to order their men to maintain the steppe lifestyle even after conquering China, but never was such a strategy successful in the long run.

The Manchu attempted just that, and were eventually overthrown, not by assimilation into the Chinese identity, but by the west exposing the inherent weakness in military terms of eastern thinking (the Ming would have been even more starkly shown up).

[Ken Cheng]

The Manchu attempted just that, and were eventually overthrown, not by assimilation into the Chinese identity, but by the west exposing the inherent weakness in military terms of eastern thinking (the Ming would have been even more starkly shown up).

Additionally, during the 18th and 19th Centuries, the West underwent the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions, while Qing China didn't. The technology gap hurt the Qing badly.

[Dirt]

Pretty much. It's been said that although the warrior cultures of the steppes occasionally defeated the Han Chinese militarily, ultimately, the Han Chinese defeated the steppe men culturally. That was a consistently recurring theme throughout Chinese history. Some steppe leaders with foresight attempted to order their men to maintain the steppe lifestyle even after conquering China, but never was such a strategy successful in the long run.

The Li's were Xianbeinized Han. Sure, the Tangs forced the sinicization of the Xianbei tribes who helped them achieve power, however, much of what was passed down must surely be partly Xianbei.

[Son of Light]

Because the luxerious life of the emperor is weak. Surrounding themselves with women and immasculinated eunichs is no way for a man to live. A Mongolian is born and raised on horse back.

And so going around raping and killing is a way for a man to live?

[Son of Light]

The Manchu attempted just that, and were eventually overthrown, not by assimilation into the Chinese identity, but by the west exposing the inherent weakness in military terms of eastern thinking (the Ming would have been even more starkly shown up).

Totally untrue, Ming had the world's most advance ships, as well as firearms on par with the West during it's days. It has always been open to learning and absorbing western science and technology. If not for the Manchurians, China would have followed behind the west in the industry revolution, instead of closing doors and being leave behind.

[Banh Mi]

And so going around raping and killing is a way for a man to live?

It doesn't make you weak and complacent at the very least.

[pannonian]

Totally untrue, Ming had the world's most advance ships, as well as firearms on par with the West during it's days. It has always been open to learning and absorbing western science and technology. If not for the Manchurians, China would have followed behind the west in the industry revolution, instead of closing doors and being leave behind.

The Ming closed off foreign ventures after that, and entered a period of severe and self-imposed stagnation. They had the world's most advanced navy during the time of Zheng He, but they rejected that and turned back inwards. By the time the Manchurians took over, China had been overtaken in technology by the west. Culturally, the individualistic Protestantism of northern Europe also fed the roots of modern liberal democracy and free marketism.

[Ken Cheng]

And so going around raping and killing is a way for a man to live?

For centuries, that was indeed the case...still is in some parts of the world.

[Trien Chieu]

And so going around raping and killing is a way for a man to live?

It doesn't make you weak and complacent at the very least.

Perhaps it doesn't make you weak physically but it makes you an uncivilized barbarian. Society rules by barbaric leaders won't last long. The Mongo, Manchu and even the Spartan are all share the same fate of defeat.

For centuries, that was indeed the case...still is in some parts of the world.

Yeah, that is barbaric and sadly it's still happen in these days and ages.

[pannonian]

Perhaps it doesn't make you weak physically but it makes you an uncivilized barbarian. Society rules by barbaric leaders won't last long. The Mongo, Manchu and even the Spartan are all share the same fate of defeat.

The Spartans actually did rather well for several centuries under the "barbaric" rules of conquest. They became severely weakened by adopting some of the trappings of what you'd call civilisation, and eventually suffered catastrophic defeat when an innovative opponent proved that they were militarily backward. The Mongols also did rather well under their barbaric law, and it was their adoption of civilisation was at the heart of their fatal weakening. It was also at the heart of their great prosperity, such wealth that the Mongols became synanymous with civilisation and riches, but it also led to their downfall.

[Trien Chieu]

The Spartans actually did rather well for several centuries under the "barbaric" rules of conquest. They became severely weakened by adopting some of the trappings of what you'd call civilisation, and eventually suffered catastrophic defeat when an innovative opponent proved that they were militarily backward. The Mongols also did rather well under their barbaric law, and it was their adoption of civilisation was at the heart of their fatal weakening. It was also at the heart of their great prosperity, such wealth that the Mongols became synanymous with civilisation and riches, but it also led to their downfall.

How well did the Spartans and Mongols did during their barbaric rules? They were damn poor. What luxuries did they have? I would say very very little compare to civilized society. Perhaps being a warrior sound cool to many, but life of a warrior suck.

Civilization is not the problem, incompetent ruler is. Civilization makes the country stronger and richer. If you look at Chinese history, capable civilized rulers always lead the country to great prosperity, much better than barbaric rulers. Han Wudi, Li Shimin, Zhu Yuanzhang, Yongle and Kangxi are examples of capable civilized emperors. Was the country getting weaker during their rules?

[Ken Cheng]

How well did the Spartans and Mongols did during their barbaric rules? They were damn poor. What luxuries did they have? I would say very very little compare to civilized society. Perhaps being a warrior sound cool to many, but life of a warrior suck.

How people live depends on their physical environment. The Han Chinese were settled agrarians because the climate and topography of their homeland made that the most suitable lifestyle. The steppes where the Mongols lived had entirely different climate and topography. They could not survive as agrarians; they had to live as nomad herdsmen/hunters/warriors.

Occasionally, military superiority would enable the steppe nomads to conquer the territories of the agrarian farmers (this was not unique to China, but seen throughout Eurasia). However, because the administration methods of the steppe did not transfer well to the agrarian world, the steppe nomads were seldom able to maintain control over the agrarian civilizations for long.

Civilization is not the problem, incompetent ruler is. Civilization makes the country stronger and richer. If you look at Chinese history, capable civilized rulers always lead the country to great prosperity, much better than barbaric rulers.

Depends on what you call "prosperity." Nomadic civilization and agrarian civilization each has a different standard of prosperity, and each one is defined by environmental factors. The products of agrarian civilization are not very useful on the steppe, and the skills and abilities of steppe nomads don't serve them well in an agrarian civilization. What is almost certainly true is that most people are stronger in their native environment; if they leave it behind for too long, they will weaken.

Han Wudi, Li Shimin, Zhu Yuanzhang, Yongle and Kangxi are examples of capable civilized emperors. Was the country getting weaker during their rules?

They were also exceptional men; the average Chinese emperor wasn't like these men, and the vast majority of them were mediocre to poor leaders.

[pannonian]

How well did the Spartans and Mongols did during their barbaric rules? They were damn poor. What luxuries did they have? I would say very very little compare to civilized society. Perhaps being a warrior sound cool to many, but life of a warrior suck.

Civilization is not the problem, incompetent ruler is. Civilization makes the country stronger and richer. If you look at Chinese history, capable civilized rulers always lead the country to great prosperity, much better than barbaric rulers. Han Wudi, Li Shimin, Zhu Yuanzhang, Yongle and Kangxi are examples of capable civilized emperors. Was the country getting weaker during their rules?

The Spartans and Mongols did what they aimed to do during their "barbaric" phases. The Spartans had a way of life that made them militarily unchallenged for centuries, while the Mongols conquered huge amounts of territory (far more territory than any Chinese empire has included).

The Mongols were so successful that they had the leisure to think about how best to exploit their empire. Their idea was to promote free trade and free travel, essentially the precursor of the modern global economy. This produced prosperity on a scale that the Mongols became a byword for wealth and civilisation. It also allowed diseases to spread rapidly and over a far greater range, whereas previous pestilences would be more localised. The Mongols' "civilised" phase made them and their empire fabulously rich, but also devastated them with the Black Death.

The Spartans had a way of life that made them the undisputed military top dogs in Greece for several centuries. Their success was based on a professionalised military class bred and trained to be the finest warriors in the world. Their downfall came in their "civilised" phase when they began valuing wealth, and the peers were no longer so equal any more. The rich got richer and more exclusive, and fewer people were able to pay their dues, and the warrior class was no longer able to absorb losses. One defeat and the loss of a mere 400 Spartiates, and the Spartan system collapsed, compared to the 10,000 hoplites that Sparta fielded at Plataea.

[Banh Mi]

How well did the Spartans and Mongols did during their barbaric rules? They were damn poor. What luxuries did they have? I would say very very little compare to civilized society. Perhaps being a warrior sound cool to many, but life of a warrior suck.
Civilization is not the problem, incompetent ruler is. Civilization makes the country stronger and richer. If you look at Chinese history, capable civilized rulers always lead the country to great prosperity, much better than barbaric rulers. Han Wudi, Li Shimin, Zhu Yuanzhang, Yongle and Kangxi are examples of capable civilized emperors. Was the country getting weaker during their rules?

The point was luxury makes you make and gets you killed and stepped on. A hard life was a man's life and that's what they preferred.
How well did they do? The Spartans held off then defeated the massive Persian army while the other Greek states were on the verge of surrender.

Alexander conquered everywhere he went and transformed his poor debt ridden country into the largest empire it would ever become.

The Mongolians raped and massacred entire populations of Chinese and Muslim civilisation. The nation of Kwarezm is no more, so much for civilisation, picked apart brick from brick. It's said something like 0.5% of the human population has Mongolian blood. Civilisation wasn't so great that they could repel the Mongolian force. Instead they were soft and weak and couldn't stand up to the hardened life of the warrior.

You know what sucks worse than the life of a warrior? The life of a slave with your women being the plaything of said warriors.

[Ken Cheng]

It's said something like 0.5% of the human population has Mongolian blood.

We are all descendants of Lucy and Genghis Khan.

You know what sucks worse than the life of a warrior? The life of a slave with your women being the plaything of said warriors.

[Trien Chieu]

The Mongolians raped and massacred entire populations of Chinese and Muslim civilisation. The nation of Kwarezm is no more, so much for civilisation, picked apart brick from brick. It's said something like 0.5% of the human population has Mongolian blood. Civilisation wasn't so great that they could repel the Mongolian force. Instead they were soft and weak and couldn't stand up to the hardened life of the warrior.

You know what sucks worse than the life of a warrior? The life of a slave with your women being the plaything of said warriors.

That is what made them barbarians, less than human being. If you think barbaric society is better than civilization, then you should compare some African and middle eastern countries that being ruled by war lords or dictators to civilized countries like US, Canada, Australia, ect. Which ones is better? I think the answer is obvious.

We are all descendants of Lucy and Genghis Khan.

Definitely not me. My ancestor is Teochew. I would be ashamed if my ancestor was Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan was no different than Hitler. If he lives in modern day society, he would be convicted of genocide against humanity.