Why isn't the Third Century Crisis of the Roman Empire as well-known and romanticised as the Three Kingdoms Period of...

This is so fucking dumb

why the fuck do people perpetuate this retarded meme

I thought People's Republic of China came to be in the 20th century

>marked the fracture of the dominant empires of their day into three competing states
Is this a joke? A few years of gauls and easterners pretending they're anything more than piddly rebels is hardly the same as almost a century of balkanization. It took Aurelian all of 5 years to rek Zenobia and Tetricus. Compare with the five generations of the 3k period.

the "historical" Trojan war is a meme

Let's start with the fact that you could argue the 3kp started with the Yellow Turbans, so it's actually a period twice as long as the 3rd century crisis.
Let's continue with the fact that the 3kp actually marked the end of the Han (an extremely culturally momentuous event for China) and the effective splitting of China into effectively three different countries for 60 years, whereas the 3cc was just yet another iteration of the periodic military turmoils of the roman empire, the so called gallic and palmyrene empire lasted barely more of a decades and were hardly more than ickle rebels, and Diocletian's reforms didn't really change anything in how the empire saw itself, and certainly noone considered it a new historical era.
Let's then continue on to the reality that the 3cc was nothing but an embarrassment for the roman empire, whereas the 3kp was heralded as the magnificent events who saw the birth of a new dynasty (Wei -> Jin) who glorified it extremely.
Let's finally mention that the 3cc was a no culture period, whereas the 3kp saw a wave of literary innovation amongst other things, with the three Caos at the helm of the Jian'an poetry style. Compare with Diocletian and Aurelian, which for all their personal brilliance were still mere brutes culturally, with little education due to their background.

You're talking to an ignorant retard with acne and phimosis. No, a human acne and a human phimosis himself.

t. Hong

Would you say the US right now is in the Crisis of the Third Century status or Bronze age collapse in terms of historical parallels?

The closest parallels Western art to the "Romance of Three Kingdoms", are the works Sir Walter Scott and Wagner.

The fact that they are not very well known today doesn't matter, but the parallels between the two are much closer than say the Iliad from Homer is, as it is an artist from the recent past presenting an ancient legendary past with modern undertones.

The Romans were also very pragmatic and honest historians, following the example of Thucydides, approaching history as science and not legend.

With perhaps the exception of Livy, who embellished the facts somewhat with a "heroic" narrative. You have Tacitus's famous "they make war and call peace", Suetonius who recorded the most disgraceful and embarrassing events of the Claudian dynasty, Procopius who accused Theodora of being a prostitute and Belisarius a cuck. And many other examples of Roman intellectuals considering most of their leaders and elites as complete and utter fuckups.

>Why isn't the Third Century Crisis of the Roman Empire as well-known and romanticised as the Three Kingdoms Period of Imperial China?
Because they're not really equivalent.
Culturally speaking, the end of the republic was far more similar in cultural impact to the three kingdom period than the third century crisis could have ever hoped to be. Unsurprisingly it's also similarly romanticized, with many parallels between the caos and the julians, the republicans and the han loyalists, etc.
The end of the Han was a real breaking point in chinese history, the three kingdoms were seen as the end of the middle kingdom. The Jin were seen as a new state altogether, who conquered Shu and Wu rather than reconquer some rebels. On the other hand the third century crisis was just a period of constant instability, and the dominate was still just the roman empire.

Tbf that's less the romans being honest (which in the end was more about the state not being able to enforce strict cultural control aside from Augustus and few other emperors) and more about the chinese not being able to describe a minor skirmish without implying it featured more soldiers than the middle kingdom had farmers, and being even more full of shit and symbolic when describing public figures.
I mean, Zhuge Liang. Need I say more? Guan Yu.

Because it is one of the only time periods in Antiquity of which were barely known fuck all. There is literally no evidence of the period at all. Our main source is one dude pretending to be seven dudes with a terrible work that baffles historians to this day. Inscriptions virtually stop across the empire, and later authors don't really talk much about a terrible period of their history.

>The Romans were also very pragmatic and honest historians
>every emperor the senatorial class didn't like is slagged off as being literally worse than Hitler
>details altered or just plain invented to cover up dishonorable Roman defeats
>honest
The Chinese were probably as honest as you could hope for with their actual offcial histories (not popular legends like the ROTK) given their autistic obsession with writing everything down, with the obvious caveat that every dynasty whose job it was to compile the official history of the previous dynasty had a vested interest in making sure the narrative was one of a rise, a peak, and a decline following the loss of the mandate of heaven.

Not severe enough for either of those yet.

Neither are well known to people outside of history nerds.

But the most interesting part of Rome is the republic and height of empire, while for China its the civil wars, thats just the way it is.

This

wew
commies =/= ancient china

In the early 280s, another battle for power between rival Roman armies brought to power Gaius Diocletian. He went to Egypt and quelled a rebellion there. He restored Roman control in Britannia.
With a threat of more disturbances, Diocletian judged the empire too vast for any one emperor to rule effectively, so he divided the empire among four vice-emperors, who were also military men. He postured as the exalted supreme ruler of the empire and proclaimed himself the earthly representative of Rome's supreme god, Jupiter. He claimed that he was responsible only to Jupiter.
For the sake of law and order and collecting taxes, Diocletian renewed an attempt made earlier in the century to prohibit people from moving off the lands they worked. Everyone was ordered to remain at his present occupation. Tenant farmers were to inherit the obligations of their fathers and were becoming serfs, to be sold as property when the landowner sold his land.

Christians were ordered to sacrifice to the gods of the state or face execution. Christian assemblies were forbidden. Bibles were confiscated and burned, and churches were destroyed. But because Christians could read and write – to study scripture – they had become an indispensable part of government.

>Neither are well known to people outside of history nerds.
The 3KP literally has multiple movies, TV series, cartoons, children's comics, and videogames based on it.

Actually you're right t b h f a m

The Crisis of the Third Century had Zenobia, who was like a not-lame version of Cleopatra, and was romanticized as fuck.

The Palmyrene Empire is the only memorable bit of the Third Century Crisis. The rest are just shit succession wars typical of Rome.

Bump

In the West neither are well known to people outside of history nerds.

The Chinese education system forces everyone to memorize the names and dates of all the dynasties and shit.
Meanwhile, I don't even know who the second president of USA is, and I'm a Murican.

Fun fact, the Republic started trying to compile the official history of the Qing as was the tradition for a new dynasty, but only managed to produce a draft before being interrupted by the Chinese Civil War. The People's Republic tried to continue the project, but were interrupted by the Cultural Revolution and never finished.

Except for everybody who played any of the bazillion Dynasty Warriors games at any point in their lives perhaps.

But they culturally identify as the direct successors of Ancient China descended from the people of Ancient China. Modern Romans on the other hand are all barbarian settlers who invaded Roman territory and set up their own kingdoms.

The fall of the Republic is more comparable in terms of cultural memory of various events and characters.
>Julius Caesar and Octavian/Augustus
>Brutus, Cassius, Pompey
>Marc Antony, Cleopatra
The final civil wars of the Republic are even depicted in a manner comparable to the Three Kingdoms in Shakespeare's histories, in various movies, etc.

>The Chinese education system forces everyone to memorize the names and dates of all the dynasties and shit.
Does it teach them how to evaluate sources and create balanced arguments?

both suck

the triumviates are where it's at

We're talking about high school tier education here, doofus. You don't really get to evaluate sources and create balanced arguments in history until you choose it as a major or an elective.

Because both Gaellic and Palmyrene Empire didn't last longer than 10 years.

There were no Roman Generals who were one-man-armying their way into battles, tearing through legions with their Roman Musuo.

Is this an American thing, because in the UK the GCSE History syllabus (exams taken at 16yo) do teach the basics of balanced arguments and source usefulness vs reliability.

This.
He rose to power because he saw that everyone was a weak bitch, literally nothing wrong with that

I don't think you understand: Cao Cao did nothing wrong.

He didn't build a separate dynasty (his son did that), he was literally acting as Prime Minister of the last Han emperor. He was absolutely doing his job.

Except Cao Cao is clearly shown as the villain in Chinese Hitory

You do in UK secondary (high) schools.

>the villain
Mate you'd be seen a villain too if you were a noname general who fucked people's wives/mothers/sister/daughters after defeating them in battle

lol I could name all Roman emperors sooner before I even HEARD of the three kingdoms thing.

Look at what I noticed.

>Luo Guanzhong is the sole source of Chinese history
Nope.jpg.

Cao Cao is vilified in
>the ROTK
>Southern China.

But not in.
>Sanguo shi (the official history of the Three Kingdoms)
>Northern China

I don't think you understand how much of a General Lee-style figure the Three Brothers were. They're memed as heroes all over China, sure, but veneration for them is mainly in the South as opposed to the North.

The Romance is not "history".

Neither

because the chink had actual historians and histories

>Meanwhile, I don't even know who the second president of USA is, and I'm a Murican.
T b h John Adams doesn't really deserve to be remembered anyway. Dude passed some of the most civil-rights violating acts in US history, and the only positive is that he did help to really jumpstart our navy.

American education