Why was Qin so powerful?

Why was Qin so powerful?

Aryans

they went with the flow

literally

whenever they needed to attack, they just had to row downstream

whenever they needed to defend, they just had to fight enemies as they rowed upstream

the han dynasty was established in a similar way

Why is China so underrated?

I just got into it in the last few weeks (though a Wikipedia article binge) and it honestly has one of the most top tier history's in the world yet I knew more about useless Slavic nations then I did about it before.

If you want a answer OP it's because the main Qin emperors (I think his name is Sei) father or grandfather instituted a series of reforms which rapidly grew their strength over the upcoming decades. By Sei's generation he not only had one of the most powerful armies in China but also some of the best generals in Chinese history (Bai qi and Xiang Ji).

I find it very similar to the Macedonian empire desu.

Crossbows
Feudal organization
State build solely around the waging of war.
All the other states going full retard and not unifying against the agressor
Also, yet again: crossbows

Because slavic nations you can name had more effect on the part of the world you live in than china did.

I live in the US tho. Admittedly I didn't know much about Eastern Europe until a few months ago too. I'm just surprised at how rich China was.

It's a shame they had to throw that all into the trash in the cultural revolution.

Qin only lasted a decade though.

>Why is China so underrated?
They shut themselves off or got fucked over by Europe for centuries, and when they finally start getting their shit together they throw most of their ancient culture out for Sinoesque Marxism.

Because it doesn't affect the west that much, if you want to be studied be important to the west.
Sumer is studied because it leads to Roman civilisation and if you're a romanticist this leads to the british empire

>for centuries
I mean they had a pretty good run. For most of history they were more advanced than Europe so it's a shame we're throwing all that in the trash just because they had a bad run a few centuries ago.

Calling China more advanced than Europe at any point is extremely subjective. On the one hand, catalysts for modern Europe like the printing press and gunpowder were around for centuries in China. On the other, pieces of Roman engineering and society have endured for millennia and are still used today.

I mean I agree that Rome and China were in a pretty tight race (even without getting into the autistic althistory war) but I'm talking about Europe as a whole.

Chinese History
>shit sucks
>civil war
>if rebels win they establish a new dynasty; if not shit continues to suck and cycle repeats
>things get better
>slow decline
>repeat

I think Chinese history is interesting.

Warlord beats rival warlords and creates a dynasty
China prosper
Eventually his descendants become hedonists who spend too much time in their harems and neglect their job
Eunuchs or warlords amass power
Corruption
Things go to shit
Some member of the royal family may try to save it. Fails.
Mandate of heaven lost
Civil war
Some warlord wins
Etc

Europe as a whole still has a few fields where they absolutely dominate China. European naval sciences, philosophy, and legalism are typically better developed than their Chinese counterparts. China has typically had better social mobility, pluralism, and mechanization than Europe. The relative levels of advancement is very much an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Because it was irrelevant

>naval sciences
Really? I remember reading they developed paddle boat technology during the era of the fall of the Roman Empire so I assumed it was usually good. It's not a surprise desu since a lot of their enemies were historically land based.
>philosophy
I don't know much about philosophy to speak. Why do you think this?

Everyone in warring states China was using crossbows. And most likely the same equipment as found in the terra-cotta army.

Ultimately the Qin just had superior military organization and good commanders like Bai Qi.

European Naval sciences were more advanced than China during the classical period considering they've built seagoing vessels while most of the Chinese can do at the time was river/coastal craft.

What's surprising about China was how fucking fast they adopted to seagoing travel during the 600s AD, in addition to inventing the sternpost rudder and accidentally inventing watertight bulkheads.

It was the adoption of legalism. Everything is done to empower the state. Huge emphasis putting as many people into farmers to support soldiers and the military. They dissuaded people from becoming merchants, philosophers, etc. only things that benefited the power of the state. Very harsh but clear laws to support society production efficiency even killing entire families for individual infractions. They also rapidly centralized their power, especially by giving individuals farm plots, by breaking large ones.
Needless to say, their draconic society only lasted for the reign of the first emperor. It was powerful, but extremely unpopular, because it didn't do "muh benevolence." It's one of the reasons why Confucianism came into power as the benevolent order school of thought.

>I don't know much about philosophy to speak. Why do you think this?
As far as I know, Chinese philosophy is generally inward-oriented. Confucianism, Daoism, and Legalism strongly emphasize family loyalty, social harmony, and how to live a virtuous life. European philosophy during the ancient era was markedly similar, but the rise of Christianity marked a shift towards considering man's place in the world and, by extension, the world itself.

Sounds like Roman history.

t. kingdom pro

>pillosophy and legalism are better debeloped

powdered tiger penis