Why is China, with its similar land area, and more people, not split up in little countries like Europe...

Why is China, with its similar land area, and more people, not split up in little countries like Europe? Is there something that keeps the people militarily united better than in Europe?

Chad Celestial Mandate > Virgin Divine right.

Also, Chinese Imperial society was basically Plato's ideal state (with some practical improvements)

>Military.
Nope.jpg.

3 things: Geography, Culture, and migration. And the cyclical relation of these.

Geography in that the Northern Chinese Plain, origin of Chink civilization, gave birth to a massive population of people who -though possessing their own states/cultures,- belonged to a general culture they termed "Hua" and considered the height of civilization.

Said people then expanded via migration or conquest - aided greatly by the two great rivers and the shitloads of many rivers in China really, especially in the south- which then dragged in other ethnic groups to the cultural sphere. Who then meme themselves to be part of that sphere after a few centuries.

And then that general culture suddenly says "what if we stop living in shitty warring states and instead had a singular country?" And then that culture memed further "What if we made that singular state an existential aspect of our culture."

And thus Chinese autism for a unified state was born really.

If I am not being clear its like this.

China making the state an existential part of the culture means "We can't divide the country because only one dynasty can possess mandate and many dynasties = chaos and an end to civilization as we think of it."

Now imagine six warring states did not unify and set out to conquest the world

Boom... that is the Europe

>Now imagine they fucking destroyed each other by dragging the world into two horrible wars.
That's Europe.

Europe is divided by rivers and mountains. China is mostly a big flat plain.

>rivers
Seas, you mean?
But yes, the question is not why the Roman Empire split up, but how it managed to unify all those defensible sections of Europe.

>China is mostly a big flat plain.
North China is a big plain. South China is a clusterfuck of mountains and rivers. Using the mountains and rivers for defense is part of how Southern Song resisted the Mongol invasions for three decades.

In the core of Chinese Civilization yes, but it would be absurd to call places like southern China, the mountains surrounding Sichuan basin, and the Yunnan plateau flat. And the 长江 demonstrated time and time again as a good natural barrier against northern invasions.

lack of frontier more similar etnick group and lack of enemy that could interrupt the process of unification mongols being the only one

their geografy is top tier for defence like sahara desert waas for african until the last 200 years

meanwhile iran and afganistan are in the worse site posible

Northern and north-eastern Europe is a big flat plain too.

In the East they have both a similar culture and no physical barrier to unification and that didn't help.

it's kind of Roman empire still there.

HURDUDUDUDIITRIDDUDUDUURRRRRRRRR

The Manchus conquered all of China and ruled over the Chinese people under the Qing Dynasty. They then conquered even more countries such as Tibet and Xinjiang and added them to the Qing empire. The Manchus were essentially the Mongols 2.0; they were foreigners who conquered and ruled the Chinese and created a vast multi-ethnic empire. Once the Qing Dynasty fell and the Manchus were ousted, the Han Chinese claimed everything the Manchus had conquered as their's, which is why Mao reconquered Tibet and Xinjiang.

Why a country that was ruled by the best of the best was successful while literal inbred retards couldn't unite? Total mystery.

Through military might.

Not to mention a lot of rulers for a long while weren't particularly well educated and largely relied in the church for shit like writing and number crunching.

Chinese Meritocracy was a double edged sword though.

At the best of times it catapulted legit talented men into high government office and become able administrators. At the meh-est of times it was a system of nepotism and corruption which horded government positions amongst a favored class. At the worst of times it catapulted legit talented men to high government office....and then they think they have a shot at Emperordom.

Why did those literal inbred retards make the best of the best their drug addicted cocksluts

At least it meant someone somewhat competent being in charge was more likely than just chance

All those peasants revolts toppling dynasties make me reluctant to believe that this system worked so well to provide good administrators.

>the Manchus conquered us, then conquered the tibetans, therefore Tibet belongs to us

this is why chinks getting butthurt and nationalistic about Tibetan Independence doesn't make sense to me. Tibet used to be an independent country before the Manchus conquered it. Just like the Tibetans, the Chinese themselves were conquered by the Manchus, so they were all subjects under the Manchus. but now in the modern-day, the Chinese act like they're the genuine owners of Tibet. What if the roles were switched and the Tibetans acted like China belongs to them? After all, they were equal subjects under the Manchu empire

It is normal for civilization to unite under one command. Europe is exception, and this anomaly made it progressive. There was no one powerful enough to ban explorations.

More importantly why is such a tiny strip of land loaded with a bunch of autistic kingdoms rather than say eight countries.

>t. I do not understand Mandate of Heaven.
PROTIP: Imperial China isn't a nation state. A Chinese dynasty is decided by who possesses mandate.

In addition it is super inaccurate to describe the Manchus as Mongols 2.0. The Mongols were a Khanate who invaded China and in order to facilitate rule over the Chinese, adopted the Mandate of heaven logic, while at the same time keeping a separate entity as a Mongol Khanate.

The Manchus did no such thing. The whole invasion of China is almost a private affair by the Aisin-Gioro clan, the leaders who united the Manchus. They claimed Mandate at the very start.

I should also add another point: its the Tibetans than wanted Chinese rule. Their shitty brand of Theocratic Buddhism led to the breaking of the Tibetan Empire in the 1000s-1200s and nothing replaced it since. It was an unstable area of warring monasteries.

Finally in 1700s, Due to the invasions of the Gurkhas they tugged on the skirts of the Qing Emperors for help. Qings pretty much said they would help but the exchange is Tibet formally accepts Chinese suzerainity. They said yes. Qing armies marched to beat Gurkhas and then established centralized rule in Tibet for the first time since the Lamas tore it up.

Maybe it should be considered that China actually stayed culturally homogenous not despite having a larger population, but due to it. Differentiation is mostly caused by isolation, and if you fill an area with little villages less spread apart isolation is much harder to happen.

Would I be wrong in assuming that population density is a huge part of this?

China has always been very, very productive in terms of agriculture, and of there's one continuous area of very high population density, it doesn't make sense for it to be divided between different states. The cultural barriers break down because there's so many people constantly moving about.

Europe is filled with autists who cant let go of even the smallest thing. no wonder theyre separated.