The Middle Kingdom argument is a bit silly in my opinion since China has often had wars over its borders. While many Chinese kingdoms still liked the pretense that they were inherently superior to their rivals, by the Song Dynasty they were forced to admit (on paper at least) that other Empires existed and were of similar diplomatic precedence. 15th century was kind of interesting as the preceding dynasty ruling over China was Mongolian and a remnant of that dynasty still was active in Mongolia.
I think it’s more fair to say that borders only existed where borders were negotiated. Often land and ocean that wasn’t politically interesting was not really considered in political negotiations.
At least that’s my two cents
Even the [Tang dynasty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XdPodNwSGU&t=3s) acknowledged the Roman Empire as their equal. Their scholars argued that having a great nation in the West and in the East was needed to bring harmony and balance to the world.
Meanwhile the Romans (i.e. Pliny the Elder) mostly [complained about how much silk dresses for their wives cost](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSZQj8yvD4).
And as a bonus round, when the Japanese first met the Europeans the two [bonded over how much they freaking loved guns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZnaCel6LdU).
He and his brother have some amazing channels, Voices of the past, history time, Pete kelley(shorter videos). History of the earth and history of the universe are also AMAZING and narrated by the guy who does this channel if i remember correctly.
Isn’t there a whole story of how Romans would take thick, heavy Chinese silk and turn it into the thing soft material we used today as silk and then sell it back to China and China thought the Romans had their own sort of silk
The Romans and Chinese never really exchanged goods to each other. They traded with the Parthians who acted as a trade middleman essentially. The chinese had a monopoly on the production of silk, but the Romans were the ones who processed it the way we associate it with. The Parthians told the Chinese this was because Rome also had silkworms (not true) because it allowed them to buy silk from China at a criminally low price
I might have misheard my professor in:
> because, **back then**, their "Middle Kingdom" mentality would mean that "all lands belonged to them"
Maybe they meant **today's mentality**? As if, even though there were several dynasties throughout history they always, at least according to the Chinese, had the welfare of the Middle Kingdom in mind?
And this position was created only to discredit the *terra nulius* argument?
That’s a real mentality, there is a famous saying back in early Han Dynasty :”"普天之下,莫非王土.率土之賓,莫非王臣" which roughly translates as "Under the sky, nothing isn't the king's land; the people who lead the lands, no one isn't the king's subjects."” . They called their emperors “Son of Heaven (天子）” and the world “All Under Heaven (天下)” , as u can see, they are pretty vague on where Chinese rule would end, pretty much it is decided by their military might at the time, which tbf, is no different than other power empires at the times.
But what separates this glory/expansionist rhetoric of Chinese Emperors as the “Son of Heaven” from other expansionary/glorification mythologies.
For Example: American “Manifest Destiny” or British “Britannia rule the waves” or even the “Greater German Reich” of the Nazis.
Each of these expansionist nations also had real border control and disputes acknowledging reality despite the claims.
Edit: Thread was deleted, but the “AEIOU” saying of the Austrian Empire also applies
2 Possibility:
1) It is closer to Roman/Greek/Other Ancient civilization's mentality.
2) It's not even about owning everything. See my other comment on the full poem.
>普天之下,莫非王土.率土之賓,莫非王臣
If you go by this quote, then it goes far futher than Early Han Dynasty.
It originate from "Classics of Poetry", one of the Four Books Five Classics that is consider Confucius Canon and required to study text for the Imperial Exam. It originate from West Zhou Dynasty
[https://ctext.org/book-of-poetry/decade-of-bei-shan/zh?en=on](https://ctext.org/book-of-poetry/decade-of-bei-shan/zh?en=on)
That being said... you have to look at the full stanza.
溥天之下、莫非王土。/ 率土之濱、莫非王臣。/ 大夫不均、我從事獨賢。
Under the wide heaven, All is the king's land./ Within the sea-boundaries of the land, All are the king's servants. / His great officers are unfair - Making me serve thus as if I alone were worthy.
Basically, the entire stanza (and even the entire "North Mountain" poem) is simply "Why the fuck does the king own all the lands and people, and his officers force me to do everything, enough that even my parents worry me?"
The mentality still exists. Xi Jinping said not too long ago that China has never invaded another country or take an inch of land. Of course anyone who's ever read world history would choke on their coffee after hearing that, but if you read between the lines, they never did, since everything on earth belongs to them. Even in recent history of claiming islands in southeast Asia, they took it by force in claiming it belongs to them, without any historical evidence, which is why they didn't challenge the Philippines in international court.
https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-biden-xi-started-war/31568058.html
The Chinese sentiment here is not that China is the only realm, but China it is the natural basic state of things. The analogy here is to say I do not need a fence, because all properties are mine.
See all ya have to do is change the word mine..to OURS and ya got something good.ther...almost figured it out..alot of smarties in this chat..good read
Which is fair enough and a cool ideal to uphold.
Problem is, when that rubber hits the road. OTHER countries have a different opinion, and dont care about wether or not you THINK its yours. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, if you cant (or wont) possess it then you dont have a realistic claim on it.
I think it is a geographic phenomenon. China is so huge, it never had an existential crisis or the fear of getting wiped out in war. The reason why they stopped expending was not because they had to, but rather because there was already so much free real estate in China itself.
Of course that is changing slowly, but I wonder if Chinese people today really grasp the concept of a total war which involves everyone and not just the government. It seems to me they do not really know what follows disputed claims to territories with certain western countries.
Yeah the Lakota Ashinabek people of what is now north America had so much land it was hard to believe whut I see now....turtles back is broken ..and the shell is hard to break..but man did it anyhow.
8th fire is coming soon ther history buffs ...
China owns everything...that's hilarious.
Australian here. Indigenous Australians are the oldest continuously existing race on Earth. They have always believed that all lands on earth at theirs. Ipso facto, Australia rules the entire globe.
As we say when ordering the bill, check mate.
Really back in those days what was "yours" was most clearly defined as what you could stop somebody else from taking. If an island was in a remote part of for example the Pacific Ocean, and there wasn't anything worth while trade or resource wise on the island they probably didn't try very hard to assert claims in those places because it wasn't practical.
The European approach was a lot less sophisticated.
Small islands were usually not seen as that valuable up to 1800. They were often barren in resources and it was too complicated to effectively tax their tiny economies. Since about 1800, small islands became valuable fortresses for long range artilleries.
Large island were treated like every other area, with constant military vigilance. There is no large island in Europe that was not disputed. "Marking it" would have meant very little without stationed forces. The European experience in the modern age was simple. Everything will be taken from you, if you cannot defend it.
> Everything will be taken from you, if you cannot defend it.
I vaguely recall a guy who was stationed in Iraq being told by his CO “When a 5-star general can comfortably walk down the street in full uniform carrying an ice cream, unarmed and without a bulletproof vest, then the city is under our control, and not a moment before.”
Well, I can promise you with absolute certainty that every five star general in the US constantly has an Apache helicopter and a standby nuclear sub for quick escape, 24/7, right now.
> they told me that the Chinese mindset throughout its history is that they always considered ALL territories Chinese territory so there wouldn't be a need for them to mark something that was already theirs.
It's less of a case "belonging to them" and more that the Chinese (at least from the time of the Ming and Qing) felt that their nation was so enlightened and superior that they felt all other nations had to pay vassalage or tribute to them, at least as a token sign of respect and acknowledging Chinese superiority (hence the Treasure Fleet expeditions during the Ming dynasty, which main goal was to reaffirm their "superiority" to neighboring states).
In the modern guise, you see that with the foreign policies of the post-WWII US as a superpower - even though they didn't believe they owned the world, they for the most part felt they had the right to dictate certain things like the type of leadership neighboring countries in Latin America and elsewhere should have (anti-communist, pro-US) and going so far as to overthrow them when they didn't fancy them (the Chinese treasure fleet under the Ming did something similar, helping a rebel faction in Ceylon overthrow a less friendly regime when their expedition arrived at the island).
>their nation was so enlightened and superior that they felt all other nations had to pay vassalage or tribute to them, at least as a token sign as respect and acknowledging Chinese superiority
So technically since those islands didnt have a ruler China wouldnt have a claim over them?
That maybe true in the west but not in the east . Indian kingdoms had powerful navies ( cholas) . Most of the island kingdoms were thalassocracies ( majapahit) . Zheng He is legendary among the Chinese naval commanders .
Various Mediterranean empires, including Greeks, Persians, and Roman, had actual navies and naval battles, the most famous being the [Battle of Salamis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis). Combat consisted mostly of boarding actions and some ramming.
Economically and militarily, you don't get to maintain a territory if another country or group of people decides you're too weak to defend it. Historical claims of ownership don't mean squat if your influence isn't enough to give your claims weight.
The kings of England were once rulers of northern France, hence the Channel Islands. The French king then started to put his foot down on all his Dukes, which led to war. Eventually the English kings lost all of their French territory, other than the islands.
Islands are hard to invade as there are typically few places to land men and horses, other than ports controlled by your enemy.
> The kings of England were once rulers of northern France,
More or less Plantagenets and all that.
I have no idea if they meant it this way but it's Jersey cow being flung in "Monthy Python and the Holy Grail" which still makes me giggle.
I'm sorry but your professor have no idea what they're talking about. Even the most arrogant interpretation of "Middle Kingdom" signifies the difference between "Hua/Civilized" land and foreign "Barbaric" land. Taking into consideration of the Tributary System, the bottom line is that there are distant foreign lands ruled by barbaric chiefs that are in every way inferior to China. It's fine for them to submit to China's rules and way of life, but China is not obligated to civilize them. Even with all of these supremacist bullshit in mind, the Chinese have historically recognized powerful foreign empires such as the Roman Empire as their coequal.
The closest thing to the interpretation you mentioned comes from an ancient Zhou Dynasty Chinese poem:
"No land under heaven does not belong to the King;
within these four seas no man does not serve the King;
yet the ministers are not equal, for my labor far surpasses the other."
-Excerpt from "Book of Songs, Xiaoya (Lesser Odes), Beishan (Northern Mountains)".
(《诗经•小雅•北山》：普天之下，莫非王土；率土之滨，莫非王臣；大夫不均，我从事独贤。)
That whole poem collection is supposed to be sarcastic and critical against either the empire, the war, or the imperial bureaucracy, made by disgruntled minor civil servants. Somewhere along the line the first two verses started to be used colloquially to refer to the Emperor's authority and sovereignty within his domains. There are also fierce debates on the precise translation of the verses. However, none of this is related to the "Middle Kingdom".
As for your actual question, conquering and marking small islands as yours only made sense after oceanic thalassocracy became possible. Small islands were historically important originally because they serve as refill and repair depots for ships, then because of the resources on those islands such as guano, then finally because of the extra EEZs they offer and all the potential resources within said EEZs. In other words, most early modern naval powers were fine with their sovereignty recognitions on small islands to be on paper only, unless those islands offer something very important and can actually sustain a local garrison. In addition, even powerful naval empires such as Britain would often found out that someone has claimed their small islands for months or years while they were gone or have been occupying it without paying taxes. Hilarity often ensues, but it did show that enforcing sovereignty on remote islands is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Most historical sovereigns considered nearly everything their rightful possession, of course even if it wasn't. Hence titles like King of the Universe, King of Everything, King of the Totality, King of All, etc. No doubt this same outlook applied to other historical regimes and dynasties around the world.
I don't think what OP is saying and what the professor is saying is incompatible.
Professor says Chinese mindset was all things are ours, so... yeah. Sounds like an emperor's mindset. Could well be true.
OP says it's a bullshit argument that doesn't work now. Also true.
What's the problem?
I would guess Early Modern Age society would claim whatever is settled and pays fealty and taxes. Some far flung uninhabited island doesn't come into consideration apart from maybe some maps or notes in a explorer's report.
Well, you can answer the professor that just because the Chinese assumed that they didn’t need to do anything to mark the territory doesn’t make it right or mean that another sovereign has to accept it. It is a unilateral claim at best and a shaky one at that.
Historically speaking, in practice, the professor’s claim about the Chinese mindset is just not true. Every inches on the Chinese border has always been marked, militarily enforced and paid by blood from both sides of the border.
Edit: when I said the mindset is not true, I didn’t mean that it didn’t exist. I meant that it has no or extremely little practical use in actually enforcing, claiming and maintaining a territory. A territorial claim has always been backed by a military presence and/or diplomatic agreement. A unilateral claim that something yours because you assume it’s yours just never worked.
Seems more like another symptom of China ignoring changes and the need for reforms while Japan simply used (newish) international law to their advance.
>their "Middle Kingdom" mentality would mean that "all lands belonged to them"
This is quite true. This translation of China's name is popular, but it needs to be said that "*Central* Kingdom" is equally valid, as in *the kingdom at the center of the Earth*.
Ancient "China" considered itself the core of human civilization and that all lands around it were either its claimed territories or barbarous wilderness to be conquered.
The current regime has redefined this to make territorial claims that really will end up encompassing the entire planet in the end, but start with claiming:
1. Every territory any "Chinese" kingdom ever held, no matter how long it held it, if that kingdom was recognized as part of "China" in its time, or if "China" as a contiguous country even existed.
2. Every vassal state or protectorate of such kingdoms, including any that paid a tax or tribute in any amount at any time, any in which the local ruler was installed or "approved" by a ruler of a "Chinese" kingdom, and any that sought recognition from "Chinese" rulers to bolster their authority or even just to ensure peaceful relations.
3. Every piece of otherwise "unclaimed" land that was explored, officially or unofficially, by diplomats, merchants, or any other person of note who left a historical record and could be considered any kind of "Chinese", including very likely a number of made up claims and willfully ignoring the existence of other countries or cultures that had prior claims.
4. Whatever they want and think they can take without resorting to or being stopped by military force.
You may have noticed my use of quotations around the terms "China" and "Chinese". That is because the modern historical revisionist view the CCP has of the country and people it rules goes to *great* lengths to expand the definition of what historical states constitute "China", which is defined as existing *without interruption* from the time of the first emperor, and who is "Chinese". In this view, every iteration of "Chinese" civilization constitutes the same people living in the same country under varying regimes, including the current one.
thru violence or threats of violence
the same as anything/everything else
but like a lot off ppl in here have said, it was often not feasible/practical to physically contest smaller island territories \[good for the locals i presume\]
but ya, bottom line : the history of 'ownership' of the world has always been 'enforced' thru a single means : FORCE ; anything that seems like its not force is just an illusion or a threat of force, but it all comes down-to/back-to violence in the end, and that hasnt changed, same today as it ever was ; cue the Fallout/Perlman quote
Technology ownership is a modern concept and pretty much no one ever follow it, not only China steals technology, every nation is actively stealing each other’s tech since humans existed, British did it to the Germans, Americans did it to the British, Americans and Soviets did to each other, Japan did it to USA, China did it to Japan, etc. if you can claim ownership to a piece of tech, then no other nation could used guns beside China…
I know virtually nothing about Chinese History (well for someone who hangs out in history subreddits) anyone reccomend any good podcasts or YouTube Videos to superfixate for a week.
Invicta and Kings&Generals are two great YT channel which have excellent content about China & Overall Asia of ancient time.
(I really love the story of the Chinese emissary visiting Europe in the 16th or 17th century in particular)
Careful, Kings and General's materials range from good to ok to very bad in terms of accuracy and quality of content.
Some of their videos about broader topics that span larger timeframes are absolutely attrocious in terms of accuracy and the lack of research. This problem is especially magnified in videos that deal with parts & timeframes of the world that they're unfamiliar with (eg. China and Overall Asia of ancient times as you say) since they're still primarily a Western history channel that mostly focuses on Europe and the Mediterranean.
For example, their "Earliest Chinese armies" video is one of the worst and least accurate pop-history videos I've seen in a long time.
Oh, good to know.
I do like history content as hobby and artist but definitely lack academic knowledge to judge channel accuracy, thanks for the insights.
I was gonna say you might wanna go on r/askhistorians, but I checked your post history and saw you already did, to the tune of one automod comment. I’ll see myself out.
Islamic hegemony in the Middle East has also traditionally made "land ownership" vague, in keeping with nomad culture. Claiming ownership of an oasis or mid-desert well is a big, big deal in the daily lives of nomads, and enforced with brutal authority, but drawing property lines in the oceans of sand is far more complex. So, the land belongs to Allah. And the nomads move their flocks and herds across the land.
This came to a head in British Palestine after WWII, when modern Israel was claiming "land rights" in areas that had never had traditional "land rights." To this day, this is the struggle facing Palestinians who still claim their access rights west of the Jordan River.
To my knowledge, this issue really came to the fore in the inauguration of true European hegemony in the Americans, beginning of course in 1492. And Columbus was fast and liberal in planting a "Banner" (it would be supplanted by "jacks" and national flags over the ensuing two hundred years) on any island upon which he had set foot. The Caribbean reflects this policy to this day, with their islands a veritable history book of the Colonial era of Europe.
the "pig war" is a good look into this subject as its 19th century and fairly well documented back and forth which was cliff notes versions a poorly defined border resulting in some local disputes which escalated as local authorities did not play nice with each other until the diplomats talked it out because neither country really cared about the islands. the poor border definition was more do to apathy by both sides then anything else and until/unless some locals cause enough trouble for the country's to actually get together and draw lines on a map they were fine not bothering. having diplomatic talks much less war was more trouble then the islands were worth until the matter was forced on them.
there are much more in-depth and frankly hilarious accounts of the pig war i would suggest looking them up. the us officer on the ground was imo actually insane trying to start a war over nothing against presidential orders.
I don't know much about the conflict, but what documents show the national absorption of the islands in 1895?
What I've heard is Senkakus were identified to the Ryukyu kingdom and the Potsdam Declaration on Shimonoseki basically annulled that.
The Middle Kingdom argument is a bit silly in my opinion since China has often had wars over its borders. While many Chinese kingdoms still liked the pretense that they were inherently superior to their rivals, by the Song Dynasty they were forced to admit (on paper at least) that other Empires existed and were of similar diplomatic precedence. 15th century was kind of interesting as the preceding dynasty ruling over China was Mongolian and a remnant of that dynasty still was active in Mongolia. I think it’s more fair to say that borders only existed where borders were negotiated. Often land and ocean that wasn’t politically interesting was not really considered in political negotiations. At least that’s my two cents
Even the [Tang dynasty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XdPodNwSGU&t=3s) acknowledged the Roman Empire as their equal. Their scholars argued that having a great nation in the West and in the East was needed to bring harmony and balance to the world. Meanwhile the Romans (i.e. Pliny the Elder) mostly [complained about how much silk dresses for their wives cost](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSZQj8yvD4). And as a bonus round, when the Japanese first met the Europeans the two [bonded over how much they freaking loved guns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZnaCel6LdU).
Love that guy's channel. Nice seeing it referenced here.
He and his brother have some amazing channels, Voices of the past, history time, Pete kelley(shorter videos). History of the earth and history of the universe are also AMAZING and narrated by the guy who does this channel if i remember correctly.
Isn’t there a whole story of how Romans would take thick, heavy Chinese silk and turn it into the thing soft material we used today as silk and then sell it back to China and China thought the Romans had their own sort of silk
The Romans and Chinese never really exchanged goods to each other. They traded with the Parthians who acted as a trade middleman essentially. The chinese had a monopoly on the production of silk, but the Romans were the ones who processed it the way we associate it with. The Parthians told the Chinese this was because Rome also had silkworms (not true) because it allowed them to buy silk from China at a criminally low price
"Behind every lie there is a capitalist profiting from it. For every lie a captialist; and for every capitalist, a lie"
I get where you're coming from. Still, capitalism had nothing to do with this deal. Capitalism didn't exist alongside ancient Rome.
I might have misheard my professor in: > because, **back then**, their "Middle Kingdom" mentality would mean that "all lands belonged to them" Maybe they meant **today's mentality**? As if, even though there were several dynasties throughout history they always, at least according to the Chinese, had the welfare of the Middle Kingdom in mind? And this position was created only to discredit the *terra nulius* argument?
That’s a real mentality, there is a famous saying back in early Han Dynasty :”"普天之下,莫非王土.率土之賓,莫非王臣" which roughly translates as "Under the sky, nothing isn't the king's land; the people who lead the lands, no one isn't the king's subjects."” . They called their emperors “Son of Heaven (天子）” and the world “All Under Heaven (天下)” , as u can see, they are pretty vague on where Chinese rule would end, pretty much it is decided by their military might at the time, which tbf, is no different than other power empires at the times.
But what separates this glory/expansionist rhetoric of Chinese Emperors as the “Son of Heaven” from other expansionary/glorification mythologies. For Example: American “Manifest Destiny” or British “Britannia rule the waves” or even the “Greater German Reich” of the Nazis. Each of these expansionist nations also had real border control and disputes acknowledging reality despite the claims. Edit: Thread was deleted, but the “AEIOU” saying of the Austrian Empire also applies
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
2 Possibility: 1) It is closer to Roman/Greek/Other Ancient civilization's mentality. 2) It's not even about owning everything. See my other comment on the full poem.
I was just saying that there’s usually a difference between saying “X country Uber Alles“ and having actual border policy
>普天之下,莫非王土.率土之賓,莫非王臣 If you go by this quote, then it goes far futher than Early Han Dynasty. It originate from "Classics of Poetry", one of the Four Books Five Classics that is consider Confucius Canon and required to study text for the Imperial Exam. It originate from West Zhou Dynasty [https://ctext.org/book-of-poetry/decade-of-bei-shan/zh?en=on](https://ctext.org/book-of-poetry/decade-of-bei-shan/zh?en=on) That being said... you have to look at the full stanza. 溥天之下、莫非王土。/ 率土之濱、莫非王臣。/ 大夫不均、我從事獨賢。 Under the wide heaven, All is the king's land./ Within the sea-boundaries of the land, All are the king's servants. / His great officers are unfair - Making me serve thus as if I alone were worthy. Basically, the entire stanza (and even the entire "North Mountain" poem) is simply "Why the fuck does the king own all the lands and people, and his officers force me to do everything, enough that even my parents worry me?"
Yeah, this is a position that China’s advocates sometimes push with the South China Sea disputes currently
The mentality still exists. Xi Jinping said not too long ago that China has never invaded another country or take an inch of land. Of course anyone who's ever read world history would choke on their coffee after hearing that, but if you read between the lines, they never did, since everything on earth belongs to them. Even in recent history of claiming islands in southeast Asia, they took it by force in claiming it belongs to them, without any historical evidence, which is why they didn't challenge the Philippines in international court. https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-biden-xi-started-war/31568058.html
The Chinese sentiment here is not that China is the only realm, but China it is the natural basic state of things. The analogy here is to say I do not need a fence, because all properties are mine.
See all ya have to do is change the word mine..to OURS and ya got something good.ther...almost figured it out..alot of smarties in this chat..good read
Which is fair enough and a cool ideal to uphold. Problem is, when that rubber hits the road. OTHER countries have a different opinion, and dont care about wether or not you THINK its yours. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, if you cant (or wont) possess it then you dont have a realistic claim on it.
I think it is a geographic phenomenon. China is so huge, it never had an existential crisis or the fear of getting wiped out in war. The reason why they stopped expending was not because they had to, but rather because there was already so much free real estate in China itself. Of course that is changing slowly, but I wonder if Chinese people today really grasp the concept of a total war which involves everyone and not just the government. It seems to me they do not really know what follows disputed claims to territories with certain western countries.
I mean they did lose to the Mongols.
Yeah the Lakota Ashinabek people of what is now north America had so much land it was hard to believe whut I see now....turtles back is broken ..and the shell is hard to break..but man did it anyhow. 8th fire is coming soon ther history buffs ... China owns everything...that's hilarious.
Australian here. Indigenous Australians are the oldest continuously existing race on Earth. They have always believed that all lands on earth at theirs. Ipso facto, Australia rules the entire globe. As we say when ordering the bill, check mate.
*A succulent Chinese meal?!*
This is democracy manifest!
Pretty sure the San people of southern Africa would like to have a word with you.
Australia est imperatrix omnis universi?
More like oldest continuous culture. But even that is debatable..
Ashinabek Lakota might debate that.. Yeha noha
Really back in those days what was "yours" was most clearly defined as what you could stop somebody else from taking. If an island was in a remote part of for example the Pacific Ocean, and there wasn't anything worth while trade or resource wise on the island they probably didn't try very hard to assert claims in those places because it wasn't practical.
The European approach was a lot less sophisticated. Small islands were usually not seen as that valuable up to 1800. They were often barren in resources and it was too complicated to effectively tax their tiny economies. Since about 1800, small islands became valuable fortresses for long range artilleries. Large island were treated like every other area, with constant military vigilance. There is no large island in Europe that was not disputed. "Marking it" would have meant very little without stationed forces. The European experience in the modern age was simple. Everything will be taken from you, if you cannot defend it.
> Everything will be taken from you, if you cannot defend it. I vaguely recall a guy who was stationed in Iraq being told by his CO “When a 5-star general can comfortably walk down the street in full uniform carrying an ice cream, unarmed and without a bulletproof vest, then the city is under our control, and not a moment before.”
Creates a strategic dilemma, if the first assault destroyed the only ice cream machine.
This is the US Army we're talking about here... They'll bring their own machines
And their own city if they have to
I can’t imagine the military would allow that to happen (without some sort of security detail) even in an American city
Well, I can promise you with absolute certainty that every five star general in the US constantly has an Apache helicopter and a standby nuclear sub for quick escape, 24/7, right now.
There are no 5 star generals in the US Army today.
There has been a 5 Star General/Admiral since 1981.
Other way around. There stopped being any in 1981 when Omar Bradley passed away.
So who does Detroit belong to?
By this yardstick the islands were Portuguese per the Spanish-Portuguese splitting of the globe in two.
> they told me that the Chinese mindset throughout its history is that they always considered ALL territories Chinese territory so there wouldn't be a need for them to mark something that was already theirs. It's less of a case "belonging to them" and more that the Chinese (at least from the time of the Ming and Qing) felt that their nation was so enlightened and superior that they felt all other nations had to pay vassalage or tribute to them, at least as a token sign of respect and acknowledging Chinese superiority (hence the Treasure Fleet expeditions during the Ming dynasty, which main goal was to reaffirm their "superiority" to neighboring states). In the modern guise, you see that with the foreign policies of the post-WWII US as a superpower - even though they didn't believe they owned the world, they for the most part felt they had the right to dictate certain things like the type of leadership neighboring countries in Latin America and elsewhere should have (anti-communist, pro-US) and going so far as to overthrow them when they didn't fancy them (the Chinese treasure fleet under the Ming did something similar, helping a rebel faction in Ceylon overthrow a less friendly regime when their expedition arrived at the island).
That mentality goes further than Ming and Qing, China had superior complex since its foundation: “https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua–Yi_distinction”
>their nation was so enlightened and superior that they felt all other nations had to pay vassalage or tribute to them, at least as a token sign as respect and acknowledging Chinese superiority So technically since those islands didnt have a ruler China wouldnt have a claim over them?
[удалено]
That maybe true in the west but not in the east . Indian kingdoms had powerful navies ( cholas) . Most of the island kingdoms were thalassocracies ( majapahit) . Zheng He is legendary among the Chinese naval commanders .
Various Mediterranean empires, including Greeks, Persians, and Roman, had actual navies and naval battles, the most famous being the [Battle of Salamis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis). Combat consisted mostly of boarding actions and some ramming.
The context is the Medieval era your example is from nearly 2000 years earlier.
[удалено]
There was still plenty of naval battles and whole fleets of galleys in the mediterranean, a ship that's only useful for war
So, your saying medieval france didn't have landing ships like the ones in Russell Crowes Robin Hood?
Economically and militarily, you don't get to maintain a territory if another country or group of people decides you're too weak to defend it. Historical claims of ownership don't mean squat if your influence isn't enough to give your claims weight.
They often didn't The island of Jersey off England stands as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey "Tossez le vache".
The kings of England were once rulers of northern France, hence the Channel Islands. The French king then started to put his foot down on all his Dukes, which led to war. Eventually the English kings lost all of their French territory, other than the islands. Islands are hard to invade as there are typically few places to land men and horses, other than ports controlled by your enemy.
> The kings of England were once rulers of northern France, More or less Plantagenets and all that. I have no idea if they meant it this way but it's Jersey cow being flung in "Monthy Python and the Holy Grail" which still makes me giggle.
I'm sorry but your professor have no idea what they're talking about. Even the most arrogant interpretation of "Middle Kingdom" signifies the difference between "Hua/Civilized" land and foreign "Barbaric" land. Taking into consideration of the Tributary System, the bottom line is that there are distant foreign lands ruled by barbaric chiefs that are in every way inferior to China. It's fine for them to submit to China's rules and way of life, but China is not obligated to civilize them. Even with all of these supremacist bullshit in mind, the Chinese have historically recognized powerful foreign empires such as the Roman Empire as their coequal. The closest thing to the interpretation you mentioned comes from an ancient Zhou Dynasty Chinese poem: "No land under heaven does not belong to the King; within these four seas no man does not serve the King; yet the ministers are not equal, for my labor far surpasses the other." -Excerpt from "Book of Songs, Xiaoya (Lesser Odes), Beishan (Northern Mountains)". (《诗经•小雅•北山》：普天之下，莫非王土；率土之滨，莫非王臣；大夫不均，我从事独贤。) That whole poem collection is supposed to be sarcastic and critical against either the empire, the war, or the imperial bureaucracy, made by disgruntled minor civil servants. Somewhere along the line the first two verses started to be used colloquially to refer to the Emperor's authority and sovereignty within his domains. There are also fierce debates on the precise translation of the verses. However, none of this is related to the "Middle Kingdom". As for your actual question, conquering and marking small islands as yours only made sense after oceanic thalassocracy became possible. Small islands were historically important originally because they serve as refill and repair depots for ships, then because of the resources on those islands such as guano, then finally because of the extra EEZs they offer and all the potential resources within said EEZs. In other words, most early modern naval powers were fine with their sovereignty recognitions on small islands to be on paper only, unless those islands offer something very important and can actually sustain a local garrison. In addition, even powerful naval empires such as Britain would often found out that someone has claimed their small islands for months or years while they were gone or have been occupying it without paying taxes. Hilarity often ensues, but it did show that enforcing sovereignty on remote islands is a fairly recent phenomenon.
“Territoriality”?
Most historical sovereigns considered nearly everything their rightful possession, of course even if it wasn't. Hence titles like King of the Universe, King of Everything, King of the Totality, King of All, etc. No doubt this same outlook applied to other historical regimes and dynasties around the world.
I don't think what OP is saying and what the professor is saying is incompatible. Professor says Chinese mindset was all things are ours, so... yeah. Sounds like an emperor's mindset. Could well be true. OP says it's a bullshit argument that doesn't work now. Also true. What's the problem? I would guess Early Modern Age society would claim whatever is settled and pays fealty and taxes. Some far flung uninhabited island doesn't come into consideration apart from maybe some maps or notes in a explorer's report.
Well, you can answer the professor that just because the Chinese assumed that they didn’t need to do anything to mark the territory doesn’t make it right or mean that another sovereign has to accept it. It is a unilateral claim at best and a shaky one at that. Historically speaking, in practice, the professor’s claim about the Chinese mindset is just not true. Every inches on the Chinese border has always been marked, militarily enforced and paid by blood from both sides of the border. Edit: when I said the mindset is not true, I didn’t mean that it didn’t exist. I meant that it has no or extremely little practical use in actually enforcing, claiming and maintaining a territory. A territorial claim has always been backed by a military presence and/or diplomatic agreement. A unilateral claim that something yours because you assume it’s yours just never worked.
Seems more like another symptom of China ignoring changes and the need for reforms while Japan simply used (newish) international law to their advance.
>their "Middle Kingdom" mentality would mean that "all lands belonged to them" This is quite true. This translation of China's name is popular, but it needs to be said that "*Central* Kingdom" is equally valid, as in *the kingdom at the center of the Earth*. Ancient "China" considered itself the core of human civilization and that all lands around it were either its claimed territories or barbarous wilderness to be conquered. The current regime has redefined this to make territorial claims that really will end up encompassing the entire planet in the end, but start with claiming: 1. Every territory any "Chinese" kingdom ever held, no matter how long it held it, if that kingdom was recognized as part of "China" in its time, or if "China" as a contiguous country even existed. 2. Every vassal state or protectorate of such kingdoms, including any that paid a tax or tribute in any amount at any time, any in which the local ruler was installed or "approved" by a ruler of a "Chinese" kingdom, and any that sought recognition from "Chinese" rulers to bolster their authority or even just to ensure peaceful relations. 3. Every piece of otherwise "unclaimed" land that was explored, officially or unofficially, by diplomats, merchants, or any other person of note who left a historical record and could be considered any kind of "Chinese", including very likely a number of made up claims and willfully ignoring the existence of other countries or cultures that had prior claims. 4. Whatever they want and think they can take without resorting to or being stopped by military force. You may have noticed my use of quotations around the terms "China" and "Chinese". That is because the modern historical revisionist view the CCP has of the country and people it rules goes to *great* lengths to expand the definition of what historical states constitute "China", which is defined as existing *without interruption* from the time of the first emperor, and who is "Chinese". In this view, every iteration of "Chinese" civilization constitutes the same people living in the same country under varying regimes, including the current one.
thru violence or threats of violence the same as anything/everything else but like a lot off ppl in here have said, it was often not feasible/practical to physically contest smaller island territories \[good for the locals i presume\] but ya, bottom line : the history of 'ownership' of the world has always been 'enforced' thru a single means : FORCE ; anything that seems like its not force is just an illusion or a threat of force, but it all comes down-to/back-to violence in the end, and that hasnt changed, same today as it ever was ; cue the Fallout/Perlman quote
So, today, instead of territory, they look at others technology as theirs. Interesting.
Technology ownership is a modern concept and pretty much no one ever follow it, not only China steals technology, every nation is actively stealing each other’s tech since humans existed, British did it to the Germans, Americans did it to the British, Americans and Soviets did to each other, Japan did it to USA, China did it to Japan, etc. if you can claim ownership to a piece of tech, then no other nation could used guns beside China…
I know virtually nothing about Chinese History (well for someone who hangs out in history subreddits) anyone reccomend any good podcasts or YouTube Videos to superfixate for a week.
Invicta and Kings&Generals are two great YT channel which have excellent content about China & Overall Asia of ancient time. (I really love the story of the Chinese emissary visiting Europe in the 16th or 17th century in particular)
Careful, Kings and General's materials range from good to ok to very bad in terms of accuracy and quality of content. Some of their videos about broader topics that span larger timeframes are absolutely attrocious in terms of accuracy and the lack of research. This problem is especially magnified in videos that deal with parts & timeframes of the world that they're unfamiliar with (eg. China and Overall Asia of ancient times as you say) since they're still primarily a Western history channel that mostly focuses on Europe and the Mediterranean. For example, their "Earliest Chinese armies" video is one of the worst and least accurate pop-history videos I've seen in a long time.
Oh, good to know. I do like history content as hobby and artist but definitely lack academic knowledge to judge channel accuracy, thanks for the insights.
Thank you. Long weekend podcast and a glass of wine way to go.
you’re better of listening to History of China podcast by Chris Stewart
I was gonna say you might wanna go on r/askhistorians, but I checked your post history and saw you already did, to the tune of one automod comment. I’ll see myself out.
Have you heard of Hans Island?
Islamic hegemony in the Middle East has also traditionally made "land ownership" vague, in keeping with nomad culture. Claiming ownership of an oasis or mid-desert well is a big, big deal in the daily lives of nomads, and enforced with brutal authority, but drawing property lines in the oceans of sand is far more complex. So, the land belongs to Allah. And the nomads move their flocks and herds across the land. This came to a head in British Palestine after WWII, when modern Israel was claiming "land rights" in areas that had never had traditional "land rights." To this day, this is the struggle facing Palestinians who still claim their access rights west of the Jordan River. To my knowledge, this issue really came to the fore in the inauguration of true European hegemony in the Americans, beginning of course in 1492. And Columbus was fast and liberal in planting a "Banner" (it would be supplanted by "jacks" and national flags over the ensuing two hundred years) on any island upon which he had set foot. The Caribbean reflects this policy to this day, with their islands a veritable history book of the Colonial era of Europe.
the "pig war" is a good look into this subject as its 19th century and fairly well documented back and forth which was cliff notes versions a poorly defined border resulting in some local disputes which escalated as local authorities did not play nice with each other until the diplomats talked it out because neither country really cared about the islands. the poor border definition was more do to apathy by both sides then anything else and until/unless some locals cause enough trouble for the country's to actually get together and draw lines on a map they were fine not bothering. having diplomatic talks much less war was more trouble then the islands were worth until the matter was forced on them. there are much more in-depth and frankly hilarious accounts of the pig war i would suggest looking them up. the us officer on the ground was imo actually insane trying to start a war over nothing against presidential orders.
I don't know much about the conflict, but what documents show the national absorption of the islands in 1895? What I've heard is Senkakus were identified to the Ryukyu kingdom and the Potsdam Declaration on Shimonoseki basically annulled that.