Posts from philosophy

Well, of course! How many centuries have they been divided and separated! But the roots are the same! All people are Homo sapiens! (with respect to all the peoples of the world):D

2 Alex Ghost
The Chinese Empire is not an empire in the generally accepted sense, just like the Japanese one, although there is formally an Emperor there. There is a very specific criterion for what constitutes an Empire in history. Only one empire can exist in the world during a specific historical period. That's why the Americans were so upset about the USSR, calling it an empire of evil (Reagan). So, dear Alex, you should look for information on history if you don't know such elementary things...

Ganymede, I'm sorry, but you have some strange information... Where did you get such a definition of an empire? P.S. - no offense, but check reliable sources like the Great Soviet Encyclopedia or Granat Encyclopedia, not dubious modern articles by people eager to create a sensation.

I agree. Here are the principles of an empire:
1 - An empire is always singular.
2 - Chaos surrounds the empire, and only within it is there order.
3 - The empire has the moral right to bring its order to the chaos.
There have been many empires throughout history, and in China, for example, so many empires have risen and fallen... Moreover, half of them were nomadic (Tang, Yuan, Jin, etc.).
Today, the following can be identified as empires: the USA, China, South Korea, the EU, and partially Japan. Russia is a country with imperial ambitions, but without sufficient power to realize them.

2Ganymed I don't care what the Americans say about us, because they wanted to start World War III! And now they're getting annoyed that Russia is recovering. They don't like that not everyone listens to them! And who now considers themselves an empire?:cool:

Silvanis, I won't argue, but since the time of the Roman Empire, there have been fairly precise definitions. An empire differs from a simple state precisely in that it contains a collection of nationalities, different in both language and culture. You can call yourself an Empire, but only for self-aggrandizement. Of course, you will be called what you call yourself, but in a historical context, to be called an empire, there need to be fairly serious grounds. And that makes sense, agree, and there is no point in arguing about this. You can refer to anyone you like, but the fact remains. An empire and a simple state are different things. By the way, regarding the Chinese, there have historically been various ethnic groups present (remember Gumilev).

In China, there was only one nomadic dynasty – the Yuan (“source”). Jin was a Chinese dynasty, founded by Shi Huang Jin, the first emperor. Perhaps you confused it with the Qing dynasty – this dynasty was founded not by Chinese, but by Manchus, and was the last Chinese dynasty.

Read Gumilev.

Gumilev wrote things that, in my opinion, were not very serious and leaned towards some unhealthy esotericism (these passionaries...). One of the main characteristics of an empire is that it is a MONARCHICAL state. If we deny this, we are simply going against the meaning of this word in the Russian language.
In China, there are indeed different ethnic groups, and the difference between them is no less than between the English and the French. And for Gumilev, fitting China into his theory was, I think, a big problem...
P.S. - everything said about Gumilev is IMHO.

Added after 34 seconds

Read Gumilev

I read it. It's awful, IMHO.
Read Marc Bloch instead.

Gumilev is a serious historian, not an esotericist; otherwise, various intelligence agencies, from the CIA to Mossad, wouldn't have incorporated his system into their records...

Many people, including Fomenko, take this seriously...

And now the whole world is going downhill, plunging into hysteria. :D

Yes, Gumilev is not recognized only in our country... but, as they say, there is no prophet in his own land... Gumilev is a very serious and logical historian who has dispelled many myths of "official history," including those of Russia, which is unpleasant and inconvenient for historians accustomed to established dogmas, but to understand Gumilev, you need to UNDERSTAND him.

Right now, the whole world is spiraling into hysteria.:D

It certainly looks that way... But I hope it stops soon...

Jin was a state of the Jurchens, Turkic nomads who held the territory of northern China in the 12-13 centuries. Qing was a state of Manchu nomads. Tang was a state of Turkic nomads. By the way, it is precisely the Tang era that is considered the highest flourish of Chinese culture.
An Empire is not always a monarchy (USA, China, South Korea). An Empire is specifically the consciousness of oneself as the center of the world, and others as the Barbarian periphery.
Gumilev — I have read all of his monographs. China is best described in "The Huns" and "The Huns in China," as well as in "The Ancient Turks." These are early works; nothing is mentioned there yet about passionarity (except for "The Huns in China"). And regarding passionarity — one simply needs to read carefully (no offense). There is no mysticism there.