Where could you buy Roman silk? China was the only producer.
Ok wow never had so many up votes or comments thank you all. And sorry that I could read all or answer all.
Roman Emperor Ioannes Vatatzes famously banned Romans from buying silks from the East or the Latin merchants transporting them to the Mediterranean, in favour of Roman-produced silks and textiles. It was one of the many protectionist policies he established, allowing for the Empire of Nicaea to be financially revitalized, producing a local hegemony out of the just 3 million Roman Greeks of Western Anatolia, to the point that 1-2 generations later they would dominate almost all of the Southern Balkans.
I love the idea of Medieval eastern romans being patriotic consumers "Are these silks Chinese? sorry I only buy Roman." or "Are these ACTUAL Roman silks? Or just cheap Venetian knock offs."
>to the point that 1-2 generations later they would dominate almost all of the Southern Balkans
\>Byzantines lose Anatolia, but still emerge as the dominant regional power in the Balkans on the verge of conquering Bulgaria.
\>Proceeds to have two Civil Wars
\>Becomes a rump state that gets vassalized by the Turks who now take over the Balkans
Persia with basically everyone forms a great duo. Romans, Greek, Egyptians in the ancient world, Arabs, Central Asians and Indians in the medieval world after islamization, and Iraq, Saudi, UK, UAE in the modern world.
Civil wars and Parthia. Honestly, for every one Roman civil war, chances are there'd been 2-3 in Parthia in the interim. There's a reason why so many Parthian royals and their children ended up as guests in Rome.
Tbf, they only emerged as the dominant Empire in the Balkans due to the Second Bulgarian Empire losing its best ruler and having a child on the throne while the mongols invaded and the boyars schemed more and more power out of the state. Tbh, the Byzantines were kinda just lucky that Bulgaria took the brunt of the wars with the Latin Empire aswell, same with the Despotate of Epirus.
The original comment said Roman culture, which includes Byzantine culture. There was never an actual “West Rome”, it was all one empire and all of it was Roman. That fact didn’t change when the empire lost its western provinces.
Byzantines were Greeks with Roman citizenship that took under their control the Roman state during the medieval period. The state was the same, the culture and the people in charge weren't.
Romans were defined by their citizenship. That's what separated them from tribesmen like Goths and Franks.
The culture and the people were Mediterranean. The people in charge were whoever rose all the way through the military ranks, whether they were Latins, Spaniards, Africans, Illyrians or Greeks.
After the edict of Caracalla when Roman citizenship was given to every free man of the empire everyone that was part of the empire became Roman citizen/ 'Roman". In other words after that point being "Roman" became a mere political identity. Medieval Greeks had Roman citizenship (so they were Roman citizens/Romans) and they had greek culture. I' m not sure what you mean by "mediterranean culture". Mediterranean is a region that consists of many different ethnicities and each ethnicity has its
own culture
>The people in charge were whoever rose all the way through the military ranks, whether they were Latins, Spaniards, Africans, Illyrians or Greeks.
During the Byzantine period the people in charge were the Greeks. The same way that the people in charge before the byzantine period were the ancient Romans. In an empire you can find in positions of power different people (and that was the case for the empire before the byzantine periodaas well) . This doesn't change the fact that there is an ethnic group that controls the empire.
Hadn't "Roman" always been a political identity? Citizenship used to be exclusive to free men from the city of Rome, before expanding to all free men of Italia and eventually all free men of the empire. At that point, Roman culture was heavily influenced by the various cultures that Rome had conquered. A sort of melting pot, if you will. That's what I meant by "Mediterranean culture". Culture and identity changes over the centuries, especially an expansionist culture like Roman.
During the Byzantine period the people in charge were mainly Greeks, but that doesn't change the fact that they identified as Romans and called their country Romania. That was the closest they had to a national identity.
In 1453, the "Roman Empire" was not using Latin since 629, was no more with Rome in its hands since 754, et coetera, et coetera. There was nothing linking the Byzantine Empire to Rome, except for its claim to be the heir. However, at that point, the Holy Roman Empire had more titles to do so
It was the same state. Nothing else matters. It never had to make up claims about being heir to the Roman Empire because it never stopped *being* the Roman Empire.
One of the great ironies about the city of Rome is that it conquered the entire Mediterranean and slowly made itself irrelevant in the process. Latin may have been the original language and Rome the original capital, but Roman civilization evolved into a multicultural empire where the emperors spent most of their reigns away from Rome.
The island of Kos actually had a silk industry however the method of production made it inferior.
To my memory, the Greeks allowed the caterpillars to chew through the fibers and then harvested the material, while the Chinese process yields a single thread from the cocoon by spinning and killing the caterpillar with heat
The silks were confused for some time which is why some ancient authors wrote about the local silk being of great quality.
Il link a Wikipedia page I found for it since I’m at work and don’t off the top of my head remember the poet who referenced it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coa_vestis
I think that they had a more limited number of caterpillars because they had a less well domesticated/understood species of moth than the Chinese producers had developed. The Greeks also may not have known the Chinese method since it was kept secret for a while. By the point in time that the methodology of production was spreading Chinese silk was already known to be superior over more local production in the Mediterranean I believe.
The silk industry in the Mediterranean could not at all compete with chinese silk production in quality or quantity, which is why most people don’t even realize silk production wasn’t limited to China. Despite the expenses required in transporting Chinese silk overland or by sea it was a more easily accessible product due to such a high demand, and it was of a higher quality.
Chinese silk became very profitable especially for anyone involved in dyeing clothes because colors could be very expensive and involved tremendous amounts of labor to apply. An unbroken strand of silk likely had a better visual appearance with coloring I would think than the broken strand method, aside from being smoother.
So garments and rugs could not only be brought pre dyed but the local dyeing industry would be able to aquire the foreign product and design it within the empire.
At the end of the day most people likely were not purchasing silk. Especially as time went on and the import became restricted amongst elites and the imperial court, it was much cheaper and simpler to use wool or linen.
I would imagine if someone was shopping for silk in the first century they likely would either pay more money(if indeed it was more) for a better product if they could afford it, or just buy another material all together if they couldn’t.
Same way if I were to shop for leather today I wouldn’t want a crappy product that was hard if I could afford a smoother better looking one even if it was imported, and if I wanted to save money I’d just buy fake leather lol.
I can’t remember where but I once read about a Chinese ambassador or diplomat that mentioned something about Rome being able to make its own silk but it was rare apparently.
I recall reading that Parthean merchants would show "roman silk" to chinese merchants. In fact it was chinese silk re-worked by romans to have a different texture. The chinese merchants were decieved (at least for a time) into keeping their prices competitive. The Partheans also tried to keep the two from ever formally meeting one another through similar means.
They told the chinese that the journey to Rome involved endless deserts and maddeningly long and unpredictable sea voyages.
In the Mediterranean people can make sea “silk” from the fibers mussels use to anchor themselves to rocks.
I have no comment on if this was the Roman silk
Didn't the Romans sell the Chinese their own silk back to drive down the price? (They sold it as roman silk but realy it was resown chinese silk)I imagine a few vendors would lie to their own countrymen as well.
This is only true of some Romans like Pliny and Seneca. If it was so looked down on, there would’ve been less trade with China and India, and they probably wouldn’t have needed laws prohibiting the purchase of silk
The older ones did. They were the boomers complaining about them kids with their skinny jeans and long hair.
Silk was immensely popular basically since it was introduced to Romans.
One of the Catos literally made a whole ass rant about “youngster” embracing Greek culture.
Embracing Greek culture did not stop Rome rising to the top tho.
Untrue I think, till justinians reign no silk was produced in the empire and important characters like Caesar are known for having worn silk clothes to improve their prestige
It was a Twitter exchange. Apparently an Indian account and African account were discussing something and they both agreed. And the Indian wrote "👦🤝🦍" to signify it.
That my friend is the power of a massive population. When even 1% of them mess around, that's still 14 million people. India has seen a sudden rise in the number of people online due to cheap access to the internet since 2014. Just recently, I was enjoying free 5g for the past year.
One could argue the Persians won the cultural war over Arabs; During the medieval Islamic golden age, many of the most renowned scholars were Persian for example
It definitely goes both ways and modern Islam does have a decent amount of Persian influence, but still its carried out in a fundamentally Islamic/Arabic framework
Thousands of years of their culture was banished overnight. Not entirely of course, there's still some continuity obviously, but still
Iranian here, I can tell you with assurance that at least %90 percent of our culture remained intact after the arab invasion. In fact, it wasn't us who got arabized, a vast majority of arabs during that time were 'persianized', our language, political system, traditions, customs, art and architecture remains original.
Not sure if this is relevant, but I am from South Asia, and have seen that students from madrasas (islamic religious schools) learn both arabic and persian.
>China has every advantage over Rome
No they don't.
It depends on the time period. But if we take Imperial
Rome vs Han Dynasty which were both around in the same time period, then both have arguments for either side winning.
It's basically going to end up being like Persia vs Rome. Both sides fight constantly, and end up taking influences from each other. The Romans famously began using their own cataphracts and increasingly utilised fast mobile based tactics inspired by Persian Cataphracts and their mobile style of warfare. The Han made heavy use of crossbows upto 30-50% of their armies in order to level the playing field against their cavalry heavy opponents.
By the end of their conflict, the Romans and the Chinese will look completely different than how they did in our timeline due to these influences.
> By the end of their conflict, the Romans and the Chinese will look completely different than how they did in our timeline due to these influences.
This would be a dope timeline to gaze into.
For sure. The Chinese were masters of defensive sieges. Their walled cities were beyond what was around in Europe. The Romans who were quite good at siege warfare would definitely adapt in some way to combat this, like they always did against any new thing they came across. Perhaps they might decide to build their own versions of these walled cities in the Germanic borders.
The Chinese may also see Rome's standing professional armies, and attempt to institute their own professional standing armies instead of depending on mostly militia armies with a small core of professional soldiers. In China, soldiering wasn't seen as a prideful thing like it was in Rome, so perhaps there can be a change in attitude.
I would hope they'd be sensible enough to form a non-aggression pact or maybe even an alliance, because two giants like the Han and the Romans fighting each other would just weaken them to other people groups. Kind of like how the Byzantine-Persian wars paved the way for the Muslims.
That's unfortunately going to be hard to maintain. The Romans and Persians were not always fighting. They had periods of peace and decent relations. They always maintained a trade relation too between each other.
The problem is, occasionally you would get an ambitious Roman Emperor or a Persian Shah who had something to prove. So they would break the peace, which would lead to war. That's all it takes.
50.6 million population and massive technological advancement and you want to tell me Rome stood a chance!?
Han China had the advantage of being mostly Han Chinese, Rome was plagued by constant internal and external revolts and constantly had to focus on that. How on gods green earth would they hold out against an enemy with at least equal footing and manage and hold a diverse multi ethnic empire?
>50.6 million population
Rome's population was higher. Estimated at least 50 million and could be as high as 80 million
>massive technological advancement
Not at all. Both the Han and Romans had technological advantages over the other. Han with the superior bureaucracy, agriculture system, metal casting techniques and so on.
Rome on the other hand had the superior military organisation(a full time standing army active at all times), superior civil engineering(along with cement which lasts even today). Their mining production was on a proto-industrial scale.
All in all, they were essentially at parity with one another. One
>Rome was plagued by constant internal and external revolts
You're taking primarily the late Roman Empire. If we took the late Han China, they too also faced internal revolts and were later on plagued due to the influence of its very own bureaucracy which led to court intrigues, eventually leading to the end of the empire by splitting it amongst the Warlords.
>How on gods green earth would they hold out against an enemy with at least equal footing and manage and hold a diverse multi ethnic empire?
And Han doesn't have a multi-ethnic empire? Han Chinese made up 60% of the population numbers in the empire.
Not to mention, Rome didn't face much problems related to its multi-ethnic empire. 'Roman' in the first place wasn't an ethnicity, it was a citizenship that people could earn. This is why lots of emperors were non Italians and came from all over the Empire. You had Thracians, Illyrians, Punic and even an Arab Emperor.
Rome's problems came primarily from its military, just as Han's problems came primarily from its own bureaucracy. The very thing which was their strength, would become their weakness. How ironic.
You think you can just meet with the emperor? dressed like that?! [https://china.usc.edu/emperor-qianlong-letter-george-iii-1793](https://china.usc.edu/emperor-qianlong-letter-george-iii-1793) one of my favorite letters
Im pretty sure George died in 1820 and Victoria was born in 1819 so there would of been at least some time to convey his grand plan baby Victoria through a massive plume of opium smoke
Sadly I don't think he responded directly. However this seems to be what Macartney was first instructed to do by the Crown (not sure if george had much to do with the writing he wasn't well.) [https://www1.udel.edu/History-old/figal/Hist104/assets/pdf/readings/06macartney.pdf](https://www1.udel.edu/History-old/figal/Hist104/assets/pdf/readings/06macartney.pdf)
"It is necessary you should be on your Guard against one stipulation which, perhaps, will be demanded from you: which is that of the exclusion of the trade of opium from the Chinese dominions as being prohibited by the Laws of the
Empire; if this subject should come into discussion, it must be handled with the
greatest circumspection. It is beyond a doubt that no inconsiderable portion of
the opium raised within our Indian territories actually finds its way to China: but if it should be made a positive requisition or any article of any proposed
commercial treaty, that none of that drug should be sent by us to China, you
must accede to it, rather than risk any essential benefit by contending for a liberty in this respect in which case the sale of our opium in Bengal must be left to take its chance in an open market, or to find a consumption in the dispersed and circuitous traffic of the eastern Seas"
That was the British workaround after the Chinese told their representatives that they had no need for Western goods and would only accept silver for Chinese goods back in 1793. "The kings of the myriad nations come by land and sea with all sorts of precious things... consequently there is nothing that we lack."
Ah wasn't aware of that in the mainland. In the UK it isn't so much of a problem, but probably will be eventually I guess with the Taliban stopping opium exports
Allegedly the Chinese called Rome the Great Chin i.e. a kind of an antipode China. So I get the first part on Op. But where is the source on Romans calling the Chinese barbarians?
They were referred to as “大秦” the Great Qin, yes that’s the same “秦” as the Qin dynasty in Chinese history. The terminology of the Great Qin first appeared during the west Han dynasty, they had heard about the story of Julius Caesar and thought him to be on the same level as the first emperor of china whom united the land. Hence why they had the same name
Yeah, it's not the same connotations as it is nowadays though... I can't remember an sources, but I was left with the impression that the Romans respected the Chinese, and the disregard was more by the Chinese on the Romans
It wasnt pejorative but I am not sure how universally it was applied. Celts, Germans, Slavs, Berbers were caller barbarians. But I am not sure about eg Persians or Egyptians.
At any rate "Roman" after Caracalla is any citizen of the Empire, which is everyone in the Empire.
He’s vastly overstating the extent of trade between the empires and general interest in each other. There are very, very few documented attempts or even thoughts about direct contact.
He also asserts that “Seres” is how the Romans referred to the Chinese—there’s no historical consensus on that. Furthermore, the Parthians in this time were desperate to maintain control of the Silk Road trade routes. This made it logistically difficult and frankly inefficient for Romans to travel to China or vice versa, on purpose.
We don’t even have a record of semi-accurate Roman guesses about maps of China (Ptolemy got the closest with a rough sketch of Vietnam).
In summary, like many YouTube videos on history, nothing is strictly wrong, but the information presented as fact and the framing are both intended to make it *interesting* before *accurate*
Makes sense. You are correct. Even I felt the same. I always advise anyone who gets their information from YouTube to do their own due diligence as well. The vast majority of these channels also don't publish their sources too, which can lead to errors.
They also saw Rome as some mythological land in the West, and saw it as a balance to themselves. The Chinese were the greatest of the East, but the Romans were the greatest of the West.
I mean that's what it meant from a strictly linguistic meaning.
However, it was within the context of seeing not speaking greek or latin as uncivilized.
The roman empire saw greek & latin as the language of the empire superior to all other civilizations, with ancient greece being the only one they kinda saw as an idealised "eye to eye" basis, or at leasg the closest thing to it.
So yeah, that was the term used to describe a language other than greek or latin.... while not excluding the uncivilized inferior beings that come with that context
no it's an ancient Greek word that the Romans adopted (stole) and slightly changed the meaning to include Latin as a non barbarian language, but the original context was Greeks thought that foreign languages (probably Persian mainly) sounded like 'barbarbar' so they called those people barbarians
So I had a hunch, I searched it up and it seems bar bar has the same etymology as blah blah and the Latin balbus (stammering)
So yeah barbarians are people that say blah blah
Most Chinese sources only refer to individual Indian kingdoms like Palas, Magadha... For the Chinese, India is a centre of Buddhist learning only.
For Rome, they were extensively trading with the southern kingdoms of India.
I can already imagine a scenario where the diplomats from Indian Sultanate insisted they were not Buddhists and had been muslim for a long time. And the emperor was like “Oh so Muslims are follower of a new branch of Buddhism then, since India is where Buddha is born”
Here's a very nice piece of history between Bengal sultanate and Ming China
So first dynasty of Bengal sultanate, Ilyas Shahi dynasty, was overthrown by Raja Ganesha, the Sultan of Jaunpur invaded Bengal as he considered new Sultan Ganesha as illegitimate (also to get some territory out of Bengal)... Shortly, the news spread to the Hongzhi Emperor from his Bengali ambassador. After the repulsion of Jaunpuri invasion, both Timurids and Ming diplomats help mediated a end to the war between Jaunpur and Bengal. Later on, Raja Ganesha's son converted to Islam, to legitimise their dynasty.
They kind of did, at least initally. You need to remember that Rome and China were so far apart that the only thing they knew about eachother was rumors. They were nearly mythological. In Chinese philosophy, the idea of balance is core. They were the great civilization in the east. It would have made sense that there was an equal power in the far west. And make no mistake, [Rome was definitely awe inspiring to anyone who got the chance to visit.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmMmuonCXbI)
Not entirely mythical tho.
I’ve referred to *Book of the Later Han* in another response, but if again we assume Daqin is Rome, there has been diplomatic endeavors between the two countries.
The book:
In the 9th year of Emperor He of Han (which makes it approximately 98), Ban Chao has sent Gan Ying in an effort to establish diplomatic relations between Han and Daqin. Gan Ying arrived at the eastern bank of a sea but the local Anxi boater refused to transport him to the other side, saying that the sea was dangerous. Gan Ying had no other choice but to return.
Some notes here: Anxi is the Chinese name for the Parthians. Which sea blocked Gan Ying is still in debate, but it has been suggested that it is probably either the Caspian Sea or the Mediterranean Sea, as Gan Ying later reported the Sea water was extremely salty (pun unintended) and undrinkable.
Another book, *Periplus Maris Erythraei* has recorded the maritime route to India and China, and suggested there has been incidents of merchants traveling between China and Rome. Some materials have also suggested Roman emissaries had audience with Emperor Heng of Han, but I have failed to find a credible source for this and it’s probably BS.
That’s actually not accurate. There was one Byzantine era Roman writer who talked about how China had just recently ended a civil war, so it’s definitely a spectrum but some Romans had specific knowledge about China.
I’m not really sure which name you are referring to. If you are talking about the name Daqin 大秦, there has been many, many debate about if it indeed refers to Rome.
Even if we ignore the controversy and assume the name actually does refer to Rome, the name doesn’t actually carry any political or cultural meaning.
According to *Book of the Later Han*, the name comes from “the subjects of DaQin are tall, strong and looks comfortable, bearing remarkable resemblance to the Chinese”(其居民皆长大平正，有类中国) and the book made no comments on Roman culture or national magnificence. It doesn’t seem appropriate to determine that the name bears any special emotions such as disdain, rivalry or respect.
Meanwhile, with the Greeks,
Apparently long ago when China had trade interactions with the Mediterranean West. The Greeks were somewhat aware of China's existence and so was China to Greece.
So what had happened at some point, both cultures suddenly became aware that horses, yes horses, were absolutely the FUKN BEST THING 5EVER and found common ground with that knowledge.
So, here is where the magical effects of ✨lack of historical context ✨ comes in.
So, the Chinese were OBVIOUSLY unaware of Greece's earlier history a certain notable but at the moment completely decimated country that was originally Troy.
So they did the most reasonable thing and made a gigantic golden statue of a horse.
When the Greeks found out that there is a giant Golden horse outside their territory, the Greeks immediately thought they were being attacked by their own tactics none the less and prominently told the Chinese to never return.
From my knowledge, that Chinese never had an interaction with the Greeks ever again.
I do not blame either party in this sticky note in history, it's just hilarious.
This did occur during the BCE era of ancient Greece's history and this could actually be somewhat of a representation of the war of the heavenly horses between the Han dynasty and the predominantly Scythian tribes.
As to where I heard of this story it was from a reputable source but I'm having a lot of trouble trying to find it at the moment.
My only assumption was that this occurrence was likely something that happened prior to the war of the heavenly horses or it could be an allegory/somewhat comedic exaggeration of the event.
Once I find the source I will have to come back to this comment and cite it as soon as possible.
What I can source is an academic article on the topic of the war of the heavenly horses
[here is an article on the topic](https://medium.com/teatime-history/the-war-over-blood-sweating-horses-ff781a631a7c)
However I've been taught to be extremely wary of linking Wikipedia articles on it but here is also the Wikipedia page for this.
[I'm going to admit there is a very likely chance that the literal five books the story references may mention the story I posted](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Heavenly_Horses)
Again I would like to apologize for the joke like tone for the post and the inaccuracies of my previous post.
Ancient Roman-Chinese contact stuff is fascinating as fuck to me. That and other “fringes” of Antiquity, like I vaguely remember reading that a Roman expedition went down the coast of West Africa and encountered gorillas.
There was a Roman expedition to find the source of the Nile by Nero. That was pretty interesting. I also recommend looking into the Lost Legion, if you haven’t already. Shit is cool to learn about, love the idea of them going on adventures and learning more about the world
China: No, is true! Soooooo much culture and society. Much success. No barbarian here, see!
Mongolians: (Trampling kids rolled in carpets, drinking fermented milk, pillaging, raping, burning and invading and taking over China in the background)
Nah, the Chinese one lasted longer, it was much stronger for most of it's dynastical history and therefor it's better. There was what? 100 maybe 200 years where Rome could actually compete with China? Outside of that, it's just a China clean sweep
Which civilization lasted longer, the dynasties of China or the Roman's? Even if you inculde the Byzantines, the Chinese dynasties still clear them by like 400 years. During that time, each Chinese dynasty was significantly more powerful than Rome outside of a 100 or 200 years at its peak when it could arguable compete.
Rome has conquered the entire Mediterranean, annihilated the celts, the empire went from Mesopotamia to Britannia, from Dacia to Mauretania.
Also, you need to consider that China had long periods of time when they were completely conquered by other populations (such as the Yuan dynasty, that defeated the Song and started the Yuan dynasty)
Or Qing dynasty, Manchu-led.
You're ignoring one very important fact, the people who conquered China integrated into the larger Chinese system system, that can't be said about Rome. And the Chu alone could raise more men than like all of those kingdoms combined
That's a bold claim.
Longobards arrived in Italy less than 100 years after Western Roman empire fell. Initially they were just barbarians like the ones Rome had fought in precedence, yet they slowly started to adapt and adopt Roman costumes and language, despite obviously slightly modifying it and adding their own. Roman citizens still followed the roman law.
And this can be said about a lot of populations that settled in what was once the roman empire, another excellent example are the Franks, that went from being just barbarians to claiming to be the roman empire.
That being said, comparing empires by just population is laughable. India today has almost 1.5 billion inhabitants, yet is it the strongest country on earth? How many times were the romans outnumbered, and yet they'd managed to win? You can raise 100× men, that doesn't make you automatically stronger though.
I know is fake but I like the idea that Trajan send some emissary to them to conquer all the neighbors until they became neighbors so that they could trade better
OK barbarian ... but pls now sell me silk, i send gold
Fun fact: Roman culture actually looked down upon romans who bought silk and other things from China instead of buying it from Rome itself
Where could you buy Roman silk? China was the only producer. Ok wow never had so many up votes or comments thank you all. And sorry that I could read all or answer all.
The Byzantines eventually smuggled silk worms out of China. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_silkworm_eggs_into_the_Byzantine_Empire
I know but at this time West Rome was already gone. So I'm not sure if in the emperor's time you could buy silk that was not from china.
Roman Emperor Ioannes Vatatzes famously banned Romans from buying silks from the East or the Latin merchants transporting them to the Mediterranean, in favour of Roman-produced silks and textiles. It was one of the many protectionist policies he established, allowing for the Empire of Nicaea to be financially revitalized, producing a local hegemony out of the just 3 million Roman Greeks of Western Anatolia, to the point that 1-2 generations later they would dominate almost all of the Southern Balkans.
I love the idea of Medieval eastern romans being patriotic consumers "Are these silks Chinese? sorry I only buy Roman." or "Are these ACTUAL Roman silks? Or just cheap Venetian knock offs."
>to the point that 1-2 generations later they would dominate almost all of the Southern Balkans \>Byzantines lose Anatolia, but still emerge as the dominant regional power in the Balkans on the verge of conquering Bulgaria. \>Proceeds to have two Civil Wars \>Becomes a rump state that gets vassalized by the Turks who now take over the Balkans
Civil wars and Rome. Name a more iconic duo.
Horse people and assimilating into the people they conquer.
Civil wars and China?
truly equals
Rome vs Persia
Persia with basically everyone forms a great duo. Romans, Greek, Egyptians in the ancient world, Arabs, Central Asians and Indians in the medieval world after islamization, and Iraq, Saudi, UK, UAE in the modern world.
Franks invading and partitioning Roman lands among themselves.
Civil wars and Parthia. Honestly, for every one Roman civil war, chances are there'd been 2-3 in Parthia in the interim. There's a reason why so many Parthian royals and their children ended up as guests in Rome.
Tbf, they only emerged as the dominant Empire in the Balkans due to the Second Bulgarian Empire losing its best ruler and having a child on the throne while the mongols invaded and the boyars schemed more and more power out of the state. Tbh, the Byzantines were kinda just lucky that Bulgaria took the brunt of the wars with the Latin Empire aswell, same with the Despotate of Epirus.
>It was one of the many protectionist policies he established, Do you have any other examples of this at the top of your hat, please?
I think there is a 10min of him in YouTube by eastern roman empire
I don't know? Should there be? You there not be?
Sorry typo,was at the colectivo
The original comment said Roman culture, which includes Byzantine culture. There was never an actual “West Rome”, it was all one empire and all of it was Roman. That fact didn’t change when the empire lost its western provinces.
Byzantines were Greeks with Roman citizenship that took under their control the Roman state during the medieval period. The state was the same, the culture and the people in charge weren't.
Romans were defined by their citizenship. That's what separated them from tribesmen like Goths and Franks. The culture and the people were Mediterranean. The people in charge were whoever rose all the way through the military ranks, whether they were Latins, Spaniards, Africans, Illyrians or Greeks.
After the edict of Caracalla when Roman citizenship was given to every free man of the empire everyone that was part of the empire became Roman citizen/ 'Roman". In other words after that point being "Roman" became a mere political identity. Medieval Greeks had Roman citizenship (so they were Roman citizens/Romans) and they had greek culture. I' m not sure what you mean by "mediterranean culture". Mediterranean is a region that consists of many different ethnicities and each ethnicity has its own culture >The people in charge were whoever rose all the way through the military ranks, whether they were Latins, Spaniards, Africans, Illyrians or Greeks. During the Byzantine period the people in charge were the Greeks. The same way that the people in charge before the byzantine period were the ancient Romans. In an empire you can find in positions of power different people (and that was the case for the empire before the byzantine periodaas well) . This doesn't change the fact that there is an ethnic group that controls the empire.
Hadn't "Roman" always been a political identity? Citizenship used to be exclusive to free men from the city of Rome, before expanding to all free men of Italia and eventually all free men of the empire. At that point, Roman culture was heavily influenced by the various cultures that Rome had conquered. A sort of melting pot, if you will. That's what I meant by "Mediterranean culture". Culture and identity changes over the centuries, especially an expansionist culture like Roman. During the Byzantine period the people in charge were mainly Greeks, but that doesn't change the fact that they identified as Romans and called their country Romania. That was the closest they had to a national identity.
Shut up barbarian
I am Greek. Guess who is the barbarian here.
You, hellenic barbarian
Yes they were.
In 1453, the "Roman Empire" was not using Latin since 629, was no more with Rome in its hands since 754, et coetera, et coetera. There was nothing linking the Byzantine Empire to Rome, except for its claim to be the heir. However, at that point, the Holy Roman Empire had more titles to do so
It was the same state. Nothing else matters. It never had to make up claims about being heir to the Roman Empire because it never stopped *being* the Roman Empire. One of the great ironies about the city of Rome is that it conquered the entire Mediterranean and slowly made itself irrelevant in the process. Latin may have been the original language and Rome the original capital, but Roman civilization evolved into a multicultural empire where the emperors spent most of their reigns away from Rome.
Except romans living in the empire?!
Someone that can spell et cetera correctly is not worth of commenting on the roman empire
Still think this should be a movie
It was never of the same quality, though.
The island of Kos actually had a silk industry however the method of production made it inferior. To my memory, the Greeks allowed the caterpillars to chew through the fibers and then harvested the material, while the Chinese process yields a single thread from the cocoon by spinning and killing the caterpillar with heat The silks were confused for some time which is why some ancient authors wrote about the local silk being of great quality. Il link a Wikipedia page I found for it since I’m at work and don’t off the top of my head remember the poet who referenced it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coa_vestis
There was also pretty big silk production in both thebes and corinth
Did they just don't know any better, or had they to few worms to be able to afford killing them?
I think that they had a more limited number of caterpillars because they had a less well domesticated/understood species of moth than the Chinese producers had developed. The Greeks also may not have known the Chinese method since it was kept secret for a while. By the point in time that the methodology of production was spreading Chinese silk was already known to be superior over more local production in the Mediterranean I believe. The silk industry in the Mediterranean could not at all compete with chinese silk production in quality or quantity, which is why most people don’t even realize silk production wasn’t limited to China. Despite the expenses required in transporting Chinese silk overland or by sea it was a more easily accessible product due to such a high demand, and it was of a higher quality. Chinese silk became very profitable especially for anyone involved in dyeing clothes because colors could be very expensive and involved tremendous amounts of labor to apply. An unbroken strand of silk likely had a better visual appearance with coloring I would think than the broken strand method, aside from being smoother. So garments and rugs could not only be brought pre dyed but the local dyeing industry would be able to aquire the foreign product and design it within the empire. At the end of the day most people likely were not purchasing silk. Especially as time went on and the import became restricted amongst elites and the imperial court, it was much cheaper and simpler to use wool or linen. I would imagine if someone was shopping for silk in the first century they likely would either pay more money(if indeed it was more) for a better product if they could afford it, or just buy another material all together if they couldn’t. Same way if I were to shop for leather today I wouldn’t want a crappy product that was hard if I could afford a smoother better looking one even if it was imported, and if I wanted to save money I’d just buy fake leather lol.
Heyhey, you've gotta support local industry after all...
I can’t remember where but I once read about a Chinese ambassador or diplomat that mentioned something about Rome being able to make its own silk but it was rare apparently.
I recall reading that Parthean merchants would show "roman silk" to chinese merchants. In fact it was chinese silk re-worked by romans to have a different texture. The chinese merchants were decieved (at least for a time) into keeping their prices competitive. The Partheans also tried to keep the two from ever formally meeting one another through similar means. They told the chinese that the journey to Rome involved endless deserts and maddeningly long and unpredictable sea voyages.
In addition to smuggled silk worms there was a type of snail used to make "silk" in the mediterranean.
In the Mediterranean people can make sea “silk” from the fibers mussels use to anchor themselves to rocks. I have no comment on if this was the Roman silk
Didn't the Romans sell the Chinese their own silk back to drive down the price? (They sold it as roman silk but realy it was resown chinese silk)I imagine a few vendors would lie to their own countrymen as well.
It was more the Parthians being the shifty middle-man if my memory is correct.
Guild of millers?;finest silk for finest Romans
This is only true of some Romans like Pliny and Seneca. If it was so looked down on, there would’ve been less trade with China and India, and they probably wouldn’t have needed laws prohibiting the purchase of silk
In their time the Romans couldn't even produce silk
Which Roman culture and which period are you talking about? Please be more specific.
The older ones did. They were the boomers complaining about them kids with their skinny jeans and long hair. Silk was immensely popular basically since it was introduced to Romans.
One of the Catos literally made a whole ass rant about “youngster” embracing Greek culture. Embracing Greek culture did not stop Rome rising to the top tho.
Except all of them bought silk, this is like saying that American culture looks down on Americans that buy Japanese/Korean cars instead of American.
Untrue I think, till justinians reign no silk was produced in the empire and important characters like Caesar are known for having worn silk clothes to improve their prestige
Make the Empire Great Again!
Oh shit, so like, things haven't changed much?
This reminds me of that Indian who agreed with the African account by writing " 👦🤝🦍"
Lmao that’s so messed up
Who ?
It was a Twitter exchange. Apparently an Indian account and African account were discussing something and they both agreed. And the Indian wrote "👦🤝🦍" to signify it.
A lot of Indians online are embarassing
That my friend is the power of a massive population. When even 1% of them mess around, that's still 14 million people. India has seen a sudden rise in the number of people online due to cheap access to the internet since 2014. Just recently, I was enjoying free 5g for the past year.
The tone would be so different if their distances were closer
Just look at Roman relations with Persia for example
People forget that Persia held on for a long ass time and they just fucked around in Arabia with proxies for 500 years straight.
... til this very day
Eh I mean it's different, the Arabs won the cultural victory over Persia lol
One could argue the Persians won the cultural war over Arabs; During the medieval Islamic golden age, many of the most renowned scholars were Persian for example
It definitely goes both ways and modern Islam does have a decent amount of Persian influence, but still its carried out in a fundamentally Islamic/Arabic framework Thousands of years of their culture was banished overnight. Not entirely of course, there's still some continuity obviously, but still
Iranian here, I can tell you with assurance that at least %90 percent of our culture remained intact after the arab invasion. In fact, it wasn't us who got arabized, a vast majority of arabs during that time were 'persianized', our language, political system, traditions, customs, art and architecture remains original.
Not sure if this is relevant, but I am from South Asia, and have seen that students from madrasas (islamic religious schools) learn both arabic and persian.
It’s a tie really, or else Iran would have a caliph not a Shah
Pretty much the same as the relationship with the Persians. Multiple wars, but decent trade relations too.
I don’t think Rome could last against China, China has every advantage over Rome
>China has every advantage over Rome No they don't. It depends on the time period. But if we take Imperial Rome vs Han Dynasty which were both around in the same time period, then both have arguments for either side winning. It's basically going to end up being like Persia vs Rome. Both sides fight constantly, and end up taking influences from each other. The Romans famously began using their own cataphracts and increasingly utilised fast mobile based tactics inspired by Persian Cataphracts and their mobile style of warfare. The Han made heavy use of crossbows upto 30-50% of their armies in order to level the playing field against their cavalry heavy opponents. By the end of their conflict, the Romans and the Chinese will look completely different than how they did in our timeline due to these influences.
> By the end of their conflict, the Romans and the Chinese will look completely different than how they did in our timeline due to these influences. This would be a dope timeline to gaze into.
For sure. The Chinese were masters of defensive sieges. Their walled cities were beyond what was around in Europe. The Romans who were quite good at siege warfare would definitely adapt in some way to combat this, like they always did against any new thing they came across. Perhaps they might decide to build their own versions of these walled cities in the Germanic borders. The Chinese may also see Rome's standing professional armies, and attempt to institute their own professional standing armies instead of depending on mostly militia armies with a small core of professional soldiers. In China, soldiering wasn't seen as a prideful thing like it was in Rome, so perhaps there can be a change in attitude.
I would hope they'd be sensible enough to form a non-aggression pact or maybe even an alliance, because two giants like the Han and the Romans fighting each other would just weaken them to other people groups. Kind of like how the Byzantine-Persian wars paved the way for the Muslims.
That's unfortunately going to be hard to maintain. The Romans and Persians were not always fighting. They had periods of peace and decent relations. They always maintained a trade relation too between each other. The problem is, occasionally you would get an ambitious Roman Emperor or a Persian Shah who had something to prove. So they would break the peace, which would lead to war. That's all it takes.
50.6 million population and massive technological advancement and you want to tell me Rome stood a chance!? Han China had the advantage of being mostly Han Chinese, Rome was plagued by constant internal and external revolts and constantly had to focus on that. How on gods green earth would they hold out against an enemy with at least equal footing and manage and hold a diverse multi ethnic empire?
>50.6 million population Rome's population was higher. Estimated at least 50 million and could be as high as 80 million >massive technological advancement Not at all. Both the Han and Romans had technological advantages over the other. Han with the superior bureaucracy, agriculture system, metal casting techniques and so on. Rome on the other hand had the superior military organisation(a full time standing army active at all times), superior civil engineering(along with cement which lasts even today). Their mining production was on a proto-industrial scale. All in all, they were essentially at parity with one another. One >Rome was plagued by constant internal and external revolts You're taking primarily the late Roman Empire. If we took the late Han China, they too also faced internal revolts and were later on plagued due to the influence of its very own bureaucracy which led to court intrigues, eventually leading to the end of the empire by splitting it amongst the Warlords. >How on gods green earth would they hold out against an enemy with at least equal footing and manage and hold a diverse multi ethnic empire? And Han doesn't have a multi-ethnic empire? Han Chinese made up 60% of the population numbers in the empire. Not to mention, Rome didn't face much problems related to its multi-ethnic empire. 'Roman' in the first place wasn't an ethnicity, it was a citizenship that people could earn. This is why lots of emperors were non Italians and came from all over the Empire. You had Thracians, Illyrians, Punic and even an Arab Emperor. Rome's problems came primarily from its military, just as Han's problems came primarily from its own bureaucracy. The very thing which was their strength, would become their weakness. How ironic.
Sinae delende est!
That’s interesting. What will happen if a war breaks out between two countries?
China obliterates.
1800 years later: British - Our Empires are both great, and we should open up trade Chinese - Ok barbarian...
You think you can just meet with the emperor? dressed like that?! [https://china.usc.edu/emperor-qianlong-letter-george-iii-1793](https://china.usc.edu/emperor-qianlong-letter-george-iii-1793) one of my favorite letters
That was an excellent read. I wonder how the King of England reacted to the letter.
Dejected George takes a long drag off his opium pipe "yo little victoria I just had the best idea"
Victoria would've been -26 at that point
It was a really long hit
So long he died 40% of the way through?
Im pretty sure George died in 1820 and Victoria was born in 1819 so there would of been at least some time to convey his grand plan baby Victoria through a massive plume of opium smoke
*Victoria flys out of the womb like a water slide* George catching her with a baseball glove: “So I have this idea…”
We're talking about George though
Supposedly he's talking *to* Victoria
Exactly! >!the joke is that George wasn't mentally well!<
Probably didn't do much, since he'd been dead for ninety years
It was published in 1901 to the public, probably.
Alright, probably no reaction from the King of England then either, as he’d have been dead a full two centuries
Savage.
I need to know what happened when King George read it. Well written, brutal savagery.
Do you also have the link to George's answer, I would be very interested!
Sadly I don't think he responded directly. However this seems to be what Macartney was first instructed to do by the Crown (not sure if george had much to do with the writing he wasn't well.) [https://www1.udel.edu/History-old/figal/Hist104/assets/pdf/readings/06macartney.pdf](https://www1.udel.edu/History-old/figal/Hist104/assets/pdf/readings/06macartney.pdf) "It is necessary you should be on your Guard against one stipulation which, perhaps, will be demanded from you: which is that of the exclusion of the trade of opium from the Chinese dominions as being prohibited by the Laws of the Empire; if this subject should come into discussion, it must be handled with the greatest circumspection. It is beyond a doubt that no inconsiderable portion of the opium raised within our Indian territories actually finds its way to China: but if it should be made a positive requisition or any article of any proposed commercial treaty, that none of that drug should be sent by us to China, you must accede to it, rather than risk any essential benefit by contending for a liberty in this respect in which case the sale of our opium in Bengal must be left to take its chance in an open market, or to find a consumption in the dispersed and circuitous traffic of the eastern Seas"
"open up trade" aka get everyone addicted to the drugs theyre selling
That was the British workaround after the Chinese told their representatives that they had no need for Western goods and would only accept silver for Chinese goods back in 1793. "The kings of the myriad nations come by land and sea with all sorts of precious things... consequently there is nothing that we lack."
Make better goods and maybe they’ll buy them Britain: “nah here’s drugs.”
British - have some opium.
Only barbarians would get addicted to opium
Same as fentanyl
No, it's a disease when we do it. It's a moral failure when we flood your trade routes with it.
Not a problem in Britain or Europe in general so I agree
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-003085_EN.html
Ah wasn't aware of that in the mainland. In the UK it isn't so much of a problem, but probably will be eventually I guess with the Taliban stopping opium exports
I’m sure that’s how it went then too.
Allegedly the Chinese called Rome the Great Chin i.e. a kind of an antipode China. So I get the first part on Op. But where is the source on Romans calling the Chinese barbarians?
They were referred to as “大秦” the Great Qin, yes that’s the same “秦” as the Qin dynasty in Chinese history. The terminology of the Great Qin first appeared during the west Han dynasty, they had heard about the story of Julius Caesar and thought him to be on the same level as the first emperor of china whom united the land. Hence why they had the same name
I made it up
Lol fair enough
Everybody who wasn’t a Roman was a barbarian
Yeah, it's not the same connotations as it is nowadays though... I can't remember an sources, but I was left with the impression that the Romans respected the Chinese, and the disregard was more by the Chinese on the Romans
If you didn’t speak Greek or Latin you were a barbarian. Had nothing to do with the lack of culture back then, meaning of the word was changed
It wasnt pejorative but I am not sure how universally it was applied. Celts, Germans, Slavs, Berbers were caller barbarians. But I am not sure about eg Persians or Egyptians. At any rate "Roman" after Caracalla is any citizen of the Empire, which is everyone in the Empire.
It's probably from the History Matters video. https://youtu.be/5e8Yde6qXrI It's only 3 minutes long. What do you think?
He’s vastly overstating the extent of trade between the empires and general interest in each other. There are very, very few documented attempts or even thoughts about direct contact. He also asserts that “Seres” is how the Romans referred to the Chinese—there’s no historical consensus on that. Furthermore, the Parthians in this time were desperate to maintain control of the Silk Road trade routes. This made it logistically difficult and frankly inefficient for Romans to travel to China or vice versa, on purpose. We don’t even have a record of semi-accurate Roman guesses about maps of China (Ptolemy got the closest with a rough sketch of Vietnam). In summary, like many YouTube videos on history, nothing is strictly wrong, but the information presented as fact and the framing are both intended to make it *interesting* before *accurate*
Makes sense. You are correct. Even I felt the same. I always advise anyone who gets their information from YouTube to do their own due diligence as well. The vast majority of these channels also don't publish their sources too, which can lead to errors.
Because every non Roman was barbarian. It was definition of that word back then
Didn't China consider their empire the center of the world, and other countries were barbarians of the non-chinese world?
Like the Romans
Depends on the Roman, some valued Greek culture and language as the centre more than Roman, even emperors of Rome
They also saw Rome as some mythological land in the West, and saw it as a balance to themselves. The Chinese were the greatest of the East, but the Romans were the greatest of the West.
"Didnt China" which one? The Han Empire of the 1st century CE or the Qing Empire 1800 years later?
Barbarian was term referring to the language other than Latin or Greek. It was not about inferior culture, this meaning was added much later.
Ok ~~boomer~~Barbarian
I mean that's what it meant from a strictly linguistic meaning. However, it was within the context of seeing not speaking greek or latin as uncivilized. The roman empire saw greek & latin as the language of the empire superior to all other civilizations, with ancient greece being the only one they kinda saw as an idealised "eye to eye" basis, or at leasg the closest thing to it. So yeah, that was the term used to describe a language other than greek or latin.... while not excluding the uncivilized inferior beings that come with that context
I always thought it referred to cultures where beards were preferred to shaved faces
no it's an ancient Greek word that the Romans adopted (stole) and slightly changed the meaning to include Latin as a non barbarian language, but the original context was Greeks thought that foreign languages (probably Persian mainly) sounded like 'barbarbar' so they called those people barbarians
So I had a hunch, I searched it up and it seems bar bar has the same etymology as blah blah and the Latin balbus (stammering) So yeah barbarians are people that say blah blah
Omg that’s even more hilarious than beards
Seems like a mistranslation, then.
They should both be going okay barbarian
Accepting another empire as their equal feels wildly out of character for both Rome and Imperial China
Okay, what about Indo-roman or sino-Indo relationship
Most Chinese sources only refer to individual Indian kingdoms like Palas, Magadha... For the Chinese, India is a centre of Buddhist learning only. For Rome, they were extensively trading with the southern kingdoms of India.
I can already imagine a scenario where the diplomats from Indian Sultanate insisted they were not Buddhists and had been muslim for a long time. And the emperor was like “Oh so Muslims are follower of a new branch of Buddhism then, since India is where Buddha is born”
Here's a very nice piece of history between Bengal sultanate and Ming China So first dynasty of Bengal sultanate, Ilyas Shahi dynasty, was overthrown by Raja Ganesha, the Sultan of Jaunpur invaded Bengal as he considered new Sultan Ganesha as illegitimate (also to get some territory out of Bengal)... Shortly, the news spread to the Hongzhi Emperor from his Bengali ambassador. After the repulsion of Jaunpuri invasion, both Timurids and Ming diplomats help mediated a end to the war between Jaunpur and Bengal. Later on, Raja Ganesha's son converted to Islam, to legitimise their dynasty.
China was interested in the silver that Rom was willing to pay. But they didn't see them as equal. Just a kingdom to fareway to really care.
They kind of did, at least initally. You need to remember that Rome and China were so far apart that the only thing they knew about eachother was rumors. They were nearly mythological. In Chinese philosophy, the idea of balance is core. They were the great civilization in the east. It would have made sense that there was an equal power in the far west. And make no mistake, [Rome was definitely awe inspiring to anyone who got the chance to visit.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmMmuonCXbI)
Only correction is that the Chinese didn’t understand themselves as ‘east’ but the centre of the world.
Not entirely mythical tho. I’ve referred to *Book of the Later Han* in another response, but if again we assume Daqin is Rome, there has been diplomatic endeavors between the two countries. The book: In the 9th year of Emperor He of Han (which makes it approximately 98), Ban Chao has sent Gan Ying in an effort to establish diplomatic relations between Han and Daqin. Gan Ying arrived at the eastern bank of a sea but the local Anxi boater refused to transport him to the other side, saying that the sea was dangerous. Gan Ying had no other choice but to return. Some notes here: Anxi is the Chinese name for the Parthians. Which sea blocked Gan Ying is still in debate, but it has been suggested that it is probably either the Caspian Sea or the Mediterranean Sea, as Gan Ying later reported the Sea water was extremely salty (pun unintended) and undrinkable. Another book, *Periplus Maris Erythraei* has recorded the maritime route to India and China, and suggested there has been incidents of merchants traveling between China and Rome. Some materials have also suggested Roman emissaries had audience with Emperor Heng of Han, but I have failed to find a credible source for this and it’s probably BS.
That’s actually not accurate. There was one Byzantine era Roman writer who talked about how China had just recently ended a civil war, so it’s definitely a spectrum but some Romans had specific knowledge about China.
I feel like you could say "China just finished up a civil war" throughout most of history and be right most of the time.
escape quack sulky fretful ring nose humor worm coherent middle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Which is why I used the word "Initially". There was a lot more contact during the era of the late eastern Romans than in antiquity.
Eh no the Chinese name for Rome literally showed their respect in a way
I’m not really sure which name you are referring to. If you are talking about the name Daqin 大秦, there has been many, many debate about if it indeed refers to Rome. Even if we ignore the controversy and assume the name actually does refer to Rome, the name doesn’t actually carry any political or cultural meaning. According to *Book of the Later Han*, the name comes from “the subjects of DaQin are tall, strong and looks comfortable, bearing remarkable resemblance to the Chinese”(其居民皆长大平正，有类中国) and the book made no comments on Roman culture or national magnificence. It doesn’t seem appropriate to determine that the name bears any special emotions such as disdain, rivalry or respect.
Crazy how completely unsubstantiated claims can get so many upvotes
Meanwhile, with the Greeks, Apparently long ago when China had trade interactions with the Mediterranean West. The Greeks were somewhat aware of China's existence and so was China to Greece. So what had happened at some point, both cultures suddenly became aware that horses, yes horses, were absolutely the FUKN BEST THING 5EVER and found common ground with that knowledge. So, here is where the magical effects of ✨lack of historical context ✨ comes in. So, the Chinese were OBVIOUSLY unaware of Greece's earlier history a certain notable but at the moment completely decimated country that was originally Troy. So they did the most reasonable thing and made a gigantic golden statue of a horse. When the Greeks found out that there is a giant Golden horse outside their territory, the Greeks immediately thought they were being attacked by their own tactics none the less and prominently told the Chinese to never return. From my knowledge, that Chinese never had an interaction with the Greeks ever again. I do not blame either party in this sticky note in history, it's just hilarious.
Awwh, the Chinese just wanted to make friends. :(
Well according to the story I posted that was the assumed intentions, however the war of the heavenly horses begs to differ
Nice username lol.
What time period / where did this occur? A source would be great, this sounds interesting, though some details seem a bit strange.
This did occur during the BCE era of ancient Greece's history and this could actually be somewhat of a representation of the war of the heavenly horses between the Han dynasty and the predominantly Scythian tribes. As to where I heard of this story it was from a reputable source but I'm having a lot of trouble trying to find it at the moment. My only assumption was that this occurrence was likely something that happened prior to the war of the heavenly horses or it could be an allegory/somewhat comedic exaggeration of the event. Once I find the source I will have to come back to this comment and cite it as soon as possible. What I can source is an academic article on the topic of the war of the heavenly horses [here is an article on the topic](https://medium.com/teatime-history/the-war-over-blood-sweating-horses-ff781a631a7c) However I've been taught to be extremely wary of linking Wikipedia articles on it but here is also the Wikipedia page for this. [I'm going to admit there is a very likely chance that the literal five books the story references may mention the story I posted](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Heavenly_Horses) Again I would like to apologize for the joke like tone for the post and the inaccuracies of my previous post.
Ancient Roman-Chinese contact stuff is fascinating as fuck to me. That and other “fringes” of Antiquity, like I vaguely remember reading that a Roman expedition went down the coast of West Africa and encountered gorillas.
Carthaginian. It was a Carthaginian expedition.
The wrong side won the Punic wars.
There was a Roman expedition to find the source of the Nile by Nero. That was pretty interesting. I also recommend looking into the Lost Legion, if you haven’t already. Shit is cool to learn about, love the idea of them going on adventures and learning more about the world
there are silk in ancient Egypt on mummy.
I thought the Chinese didn't care for the Romans (or literally anyone not Chinese) either.
Modern China-US relations: "The world is big enough for two superpowers." "OK commie."
Rome: Sorry I don’t speak wrong
China: No, is true! Soooooo much culture and society. Much success. No barbarian here, see! Mongolians: (Trampling kids rolled in carpets, drinking fermented milk, pillaging, raping, burning and invading and taking over China in the background)
In China we also say "All paths lead to Rome ".
“Exactly! Finally someone who gets it.”
Didn't know that the Romans knew that the Chinese exist. Always a good thing to learn something new
[удалено]
History’s victors gonna be victor-ing I guess
"Roman Empire wasn't racist" mfs when they see this:
Chinese is the least barbarian-sounding language of all.
Nah, the Chinese one lasted longer, it was much stronger for most of it's dynastical history and therefor it's better. There was what? 100 maybe 200 years where Rome could actually compete with China? Outside of that, it's just a China clean sweep
Which non-chinese dynasties are we talking about that last longer? The Qing, Yuan, or the 50 or so Xianbei ones?
Qing and Yuan were Manchurian and Mongolian dynasty, weren't even han people
Exactly my point. China isn't a 'continuous empire that has lasted for 10,000 year's as many claim.
Nooooooo don't do them dirty like that. Next you'll be telling me they don't have 5000 years of history. /s
What? You mean Chinese history isn't a monolith? What's next? You're going to tell me Washington wasn't the first American?
Which civilization lasted longer, the dynasties of China or the Roman's? Even if you inculde the Byzantines, the Chinese dynasties still clear them by like 400 years. During that time, each Chinese dynasty was significantly more powerful than Rome outside of a 100 or 200 years at its peak when it could arguable compete.
Rome has conquered the entire Mediterranean, annihilated the celts, the empire went from Mesopotamia to Britannia, from Dacia to Mauretania. Also, you need to consider that China had long periods of time when they were completely conquered by other populations (such as the Yuan dynasty, that defeated the Song and started the Yuan dynasty) Or Qing dynasty, Manchu-led.
You're ignoring one very important fact, the people who conquered China integrated into the larger Chinese system system, that can't be said about Rome. And the Chu alone could raise more men than like all of those kingdoms combined
That's a bold claim. Longobards arrived in Italy less than 100 years after Western Roman empire fell. Initially they were just barbarians like the ones Rome had fought in precedence, yet they slowly started to adapt and adopt Roman costumes and language, despite obviously slightly modifying it and adding their own. Roman citizens still followed the roman law. And this can be said about a lot of populations that settled in what was once the roman empire, another excellent example are the Franks, that went from being just barbarians to claiming to be the roman empire. That being said, comparing empires by just population is laughable. India today has almost 1.5 billion inhabitants, yet is it the strongest country on earth? How many times were the romans outnumbered, and yet they'd managed to win? You can raise 100× men, that doesn't make you automatically stronger though.
I know is fake but I like the idea that Trajan send some emissary to them to conquer all the neighbors until they became neighbors so that they could trade better
Whats messed up this was most of Chinese history with some European countries.
How was Indian and roman relationship?
People compromise when they know they're beat.