Talk:Pax Sinica

Comments

This article is basically original research, or at least an attempt to flesh out a fringe nationalist theory. The idea of "Pax Sinica" is not used by serious historians of China because it is essentially a claim about an entire ethnicity (Chinese=peace), in contrast to the original Pax Romana, or things like Pax Americana, which refer to specific periods in the history of one empire. I have in fact never seen the phrase "Pax Sinica" in any printed work of Chinese history, and highly doubt that it's used in most of the works cited by this article. It seems to me that it is basically an attempt to legitimate the Chinese government's ridiculous idea that "China has always been peaceful" on Wikipedia because no legitimate academic press would publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgon44 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ming dynasty had the Imjin War and Yuan dynasty had the Invasion of Japan. How is that peaceful? --Dangerous-Boy 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Pax Romana doesn't imply that Rome didn't fight any wars either. The key is that it's relative peace. T. trichiura Infect me 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There were many dynasties, just because several dynasties were at war doesn't meen that the other ones lived a hard life. Also, the dates of certain things arent exactly accurate. They could be off by several years, so if your source on the war is a few years early, or even accurate(just saying some websites arent even completly accurate), and the time of pax Sinica is a few years ahead, then there are some unavoidable errors.Hornet101 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Something I just now noticed, which comletly contridicts everything I said earlier, there are no dates on the definition. Pax Sinicia could refer to present day china, or ancient china... it just means a tim of peace.During the time of the Invasion of Japan, there may not have been Pax Sinicia.Hornet101 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I've sent a notice to the creating author, to provide references. Else, I'm going to proceed with a nomination for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkenobi18 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 11 February 2011‎ (UTC)

Cut the Song Dynasty

The Song, particularly the Southern Song, was very small and in no way dominant. Its political and economic influence was vast, but this is the period when Japan started to move away from China and turn inward. There are people who will know much more than I do about this, but my impulse is that this particular dynasty should be removed from the lists. The Han and the Tang have a far better claim. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Song should not be cut because Japan turning inward, is like saying pax britiana doesn't exist because Qing turn inward and did not want to trade with them. you can't stop other countries from isolating themselves, as long as they are not messing up the peace established, it does not change the balance. initially, I agree with your assessment because Song is indeed a weaker entity, but then i realised it was illogical to compare them since they don't occupy the same time period. at least for the short period before they lost the north, they remain influential in cultural and technological development. however let avoid original research and see what can be sourced before changing this. 2406:3003:2006:C2A4:8CAD:B952:92CE:C327 (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a critical thing to consider is what do the various 'Pax' mean - does it primarily refer to cultural and technological dominance and influence, or are there other parameters to consider e.g. regional political reach, military projection.

I ask this because the Song occupies a rather contested place in Chinese historiography. Its cultural and technological innovations were definitely impressive (and I recognize the value judgement here), but militarily/politically it only possessed much of what we now call Southern China, with much of the north being ruled by the Liao and Jin empires, northern steppe peoples who ruled over a significant Han Chinese populace.

Additionally, it assumes again the traditional Chinese historiographical perspective of the Song proceeding from the Tang, and preceding the Yuan, creating the mirage of a single unitary 'river' of Chinese dynasties, when in fact, this privileges the Song over Liao and Jin as 'legitimate' dynasties of China. You can see this issue among the Mongol historians of the Yuan, where their imperial historians did not compile merely the history of the Song, but also that of the Liao and Jin, recognizing them equally as three different polities with somewhat different cultures, and that the Yuan defeated all three of them, Which is 'pax sinica' here? This seems to me an unaswerable question, for pax sinica assumes a single Chinese polity with significant geopolitical reach, and in the Song period, there isn't one, but multiple 'Chinas'.

Let me know what you think! At risk of overstating myself, I'd add that I'm fairly well-studied (from a lay perspective) in Chinese history and I've read more than my fair share of academic papers and books, I'd love to contribute more to this article if everyone here is okay with that! TheStranger123 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

bias

This article is biased., so i added tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungguk (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

POV issues

If current economic power has important implications for a potential Pax Sinica ("Chinese peace" maintained by hegemony), then those factors that inhibit China's economic development, social stability, and global hegemony should also be mentioned per the standard practice of WP:NPOV, given the number of existing RSes that support these counter-POVs. Normchou ^💬 19:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Pax Sinica is primarily cultural. for example the japanese still use kanji which literally means chinese character in japanese and this is under the fact that china has never conquer japan, so it influences is as a center of learning and civilisation due primarily to the scale of human activities not physical power. i find it laughable that people are citing population decline as an issue, china is overpopulated and will remain so and the decline in population is worst for korea and japan. furthermore Pax Sinica is historically about asia, the assumption of it requires being the "world hegemon" is misplaced. Pax Sinica can exist even if China is not a world hegemon. for example US is the "world hegemon" now, US did not stop anyone from joining AIIB, BRI, RCEP thus showing the limit of world power on Asian affairs... 101.127.15.2 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Pax Sinica is primarily cultural, which sounds fine, as long as one is consistently following their own argument. So perhaps the "world's foremost economic power lasting two thousand years" and "recent resurgence and possible return because of its GDP" thingy should just be removed from this article altogether. If this is the consensus, then I am totally fine with it. Normchou ^💬 06:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"primarily" does not mean it is only about culture. US economic power is already in decline as share of the world GDP. yet we do not consider the Pax Americana has ended... because it remains culturally influential as denoted by the mcdonald map... it is rather bad taste for you to just randomly demand to remove stuff you disagree with. 2406:3003:2006:C2A4:8CAD:B952:92CE:C327 (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Historiographical Contradictions regarding High Qing Era section

"The High Qing era was a period of sustained peace, economic prosperity and territorial expansion."

How can it be both a period of 'sustained peace' and 'territorial expansion'? 18th century Qing China aggressively engaged in warfare, From 1755 – 1792, Qianlong launched the 10 Great Campaigns (十全武功, shiquanwugong). Notable among these were the Qing’s quadruple invasions of Burma (modern Myanmar) from 1765 – 1769 and the invasion of Vietnam in 1788 – 1789.

There were also the Zunghar-Qing wars from roughly 1680s to 1758, ending with the Zunghar genocide. Concurrent from 1755 - 1759 were the pacification of their vassal Khalkha Mongols and the conquering of the oasis polities in Turkestan/Tarim basin.

What we see here are sustained invasions and conquests of Qing China's southern and western frontiers, with far more success in the west than the south (hence Vietnam's and Burma's continued existence). TheStranger123 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"sustained population growth, economic prosperity and territorial expansion" would be better. --Wengier (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is great, could you make the changes? Thanks for reviewing! 92.40.192.241 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Done already. --Wengier (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)