The Warlord Era of China

[NidarNidar]

I've been reading The End of the Revolution: China and the Limits of Modernity by Wang Hui it's a truly fascinating book, which got me researching Chinese history beyond superficial.

The Warlord Era (1916–1928) After the fall of the Qing dynasty (1912), China broke into regional warlord-controlled areas, where military strongmen ruled territories. The central government was weak and basically had no control over the whole country, just like Somalia’s transitional governments in the 90s and 2000s. Each warlord had their own armies, collected their own taxes, and often fought each other. The economy was fragmented, and the infrastructure decayed. Sounds a lot like Somalia post-Barre, where warlords and clans controlled different regions

Some key factors that have resulted in what China is now.

Strong ideology: Communism gave people a unifying goal.
Mass mobilization: The CCP organized peasants and workers, not just elites.
Military victory: Force was a huge part of reunification.
Anti-foreign sentiment: Uniting against imperialists created common cause.
Charismatic leadership: Mao was both feared and followed.

TDLR: The Collapse of the Qing dynasty and internal power struggle, resulted in rise of local warlords, which fragmented the country, allowing more foreign interference, and resulting in civil war.

 

[The truth seeker]

@NidarNidar FDR the famous president had a grandfather who got rich by smuggling opium into china it’s even said that in terms of revenge collected Queen Victoria is history’s biggest drug dealer

 

[balanbalis]

Somali Mao Zedong (Mohammed Siidon) has been born in Erigavo and will take power in 2053

 

[Ashraf]

Imagine what the world what look like if china industrialised sooner and had its own colonial ambitions. British raj woulda been Chinese I can imagine.

 

[NidarNidar]

Imagine what the world what look like if china industrialised sooner and had its own colonial ambitions. British raj woulda been Chinese I can imagine.

Just watch the Expanse xD

 

[Zak12]

Its a little hard to compare China and Somalia since China has had several "warlord" eras in its long past, the country always united in the end. Somalia became a united political entity for the first time in 1960, although Somalis were very well connected before that.

 

[NidarNidar]

Its a little hard to compare China and Somalia since China has had several "warlord" eras in its long past, the country always united in the end. Somalia became a united political entity for the first time in 1960, although Somalis were very well connected before that.

Somalis are more comparable to Greek city states, including the agropastoralism/pastoralism, especially during the 10th-16th century

 

[Zak12]

Somalis are more comparable to Greek city states, including the agropastoralism/pastoralism, especially during the 10th-16th century

I would say Somalia was more akin to pre-1871 Germany

 

[The truth seeker]

The man who built china is this guy not that communist fool

 

[Shimbiris]

Imagine what the world what look like if china industrialised sooner and had its own colonial ambitions. British raj woulda been Chinese I can imagine.

China seems to fundamentally think differently from the rest of the world. It did during its Antiquity and Middle Ages and it does now in that they really seem to see themselves as the center of the world and the only part that truly matters. The rest of us are just peripheral and good for getting maybe some goods from via trade, or more precisely selling theirs to us, but they have always seemingly had zero interest in expansion or dominating the rest of the world. It really is a rich country that has always had all it needs to sustain its own civilization, including human capital.

 

[Shimbiris]

@The truth seeker

I think the reason the gaalo became so expansionist and imperialist after stumbling upon endless supplies of lacag and resources in the Americas is tied to the nature of the lands they came from. Much of Europe consists of low quality land — regions that are often too cold, rugged, or poorly suited for large-scale agriculture or dense urban civilizations. In many ways, their behavior mirrors that of the Norse during the Viking Age: people from resource-poor environments seeking to expand into more fertile or simply more abundant territories.

Contrast that with China, which never faced the same problem. It's essentially a vast, continuous zone of Mediterranean and subtropical climates, rich in natural resources and historically valuable goods like silk. The gaalo have always been, historically speaking, gaajo — driven by scarcity.

 

[The truth seeker]

China seems to fundamentally think differently from the rest of the world. It did during its Antiquity and Middle Ages and it does now in that they really seem to see themselves as the center of the world and the only part that truly matters. The rest of us are just peripheral and good for getting maybe some goods from via trade, or more precisely selling theirs to us, but they have always seemingly had zero interest in expansion or dominating the rest of the world. It really is a rich country that has always had all it needs to sustain its own civilization, including human capital.

They had the worlds largest GDP until 1890

https://brainly.com/question/46229213

Before World War Two western nations were usually engaged in heated rivalry’s with each other Britain vs Germany naval race in the 1910s or germanys attempt to invade USA in 1899 etc

The German Plan To Invade America

NEWLY REVEALED: HOW KAISER WILHELM PLANNED TO KEEP AMERICA FROM BECOMING A GLOBAL POWER

www.americanheritage.com

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-naval-race-between-britain-and-germany-before-the-first-world-war#:~:text=Between%201900%20and%201914%2C%20Germany,battle%20fleet%20to%20rival%20Britain's.

I guess them modern equivalent is USA vs France or USA vs EU

 

[The truth seeker]

@The truth seeker

I think the reason the gaalo became so expansionist and imperialist after stumbling upon endless supplies of lacag and resources in the Americas is tied to the nature of the lands they came from. Much of Europe consists of low quality land — regions that are often too cold, rugged, or poorly suited for large-scale agriculture or dense urban civilizations. In many ways, their behavior mirrors that of the Norse during the Viking Age: people from resource-poor environments seeking to expand into more fertile or simply more abundant territories.

Contrast that with China, which never faced the same problem. It's essentially a vast, continuous zone of Mediterranean and subtropical climates, rich in natural resources and historically valuable goods like silk. The gaalo have always been, historically speaking, gaajo — driven by scarcity.

19th century Europe was bottom of the barrel poor and was constantly at war was not until the 90s that they united


California has Mediterranean climate is on the pacific rim , and has plenty of farms in the central valley it produces 80 percent of the worlds almonds that’s why it’s so populous


Interesting Spanish colonialism is why South America is so poor

 

[Idilinaa]

@The truth seeker

I think the reason the gaalo became so expansionist and imperialist after stumbling upon endless supplies of lacag and resources in the Americas is tied to the nature of the lands they came from. Much of Europe consists of low quality land — regions that are often too cold, rugged, or poorly suited for large-scale agriculture or dense urban civilizations. In many ways, their behavior mirrors that of the Norse during the Viking Age: people from resource-poor environments seeking to expand into more fertile or simply more abundant territories.

Contrast that with China, which never faced the same problem. It's essentially a vast, continuous zone of Mediterranean and subtropical climates, rich in natural resources and historically valuable goods like silk. The gaalo have always been, historically speaking, gaajo — driven by scarcity.

This is also pretty much an explanation for Egypt as well, despite being a major civilization it never really was expansionist. Whilst others tried to expand into it.

Something i said several months back:

Believe it or not ancient egyptians never ventured far to colonize of conquer distant territories

Furthest areas they controlled was areas of Syria and Sudan.

Some have said that it's because they had no economic or political motivation to expand and conquere, they saw their land particularly as the most rich and fertile and their geography insulated them for the longest time.
I also suspect it is also due to the fact that Ancient Egypt was never a particularly strong naval power because it lacked sufficient timber to build large numbers of seaworthy ships.

 

[Shimbiris]

This is also pretty much an explanation for Egypt as well, despite being a major civilization it never really was expansionist. Whilst others tried to expand into it.

Something i said several months back:

Yes, I always found it so peculiar how they really only ever conquered the Levant and Nubia historically with seemingly no interest in further expansion. The former feels more like a "securing the border" exercise; creating a buffer between themselves and groups like the Mesopotamians, Anatolians and Zagrosians. Whereas the latter is, let's just be real, practically an extension of Egypt itself in a way.

 

[Juke]

Ma Clique set represent