>roman empire ends >Europe permanently fragments >Chinese

>>2312714
Eternal german, destroyer of europa

The power of a Chinese and roman emperor is very different. A roman emperor has to work with managing a huge centralized state, while a Chinese emperor need only be able to raise enough troops to resist Mongols every now and again. The empire, for the most part, runs itself without imperial administration.

>ifunny

>>2312714

Europe was united in a different way. It's not like they didn't come together under one cause and continued to conquer eachother in constant warfare.

Christianity was the uniting party that kept Europe from being in constant warfare to create a new Empire to replace Rome's

Unlike China Where they had dynastic emperors to keep the Empire in place, Europe was united under the Church once it centralized and because of that we didn't have kingdoms trying Rule the entire continent.

Of course you could argue that the hansburgs tried to do this but they also troed to do this when the church was weaker and not to mention they were Catholic so they had the Church on their side.

>>2312714
Because attempts at unification failed.

>permanently fragments
>implying anything is permanent

>inevitably reunites
>implying anything is inevitable

>>2312714
Charlemagne tried it but Euro succession fucked everything up

>>2312714
>history is done

>>2312913
>>2312780

>to retarded to detect patterns

File: 1483013800891.jpg (779KB, 1965x1758px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 1965x1758px

>>2312714
Because they're both, by all accounts shit.

Danish Empire never ends. Danish Empire best empire.

File: 1483285189393.jpg (387KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 785x757px

>>2312965
No, Britannia is the best

Sit down and stay down, snownigger

File: 12341243155125.png (56KB, 192x154px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 192x154px

>>2312896
>Genocides and forcefully converts a few non-latin people.
>""""""""""""""""""""""Great""""""""""""""""""""""

>>2312714
because the jews aren-t in china

>>2312946
Idiot.

There have been many attempts to unify Europe.
The fact that it stayed divided is mere contingency.

File: mapgermanic.gif (24KB, 502x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 502x400px

>>2312714
The Roman Empire didn't fall because of province braking away. The only real split was the Eastern-Western split, which caused the Eastern part to become Hellenized, but even then the possibility of unification was left open.

The Western Empire was, for the most part, homogenous. It's not like the people of, say, Hispania decided that they should be their own nation and decided to form the Kingdom of Hispania. Most Roman (Romanized) people wanted to belong to the Roman Empire until the very end. Even when there were civil wars they were about who will rule Rome, not about people wanting to break away.

The Roman Empire didn't really fragment, it was conquered in chunks. Basically, it got economically and militarily weak at the same time there were a bunch of people looking for a land to settle. They got so weak that individual Germanic tribes could invade Roman lands and forme their own kingdoms, and Rome was powerless to stop them. If there was no migration period, Rome would probably remain intact for quite a few centuries.

This is why China didn't fragment like this. They took a similar road to Rome, conquering and assimilating their part of the world. The Chinese however
1. were almost always the most powerful state in the region, never got weak enough that, let's say, an individual Mongol tribe could take over a large part of their land.
2. were geographically more isolated and had less neighbors to steal their clay. The Mongols were usually only interested in raiding and didn't want to settle on Chinese lands, unlike those agrarian Germans in formerly Roman Europe. Koreans and SE Asians were also too weak or divided to take on China.

Yes, China eventually was conquered by Mongols (which took all Mongol tribes united and military geniuses Genghis and Subotai), but they kept the empire intact and only made it part of an their larger empire.

File: 1xarhan1.jpg (388KB, 611x506px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 611x506px

>>2313062
tl;dr: Rome didn't fragment on it's own but had a bunch of tribes taking over their clay, while China never had a migration period and never had the problem of foreign kingdoms getting formed on their land.

>>2313073
>wew lad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen_Kingdoms

>>2312978
>snownigger
Snow there is exactly the same as with england, they're just like you but not english.

>>2313087
Just proves my point further. Even when one of those empires fragmented (as in: locals tried breaking away) it got reunited shortly after. A good Roman parallel to this period would be something like the Gaulic or Jewish revolts.

What destroyed Rome was not internal strife but a series of foreign invasions, something China never had in that scale.

>>2312981
>barbarians
>"""""""people""""""

>>2313122

>what is the Yuan dynasty

>>2312714

Non meme answer.

The Germanic peoples removed the old Roman ruling classes, a luxury they could afford due to existence of Catholic Church.

It's much easier to lead a warband than to run a state. Once your tribe settles in you need to employ literati - people who would act as clerks, administrators and record keepers. Also you need a pool of people to recruit these officials from. In Western Roman Empire they were two (a bit overlapping) groups of people who could serve as such literati - the Roman nobility and Christian priests. Germanic kings therefore employed priests in their administration. Roman nobles weren't needed so the Germanics dispossessed them and took over their lands. By this they killed two birds with one stone. First of all they got suddenly rich (and founded the European nobility) which stabilized their states. Secondly, they got rid of a social class that was known for its unreliability and would support the return of Roman rule. The church, in contrast, was easily bent to the Germanic kings' will thanks to the electable nature of bishoprics (thus you could staff them with amenable people) and generous donations.

China was only partially divided thanks to foreign, barbarian invasions. And when barbarians did invade, they had nothing comparable to the Church at hand. They had to rely on the Chinese nobility as the source of administrators, despite these nobles being disloyal.

>>2313122
>Just proves my point further. Even when one of those empires fragmented (as in: locals tried breaking away) it got reunited shortly after.
The five barbarians are analogous to Germanic auxiliaries forming various polities with the help of the local Han gentry.

The Central Plains were unified under the Former Qin and Northern Wei but it was the of the Sui that managed to unite the southern courts.