If you believe the analysis in https://www.amazon.com/Early-Chinese-Empires-History-Imperia... , the Qin dynasty immediately flamed out because its institutions just didn't work in peacetime, and the Han dynasty had to develop practices more suited to a stable empire.
We share a more-or-less unified culture with Canada. Do you feel the US invading them isn't a quest to take control of foreigners?
I'm asking these questions because its genuinely a foreign concept to me that these things are not imperialistic quests of conquest. I understand people have different point of views and so I'm trying to understand what the justification is.
Due to rate limiting, I'll edit:
> If communications technology broke down and the United States fractured into 5 different states, would you be surprised if most military efforts went into taking over other regions of the former US rather than Canada or Mexico?
That isn't the same as the warring states since that was the first proper unification of China as an empire. Up until that point in history, it wasn't unified in the sense the US is. I also would consider attempting to recover those regions an act of imperial aggression.
> If they were eventually reunified after hundreds of years of fighting each other while having displayed no urge to invade Mexico, and subsequently spent several more centuries not invading Mexico while denigrating militarism and soldiers generally, why would you start worrying for Mexico?
China invaded Korea (China's Mexico). So I'm not sure where you are going with that given that is a historical falsehood when it comes to analogies.
Similarly, when you are refusing to acknowledge the territorial claims of your neighbors like China is in the South China Sea to the point you are taking military actions
If they were eventually reunified after hundreds of years of fighting each other while having displayed no urge to invade Mexico, and subsequently spent several more centuries not invading Mexico while denigrating militarism and soldiers generally, why would you start worrying for Mexico?
Just because they share an ethnicity you can't claim that the hundreds of years of expansion of the Zhou, which involved nonzero amounts of military conquest, or the Warring States period weren't imperialistic. Even outside of the unification attempts, there was plenty of conquest of tribes that had never been a part of any state.
In recent history, the PLC invaded Tibet in 1950, 37 years after Tibet gained independent via treaty.
What would that have to do with it?
There's no rate limiting. You can always reply to a post on that post's own page.
> China invaded Korea (China's Mexico)
Korea is more like China's Canada. It's tiny (Canada has one tenth the population of the US; Mexico is more like one half) and culturally, though not linguistically, similar.
So your argument now is that makes it non-imperialistic?
1. China, ruled by the Chinese, has been incredibly uninterested in expansion compared to pretty much anywhere else in the world.
2. In fact, they have a many-centuries-long tradition of applying social stigma to military careers.
3. They have been especially uninterested in attacking regions that are not already highly Sinicized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sino-Korean_relatio... doesn't really suggest that the Chinese have been interested in invading Korea at any time in the last 1500 years. Communist China specifically wanted North Korea to be independent as a buffer state between itself and the US.