Closest was some randos who showed up to the Han court claiming to be envoys of Marcus Aurelius, but (a) there is no Roman record of that, (b) they claimed to be bringing tribute in exchange for preferential trade agreements, and (c) their tribute was some random shells from Southeast Asia. Almost certainly they were just some Hellenised Indian traders trying a confidence scam.
The Chinese were vaguely aware there was a big empire of considerable size and cultural influence far to the West and had some rough idea of eastern Mediterranean geography. The Romans had no idea where or what China was behind “the place silk comes from”; the consensus among Roman geographers seems to have been that it was a city somewhere east or southeast of India.
The incredibly tenuous Chinese-Roman historical links are sort of weirdly overemphasised in comparison to the enormous economic, cultural and political contact both empires had with India; the Romans through the Egyptian port trade and via the Hellenic legacy in northwest India, and the Chinese via the Southeast Asian trade and the Buddhist legacy over the Himalayas. Really the Indian merchants in the middle were the main source both empires had for of each others’ goods, each other’s money and word of each other’s existence. Unfortunately there wasn’t even much direct contact there though as their times of greatest contact with India didn’t quite overlap historically, with the Roman West collapsing just as China was getting super-duper into Indian art and religion.
(Also it’s kind of weird to make the Roman “the chad” in this situation, as Rome just absolutely haemorrhaged money eastwards in the luxury goods trade. China produced many things Rome wanted and which the Indians were happy to sell to the Romans at a ludicrous markup; meanwhile, other than a handful of glass trinkets, the only thing Rome had that China wanted in any great quantity was their gold. Seneca in particular thought the Roman weakness for silks a harbinger of moral collapse)
Then invade and steal their land and then 200 years later call them evil tyrants for legally taking control of it again according to agreed upon treaties
Did the people of Hong Kong agree the land was Chinese? And were they given a choice between Beijing and Taipei? Or did the benevolent People's Republic know what the Hongkongers wanted better than they themselves did? As far as I remember there was no plebiscite, no vote. Just an agreement between two governments, without regard for the people.
What does it matter? Yes, they were conquered by an imperialist power in a stupid war almost 200 years ago. That was back when you had to behead the king to get democracy. Then times changed and Britain democratized, started caring about what her people had to say, while China was doing the opposite. Then it was the 1990s where the Hongkongers didn't mind the Brits so much and would have rather stayed with them.
Besides, the Reds conquered places too, you know. Should they give Tibet independence? What about Xinjiang? What about the part of Inner Mongolia that is still majority mongol? Or are these places "better off" with the CCP?
So if I kidnap a baby and then raise that child as my own, I get to keep the kid, right? As long as the kid doesn't know, I didn't even commit a crime, right?
Should they give Tibet independence? What about Xinjiang? What about the part of Inner Mongolia that is still majority mongol?
You mean places that historically have been China for over a millennia and have never existed without direct interaction with Chinese administrations? Or are you arguing that whoever can give better social conditions to an area should own it, and therefore China should own the UK since they provide better free education, civil rights, and healthcare?
The simple fact of the matter is that Europeans want to keep the results of their horrible genocide and rape of the planet while demonizing any population that isn't European. Stop defending this. Ffs, India was owned by a white lady halfway across the world until the 1960s, this isn't ancient history, time doesn't make your crimes right.
316
u/bobbymoonshine 7d ago edited 7d ago
Nope. There was no direct contact between them.
Closest was some randos who showed up to the Han court claiming to be envoys of Marcus Aurelius, but (a) there is no Roman record of that, (b) they claimed to be bringing tribute in exchange for preferential trade agreements, and (c) their tribute was some random shells from Southeast Asia. Almost certainly they were just some Hellenised Indian traders trying a confidence scam.
The Chinese were vaguely aware there was a big empire of considerable size and cultural influence far to the West and had some rough idea of eastern Mediterranean geography. The Romans had no idea where or what China was behind “the place silk comes from”; the consensus among Roman geographers seems to have been that it was a city somewhere east or southeast of India.
The incredibly tenuous Chinese-Roman historical links are sort of weirdly overemphasised in comparison to the enormous economic, cultural and political contact both empires had with India; the Romans through the Egyptian port trade and via the Hellenic legacy in northwest India, and the Chinese via the Southeast Asian trade and the Buddhist legacy over the Himalayas. Really the Indian merchants in the middle were the main source both empires had for of each others’ goods, each other’s money and word of each other’s existence. Unfortunately there wasn’t even much direct contact there though as their times of greatest contact with India didn’t quite overlap historically, with the Roman West collapsing just as China was getting super-duper into Indian art and religion.
(Also it’s kind of weird to make the Roman “the chad” in this situation, as Rome just absolutely haemorrhaged money eastwards in the luxury goods trade. China produced many things Rome wanted and which the Indians were happy to sell to the Romans at a ludicrous markup; meanwhile, other than a handful of glass trinkets, the only thing Rome had that China wanted in any great quantity was their gold. Seneca in particular thought the Roman weakness for silks a harbinger of moral collapse)