Why do we not refer to all the Chinese Dynasties as China?

by markfahey78

Why don't we treat the Chinese Dynasties like the Roman ones and just call them China and only name the actual dynasty when referring to the rulers. I know these dynasties weren't always united but we still refer to eastern and western Rome as the Roman Empire. Should we not refer to the Song dynasty for instance as Song China? The reason I say this is because giving the different names for their countries gives an illusion that there was not a continuous china as a country/empire when in reality it was mainly only the rulers and their specific territory which changed.

wotan_weevil

First, to some extent, we do. For example, people do talk/write about Ming China, Qing China, Han China, etc. Often, it is obvious from the context that one is talking about China, and this is abbreviated to Ming, Qing, etc. "Ming" could refer to the time when the Ming Dynasty ruled China (e.g., "Ming vase"), the Ming government, the Ming Dynasty (as a dynasty), or China during Ming rule. If it is obvious which is meant from the context, then "Ming" by itself is sufficient.

Second, dynasties give a convenient periodisation of Chinese history:

  • pre-Qin

  • Qin/Han (about 440 years)

  • the bit between Han and Sui (about 460 years)

  • Sui/Tang (about 330 years)

  • Song (about 270 years)

  • Yuan (about 100 years)

  • Ming (about 270 years)

  • Qing (about 270 years)

Compare with typical periodisations of Roman history:

  • Kingdom

  • Republic (about 480 years, not dividable into dynasties)

  • Principate (about 310 years, 4 dynasties)

  • Dominate (about 110 years, 2 dynasties)

  • Western Rome (about 80 years, 1 dynasty and assorted emperors)

  • Early Byzantine (about 490 years, 8 dynasties)

  • Middle Byzantine (about 360 years, 4 dynasties)

  • Late Byzantine (about 250 years, 2 dynasties)

Chinese dynasties had a slower rate of turnover, and dynastic periods gives useful chunks of time to divide Chinese history into periods. Roman dynasties had, on average, a faster rate of turnover, and division of Roman history into periods by dynasty would give too many periods with too little difference between many of them. The use of Chinese dynasties to separate historical periods is what gives rise to the illusion of "different" Chinas you refer to. There are real and important differences between these periods, which is why this division is useful.