Why is the map scope of China hegemony unreasonable?

[treb]

Someone tell me again why Serbia, Sicily, Armenia, Venice etc belongs in the ERE’s de jure region or how make belief French empires has Switzerland under it’s de jure area but Vietnam shouldn’t be in China’s despite near continuous rule of China?

Because the way the game is coded is the title tiers are hierarchical, a barony has to belong to a county has to belong to a duchy has to belong to a kingdom has to belong to an empire. Honestly the de jure setup seems to be a holdover of ck2, but with hegemonies it seems that you can now have some titles tied to a higher tier and others not. Maybe the devs will address some of the more funky empire setups at some point. Also as I've explained earlier "near continuous rule" is a gross simplification of the matter and really does injustice to an actually interesting period of Vietnamese history(They were never really all that accepting of Chinese occupation during the said millennium)

 

[zeruosi]

De Jure boundaries are honestly fairly arbitrary and ahistorical in general, but they have utility to help guide the AI and players towards conquering along historically and geographically sensible lines even if the idea of a rightful legal organization of the territory is usually a fiction. In the case of Annan being de jure part of Yue and thus the Chinese hegemony will probably make it far less likely that any independent Vietnamese ruler will be able to stay independent, which would not be right for this time period. Unless of course there is some event or decision that allows it to change to a different de jure empire during a period of self rule, as happened historically.

I believe that after the fragmentation of Tang Dynasty's hegemony, the rulers of Annam could have made a decision to carve out their own empire by conquering Champa, Lan Xang, and Cambodia.

 

[darthfanta]

De Jure boundaries are honestly fairly arbitrary and ahistorical in general, but they have utility to help guide the AI and players towards conquering along historically and geographically sensible lines even if the idea of a rightful legal organization of the territory is usually a fiction. In the case of Annan being de jure part of Yue and thus the Chinese hegemony will probably make it far less likely that any independent Vietnamese ruler will be able to stay independent, which would not be right for this time period. Unless of course there is some event or decision that allows it to change to a different de jure empire during a period of self rule, as happened historically.

It’s not like China didn’t make serious attempts post Tang Dynasty to recover the region.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

It’s not like China didn’t make serious attempts post Tang Dynasty to recover the region.

Should serious attempts be what determines china's hegemony? As then it would spread even wider

 

[darthfanta]

Should serious attempts be what determines china's hegemony? As then it would spread even wider

De jure in game lores means a level of consideration(aka claims) by either yourself or others on some level that it’s your territory or pays fealty to it. That the Vietnamese rulers continued to request Chinese recognition to be granted royal titles and occasionally even gets overthrown by the Chinese for lack of recognition more than seals the deal.Having a claim =/= to actual control is the whole point of the deal jure system.

 

[zeruosi]

Because in the majority of the cases you describe they did. Ironically the only one that actually did originate in the Bronze age is Greek, since the indo-europeans arrived in Europe in the early bronze age. In china you have the neolithic Longshan culture and succeeding Erlitou culture. Which chronologically matches up to the Xia Dynasty, the first historically mentioned Chinese dynasty. The origin of written records doesn't magically kick start complex Civilizations suddenly just building cities, they had thousands of years of history themselves when they first started writing, History that we find evidence of quite amply when we go looking for it...

Just posting my other response here

To some extent, you're right. If we examine China's archaeological records, the first Chinese dynasty actually exhibited distinct characteristics of the Yangtze River civilization rather than the Yellow River civilization. Moreover, the lower Yellow River region was entirely swamps and wetlands in the early dynastic period, which was hardly conducive to the emergence of civilization.

Given the lack of reliable historical records, there's considerable speculation surrounding these issues.

In early China, there was a period known as the "Period of Diverse Blooming" (满天星斗期), during which Chinese civilization resembled that of Mesopotamia or early India—fragmented into numerous city-states, with some dominant polities (such as Shimao, Shuanghuaishu, and Liangzhu). In Chinese archaeology, this era is referred to as the "Ancient States Period" (古国时代).

However, China quickly transitioned from the "Period of Diverse Blooming" to the "Period of One Dominant Moon" (月明星稀期), where a primary civilization core emerged—the Erlitou region. This marked the "Fangguo Era" (方国时代), characterized by large city-state alliances competing for resources.

Finally, China entered the dynastic era of a vast centralized state, with a unified empire taking shape. Centered on Erlitou, it expanded over 400,000 square kilometers. Interestingly, this timeframe closely parallels the rise of the Akkadian Empire. The Xia Dynasty emerged around 2070 BCE, while the Akkadian Empire was founded in 2192 BCE—merely a century apart.

The transition from "Diverse Blooming" to "One Dominant Moon" involved significant events. First, the decline of Liangzhu and the Yangtze River civilization, likely due to marine transgressions and floods. After Liangzhu's fall, similar cultural complexes appeared north of the Yangtze River. These groups may have migrated northward into the Yellow River basin, merging with early Yellow River civilizations.

Subsequently, the "4.2-kiloyear event" (a global climate crisis) played a crucial role in Erlitou's rise. In China, this manifested as the Yellow River changing its course from the Huai River northward. To some extent, the legend of Yu the Great taming the floods preserves fragmented memories of this period. Geological studies have uncovered evidence of massive dam-like structures upstream on the Yellow River. It's hypothesized that the river accumulated water equivalent to 3,000 Three Gorges Dams before the dam collapsed, unleashing a catastrophic flood that devastated the entire basin.

This led to a civilization-wide decline. Before this, Erlitou was an unremarkable region, but afterward, it suddenly emerged as China's civilization core. This was likely a result of population concentration caused by the floods. Erlitou's location on high ground, far from the Yellow River's two major alluvial fans, probably spared it from the deluge. Similarly, this may have spurred the rise of the Dawenkou culture in Shandong. For a long time after the Xia's founding, the Dongyi people of Shandong—described in Records of the Grand Historian as the Xia's main rivals—even briefly overthrew Xia rule (as seen in the Han Zhuo usurpation). Archaeological evidence shows Dawenkou culture expanding into Erlitou's core territory during this period.

The later Shang Dynasty was directly descended from the Dongyi but remained in prolonged conflict with them. Interestingly, the Dongyi were considered the most civilized among the "Four Barbarians," initially bearing no strong derogatory connotations. The term "Dongyi" originally referred to tall, eastern people who used long bows.

 

[Lohcoh]

Because the US is populated largely by the descendents of British colonists, the same can't be said for Vietnam and China

In fact, Vietnamese people themselves have two parts, the Kinh ethnic origin in the north and the Champa origin in the south. This north-south divide is also affecting Vietnam's current domestic politics
So the ethnic identity of Vietnamese people is actually a quite complex issue.

 

[treb]

De jure in game lores means a level of consideration(aka claims) by either yourself or others on some level that it’s your territory or pays fealty to it. That the Vietnamese rulers continued to request Chinese recognition to be granted royal titles and occasionally even gets overthrown by the Chinese for lack of recognition more than seals the deal.Having a claim =/= to actual control is the whole point of the deal jure system.

If thats the case then most of great Britain and France should be de jure part of England...

 

[darthfanta]

If thats the case then most of great Britain and France should be de jure part of England...

English claim did not exist until much later in the 1300s. Besides that, it wasn’t that the English have claim over France, but that the King of England himself also happened to be someone with a claim to the French throne. Big difference.That’s where personal claims come in within the game.Traditionally, whenever there’s big chaos in China, whoever won the land all under heaven goes on and snuff out whoever’s in control of Annam as well. Often quite rapidly. So clearly there was consensus from the Chinese at the time that it was a regular part of their land until the Song Dynasty. The Song Dynasty was the first one who tried and failed.

 

[Lohcoh]

If thats the case then most of great Britain and France should be de jure part of England...

The two types you mentioned are both manifestations of the pre Westphalian system.
The relationship between England and France is based on various complex claims of the throne.
The relationship between China and Vietnam is based on the world view of "under heaven". At that time, there was no nationalism. Most Vietnamese regarded themselves as Chinese, and identifying the Chinese was not "Chinese" enough. You can see this from Vietnam's own written records at the same time.

 

[Freshplayer]

De Jure boundaries are honestly fairly arbitrary and ahistorical in general, but they have utility to help guide the AI and players towards conquering along historically and geographically sensible lines even if the idea of a rightful legal organization of the territory is usually a fiction. In the case of Annan being de jure part of Yue and thus the Chinese hegemony will probably make it far less likely that any independent Vietnamese ruler will be able to stay independent, which would not be right for this time period. Unless of course there is some event or decision that allows it to change to a different de jure empire during a period of self rule, as happened historically.

I believe that historically, the Vietnamese claimed the de jure heritage of the Nan Yue Empire, but they abandoned it in the 18th and 19th centuries. Quote from Wikipedia article, Nanyue.

In Vietnam, the rulers of Nanyue are referred to as the Triệu dynasty, the Vietnamese pronunciation of the surname Chinese: 趙; pinyin: Zhào. While traditional Vietnamese historiography considered the Triệu dynasty to be an orthodox regime, modern Vietnamese scholars generally regard it as a foreign regime that ruled Vietnam. The oldest text compiled by a Vietnamese court, the 13th century Đại Việt sử ký, considered Nanyue to be the official starting point of their history. According to the Đại Việt sử ký, Zhao Tuo established the foundation of Đại Việt. However, later historians in the 18th century started questioning this view. Ngô Thì Sĩ (1726–1780) argued that Zhao Tuo was a foreign invader based in Panyu (Guangzhou) who ruled the Hong River Delta indirectly, and Nanyue was a foreign dynasty like the Southern Han that should not be included in Vietnamese history. This view became the mainstream among Vietnamese historians in North Vietnam and later became the state orthodoxy after reunification. Nanyue was removed from the national history while Zhao Tuo was recast as a foreign invader.[48][49]

The name "Vietnam" is derived from Nam Việt (Southern Việt), the Vietnamese pronunciation of Nanyue.[11] However, it has also suggested that the name "Vietnam" was derived from a combination of Quảng Nam Quốc (the domain of the Nguyen lords, from whom the Nguyễn dynasty descended) and Đại Việt (which the first emperor of the Nguyễn dynasty, Gia Long, conquered).[50] Qing emperor Jiaqing refused Gia Long's request to change his country's name to Nam Việt, and changed the name instead to Việt Nam.[51] Đại Nam thực lục contains the diplomatic correspondence over the naming.[52]

 

[DiabloDeVille]

English claim did not exist until much later in the 1300s. Besides that, it wasn’t that the English have claim over France, but that the King of England himself also happened to be someone with a claim to the French throne. Big difference.That’s where personal claims come in within the game.Traditionally, whenever there’s big chaos in China, whoever won the land all under heaven goes on and snuff out whoever’s in control of Annam as well. Often quite rapidly. So clearly there was consensus from the Chinese at the time that it was a regular part of their land until the Song Dynasty. The Song Dynasty was the first one who tried and failed.

If ck3 ai needs the giant unified empire of china to have northern vietnam as its de jure to try regularly expand into it, then the devs failed.
If we want ck3 to go on a path similar to history once you hit start, then having vietnam be not de jure chinese hegemon means its more likely to become a tributary than province 300 years after game start

 

[Benismann]

If ck3 ai needs the giant unified empire of china to have northern vietnam as its de jure to try regularly expand into it, then the devs failed.

AI probably will expand there, what de-jure would really do is make vietnam basically never try to secede. Im not sure if that's the intended interaction between those 2...

 

[pCWentY]

If thats the case then most of great Britain and France should be de jure part of England...

Vietnam, like other provinces, was a domestic province of the Chinese Empire for thousands of years before the Northern Song Dynasty

I don't think France is a province of England besides the Anjou Empire——And even during the Anjou Empire period, it did not possess the entire France

 

[darthfanta]

If ck3 ai needs the giant unified empire of china to have northern vietnam as its de jure to try regularly expand into it, then the devs failed.
If we want ck3 to go on a path similar to history once you hit start, then having vietnam be not de jure chinese hegemon means its more likely to become a tributary than province 300 years after game start

Speak for yourself.If you want a Vietnam that is similar to history, then it’s got to be one that constantly struggles for independence against it’s northernly neighbour.

Arguments like yours more or less fails to account for why the Abbasid Caliphate has claims over Egypt and the rest of Arabia etc in 867 start when historically it loses control of such regions forever and became only nominal superiors of the Arab world. Yet in game they still have de jure claims over much of the Arab world. Yet there’s no complaints about that. Nobody said that the devs have failed.

 

[CrazyRat]

Arguments like yours more or less fails to account for why the Abbasid Caliphate has claims over Egypt and the rest of Arabia etc in 867 start when historically it loses control of such regions forever and became only nominal superiors of the Arab world. Yet in game they still have de jure claims over much of the Arab world. Yet there’s no complaints about that. Nobody said that the devs have failed.

Here you have it: Abbasid Caliphate is a mess that results in capital shifting where it could not be, and it really does not model Caliphate’s authority decline like at all, and the entire region is IMHO very unsatisfying to play in… and I say that as someone who generally loves to play Muslims in CK3 enough to put up with it over, and over, and over. Honestly, current Japanese model that allows for nominal ruler marginalization would probably fit in them more than what they currently have.

However, unless I am mistaken, there is no region rework in the works right now, and it was a while since it was given new mechanics, so I just don't think that talking about my feelings about Abbasids serves any purpose, lol.

 

[luo]

Okay, perhaps we should listen to each other's opinions, such as making the Tarim Basin a resolution that allows the Chinese dynasty to integrate it into the scope of China hegemony after occupying it.
Perhaps Roman hegemony could also be like this. After Byzantium gained control of Italy, it could rebuild Roman hegemony and use resolutions to integrate it into Roman hegemony when controlling Egypt, Africa, or Gaul. I think this may make the process of rebuilding Rome more interesting, just like gradually rebuilding Roman rule in various provinces.

But regarding the Gansu and Liaoning regions, it is clear that the vast majority of people have no opinion. The discussion of the whole post is totally focused on the Tarim Basin, which is not what I want to see.

The westernmost point of the black line extends to the westernmost point of the Great Wall, namely Jiayuguan, while the easternmost point is the border between Liaoning and Korea, with the entire northern border just following the Great Wall.

The scope of the black line may be relatively reasonable, as the ruling methods of Chinese dynasties in these areas were the same (establishing administrative institutions step by step), but different from those outside the black line (establishing protectorates). And these regions were predominantly inhabited by Han Chinese, even during the Ming Dynasty, they were the core areas of the Chinese dynasty.

The most important point is that if the scope of China's hegemony does not even include the Great Wall, it sounds very strange, doesn't it?

As for Vietnam, I think it can be treated separately in 867 and subsequent years. In 867, the northern part of Vietnam was included in China hegemony, but not later.
Like the Tarim Basin, it can be added to China hegemony by resolution after the Chinese dynasty conquered it. Vietnam itself could also establish the Vietnamese Empire after conquering Champa in the south.


The above is basically my proposal after reading everyone's opinions, which may or may not solve most problems. But this proposal may be easier to accept than the initial suggestion.

If this suggestion seems too colorful, emmm, you are right XD.

 

[luo]

The westernmost point of the black line extends to the westernmost point of the Great Wall, namely Jiayuguan, while the easternmost point is the border between Liaoning and Korea, with the entire northern border just following the Great Wall.

Perhaps this range can be confirmed through some ancient maps. This is a map of China drawn by the Chinese in the Ming Dynasty and a map of China drawn by missionaries. It can be seen that they perceive the scope of China.

古今形胜之图 A Map of Ancient and Modern Wonders of China, it can be seen that the Great Wall above the map extends eastward all the way to Korea and westward to Gansu. The areas further north are not depicted in detail.

The bottom left corner of this map indicates that the author is the Catholic Church of Hejianfu 河间府天主堂, it can also be seen that the scope includes Liaoning and Gansu. It is evident that the Great Wall had an impact on how ancient people determined the northern boundary of China, whether Chinese or European.

Of course, more direct evidence is the map section in the official history books of Chinese dynasties. They tend to classify areas outside of this range not as local territories, but as vassal states and tribute states (even if the Chinese dynasty established direct rule in those areas)

 

[luo]

I believe that the above opinions do not have any offensive content. Gansu was under the rule of the Tang Dynasty in 867, while Liaoning was half under the rule of the Tang Dynasty and half under the rule of the Bohai Kingdom. Historically, these two regions (whether Chinese or people from neighboring countries, or even Europeans) have always been regarded as part of China's mainland, and countless materials can prove this.

So I am curious if some people who "respectfully disagree" with my view can offer some constructive suggestions, especially for a friend whose ID clearly contains malicious political elements related to China (for the sake of respecting your privacy, I will not disclose your ID).

I thought that going from conflicting opinions to mutual understanding and reaching consensus was a reasonable way of communication. Most of the people on this post were discussing normally, and I don't want some people's opposition to be solely based on their nationality, which can only show your own narrowness. Or is this forum prohibiting any Chinese person from expressing their opinions? Even though this is a DLC about China?

As I mentioned earlier, forcibly associating game content with real-life politics will only make you appear narrow-minded and arrogant. Especially when opposed without any reason.

Just like the issue in northern Vietnam, the Vietnamese people's identification with the Nanyue Empire was formed after independence. Therefore, in 867, northern Vietnam was included in the scope of Chinese hegemony, but it was not included in the subsequent time, allowing Vietnam to establish the Vietnamese Empire after occupying parts of mainland Southeast Asia. This is in line with historical development (Vietnam had already defeated the Champa Kingdom in the south when it first declared emperor). I am curious about the views of those who oppose this design and whether their views can better reflect history.

Or they did not expect to restore history, but only out of malice towards the Chinese, especially someone had previously described my proposal as an expansionist trend of modern nationalism. I can only express my regret that I will not discuss any modern political topics. If someone needs to showcase their national superiority and point fingers at other ethnic groups in the DLC game, it will only make me feel sad and ridiculous.

 

[zeruosi]

So I am curious if some people who "respectfully disagree" with my view can offer some constructive suggestions, especially for a friend whose ID clearly contains malicious political elements related to China (for the sake of respecting your privacy, I will not disclose your ID).

I thought that going from conflicting opinions to mutual understanding and reaching consensus was a reasonable way of communication. Most of the people on this post were discussing normally, and I don't want some people's opposition to be solely based on their nationality, which can only show your own narrowness. Or is this forum prohibiting any Chinese person from expressing their opinions? Even though this is a DLC about China?

As I mentioned earlier, forcibly associating game content with real-life politics will only make you appear narrow-minded and arrogant. Especially when opposed without any reason.

I often encounter similar situations. Generally, I don't get upset by respectful disagreements, since they stem from differences in our information sources or education backgrounds. I fully understand variations in political views, ethnic identities, languages, and civilizations. But what I absolutely cannot comprehend is why some people would 'respectfully disagree' when I point out something as objectively verifiable as the direction of a river's flow - or other basic natural science questions about agricultural products and biological sciences.

Even if you disagree with my country on political matters, you shouldn't let that emotional bias spill over into discussions of natural sciences. This serves no purpose whatsoever in advancing human knowledge as a whole!