Not any more than HRE was united entity after great interregnum or France at its lowest during the Carolingians. The central government after An Lushan was powerless in regards to even one of the regional rulers, and the power projection you mention was basically negative.During? No. After? It was. An Lushan's Rebellion devastated the land, weakened the central government, and harmed their power projection. It took over a century for this decentralization to cripple the Tang permanently and so the seeds for the warlord system to actually begin to fragment China, and it took another smaller part of a century for this crippled state to reach the end of the line. This also excludes that the Tang pulled itself together for about half a century during this decline as well. One might say the Tang went from a cultural state to one more openly autocratic with military leaders controlling politics, but it was no where near the Late Mughals.
Hm. I would have to reread a few things, but from what i remember, it was the way i wrote above, the regional rulers could not be deposed by central government, so that they theoretically subjected themselves to the dynasty does not warrant to call this decentralized state united one.No, it wasn't. Between the end of the An Lushan rebellion (760s) and the beginning of the Huang Chao rebellion (880s), the Tang government managed to control a good 66-75% of its territory, and the parts that it did control were all of the more important ones. Moreover, the nominally Tang areas would be ruled by warlords who were allied with the central government anyways.
The big military governors/warlords who enjoyed long continuous autonomy ruled the circuits of Lulong, Chengde, Weibo, Pinglu, and Huaixi. The last two eventually submitted to direct rule. There were other circuits which occasionally lapsed into rebellion, like Shuofang or Shannan East, or areas which would be occasionally occupied by foreign powers, but these were only temporary things. Even in the worst cases, such as when the Tang Emperors were forced to flee Chang'an in 763 and 783, probably most of the country still remained loyal to the dynasty. Except for the northeast, where Lulong, Chengde, Weibo, and Pinglu were located, the Tang court enjoyed general control of the rest of the country (except Huaixi, an aberration). While "mostly united" is hard to quantify, I would say that the Tang Dynasty's century after the An Lushan rebellion can qualify.
No, for most of the latter half of Tang (until the 880s), the regional governors were only absolutely dominant in just 25% or so of the country, mostly in the Northeast. Only the regions in the Northeast remained outside Tang control for the whole second half of the dynasty, while the regions in the east or west eventually were brought under control by the early 800s. (The percentage might have gone up to 33% for short periods of time in the 760s-790s.) The other 75% remained loyal. It would be better to think of the second half of Tang as a centralized state with a chunk of the country independent, rather than a decentralized state as a whole.Hm. I would have to reread a few things, but from what i remember, it was the way i wrote above, the regional rulers could not be deposed by central government, so that they theoretically subjected themselves to the dynasty does not warrant to call this decentralized state united one.
I'm pretty sure, in another timeline, people would say that Britain conquering the entirety of India is impossible. Give China a warlord period with a weak emperor, and give Britain a foothold there rather than Bengal, and this is possible. Very unlikely, but possible.
Do you also believe that a Chinese conquest of Britain is possible?
China had a much stronger sense of self than Bangladesh did; it could tolerate foreign rulers (witness the Qing), provided they offered to assimilate. That seems unlikely for 19th century Britons...
Do you also believe that a Chinese conquest of Britain is possible?
China had a much stronger sense of self than Bangladesh did; it could tolerate foreign rulers (witness the Qing), provided they offered to assimilate. That seems unlikely for 19th century Britons...
Do you also believe that a Chinese conquest of Britain is possible?
China had a much stronger sense of self than Bangladesh did; it could tolerate foreign rulers (witness the Qing), provided they offered to assimilate. That seems unlikely for 19th century Britons...
The Europeans managed their unequal treaties with China when Europe was at the top of their game in History between 1820 and 1920 (basically it was the century of European domination), while China was at one of it's weakest point in history (a dying dynasty plus the end of a very conservative era, followed by the usual chinese fragementation at the end of a weak dynasty).
The OP would need a stronger Europe (hard to do given the strong current for Nationalism that divided Europe energy) and a weaker China (which probably could be done, but is highly implausible). Also it need one European nation to utterly dominate the other under it's power so the other nations can't interfere.