ChiDragon Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Yes, it is only a matter of semantics which help us to lead to a final conclusion. By definition, an Emperor uses his arm force to conquer foreign lands. In this case, the ruler of Qin did no such thing but only using his army to unify China. Therefore, he was the first King of China rather than the emperor. Actually, the first King of China was called himself as 秦始皇 (Qin Shi Huang), the initial king of Qin. 皇(crowned king) is a character invented by himself. Normally, the character 王 is "king". However, he wants to be different than the other kings; then he place the character 白 on top of 王 and became 皇. It was his prestige of showing superiority by crowned himself as the king of kings. By the way, do you know how the name "China" came about....??? Well, after the unification, the land was under one rule of Qin. There was a western visitor asked a native where is this. The native answered "Qin na". When the Qin people speak, it was customary to put a phonetic "na" at the end of a name. Hence, "Qin na" becomes "China". Edited March 9, 2014 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted March 9, 2014 I would tend to call him the first Emperor [of the united land]. "King" was used long before the Qin. I think more interesting than the origin of China is the origin "Zhong Guo" Maybe another thread Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) He is 皇(Huang), a self crowned king. He unified all of China, thus there was no land to be conquered by an emperor.Zhong Guo is 中國, how did you get China out of that......??? Edited March 9, 2014 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted March 10, 2014 I did not mean one gets China out of Zhong Guo. I mean the origin of Zhong Guo is more interesting than the origin of China. But I'll not sidetrack further as that all predates the timeline. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted March 10, 2014 I think this will be a matter of semantics. My understanding (it has been a very long time since my studies of ancient China) is that he first became king of a more or less unified China. Then, after the empire became more or less established he declared himself to be the Son of Heaven which act would then establish him as Emperor. (I am very open to correction regarding this.) Before the Warring State Period, there was a king for every state under feudal rule of one emperor(Zhou Dynasty). However, the central power of the feudal system was out of control. Therefore, the states were try to steal more lands from one another. Then the Warring State Period begins. Since the King Of Qin had unified all of China, there will be no more kings under his reign. Therefore, he does not fit the definition of an emperor but the King of China. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 10, 2014 Therefore, he does not fit the definition of an emperor but the King of China. Okay. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted March 10, 2014 Emperor is ruler of an Empire; King is ruler of a kingdom... part of an Empire. This is seen in Chinese history and later dynasties seem to use Emperor, IMO. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Emperor is ruler of an Empire; King is ruler of a kingdom... part of an Empire. This is seen in Chinese history and later dynasties seem to use Emperor, IMO. Exactly, but you are still missing the point. There was no kingdom after the unification of China, by 秦始皇 (Qin Shi Huang), at the time. The first ruler of Han(Liu Bang) did claim himself as 帝(emperor), the supreme ruler of the land. 秦始皇 (Qin Shi Huang) wanted to do away with the feudal system. Unfortunately, Liu Bang went back to the feudal system again despite to the intention of 秦始皇 (Qin Shi Huang). Edited March 10, 2014 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted March 10, 2014 Exactly, but you are still missing the point. There was no kingdom after the unification of China, by 秦始皇 (Qin Shi Huang), at the time. I agree... that is why I have argued NO KINGDOM means NO KING... just an EMPIRE, so an Emperor. The first ruler of Han(Liu Bang) did claim himself as 帝(emperor), the supreme ruler of the land. 秦始皇 (Qin Shi Huang) wanted to do away with the feudal system. Unfortunately, Liu Bang went back to the feudal system again despite to the intention of 秦始皇 (Qin Shi Huang). Although it goes through periods of disunity, I think the internal evidence that he took an imperial name and was post humous name referred to as Emperor Gao is enough to show the continued use as Emperor: Gao Huangdi (高皇帝; lit. "Emperor Gao") "Sima Qian referred to Liu Bang as "Gaozu", meaning "high ancestor" in the Records of the Grand Historian. It is not clear why Sima Qian used "Gaozu" instead of "Taizu". Historians after Sima Qian often used "Emperor Gaozu of Han" to refer to Liu Bang. "Emperor Gaozu of Han" remains the most commonly used title to refer to Liu Bang in modern China." I think we probably agree more than not and it is interesting to discuss these nuisance. Liu Bang was a peasant rebel turned emperor... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted March 10, 2014 It is not clear why Sima Qian used "Gaozu" instead of "Taizu". It was not a matter up to Sima Qian what to use. It was the preference of each dynasty how they wanted to address the first ruler to be recorded in history. It was to be assured that the same names will not be used to avoid confusion for mistaken one dynasty to another. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted March 10, 2014 Good point . On some level... I was following you and not Sima Qian Emperors of the Han Dynasty(206 BCE - AD220) 漢朝 - 皇帝 Emperors of Han Dynasty1. 高祖 - 劉邦 Liu2 bang1 206 – 195 BCE (The 隸書(Li4 Shu1) official style of character was perfected)2. The first emperor of the Han Dynasty had used the Tao Te Ching as his ruling guide. Before the Han Dynasty, the Tao Te Ching was written in Seal style characters. --- Shall we move on Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) The first ruler of Han(Liu Bang) did claim himself as 帝(emperor), the supreme ruler of the land. 秦始皇 (Qin Shi Huang) wanted to do away with the feudal system. Unfortunately, Liu Bang went back to the feudal system again despite to the intention of 秦始皇 (Qin Shi Huang). 秦始皇 was not 王(huang, king), nor 帝(di, emperor) but he was 皇(self crowned king). There are kings under an empire. Since there was no king under him, there he has a kingdom, then he has no empire but a country which was ruled be a self crowned king. Indeed, he wants to be different from all other systems. This is my only argument. Edited March 10, 2014 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted March 10, 2014 Just as a point of semantics, an empire need not be composed of a collection of kingdoms -- in fact, they usually are not. Central authority with a titular monarch and regional subordinate governance... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Just as a point of semantics, an empire need not be composed of a collection of kingdoms -- in fact, they usually are not. Central authority with a titular monarch and regional subordinate governance... Okay! I guess it is not the same under the Chinese feudal system(CFS). In the CFS, an emperor can assign a royal person to a feudal land as a king or remove him any time from the post as well. Edited March 10, 2014 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
