When we spoke about how the development of a nation or a culture can only really be achieved through conflict, it left me feeling rather despondent. In all of human existence, was every major steppingstone in our cultural evolutions spurred on by a need to overcome some opposition? As someone who is particularly uncompetitive, I didn’t like the sound of that. I mean really, could it be so impossible to live harmoniously and still progress?
So, I did some research, and then I listened to my Global Art History lecture, and I realised that the Tang Dynasty had done it right.
From 618 – 907 CE, the Tang Dynasty is considered to be a ‘Golden Age’ of China. Of course, the Dynasty fought in wars and their military was nothing short of exceptional, but that’s not what is considered to have made this era ‘golden’. It was not the wars or battles they won, but instead the harmonious relations they had with all nations and people. The Tang Dynasty was open to learning and including other cultures within its own, as well as teaching foreign nations their own ways as well.
Buddha Vairocana (Tang Dynasty 618–907)
This is how they, and the countries they interacted with such as Tibet, Korea and Japan, developed. People, regardless of gender, race, religion, or class were welcomed with open arms by the Dynasty. The Silk Road was reopened, and trade and travel spanned from East to West. Here, the Dynasty traded and learnt from other nations, using other cultural knowledge and techniques to enrich their own lives. Music, dance, and fashion from other countries such as India and Persia became integrated. Tea from Southeast Asia became popularised and wheat grinding techniques introduced by Central Asia allowed for the creation of noodles.
It was during this Era that Buddhism became the most popular religion in China, and all other religious beliefs were encouraged and welcomed. Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Islam and many others were practiced and celebrated. Artistic and scientific endeavours were encouraged and shared amongst other nations. Minorities and women were able to hold positions of power, and ambassadors from as far as the Byzantine Empire were welcomed to court. The Tang Dynasty also began the tradition of preserving items gifted to them from foreign nations.
A Palace Concert (Tang Dynasty 618 – 907)
Anyone and everyone could live within the borders of the Tang Dynasty. Both rich and poor are thought to have been able to lead peaceful, happy lives. This wasn’t achieved by challenging other nations. It is not thought that the Dynasty thrived and developed due to the pressures of conflicts and threats. The Tang Dynasty and the nations they interacted with flourished because they had harmonious, open-minded relations.
Though it lasted less than 300 years, and the Dynasty was toppled by the eventual greed of a few, its existence is still proof enough. Humans are capable of development without a need for grand conflicts. We’ve done it before, so what’s stopping us from thinking we can do it again?
Bibliography:
- Latter, Tony. Emperor Qianlong’s Hidden Treasures: Reconsidering the Collection of the Qing Imperial Household. Hong Kong University Press, 2019.
- Chinese Civilisation (14) The Tang Dynasty/Part 02 (2008.)
https://youtu.be/sI8ymLN5da8 - Time Maps – The Tang Dynasty China (n.d.)
https://www.timemaps.com/civilizations/tang-dynasty-china/ - “An Introduction to the Tang Dynasty (618–906) (Article).” Khan Academy, Khan Academy, 0AD, www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-asia/imperial-china/tang-dynasty/a/an-introduction-to-the-tang-dynasty-618906.
- Clydesdale, Heather Colburn. “Internationalism in the Tang Dynasty (618–907).” Metmuseum.org, 2009, www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/inte/hd_inte.htm.
- “Tang Foreign Policies & Relationship Between Ethnic Groups.” Foreign Policies and Relationship Between Ethnic Groups in China Tang Dynasty, 2019,
www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/history/tang/foreign-polices.htm. - “Foreign Influences in the Tang Dynasty.” World Eras, Encyclopedia.com, 9 Apr. 2020,
www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/foreign-influences-tang-dynasty.
Yaaaay! I also found the suggestion that progress is contingent on conflict depressing and I am very glad you found a counterexample. Your argument that it was the Tang dynasty’s “harmonious, open-minded relations” that allowed them to flourish is very interesting and seems to me to be a concept that merits more attention, especially in the context of the current global surge of xenophobia and anti-immigration sentiment. Your discussion of the valuable cultural exchange that occurred under the Tang encouraged me to think of ways in which our own society could benefit from such exchange. For example, I imagine that more engagement with Māori ideas about the relationship between nature and people could help to progress attitudes and actions towards climate action. Nice post 🙂
This is such an interesting piece of history! I think I had the same feelings of despondency as you when reading through all the “bellicose thoughts” of the Western philosophers, and I think it’s fascinating that we never really learn about these kinds of peaceful societies in history classes. Thinking back to some of my world history classes from high school, it seems like we just jumped from war to war, civilizations overthrowing other civilizations, and skipped all the in between bits.
It’s crazy to think that war history is what’s seen as most important for students to learn about and retain when it seems like we should be taking notes on civilizations like the Tang Dynasty on what works to maintain peace. Considering the span and range of human civilization that have existed over the millennia, it’s highly unlikely that the Tang dynasty was the only one of it’s kind to maintain more than a century of peace. I think part of it has to do with humans’ fascination with war. There’s so much history, philosophy, science, technology, art, literature and other branches of development that are completely dedicated to war that I have to assume a good chunk of it comes from people’s interest in war, not just the necessity of it. And now, especially with how quickly the world is developing, it seems it would be impossible to avoid people or even a nation allowing war ideals to take over their morals after a certain length of peacetime (Sorry to pile on with the pessimistic philosophy 🙁
Thank you for teaching me a new piece of history I didn’t know about, this was a great read!
There have been a few periods of various cultures historically that have been labelled “Golden Ages,” so you could certainly look there for further evidence of ‘progess without war.’ What immediately comes to mind is the Golden Age of India, and the Islamic Golden Age, both of which lasted for a (relatively) short time under a single dynasty. But can war be completely ignored in the creation of these ages? It’s quite possible that only the conquest of large amounts of land, which would see large amounts of wealth flow into the various empires, could support them.
The basic argument there seems to be that for prosperity you need land, and for land you need war, so for prosperity you need war. But there are other ways to obtain land. Wealth, surely, can be used to buy land, although that begs the question of where would you get the money without conquest. Small states can merge into a larger one, but this is slow and unstable without a conflict to incite it. Alternatively, unpopulated land can be settled. Wealth is not zero sum.
I think conflict is not a compulsory requirement to develop a nation or culture, but it seems like one because the pressures of conflict often pushes society to develop technologically to gain the upper hand. Furthermore, when there is exterior conflict, the nation would tend to develop inwards (e.g. going deeper in terms of the arts, and having the art move towards a grand and nationalistic genre). However, when there is exterior harmony, the development would increase in terms of the width, meaning there is an exchange of culture where there may be an increase of interest in exoticism or aesthetic/scenic art. Therefore, conflict may develop a nation or culture in one particular way, whereas peace may develop a nation in another direction.