[hatergonnahate]

Hmm but most "native Chinese" (Han) dynasties were fully conquered by invaders from the north/northwest multiple times (I think they almost rotated in power). The long unification is caused by its unique culture, whoever conquered the Han race become Han eventually which inevitably will be overthrown by Han.

So I don't think it hash that much parallelisms to European history history

[jcranmer]

Even the repetitive Sinification of the barbarian invaders who conquered China has a parallel in European history. The Western Roman Empire was overrun by various Germanic tribes. Yet after their conquest, they did tend to adopt a form of Roman culture that would define Western civilization. France, England, Italy, and Germany throughout the Middle Ages (and eventually Scandinavia, Spain, and the Baltic coasts as the era progressed) all shared the same common Christian religion, the heritage of the Roman civil codes, some Roman pastimes (such as bathing), the Latin language for ecclesiastical or administrative purposes (except where supplanted by French). This was adopted even by people who had no memory of the Romans, some of whom where even beyond the edge of the known world to the Romans.

The parallels aren't perfect, of course. But it should thoroughly dispel the notion that Chinese history is wholly unique and unreplicated.

[oh-kumudo]

The Han Chinese has the tradition of keep the official account of histories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-Four_Histories

That is the official account of the Chinese history by the succeeding dynasty to record the important personals, their lives and big events from the previous dynasty.

That is a very unique tradition though. The fact that the ancient Chinese does recognize a chain of dynasties and heritage and succession therefore, is unique to China, not by other Western countries.

[parrellel]

How much of that narrative is due to pruning though. China has a long history of extreme censorship after all. One of the first emperor's most notable acts was, after all, the destruction of much of the hundred schools of thought. There is also the issue of splinter states later being declared rebels and killed off despite hundreds of years of autonomy, and the current push to wipe out non-Han cultures within the borders of China (RE: the opening of the Chinese Olympic games, and the anti-muslim concentration camps going on now).

Point being: how much of that trend is real, and how much of it is useful propaganda spread down through the ages.

[Karrot_Kream]

This same thing happened in South Asia, as Islamic and Mongol/Turkic conquerors came, but eventually embraced the greater South Asian culture as it existed and adopted it/assimilated. It's pretty silly for China to claim that they are the only such civilization.

[andybak]

Which brings to mind the "Persianisation" of everyone who conquered Persia. Not too sure how Alexander fits into this but bear with me).

Maybe it wouldn't be far fetched to argue that Eurasia had only 3 distinct persistent cultures: Romano-Greek, Persian/Islamic/Turkic, and Han. I know this is a gross simplification but it's not a bad framework to begin with.

[adrianratnapala]

He probably didn't fit the pattern. But we might underestimate the Persianisation simply because those aspects of Iranian culture the west took up, no longer look foreign.

Modern mens fashion (suits, pants, waistcoats) seem to have come from the Islamic world, especially Iran.

For example: early Roman emperors reseble latin-American caudillos more than they resemble medieval kings. Later emperors however introduced trappings of Royalty that we would still recognize, often in imitation of Iranian models.