Talk:Chang'an

China: History High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

A fact from Chang'an appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 July 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the capital city Chang'an during the Chinese Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) had 111 Buddhist monasteries and 41 Daoist abbeys within its walls?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/July.

Wikipedia

plz add geography section

Untitled

The last sentence of the introduction is quite difficult to comprehend. please rewrite it.78.185.204.238 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population

The Chinese Wikipedia says it's 4 times the size of Rome during the Han dynasty，true or false?--209.89.123.152 07:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE, arqueological evidence poins to an estimated population of 240,000, while rome had rougly 1.5 million, 6 times larger.--RafaelG 20:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't violate WP:NPA. Plus, your assertion is not accurate if you count only Rome proper (the Seven Hills). Based on what your definition of Chang'an was (just Chang'an County? Jingzhao Commandery? Jingzhao, Fufeng, and Fengxiang Commanderies?) and what your definition of Rome was (again, the Seven Hills? the entire Latium region?) your assertion is easily false. Please don't make overly general statements. --Nlu (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I misunderstood this user 209.89.123.152 in about what would be defined as the size of the city, I though that he was refering to population not to land area. In terms of land area the city of Chang'an, in ancient times, had a total walled area about 3 times the walled area of Rome's Aurelian Walls.

We do not know the extend of Rome's urban area during the its height, but its population estimates are vastly larger(in the order of over 1 million), also, Rome was a coastal city and this enabled the transport of bulk goods to sustain such population, Chang'an was a city deep inland making transport of bulk products, like food, making impossible to sustain a comparable population. --RafaelG 20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, the Guanzhong region was, in ancient times, considered to be the richest soil in all of China due to its flood plain soil and its extensive irrigation system. It was not really until the Tang Dynasty that the Guanzhong region became dependent on food supplies from outside the region, rather than vice versa. And again, you run into issues of how big of an area that we're defining Rome and how big of an area we're defining Chang'an. Even back in the Han Dynasty, as I pointed out, "Chang'an" could refer to just Chang'an county, the commandery containing it, or the three commanderies (sanfu 三輔). --Nlu (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well in terms of population Rome certainly was vastly larger. Babylon with had probably a larger population than Chang'an imported food produced 200 kilometers off the city, by river, Rome, with was much larger than Babylon, imported all its food from the provinces, some 3000 kilometers away by sea (with was 10 times cheaper than transport by river), because it had to sustain a exceptional population. Since Chang'an (the city itself) imported food by land from its local region, its population could not be much larger than 200,000 (to sustain a population comparable to Rome's it would need to be in a region in with its population density would be rougly 4000 per square kilometer with is impossible).

In the area question am arguing in the sense of the size of the urban area of the city. --RafaelG 20:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of arguing about size why doesn't someone write the rest of this article? Straitgate 08:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on here but I'm going to burninate that 240,000 figure because I know it's much larger than that. Hell, the later Han capital was larger than that. 500,000, straight from the mouth of my Chinese history prof. The size of Rome does not reflect the size of Chang'an.

Chang'an is not as "deep inland" as you thought. Weihe, which passes through the area into Huanghe, provides efficient and cheap means of transport plus fertile land. Besides, there's also the Grand Canal.

Nlu is right. The fertile land itself is able to sustain a large population already - then immigration from the rest of China to the economic and political center in later years caused its population to expand drastically, creating the need of importing food. Of course, there is no way for me to calculate the size of a population it could sustain itself, but let's just say that it would be definitely over half a million, and with the imports, over a million population in Chang'an would be a close estimate. 143.89.91.10 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sourse for Rosenberg's list of largest cities through history is actually Tertius Chandler's "Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth" (1987), where he estimated a peak population around 800,000 in 750. He also estimated 600,000 individuals for the year 800 (as appears in Rosenberg's list), but already declining after plundered by An Lushan in 756. On the other hand, George Modelski (2003) estimated the population of Chang'an as 1,000,000 for the year of 700.

There were three peaks of population before AD 1000.

1st peak: Chandler's estimates over 50,000 (1000 BC and 800 BC); Modelski's estimates 125,000 (900 BC and 800 BC). Haoqing (675 ha) + Feng (1,250 ha). The location of Haoqing is quite far from the modern center of Xi'an and should not be called Chang'an.
2nd peak: Chandler's estimates 400,000 (200 BC) [100,000 newly-arrived families x 4], 246,200 individuals with 80,800 households (AD 2 census) [4,000 ha within walls]; Modelski's estimates 420,000 (AD 1) [3,350 ha within walls, based on 80,800 households x 5.2; because he thought 246,200 inhabitants were too low]. Population within Ching-pao-yin commandery was 682,468 individuals with 195,702 households according to the AD 2 census. The average of population/households ratio in China was 4.7 (57,671,401 individuals/12,356,470 households) according to the AD 2 census written in Book of Han. Modelski also estimated the population of Maoling in Youfufeng (180,000; 61,087 households but 2/3 estimated to be rural) and Zhangling in Cuopingyi (165,000; 50,057 households but 2/3 estimated to be rural) separately. Modelski
3rd peak: Chandler's estimates 800,000 (AD 750) [8,000 ha x 100]; Modelski's estimates 1,000,000 (AD 700). AD 742 census according to the New Book of Tang counted 1,960,188 individuals with 362,921 households for Jingzhao-fu, the metropolitan district which included rural area outside the walls.

By the way, the same Chandler estimated the peak population of Rome as 600,000 within the future Aurelian's wall (1,305 ha) for the years AD 171-180. On the other hand, Modelski estimated the peak population of 1,200,000 (AD 200). Other estimates: 1,200,000 based on record of 48,382 houses ((1780 domus + 46,602 insulae) x 25 persons) during Theodosius; the obscure definition of insula (apartment bloc) causes the estimates of population to vary from 500,000 to 1,600,000. 440,000 (1400 ha x 317 persons), 850,000-1,000,000 (1783 ha x 477-561 persons); the region of urban area for Rome is also obscure.

Anyway, Rome during 2nd century was at least more populous than Chang'an of Western Han Dynasty, but whether the population of Rome was more than Chang'an during Tang Dynasty or not cannot be concluded.61.203.21.57 20:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger?

Shouldn't this article be merged with Xi'an? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fishal (talk • contribs) .

In my opinion, no; this article refers to the historical Chang'an, which is different than an article about the modern city of Xi'an. --Nlu (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing about the same location having two articles. I think this article can be merged with Xi'an since they are one and the same place. The contents of this article can be placed under a section called "History of Xi'an". -220.255.7.223 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, no. The location of Chang'an during the Sung and Tang dynasties is about the same with later Xi'an urbans, but the location of Chang'an during the Han dynasty is rather in the suburb of the present-day Xi'an. The continuity as an urban is also not perfect: Chang'an once diminished into a small town during the five dynasties era with city walls torn down. We have different articles for Tenochtitlan and Mexico City, or ancient Rome and Rome. Why not for Chang'an?Aurichalcum (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Aurichalcum (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aurichalcum.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. New Amsterstam and New York are the same city, but the pages cover very different ground and work well together. If anything the Han Chang'an should be split off this article since it was at a different location and had to be entirely refounded at a new site. —

Llywelyn II

17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tibetan relations

i was wondering if there is a stone slab in chang'an, that declares tibetan independence. i believe that one exists in lhasa, tibet. the stone slab or tablet is written in both tibtan and chinese.

You believe？ I can tell you, no such stone slabs exist in the world, never.

In ancient China, Tibet had been a part of the Great China Empire for dozens of centries, although sometimes tibet is a vassal, sometimes was directly controlled by China cental government. If you don't know the history, don't be so self-assurance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.171.83.0 (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Changed the translation of 常安 from "Frequent peace" to "Constant peace". I'm quite sure that the word 常 literally meant "Constant", though 常 in daily usage means more like "often." This is similar to the usage of "always" in English, which should be an absolute ("all ways") but is closer to the meaning of "often" in daily usage. "Frequent peace" is an awkward translation as there could hardly be a sovereign who would want to change the name of his capital to give himself more "war." Also changed from "Mandarin" to "Chinese". There was no such thing as "Mandarin" during the Xin dynasty. There's much difference between ancient Chinese pronunciation and modern Chinese pronunciation (especially Mandarin - some point out that Cantonese and Japanese sound much closer to what had been ancient Chinese.) 143.89.91.10 13:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the distinction between "Perpetual Peace" and "Constant peace"? Furius (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology.

But, really, you're right that those aren't very felicitous translations. 长 means "long", always has, always will. If we're not going to use that because we don't want to accept that it's kind of a silly name, it means something closer to "enduring" than "perpetual": hopefully having peace for a long time but not anything hubristic like 永 ("always", which btw does mean "always" in ordinary speech; the example 143... wanted was "all right", which generally doesn't mean exactly what it says).

In any case, just like you'd think, the difference is that the Xin oversold it, used a stronger word, drew the ire of the gods, and the flash-in-the-pain example they set meant no one ever reused it. —

Llywelyn II

17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So...

Who likes my new additions under the heading "Locations and events during the Tang Dynasty"? Any thoughts or comments on how to improve?--PericlesofAthens 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the "Events and Locations" section of the article is so detailed I find it incredible. How do you something happened during when and where? -220.255.7.239 (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changan v.s. Chang'an

Apparently there is no ambiguity for Changan since Chan was meaningless in Pinyin.--Keyi 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. You're thinking of how Shaanxi should really only have one A. It doesn't matter: its an accepted irregularity of pinyin. —

Llywelyn II

17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beilin Stele Forest Museum

Worth mentioning it: the museum dates back to the 11th century and their collection was at the Temple of Confucius before that. Not sure which "temple" that is in the current list, though, so I can't add the links myself. — $Llywelyn II$ 17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chang'an. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chang'an. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]