Hmm, maybe we're simply debating when the Chinese territory solidified? I think it's generally accepted that China's territory has been more or less the same t

Hmm, maybe we're simply debating when the Chinese territory solidified? I think it's generally accepted that China's territory has been more or less the same through most of its history (or at least for the last thousand years?). In fact, if anything, today's borders are less than several of the most recent dynasties. Yes, if you go back to several thousand years BC, you'll find the civilisation concentrated quite a bit more, but so was every other people group. Here's a nice illustration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_i... Yes, you can make an argument that Tibet and Xinjiang are not part of the mainstream Chinese territories, but I think it's hard to argue that other regions aren't or are recent imperialistic expansions. At what point does it cease to be "imperialistic" and start to become "the way it has been for most of history?" Compare this with almost every other empire: American, Roman, Russian (Soviet), Greek, Persian, etc - all of them expanded in a short time and collapsed (USA maybe not so much, but still lost colonies and concessions in...China! for example) in a short time, and don't today enjoy anywhere near the territory they did after their big imperial outings. Their presence today mirrors their presence before their big imperial thrust. Today, if you visit most places in China (again, Xinjian and Tibet excluded), you're not going to find really anyone who feels the borders are out of place. Wheras China's claims to both of those provinces has always been "to get back to the way things were" (for instance, in the Yuan dynasty), there isn't any other territory other than Mongolia for China to really claim based on history. It is unlikely that China would therefore have ambitions beyond it's current borders.