中國歷史上以王朝更迭的循環(huán)而聞名，那么在分裂時(shí)期，當(dāng)時(shí)的人會(huì)認(rèn)為這是內(nèi)戰(zhàn)還是獨(dú)立國家之間的攻伐？

necksbetrim
The short answer would be, "it depends."

The longer answer: Historically, the two periods prior to unification under the first Emperor of the Qin 秦始皇 (259 – 210 BC) are referred to as the Spring and Autumn 春秋 period, and the Warring States 戰(zhàn)國 period, both taking place under the nominal reign of the Eastern Zhou 東周 (770–256 BC). The Eastern Zhou was preceded by a smaller kingdom, the Western Zhou 西周 (1045–771 BC) which had in turn overthrown the Shang 商 (who claimed to have in turn overthrown the Xia 夏, inventors of the Chinese scxt), setting up a feudal vassal system 封建 which, over the course of several centuries became increasingly unwieldy, while at the same allowing the (written) language and culture of the central state to spread across a larger and larger geographic area. Here''s a map of the various kingdoms that existed during the SA&WS periods, with Zhou the middle:

https://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/1xarzhou.htm

簡(jiǎn)短的答案：“視情況而定?！?br /> 較長(zhǎng)的答案：歷史上，秦始皇統(tǒng)一前的兩個(gè)時(shí)期被稱為春秋時(shí)期和戰(zhàn)國時(shí)期，都發(fā)生在東周（公元前770-256年）名義上的統(tǒng)治時(shí)期。東周之前有一個(gè)較小的王國--西周（公元前1045-771年），西周又推翻了商（商又聲稱推翻了夏-中國這套劇本的發(fā)明者），建立了一個(gè)封建的諸侯制度，在幾個(gè)世紀(jì)的過程中，這個(gè)制度變得越來越笨拙，同時(shí)也讓中央國家的（書面）語言和文化在一個(gè)越來越大的地理區(qū)域內(nèi)傳播。這是一張春秋戰(zhàn)國時(shí)期各王國的地圖，中間是周國。
With the exception of the oracle bones (Shang), and bronze inscxtions (Zhou), our earliest texts (Confucius and so on) date from the SA&WS periods. From these texts we can see that people did have a concept of ''foreigner'' and ''native'', typically described in terms of ''guests'' 客人 and ''hosts'' 主人. However, at the same time, a shared corpus of texts allowed people who came from outside of the historical Zhou heartland of the Wei River 渭河 valley (a tributary of Yellow River 黃河, in today''s Shaanxi and Gansu provinces) to demonstrate cultural affinity with the Zhou when it benefited them to do so. For example, Stratagems of the Warring States 戰(zhàn)國策 records the following anecdote:
Once there was a man from Wen who migrated to Zhou, but Zhou would not let him in. ‘Are you a foreigner [literally, a guest],’ they asked him. ‘No, I am a native [literally, a host],’ he replied. Then he was asked what lane he lived in, but he appeared not to know. So an official took him off to prison. The ruler sent someone to question him: ‘Why did you call yourself a native when you are in fact a foreigner?’ The man replied: ‘When I was young and studied The Book of Odes, I chanted the following verses from it: “All land underneath Heaven is the king’s land. To the far shores of the Earth every person is the king’s servant.” Since Zhou today rules All under Heaven and I am a servant of the Son of Heaven, how then can I be considered a foreigner? That’s why I said that I was a native.’ The ruler of Zhou thereupon ordered his officer to set the man free. 溫人之周，周不納。「客即？」對(duì)曰：「主人也?！箚柶湎锒恢玻挂蚯糁?。君使人問之曰：「子非周人，而自謂非客何也？」對(duì)曰：「臣少而誦《詩》，《詩》曰：『普天之下，莫非王土；率土之濱，莫非王臣?！唤裰芫煜拢瑒t我天子之臣，而又為客哉？故曰主人。」君乃使吏出之。

[Translated by Roel Sterckx in Chinese Thought, Chapter 1]

除了甲骨文（商）和青銅器銘文（周）之外，我們最早的文本（孔子等）是在春秋戰(zhàn)國時(shí)期。從這些文本中我們可以看到，人們確實(shí)有"外鄉(xiāng)人"和 "本地人"的概念，典型的是用"客人"和"主人"來描述。但同時(shí)，由于有共同的語料庫，使得來自渭河流域（黃河支流，在今天的陜西、甘肅兩?。┮酝獾闹苋?，在有利的情況下，可以表現(xiàn)出與周人的文化親和力。例如，《戰(zhàn)國策》記載了以下的故事。
有一個(gè)文人遷徙到周國，但周國不讓他進(jìn)去。他們問他：“你是外國人[字面意思是客人]嗎？”他回答說：“不是，我是本地人[字面意思是主人]?！比缓笥謫査≡谀臈l巷子里，但他似乎答不上來。于是，一個(gè)官吏就把他關(guān)進(jìn)了監(jiān)獄。統(tǒng)治者派人去問他：“你其實(shí)是個(gè)外國人，為什么自稱是本地人呢？”那人回答說：“我年輕的時(shí)候，學(xué)習(xí)過《詩》，我念過其中的以下詩句。"天下的土地，都是王的土地。天涯海角，每個(gè)人都是王的仆人"。既然今天周王統(tǒng)治天下萬物，而我是天子的仆人，那么我怎么能算是外族呢？所以我才說我是本地人”。周君隨即命令官員把這個(gè)人放了。（引自胡司德的（英國著名漢學(xué)家Roel Sterckx）《中國思想》在第一章里的翻譯）
溫人之周，周不納?！缚图?？」對(duì)曰：「主人也?！箚柶湎锒恢玻挂蚯糁?。君使人問之曰：「子非周人，而自謂非客何也？」對(duì)曰：「臣少而誦《詩》，《詩》曰：『普天之下，莫非王土；率土之濱，莫非王臣。』今周君天下，則我天子之臣，而又為客哉？故曰主人?！咕耸估舫鲋?br /> During the SA&WS period, the perceived cultural proximity of a given kingdom to the Zhou was used to justify the partial conquests of one kingdom over another (and later, the outright elimination of rival kingdoms). The government minister and poet Qu Yuan 屈原 (340–278 BC), from the powerful but corrupt southern Kingdom of Chu 楚, for example, famously drowned himself in the Miluo River 汨羅江 after learning that the capital of his state had been captured by the armies of the western Kingdom of Qin 秦, which was often accused of being overly influenced by the ''barbarian'' cultures of the Rong 戎 tribes to the west and the Di 狄/翟 tribes to the north.
The historian Sima Qian 司馬遷 (145–86 BC) touches on this when discussing the surprising success of Qin in conquering the other kingdoms of the Eastern Zhou:
Qin originally was a small and remote state, all the Xia shunned it, treating it as Rong and Di [“barbarians”]; [only] after the age of Lord Xian [獻(xiàn)公, 384–362] it became a constant hero among the overlords. When we discuss virtue and righteousness of Qin, it does not match even the violence and cruelty of Lu 魯 and Wei 衛(wèi),10 when we measure its armies, they are not as strong as those of the three Jin 晉 states (i.e. Wei 魏, Han 韓 and Zhao 趙), but at the end [Qin] annexed All under Heaven. It is not necessarily due to the advantages of its mountain barriers and benefits of its geographic situation. Truly, [Qin] was aided by Heaven. 秦始小國僻遠(yuǎn)，諸夏賓之，比於戎翟，至獻(xiàn)公之後常雄諸侯。論秦之德義，不如魯衛(wèi)之 暴戾者，量秦之兵不如三晉之彊也，然卒并天下，非必險(xiǎn)固便形埶利也，蓋若天所助焉。

[Translated by Yuri Pines, Biases and Their Sources p13]

在春秋戰(zhàn)國時(shí)期，一個(gè)特定王國與周的文化接近被用來證明一個(gè)王國對(duì)另一個(gè)敵對(duì)王國的部分征服是正當(dāng)?shù)模ê髞碛謴氐紫麥鐢硨?duì)王國）。例如，南方強(qiáng)國楚國的大臣和詩人屈原(公元前340-278年)，在得知其國都被西邊的秦國軍隊(duì)攻占后，就投汨羅江自盡，而秦國常被指責(zé)為受西邊戎族和北邊狄/翟族的"野蠻"文化影響過大。
歷史學(xué)家司馬遷司馬遷（公元前145-86年）在討論秦國征服東周其他王國的驚人成功時(shí)談到了這一點(diǎn)：
秦國本來是一個(gè)偏僻的小國，所有的夏人都避開它，把它當(dāng)作戎狄["蠻夷"]；[只是]在獻(xiàn)公[384-362]時(shí)代以后，它才成為諸侯中的強(qiáng)者。當(dāng)我們討論秦國的德行和義氣時(shí)，魯國和衛(wèi)國國君里最暴戾和殘忍的都比它好，當(dāng)我們衡量它的軍隊(duì)時(shí)，它們比不上晉三國（即魏韓趙）的軍隊(duì)，但最后[秦]卻吞并了天下。這未必是由于其山川屏障的優(yōu)勢(shì)和地理環(huán)境的好處。老實(shí)說，[秦]是得到了上天的幫助。
秦始小國僻遠(yuǎn)，諸夏賓之，比於戎翟，至獻(xiàn)公之後常雄諸侯。論秦之德義，不如魯衛(wèi)之 暴戾者，量秦之兵不如三晉之彊也，然卒并天下，非必險(xiǎn)固便形埶利也，蓋若天所助焉。
Following the establishment of the Qin Empire in 220 BC, you begin to see the concept of inevitable cycles of empire and civil war emerging. This is stated most succinctly in the first line of The Romance of the Three Kingdoms 三國演義:
"The way of all under heaven, it is said, is that all that is long divided must unify, and all that is long unified must divide." 話說天下大勢(shì)，分久必合，合久必分。
This novel, attributed to the late-Yuan, early-Ming playwright Luo Guanzhong 羅貫中 (~1315 - ~1400 AD), is a 120-chapter dramatic retelling of The Record of the Three Kingdoms 三國志, compiled by Chen Shou 陳壽 (233–297 AD). (In fact, it was almost certainly compiled from earlier oral retellings 平話 of the same history. See Andrew Plaks, The Four Masterworks, pp368–9)
Three Kingdoms is concerned with the collapse of the Han 漢 dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD) and the eventual founding of the Jin 晉 dynasty (266–420 AD) following the Yellow Turban Rebellion 黃巾之亂 of 184-205 AD, a peasant revolt lixed to millenarian Daoist secret societies. Unlike the SA&WS periods, writers in the post-Qin period is increasingly frxd their discussion of the state in terms of dynastic unification and separation under a single emperor. In contrast, under the feudal vassal system of the Zhou, writers stressed the relative worthiness of a given ruler of a given kingdom, basing that worthiness on how ''Zhou-like'' the ruler was perceived to have been.
在公元前220年秦帝國建立后，你開始看到帝國和內(nèi)戰(zhàn)不可避免的循環(huán)概念出現(xiàn)。這點(diǎn)在《三國演義》的第一句話中說得最清楚：
“天下統(tǒng)一得久了，就必然會(huì)分裂，分裂得久了，就必然會(huì)統(tǒng)一?！?話說天下大勢(shì)、分久必合、合久必分。
這部小說是元末明初劇作家羅貫中（約1315年-約1400年）120章的作品，是根據(jù)陳壽（公元233-297年）所編的《三國志》改編的。（事實(shí)上，它幾乎可以確定是從同一歷史的早期口頭復(fù)述匯編而來的。）
《三國》關(guān)注的是漢朝（公元前202年至公元220年）的崩潰，以及公元184-205年黃巾之亂后晉朝（公元266-420年）的建立。與春秋戰(zhàn)國時(shí)期不同的是，后秦（相對(duì)先秦）時(shí)期的作家們?cè)絹碓蕉嗟貙⑺麄儗?duì)國家的討論定格在單一皇帝統(tǒng)治下的王朝的統(tǒng)一和分裂上。相反，在周的封建諸侯制度下，作家們強(qiáng)調(diào)一個(gè)國家的某位統(tǒng)治者的相對(duì)價(jià)值，并將這種價(jià)值建立在該統(tǒng)治者被認(rèn)為是多么"像周一樣"的基礎(chǔ)上。

In terms of how people identified specific conflicts between or within states, (much like people today) it largely depended on what they personally stood to gain or lose from the conflict in question. As can be seen above, a person trying to migrate from one state to another might have emphasized his own ''Zhou-ness'', whereas a person like Qu Yuan, who had served in the government of a failing state, would have understandably taken his loss of identity more to heart.
Sources:
Roel Sterckx, Chinese Thought: From Confucius to Cook Ding (Pelican Press, 2020).
Yuri Pines, “Biases and Their Sources: Qin History in the ‘Shiji,’” Oriens Extremus 45 (2005): 10–34.
Andrew H Plaks, The Four Masterworks of the Ming Novel (Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press, 1987).

就人們?nèi)绾慰创龂抑g或國家內(nèi)部的具體沖突而言（就像今天的人一樣），這主要取決于他們個(gè)人在有關(guān)沖突中的得失。如上所述，一個(gè)想從一個(gè)國家移民到另一個(gè)國家的人可能會(huì)強(qiáng)調(diào)自己跟“周”有多大的共性，而像屈原這樣曾在一個(gè)失敗國家的政府中任職的人，則會(huì)更多地考慮到自己身份的喪失。
資料來源:

Roel Sterckx, Chinese Thought: From Confucius to Cook Ding (Pelican Press, 2020).
Yuri Pines, “Biases and Their Sources: Qin History in the ‘Shiji,’” Oriens Extremus 45 (2005): 10–34.
Andrew H Plaks, The Four Masterworks of the Ming Novel (Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press, 1987).
Crazyman_54
That’s really interesting thank you for the response! It’s really cool to see how the idea of the Mandate of Heaven and the Chinese people was created over time. Exactly the answer I was looking for : )

這真的很有趣，謝謝你的回應(yīng)！看到天命和中國人民的思想是如何隨著時(shí)間的推移而產(chǎn)生的，真是太酷了。這正是我要找的答案 : )

necksbetrim
Glad to be able help out. The Mandate of Heaven was used by states to justify their reigns (beginning in the Zhou), but I''m not sure that the average person would have thought about their own identity in those terms. (As in, "I belong to the country with the mandate of heaven...") You can compare this to the development of national identity in places like the United States and the United Kingdom, and the use of concepts like "Manifest Destiny" and "The White Man''s Burden."
People tend to take on and off different identities depending on when it suits them to do so, and most of what we consider to be fixed national identities developed over time, through a combination of things, like newspapers and popular literature.
If you can, I would highly recommended tracking down a copy of Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge University Press, 1983).

很高興能幫到你。天命是國家用來證明自己統(tǒng)治的正當(dāng)性的（從周開始），但我不確定一般人是否會(huì)從這些方面考慮自己的身份。（如："我屬于獲得天命的國家......"）你可以比較一下美國和英國等地的國家認(rèn)同的發(fā)展，以及"昭昭天命"和"白人的使命"等概念的使用。
人們往往會(huì)根據(jù)有利于自身的時(shí)間，接受和放棄不同的身份，而我們認(rèn)為的固定的民族身份，大多是通過報(bào)紙和通俗文學(xué)等多種事物的結(jié)合，隨著時(shí)間的推移而逐漸發(fā)展起來的。
如果可以的話，我強(qiáng)烈建議你去看一本埃里克·霍布斯鮑姆和特倫斯·朗格主編的《傳統(tǒng)的發(fā)明》（劍橋大學(xué)出版社，1983）。

touchme5eva
Early Modern East Asia
I see that there are already a few answers/specific anecdotes about Chinese unification (I can only blame myself for not spotting this question faster haha) which have attempted to explain how China ''defined itself'' during the 3 kingdom period or the Warring States period. Hence,I''ll just go over the scholarly idea of tianxia with a few examples, followed by (poached) examples of the opposite variety;if ''fragmented'' Chinese states saw themselves as successor states to one day achieve the mantle of reunification,did a unified China see itself as China ?
TLDR: Motives and purpose are about as varied as the men and women who make them up. History for China,or any nation for that matter, should be studied on a case by case basis rather than rough generalization,in my opinion. Words change their meaning and Unification is the thinnest of veneers,especially for a country as diverse and varied as China.Did the Southern Ming see themselves in civil war against the Qing ? I doubt it. Did the burgeoning Tang state see itself in a "civil war" against the ailing Sui or did it see itself as a legitimate successor state at war to rule China in the Sui''s stead ? If the Liao Khitan empire owned Beijing but the Song ruled most of China proper,were the Liao-Song wars a civil war or "actual" war between two states.
Why did I use the word Tianxia ?

我看到已經(jīng)有一些關(guān)于中國統(tǒng)一的答案/具體的軼事（只能怪我自己沒有更快發(fā)現(xiàn)這個(gè)問題，哈哈），我試著解釋中國在三國時(shí)期或戰(zhàn)國時(shí)期如何"定義自己"。因此，我會(huì)用幾個(gè)例子來介紹一下學(xué)者們對(duì)“天下”的看法，然后再舉一些相反的例子；如果"分裂的"古代中國地方政權(quán)把自己看作是有朝一日實(shí)現(xiàn)統(tǒng)一的繼承國，那么統(tǒng)一后的中國把自己看作是中國嗎？
總結(jié): 動(dòng)機(jī)和目的和組成它們的男人和女人一樣多種多樣。在我看來，中國或任何國家的歷史都應(yīng)該在個(gè)案的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行研究，而不是粗略的概括。詞語會(huì)改變它們的意義，而“統(tǒng)一”是一件最薄的外衣，特別是對(duì)于像中國這樣一個(gè)多樣化和多變的國家來說。"南明"是否認(rèn)為自己是在與清朝發(fā)生內(nèi)戰(zhàn)？我表示懷疑。蓬勃發(fā)展的唐朝是否認(rèn)為自己是在"內(nèi)戰(zhàn)"中對(duì)抗病入膏肓的隋朝，還是把自己看作是一個(gè)合法的繼承國，在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中代替隋國統(tǒng)治中國？如果遼國擁有北京，而宋國統(tǒng)治著中國的大部分地區(qū)，那么遼宋戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是內(nèi)戰(zhàn)還是兩個(gè)國家之間的"實(shí)際"戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)呢？
The word Tianxia (literally All Under Heaven) is an old Chinese cultural concept that is not nearly as old as we think. The first mention of it is in roughly the 8th century BCE. It does not appear in Early Zhou(1046BC-roughly 800BC) sources,is not mentioned in bronze inscxtions and absent from the earliest chapters of the Shu jin (書經(jīng)) and the Shi jing (詩經(jīng)), a book of poems and hymns. Now the most famous example is the oft-cited passage from the 8th century BCE poem 北山 (Beishan) which states:
“Everywhere under Heaven is the King’s land, each of those who live on the land is the King’s servant and hence what are the limits of everywhere under Heaven”? (溥天之下，莫非王土，率土之濱，莫非王臣)."
我為什么用“天下”這個(gè)詞？
Tianxia（字面意思為天下）是一個(gè)古老的中國文化概念，不過它并沒有我們想象的那么古老。天下一詞最早見于公元前8世紀(jì)，但在周初（公元前1046年-約公元前800年）的青銅器銘文中沒有提到，《書經(jīng)》和《詩經(jīng)》的最早篇章中也沒有提到?，F(xiàn)在最著名的例子是公元前8世紀(jì)的《北山》一詩中的一段話。
“天堂下的每一個(gè)地方都是國王的土地，每個(gè)生活在這片土地上的人都是國王的仆人，因此，天堂下的每一個(gè)地方哪兒有什么限制呢？”（溥天之下，莫非王土，率土之濱，莫非王臣）

This poem''s verse comes with a lot of context as it was a time in which the royal house of the Zhou (known collectively as the Kings of Zhou) were in a period of decline with limited ability to enforce actual authority beyond their royal fiefs,culminating in the sack of the royal capital Haojing (Luoyang)). The poem itself laments the fate of the fall of royal authority and,tellingly enough,the word tianxia dosen''t appear for later on for most of the Zhou dynasty,signifying that tianxia in its original meaning held a very different idea than "China proper" as we know it.
To quote Yuri Pines on this "It is therefore likely that originally tianxia referred to the area under the direct rule of the Son of Heaven, and its limits might have shrunk together with the contraction of royal power."

這首詩的詩句有很多背景，因?yàn)楫?dāng)時(shí)周王室（統(tǒng)稱為周王）正處于衰落時(shí)期，除了王室封地之外，執(zhí)行實(shí)際權(quán)力的能力有限，最終導(dǎo)致王都鎬京（洛陽）被攻陷。這首詩本身就是對(duì)王權(quán)衰落命運(yùn)的悲嘆，而且，很有說服力的是，"天下"這個(gè)詞在周朝的大部分時(shí)間里都沒有出現(xiàn)過，這說明"天下"的原意與我們所知道的"中國本土"有很大的不同。
引用尤里·皮恩斯的說法："因此，天下很可能是指天子直接統(tǒng)治的地區(qū)，其范圍可能隨著王權(quán)的收縮而縮小。"
As frequency of the word vanished,so too did China slid further and further into what we term the the Chunqiu Period or the Spring and Autumn Period (~771BC to 476BC) which saw conflict spread across China as the former Zhou states vied for supremacy and the word tianxia suddenly spring back into parlance. The Zuozhuan (左傳),a 30 chapter book covering the period, mentions this term only four times in the first half but eighteen times when recording the speeches of sixth century BCE statesmen.This increase is accompanied by gradual differences in how the word was used; It was gradually referring to the political state of affairs rather than simply the royal fief. In another book,Lunyu (論語),this term is mentioned 23 times and its cultural meaning twisted. Instead of simply meaning the royal fief,it was used thus:

"All under Heaven will return to benevolence” and “Three years mourning is the common mourning in All under Heaven” followed by the long "When the Way prevails under Heaven, rites, music and punitive expeditions are issued by the Son of Heaven; when there is no Way under Heaven"

隨著"天下"一詞的消失，中國也越發(fā)陷入了春秋時(shí)期沖突在中國各地蔓延的混亂中（約公元前771年至公元前476年），而隨著前周諸國爭(zhēng)奪霸權(quán)，"天下"一詞又突然回到了人們的視野中?！蹲髠鳌饭?0章，前半部分只提到這個(gè)詞4次，但在記錄公元前6世紀(jì)政治家的講話時(shí)，卻提到了18次，而且這個(gè)詞的用法也逐漸不同，它逐漸變成指代政治狀態(tài)，而不是簡(jiǎn)單的王室封地。在另一本書《論語》中，這個(gè)詞被提到23次，其文化含發(fā)生了扭曲，它不再簡(jiǎn)單地指王室的封地，而是這樣使用的：
“天下皆歸仁”、“三年之喪，天下通喪”、還有長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的“天下有道,則禮樂征伐自天子出;天下無道,則禮樂征伐自諸侯出”

If we substitute "All under Heaven" for royal fief,it makes no sense in context. However if we substitute it for "The Land" or perhaps "China",we start to get an idea of how the term was starting to be used. Instead of being a word,it was now a political word,a unit that meant "the realm". This is the fundamental idea what the late Joseph R. Levenson and Yuri Pines were trying to convey : The evolution of how tianxia became a term. Tianxia had evolved,whether by means of thinkers all agreeing to a consensus (unlikely) or in the national zeitgeist,in that the word was now coming to mean China because the people who used that word all saw themselves as king and used it to as a means to express superiority over all their rivals. Hence the royal domain was now "all my land and my rivals'' land" because each king now viewed all that territory as the royal domain. (Bear with me,this''ll make sense soon.)

如果我們把里面"天下"的意思換成皇家封地，那在上下文中是沒有意義的。然而，如果我們把它換成"土地"或者"中國"，我們就會(huì)開始了解這個(gè)詞是如何開始被使用的。它不再是一個(gè)單純的詞，而是一個(gè)政治詞，一個(gè)意味著"王國"單位的詞。這就是約瑟夫·雷文森和尤里·皮恩斯試圖傳達(dá)的基本思想：天下如何成為一個(gè)政治術(shù)語的演變。“天下”的演變，不管是通過思想家們達(dá)成共識(shí)的方式（不太可能），還是在國家的時(shí)代精神中，這個(gè)詞現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)開始意味著中國，因?yàn)槭褂眠@個(gè)詞的人都把自己看作是國王，并把它作為一種表達(dá)對(duì)所有對(duì)手優(yōu)越感的手段。因此，王室領(lǐng)地現(xiàn)在是"我的土地和我的對(duì)手的土地"，因?yàn)槊總€(gè)國王現(xiàn)在都把所有的領(lǐng)土都看作是王室領(lǐng)地。 (請(qǐng)耐心聽我說，這很快就會(huì)有意義的。)

Work in Legalism and the Qin conquests are about as far from what I usually read on as is humanly possible so I won''t go into extreme detail but I''ll leave a few lixs below. The end result was that in 221BC,the first Emperor of China united tianxia after some 5 centuries of internecine warfare. The nature of how the Qin viewed China and vice versa is perhaps best exemplified by a memorandum by Han Fei (a philosopher) to the then King of Qin in 233BC
"I heard that All under Heaven has Yan at north, Wei at south; [they] will connect with Jing (Chu) and rely on Qi, absorb Han and establish a vertical alliance, and then face to the west and make trouble for powerful Qin. I look at this and laugh. In the world there are three factors of defeat, and All under Heaven possess all three… Now, as for Qin lands, if you cut the longer and extend the shorter lines, they will be several thousand li squared..... in all these All under Heaven cannot be compared to Qin. If using all these you raise [troops] against All under Heaven, All under Heaven can be annexed and possessed."

有些關(guān)于法理和秦國的征戰(zhàn)的回復(fù)與我平時(shí)閱讀的內(nèi)容相差無幾，所以我就不再展開說了，但我會(huì)在下面留下幾個(gè)鏈接。最終的結(jié)果是，在公元前221年，中國的第一個(gè)皇帝在經(jīng)歷了大約5個(gè)世紀(jì)的內(nèi)部戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)后統(tǒng)一了天下。那么秦人如何看待中國，以及反過來呢，韓非（一位哲學(xué)家）在公元前233年給當(dāng)時(shí)的秦王的一份備忘錄也許是最好的例證：
“我聽說：天下北燕南魏，連接楚國和齊國，糾合韓國而成合縱之勢(shì)，打算向西來同強(qiáng)秦作對(duì)。我私下譏笑他們。世上有三種滅亡途徑，六國（天下）都占有了......如今秦國領(lǐng)土截長(zhǎng)補(bǔ)短，方圓數(shù)千里，名師有數(shù)十百萬之眾。秦國的法令賞罰嚴(yán)明，地理位置有利，天下沒有一個(gè)國家比得上的。憑這些攻取天下，天下無需費(fèi)力就可兼并占有?！?

Wait what ? Why is Qin not "All under Heaven"? Wasn''t the warring states a supposed jockeying for power between supposed equals in some bid to achieve hegemony ? China in civil war against itself ? Why was it the outsider,the invader the not -tianxia?
Again,I quote this to illustrate one point : Tianxia varied depending on who was using it. Each king justified tianxia as both their casus belli and their raison d''être ;They conquered each other because they needed to unite all of tianxia and it was tianxia because their rivals owned it. A self perpetuating circle,if you will. Over time and over dynasties, this became the "norm". Chinese lands had to "unite" because previous dynasties had taken said land(Han conquest of Nanyue),or because there was a rival warlord who challenged imperial power(Song unification in the Tang-Song transition),or because a rival king,like the kingdom of Nanzhao ( modern day Yunnan) had become a credible threat to Chinese power in the region,resulting in the Tang invasion of Nanzhao in 863.

等等，什么情況？秦國為什么不屬于"天下"？戰(zhàn)國不是在同一個(gè)盤棋中幾個(gè)平等（級(jí)）的國家之間爭(zhēng)奪霸權(quán)嗎？中國在內(nèi)戰(zhàn)中反對(duì)自己？為什么會(huì)有局外人，還有，侵略者不屬于“天下”？
再一次，我引用這段話是用來說明一個(gè)問題：“天下”的定義取決于誰在使用它。每一個(gè)國王都把天下作為他們的宣戰(zhàn)理由和存在的理由；他們征服對(duì)方是因?yàn)樗麄冃枰y(tǒng)一整個(gè)天下，而天下之所以是天下是因?yàn)樗麄兊膶?duì)手擁有它。這就形成了一個(gè)自我延續(xù)的循環(huán)。隨著時(shí)間和朝代的推移，這成為了"常態(tài)"。中國的土地必須要"統(tǒng)一"，因?yàn)橐郧暗耐醭呀?jīng)占領(lǐng)過這些土地（漢朝征服南越），或者因?yàn)橛袛硨?duì)的軍閥挑戰(zhàn)皇權(quán)（唐宋過渡時(shí)期的宋朝統(tǒng)一），或者因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)敵對(duì)的王國，比如南詔國（今天的云南）已經(jīng)成為中國在該地區(qū)權(quán)力的一個(gè)可信的威脅，于是導(dǎo)致唐朝在863年入侵南詔。