Feudalize China?

ZombieSlayer54

After watching a certain Mr. Diamond's certain documentary on why the Europeans grew to dominate most of the world, I was curious:

China had pretty much all the same resources as Europe did. It's climate was pretty much the same, at least disregarding the mountainous regions and the desert regions. It may have lacked for some animals the Europeans had, but it had horses, pigs, etc.

I think what the problem is, though, is that China never experienced much turmoil or conflict. You had a switch between dynasties every few centuries or so, some Mongol invasions here, and some Three Kingdoms there, with some rebellions sprinkled about, but you never had the sort of constant warfare and violence that Europe experienced.

And say what you want about warfare and violence, but it's what drove, drives, and will drive technological innovation.

So basically, I'm curious. How can you balkanize or feudalize China to the point of having nigh-constant conflict between the states which will result in a parallel technological advancement to the Europeans? China itself doesn't necessarily have to come to dominate the world; It just has to be able to hold it's own against economic and political exploitation by Europeans, and advance technologically much more than it did OTL.
 

Chairwoman Roxelana

ZombieSlayer54 said:
After watching a certain Mr. Diamond's certain documentary on why the Europeans grew to dominate most of the world, I was curious:

China had pretty much all the same resources as Europe did. It's climate was pretty much the same, at least disregarding the mountainous regions and the desert regions. It may have lacked for some animals the Europeans had, but it had horses, pigs, etc.

I think what the problem is, though, is that China never experienced much turmoil or conflict. You had a switch between dynasties every few centuries or so, some Mongol invasions here, and some Three Kingdoms there, with some rebellions sprinkled about, but you never had the sort of constant warfare and violence that Europe experienced.

And say what you want about warfare and violence, but it's what drove, drives, and will drive technological innovation.

So basically, I'm curious. How can you balkanize or feudalize China to the point of having nigh-constant conflict between the states which will result in a parallel technological advancement to the Europeans? China itself doesn't necessarily have to come to dominate the world; It just has to be able to hold it's own against economic and political exploitation by Europeans, and advance technologically much more than it did OTL.
Click to expand...

Remove the Mongols and China rules the world.

And the only time that China has had Peaceful Era was Ming and Qing China, and dominated the world till this period after the Mongols.

Removing the Mongols also Eliminates Europe from requiring advancement.
 

ZombieSlayer54

Okay, so perhaps I theorized a bit poorly.

First of all, I don't want a China-wank. Just a TL where China manages to compete with Europeans well before the late 1900s.

Well, let's take a time when Europeans and the Chinese were at a technological equivalent. Say, 1400s. Ming and Qing era, correct?

How do we get China to break up during the Ming or Qing eras and thusly promote technological advancement?
 

Blackfox5

ZombieSlayer54 said:
I think what the problem is, though, is that China never experienced much turmoil or conflict. You had a switch between dynasties every few centuries or so, some Mongol invasions here, and some Three Kingdoms there, with some rebellions sprinkled about, but you never had the sort of constant warfare and violence that Europe experienced.
Click to expand...

There is a lot more constant warfare and violence in China than you seem to think.

Let's look at Chinese history from 200 to 1600. Out of those 1400 years, you have almost 300 with no central dynasty at all and continual fighting. Out of those remaining 1100 years, you have another 450 of constant rebellion, warlordism, banditry, and invasion. That leaves you about 650 years where things are not too bad internally, but there is near constant warfare against the barbarians, some of whom invade and conquer China.

Most of those good years come in the first halves of the Tang, Song, and Ming Dynaties who are separated by two centuries or so of complete chaos where the Dynasty falls into civil war followed by collapse of all central authority or foreign invasion. So you have several periods of 100-200 years where things are fairly good. Many European nations can make the same claim.



Yellow Turban Rebellion – 184-205: Widespread rebellion undermines state so that China collapses into civil war.
  • Three Kingdoms Era – 220-280: Continual infighting between three successor states of China.
  • Jin Dynasty - 266-420: Constant military crises throughout dynasty. War of the 8 Princes depopulates most of northern China. Wu Hu invasion of northern barbarians. 16 independent kingdoms established during this time.
  • Southern and Northern Dynasties – 420 – 589: Constant civil war and rebellion.
  • Sui Dynasty – 581 – 618: China united and peace brought for the first time in 400 years. The dynasty falls under its second emperor however due to expense of the massive invasion of Korea taken at this time.
  • Tang Dynasty – 618 – 907: Perhaps the height of Chinese culture. The Tang restores the unity and peace within China while engaging in near continuous (successful) border wars with the barbarians. Nevertheless, the An Lushan Rebellion (755-763) causes massive devastation. Registered population falls from 54 million to 16 million, reflecting the widespread death and population movement of the era. Central authority collapses leading to warlordism and banditry.
  • Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms – 907-960: China again descends into a period of disunity and chaos. Constant warfare.
  • Song Dynasty – 960-1279: China is reunified. 1125-1127 barbarian Jurchen seize control of the northern half of China including the imperial capital. 1259-1279 Mongols invade southern China and devastate most of the country.
  • Mongol Dynasty – 1271 – 1368: Mongols reunite China along with much of the Mongolian heartland. In the second half of the dynasty, China is rife with rebellion, banditry, and warfare.
  • Ming Dynasty – 1368-1644: Chinese reestablish control of their own lands. Ming Dynasty sees widespread peace within the empire. However, once again unified control means continual border wars with the barbarians and Koreans. Starting in 1592 comes a fifty year period of war, financial breakdown, and rebellion that ends with the invasion by the Manchu and destruction of the dynasty.
 

The Ubbergeek

Ig by 'feudalize', you means nobility lines structure, feodality, etc... China actually had it in the past, to the Spring and Autumn era and into the First Emperor. Nobility still existed, but the state was more imperial indeed and bureaucratic on. Centralized.
 

Revolutionary Avocado

How do you feudalize China? Eliminate the influence of Confucian philosophy over the ruling class. Confucianism created a "harmonious society" where nothing would change because competition was discouraged rather than encouraged.
 

Blackfox5

ZombieSlayer54 said:
Well, let's take a time when Europeans and the Chinese were at a technological equivalent. Say, 1400s. Ming and Qing era, correct?
Click to expand...

China was probably still more advanced than Europe in the 1400s. It was certainly richer and more prosperous. Cheng Ho's naval expeditions from 1405 to 1433 were all vastly more impressive than European expeditions of a century or so later. They had bigger and better ships too.

Europe started to push ahead around this time, but even by the 1600s they had parity at best, although certain European technologies were more impressive. Europe doesn't start pulling ahead decisively until after 1750.

There is no reason to think that if China had been engaged in constant fighting from 1500-1900 that they would have advanced further than the Europeans. If we want to look at why Europe "beat" China (and there have been books and books written about it), we are looking at several factors:

1) The European university system vs the Mandarin bureaucracy. Europe was open minded and prized intellectual curiosity and independence relative to China which concentrated all intellectual pursuits to the classics. This was representative even during the many periods of chaos and warfare in China.

2) Europe exploited North and South America for natural resources that recpaitalized Europe.

3) Europe has a strong incentive to innovate and explore based on their need for far away spices. China had no such incentive.

4) Given geography, Europe was much more dependant on martime transportation than China which had several large rivers that spanned the entire country, many smaller navigable rivers, and a good series of canals that linked them. In Europe, sailing on the Meditteranean, Baltic, or Atlantic was always necessary.

5) When the industrial revolution occurred, England was lucky that it had both massive coal and iron areas close together that made it worthwhile to engage in industrialization.

Certainly, a history of many independent states made it easier for Europe to retain a tradition of open thought and inquiry since many different strains of thought could exist, but it was by no means decisive. China had even more religious plurality than Europe despite being a unitary state, punctuated by several periods of no central authority.

There are deeper reasons explaining why China fell behind. Butchering up China into pieces isn't a magical solution.
 

ZombieSlayer54

Blackfox5 said:
China was probably still more advanced than Europe in the 1400s. It was certainly richer and more prosperous. Cheng Ho's naval expeditions from 1405 to 1433 were all vastly more impressive than European expeditions of a century or so later. They had bigger and better ships too.

Europe started to push ahead around this time, but even by the 1600s they had parity at best, although certain European technologies were more impressive. Europe doesn't start pulling ahead decisively until after 1750.

There is no reason to think that if China had been engaged in constant fighting from 1500-1900 that they would have advanced further than the Europeans. If we want to look at why Europe "beat" China (and there have been books and books written about it), we are looking at several factors:

1) The European university system vs the Mandarin bureaucracy. Europe was open minded and prized intellectual curiosity and independence relative to China which concentrated all intellectual pursuits to the classics. This was representative even during the many periods of chaos and warfare in China.

2) Europe exploited North and South America for natural resources that recpaitalized Europe.

3) Europe has a strong incentive to innovate and explore based on their need for far away spices. China had no such incentive.

4) Given geography, Europe was much more dependant on martime transportation than China which had several large rivers that spanned the entire country, many smaller navigable rivers, and a good series of canals that linked them. In Europe, sailing on the Meditteranean, Baltic, or Atlantic was always necessary.

5) When the industrial revolution occurred, England was lucky that it had both massive coal and iron areas close together that made it worthwhile to engage in industrialization.

Certainly, a history of many independent states made it easier for Europe to retain a tradition of open thought and inquiry since many different strains of thought could exist, but it was by no means decisive. China had even more religious plurality than Europe despite being a unitary state, punctuated by several periods of no central authority.

There are deeper reasons explaining why China fell behind. Butchering up China into pieces isn't a magical solution.
Click to expand...

Okay, so, how about this.

Say that one of those Chinese naval voyages back in the 1400s manages to reach the New World. What resources on the western coast would the Ming be interested enough in to find a need to "explore and innovate"?
 

Snake Featherston

Banned
Actually you had plenty of conquest and violence. What people forget is that "China" is a cultural region/civilization that embraces a lot of languages, had its own distinct attitudes to warfare and to armies, and has been plenty warlike. Chinese armies under the Han Dynasty, specifically Han Wudi expanded to a degree the Roman legions never matched. For that matter in the Taiping Rebellion you had the largest war of the 19th Century, fought between an army of 1 million men for the Taipings and 2 million men for the Qing Empire.

The degree to which war is a force of progress is also heavily exaggerated, war tends to hinder progress far more than it helps it.
 

Strategos' Risk

The Ubbergeek said:
Ig by 'feudalize', you means nobility lines structure, feodality, etc... China actually had it in the past, to the Spring and Autumn era and into the First Emperor. Nobility still existed, but the state was more imperial indeed and bureaucratic on. Centralized.
Click to expand...

And just how did that happen? I would have to say China as a civilization benefited greatly from progressing from feudalism relatively early on. Was it because of geography?
 

Oba

Blackfox5 said:
China was probably still more advanced than Europe in the 1400s. It was certainly richer and more prosperous. Cheng Ho's naval expeditions from 1405 to 1433 were all vastly more impressive than European expeditions of a century or so later. They had bigger and better ships too.

Europe started to push ahead around this time, but even by the 1600s they had parity at best, although certain European technologies were more impressive. Europe doesn't start pulling ahead decisively until after 1750.

There is no reason to think that if China had been engaged in constant fighting from 1500-1900 that they would have advanced further than the Europeans. If we want to look at why Europe "beat" China (and there have been books and books written about it), we are looking at several factors:

1) The European university system vs the Mandarin bureaucracy. Europe was open minded and prized intellectual curiosity and independence relative to China which concentrated all intellectual pursuits to the classics. This was representative even during the many periods of chaos and warfare in China.

2) Europe exploited North and South America for natural resources that recpaitalized Europe.

3) Europe has a strong incentive to innovate and explore based on their need for far away spices. China had no such incentive.

4) Given geography, Europe was much more dependant on martime transportation than China which had several large rivers that spanned the entire country, many smaller navigable rivers, and a good series of canals that linked them. In Europe, sailing on the Meditteranean, Baltic, or Atlantic was always necessary.

5) When the industrial revolution occurred, England was lucky that it had both massive coal and iron areas close together that made it worthwhile to engage in industrialization.

Certainly, a history of many independent states made it easier for Europe to retain a tradition of open thought and inquiry since many different strains of thought could exist, but it was by no means decisive. China had even more religious plurality than Europe despite being a unitary state, punctuated by several periods of no central authority.

There are deeper reasons explaining why China fell behind. Butchering up China into pieces isn't a magical solution.
Click to expand...
Have you been reading "The Great Divergence" perchance? I really thought it was very well thought out and made a lot of sense.
 

Elfwine

ZombieSlayer54 said:
Okay, so, how about this.

Say that one of those Chinese naval voyages back in the 1400s manages to reach the New World. What resources on the western coast would the Ming be interested enough in to find a need to "explore and innovate"?
Click to expand...

Redwoods are about the only thing I can think of that's particularly interesting. Gold, maybe.

Look at this from OTL Britain (from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) in 1865:

"The plains of North America and Russia are our corn fields, Chicago and Odessa our granaries, Canada and the Baltic are our timber forests, Australasia contains our sheep farms and in Argentina and on the western prairies of North America are our herds of oxen; Peru sends her silver, and the gold of South Africa and Australia flows to London; the Hindus and the Chinese grow tea for us, and our coffee, sugar, and spice plantations are in all the Indies. Spain and France are our vineyarrds and the Mediterranean our fruit garden; and our cotton grounds, which for long have occupied the Southern United States, are now being extended everywhere in the warm regions of the earth."

Not coincidentally, the Britain that had commerce tapping all of those areas was also at about its imperial peak.

China needs more markets and more of a drive to acquire things outside China (even of boring and unexciting sorts - see how the European herring industry was a big deal in the early modern period) - just more commerce in general.

A discovery of the (western) New World won't really help there, but to use a British example again:

"After 1813 (When the East India Company's trade monopoly ended), imports of cotton fabrics into India rose spectacularly, from 1 million yards (1814) to 51 million (1830) to 995 million (1870)..."

As for innovation: If the mandarin (as opposed to eunuch) bureaucracy encourages trade and commerce instead of interfering with it, especially overseas trade and commerce, innovation will drive itself - merchants will see opportunities and seek to exploit them, building ships to meet the demands (and ensuring supplies of ship building timber would be important, I should note - wood in general is not necessarily a problem, but the quantity of quality timber for shipbuilding is a precious resource in any society in the days of wooden ships) of whatever voyages they make and investing in ventures the same way anyone in Europe did.
 

ZombieSlayer54

Okay, so, say China gets divided into several states. Let's not worry about borders or anything, just use your imagination. Let's also say all of these states are hostile to one another, and not exactly fond of trading with each other.

Will each of these states have all the resources necessary to be self-sufficient?

OR would they instead seek markets outside of China to get resources they no longer have access to, since these resources are now controlled by enemies?
 

Elfwine

ZombieSlayer54 said:
Okay, so, say China gets divided into several states. Let's not worry about borders or anything, just use your imagination. Let's also say all of these states are hostile to one another, and not exactly fond of trading with each other.

Will each of these states have all the resources necessary to be self-sufficient?

OR would they instead seek markets outside of China to get resources they no longer have access to, since these resources are now controlled by enemies?
Click to expand...

Depends on how those "several states" are chopped up. It would be fairly easy to get five or six (about the number of states of consequence in Europe for most of the period we're looking at: 1500-1800 or so.) states of similar size and wildly uneven resources.

The whole idea of the Mandate of Heaven and the idea of uniting All China will be an impediment to Eurobalkanization lasting, and it won't fundamentally address the issue.

And as someone said (or implied) earlier: Balkanization is not a force for progress, competition is.

China can certainly seek to become wealthier and stronger than it already is without being divided into little Chinas.
 

The Ubbergeek

Strategos' Risk said:
And just how did that happen? I would have to say China as a civilization benefited greatly from progressing from feudalism relatively early on. Was it because of geography?
Click to expand...

In part I think, CHina was more.. flat in the hearthland. Rising centralisation in the Spring and Autumn Era, a d the rise of Confuscianism...
 

PhilippeO

Banned
> How can you balkanize or feudalize China to the point of having nigh-constant conflict between the states which will result in a parallel technological advancement to the Europeans ?


1) Eliminate North China Plain, without North China Plain various northern dynasties will never strong enough to re-conguer many kingdoms south of Yangtze.

2) Create much more pennisula. Korea managed to become Independent. with more pennisula, there will be more rival

3) Have many more Honshu sized island to counter China hegemony. bigger and more fertile Taiwan, Hainan and Okinawa could become China Great Britain.
 

The Ubbergeek

2. Minor note, Korea was not always totaly independant... Finlandised to a point is maybe a fitting term, like Vietnam. They never invaded (the Mongols did, MAYBE Manchus), but it was clear to thr korean royal line who ruled in fact the region...
 

ZombieSlayer54

Elfwine said:
Depends on how those "several states" are chopped up. It would be fairly easy to get five or six (about the number of states of consequence in Europe for most of the period we're looking at: 1500-1800 or so.) states of similar size and wildly uneven resources.

The whole idea of the Mandate of Heaven and the idea of uniting All China will be an impediment to Eurobalkanization lasting, and it won't fundamentally address the issue.

And as someone said (or implied) earlier: Balkanization is not a force for progress, competition is.

China can certainly seek to become wealthier and stronger than it already is without being divided into little Chinas.
Click to expand...

Well then, how do you get competition introduced to China? We can't just butterfly away the entire Chinese culture of cooperation and and Confucianism and service to the Mandate of Heaven, can we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top