Did the Ming Underperform?

Faeelin

Banned
So, I'm finishing China Marchest West, on the Qing conquest of Mongolia. It's a pretty good book, and basically provides a thorough discussion of why and how the Manchus triumphed over the Russians and Mongolians (mostly the latter) to subdue the region when Chinese dynasties for centuries had failed.

This got me thinking. The Qing state had valid strategic concerns to subdue the region, and it mobilized immense resources to do so; peasants were moved (also with a goal of relieving population pressure) to supply the troops as part of years of preparation; southern China's economic resources were mobilized for it; etc. Gunpowder played some role, but it wasn't crucial. Compare this to the Ming, who had trouble with Wako, Mongol raiders, rebels, and, of course, the Manchu. Yet paradoxically the Ming ruled at a time of sustained economic growth, when China boomed under an influx of New World silver and crops.

Did the Ming do worse than we'd expect an early modern Chinese dynasty? Or were they just stuck?
 

scholar

Banned
Faeelin said:
Did the Ming do worse than we'd expect an early modern Chinese dynasty? Or were they just stuck?
Click to expand...
They did worse, but a lot of it was out of their control. Climate issues, famine, rebellion, mass corruption,and the other usual suspects in bringing down a dynasty were present on and off throughout the regime. The Mongols were far stronger against the Ming than against the Qing, the Northern Yuan was of particular concern.

Avoiding most of thee factors and given a more outward regime there's no real reason to assume that they couldn't accomplish what the Qing did. In fact, the early Ming had a tremendous fear for the Mongols further justifying expansion there. If many of the invasions hadn't been disasters of the worst order then they may well have regardless of anything else.
 

Faeelin

Banned
See, but the Qing faced powerful (arguably more powerful) Mongols, notably the Zhungars under Galdan and his heirs. Those guys were actively trying to build a Mongolian state in a way that I don't think anyone had since Genghis Khan. They still trounced them.
 

Admiral Matt

Gone Fishin'
Well the religious dimension shouldn't be underestimated. The Qing were willing to go all in and actually convert to Tibetan Buddhism, which was critical in engaging in politicking within Mongolia.

For all the Mongol strengths, the decisive one had always been logistical isolation: you could feed and water a Chinese army only partway into Mongolia (roughly the modern border, actually). What the Qing did differently than earlier dynasties - a couple of which mobilized incredible resources for the effort, was play groups of Mongols off against each other.

I don't think there was any particular reason it had to be the Qing to pull it off, but certainly they were predisposed to the methods they used in a way the established Ming dynasty was certainly not.
 

B_Munro

The Manchu had a basically horse-nomad army to start with, no? They didn't have to rebuild their military the way the Ming would have had to overcome their logistics problems.

Bruce
 

Tyr

Yeah.....the big thing is probably that the qing already had a solid foundation in horse nomad warfare. other dynasties had such troops too and the qing iirc also used hefty amounts of standard Chinese style troops but I think they did have some advantage in their core being what it was.

facing a Mongol state in the making rather than a bunch of loose tribes is a good thing no? makes the war a bit more regular and winnable
 

FDW

Banned
Not really, The Ming reversed a decline of Chinese geo-political standing in East Asia that had been going on since the start of the Tang Dynasty. And this all the more amazing considering that their technological advantage over the other East Asian states was much narrower and their rather Conservative nature meant that they lacked the political savvy of Song and Early Qing to play their enemies off against each other. The Ming actually could've lasted a bit longer than OTL had a very specific series of incidents not come together to squeeze the Ming Silver Supply.
 

Barbarossa Rotbart

AFAIK the Ming were the reason China became one of the poorest nations not only in Asia but in the whole world. They were extremely xenophobe.
 

Admiral Matt

Gone Fishin'
Barbarossa Rotbart said:
AFAIK the Ming were the reason China became one of the poorest nations not only in Asia but in the whole world. They were extremely xenophobe.
Click to expand...

Poorest per capita? Because in absolute terms they were right there at the top through nearly the entire dynasty. I'd even hazard the guess that they were literally the wealthiest nation in the world for much of their rule.
 

Malta

It was more that they were destroyed in a perfect storm of their own making and of nature's making.
 

Barbarossa Rotbart

Admiral Matt said:
Poorest per capita? Because in absolute terms they were right there at the top through nearly the entire dynasty. I'd even hazard the guess that they were literally the wealthiest nation in the world for much of their rule.
Click to expand...
AFAIR from a German documentary about Zheng He, Chinese historians blame the later (post Hongxi) Ming emperors that China lost all technological and economical prominence.
 

EternalCynic

Barbarossa Rotbart said:
AFAIR from a German documentary about Zheng He, Chinese historians blame the later (post Hongxi) Ming emperors that China lost all technological and economical prominence.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, up until the late 18th century under Qianlong, China's per capita level of economic development and industrialization was comparable to those of Europe. In its richest regions it was comparable to England and the Netherlands. It was only in this period did Europe finally begin to break from the Malthusian Trap. Contrary to cliche, no overseas explorations were required for a Chinese indigenous industrial revolution.
 

Elfwine

Having more vigorous overseas trade in general might have helped, but that's more a matter of how for instance the Netherlands traded all over the place within Europe than the Americas.

More active commerce is a good thing for an economy.
 

Admiral Matt

Gone Fishin'
EternalCynic said:
Uh, no, up until the late 18th century under Qianlong, China's per capita level of economic development and industrialization was comparable to those of Europe. In its richest regions it was comparable to England and the Netherlands. It was only in this period did Europe finally begin to break from the Malthusian Trap. Contrary to cliche, no overseas explorations were required for a Chinese indigenous industrial revolution.
Click to expand...

Indeed. While particular spots in Europe managed to beat the Chinese average early, as a whole Chinese economic development far exceeded most of Europe at the time. In fact much of Europe stayed behind incredibly late into the game - Iberia and Ireland and Hungary and Poland and the Balkan peninsula and northeastern Scandinavia and most of European Russia's land area.
 

Elfwine

Admiral Matt said:
Indeed. While particular spots in Europe managed to beat the Chinese average early, as a whole Chinese economic development far exceeded most of Europe at the time. In fact much of Europe stayed behind incredibly late into the game - Iberia and Ireland and Hungary and Poland and the Balkan peninsula and northeastern Scandinavia and most of European Russia's land area.
Click to expand...

To quote Kennedy:

Percentage of world manufacturing output (1750):

Europe as a whole: 23.2%
United Kingdom: 1.9%
Habsburg Empire: 2.9%
France: $%
German states: 2.9%
Italian States: 2.4%
Russia: 5%
China: 32.8%

Per capita levels of industrialization (Relative to UK in 1900 = 100) in 1750:

Europe as a whole: 8
United Kingdom: 10
Habsburg Empire: 7
France: 9
German States: 8
Italian states: 8
Russia: 6
Japan: 7
China: 8


Between 1750 and 1800 this changes dramatically, and continues changing still more dramatically - but this is what we have as Europe approaches the Industrial Revolution. Rather impressive for a society that has remained relatively (emphasis necessary) static compared the OTL example of "growing and developing and changing quickly".
 

FDW

Banned
Elfwine said:
Having more vigorous overseas trade in general might have helped, but that's more a matter of how for instance the Netherlands traded all over the place within Europe than the Americas.

More active commerce is a good thing for an economy.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand how China works. For centuries, the Confucian ideology that was followed by the Chinese state tended to look down on Merchants because they were felt to be bad to their families and leeches on the farmers and artisans. The Ming, coming off a rather Laiseez-faire Yuan dynasty, had a tendency to follow the Confucian ideology rather closely. Confucianism was also the same reason why they didn't follow up on Treasure Ships; in the eyes of the Confucian scholars, the only purpose of those ships was to show to everyone how mighty and benevolent China was, any trade issues were of secondary importance, if they were considered at all. And this segues into how the Chinese state regarded trade. Confucian ideology generally stated that China had everything it could ever need, and any trade conducted with outside states would be done solely on Chinese terms, as a privilege that could be taken away at any time.
 

Elfwine

FDW said:
You really don't understand how China works. For centuries, the Confucian ideology that was followed by the Chinese state tended to look down on Merchants because they were felt to be bad to their families and leeches on the farmers and artisans. (snip.)
Click to expand...

I didn't say that the Chinese state would embrace that, I said that it would be beneficial for it to do so. The attitude that merchants are parasites is the kind of attitude that China needed almost as much as throwing bananas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top