AHC: Asian Industrial Revolution

mlp · Oct 27, 2013

I've just read this:

LeoXiao said:
That's a better explanation.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, basically for industrialization to happen you need labor and resource shortages that keep the economy constantly in some sort of crisis, but not in such crisis that the ability to find some "peace and quiet" to develop the scientific arts is hindered. Europe, by virtue of not being united or as populous as China, naturally possesses the economic condition, but only a country like Britain, protected by the Channel, has the peace needed for intensive tech advances needed for industrialization.

democracy101 said:
Essentially, yes, along with the fact that England was one of the most densely populated regions in Europe, making it easier for workers to specialize, as opposed to individuals in sparsely populated regions who would have had to meticulously create each product by themselves. In addition, Europe's population remained relatively low in comparison to China in part due to reoccurring plagues, along with occasional conflicts, and although China experienced significant population decreases as well, they were much more severe due to periodic nomadic invasions, and were specifically limited to a few decades, making it difficult to continuously build upon prior innovations for more than several centuries.

LeoXiao said:
Then here's another approach, though it doesn't really involve the Song. Say the Mongol dynasty conquers the north but works out some sort of tributary system with a smattering of fractured southern Chinese states, which are manipulated into vying with each other and generally being mutually uncooperative. Perhaps one of these states could take a position similar to that of Qi from the Warring States period, and build up a powerful trading system while playing political games with the other states and the Mongol overlords to avoid invasion and turmoil. This situation persists for a couple hundred years, as the Mongols for whatever reason find it easier to directly rule a part of China rather than all of it.

democracy101 said:
Finding the right PoD would be a major issue, as China would probably be unified long before the Mongols invade. China remained divided throughout the Spring and Autumn/Warring States Periods because the regions were generally proportional in terms of demographics. However, North China gradually became more densely populated afterwards, while South China continued to be gradually populated by Han Chinese over time, which explains why although China remained divided from around 220-589, with the exception of the Sima Jin, China Proper generally remained divided between two stable regions, and there were only two major periods, each spanning about half a century, when the country was extremely fragmented. By the time that the Tang collapsed in 907, the population had gradually begun to shift to coastal regions, so it would have been likely for a state with a firm foothold in North China and access to the ocean/major rivers to eventually reunify China, which accurately describes the Song. Afterwards, the population generally began shifting to the south and closer to the major rivers, which explains how the Ming managed to reunify China after taking control of the Yangtze.

In other words, the geopolitics at the time makes it extremely unlikely for China to remain fragmented for long.

LeoXiao said:
Mongol suzerainty over the south then wanes, and by this point our "Latter Qi" is considered a jewel of post-Song culture and learning, as well as technical application of the sciences. The other princes in the Chinese region have also adopted these technologies over time, but "Qi" remains the innovator. With the waning of Mongol hegemony, all the Chinese states begin to fight again. The "Latter Qin" state that wins out is one that is eager to adopt "Qi"'s ideas but also has the requisite resources, population, and ruthlessness to conquer China, which "Qi" lacks.

democracy101 said:
Assuming that this scenario somehow occurs, the Mongols would probably retreat around 150-250 years after the initial invasion, given the events that occurred IOTL, as social issues began to build up over time and take a significant toll on the government. As a result, although some important innovations might occur here and there, they probably wouldn't be particularly consolidated enough to spur further developments in the long run, as it would take more than several decades to even recover from the invasions.

LeoXiao said:
By the time "Qin" is successful in uniting China proper (Maybe the late 1500s?), all major states have adopted at least some of "Qi"'s innovations and the tradition of interstate economic as well as military competition has emerged. Also by this time, other northern "barbarians" (perhaps legit empires by this time) threaten China again, and so the "Qin" court finds it expedient to develop ever-more advanced methods of dealing with them in order to not jeopardize societal and economic prosperity that the emperor suspects has something to do with the longevity of his regime.
Say that butterflies have also sped up developments in Europe; as signs of this hit China and as the whites begin colonizing stuff and trying to conduct trade everywhere, the emperors of the "Qin", who are acutely aware of the danger posed by powerful outsiders, find increasingly necessary to maintain consistent scientific and industrial progress.

democracy101 said:
Yes, but unless China as a whole is continuously depopulated at a significant level for around 300-500 years, it would probably be difficult for China to accurately view the Europeans as a long-term threat. Even if significant innovations do manage to occur, it would be hard for the intellectuals to convince the aristocrats that continuously maintaining a relative government monopoly would not be beneficial, as the officials would attempt to retain their influence. This scenario also ignores the wokou raids, which will probably still occur regardless of the situation, and was a major reason why the Ming decided to ban maritime trade soon after the dynasty had been established.

==================================================

Elfwine said:
Steam engines can burn wood quite easily, so not having coal isn't actually a deterrent to steam development.

Henriksson said:
Wow, that's an elegant solution. Just use wood, no problem. Well, there are a few....

Far long before the introduction of the steam engine, wood was extremely important because it was the only source of thermal energy available, besides the myriad of other uses it had. Subsequently, even before anyone would be in a position to try some sort of all-charcoal steam power scheme, Europe was on the way to deforestation. In some areas this was so acute that people would dry seaweed for fuel.

Now, before the industrial revolution there was a wealthy Netherlands which was a great manufacturing nation. The Dutch not only made glass, they also produced bricks, tiles, ceramics and clay pipes, they refined salt and sugar, bleached linen, boiled soap, brewed beer, distilled spirits and baked bread. All of that needed massive amounts of thermal energy. You can polish glass with a windmill, but you can't make glass with it. OTL, the Dutch were blessed with peat reserves which they could burn to accomplish that. If that peat didn't exist, couldn't they just use wood instead. Well, all of the forests in the region had long vanished by the 1600's. Couldn't they just make a deal with Scandinavia or something and import the wood, then? Well... no. It would simply have been exorbitantly expensive given the transport options available then. It was hard enough just moving peat from the mines in the north, getting wood from Scandinavia would be crazy. The same restrictions would no doubt be in place for an England without coal.

TLDR; It's one hell of a deterrent.

NotYetRegistered said:
Eh? The Dutch had that as well, excluding the paper money, but it didn't mean there was a going to be an industrial revolution.

I don't think high productivity and advanced trading techniques would inevitably lead to industrialization, or even lead to industrialization at all.

Henriksson said:
Yeah, why did the Dutch come so late into the industrial game when they seemingly had such great foundation?

The peat mines dried up and they didn't have coal.

Sorry guys if I offended anyone that I posted here. But I just wanted to make sure at the OP that people understand the full qualities of industrialization for a country.
Now...as title states. Which nation in Asia in 1800 (has to be, at the very least, nominally independent) has the best "breeding ground" for industrialization? will it have enough population that there's a concentrated amount of people and the population is still under the production level that the economy demands? do they have natural resources enough that their industrialization process will not be hindered? State a country, explain why you'd think the country will be easiest to industrialize with some "minor" PODs.

democracy101 · Oct 27, 2013

I'll bring this up again, because it looked like no one seemed to directly address the issues that I specifically mentioned below:

democracy101 said:
The main impetus for industrialization seems to be demographics, although it looks that everyone here has taken the opposite approach. Due to its large area and population, China had an ample supply of resources in order to supply its people as a whole. On the other hand, the same was not necessarily true for Europe in general before 1800 or so due to a relatively low population density (in comparison with China Proper), partly due to frequently recurring plagues before and after the Black Death, along with the fact that Europe as a whole was politically much more decentralized than China. As a result, China's level of consolidation in comparison with Europe meant that the former did not have any significant pressures to improve its technology in order to efficiently supply the population, while the reverse was true for Europe on an increasing level after 1800 or so.

In addition, the division of labor seems to have been one of the main factors that eventually paved the way for the Industrial Revolution, given that as a specific individual began to focus on one particular aspect during the manufacturing process, efficiency began to increase at exponential levels as people began to look for ways in order to refine their task(s) over time. This general approach was initially highlighted in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which was published in 1776, suggesting that although the concept was not particularly consolidated as a whole at the time, the general trends had already been established. On the other hand, China seems to have been trapped in a high-level equilibrium trap, in which the widespread availability of cheap labor and the shift in ideology from science to philosophy contributed to the long-term stability of the state as a whole, but also significantly hindered development. The Great Divergence also explains some of the social differences between Europe and China, while England probably ended up industrializing earlier than the rest of Europe due to various geographical and social factors that continued to build up over time. Malthusianism, which was initially established in 1798, also seems to suggest that the Industrial Revolution caused significant advancements in technology to keep up with simultaneous significant population growth, which would have been essentially impossible to achieve without the policies implemented during the early 19th century, which led to further political and social changes over time.

As a result, China would probably have to consistently experience invasions or undergo extensive turmoil for centuries in order for the supply of labor to become a significant issue. However, this would also have the side effect of turning back the clock on past technological achievements, not to mention that other antagonistic states might take advantage of the chaos to move in and establish a greater presence within specific regions after the countryside is depopulated by war, which in itself is extremely unlikely.

In other words, more than a handful of social, economic, geographical, and political factors are necessary in order to facilitate the transition to an industrial revolution.

Kaiser K · Oct 27, 2013

Technically wouldn't Japan be the answer? at least if you go by OTL.

mlp · Oct 27, 2013

MsWhatsittoya said:
Technically wouldn't Japan be the answer? at least if you go by OTL.

true, but Japan didn't have enough natural resources (iron, coal) to be self-sustaining (like Germany, for example). It was a necessity for Japan to, say, annex Korea, Taiwan and Manchuria for more natural resources.

mlp · Oct 27, 2013

democracy101 said:
In other words, more than a handful of social, economic, geographical, and political factors are necessary in order to facilitate the transition to an industrial revolution.

Hi. read that quote in the thread, just didn't want to cite it or it would get too long.
So I thought, even if it was true that almost ALL Asian nations needed more than a handful of factors to be changed, there must have been some relative ease in which some nations can "gain" industrialization more easily, given the variation in the social-economic-geographical-political situations.

Kaiser K · Oct 27, 2013

zeppelinair said:
true, but Japan didn't have enough natural resources (iron, coal) to be self-sustaining (like Germany, for example). It was a necessity for Japan to, say, annex Korea, Taiwan and Manchuria for more natural resources.

True enough, through Japan is the closest I can get to the OP and the only real word pre-1900 example for a Asian nation without going back and having a POD in the say 13th century to get the nessesary changes to have say China undergo a industrial revolution.

democracy101 · Oct 27, 2013

zeppelinair said:
Hi. read that quote in the thread, just didn't want to cite it or it would get too long.
So I thought, even if it was true that almost ALL Asian nations needed more than a handful of factors to be changed, there must have been some relative ease in which some nations can "gain" industrialization more easily, given the variation in the social-economic-geographical-political situations.

Not really, given that it took more than several centuries of continuous consolidated developments in multiple fields for even England to kickstart its industrial revolution.

As a result, I would have to say that 1800 is extremely late for a PoD that could result in widespread changes, which require an intricate knowledge of social factors.

Dave Howery · Oct 27, 2013

one of the things that drove industrialism was not just the availability of resources, but the location of them... Europe (and England in particular) had several areas where iron, coal, and water power were all right there together, and this seemed to really spur industrial progress. Did China have anything like that?

LeX · Oct 27, 2013

Would it have been possible for Korea to industrialize? The country is small enough to have a high-density population, has some natural resources unlike Japan, and if you combine this with a China that fails to get too much influence over the northeast, the conditions could be ripe for intensive British-style development.

scholar · Oct 27, 2013

The only thing needed to start even a small scale Industrial Revolution in Asia is to create the need for an industrial product that cannot be produced, or is very hard and expensive to be produced, largely or entirely by hand. There are a couple of examples of small-scale industrial revolutions in Asia that eventually were forgotten, faded into the background, or were lost.

We have the notable cannon of Chinese design which was used for both sieges and ships were were produced on a fairly significant scale, seeing near continuous use for centuries.

Japan had an intense infatuation with firearms during the late Sengoku era and early Edo era, producing them on scales that could only be described as industrial.

Both instances inevitably fell into disuse. The Chinese had cannons when it went to war against the British, but the lack of any need to innovate or make them in large numbers saw it almost completely disappear as a viable weapon. A far cry from when the Chinese Cannon and the Japanese firearm were clashing with one another in Korea in such numbers that the Japanese were able to conduct sieges simply by utilizing captured cannon and the Chinese and Koreans were able to adapt new firearms from the Japanese. The Japanese had made some significant improvements upon their native produced firearms, but the improvements were pale shadows compared to what Europe had done in the Edo era and once again the scale was so far behind in terms of production that the country would have been near to helpless.

My suggestion would simply be to keep the need for firearms alive. China finds a near continuous use for its Cannon and greater external pressure to adopt Japanese innovations on imported European designs. While not enough to create an industrial society, it is enough to lay the foundations for industrialism in some specific corners of Chinese and Japanese society when the time and need arrives. Even the Qing Dynasty made some crude attempts at modern naval ships in the mid to late 19th century, to the point where most Europeans believed it was China, not Japan, that was to become the industrialized nation of the East.

My conclusion statement: The potential was always there, it was the need that was lacking. Create a need, real or imagined, and some scale of industrialization will follow.

YLi · Oct 27, 2013

I had this start to happen in my TL, Sweet Wormwood.

We know Shun gunsmiths OTL made excellent, high quality firearms and cannon. In Sweet Wormwood, low amounts of available labor and the requirement for large numbers of firearms would likely have triggered some kind of Industrial Revolution had the TL gone forward another 5-10 years, since the Shun were still at war with the Southern Ming over a divided China.

Some sort of civil war with a divided China might be able to trigger an Industrial Revolution, if only because civil wars decrease labor supplies and force the need to innovate.

democracy101 · Oct 27, 2013

scholar said:
My suggestion would simply be to keep the need for firearms alive. China finds a near continuous use for its Cannon and greater external pressure to adopt Japanese innovations on imported European designs. While not enough to create an industrial society, it is enough to lay the foundations for industrialism in some specific corners of Chinese and Japanese society when the time and need arrives. Even the Qing Dynasty made some crude attempts at modern naval ships in the mid to late 19th century, to the point where most Europeans believed it was China, not Japan, that was to become the industrialized nation of the East.

My conclusion statement: The potential was always there, it was the need that was lacking. Create a need, real or imagined, and some scale of industrialization will follow.

The issue with this hypothetical scenario is that it almost certainly requires small-scale warfare among multiple entities for more than just a few centuries, similar to what occurred within Europe, which essentially entails fragmenting China for a significant period of time without any breaks. As stated earlier in one of my quotes within the first post, the geopolitics as a whole made this situation essentially impossible, as all of the various dynasties involved managed to reunify China by successfully utilizing their advantages in resources and territory. As a result, once China Proper was reunified, there was no particular impetus to continue pursuing large-scale campaigns against other states which forced them to produce a high amount of military equipment for long, which significantly stalled development in the long run. In fact, even though the Qing did manage to pursue numerous campaigns against its neighbors, it never had any major reason to accelerate industrial development because the threats in question were relatively minimal. On the other hand, investing too much in the military also backfired disastrously IOTL, as the Ming's intervention in the Imjin War, which lasted for less than seven years, eventually caused China's treasury to be drained, despite the fact that they mobilized significantly less men than Korea or Japan, and eventually accelerated the dynasty's fall to the Qing.

Deleted member 67076 · Oct 27, 2013

What about India?

LeX · Oct 27, 2013

democracy101 said:
The issue with this hypothetical scenario is that it almost certainly requires small-scale warfare among multiple entities for more than just a few centuries, similar to what occurred within Europe, which essentially entails fragmenting China for a significant period of time without any breaks. As stated earlier in one of my quotes within the first post, the geopolitics as a whole made this situation essentially impossible, as all of the various dynasties involved managed to reunify China by successfully utilizing their advantages in resources and territory. As a result, once China Proper was reunified, there was no particular impetus to continue pursuing large-scale campaigns against other states which forced them to produce a high amount of military equipment for long, which significantly stalled development in the long run.

But what is to say that the dynasties have to be successful? It's not implausible for even well-endowed polities to fail because of human stupidity.

scholar · Oct 27, 2013

democracy101 said:
The issue with this hypothetical scenario is that it almost certainly requires small-scale warfare among multiple entities for more than just a few centuries, similar to what occurred within Europe, which essentially entails fragmenting China for a significant period of time without any breaks. As stated earlier in one of my quotes within the first post, the geopolitics as a whole made this situation essentially impossible, as all of the various dynasties involved managed to reunify China by successfully utilizing their advantages in resources and territory. As a result, once China Proper was reunified, there was no particular impetus to continue pursuing large-scale campaigns against other states which forced them to produce a high amount of military equipment for long, which significantly stalled development in the long run. In fact, even though the Qing did manage to pursue numerous campaigns against its neighbors, it never had any major reason to accelerate industrial development because the threats in question were relatively minimal. On the other hand, investing too much in the military also backfired disastrously IOTL, as the Ming's intervention in the Imjin War, which lasted for less than seven years, eventually caused China's treasury to be drained, despite the fact that they mobilized significantly less men than Korea or Japan, and eventually accelerated the dynasty's fall to the Qing.

While the Imjin War was a significant factor in the decline of the Ming, there were far greater domestic concerns and some measure of incompetency which culminated in its relatively rapid fall.

To which I have some ideas to extend the need for use and innovation for firearms:

The Toyotomi Shogunate just barely manages to retain nominal control over the country. Daimyo see a dramatic rise in power, power they had only just recently saw themselves losing. Wakou raids continue, only this time far more devastating than before. Daimyo play only direct parts in the conflicts, but reap great profits from the pirates who pay them homage. Firearms and cannons are continually innovated upon in order to better raid the Korean and Chinese coastlines.

Korea and Chinese coastal navies are forced by need of necessity to empower their defenses. Coastal fortifications have increased need for cannon and the Chinese and Koreas are forced to keep apace, or only lag a few decades behind, in order to protect the vital lifeblood of trade which occurs on the much more densely populated costs.

The Mongol Khanates start to culminate into large Steppe Empires again, causing a significant distraction to the rising Jin/Qing Empire in the north.

The Ming falls somewhat faster in the north, but its rapid decline causes its northern rivals to overextend themselves in overtly hostile territory with independent generals and bandit leaders alligned with the Ming against the Jin/Qing and Mongols are significant enemies and those attempting to establish their own dynasties muddle the waters significantly. Most of these dynasties last only a generation or two, but by the time the north has settled and a much more exhausted and weakened Jin/Qing state comes into existence the Ming has consolidated itself around the tributaries of the Yangze and increasingly militarizes itself.

The Qing spends decades to a century completely subjugating the Mongol states and northern Chinese successor states. Korea is a bit bolder in its defiance since the Qing is much more noticeably struggling. A brief war between the two states occurs, an expensive and numerically costly war that ends in the status quo and the Korean Dynasty paying lip service to the Qing while rooting for the south.

This chaos, is of course excellent business for the Japanese raiders and pirates who are able to operate with near impunity. Concerted efforts to bring them down only weaken the hold that these states have in some of their more restless regions.

By the time the 1750s - 1800s happens, the Qing and Ming Dynasties are relatively solidified and constantly war weary with threats to their flanks. Periodic warfare between the two regimes is costly, creating manpower shortages while the need for warfare creates a greater need for firearms and cannon.

The Ming court probably continues its conversions to Catholicism and increase its European ties. The Qing court is in much less of a position to keep itself separate from the Chinese and are more dependent upon their subjects for continued existence. As such the Qing becomes more like the Jurchen Jin Dynasty in order to effectively govern or turns more into a Yuan. The former can facilitate the eventual unification under them, the later the solidification of Two Empires or their fall to the Ming.

In either case, by the time this mess has been handled Europe is not a distant far off threat that can be ignored, but a significant force in the region. Over a century and a half of fighting an innovation leaves the states more open to European military technology, just as they were with European scientific knowledge and astronomy OTL. The Russians, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, and perhaps English will have vested interests inside the Chinese civil war by this time, and as such the continued fragmentation may persist much longer than it would have in isolation.

These are just some loose ideas, many of them are in need of refinement, but as a whole this could be a potential *spark* for the region.

democracy101 · Oct 27, 2013

LeoXiao said:
But what is to say that the dynasties have to be successful? It's not implausible for even well-endowed polities to fail because of human stupidity.

The Qin, Han, Sima Jin, Sui, Tang, Song, and Ming all succeeded after initially establishing a stable base within China, while the Yuan and Qing managed to take advantage of the chaos within China, and the Liao and Jurchen Jin seized a significant amount of North China, although much more so for the latter. Out of these, the Sima Jin and the Liao were the weakest, as they were the least consolidated, but South China continued to remain stable after the Jin lost North China, while the Song continued to rule most of China.

In other words, given the general trends above, while China could theoretically be fragmented into multiple entities (more than three) even after 1350 or so, it's extremely unlikely for China Proper to be continuously divided in this manner for more than 100-200 years or so, which would eventually hinder development significantly in the long run.

scholar said:
-snip-

Ignoring the fact that the Ming and Later Jin/Qing would probably end up establishing a peace treaty signaling the end of hostilities within about 50 years or so, given the general situation, similar to what occurred between the Jin and Song, this doesn't address the OP, which specifically asked for a change around 1800. Granted, this doesn't exactly mean that the PoD absolutely has to be after 1800, but it still implies that the change must occur around the late 18th century or after, which this scenario doesn't exactly fulfill.

scholar · Oct 27, 2013

democracy101 said:
Ignoring the fact that the Ming and Later Jin/Qing would probably end up establishing a peace treaty signaling the end of hostilities within about 50 years or so, given the general situation, similar to what occurred between the Jin and Song, this doesn't address the OP, which specifically asked for a change around 1800. Granted, this doesn't exactly mean that the PoD absolutely has to be after 1800, but it still implies that the change must occur around the late 18th century or after, which this scenario doesn't exactly fulfill.

A peace that would almost certainly be temporary and last only as long as both parties have a vested interested in keeping it, highly unlikely in the long run. However, if you believe that a real peace would occur within fifty years, this only supports that fragmentation can occur and be prolonged for a considerable length of time.

It doesn't, but it was something of a thought exercise.

In 1800 the nations with the best potential for industrialization were probably Japan, Maratha, Siam, perhaps Gujarat, and Persia. China was in the act of declining, Korea was in no shape to do anything, and much of the rest had no base or were under Europeans.

democracy101 · Oct 27, 2013

scholar said:
A peace that would almost certainly be temporary and last only as long as both parties have a vested interested in keeping it, highly unlikely in the long run. However, if you believe that a real peace would occur within fifty years, this only supports that fragmentation can occur and be prolonged for a considerable length of time.

I thought I had already mentioned what I thought fragmentation entailed:

democracy101 said:
In other words, given the general trends above, while China could theoretically be fragmented into multiple entities (more than three) even after 1350 or so, it's extremely unlikely for China Proper to be continuously divided in this manner for more than 100-200 years or so, which would eventually hinder development significantly in the long run. (Emphasis added)

In addition, the Song showed no signs of actively attempting to continue campaigns against the Jin for 150 years, despite the fact that it was in a similar situation.

scholar said:
It doesn't, but it was something of a thought exercise.

Fine.

scholar · Oct 27, 2013

democracy101 said:
I thought I had already mentioned what I thought fragmentation entailed:

That wasn't addressed to me, I was building off of this:

democracy101 said:
The issue with this hypothetical scenario is that it almost certainly requires small-scale warfare among multiple entities for more than just a few centuries, similar to what occurred within Europe, which essentially entails fragmenting China for a significant period of time without any breaks. As stated earlier in one of my quotes within the first post, the geopolitics as a whole made this situation essentially impossible[...]

democracy101 said:
In addition, the Song showed no signs of actively attempting to continue campaigns against the Jin for 150 years, despite the fact that it was in a similar situation.

The Jin did not even exist for 150 years. The first and last part of their time span saw war with the Song and the middle saw at least two wars. In order for peace to last both parties need a vested interest. This means not just the Song, but the Jin as well.

Not just the Ming, but the Qing too.

democracy101 said:
Fine.

If I'm bothering you, I apologize.

democracy101 · Oct 27, 2013

scholar said:
That wasn't addressed to me, I was building off of this:

My points still technically apply, given that I used "multiple" in both posts, and although "two" can theoretically fall into this category, "fragmented" generally implies more than just a few entities. On the other hand, "divided" can be used to describe more than one entity, so this concept would encompass all scenarios in which China would not be united.

scholar said:
The Jin did not even exist for 150 years. The first and last part of their time span saw war with the Song and the middle saw at least two invasions. In order for peace to last both parties need a vested interest. This means not just the Song, but the Jin as well.

Not just the Ming, but the Qing too.

Even in this case, the Song never made a significant attempt to attack north in order to reconquer North China after the Jin moved in, in part because doing so for more than a few decades would severely exhaust resources, and the vested interest was essentially in the form of trade, which continued to flow significantly in both directions. The attacks by the Mongols also involved the Song being on the defensive, and the latter eventually collapsed due to numerous internal issues, which were similar to the Ming's weaknesses.

scholar said:
If I'm bothering you, I apologize.

I'll apologize for the bluntness, then. I just didn't want to get into an entangled discussion that falls far outside of the boundaries of the OP.

AHC: Asian Industrial Revolution

Deleted member 67076