No Dowager Cixi, China westernizes
- Thread starter Gukpard
- Start date
I think it's appropriate to say that Cixi is only the spokesperson for the Conservative party.I think you will still see the Conservative party stifle development.Another thing is that China's westernisation process was a joke in that the imperial court was staffed with people who have very little understanding of how the west is so powerful.The problem isn't that people in the court aren't willing to reform and change,the question is how much.They sent a whole bunch of children to be educated by the US,but when the children were found to have Americanized,they cancelled the entire project thinking that those who aren't traditional are frivolous and does not have the ability to modernise the country or help govern it--thinking that all the children should do is to learn science and modern military strategy without learning the culture of the west .The officials also thought that construction of railways would bring ill luck to the country.They were thinking that they can modernise the country by doing certain things but not other.
Last edited:
IMO, Cixi might have been the spokesperson for the Conservative party, but she was also the head of the party. If she hadn't been willing to move against Guangxu, it wouldn't have been able to produce as united of a front as it did and attract Yuan Shikai (because he wouldn't know who to negotiate with).
Guangxu wasn't exactly the best candidate, but at least he's better than Cixi. Also, your other points are valid, but that just means that the bureaucrats were generally conservative. Something would have to change there, something that the conservatives wouldn't let.
Well when the Tongzhi Emperor died by imperial tradition Aisin-Gioro Zaicheng, Prince Gong's eldest son, should have become Emperor but Cixi rigged things so that Zaitian became the Guangxu Emperor instead allowing her to control things. Prince Gong was generally a proponent of the Self-Strengthening Movement so provided that family relations between father and son are okay chances are that with the prestige and influence of being father to the Emperor he's able to help push it forward. It would have been interesting to see what sort of progress something like this might have been able to make.
Wasn't Zaicheng a walking disaster and was actually a corrupting influence for Tongzhi?
Well there were the rumours that he slipped out of the palace with the Tongzhi Emperor to party which is how he caught the syphilis he died from but when I looked at it ages back, admittedly not in massive detail, it did seem to be mostly that - rumours with nothing really much to stand the story up. Even if he was more interested in drinking and laying about with concubines that might not be a complete disaster if it allowed his father an even freer hand to effectively rule in his stead and push forward reforms, what happens when Prince Gong dies however could get interesting if there isn't someone decent to hand off to.
Admiral Matt
Gone Fishin'
Meh.
These discussions tend to revolve around whether Cixi and a few key individuals were at fault, or the conservatives in general. I'd argue that it's neither. The dynasty as a whole had painted itself into a corner out of which there was no easy way barring tremendous luck that never came. Honestly, if the conservatives hadn't seized power, there's a fair chance that history would remember the reformers in the same way it does Gorbachev - well-meaning fools whose naiveté broke the system. Certainly the 100 days reeks of that.
It's easy to criticize the Great Qing for shutting down reforms that steered far into Western forms, but they had limited choice in the matter. The Qing were a non-Han dynasty ruling a mostly Han empire - in order to remain in power, they had to have legitimacy to their subjects. Theoretically they could have earned it through military strength, fighting foreigners or offering security, but given the Western irruption that would have required a great deal of luck. In practice they held the support of the non-Han (3/5 of their territory) through a system of military privilege and religious bribes; the Han (9/10 of their population) through rigorous adherence to Confucianism and attempts to feed their land hunger.
A Han dynasty could have imported Western systems much more easily - at the end of the day, everyone would know the emperor was "really Chinese". The Manchu had no such privilege. If they'd lucked into making reforms from a position of strength somehow, then the conservatives would have been more open to reform and the reformers would have been more successful. But making that kind of sweeping reform from a position of weakness (by far the most likely scenario) was always going to make disaster the most likely outcome.
The dynasty's reforms would have dissolved its legitimacy at the center - the many new positions of power would be dominated by ethnic Han who would then leverage them into personal fiefdoms and eye taking Beijing for themselves. And so too would it's legitimacy have cost it it's western empire, which new military and economic reforms would take generations to really help with. As it happened, this is exactly how things played out whenever major reforms were enacted and not immediately retracted.
If you really want China to reform successfully in that era, you want to replace the crazies at the head of the Taiping early enough that they can ally with the Confucian bureaucratic class and win. That, or you want to have one of the Qing generals, flush from defeating the Taiping, march on Beijing and proclaim a new dynasty. Either way, the easy path to a strong China is an ethnically Han dynasty forming decisively by the mid-19th century.
If you want to see a Qing wank, you need to start studying what Es Geloybte Aretz does for Germany, because it would take a dozen absurd historical coincidences to put the reformers in the position to do the right thing and not have it blow up in their faces.
These discussions tend to revolve around whether Cixi and a few key individuals were at fault, or the conservatives in general. I'd argue that it's neither. The dynasty as a whole had painted itself into a corner out of which there was no easy way barring tremendous luck that never came. Honestly, if the conservatives hadn't seized power, there's a fair chance that history would remember the reformers in the same way it does Gorbachev - well-meaning fools whose naiveté broke the system. Certainly the 100 days reeks of that.
It's easy to criticize the Great Qing for shutting down reforms that steered far into Western forms, but they had limited choice in the matter. The Qing were a non-Han dynasty ruling a mostly Han empire - in order to remain in power, they had to have legitimacy to their subjects. Theoretically they could have earned it through military strength, fighting foreigners or offering security, but given the Western irruption that would have required a great deal of luck. In practice they held the support of the non-Han (3/5 of their territory) through a system of military privilege and religious bribes; the Han (9/10 of their population) through rigorous adherence to Confucianism and attempts to feed their land hunger.
A Han dynasty could have imported Western systems much more easily - at the end of the day, everyone would know the emperor was "really Chinese". The Manchu had no such privilege. If they'd lucked into making reforms from a position of strength somehow, then the conservatives would have been more open to reform and the reformers would have been more successful. But making that kind of sweeping reform from a position of weakness (by far the most likely scenario) was always going to make disaster the most likely outcome.
The dynasty's reforms would have dissolved its legitimacy at the center - the many new positions of power would be dominated by ethnic Han who would then leverage them into personal fiefdoms and eye taking Beijing for themselves. And so too would it's legitimacy have cost it it's western empire, which new military and economic reforms would take generations to really help with. As it happened, this is exactly how things played out whenever major reforms were enacted and not immediately retracted.
If you really want China to reform successfully in that era, you want to replace the crazies at the head of the Taiping early enough that they can ally with the Confucian bureaucratic class and win. That, or you want to have one of the Qing generals, flush from defeating the Taiping, march on Beijing and proclaim a new dynasty. Either way, the easy path to a strong China is an ethnically Han dynasty forming decisively by the mid-19th century.
If you want to see a Qing wank, you need to start studying what Es Geloybte Aretz does for Germany, because it would take a dozen absurd historical coincidences to put the reformers in the position to do the right thing and not have it blow up in their faces.
This explains the situation as well.Nonetheless,it must be said that they failed at the kind of reforms or modernisation they could have done because of pure ignorance.
Last edited:
You do not need a han china to be strong. The problem is China was geared towards a consumer based tertiary economy not an industrial one. For this reason it could not hope to militarily match up to the west in the period because it was at its core an economy based around manufacturing aimed at consumers not iron or still or coal production since these production methods were necessary for industrialization. As a result, come the wars with he west the chinese lost. These losses lead to a sinking in legitimacy.
Following this drop in legitimacy you had famines tat could not be controlled by officials leading to peasants starving and with tenant-landlord relations bad enough as it was as well as the rampant corruption at the state level, the qing attempted to raise taxes, could not since the landlords and administrators who were predominantly han Chinese stole a large cut and the peasants suffered, prices for foodstuffs rose. Unemployment rose. Of course you would have in southern china a situation conducive to rebellion of some kind, OTL that rebellion was two roughly contemporaneous rebellions one of which was the more well know Taiping. By the way funnily enough the same issues that brought down the Ming brought down the qing. Hell similar issues pretty much brought down almost all the major chinese dynasties.
So no a strong han state would not change anything.
Cixi is too late a POD unfortunately. China's issues at the time were systemic.
Following this drop in legitimacy you had famines tat could not be controlled by officials leading to peasants starving and with tenant-landlord relations bad enough as it was as well as the rampant corruption at the state level, the qing attempted to raise taxes, could not since the landlords and administrators who were predominantly han Chinese stole a large cut and the peasants suffered, prices for foodstuffs rose. Unemployment rose. Of course you would have in southern china a situation conducive to rebellion of some kind, OTL that rebellion was two roughly contemporaneous rebellions one of which was the more well know Taiping. By the way funnily enough the same issues that brought down the Ming brought down the qing. Hell similar issues pretty much brought down almost all the major chinese dynasties.
So no a strong han state would not change anything.
Cixi is too late a POD unfortunately. China's issues at the time were systemic.
It does help however if the dynasty sinicized fully.Again it's too late of a POD.In the end however,Han and Manchu officials,landlords and nobles alike stole large portions of taxes--it wasn't just the Han.The fact that the dynasty wasn't Han made it so that the government was especially vulnerable to criticisms. There's a reason why the utmost rallying cries against the Qing Dynasty in it's dying days was "expel the Tatar Barbarians,and to revive China".The Qing state was fundamentally apartheid.They segregated Manchu populations from the ethnic Han.The Manchu population also possessed privileges.It was actually illegal for Manchu women to be married to ethnic Hans for example,but legal for Han women to be married to Manchu men.If the Manchu committed a crime for example,they were legally exempt for some of the punishments.To keep the Han majority quiet,the Manchu regime basically had to ally themselves with the conservative Confucian landholding class as mentioned by Admiral Matt.
while valid a sinicised china would still have collapsed as the qing did if only because of transaction costs and the sort of economic development china experienced. Besides all the major chinese dynasties allied with the landholder class. From the han to the ming majority of dynasties did xactly what qing did, only difference they didnt use racial discrimination as the basis for their exlusionary policies, so not really. Yes aparthed would not be present but systemic issues will remain and the han state finding itself in qing situation is going to collapse just when not if.
If they were fully sinicized,rebellions like the Taiping rebellion is likely to have been completely butterflied.The movement was largely anti-Manchu in origin.China would have been far wealthier to sustain modernization without something like that.Like all apartheid regimes,discriminating against the majority is basically a ticking time bomb that will explode eventually.They basically wrote themselves into a corner when the Qing formed their state.As for alliance with the landholding class,it's true that all dynasties would require the cooperation of the landholding class,but it's especially so far the Manchus.To reinforce their vulnerable legitimacy,they had to adhere closely to Confucian ideals.
Although,it must be said though that if Cixi kicked the bucket much earlier,funding for the navy wouldn't have been cut(which means China might win the war against Japan).Finally,there wouldn't be that insane declaration of war against all the foreign powers.
Problem is can his old man really control his son?It's not the first time a debauched/partying emperor ended up on the throne and f#$king up the empire completely.I am looking specifically at these guys.A common theme about partying emperors is that they tend to entrust power into the hands of the wrong people.
Last edited:
Admiral Matt
Gone Fishin'
"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."
You need a Han China, or a very lucky China, to be simultaneously strong and stable. Economics are all well and good, but they only represent one aspect of the issue, the most superficial one. I'm not sure anyone in this conversation was unaware of the economic issues you mention, or that they led up to the Chinese defeats - it seems implicitly understood by most of the posters. But to ignore the decisive cultural, geographic, and political factors that altered and sometimes determined the economic situation is to miss more than half the picture.
Non- and less-industrialized countries around the world went through a series of defeats and humiliations at the hands of industrialized Western powers. It wasn't just perfectly normal - it was the inevitable trauma of the era.
The consequences of that trauma, though, varied enormously. Consequences determined in the long run more by the factors I noted above than by tons of iron or coal. Blood and Iron got China into the situation, yes. And the inability to transition itself to Blood and Iron defined a century of Chinese history, yes. But Blood and Iron could also have gotten China out of the same situation if the government things had had the room to maneuver, politically and culturally. Indeed if the "other" factors had not prevented it, China could have made a smoother transition to an industrial powerhouse.
You are aware that the famines long predated the drop in legitimacy, right? It was the perennial problem, and when combined with tax collectors was the main trigger of peasant rebellions.
You mention that similar issues brought down other Chinese dynasties, and you are absolutely right. I'm not sure you're aware, though, that these were often followed by revitalized new dynasties that were able to take China through enormous transitions in its governing, economic, and even military systems. This was possible because of the huge political capital rendered by new recipients of the Mandate of Heaven. Chinese history is rife with that too.
Since that is precisely the sort of thing China needed to do just then, I am inclined to argue that what was really required was (discounting phenomenal luck) a new dynasty. And there's really no way it could be anything but Han given the politics and culture of the era.
You don't seem to address my argument as to why reform was particularly difficult to countenance to the Manchu and Mongol classes given their relationship to Han subjects. Since for the moment you're just saying "no" without elaboration, I'll hold off on belaboring that point for the moment.
Cixi's birth is too late a POD to avoid the first humiliations. Cixi's death is too late period - much of the worst had already happened by then, and centrifugal forces had too much momentum.
China's issues were definitely systemic. Not though, purely systemic to its economy, but also systemic to its political system.
They sealed their fate when the moment they opted to establish an apartheid state rather than a tolerant empire much like the Tang.Discriminating the majority is always a ticking time bomb that will blow up in your face eventually.The question is when.When nationalism kicks in,the Qing Empire is f$£ked.Though to be honest,without treating the Han like sh£t,I doubt Nurhachi and Huang Taiji would have gotten support from nomad hordes to fight China.
PhilippeO
Banned
I think the idea that Qing is "foreign/apartheid" etc is exaggerated.
Qing getting the blame for "century of humiliation" so chinese blame them for "Manchu-ness".
I doubt a native dynasty would make China make more successful, any dynasty had supporter (noble/landlord/confucian intellectual/etc) who will oppose any attempt to change. Even in Europe, modernization topple a lot of monarchy (Bourbon France, Two Sicilies). In Asia, native dynasties in Korea, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, etc didn't fare that well to modernize their countries and compete with Europeans. Change is hard.
And Tang dynastyes not only had mixed-blood with intermarriage with Turkic people, They also have dominated by Guanzhong Nobility during first half of their dynasty. Their examination had in practice maintain elite dominance in Imperial government. Also they have hereditary class of soldier. Tang and Qing is not much different.
Qing getting the blame for "century of humiliation" so chinese blame them for "Manchu-ness".
I doubt a native dynasty would make China make more successful, any dynasty had supporter (noble/landlord/confucian intellectual/etc) who will oppose any attempt to change. Even in Europe, modernization topple a lot of monarchy (Bourbon France, Two Sicilies). In Asia, native dynasties in Korea, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, etc didn't fare that well to modernize their countries and compete with Europeans. Change is hard.
And Tang dynastyes not only had mixed-blood with intermarriage with Turkic people, They also have dominated by Guanzhong Nobility during first half of their dynasty. Their examination had in practice maintain elite dominance in Imperial government. Also they have hereditary class of soldier. Tang and Qing is not much different.
Massive difference between Tang and Qing.The Tang rulers readily identified themselves as Han(despite their ancestry) while the Qing rulers prided themselves as being Manchu as opposed to being Han.There were laws against Manchu-Han intermarriage(more specifically barring Han men from marrying Manchu women）and the Manchu had separate living areas(the inner city of Beijing for example was specifically reserved for Manchus).In the Tang Dynasty,the aristocracy wasn't as institutionalised as the Manchu was as a ruling class.The don't have legal privileges for example.The Manchus on the other had were legally exempt from multiple punishments for crimes(for the same crime,a Han could be exiled while the Manchu would be sentenced to wearing a large collar for sixty days only) .If brought to court,a Manchu's word worth more than a Han's.The Manchus dominated the government posts.All Manchus were accorded monthly stipends from the government using taxes gained from the Han while in the Tang Dynasty,an aristocrat only gained revenue from the land they personally owned.Besides,Wu Zetian's rule essentially broke the aristocracy.By her time,the aristocracy no longer dominated government posts.
RousseauX
Donor
And yet when push came to shove during the Taiping rebellion, the Han gentry chose to back the Manchus over a Han Chinese rebellion. And afterwards did not choose to seize power for themselves despite having control over the military. Men like Zen Guofan and Li Hongzhan generated a degree of modernization and kept the dynasty alive long past what was suppose to be its expiry date.
Also by the 1900s power in the Qing dynasty didn't lie with the Manchu court anymore either, they had already being supplemented by the Beiyang army, the provincial legislatures and the gentry class in general, all of them Han dominated institutions. It was entirely possible for the Qing monarchy to stick around just as a German dynasty theoretically rules Britain today.
Last edited:
RousseauX
Donor
Pretty simple: Yuan Shikai chooses to back the dynasty over the rebels in 1911.
The Qing monarchy becomes a figurehead just like the house of Windsor in the UK, real power is held by Yuan and the Beiyang army. Yuan furthermore does not try to make himself emperor and oversees the election of a legislature with some degree of real power. Best case scenario after he dies power gradually transitions from the military to civilian institutions, China avoids the era of the warlords, the Japanese invasion, Communism and becomes a flawed democracy.
Manchuria -did- break away under theoretical Qing rule until 1945. The problem is that by the 1900s the vast majority of Manchuria's population were ethnic Han, which makes a continued Qing dynasty apart from China impossible without Japan winning WWII.
That's because the Taiping regime was batshit insane.It was a false Christian movement that shocked even the genuine Christians,why in the world would the largely Confucian gentry class support them?They forcefully segregated men and women alike,even couples,and forbid sexual relationship whilst the leaders had harems.Furthermore,they forcefully confiscated wealth from the poor and wealthy alike.No sane Chinese gentry would have backed such a movement.
And then it got destroyed.Finite.It's legitimacy was wholly destroyed by then.Difference between the German Dynasty that rules Britain and the Manchu Dynasty is that the 'German Dynasty' identified itself with the common people and dropped their German titles and name while the Manchu regime prided itself as being Manchu till it's dying day.The fact that the Manchu court lost control to the Han officials was an accident as opposed to intention.The Taiping rebellion pretty much forced the Manchu regime to rely on Han officers since the Manchu ones failed utterly to put down the rebellion.