WI Song China successfully industrializes?

[Elfwine]

As my question prompted, could you please explain one possible way such a development could occur?

Any, and I do mean any, of the uses that we see steam put to in the OTL 19th century.

There is no reason why you couldn't see someone, having worked out that steam can do useful work, would necessarily apply it to mines (in any sense) first.

It depends on when/where steam power as a thing that can do useful work comes up, and what the interests are of those who have such - in OTL Britain pumping coal mines is obvious, but it could easily start with people trying to use it to power textile mills away from rivers or even "skip" to people attempting to harness it to move things to pick two possibilities that happened early on.

Agreed.

Europe learned to apply the scientific method through trade and war with the Islamic world and by reexamining the legacy left to them by the Romans, and that took several centuries. And of course,


Whatever was the perfect storm that caused the ancient Greeks to invent the scientific method is irrelevant. What is inescapable is that ONLY the ancient Greeks invented the scientific method. The fact that no one else came up with it independently indicates to me it's not as intuitive as people think it is.

And once again, the argument that OTL happened a certain way, therefore it happening another way with centuries of history different than our own cannot be taken seriously is raised. Intuitive or not, you'd need a pretty strong argument to justify the idea the right elements can only come together where they did OTL even if the alternate places are not the same as OTL.

http://explorable.com/who-invented-the-scientific-method

And its not as unambiguous as "the ancient Greeks" even if we're looking at OTL.

Nothing is impossible but I don't see it being terribly likely Song China independently inventing the Greek approach to science and soon after invent the Watt steam engine. The ancient Greeks didn't invent the Watt steam engine either, no one civilization did it on their own. It was the product of the cumulative knowledge from lots of different places.

The Greek approach to science =/= the modern scientific method. It was a step along the way, but only a step.

And the ancient Greeks are a lot further from having the tools to make the Watt steam engine, regardless of the scientific method, than 12th century China.

That's rather relevant.

 

[MonAngel]

Any, and I do mean any, of the uses that we see steam put to in the OTL 19th century.

There is no reason why you couldn't see someone, having worked out that steam can do useful work, would necessarily apply it to mines (in any sense) first.

It depends on when/where steam power as a thing that can do useful work comes up, and what the interests are of those who have such - in OTL Britain pumping coal mines is obvious, but it could easily start with people trying to use it to power textile mills away from rivers or even "skip" to people attempting to harness it to move things to pick two possibilities that happened early on.

While I think Song probably one who would invent steam power, I think Liao Dynasty (since OP said before rise of Jin) is more logical to adopt it.
1. Liao Dynasty climate is more harsh and colder. Rivers are frozen 4-6 moths per year. So they are more interested to use steam power instead of watermills on textile industry.
2. Liao Dynasty controlled north China hence a lot of coal mines.
3. Liao Dynasty had little population base means they needed machines more than Song to offset labour shortage.
4. Liao Dynasty couldn't mass produce of consumer goods for domestically, compared to Song (more or less of self sufficient compared to it neighbors).

 

[Faeelin]

Need I point out how quickly use of steam spread after it was developed? People in the past were quite able to see reasons, or we'd be talking about "What if this crackpot's idea to use steam was adopted?" as a what if.

I am genuinely curious: when were steam engines first used in textile mills and such?

I once saw the argument made that Chinese philosophy might be more inclined to pursue electrical engines, as opposed to steam engines, for takeoff. An interesting idea; not sure how feasible it is, but hrm.

 

[Admiral Brown]

The logistics of China invading Europe are so ridiculous - not to mention that China is also plague-ravaged - that I cannot take this seriously.

someone from an ATL might have said the same about the idea that the British could conquer the whole indian subcontinent...

The population ratio between the Chinese and the Europeans is closer to one, whereas the population ratio between Britain and India in the late XVIII centrury was closer to cero, so, if anything, it's more likely for an industrialized Chine to conquer Europe that it was for an industrializing Britain to conquer India OTL

 

[caliburdeath]

Elfwine, I was referring to my second question; What is a possible course for the development of the Scientific method in China?
Perhaps we could see Greek learning go through the Arabs to China, as stated previously. I think it would be better if Chinese diplomats in Baghdad saw what they were doing and led to the development of a distinctly Chinese system, which is conducive to the scientific method. Though a method of that happening would have to be further expanded.

I think for China to even get to Europe would not start until the 1400s at least

 

[Elfwine]

I am genuinely curious: when were steam engines first used in textile mills and such?

http://www.phschool.com/atschool/california/webcodes/history_interactive/myp-4071/common_player.html

This says 1790.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/biographies/mainbiographies/A/Arkwright/1.html This refers him starting in the 1780s.

someone from an ATL might have said the same about the idea that the British could conquer the whole indian subcontinent...

The population ratio between the Chinese and the Europeans is closer to one, whereas the population ratio between Britain and India in the late XVIII centrury was closer to cero, so, if anything, it's more likely for an industrialized Chine to conquer Europe that it was for an industrializing Britain to conquer India OTL

Since an industrializing Britain was facing circumstances in India much more favorable than one would expect simply by listing population ratios, I disagree.

Elfwine, I was referring to my second question; What is a possible course for the development of the Scientific method in China?

My bad, I thought you meant the technology part.

As for the scientific method - what's wrong with a Chinese intellectual coming up with ideas like Al-Thayham's on their own?

It would be interesting to see more effort by Chinese intellectuals to study the natural world and less the classics - not to dismiss the latter, but if we're looking at a scientific and then industrial revolution, they're not enough.

Perhaps we could see Greek learning go through the Arabs to China, as stated previously. I think it would be better if Chinese diplomats in Baghdad saw what they were doing and led to the development of a distinctly Chinese system, which is conducive to the scientific method. Though a method of that happening would have to be further expanded.

I think for China to even get to Europe would not start until the 1400s at least

Why would China want to get to Europe?

 

[caliburdeath]

My bad, I thought you meant the t...ants, it would likely not be until the 1400's

 

[Admiral Brown]

Elfwine, I was referring to my second question; What is a possible course for the development of the Scientific method in China?
Perhaps we could see Greek learning go through the Arabs to China, as stated previously. I think it would be better if Chinese diplomats in Baghdad saw what they were doing and led to the development of a distinctly Chinese system, which is conducive to the scientific method. Though a method of that happening would have to be further expanded.

I think for China to even get to Europe would not start until the 1400s at least

Before it's unification, there where several schools of thought in the kindoms that would unite to form the middle kindom. One was that of the logicians. Most of their ideas were lost, I know. But traces of it are found in other Chinese writers of different schools, even in thinkers that preceeded them. For instance, reading one of Confucious texts, I cannot help to think of Aristotelean logic. Let me quote (the spanish translation I own is awfull, and my translation of it into English is even worse: "If the prince is virtous and compassive, the people will love Justice; if people loves justice, it will comply with the prince decrees. Thus, if the princeorders fair taxes, they will be pay by a people who loves justice"). Doesn't it sound a lot like Ancient Gref reasoning (If A...then B... if B... then C...)?

So, all you need for Chinese to develop cientific method is for the Song scholars to look back to their own intelectual fathers, such as Europeans did in the Reinassance. But they need to do this critically, that is, they need not to repeaat by heard what Confucius (or, more likely, his students) had written, but to grasp his methots, and his idea of thinking rationaly about ancient Chinese religion and society.

Then you need someone who applies logic to the study of the world, without preconceptions. And to use math to mesure the world, register the observation and formulate "laws" that explain it and can be tested to see if they accurately predict what will happen. It's hard, but it could be done. Indian or islamic math could help, but it might not be eseential. And there is time: Europe didn't began to do it until the XVII century.

 

[Sirius]

Before it's unification, there where several schools of thought in the kindoms that would unite to form the middle kindom. One was that of the logicians. Most of their ideas were lost, I know. But traces of it are found in other Chinese writers of different schools, even in thinkers that preceeded them. For instance, reading one of Confucious texts, I cannot help to think of Aristotelean logic. Let me quote (the spanish translation I own is awfull, and my translation of it into English is even worse: "If the prince is virtous and compassive, the people will love Justice; if people loves justice, it will comply with the prince decrees. Thus, if the princeorders fair taxes, they will be pay by a people who loves justice"). Doesn't it sound a lot like Ancient Gref reasoning (If A...then B... if B... then C...)?

So, all you need for Chinese to develop cientific method is for the Song scholars to look back to their own intelectual fathers, such as Europeans did in the Reinassance. But they need to do this critically, that is, they need not to repeaat by heard what Confucius (or, more likely, his students) had written, but to grasp his methots, and his idea of thinking rationaly about ancient Chinese religion and society.

Then you need someone who applies logic to the study of the world, without preconceptions. And to use math to mesure the world, register the observation and formulate "laws" that explain it and can be tested to see if they accurately predict what will happen. It's hard, but it could be done. Indian or islamic math could help, but it might not be eseential. And there is time: Europe didn't began to do it until the XVII century.

I'm convinced that all the Song needed was another fifty years of peace. The Jurchen invasion cut the empire in half, separated its economic powerhouse in the south from the coal in the north, and forced the Song to focus on war instead of science. The Song already had made mathematical progress:

It is now known that in the 3rd century AD, Chinese mathematicians had derived a proof of the volume of a pyramid and produced a geometric proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. It is a notable achievement that the concept of limit or infinitesimals was used to solve some of these mathematical problems. By the end of the 5th century, a proof of the volume of a sphere had been produced using a concept equivalent to Cavalieri’s Principle. Even before the Song Dynasty, Chinese mathematicians had clearly shown the capability of producing important logical and geometric results on their own.

China’s four great mathematicians of the late Song Dynasty had no equal at that time. China led the world in the solutions to equations. The Chinese discovered an algorithm that solved equations up to the 10th degree. In the 13th century the “Chinese Remainder Theorem” (中國剩餘定理) was solved and its method of solution was completely described. This problem was not independently solved in Europe until the 18th century with the work of Euler and Gauss. Chinese mathematicians proved a more sophisticated version of Newton’s interpolation formula, which was used to calculate planetary motions. The so-called “Pascal’s Triangle” from 17th century Europe was discovered in China before 1300. The 13th century also witnessed notable developments in China in the field of mathematical series.

Source (p.10-11)

Taking that into consideration, I don't see in particularly compelling reason why Song China would not have their own scientific revolution if allowed to continue developing uninterrupted. I have been thinking about how that might happen, and the obvious choice is that the Jurchens are not enlisted to attack the Liao Dynasty. Perhaps a stalemate continues until a Song invasion vassalizes the Liao, turning them into a buffer state in the north.

 

[caliburdeath]

^So, do we then butterfly the mongols?

Actually, while mathematics was a majorx3 point of the scientific revolution, the other major point, and the one being discussed here, is scientific method of some sort, be it Baconian as we have adopted or Descartesian, or something else entirely. Might it be said that it was this that properly enabled the industrial revolution?

 

[Malta]

Need to prevent a Song military decay during the 11th-12th Century or have a Ghenghis Khan figure arise in Mongolia and conquer the Jin and Liao only to die before invading the Song collapsing the tribes.

 

[Grouchio]

I would read F.W. Mote's Imperial China: 900-1800 for all the information and perspective you'd ever need for the subject of possible industrialization...

 

[Sirius]

^So, do we then butterfly the mongols?

Actually, while mathematics was a majorx3 point of the scientific revolution, the other major point, and the one being discussed here, is scientific method of some sort, be it Baconian as we have adopted or Descartesian, or something else entirely. Might it be said that it was this that properly enabled the industrial revolution?

I brought up Chinese mathematics to point out that China had an indigenous intellectual culture and does not need to rely on the transmission of Greek learning east. Given time, I believe they could develop a scientific method of their own.

Need to prevent a Song military decay during the 11th-12th Century or have a Ghenghis Khan figure arise in Mongolia and conquer the Jin and Liao only to die before invading the Song collapsing the tribes.

My preference to place a POD in the middle of the 11th century, as the population and economic changes were just beginning to take shape. A POD that makes Song China more secure in the long run while allowing continued innovation in science and technology. So yes, a change which butterflies away not just the Mongol success, but the Jurchen invasions. As I suggested in my last thread, a war with the Liao that doesn't embolden the Jurchens by inviting them in is one possibility.

 

[democracy101]

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.

 

[caliburdeath]

I've heard that a major reason for the revolution was a vast increase of demand for semi-luxury products by a far more wealthy middle class attempting to emulate the rich. The increased wealth bit was for reasons unknown.

 

[Sirius]

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.

I'm surprised no one brought this up earlier, as this is the classical argument cited for why Song China did not fully industrialize. I want to point out though, that the Theory of the High Level Equilibrium Trap compares China and England in the 17th century. Some of the things Elvin cites, such as the shift from Taoism to Confucianism as the predominant philosophy of the intelligentsia or the decline of the spinning wheel had not yet happened. For our purposes I don't think the theory is very relevant.


So I've been chewing on all the discussion in this thread and am wondering, if I wrote a timeline on this premise, would people read it?

 

[caliburdeath]

I'm surprised no one brought this up earlier, as this is the classical argument cited for why Song China did not fully industrialize. I want to point out though, that the Theory of the High Level Equilibrium Trap compares China and England in the 17th century. Some of the things Elvin cites, such as the shift from Taoism to Confucianism as the predominant philosophy of the intelligentsia or the decline of the spinning wheel had not yet happened. For our purposes I don't think the theory is very relevant.


So I've been chewing on all the discussion in this thread and am wondering, if I wrote a timeline on this premise, would people read it?

I think they would.

 

[democracy101]

I'm surprised no one brought this up earlier, as this is the classical argument cited for why Song China did not fully industrialize. I want to point out though, that the Theory of the High Level Equilibrium Trap compares China and England in the 17th century. Some of the things Elvin cites, such as the shift from Taoism to Confucianism as the predominant philosophy of the intelligentsia or the decline of the spinning wheel had not yet happened. For our purposes I don't think the theory is very relevant.

Same here, although I think that it's because other members approached it from a historical/social perspective rather than a economic/financial one.

The specific points mentioned in the high-level equilibrium trap might not necessarily correlate well with the developments during the Song, but many of the causes and effects during the Ming are still relatively relevant, especially regarding demographics. In addition, the other three points (division of labor, the Great Divergence, and Malthusianism) are still just as valid for the Song as they are for the Ming, so other various factors still need to be considered in order to analyze why it would be extremely difficult for the Song to pursue industrialization on a widespread level. As I stated earlier, Wealth of Nations does a relatively thorough job of explaining the background factors concerning the Industrial Revolution in the context of Capitalism, although there may be some drawbacks here and there, as the effects were not fully felt until the first half of the 19th century.

So I've been chewing on all the discussion in this thread and am wondering, if I wrote a timeline on this premise, would people read it?

Probably, but that can be said for almost every other thread, TL or not. The issue is whether other members will find the scenario to be plausible/reasonable, not to mention that in general, there is significantly less discussion about China concerning pre-Ming, due to the fact that this forum is generally Western-oriented, which isn't exactly a surprise.

 

[Elfwine]

Speaking for myself, I'd like to see it, but I don't know enough about the Song to say I'd be able to follow it very well.


But judging by the responses to this thread, quite a few people would at least take a look.

 

[DominusNovus]

Regarding the impetus to start adopting steam engines, its my understanding that the Chinese dynasties in general, and the Song in particular, were quite fond of paddle-ships. Steam engines do seem somewhat perfect for that application, once you know of them.

Regarding a hypothetical colonization of Europe, I find that incredibly unlikely, of course. I'm quite intrigued by the idea that Europe would be totally isolated from any of the developments going on in the East. What gave Europe an edge over everyone else was quite likely the legacy of the Mongols. If the Song are jumping ahead of everyone, then, presuming they can stillbirth the Mongols, wouldn't we be more likely to see greater powers in between, in India and the Middle East, forming something of a barrier?