A Successful 100 days - Constitutional Monarchy in China in 1900

POD outline -

In 1898 Emperor Guangxu (IOTL the penultimate Chinese Emperor - Qing dynasty) met with a senior Chinese scholar, Kang Youwei, about the need for modernising and self strengthening reform (similar to the kinds seen in Japan in 1868). Together, they created a set of reforms including [taken from Wikipedia]

  • Modernizing the traditional exam system
  • Elimination of sinecures (positions that provide little or no work but give a salary)
  • Creation of a modern education system (studying math and science instead of focusing mainly on Confucian texts, etc.)
  • Change the government from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy with democracy.
  • Apply principles of capitalism to strengthen the economy.
  • Completely change the military buildup to strengthen the military.
  • Rapidly industrialize all of China through manufacturing, commerce, and capitalism.
This was known as the 100 days reform (although the planning to create it lasted 104 days) and it was all very popular among many sections of Chinese society, since they had been humiliated in the Opium Wars (resulting in lots of European spheres of influence), the Sino-French war, and the Sino Japanese war (which was particually humiliating as China had viewed Japan as being quite backwater, small and unimportant). But in OTL, the reforms were extinguished by a coup lead by Empress Dowager Cixi along with several conservative elites. They believed that the reforms were either part of some foreign plot, or that they were just too radical too soon for China. IOTL Emperor Guangxu was dethroned and sent to live out the remainder of his days under house arrest in the forbidden city.

BUT

POD : Certain pro-democracy Chinese revolutionaries (not sure who exactly, possibly people associated with Sun Yat Sen) break the Emperor out of his house arrest, there is an uprising to put him back on the throne (supported by the Army, because they wanted to modernise also), and China becomes a democratic constitutional monarchy.

So, where does it go from there?

Well first off, the Boxer rebellion would probably still happen, but it would be quickly quelled by an army loyal to the newly enthroned Guangxu. China would attempt, and be in some measure successful, in reasserting itself over those aforementioned European intrusions into its borders.

China would then begin to industrialise and develop, and as a constitutional monarchy with the unifying power of the emperor still very much intact, it would be able to avoid large amounts of the chaos and warring that accompanied the 1910s-1940s IOTL. Consequently, they would be much better prepared to resist the Japanese when it comes to WW2, and would most definitely be a significant and effective part of the Allied efforts to resist Japanese expansion in South East Asia.

Politically, I imagine this China would move in similar directions to Britain in many ways. After all, like Britain it would be a constitutional monarchy. It would have a long history of Monarchic tradition to draw on, so it would not have the same kind of aggressive liberal dynamism that characterises liberal politics.

The Cold War would possibly end sooner. With Capitalism having such a large and developed ally (not to mention one that suffered comparatively far less than almost any other in WW2 - save the US) the Russians may be more isolated and Communism would become harder to sustain in the long term. There's no question the Chinese would want to develop their own nuclear program, what with sharing a large border with Russia. There are lots of tensions, and the Russians may well sponser proxy uprisings in places like Xianjing and Manchuria, but the government would probably manage to put a lot of these down.

Chinese would become a far more widely spoken language, China would become a major competitor for the US economically (much more so than it is now, as right now very few of its own home grown companies are making their own original products, just products designed elsewhere).

Is this believable? What do people think? Any experts on Chinese history, I would be very interested in hearing from you.
 
POD : Certain pro-democracy Chinese revolutionaries (not sure who exactly, possibly people associated with Sun Yat Sen) break the Emperor out of his house arrest, there is an uprising to put him back on the throne (supported by the Army, because they wanted to modernise also), and China becomes a democratic constitutional monarchy.

So, where does it go from there?

Here's a good read:
http://books.google.fi/books/about/Manchus_and_Han.html?id=QiM2pF5PDR8C&redir_esc=y

Creating a situation where the conservative Chi'ing dynasty manages to push through reforms is challenging and all but impossible due the ethnic nature of the Manchu state. A neglibly small, ultra-conservative warrior caste holding down the Han majority is riding a tiger they cannot no longer steer. Reform is necessary, but to reform would unavoidably mean giving more power to Han Chinese at the expense of Manchus. And even if the Emperor himself is reform-minded, his clan and rest of the Manchu nobility are not.

 

Thank you. I shall investigate that further.

Creating a situation where the conservative Chi'ing dynasty manages to push through reforms is challenging and all but impossible due the ethnic nature of the Manchu state. A neglibly small, ultra-conservative warrior caste holding down the Han majority is riding a tiger they cannot no longer steer. Reform is necessary, but to reform would unavoidably mean giving more power to Han Chinese at the expense of Manchus. And even if the Emperor himself is reform-minded, his clan and rest of the Manchu nobility are not.

What if the army supported uprising had the Empress Dowager, and several of the senior figures killed? Would it not serve as demonstration that their time was essentially up? Or is the entrenchment of the Manchu so serious that it would need to result in seriously aggressive military reprisals (quasi ethnic cleansing).
 
Last edited:
This is essentially what happened.

Would you say it's believable that it could have happened earlier?

I mean, the army was no friend of the established Manchu. If someone had gotten hold of Emperor Guangxu and returned him to a position out of reach of the Manchu elite, the army would most likely have supported him, yes?
 
If a constitutional monarchy with a strong industrial base and military were to be established, I don't think the Japanese would try any of their shit in the 1900s-1940s. Even getting Korea might be significantly more difficult with a strong and confident China to face. Then, if they can't go into China, the resources and manpower of which was supposed to support their war effort, I very much doubt they'd attack the Europeans.

To YLi:

So you don't really believe in the idea of a harmonious Chinese society based more on general 'Chinese' values, foremost Confucianism, over just another nation imposing their will on ethnic minorities, i.e. a nation-state (or empire) as opposed to a 'civilisation state'?
 
If a constitutional monarchy with a strong industrial base and military were to be established, I don't think the Japanese would try any of their shit in the 1900s-1940s. Even getting Korea might be significantly more difficult with a strong and confident China to face. Then, if they can't go into China, the resources and manpower of which was supposed to support their war effort, I very much doubt they'd attack the Europeans.

Do you not mean the Americans? I don't remember the Japanese attacking any European countries (other than Russia sort of).

So if I understand your suggestion correctly, would the Japanese basically be squeezed between a powerful America on one side and a powerful China on the other?
 
a chinese Pahlavi?

Cixi pretty much picked up Kang Youwei's reforms and carried them out after the Boxer Wars, and these reforms lead to the 1911 Revolution.

A one Qing-loyalist said after the Revolution, three things destroyed the Empire: New Army, Consultative Council, and oversea students.

Had the reform taken place three years earlier, and without the humiliations brought by the Eight-Nation Alliance, the Dynasty could probably survive a few decades more.

(Sun Yat-sen himself said that supports for his revolution was minimal before the Boxer War.)

The thing is, If Yuan Shikai's New Army supported the reforms, they may well end up being the ones who lead it.

After a couple of years, the Military - Beiyang faction may be the one dominating almost every aspect of "Modern" China.

The Manchus would have been removed eventually, not in the bloody way they were during the 1911 Revolution, but like how Shah Reza removed the Qajars.

But I'm not sure there would still be a Warlord Era. IOTL not only the rebellious south descended into warlordism, but also the Beiyangs after Yuan Shikai's death.
 
Cixi pretty much picked up Kang Youwei's reforms and carried them out after the Boxer Wars, and these reforms lead to the 1911 Revolution.

How did the reforms lead to the revolution? I was given to understand that the revolution was in large part about a lack of modernisation from the Qing? I regret I'm not an expert on this period so any perspective you could give me would be good.

A one Qing-loyalist said after the Revolution, three things destroyed the Empire: New Army, Consultative Council, and oversea students.

By overseas students, you mean the Chinese people who studied abroad I presume? Or do you mean foreigners studying in China?

Had the reform taken place three years earlier, and without the humiliations brought by the Eight-Nation Alliance, the Dynasty could probably survive a few decades more.

Just so I can clarify your meaning here, three years before what, exactly?

The thing is, If Yuan Shikai's New Army supported the reforms, they may well end up being the ones who lead it.

Lead what? The army? The revolt? I'm sorry, your phrasing is throwing me off here.

After a couple of years, the Military - Beiyang faction may be the one dominating almost every aspect of "Modern" China.

Again, a couple of years after what exactly?

The Manchus would have been removed eventually, not in the bloody way they were during the 1911 Revolution, but like how Shah Reza removed the Qajars.

An interesting example. I shall look into it further.

But I'm not sure there would still be a Warlord Era. IOTL not only the rebellious south descended into warlordism, but also the Beiyangs after Yuan Shikai's death.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand you here. Are you saying that in this time line, even if there was a Constitutional Monarchy there still would have been a warlord era in the 1910-1920s?
 
To YLi:

So you don't really believe in the idea of a harmonious Chinese society based more on general 'Chinese' values, foremost Confucianism, over just another nation imposing their will on ethnic minorities, i.e. a nation-state (or empire) as opposed to a 'civilisation state'?

The concept of the "Civilization State" and "华人“ is sort of weird. China is much more divided internally in terms of culture and ethnicity than what is commonly believed. At the same time, there are many cultural similarities. It's sort of hard to determine how deep things run since most Chinese dynasties were indeed held together with force and parts of China tended to break off and re-integrate depending on how much force was applied.

As for the Manchus, I believe their reign in China was highly detrimental to "Chinese values". Manchu rule was akin to a Neo-Nazi biker gang seizing control of the United States and then proceeding to use force to rule it for the next 300 years (annexing Mexico during that time period as well). Minority doesn't work regardless of where it happens.

In the end though, "Chinese values" have proven to be a strong force for cultural unity and assimilation. People like the Baiyue, Hoklos, Shanyue, Shatuo Turks, Xianbei, Tujue, Khitans, Tanguts etc. used to be considered foreign barbarians but their descendants are hardly considered as such today (all of them would fall under the classification of "Han"). Assimilation however, has not meant political unity, which has proven to be elusive. Look at the Warlord Era. Most of the belligerents were basically culturally identical but it didn't stop them from hating one another.
 
Last edited:
Would you say it's believable that it could have happened earlier?

I mean, the army was no friend of the established Manchu. If someone had gotten hold of Emperor Guangxu and returned him to a position out of reach of the Manchu elite, the army would most likely have supported him, yes?

No, anti-Manchu sentiment was pretty fucking high back in those days, especially down south.
 
Essentially. Self-determination and Nationalism and all that jazz.

So even if the Emperor was nothing but a figurehead any more and the Han would be calling the real shots under a new constitutional monarchy, the Army still would not have gotten behind the idea of supporting him? Is that what you're saying?
 
So even if the Emperor was nothing but a figurehead any more and the Han would be calling the real shots under a new constitutional monarchy, the Army still would not have gotten behind the idea of supporting him? Is that what you're saying?

That's what I'm saying.
 
That's what I'm saying.

Cool, thank you for clarifying.

So, question then - would there have been any way for the Emperor to pass the throne onto someone non-Manchu? IE, lets say some people did get Guangxu out of house arrest and tried to start a movement for a constitutional monarchy. Given that army support clearly seems conditional on non-Manchu rule (even if it is in figurehead capacity) and given that you need army support if you're going to get a Constitutional Monarchy, is there any way that the Emperor could have said something to the effect of "I give you all these reforms, and then I abdicate in favour of [insert Han person of significance here]" or something to that effect?
 
Cool, thank you for clarifying.

So, question then - would there have been any way for the Emperor to pass the throne onto someone non-Manchu? IE, lets say some people did get Guangxu out of house arrest and tried to start a movement for a constitutional monarchy. Given that army support clearly seems conditional on non-Manchu rule (even if it is in figurehead capacity) and given that you need army support if you're going to get a Constitutional Monarchy, is there any way that the Emperor could have said something to the effect of "I give you all these reforms, and then I abdicate in favour of [insert Han person of significance here]" or something to that effect?

At that point, the Chinese were done with monarchy, so not a chance.
 
At that point, the Chinese were done with monarchy, so not a chance.

Okay, so how about this as a plan

Emperor Guangxu, fustrated with his aunt constantly pulling the strings, has her killed. He then goes ahead with the 100 days reform program, divorces Longyu and instead marries someone of significance among the Han. He then puts through his reform program and abdicates, putting the Empress Dowager in charge, making it clear that he will not be remembered as the man who ended the monarchy system in China, just that he will only end its absolute rule.
 
How did the reforms lead to the revolution? I was given to understand that the revolution was in large part about a lack of modernisation from the Qing? I regret I'm not an expert on this period so any perspective you could give me would be good.
After so many humiliations, mood of the days, of both the court and the nation, was for reform. But the court carried out the reforms in such a way that angers different factions of the society.
The Gentry
The abolition of the Civil Examination system angered the gentry; it cut their way of personal progress over millennia.
On the other hands, the gentry were given a Consultative Council where they campaigned enthusiastically for Constitutionalism. These constitutionalists were greatly disappointed when the Qing finally set up a Responsible Cabinet – comprised largely of ethnic Manchu royal family members.
As a result, the gentry did not object the Revolution.
The Merchants
Funding of the reforms translated into taxes, which fell upon the merchants. And the railway they invested in was sold to foreigners to cover military expenses, which led to a general movement to protect the railways – the last straw on the Qing’s back.
The Army
The army was the focal point of Qing’s New Policies. But as troops in the south were radicalised, troops in the north remained loyal to one man: Yuan Shikai. But as Yuan also betrayed Qing, the dynasty found itself completely helpless.
The Han Chinese
The Manchus were panicking when they found out that the Han were angry. They responded by appointing Manchus and Mongols as army supervisors, provincial Governors and ministers, which backfired severely.


By overseas students, you mean the Chinese people who studied abroad I presume? Or do you mean foreigners studying in China?
The Students
By overseas students, I mean the Chinese youngsters sent to study in Japan after the 1895 Sino-Japanese War. In the years 1905-1906 alone, as a part of the New Policies, more than 8000 students went to study in Japan and were radicalized. Many of them returned as junior officers in the empire’s new army, giving the revolutionaries a way to influence over the military.


Just so I can clarify your meaning here, three years before what, exactly?
Three years before the Qing's New Policy reforms(1901-).


Lead what? The army? The revolt? I'm sorry, your phrasing is throwing me off here.
If Yuan Shikai's New Army supported Kang’s reforms in 1898, the New Army may well end up being the ones who lead the TTL reforms. Because Kang was not welcomed in Beijing and the provinces.

Again, a couple of years after what exactly?
A couple of years after TTL Yuan Shikai decided to back the reformers and lead a coup against Cixi.


I'm sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand you here. Are you saying that in this time line, even if there was a Constitutional Monarchy there still would have been a warlord era in the 1910-1920s?
Yes. The population may be more supportive of the reforms, the revolutionaries less active, but the social background for warlord-ism was still there ( landless peasants, powerful provincial governors, etc)
 
Thank you muchly for the clarification!

So here's a question then, how possible is it for Yuan Shikai to be supportive of a new constitutional monarchy and the reforms. And if he's not likely to support it, what would make him more likely to do so?

Basically, I'm just looking to see if there is a way for there to be formed a constitutional monarchy in China in the very early 20th/late 19th century.

I have discovered there was a plan to do this very thing in 1901. The following is from Wikipedia


In 1901, after the Boxer Rebellion started, Tang Caichang (唐才常) and Tan Sitong of the previous Foot Emancipation Society organised the Independence Army. The Independence Army Uprising (自立軍起義) was planned to occur on August 23, 1900.[41] Their goal was to overthrow Empress Dowager Cixi to establish a constitutional monarchy under Emperor Guangxu. Their plot was discovered by the governor general of Hunan and Hubei. About twenty conspirators were arrested and executed.[41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhai_Revolution#cite_note-Wang424-41
So could this have worked?
 
Top