AH Challange: Get China to Industrialize before Europe

Eh... this view is strongly simplistic, but it is pushing me to write my "The Romans weren't idiots" Post.

They weren't idiots, not by a long shot. But I think some people get upset because of a misunderstanding: there is a fine difference between genius and competence. While the Greeks literally exploded with genius, their states and political regimes were frankly idiotic: the Romans, on the other hand, had the raw intelligence of peasants but could manage boring, bureaucratic affairs with a better understanding of people and the real world.

Romans are... frankly boring.
 
Please use logic: it's a Greek invention, btw.
Perhaps we need to go a long way back both in time and to return to China. The nearest that China came to Greek logic may have been within Mohism (naturally using Wikipedia:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hui_Shi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gongsun_Longzi). Mohism was unpopular from the end of the Warring States period, so the simplest POD is to prevent the unification by Qin. My suggestion would have Ba and Shu combine by about 350 BCE to form a strong enough state to resist Qin.
 
Perhaps we need to go a long way back both in time and to return to China. The nearest that China came to Greek logic may have been within Mohism (naturally using Wikipedia:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hui_Shi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gongsun_Longzi). Mohism was unpopular from the end of the Warring States period, so the simplest POD is to prevent the unification by Qin. My suggestion would have Ba and Shu combine by about 350 BCE to form a strong enough state to resist Qin.

That has, for the longest time, been the most favourite of all PODs I'd like to see explored, but I don't know enough myself to attempt it.
 
China would have NEVER achieved industrialization by itself. As Faelin, I think, already explained, China simply was more prosperous than Europe until the 1830s. They needed no foreign products, they had a large population base which had to work (just imagine Chinese Luddites, millions of them), their manufacturing products sold like cupcakes in the West.

The only sensible way for industrialization to happen was if China would be divided between smaller powers. Railroads and a better industry output could mean a decisive advantage in warfare, so smaller powers would employ it. But Qing China... neah...
China didn't need railroads so much as steam powered barges. You'll notice the Chinese never bothered with roads like the Romans. The country has abundant rivers and canals such that all most cities were reachable by boat, and it was by boat that the country was tied together. Northern China was dependent on the south for grain shipment through the Grand Canal. Keeping the canal in good order was among the top concerns of the empire. Powered barges would therefore mean much more to China than to Europe. Should steam engine be invented there, it would certainly not be ignored IMO.
 
By the 2nd century AD, it is inaccurate to speak of a genuine, singularly “Roman” culture. Since the 2nd century BC, Rome had been gradually absorbing Hellenic culture (The Romans themselves acknowledged this: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit...) while the Greeks and other nations were gradually incorporated into the Roman imperial structure, transforming it into a genuinely Graeco-Roman empire, a synthesis of Roman administrative and military prowess with Hellenic cultural genius.

The Romans conceded the supremacy of the Greeks in art and culture, (Virgil, the Augustan empire’s finest poet and propagandist admits this). However it can be safely said that the Greeks are superior only in the arts and sciences. Politically, they never managed to sustain a large, stable empire and had the regrettable to destroy themselves through war. Indeed, one of the reasons that Hellenic culture survived the for so long in the eastern Mediterranean was due to the Roman imperial structure.


They most certainly wouldn't have kept the outdated roman military practices for hundreds of years. Btw, the Greeks experimented in the Hellenistic age with horse-archers (you should really try to catch up with that period, it's simply astonishing)

The fact is the Romans also made use of horse archers (i.e. the Sarmatian, Mauretanian and Oshroeni numeri and auxiliary cavalry), while the Hellenistic experiments with horse archers (I presume you’re speaking of the Graeco-Bactrian, and to a lesser extend Seleucid cavalry) did not prevent them from being crushed by the Romans. The notion of the Roman army as a solely heavy infantry force is a misconception that applies mostly to the late Republic. The Imperial army was a far more diverse body.

On topic more relevant to this thread: China did not industrialize before Europe because it did not need to. Until the early 19th century it was probably the largest and most advanced civilization on the globe. This, coupled with an already perfectly functioning system of canals, foundries, etc. and the ingrained Confucian conservative tendencies and hostility to merchants meant that there was no need and no desire to industrialize, and by the time the “western barbarians” had begun to knock at the gates, it was too late.
 

Valdemar II

Banned

On topic more relevant to this thread: China did not industrialize before Europe because it did not need to. Until the early 19th century it was probably the largest and most advanced civilization on the globe. This, coupled with an already perfectly functioning system of canals, foundries, etc. and the ingrained Confucian conservative tendencies and hostility to merchants meant that there was no need and no desire to industrialize, and by the time the “western barbarians” had begun to knock at the gates, it was too late.


I know that's a popular idea, but in reality the Chinese already began to show technological backwardness compared Europe in the 17th Century and by the early 19th Century Europe was ahead of China in most if not all fields. Much of the backwardness was hidden by Chinas isolation from the West, their sheer size and their organisatorial genius, but it still were there.
 
I know that's a popular idea, but in reality the Chinese already began to show technological backwardness compared Europe in the 17th Century and by the early 19th Century Europe was ahead of China in most if not all fields. Much of the backwardness was hidden by Chinas isolation from the West, their sheer size and their organisatorial genius, but it still were there.

Eh. I am very, very dubious here. First, what is Europe? Behind the Netherlands and England? Sure. Behind Russia and Poland?
Second, I agree they were behind in, oh, steam engines, cannons, and the early "pure" sciences. But what else?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Eh. I am very, very dubious here. First, what is Europe? Behind the Netherlands and England? Sure. Behind Russia and Poland?
Second, I agree they were behind in, oh, steam engines, cannons, and the early "pure" sciences. But what else?

Both Europe and China had a population boom after the discovery of the3 Americas, in Europe it also resulted in a increase in the capital per capita, while it stood still, resulting in that the Chinese average by the 19th century had much lower standard of life than the average European. While some European states was quite backward, the average inhabitant of those states didn't have a worse lifestyle than the average Chinese, while the French, Danes, Swedes, British, Dutch and most of the Germans was much more well of.

To the more soft science, architure, shipbuilding, general agricultural advancements (the sugar beets is a good example, the creation of those was quite impressive example of government planning, scientific method and long term planning). Of course this doesn't mean that I see the Chinese as bunch of backward barbarians, they had their own quite impressive feats in that periode, but they sadly shown a lack of ability to use their natural advantages (size, resources, organisatorial genius and climate), to increase the living standard of the common man.
 
If we use our current standards, the ones we take now for granted, pre-19th century China beats everything. From the existence of a centralized, modern state, with bureaucrats, official examinations to the extraordinary advancement of agriculture, manufacturing, trade, transport or cultural life, China was eons before Europe.
 
Both Europe and China had a population boom after the discovery of the3 Americas, in Europe it also resulted in a increase in the capital per capita, while it stood still, resulting in that the Chinese average by the 19th century had much lower standard of life than the average European. While some European states was quite backward, the average inhabitant of those states didn't have a worse lifestyle than the average Chinese, while the French, Danes, Swedes, British, Dutch and most of the Germans was much more well of.

Eh... where are you getting this? Pomeranz was the most recent person to look at this, and he concluded that up until the early 19th, standard of living at the "Core" regions (Northern France, Low Countries, England v. the Kanto Plain and Yangzi Delta) were roughly equivalent, with the East Asians having some advantages.

I disagree with a lot of what he says, but I do think he's on fairly solid ground here.
 
Eh... where are you getting this? Pomeranz was the most recent person to look at this, and he concluded that up until the early 19th, standard of living at the "Core" regions (Northern France, Low Countries, England v. the Kanto Plain and Yangzi Delta) were roughly equivalent, with the East Asians having some advantages.

I disagree with a lot of what he says, but I do think he's on fairly solid ground here.

Not to mention the low taxes, the relative possibilities of a Chinese peasant to rise through the imperial examinations to a position of power and the agricultural explosion that enabled the Chinese random peasant to have a more diverse diet.
 
Not to mention the low taxes, the relative possibilities of a Chinese peasant to rise through the imperial examinations to a position of power and the agricultural explosion that enabled the Chinese random peasant to have a more diverse diet.

Well, Europe had the population explosion as well. If somewhat less dramatic.

What is interesting is that China was in some ways more economically predisposed towards commercial takeoff; a united market encompassing hundreds of millions of people, vis a vis Europe's division. This suggests that if China had begun proto-industrialization, and assuming that equates with economic growth, it'd boom.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Eh... where are you getting this? Pomeranz was the most recent person to look at this, and he concluded that up until the early 19th, standard of living at the "Core" regions (Northern France, Low Countries, England v. the Kanto Plain and Yangzi Delta) were roughly equivalent, with the East Asians having some advantages.

I disagree with a lot of what he says, but I do think he's on fairly solid ground here.

I need to look at this Pomeranz fellow. Before I continue digging me into a hole.
 
I need to look at this Pomeranz fellow. Before I continue digging me into a hole.

It's not a criticism; but he does a much better job than... who is it that always gets quoted for Chinese GDP? The guy who wrote that 1,000 years of economic statistics books. Pomeranz digged through a ton of sources on East Asia to calculate things like what people were eating, how often they bought new clothes, etc.

It's interesting. China wasn't more advanced in a lot of ways, but it was still keeping parity because its agricultural package was more efficient.
 
It's not a criticism; but he does a much better job than... who is it that always gets quoted for Chinese GDP? The guy who wrote that 1,000 years of economic statistics books. Pomeranz digged through a ton of sources on East Asia to calculate things like what people were eating, how often they bought new clothes, etc.

It's interesting. China wasn't more advanced in a lot of ways, but it was still keeping parity because its agricultural package was more efficient.

19th Century still seems a bit late, at least when comparing to "the core" of Britain and some of northwest Europe. That was several decades after the Industrial Revolution, when the effects were starting to really get felt. 1780, 1790, sure, I assume rough parity. But the idea that pre-Industrial China was "the most advanced civilization" compared to early 19th century, Industrial-era Britain seems a bit sketchy.

Do you still have access to his figures? I'd be interested in looking at them.
 
The Chinese value efficiency and have invented many tools to improve the efficiency of its people. But, with such a huge labor pool, would they good for full-scale industrialization. Even today they still have workers with picks and shovels. And why not? The People's Dynasty has to keep hundreds of millions of Han employed, because if their economy turned downwards, the peace-loving peasants and workers might think about replacing the ruling dynasty-- yet again.
 
he People's Dynasty has to keep hundreds of millions of Han employed, because if their economy turned downwards, the peace-loving peasants and workers might think about replacing the ruling dynasty-- yet again.

Interesting thought... An Industrial Revolution might actually be harmful to China by increasing efficiency too much. You'd have a problem like the English Luddites, but orders of magnitude worse.
 
Top