AHC: Better 19th Century for Qing

[oca2073]

Of course it is, just like how Heliocentrism neatly explained why the sun rose from the east and set in the west every day

Geocentrism you mean? My theory of science is that it is true if it seems common sense until it is falsified like Popper. Anyways here's another anecodote to try to illustrate what I mean concentrating strictly on the military reforms.

An oft repeated story (may be legend) is that prior to the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, a Japanese military admiral was touring the Chinese navy and he observed how Chinese sailors were hanging their clothes on the cannon to dry. He went back home and observed to his superiors that they could win this war. Because while the Chinese had top-notch European hardware, they had not developed a military culture, a proper Navy with naval discipline and procedures, ect which were lessons they failed to absorb from Europe. The Chinese had ships but no Navy.

So sure, China tried to reform their military by giving them new weapons, but institutionally they failed.

 

[RousseauX]

Geocentrism you mean?

No Heliocentrism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

My theory of science is that it is true if it seems common sense until it is falsified like Popper

That's not how science works though, science works by developing a hypothesis and then proving it:

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

 

[oca2073]

No Heliocentrism:

Well it was originally geocentrism that neatly explained sunrise and sunset, while heliocentrism seemed to contradict it.

That's not how science works though, science works by developing a hypothesis and then proving it:

It depends on your view of the subject, but I note that if hypothesis is the central part of scientific inquiry, you could have non-falsifiable claims being made. Also proof is never ultimate of course and it would be foolish to take that view. But this is getting way off-track.

 

[RousseauX]

An oft repeated story (may be legend) is that prior to the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, a Japanese military admiral was touring the Chinese navy and he observed how Chinese sailors were hanging their clothes on the cannon to dry. He went back home and observed to his superiors that they could win this war. Because while the Chinese had top-notch European hardware, they had not developed a military culture, a proper Navy with naval discipline and procedures, ect which were lessons they failed to absorb from Europe. The Chinese had ships but no Navy.

The problem is that you are assuming a military "culture" with discipline and NCOs and a naval bureau are developed as soon as a country is -willing- to develop it. And a failure to develop is is due to the rejection of westernization. It's very telling that you think loose discipline board a ship is "lessons they failed to absorb from Europe".

There is nothing uniquely -western- about a well disciplined army or navy, some non-western militarizes has always had them. Do you really think that Chinese armies had always being undisciplined mobs until the 20th century? Do you really think "military culture" never existed outside of Europe before the 19th century?

You can even see western navies failing this standard: see the Russian Navy in 1905 for example.

Once you answer the question, then ask yourself, is the failure of the Chinese navy here circumstantial and political, or is it really a culture rejection of westernization which caused this.

 

[RousseauX]

Well it was originally geocentrism that neatly explained sunrise and sunset, while heliocentrism seemed to contradict it.

Yes you are right, I mean geocentrism

It depends on your view of the subject, but I note that if hypothesis is the central part of scientific inquiry, you could have non-falsifiable claims being made. Also proof is never ultimate of course and it would be foolish to take that view. But this is getting way off-track.

Then you have some fundamental problems with how evidence and science works

 

[oca2073]

The problem is that you are assuming a military "culture" with discipline and NCOs and a naval bureau are developed as soon as a country is -willing- to develop it. And a failure to develop is is due to the rejection of westernization. It's very telling that you think loose discipline board a ship is "lessons they failed to absorb from Europe".

No it obviously isn't but that doesn't contradict China's failure to do so and the implications it has on military modernization. In essence, if the Chinese authorities had looked beyond the mere weapons like the Japanese did, they would have done those other necessary things as well. The Chinese failed to see that Europe had a superior NAVY not just ships and guns. The Japanese absorbed it all apparently. It took them time to do it, but they made fast progress, the Chinese made much slower progress.

There is nothing uniquely -western- about a well disciplined army or navy, non-western militarizes has always had them. Do you really think that Chinese armies had always being undisciplined mobs until the 20th century? Do you really think "military culture" never existed outside of Europe before the 19th century?

Actually Western military professionalism, methods and discipline was taken to a higher level than it ever had before in history generally speaking (think of the Prussians). This is ESPECIALLY true for their navies, such as Britain's. But it's more than that, education is HUGELY important. Developing an educated, independent thinking officer corps is crucial. Literate soldiers are always better. Also educated soldiers and officers will be motivated to fight for a national ideology or purpose.

Once you answer the question, then ask yourself, is the failure of the Chinese navy here circumstantial and political, or is it really a rejection of westernization which led to this?

I'd say it's definitely not circumstantial in that they got unlucky in the thick of it and Japan just got lucky. As for the political, that comes with the package of a failure to accept reform in that area. (if you mean military command structures) As to whether they "rejected" westernization or simply their mindset could not square easily with it, I confess I don't see much of a distinction between the two.

As for Russia, the Japanese Navy had absorbed all the lessons of the west by 1905 and was arguably the second best in the world after the British. Russia has never been a top tier European naval power.

 

[Incanian]

Actually, you can't really get rid of the Taiping Rebellion. If you get rid of it, then the Qing have no desire to modernize at all. China shook off the first Opium war because they thought the barbarians got what they wanted and wouldn't need to come back, and due to the sheer geographical distance, China didn't understand European politics. But also, No Taiping Rebellion means no Self Strengthening Movement. You could make the fallout from the rebellion less effective by getting rid of the Dungan Revolts, removing the Second Opium War, treaty of Aigun, Nanking Convention, and Sino-French war would be the best really. The Taiping Rebellion pushed the Qing to modernize, but the problem with modernization was how the internal politics in the palace was more important than that of China.

 

[RousseauX]

No it obviously isn't but that doesn't contradict China's failure to do so and the implications it has on military modernization. In essence, if the Chinese authorities had looked beyond the mere weapons like the Japanese did, they would have done those other necessary things as well. The Chinese failed to see that Europe had a superior NAVY not just ships and guns. The Japanese absorbed it all apparently. It took them time to do it, but they made fast progress, the Chinese made much slower progress.

What do you think of the failure of the Egyptian army against the Israeli army in the 6 day war and the second half of Yom Kippur war?

Or the failure of the ARVN vs the NVA in Vietnam war?

 

[Tyler96]

Maybe you could have Yixin (OTL Prince Gong) becoming Emperor in 1851 instead of his feeble brother, and of course not dying suddenly like most of the late Qing emperors, a strong leadership could do wonder for the declining empire.

I think the argument has been made in the past that if Gong is cloistered in the palace as emperor (especially with him taking the throne as a teenager) then his personality will be altered and he might not pick up some of the more moderate/reformist traits he got IOTL.

Though even without those he could still be a more effective emperor than his brother.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Does anyone want to agree or disagree with the point raised by @Incanian on how averting the Taiping Rebellion would actually have curbed Qing efforts at modernization? For those who agree, how would the rest of 19th Century play out for China overall?

 

[Incanian]

Does anyone want to agree or disagree with the point raised by @Incanian on how averting the Taiping Rebellion would actually have curbed Qing efforts at modernization? For those who agree, how would the rest of 19th Century play out for China overall?

If the Qing want to reform, you need to put the Qing into a situation where the survival of the dynasty and the state is at peril. But getting rid of the Taiping fallout is a must to get the ability of reform easier. A harder suggestion would be to get China to lose to any Asian nation, most favorably, Japan at an earlier date. Post Sino-Japanese war, the Qing really stepped up modernization, because Sinocentrism was shattered forever. Losing against barbarians is one thing because you have a superior culture, but Japan was seen as a nation who took much influence from China, and that could never happen again.

Though there could be something inside the Taiping Rebellion which could be lessened, and that was the treaties with Russia, mainly being Aigun. The rest like the Dungan Revolt, Sino-French War, all those need to be gotten rid of so the main point can be the modernization. Because China can modernize. There is no doubt China can modernize. They have a lot of advantages for modernizing, but there are a lot of problems that need to be passed.

Festivals for things like Empress Dowager's birthdays, or the emperors with grand meals costed immense amounts of money. I read multiple articles on the Qianlong Emperor, and even when his meals on average were very modest, they still cost some of the best chefs in the empire, who were paid more than multiple soldiers in the army.

 

[Incanian]

And I forgot one crucial thing. You NEED to get the Opium trade to be cut down on by Britain. This is a MUST to get Qing reform. What is the point of reforming if millions of your people are drug addicts? I don't know how you do this without getting rid of the entire point of the Opium Wars, but getting rid of Opium will be a major help for Qing reform.