What's the best POD for a reform and modernization of imperial China?
Bonus: Earlier than the Meiji restoration.
Bonus: Earlier than the Meiji restoration.
Best POD for Chinese reform
- Thread starter Alcsentre Calanice
- Start date
Emperor RyRy
Banned
Don't stop the treasure fleets, stay ahead of the world for centuries, Easternize the world.
A good POD is the Macartney Embassy of 1793. Emperor Qianlong was not sufficiently impressed with Britain to allow the establishment of a permanent embassy in Beijing and send his own envoy to London. This may be different had there been Chinese who lived in Europe and would serve as interlopers for Macartney.
There had been a few Chinese Christians who had done this, though probably none in Britian at the time. Before arrival in Macau Macartney stopped in Batavia where a Chinese merchant community had thrived for a century. The elites were said to be more Dutch than the Dutch. Maybe what's needed was have some Chinese merchants spend time in the Neatherlands.
There had been a few Chinese Christians who had done this, though probably none in Britian at the time. Before arrival in Macau Macartney stopped in Batavia where a Chinese merchant community had thrived for a century. The elites were said to be more Dutch than the Dutch. Maybe what's needed was have some Chinese merchants spend time in the Neatherlands.
Treasure fleet or not, the Ming is one of the worst times for China to modernize and be a power in the face of the inevitable rise of the Western European countries as a result of their political diversity and maritime cultures. I would say the Ming was even less plausible (despite popular belief) than a Qing modernization.
I feel like the best possible way to do this is to have a surviving Song Dynasty that is able to either cripple or conquer the Northern Jin. Then remove the Mongol invasion by keeping the Mongol hordes against each other. Thus we keep the most maritime and reformist dynasty in pre-modern Chinese history. However the Song at their time were constantly being threatened by the Jin and the Mongols can't stay down forever, I'm afraid that the magnetism of the old dynasties will call to the Song tuning them into the Ming (essentially) or they are conquered by the Mongols or Jin or fall prey to a rebellion that wishes to rebuild the nostalgic past of the Tang and Han.
We also could go with a Qing modernization, whI have would not be too terribly hard, if we can tweak some of the late Qing difficulties, lack of heirs, Taiping and opium wars. Perhaps if these events can be averted, then the 100 days reform could go on schedule earlier say in the 1850s slightly before the Meiji restoration. If we can cheat then we could have the Tokugawa win the Boshin war removing the possibility of a Meiji restoration in favor of a more decentralized and traditional Japan.
Last edited:
There are basically two ways China in all its forms would modernise, or "reform":
1. During its height structures and institutions are made to continue such a trend, allowing Europe to be left in the dust;
2. During its (earlier than OTL) nadir China sees its wrongs in structure and enforces a whole set of reforms.
1. During its height structures and institutions are made to continue such a trend, allowing Europe to be left in the dust;
2. During its (earlier than OTL) nadir China sees its wrongs in structure and enforces a whole set of reforms.
That's how it started with Japan. Several private citizens left for Europe after Perry. Their accounts of what they saw inspired the Japanese to send out official delegations who came back strongly in favor of reforms. They even sent students to attend schools abroad, a model the Chinese copied in the late 19th century. Even in the modern era PRC send out officials on sight-seeing tours when Deng opened up China in the 1970's.
In 1793 China simply could not believe an island nation with a few million people would be worthy of equal diplomatic status. Note this was a non-issue with the Russian Empire which Qing China signed treaties and sent their own Embassy To Moscow.
RousseauX
Donor
China did this exact same thing in the late 1800s, sending students abroad to study and importing foreign expertise/capital/machinery, and the result was the fall of the Qing dynasty.
At the same time, you had the distinct examples of Spain (part of the west), failed to industrialize, Ottoman Empire (fail to build a modern state despite much greater contact/learning form the west), and several other examples I can bring up all of which fail to modernize despite having much better access to western european expertise. Against this, you have Japan, the sole example of successful modernization/industrialization outside of Europe pre-20th century and also one of the most isolationist one.
As far as I can tell, importing technical expertise from the west has very little to do with how well a country modernizes. As in, it's probably a requirement to do so, but it was never a determining factor in anything.
This is basically irrelevant.
Last edited:
RousseauX
Donor
If the Song ever reconquers the north, it lacks the motivation to industrialize/modernize. The reason why the southern song was seen as pro-industrial was because it was so commercial. It was commercial because the government needed revenue from non-agricultural sources since it lost so much agricultural land in the north. Retaking that land means the Chinese government lacks the motivation to encourage commercial activities.
The Japanese are a bad example. They were already more or less fully equipped when they met the American ships at Tokyo harbour.
LordKalvert
Banned
Given the Imperial system, if the TungZhi Emperor lives or the GuangXu emperor isn't a hopeless physical wreck with no political skills to speak of, would be the first place to start. Any change of reign would actually do.
They might also take some lessons from the French War over Vietnam. They don't do all that badly there, so they are making some progress.
Its only after the Japanese War that their position becomes basically hopeless. Up until then it would take surprisingly little to make them a respectable power
They might also take some lessons from the French War over Vietnam. They don't do all that badly there, so they are making some progress.
Its only after the Japanese War that their position becomes basically hopeless. Up until then it would take surprisingly little to make them a respectable power
So what? The survival of the Qing is not a requirement for modernization. Quite the opposite they were an obstacle because they couldn't tolerate the threat to their rule deep reforms would bring. The problem was by the time they fell China had been carved up and surrounded by powerful neighbors. Had the Qing collapsed by 1850 with five decades of exchanging ideas with Europe things would be very different. There was a similar problem with the Ottomans. Spain may not be an industrial power by Western standards, but had the Chinese achieved similar levels of per capita industrial output it would've remained the preeminent power in East Asia.
I disagree. Qing's failure to recognize how far behind they became was fundamental to their poor strategic choices. They couldn't modernize without first coming to terms with a changed world order.
RousseauX
Donor
Yes, but modernization is required for the success of modernization and the Qing more or less implemented the policies you were recommending without achieving it. More to the point, the existence of a central Chinese government capable of making deals with western powers is crucial to the preservation of Chinese territorial integrity.
What kind of restrictions did the Qing place on the exchange of ideas with Europeans post-1850? Which particular ideas do you feel need to be imported?
How do you explain the existence of western built railroads, or state owned armories, shipyards, and steel mills built with western expertise during the late Qing dynasty (some of those pre-1890 btw) that were very much similar to Meiji industrialization? Why did they fail to achieve the goal of industrialization?
If the Qing were to collapse in 1850, why would this not result in the political division of China like in the 1920s?
In what way could the Qing have implemented policies that both ensured the political existence of a central Chinese government and modernization, given the weakness of Chinese administration in the 19th century, better than OTL?
How different were the per capita level of industrial output between Spain and China around 1850?
Why did the following places fail to modernize to the same degree of success as Japan:
India
Egypt
Persia
Morocco
despite having far greater access and exchange with "western ideas" pre-1914? The real question you should be asking is why is that most of the world had far greater access to western ideas than Japan and yet it was Japan which singularly successfully modernized before the second half of the 20th century. You should probably also be asking why is there such a poor correlation between the extent of contact between a state with the west and the extent of the success of that state's modernization.
Same deal, what makes you think that the Qing failed to recognize how far behind they were?
What is the evidence behind the idea that the Qing couldn't deal with a Westphalia international order post 1860 or so?
Come to think of it, which "strategic decision" do you think the Qing made was particularly unreasonable post-second opium war?
When people talk about China and modernization a whole bunch of assumptions get thrown out with very little justifications which, when you examine them, turned out to be fairly baseless.
"OH we just need to borrow ideas from the west to modernize" is actually one of the more reasonable ones and the exact idea the Qing dynasty had historically, it's failure should demonstrate that it's false.
This is also blatantly wrong, legation cities and Shandong/Port Arthur isn't a carve up, China wasn't carved up at any point during the Qing dynasty. China was carved up in the 1920s due to the failure of the Republican government and the Beiyang army. You can tell by what % of Chinese territory was controlled by an entity other than the central government.
Last edited:
I mentioned this in my second paragraph, but Jin must be crippled to allow a surviving Song. Other than that I definitely agree with you, that it takes a decentralized China or the Qing to modernize effectively.
I know the Ottomans are a sick and decadent power who were incapable of ever modernizing, but I'll note that modern Turkey seems to be doing okay, and it had no problem holding its own against the Brits during the Great War up until the end.
I think this is pretty weak tea. You're assuming that a successful Song will rescind the policies that made them successful because... they don't need them anymore?
I agree with you that the Japanese were definitely a very advanced society by the 18th century, but I haven't really seen a good comparison of the Yangzi Delta, say, to the Kanto Plain.
Well, in the case of India, Britain's decision to strangle Indian economic development certainly didn't help. Morocco, Egypt, and Persia were much less literature societies, and Egypt and Morocco had smaller populations and less in the ways of resources.
What's bothering me about this thread is that we're assuming there's a switch somewhere that you flick and then you're westernized, like this is Victoria 2 or something. But technology and ideas aren't so easily segmented. What about Russia? Was it a western state? Is it is less Western than Japan, because it lost the Russo-Japanese War?
It's clearly necessary, but not sufficient. Having a military that's not a running joke would help. Hrm.
Hmm. I am going to disagree with you on this. The spheres of influence that existed by 1910 are not a carve up, but they are a clear loss of territory and sovereign rights.
After the fall of the Tang dynasty, China went into a period of decentralization and disunity (five dynasties and ten kingdoms period). During this period the Khitan Liao dynasty invaded the north causing China to be further decentralized. In response the China was somewhat brought together under the Song. As well a more deadly for invaded from the north the Wunyan Jin, who defeated the Liao and set up their own kingdom in the north. The Song, who were not willing to fight with the Jin for multiple wars signed the alliance on the sea. This compromised the idea of the constantly reuniting and disuniting China as displayed since the Qin dynasty, "The empire, long divided, must unite; long United, must divide. Thus it has ever been"-Luo Guanzhong,Romance of the three kingdoms.
Then this decentralization and commercialism which made the Song unique came to haunt them, as the Mongol hordes swept across China. Thus the Mongols claimed the Mandate of Heaven and ruled as the Yuan. This enraged the Chinese who were completely disenfranchised by a people who refused to confirm to their ways (unlike the Qing).
Thus out of discontent and frustration, the Yuan metaphorically lost the Mandate of Heaven, it would prove to be their end as with urgings from radical Maitreya Buddhist sects (white lotus society) the people rebelled with the intent of "recovering China" the China of old and legend that would have laughed at the Mongol horde (or so they imagined). This dynasty became known as the Ming.
The Ming unlike any dynasty before them had a nostalgic attitude and one of inward perfection. This is because to them the best times were that of long ago a time far removed, the times of the Tang and Han whenever China was not subject to hordes from the north. Thus the Ming emulated these dynasties and deified them to the point of belief that nothing from the Middle Kingdom is without use and that all outside of it is useless. This ideal was reinforced by the old Confucian scholars who said that it was through the emulation of the sages of old and that only their ideas were worthwhile, definitely not some barbarian from the west. Thus the Ming, despite incredible reforms in currency, land reform, the Great Wall defenses and population growth, the Ming stagnated as it saw little to no reason to improve itself, beyond what had beat the Mongols and beyond that of their forefathers. This can be shown by the Mings poor performance against the Oirat, Japan and Manchuria.
The Qing, after its conquest inherited the Ming's difficulties and since they were Manchu and immediately distrusted, had to adopt these ideas of inward perfection and the glorious middle kingdom to keep their regime afloat. The Qing then introduced further conquests than the Ming due to military reforms and a better military understanding than the Ming, and thus ended the steppe threat to the Middle Kingdom, really creating China's modern borders. The Qing had a better chance because they had a better system for dealing with the hordes around it (utter domination) and had access to western technology. It is likely the Ming would shun the westerners until they lost the Mandate of Heaven.
What about an alternative dynasty, say what if instead of the Qing overthrowing the Ming, perhaps another dynasty like Li Zicheng's Shun Dynasty. Would that dyansty in question be open for reform?
RousseauX
Donor
Then obviously the conclusion you should be reaching is that some factor other than "greater contact with the west" is the key determining factor in modernization.
Pretty much, a success Song would have little/no reason to support commercial ventures or to allow merchants a vast degree of independence
I don't think the problem was per capita income or advancement in the Yangtze delta vs Kanto plain. The Chinese government did have a habit of transferring wealth away from the former to inland provinces to fund public projects traditionally to preserve political stability (i.e constructing flood control projects in poorer provinces so people don't get pissed off and rebel when the yellow river reverse course yet again). But in the late 19th century the Qing stopped doing that because they were trying to industrialize those wealthier regions.
The key difference between the China and Japan was that the Qing never managed to increase administrative capacities to deal with the quadrupling of the Chinese population between the founding of the dynasty to the first Opium War. As in, the population increased, the number of bureaucrats did not increase to match it. At the same time the Qing never developed an effective mean of tapping into economic growth for revenue. All of this meant that of course when crisis of the 19th century did come the Qing had a huge deal of problems maintaining stability over the country, or even just do basic governing governing it which led to much of the weakness they showed.
The Tokugawa shogunate on the other hand had one of the most successful period of state building in world history, in which it was able to tame the samurai and turn into bureaucrats which allowed for a strong, central government to emerge (China always had a weak, centralized government by comparison). They abolished tax farmers and replaced them with government ran tax collecting offices staffed by ex-samurais (this is huge because not even ancien regime France had something like this) This is crucial because it meant that a group of political elites which is at the helm of said state find it much, much easier to deal with western incursions, maintaining stability and carrying out modernization projects.
Imagine if say for instance, the Taiping rebellion ended as quickly and decisively as the Boshin War, or vice versa, the Boshin War turned out to be long drawn out and bloody as the Taiping rebellion. The effect that this would have on modernization in both countries is worth thinking about.
China's larger population was a -hindrance- rather than asset in modernization (because they make stabilizing the country a lot harder). Literacy can be increased by a government determined to do it (see Japan), and Japan was never a particularly natural resource rich-country.
Oh yeah, and I agree with this.
China -did- have a military which was superficially modern by the 1890s. The naval component of it got sunk by the Japanese, the army component of it broke up the country in the 1910-1920s.
You and I are not disagreeing, there is a a vast difference between carve up like the warlord era and a division of sphere of influence like extraterritoriality in the 19th century.