Chinese religious balkanisation

i have often seen it claimed that a major reason for Chinese stagnation in technological growth is because it was dominated by one dynasty who could order new technologies stamped out.

Could a possible solution to this be an influx of a new religion such as Islam or maybe an internal split with Buddhism, that could divide the country and therefore lead to more innovation

I don't know much on the subject apologies if this is stupid but I haven't Seen any threads on this subject.
 
Religious balkanization is very different from having a unified dynasty. But TBH, China's problem is that religions can coexist/ are tolerated. For example, Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, while being radically different religions, and each consisting of hundreds of sects managed to merge into the “Three Teachings” that Chinese could practice at the same time without religious wars and all the fun that comes with it. Sure, religions were favoured over one another from time to time, but it never resulted in religious warfare. I'd say a technologically advanced China could be a China that embraces Mohism, which was more scientific, so to say. Mohism IIRC is also pacifist, so perhaps it would value peaceful coexistence over killing each other for the unification of China. However, it also believed in using warfare to defend small states from large ones, which may of course spark an arms race amongst rival kingdoms.
 
Last edited:
If you may not know, Islam was introduced in 7th or 8th century I don't remember when exactly. And even now they have a ethno-religious group of Huei people who are basically Chinese muslims, numbering approximately 10 million people. The influx of more evangelical religion was contained, and did not alter the situation in China. Buddhism does not have a central religious authority like Califate or Papacy. So there would not be something like buddhist heresy in my opinion. It had divergencies even before being spread to China, but however there is no schism between religions, so no school of buddhism would issue Fatwa alternatives. Different branches of buddhism coexisted and still coexist in China. The dominance of one dynasty, was maybe one of the reasons, but it main opinion not the main, the dominance of neo-confucian values, and relative autarchy of China are other more substantial reasons. Maybe by having philosophical Taoism be a main state ideology, we may see a different China. Regarding China being divided, maybe by having a rival capable enough to necessitate China to adapt itself to new realities.
 
So how could we make the state more interested in innovations? Different state ideology?
Mohism. I mentioned it in my other post. Taoism is perhaps too lasseiz-faire. Mohists, being the brilliant siege engineers they were could very well prosper in a balkanized China (as they did to a certain extent in the warring states period) , and spread the scientific aspect of their ideology across China (the pacifist aspect not so much).
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Banned
For what it's worth, one theory seems to be that unity itself causes stagnation. Or rather: that division and competition urge on change and innovation. That theory is outlined in the recent book that is talked about in this article, for instance. The author, Joel Mokyr, argues that political and institutional circumstances, by themselves, are at least just as important as cultural factors: "People have given different answers, and I’m giving mine. One way of thinking about it is culture. But to state, “Hey, the Chinese have a different culture because they were Confucianists, and the Europeans were Christian,” I don’t buy that for a second."

I actually don't agree with his view entirely; I don't think he's giving enough credit to the importance of cultural attitude. Although that's partly (it seems to me) because he is trying to get his own point about the importance of political and institutional circumstances across. His ultimate conclusion is that cultural attitudes and political and institutional circumstances both influence all of this, and are interrelated. Later on in the article he mentions (implicitly) how important general attitudes can be (although his statement is necessarily a simplification): "China wanted stability and security, and they achieved that for a long time. The Europeans don’t want stability. They want progress."

The way I see it, cultural attitudes influence the political and institutional situations, so having different cultural attitudes can be an impetus to have a different situation, politically and institutionally.

But at the same time (and this is Mokyr's main thesis), the political and institutional citcumstances also shape the cultural attitudes!

...so perhaps it isn't even needed to seek out a POD that hinges on a different philosophical/religious paradigm. Merely coming up with a POD that keeps China politically divided would likely lead to changes in the cultural attitudes. Specifically: the competition between various states would cause "stability" to be valued less, and "innovation" to be valued more.
 
For what it's worth, one theory seems to be that unity itself causes stagnation.
I do agree that a fractured China will lead to a more technologically advanced China, but I'd say being fractured is not the ultimate cause--at least in China's case.
China has been, for the majority of its exsistence united, and the largest empire in the world. Yet for many of these centuries, ideas and technology flowed from east to west, not vice versa. Instead, IMHO, it is the presence of an external enemy. Song China can be united and strong, yet it faces a massive enemy in the Liao, Jin and eventually Mongols, giving it incentive to develop it's military and its technology. Ming China can be united and strong, yet it faces the Mongols, Manchus and Japanese, again giving it incentive to develop. Han China can be united and strong, yet it faces the constant threat of the Xiongnu. Being fractured is not the cause of innovation--the presence of an external enemy is. So perhaps we don't need a fractured China--all we need is a long lasting rival that is a constant threat for China, similar to the Persians for the Romans.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I do agree that a fractured China will lead to a more technologically advanced China, but I'd say being fractured is not the ultimate cause--at least in China's case.
China has been, for the majority of its exsistence united, and the largest empire in the world. Yet for many of these centuries, ideas and technology flowed from east to west, not vice versa. Instead, IMHO, it is the presence of an external enemy. Song China can be united and strong, yet it faces a massive enemy in the Liao, Jin and eventually Mongols, giving it incentive to develop it's military and its technology. Ming China can be united and strong, yet it faces the Mongols, Manchus and Japanese, again giving it incentive to develop. Han China can be united and strong, yet it faces the constant threat of the Xiongnu. Being fractured is not the cause of innovation--the presence of an external enemy is. So perhaps we don't need a fractured China--all we need is a long lasting rival that is a constant threat for China, similar to the Persians for the Romans.

Very true. In many ways, the idea of 'competition is good for innovation' is just one iteration of the more general idea 'security leads to complacency, threats and crises force you to adapt and develop'. So the exact form of the threat/crisis doesn't matter... as long as 'too much security' is avoided, because it will lead to complacency and stagnation. (Of course, culture also still plays a role, but just as a fractured China would devlop differently from OTl in a cultural sense, I'm fairly confident that a united China facing a long-lasting rival power will also develop certain different cultural attitudes.)
 
Very true. In many ways, the idea of 'competition is good for innovation' is just one iteration of the more general idea 'security leads to complacency, threats and crises force you to adapt and develop'. So the exact form of the threat/crisis doesn't matter... as long as 'too much security' is avoided, because it will lead to complacency and stagnation. (Of course, culture also still plays a role, but just as a fractured China would devlop differently from OTl in a cultural sense, I'm fairly confident that a united China facing a long-lasting rival power will also develop certain different cultural attitudes.)

I agree with your point. The problem would be to maintain such a prolonged rivalry, and the survival of the external enemy. In regards of the central asian empires, China was willing to crush them completely, so they were not be able to be a threat anymore, for example Djungarian genocide, which before the Qing conquest resisted them quite well until internal strife, after the genocide the remnants of their population seized to be a threat. Which states would be able to challenge Chinese so succesfully that they would able to survive and at the same time make China insecure about its position? Would more centralised Central asian states or South East Asian hegemonies like Taungu or more expansionist Japan be able to do it? Japan as being offshore and an archipelago with large enough population may have the best chance.
 
I agree with your point. The problem would be to maintain such a prolonged rivalry, and the survival of the external enemy. In regards of the central asian empires, China was willing to crush them completely, so they were not be able to be a threat anymore, for example Djungarian genocide, which before the Qing conquest resisted them quite well until internal strife, after the genocide the remnants of their population seized to be a threat. Which states would be able to challenge Chinese so succesfully that they would able to survive and at the same time make China insecure about its position? Would more centralised Central asian states or South East Asian hegemonies like Taungu or more expansionist Japan be able to do it? Japan as being offshore and an archipelago with large enough population may have the best chance.
Japan is far too small in comparison to China, while central Asian states have historically been a temporary enemy at most. Moreover, Japan's being an archipelago is a disadvantage in itself. A more centralized Mongolia in a similar fashion of the Khitan Liao and Jurchen Jin might work better. This could work even better in a world where the great wall is butterflied.
 
Last edited:
Japan is far too small in comparison to China, while central Asian states have historically been a temporary enemy at most. Moreover, Japan's being an archipelago is a disadvantage in itself. A more centralized Mongolia in a similar fashion of the Khitan Liao and Jurchen Jin might work better. This could work even better in a world where the great wall is butterflied.

I was equating Mongolia to Central Asia myself. Lets say inner Asia then. So the contender from Inner Asia should cinisize to an extent, and adopt the Chinese Imperial adiminstration methods, or like Liao to have a dual administration then? How About Uyghur Khaganate? And why is the great wall is butterflied?
 
I was equating Mongolia to Central Asia myself. Lets say inner Asia then. So the contender from Inner Asia should cinisize to an extent, and adopt the Chinese Imperial adiminstration methods, or like Liao to have a dual administration then? How About Uyghur Khaganate? And why is the great wall is butterflied?
I'm just saying that a butterflied great wall would greatly weaken China, thus giving it legitimate, permanent competition in the Mongolians, in turn making TTL China more likely to look towards technology as a solution to its woes.
 
Top