Feudalize China?

Keep in mind when people say war drives advancement it only applies to certain types of war. If there are a lot of smaller states that are simply too poor to invest in technological development, lack the manpower due to the famine/disease that are endemic in war-torn areas, lack a reliable knowledge base because towns are being sacked left and right etc. then you aren't going to get much advancement out of conflict. Especially pre-industrialization.

I think it might be interesting to look at different paths for industrialization or even if industrialization is required at all in terms of advancing.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
2. Minor note, Korea was not always totaly independant... Finlandised to a point is maybe a fitting term, like Vietnam. They never invaded (the Mongols did, MAYBE Manchus), but it was clear to thr korean royal line who ruled in fact the region...
Never invaded? So I take it that such kingdoms as Goguryeo were hippies?

Korea only became Finlandized during the Yuan (after 39 years of invasions) and the Qing (a two invasions after the mass destruction of the Japanese invasions starting in 1592). It wasn't that Korea became neutralized because it was humble, it's because the nation was devastated on a larger scale than Germany was during the 30 Years War.
 
Never invaded? So I take it that such kingdoms as Goguryeo were hippies?

Korea only became Finlandized during the Yuan (after 39 years of invasions) and the Qing (a two invasions after the mass destruction of the Japanese invasions starting in 1592). It wasn't that Korea became neutralized because it was humble, it's because the nation was devastated on a larger scale than Germany was during the 30 Years War.

Eh, maybe I was wrong then. But drop the tone please.
 
This would require a much earlier POD than the Ming or Qing dynasties, but if you somehow successfully stop or reduce the waves of Han migration into southern China, you would end up with a China that is far more diverse and split along ethnic groups. You might have enough differences between neighboring regions to balkanize China.
 
2. Minor note, Korea was not always totaly independant... Finlandised to a point is maybe a fitting term, like Vietnam. They never invaded (the Mongols did, MAYBE Manchus), but it was clear to thr korean royal line who ruled in fact the region...

Korea is almost the opposite of Vietnam.

Korea only became a Chinese tributary after 1000, while Vietnam was a Chinese province for the most part from 200 BC to AD 900. Korea held territory in Manchuria under Goguryeo for more than 700 years until it collapsed in 668, while Baekje most likely had colonies in coastal China and Japan for more than 300 years. At the time, they were as powerful as, if not more powerful than, each of the simultaneous Chinese kingdoms at the time. Goguryeo destroyed at least one Chinese kingdom, Later Yan, and only fell after seven campaigns for 70 years by the Sui and Tang.

Meanwhile, Vietnam did not expand south until the 1500s, and continued to expand until the 1700s by clashing with what was once the Khmer Empire. Both Korea and Vietnam were invaded by the Mongols, and both submitted after agreeing to tributary status. However, Korea clashed with the Khitan and Jurchen from 1000-1600, while the Mongols launched six campaigns for about 40 years, Japan ravaged Korea in the Seven Year War, and the Manchus (previously the Jurchen) invaded Korea twice in order to force it to cut off ties with the Ming.

These are some of the reasons why Korea (Joseon) after 1400 would choose to be submissive under the Ming and the Qing.
 
Just looked it up.

I'm having difficulty understand how Legalism is very different from Confucianism. Care to enlighten me?

EDIT: If anything, Mohism looks like a more competitive philosophy China could adopt.

The two are very different.

Confucianism is about developing virtue and the personal responsibilities and duties people owe each other whether as family members, neighbors, countrymen, etc. It is very human centric. The Confucian ideal is a leader who is so virtuous that he inspires other people to be the same, and thus the people live in harmony. As a practical form of government, it's not very effective.

Legalism is all about the law. It's emphasis is not on human virtue, but the power of the government. The government is involved in everything, telling people everything they need to do. All violations are punishable, and the punishments are extreme. There are to be no exceptions and no mercy. In many ways, it is totalitarian except without any real ideology. The two Chinese rulers that best represent the tradition were Qin Shi-Huangdi and Mao Zedong. Both are seen as uniting China and strengthening the state, but also the worst tyrants in Chinese history.

In practice, must of Chinese history can be seen as embodying many core tenets of Legalism, but moderated by and with the outward appearance of Confucianism. Maybe that is why you think the two are similar.
 
Well then, how do you get competition introduced to China? We can't just butterfly away the entire Chinese culture of cooperation and and Confucianism and service to the Mandate of Heaven, can we?

The only reason you need competition is to prevent the ability of one man to make a decision that closes off all possibility of certain actions for everyone. Breaking China apart is one way to avoid certain bad mistakes made by some of the Emperors (or very often, the mistakes made by a certain clique around the Emperor that actually governed China). However, that is not the only option.

China's problem begin in the decision of the Ming Dynasty to close off all trade with the outside world and disband its navy. This didn't work in practice. Too many people wanted to trade with China, and too many Chinese wanted to trade as well. In addition, China needed Spanish silver (from the New World) to monetize its economy. It didn't work out like the Ming thought. All that the Ming actually did was undermine governmental authority, encourage piracy, and give foreign powers control of China's seaboard.

When the Ming fell, the Qing continue the policies because as Manchurian horse nomads, they never had a naval tradition and weren't interested in areas outside of China.

One problem for China is, like every great civilization, they think they are completely superior and that no barbarians have anything useful. In many ways, the Chinese were right. China was far wealthier than Europe. Its goods were often of superior quality and cheaper. Outside of precious metals, there wasn't a whole lot that China needed from the outside world.

By the mid 1600s, Europe had eclipsed China in scientific knowledge, but the Chinese never expressed much interest in it. They saw European inventions like the clock and other precise mechanical devices as interesting, but not necessarily important. Furthermore, the main people engaged in this cultural exchange were the Catholic orders like the Jesuits who were trying to find a way to accomodate Christianity with Chinese culture (especially the importance of ancestor rites). When internal politics within the Church sabotaged those efforts, China decisively rejected European learning.

If China was divided, then it's possible at least one of those states remains engaged and reforms earlier.

It is certainly possible for China to be divided. It has a history of having periods of disunity. We just need one to happen right around the 1600-1800s. One possibility is that the Manchu are not able to conquer all of China when the Ming collapses, and other warlords spring up.

In that case, we might have one state based around the Yellow River and North China plain, an independent Manchuria, a state based around the Yangtze and central China, and perhaps minor states based around Canton or Fujian that are maritime oriented, perhaps even one around Szechwan.

Looking for allies, one or some of the states welcomes European traders and eagerly snaps up European inventions. In response, some of the other states do the same. China internalizes much of the new technology and science. It either takes a long time for China to unify, or when it does, the Chinese know enough to feel that the Europeans are a threat and builds up a navy to prject power into the South China Sea and threaten European colonies in the Philippines, Indonesia, and perhaps farther afield.
 
Top