Longevity of Qing dynasty without colonial intrusion

Fenestella

Banned
I'm not saying the manchus are good guys either
Fair enough.
Let me be fair too: as a humanist and an estheticist, I loathe the replacement of the beautiful Hanfu by the not-so-impressive (to put it mildly) Manchu hair style and clothing through brutal enforcement, but I applaud Manchu regime's attempt to ban foot-binding.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The key problem was that the whole old cosmology: Chinese statecraft, science, ethos and the works met an existential crisis in the minds of Chinese leaders and intellectuals. IMO the Boxer revolt was the last possible chance for a dynastic revival: after that the Western influence among the rising generation of educated Chinese was already too influential.
None of which necessarily implies republicanism: in 1911 or so most great powers were constitutional monarchies:

The UK
Germany
Russia
Japan

The Republics were:

US
France

Early 20th century China had a whole mesh-mash of intellectual ideas that went from constitutional monarchists to liberal republicans to marxists and anarchists, and the country that China was trying to emulate the most, Japan, had a constitutional monarchy.

The reason why China became a Republic doesn't so much have to do with some deterministic reading of Chinese intellectualism responding to losing wars to England and Japan so much as it had to do with a specific set of political decisions made in 1911.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I agree with this notion in general.

But in the case of China, the dynasty and court were too compromised by defeats, internal disputes and the previous centuries of fostering ethnic division: the "slaves of slaves"-propaganda of early Republicans had firm roots in reality, even though in reality the "hairy, horned Manchus" were often virtually identical to their Han neighbours.

As for reforms: Qing military reforms came too late to avoid the loss to Japan, shortly followed by the Boxer humiliation. After that they were seen as attempts of bolstering a foreign puppet regime.

Effective economic reforms were impossible due the loss of tax revenue because of Western dictates and Western imported industrial goods that destroyed the old village industries, just as the railroads destroyed the old trade route economics.

Qing rulers were too complanent for too long, and the last Emperor who realized that was too hapless to finish what he sought to begin.
Note that what overthrew the Manchus were not a British army marching into Beijing because China didn't have good enough guns, it was a Chinese general who headed a modernized European style army and elected provincial legislatures modeled on western political systems. In other words, political institution created as a result of modernization.

This doesn't seem to be the consequences of complacencies, it's the consequences of a regime which wanted reforms to strengthen the country and lost control of said reforms.
 
And the fact that the aforementioned rebellious entities existed in the first place was a testament to the fact that the dynasty had witnesssed seven decades of defeats that had undone the very foundations of traditional Chinese state structure.

I do want to point out that you clearly know this subject very well, and I merely object the cause and effect-part of your otherwise solid argument.

Calling the reform attempts that led to 1911 semi-successfull seems bit odd, if one measures their success and final outcome from the viewpoint of Qing authorities.

The fact that they ultimately saved China from direct colonial rule is irrelevant from this point of view: the dynasty that started them only did so at gunpoint, doomed itself in the process, and wouldn't have enacted these reforms in the first place without repeated defeats and humiliations.

Therefore: There wouldn't have been a modenized European style rebellious army led by foreign-trained officers to begin with, had the traditional Banner armies still been able to fulfill their earlier role. But they weren't, as the Boxer revolt had so painfully demonstrated.

And there wouldn't have been such a clear rejection of all latter attempts to restore imperial rule, either Qing or an entirely new dynasty, without the earlier repeated and utter failures of Qing.
 
Top