Pretty simple: Yuan Shikai chooses to back the dynasty over the rebels in 1911.
The Qing monarchy becomes a figurehead just like the house of Windsor in the UK, real power is held by Yuan and the Beiyang army. Yuan furthermore does not try to make himself emperor and oversees the election of a legislature with some degree of real power. Best case scenario after he dies power gradually transitions from the military to civilian institutions, China avoids the era of the warlords, the Japanese invasion, Communism and becomes a flawed democracy.
Manchuria -did- break away under theoretical Qing rule until 1945. The problem is that by the 1900s the vast majority of Manchuria's population were ethnic Han, which makes a continued Qing dynasty apart from China impossible without Japan winning WWII.
The Taiping emphasized those elements at the beginning but they did start to moderate as the rebellion went on.That's because the Taiping regime was batshit insane.It was an evangelical Christian movement that shocked even their fellow Christians,why in the world would the largely Confucian gentry class support them?They forcefully segregated men and women alike,even couples,and forbid sexual relationship whilst the leaders had harems.Furthermore,they forcefully confiscated wealth from the poor and wealthy alike.No sane Chinese gentry would have backed such a movement.
And then it got destroyed.Finite.It's legitimacy was wholly destroyed by then.Difference between the German Dynasty that rules Britain and the Manchu Dynasty is that the 'German Dynasty' identified itself with the common people and dropped their German titles and name while the Manchu regime prided itself as being Manchu till it's dying day.The fact that the Manchu court lost control to the Han officials was an accident as opposed to intention.The Taiping rebellion pretty much forced the Manchu regime to rely on Han officers since the Manchu ones failed utterly to put down the rebellion.
.The officials also thought that construction of railways would bring ill luck to the country.They were thinking that they can modernise the country by doing certain things but not other.
And yet China built a degree of industrialization, a modern army and a modern navy. In fact, the -success- of building a modern army is what ended the dynasty..Another thing is that China's westernisation process was a joke
They understood this very well actually and responded remarkably quickly, after the Opium war they quickly tried to buy a fleet from England for instance because they realized that they had better ships. In response to Russian incursions into the Amur basin they broke down the century long barrier prohibiting Han migration into their homeland and flooded the area with Chinese settlers to keep the Russians from annexing anymore territory.in that the imperial court was staffed with people who have very little understanding of how the west is so powerful.
That's because the momentum to depose the Qing Court has been lost.The Qing Dynasty has bought itself sufficient legitimacy by crushing the rebellion.The Taiping emphasized those elements at the beginning but they did start to moderate as the rebellion went on.
But ok, let's write off the Taiping, then why didn't the Han Chinese turn the guns around and overthrow the dynasty afterwards? The Manchu banner armies were destroyed by the rebellion and the new army were raised by ethnic Han gentry, composed of ethnic Han soldiers, and controlled by ethnic Han officers and officials.
And yet it took almost 50 years from the end of the Taiping until the dynasty was overthrown, that suggests the Qing did have a large degree of legitimacy at least among the Han elite: and there was no real reason why they had to lose it entirely all the way up until the end.
The Manchu emperors were actually shocked that most of their fellow Manchus didn't know how to speak or write.Even as late as Jiaqing,the emperors continued to complain about how the 'Manchu' officials sucked at speaking or writing Manchu.Difference between the Prussian Junkers and the Manchu elites was that one would survive in the age of Nationalism while the other won't.I'm not sure if that's actually true: I think none of the Manchu emperors past...I think it was Yongzheng knew how to read/write Manchu.
A big issue in why ethnicity became an issue was because the Manchus were trying to do the same thing the Prussian junkers were trying to do in Germany, trying to legitimize themselves as distinct entity as a way of trying to hold power, it was obviously a bad strategy in hindsight but by no means was it inevitable.
The point is that the moment when a small number of Han Chinese elite decided to turn the guns on the Manchus, it was game over as Yuan Shikai showed.That's because the momentum to depose the Qing Court has been lost.The Qing Dynasty has bought itself sufficient legitimacy by crushing the rebellion.
The Manchu emperors were actually shocked that most of their fellow Manchus didn't know how to speak or write.Even as late as Jiaqing,the emperors continued to complain about how the 'Manchu' officials sucked at speaking or writing Manchu.Difference between the Prussian Junkers and the Manchu elites was that one would survive in the age of Nationalism while the other won't.
After ruling for over two hundred years,they did have tremendous legitimacy.But by no means were they loyal even before Yuan Shikai.While Cixi and Guanxu were fleeing from the Allied Army,the Viceroys made deals with the foreigners not to attack their provinces in return for their neutrality and almost proclaimed Li Hongzhang the President of China.The point is that the moment when a small number of Han Chinese elite decided to turn the guns on the Manchus, it was game over as Yuan Shikai showed.
The fact that they didn't showed that, for whatever reason, the Han elite did think of the Qing as legitimate, and it was by no means inevitable that the Qing lose that.
To successfully survive,they would have to rebrand themselves as Han Northern Wei style.Obviously, the point is that their survival in -some- form was in the cards
If you really want China to reform successfully in that era, you want to replace the crazies at the head of the Taiping early enough that they can ally with the Confucian bureaucratic class and win. That, or you want to have one of the Qing generals, flush from defeating the Taiping, march on Beijing and proclaim a new dynasty. Either way, the easy path to a strong China is an ethnically Han dynasty forming decisively by the mid-19th century.
That's because the Taiping regime was batshit insane.It was a false Christian movement that shocked even the genuine Christians,why in the world would the largely Confucian gentry class support them?They forcefully segregated men and women alike,even couples,and forbid sexual relationship whilst the leaders had harems.Furthermore,they forcefully confiscated wealth from the poor and wealthy alike.No sane Chinese gentry would have backed such a movement.
And then it got destroyed.Finite.It's legitimacy was wholly destroyed by then.Difference between the German Dynasty that rules Britain and the Manchu Dynasty is that the 'German Dynasty' identified itself with the common people and dropped their German titles and name while the Manchu regime prided itself as being Manchu till it's dying day.The fact that the Manchu court lost control to the Han officials was an accident as opposed to intention.The Taiping rebellion pretty much forced the Manchu regime to rely on Han officers since the Manchu ones failed utterly to put down the rebellion.
Is it not possible to get all the Manchu soldiers destroyed in the first Opium War, making the Qing more Han-heavy?
A new dynasty generally means far less corruption.As for imperialists knocking the door,there's a limit to how much land the imperialists could take(they wouldn't dare to take territoriy with large Chinese population for example).The problem is that any ethnic Han dynasty would be facing the exact same problems as the Qing historically faced. The chief one of which was that the state was very, very weak from the mid-18th century onward. By 1800 China, a country of around 400 million people, had something like 25,000 government officials. Which means 1 government official for every 15,000+, and this is using a fairly loose definition of what constitutes a government official. To put this in perspective, contemporary France had that many people employed in its revenue department alone. Taxes were also kept at very low levels, Kangxi in 1712 decreed that taxation on land be frozen at -1712- levels. Meaning that despite increase in productivity and population, tax revenues did not increase proportionally. Indeed the Qing were collecting taxes at around 1% of GDP (modern China does so at ~30% GDP).
So a new dynasty wouldn't have started off with a state that's any stronger, and attempting to build one runs into the same issue as the Qing did. You can't collect taxes without a stronger state apparatus: you can't build a stronger state without more revenue. Meanwhile the imperialists are knocking at the door and demanding tributes from you to keep from taking more territories. You can't fight them off because, you guessed it! You don't have a strong enough state to conduct modernization programs and crush rebellions in their infancy.
The real problem with 19th century China isn't the ethnic issue, it's that the Qing dynasty consciously adopted a Laissez-Faire attitude towards governance in the 18th century and allowed the state to whither away. Qing China ~1800 probably came closer to Adam Smith's night's watchman state than any where else ever, it's just that it does poorly in an era of intense geopolitical competition.
This was the official justification given, but in reality railroads were genuinely highly disruptive to life in the countryside because they put a lot of people out of work (i.e porters, canal workers, teamsters) and those people tend to get pissed off at the government for letting foreigners built those things and take their jobs.
The historiography given on the Qing is that they are superstitious idiots, in reality though they were making what were probably rational decisions in avoiding provoking another rebellion after Taiping.
And yet China built a degree of industrialization, a modern army and a modern navy. In fact, the -success- of building a modern army is what ended the dynasty.
People tend to assume that modernization defaults to being as successful as Meiji Japan's, and that the Qing were failures because they did not do as well. But then you turn around and look at 20th century development and realize that most in modern times did not do as well as Japan either.
They understood this very well actually and responded remarkably quickly, after the Opium war they quickly tried to buy a fleet from England for instance because they realized that they had better ships. In response to Russian incursions into the Amur basin they broke down the century long barrier prohibiting Han migration into their homeland and flooded the area with Chinese settlers to keep the Russians from annexing anymore territory.
The problem wasn't with corruption, a corrupt state might have done a lot better actually, the problem was that there wasn't much of a state at allA new dynasty generally means far less corruption.
Except this wasn't the case during the age of imperialism, France for example, happily took over Vietnam despite the fact that it had huge number of Vietnamese in it. And the Japanese took Taiwan despite the large number of Han Chinese on the island, not to mention Korea which were full of Koreans.As for imperialists knocking the door,there's a limit to how much land the imperialists could take(they wouldn't dare to take territoriy with large Chinese population for example).
Arguably,Thailand,while not as well developed as Japan,modernized reasonably well considering it started off as a Mandala state and losing even more territory than the Qing(proportionally).
That's because it was a multicultural state.It's something that's extremely hard to survive in the Age of Nationalism.If it was a monolithic state like Germany was,it wouldn't have been fragmented.As for the Qing,it's through and through a Han majority state.It's utterly incomparable to the Ottoman Empire.Thailand is arguably even more vulnerable to being fragmented than the OE was since it was a Mandala state at the start of it's modernization process.There's a reason why the Qing Empire lost territory that are mostly either lowly populated to begin with or doesn't have a Han majority(e.g. the western territory lost to Russia).And the Ottoman Empire were far more similar to the Qing in terms of size and potential to fragment and ended up losing everything except the core of their territory in modern day Turkey.
The problem wasn't with corruption, a corrupt state might have done a lot better actually, the problem was that there wasn't much of a state at all
Except this wasn't the case during the age of imperialism, France for example, happily took over Vietnam despite the fact that it had huge number of Vietnamese in it. And the Japanese took Taiwan despite the large number of Han Chinese on the island, not to mention Korea which were full of Koreans.
"We are not going to take territory with ethnicity of this type" didn't apply to 19th century European colonialism.
And the Ottoman Empire were far more similar to the Qing in terms of size and potential to fragment and ended up losing everything except the core of their territory in modern day Turkey.
China in the 19th century was a multicultural state.That's because it was a multicultural state.It's something that's extremely hard to survive in the Age of Nationalism.If it was a monolithic state like Germany was,it wouldn't have been fragmented.As for the Qing,it's through and through a Han majority state.It's utterly incomparable to the Ottoman Empire.
Really?The thing is,unlike Vietnam and Korea,China's much more densely populated
The Han population was large enough that the minorities were mostly irrelevant,and places that had large minority,like Mongolia and Tibet did try and break away.China in the 19th century was a multicultural state.
There's the obvious Manchu, Mongol, Uighur and (sorta) Tibetan minorities, but more importantly even China proper was fractured linguistically and ethnically in the 19th century. Back then, there was no nationally spoken language: Mandarin as spoken today is a creation of the KMT and the CCP out of the Beijing dialect in the mid-20th century to foster national unity.
Thing is,the Qing Dynasty most likely would not have accepted losing large provinces like Guangdong and would have fought on.Their large population is their greatest strength afterall,and could afford to throw bodies at the foreigners.The rabid anti-western population like the Boxer Rebellion proved to the western powers that grabbing large pieces of territory would likely be uncontrollable.Really?
How densely populated was somewhere like Guangzhou relative to say Seoul or Saigan or Hanoi in 1870?
The point is that 19th century China was not a monolithic ethnic state like Germany was, it wasn't one even if you only consider China south of the great wall and east of Xinjiang populated by what today would be called "Han" Chinese.The Han population was large enough that the minorities were mostly irrelevant,and places that had large minority,like Mongolia and Tibet did try and break away.
Thing is,the Qing Dynasty most likely would not have accepted losing large provinces like Guangdong and would have fought on.
Which is useless if they can't mobilize them effectivelyTheir large population is their greatest strength afterall,and could afford to throw bodies at the foreigners.
China proper was as monolithic as Germany was.There's numerous regional dialects in Germany,not to mention having different religions.It was also a newly created country that used to be consisted of numerous small states.The point is that 19th century China was not a monolithic ethnic state like Germany was, it wasn't one even if you only consider China south of the great wall and east of Xinjiang populated by what today would be called "Han" Chinese.
Which is why I mentioned Guangzhou the city specifically as oppose to an entire province. It's perfectly conceivable that the Qing loses a major port city or two at least.
Which is useless if they can't mobilize them effectively
China proper was as monolithic as Germany was.
There's numerous regional dialects in Germany,not to mention having different religions.
I'm more talking about the actual German population,not the Poles etc.Even the German population itself is not as monolithic.There are Catholics and Protestants and then there's also regional dialects like in China.The country also has a strong history of division and decentralization as opposed to China.The German Empire was not monolithic.
Aside from Germans, there were significant minorities of Poles, Danes, Frenchmen and Sorbs plus various migrant communities.
Different denominations, not different religions.
Christianity was quite dominant in Germany.
It does help however if the dynasty sinicized fully. Again it's too late of a POD. In the end however, Han and Manchu officials, landlords and nobles alike stole large portions of taxes--it wasn't just the Han.
The fact that the dynasty wasn't Han made it so that the government was especially vulnerable to criticisms. There's a reason why the utmost rallying cries against the Qing Dynasty in it's dying days was "expel the Tatar Barbarians, and to revive China". The Qing state was fundamentally apartheid. They segregated Manchu populations from the ethnic Han. The Manchu population also possessed privileges. It was actually illegal for Manchu women to be married to ethnic Hans for example, but legal for Han women to be married to Manchu men. If the Manchu committed a crime for example, they were legally exempt for some of the punishments. To keep the Han majority quiet, the Manchu regime basically had to ally themselves with the conservative Confucian landholding class as mentioned by Admiral Matt.
while valid a sinicised china would still have collapsed as the qing did if only because of transaction costs and the sort of economic development china experienced.
Besides all the major chinese dynasties allied with the landholder class. From the han to the ming majority of dynasties did xactly what qing did, only difference they didnt use racial discrimination as the basis for their exlusionary policies, so not really. Yes aparthed would not be present but systemic issues will remain and the han state finding itself in qing situation is going to collapse just when not if.
This explains the situation perfectly.A large problem plaguing the Qing military was the lack of morale.They were stuck in the days where morale had to be raised through reward and inspiring individual leadership(which was why warlordism was able to rise).To my knowledge,there was a serious lack of patriotism within the Qing ranks compared to other nations of the time period.Nationalism wasn't something to be encouraged unlike in other states because it would be poisonous for the apartheid Qing state.Sending students to study in foreign countries would obviously bring back ideas of nationalism,so it's only a matter of time before the apatheid regime gets overthrown.An enemy intent on the destruction of modern South Africa - holding the same cities - would find the war barely begun. As a popular state, South Africa would have the option of drawing the invader into a war of attrition - the "nuclear" option both the Guomindang and Communists had access to that the Qing could never consider.