Prince Gong was one major proponents of reforms in China during the self strengthening movement. If Prince Gong had become emperor instead of his elder brother and initiated Meiji style reforms China would have become a great power by the start of the 20th century with an economy second in size to the US. The fall of Nanking to the Taiping rebels in 1853 caused Prince Gong to purge the imperial court of conservative elements and became the catalyst for the modernization movement. By the start of the 20th century Korea and Eastern Siberia would have been easy pickings for a modernized China.
Prince gong becomes emperor and initiates meiji style reforms in 1853
- Thread starter John Gault
- Start date
ahmedali
Banned
He will be more like his brother and be ignorant
The outside world will not know whether the update is necessary
If you want to modernize Qing China, just make the Hundred Days Reforms a success
By making Yuan not siding with the Empress Dowager and siding with Emperor Guanxu
Or killed her earlier so no reactionary coup
The outside world will not know whether the update is necessary
If you want to modernize Qing China, just make the Hundred Days Reforms a success
By making Yuan not siding with the Empress Dowager and siding with Emperor Guanxu
Or killed her earlier so no reactionary coup
Sacer Bubonicus
Banned
Why? At the very least, he won't be a disinterested sex/drug-addict who's being cultivated to remain that way by some uppity concubine who thinks she has a place in politics. He was also known to be much more intelligent than his brother, so that's a plus.
Way too late in the timeline. All the crises that destabilized the empire in the first place have already happened, so almost all the elements that would come into play in the later Warlords Period are already in place, including a strong republican movement.
Not having her completely subdue the Self-Strengtheners after the Tongzhi Emperor's death in 1875 would be better.
Not having her purge much of the Self-Strengthening faction in the 1860s would also be better.
Not having her in politics at all would be even better.
And it would be much better to have somebody on the throne who's already favorable to reform and interested in politics. Definitely better than the diffident puppet of a reactionary clique which, due to its difficulty in accepting the need for change in the first place, ensures that many reform efforts are hobbled and the few that aren't hobbled are done in the provinces, out of sight of the imperial government, with no central support or oversight.
???
Last edited:
ahmedali
Banned
In fact, Meiji for China is difficult because China does not have the same factors as Japan.
Japan is small, illiteracy is almost non-existent, industry is strong there, and this is the exact opposite of China
But it is entirely possible to modernize them to make them less backward from the world
If the British expedition to Emperor Xianlong is successful (say that the British perform better in the Seven Years War and they win the Philippines)
China may not remain developed, but it will not become so backward as it happened
Or the Qing Dynasty should be removed in favor of another royal family (they being Manchus made them paranoid about the Han)
Sacer Bubonicus
Banned
Not saying that something as fast as what Japan did is possible.
However, that's not necessary. All that's necessary is to modernize to the point that they could (for example) beat back the French flotilla in the Sino-French War, and hold Taiwan against the Japanese in the 1st Sino-Japanese War. They fought off the French land forces, and their navy was modernizing, so that's definitely possible. In fact, if the Fujian Fleet hadn't been left to fight Admiral Courbet's forces alone by the other three fleets, they still had the possibility of winning.
And if reform efforts had started a good 10 years earlier and not been severely restricted by a hostile imperial court (ie. Cixi), that could easily have been done. They built Western-style shipyards and arms factories IOTL despite all the meddling, so a reform effort that isn't retarded by Cixi's meddling would build even more and would at least attempt to keep up with Western advances.
Why would greater British success in European wars make it more likely for them to succeed in diplomacy with the Qing in the 1790s?
That requires them to first not fuck up Qing diplomatic procedures and then to lay out something persuasive about the benefits of trade.
If anything, an earlier war with the Qing might actually shake them into a modernizing mindset before the economic and bureaucratic problems of the empire really start to fuck it up. There were already a few people warning about how China needed to modernize its military to keep up with Western powers, even in Qianlong's time, and British victory in war would give credence to their concerns.
Why would a Han dynasty be less likely to be gripped by reactionaries than a non-Han one?
Last edited:
ahmedali
Banned
This is possible, but China will not become Japan, it will become an Asian version of the Russian or Ottoman Empire
Xianlong underestimated the British for having no place for them in Southeast Asia compared to the Dutch, French, Russians and Spaniards whom he respected more.
If Britain had taken the Philippines, Xianlong would have taken the British seriously
The Han was their number one accusation and the number one reason they had to hate the Qing Dynasty
They caused the Han and China to be backward, which meant that the reactionaries were less likely to replace the Qing Dynasty
Sacer Bubonicus
Banned
Funnily enough, the Russian Empire recognized the need to catch up with the West since the 1830s and it was actually quite successful.
For details on this, I'd recommend this lecture series up on Youtube. It's by a professor of Russian history, and he goes heavily into the Russian Empire's modernization. For all the pertinent details, watch lectures #12-22. For the final results, watch lectures #19-22.
The Ottomans, well... they had a good initial modernization phase, but they fell off drastically after the 1850s due to economic troubles.
Your wording confuses me. I think you mean "For the Han, the Manchus were their number one accusation [for why China was backward] and the number one reason they had to hate the Qing dynasty". I'm not sure though.
The problem with that argument is that it's a later invention of the Republican movement, meant to legitimize the overthrow of the Qing and the genocide against the Manchus that had accompanied it. It wasn't popular until the late 19th century, after a long chain of catastrophes had already shaken public confidence in the dynasty.
Edit: and most importantly, it's not true. The Qing government being controlled by reactionaries does not depend on them being Manchu.
What?! That just doesn't make sense.
Reformers are motivated by the desire to strengthen their country, but reactionaries are not motivated by a desire to weaken their country.
Last edited:
ahmedali
Banned
There were several rebellions against the Manchus (the White Lotus in order to restore the Ming and Taiping led by Chinese Christians) and these before 1911
In fact, the 1911 revolution had nothing to do with the republicans. The revolutionaries wanted to bring back a descendant of Ming. It was Yuan who gave the republicans a chance.
But the point is the same from the point of view of the majority of Han
The Manchus made China backward and even the reactionary Han would be seen as a friend of the Manchus
So if a new royal dynasty came to power (descendant of Confucius or Ming), they would be less reactionary.
Sacer Bubonicus
Banned
And? The fact that disaffected subjects of the Qing rebelled against them isn't anything special on its own.
Neither of the rebellions you mentioned happened because they thought the Manchus caused China to lag behind the West.
The White Lotus rebellion was before the 1st Opium War, FFS!
No, they rebelled because they wanted to expel the barbarians, just like the Red Turbans had expelled the Yuan.
The West had nothing to do with that desire.
The Tongmenghui was the dominant faction of the Revolution.
The Tongmenghui was a republican group led by Sun Yat-sen, who was famously the first president of the republic.
Therefore, the Revolution was republican.
Edit: in fact, very few people involved in the Revolution wanted a return of the Ming.
The fact that people believed this does not make it true.
If the Qing were Han, that would not magically make it impossible for them to be reactionary.
Last edited:
ahmedali
Banned
This faction only succeeded because it bribed Yuan into the position of chief, otherwise it would not have succeeded
Sun Yat-sen's portrayal is too exaggerated
But the point is, the hatred of the Manchus predates 1911
The Manchus in the 1900s were hardly the same as they were in the 1640s, but most Chinese did not see it that way
*Obligatory: Meiji Reforms wereJapan specific, the conditions for the Meiji Reforms were specific to Japan, can we please call rapid modernization elsewhere something else*
*Japan high urbanization, population density, and literacy + lack of ethnic and religious tension, something something, much longer period of interacting with the western powers meaningfully and getting their technology and culture, still involved a civil war that managed to be short but broke the back of the rival faction which was also trying to import western innovations rapidly, did not have as much political unrest and instability or opposition to reform as much of the rest of the world at risk of being colonized/dominated by the Western Great Powers*
As for the Han Chinese establishing a dynasty, I'd say it's not totally unreasonable to expect they could be less reactionary than the Qing, though that's more of a trend with nascent dynasties than an ethnic issue. The Qing had to be reactionary to avoid the erosion of their political domination of China (entirely dependent on the loyalty of entrenched interests that liked the status quo, doubly so since they were a hated ruling minority, but that was still an issue with Han ruled dynasties like the late Ming), whereas a nascent Han dynasty would have an easier time maintaining their power via tapping into Han Chinese populism and not have to rely on old political apparatuses and their loyalty to stay afloat (at least early on). Plus, historically speaking, new dynasties tended to implement rapid reforms (especially of the land sort) when they overthrew the old dynasty. A way to reward their supporters and such. Whether those reforms would bridge the gap between China and the West, that's a different story. But an effort to burn away the legacy of the Qing dynasty would inherently be anti-reactionary, at least in one sense.
*Japan high urbanization, population density, and literacy + lack of ethnic and religious tension, something something, much longer period of interacting with the western powers meaningfully and getting their technology and culture, still involved a civil war that managed to be short but broke the back of the rival faction which was also trying to import western innovations rapidly, did not have as much political unrest and instability or opposition to reform as much of the rest of the world at risk of being colonized/dominated by the Western Great Powers*
Not entirely sure if the Qing losing to the British earlier would make a difference, considering the Opium War didn't force them to wake up to a meaningful degree. The Qing had been humbled elsewhere, like with their wars with the Burmese, Vietnamese, and Nepalese. Those didn't make the Qing make meaningful reforms to their military either. Granted, those nations weren't a threat to the Qing's standing in the world, but unless the British were marching on Beijing, the Qing probably would've just considered them just another in the long line of pirates harrying the coast and not an actual threat worthy of reforming in response to. At least based on their OTL responses to the Opium War and either naval threats, like the wokou pirates, Koxinga, and the Dutch.
As for the Han Chinese establishing a dynasty, I'd say it's not totally unreasonable to expect they could be less reactionary than the Qing, though that's more of a trend with nascent dynasties than an ethnic issue. The Qing had to be reactionary to avoid the erosion of their political domination of China (entirely dependent on the loyalty of entrenched interests that liked the status quo, doubly so since they were a hated ruling minority, but that was still an issue with Han ruled dynasties like the late Ming), whereas a nascent Han dynasty would have an easier time maintaining their power via tapping into Han Chinese populism and not have to rely on old political apparatuses and their loyalty to stay afloat (at least early on). Plus, historically speaking, new dynasties tended to implement rapid reforms (especially of the land sort) when they overthrew the old dynasty. A way to reward their supporters and such. Whether those reforms would bridge the gap between China and the West, that's a different story. But an effort to burn away the legacy of the Qing dynasty would inherently be anti-reactionary, at least in one sense.
Sacer Bubonicus
Banned
Uh... no it didn't. Sun Yat-sen was vital for funding the Tongmenghui, and his ally Huang Xing was the one who led the revolution in China.
The entire south of China had declared for the rebellion by the time Yuan Shikai started negotiating with the revolutionaries, more than any other revolt had done, including the Taiping Rebellion. So at bare minimum, it would have taken a long time to suppress them.
Yes, because they were foreign barbarians. And the idea that the Manchus were the reason why China fell behind only came about in the late 19th century, after 50 years of catastrophes, humiliations and unresolved problems.
In all of those cases, they'd been fighting an offensive war in someone else's land, and could (rightly) blame most of their troubles on tropical disease.
They hadn't had foreign warships rocking up and down the coast with impunity and foreign troops laying a seemingly unstoppable swathe of destruction through core Chinese lands. The former is something that can be brushed off and ignored. The latter can't be.
Except, unlike any other nation, they did march on Beijing. That alone makes them stand out from everyone else.
Proposals for it were made, but it took them until the Taiping Revolt to get them passed.
Okay, I'm starting to wonder what your definition of reactionary is. Because reactionary as I know it is a refusal to change old systems/parts even when they demonstrably fail. For example, a refusal to reform the civil service exam when the civil service exam's current setup is demonstrably causing a lot of problems is reactionary. For example, though you mention that China was ruled by a Manchu minority, it was becoming clear to them even before the 1st Opium War that they needed to include more Han at the highest levels to deal with political unrest. And they had begun doing so.
Last edited:
The British were sailing up the Yangtze during the 1st Opium War and cut the Grand Canal and the Qing didn't make much of an effort to reform after that. And the march on Beijing did wake them up, but that was the 2nd Opium War my point was focusing more on how the initial stages of British aggression against the Qing would probably be naval in nature, as it was in the 1st Opium War. Hard to see them go straight for Beijing, in terms of logistics and popular support, before the 1830s. That was what I was referring to wrt an earlier British incursion not waking the Qing up to their stagnation/decline. Now, if they did what they did in the 2nd Opium War earlier, sure, then I agree with you.
Which kind of was my point. They didn't care until it became too apparent an issue and, if the earlier war was like the 1st Opium War, it too would likely not be enough to convince the Qing court that rapid reform was necessary.
Well, on the Qing refusing to change broken systems, they kept a good number of rather suspect institutions from the Ming dynasty (low pay for bureaucrats, the seaban, off the top of my head) for the sake of maintaining normalcy and to keep there from being too much upheaval from their conquest, since they were seen as outsiders still and needed to legitimize their rule. The low pay for bureaucrats was reformed a century later, granted, but too little and too late in terms of addressing bureaucratic corruption. But that's not quite relevant to the time frame being discussed, so this point is rather moot.
The Qing did make reform efforts, I agree with you on that, but as you mentioned, they tended to be insufficient because of or outright killed off by conservatives who felt like those factors threatened their entrenched power. I don't think that's a controversial statement, considering the actions of Cixi and her allies. That kind of behavior is more marked in older dynasties than freshly established dynasties, just because the latter tends to not have to deal with quite as many entrenched interests and those that exist will have been weakened by the revolution.
But emphasising the Manchu aspect of their rule isn't quite appropriate when it comes to the 1800s, I admit.
Sacer Bubonicus
Banned
Though it took them a decade to create a modernization program, the leadership did recognize their technological inferiority during the war and attempted to remedy it in whatever slapdash way they could. For example, they attempted to improve their artillery. They also bought Western materials during the war, including a ship (though they achieved nothing with it because it had no Western-style cannon) and several hundred land cannons.
Killed off by conservatives who had control of the throne and a witless emperor who was more interested in sex and drugs than politics.
If someone other than Xianfeng is on the throne, Cixi would be unable to seize power because she wouldn't control access to the emperor.
And if the emperor is interested in politics and favors the reformists, the reformists will dominate at court, much like conservatives dominated in
Fair. On the other hand, what would the results of a revolution be? If it happens in the high Qing era, that means the victor has to spend several decades mopping up the contenders (just like the Qing and Ming before them had to), followed by a time in which they need to recuperate but are instead faced with the encroaching British. And if it happens at any time in the 19th century, the British are likely to just start conquering stuff as they please during the chaos, because that was exactly the situation in India prior to British conquest.
With the rest of the world in mind, I think it would be safer to stick with the Qing.
Last edited:
Just have a progressive faction of the Taiping triumph. Less dead wood to clear out that way.
Deleted member 67329
I always thought Gong had great potential for a Qing divergence to begin reform.
I think it's entirely plausible for an alternative self-strengthening movement to have had more thorough and long-lasting reforms of the Qing state.
I could see China retaining it's traditional influence in Korea, possibly averting or overcoming revolutionary republicanism, but expansion into areas like Siberia is probably unrealistic.
I think it's entirely plausible for an alternative self-strengthening movement to have had more thorough and long-lasting reforms of the Qing state.
I could see China retaining it's traditional influence in Korea, possibly averting or overcoming revolutionary republicanism, but expansion into areas like Siberia is probably unrealistic.
A more modern China would have far more success than the Japanese did in their war against Russia. A more modern China's economy would be 8-10x the size of Japan's economy by 1905. A western trained Chinese army would crush the Russian army through numbers alone. Logistics would work against Russia because the Russians would be far from their sources of supply in Europe.
Deleted member 67329
Sure, but in what timeframe?
Are we assuming Russia doesn't respond at all to a modernised China? The situation would be completely different - why is there a war occuring?
Sacer Bubonicus
Banned
They'd probably maintain peace. Depending on how early they modernize, the Russo-Chinese border might be different.
At the greatest extent, Vladivostok and everything south of the Amur might remain part of Manchuria.
Ironically, the Russians might actually ally with Japan to counter the rising Qing. Or they might take advantage of a Sino-Japanese War to take Hokkaido?
Edit: basically, it depends. Still, they'd most likely want to create a balance of power, and that means alliances to counter the Qing.
If a Russian Civil War breaks out, the Qing would have a strong interest in defeating the communists, whose ideology is more or less the polar opposite of neo-Confucianism. And given the number of troops they'd have, they'd probably succeed.
Last edited:
to take back the land the Russians stole from China in the 1850s during the Taiping Rebellion. China would promise Japan Sakhalin and Kuril Islands so Japan remains neutral. China will halve the size of Russia and take everything east of 70 degrees.