alternatehistory.com

Once we identify the flaws and poke holes in many popular explanations for China's "Century of Humiliation" by the West and Japan, especially cultural essentialist explanations, one of the few arguments left is that China was militarily outclassed mainly because it had gone too long without a war. I've seen this argument made by probably at least two historians, maybe more.

In this telling, the Qing, militarily impressive in gunpowder warfare in the 1600s and 1700s [with vast conquests on land and victory against the Russians], had no major wars after 1763.

Apparently, going without foreign wars for 76 years between 1763 and 1839 was enough to allow the Qing military establishment to atrophy while the Europeans leapt ahead.

The implied what-if in this is that if China had some wars against strong opponents in that 76 year interval, it would have kept better pace in military development.

Do you find this argument convincing as the *primary* explanation for Chinese military weakness in the age of imperialism, or not?

Why?
Top