What if there was no industrial revolution

That's what you tend to do when the status quo 90% of the time is being the greatest country in the known world.

The problem is that its not the way you stay the greatest country in the known world.

They were more than acceptable, they were the _right_ policies. The fact that circumstances changed in unpredictable ways is a part of normal human life, not a particularly Chinese failing.

Making a policy that is right for 1500 AD is not the same as making a policy that is justified forever, and yet policies in 1500 AD - while maybe not specifically intended to last forever - are extended later so that they're kind of of that sort.

Picking 1500 AD as when Europe is beginning to develop as the place we know for exploiting things across the world, and as a convenient mid point between 1000 AD when Western Eurasia is largely irrelevant and the present, where "made in China" is on half our stuff again. Or maybe Korea. Still.

And China is getting the attention because it clearly was a developed society in any sense that word means anything. It fell short here, however.

Europe didn't choose to do this, it was driven by necessity. China did choose to ignore the outside world, but there were reasons for it. Still, I agree, an expansionistic Southern Ming, or Shun dynasty in the 17th century probably would have been much better for China than the OTL Qing.

It had to choose to look to - for instance - the North Atlantic in the hopes that something useful would be found there. Huzzah, cod and herrings. It could have treated it as worthless and never developed the potential there.

bunch of stuff

I'm not saying China had no foreign trade, but its treating anything outside the coast hugging as not merely less desirable but actively interfering with it ever amounting anything by the policies it chose to adopt.

If merchants are prohibited from doing something that might pay off, but which might not be worth the risk, why would those who would otherwise gamble on it being worth the risk take the risk of it not paying off and facing the law? That's just too much of a hurdle.

Focusing on this since...well, exchange of long posts isn't leading us anywhere.

China didn't really need the cotton imports, their textile industries were mostly domestic and met their needs. What works for one place, isn't going to work for another. The society evolved to match the environment it emerged.

So the Chinese can't make a profit selling textile goods to other places (like England did with its textile industry)....how again? I mean, seriously, what?

Using England for having done so much with it.

That the Chinese were content with how things as they were is not a sign those things were optimal.

A good question, actually. I suspect it simply never really recovered from the Jin/Mongol invasions. Replicating the Song experience in a later era would increase the likelihood of an industrial revolution in China.

More to the point, a well-timed foreign pillaging of England in the 18th century might be whats needed to send the Industrial Revolution off-track.

That would make sense. That kind of experience would make anyone focused on something far removed from oceanic trade, at least for a while. After a certain point (I'm not sure when, but you don't seem to mind the Qing being picked on as incompetent and neglectful) it should have been able to move back to a proto-industrial level....and well, China in 1750 should not be looked at quite so enviously by China in 1850.

Even with opium wars. :mad:

On England:
Send it off track, but not prevent it from happening for centuries.

Depending on what kind of pillaging we're talking about, but if China was razed to the ground, it wouldn't be the merely declining society the rest of the world is (coming to) surpass so much as...well, Russia.
 
The problem is that its not the way you stay the greatest country in the known world.

Sure, but hey. China had a pretty good run compared to others.

It had to choose to look to - for instance - the North Atlantic in the hopes that something useful would be found there. Huzzah, cod and herrings. It could have treated it as worthless and never developed the potential there.

But it was treated as worthless by mostly everyone, which it was. The Carthaginians and the North African Arabs sent ships out in the North Atlantic, and they came to the same conclusion as the Ming did later with Zheng He: not worth the time or effort.

It wasn't until a crazy man like Columbus came along that they stumbled across something. And in his case, he knew what he was looking for: he wasn't looking for the sake of looking, he was looking specifically for a route to the riches of the East, because he was a wishful thinker. The Americas proved to have riches of their own, but it wasn't a particularly expansionist mindset that had brought Europeans out there, it was the search for a passage to Asia.

I'm not saying China had no foreign trade, but its treating anything outside the coast hugging as not merely less desirable but actively interfering with it ever amounting anything by the policies it chose to adopt.

If merchants are prohibited from doing something that might pay off, but which might not be worth the risk, why would those who would otherwise gamble on it being worth the risk take the risk of it not paying off and facing the law? That's just too much of a hurdle.

The thing is, merchants weren't really building ocean-going ships. It was pretty much a state-run thing, including those docks. So shutting them down was the equivalent of, say, the cancellation of the Apollo program for being too damn expensive.

You overestimate the power of the central government over the merchants. No law would have stopped them building ocean-going ships if there had been profit in them.

So the Chinese can't make a profit selling textile goods to other places (like England did with its textile industry)....how again? I mean, seriously, what?

Using England for having done so much with it.

Probably, but it was a case that the local supply was adequately met by local demand. You don't necessarily want to go out looking for new markets when the local market more than adequately supplies you with profit.

At any rate, the main problem was not that China couldn't sell goods to Europe, it's that there were no European goods that Chinese wanted to buy.

That would make sense. That kind of experience would make anyone focused on something far removed from oceanic trade, at least for a while. After a certain point (I'm not sure when, but you don't seem to mind the Qing being picked on as incompetent and neglectful) it should have been able to move back to a proto-industrial level....and well, China in 1750 should not be looked at quite so enviously by China in 1850.

You keep connecting oceanic trade, and I assume big ships that can travel to Europe and around the world; with an industrial revolution. I don't think they would necessarily coincide. Unlike Britain, China wouldn't have needed access to international trade markets to have an industrial revolution, it's purely domestic economy could have pulled one off in the right circumstances.

There might have been climactic reasons that the Ming didn't catch up with Song. Song had it's heyday in the Warm Medieval Period, while the late Ming were in the Little Ice Age. Famine and rebellion was a constant problem, the financial destabilization caused by the influx of Spanish silver played a role, and fighting off Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea, these are factors which may have prevented the intensification of industry under the Ming.

I am critical of the Qing, because I feel they perpetuated Ming policies beyond their point of usefulness. Then again, the Qing pushed China to it's greatest territorial extent so they couldn't have been completely bad news.

On England:
Send it off track, but not prevent it from happening for centuries.

Maybe. It seems we differ in our opinions on our inevitable an industrial revolution in that period is. This is something we can probably never resolve, given our sample set of one :D
 
Sure, but hey. China had a pretty good run compared to others.

Yep. Even counting periods the state broke up and all, its certainly credible for the most part. And its apparently come back recently (I'm very unfamiliar with post-WWII events, particularly in Asia, so if I sound dumb on that...well, that's why)

But it was treated as worthless by mostly everyone, which it was. The Carthaginians and the North African Arabs sent ships out in the North Atlantic, and they came to the same conclusion as the Ming did later with Zheng He: not worth the time or effort.
The North Atlantic? As in the area with herrings and cod? Or are we looking at:

It wasn't until a crazy man like Columbus came along that they stumbled across something. And in his case, he knew what he was looking for: he wasn't looking for the sake of looking, he was looking specifically for a route to the riches of the East, because he was a wishful thinker. The Americas proved to have riches of their own, but it wasn't a particularly expansionist mindset that had brought Europeans out there, it was the search for a passage to Asia.
This, which is a separate part of the Atlantic with its own rewards which Europe proceeded to say "Hey we see something here that might be promising." and explore further in search of a) a route to Asia, and b) a way to take advantage of the Americas.

The thing is, merchants weren't really building ocean-going ships. It was pretty much a state-run thing, including those docks. So shutting them down was the equivalent of, say, the cancellation of the Apollo program for being too damn expensive.

If they weren't building them, why was there a law banning it? Just stop construction. A lot easier than making up a law. In fact, why is there a law against overseas trade if there isn't anything significant enough to be worth the trouble of banning? Why not just make laws against smuggling outright if the problem is smugglers?

You overestimate the power of the central government over the merchants. No law would have stopped them building ocean-going ships if there had been profit in them.
Yeah, its not as if that law could have been enforced. Ocean going ships being constructed are kind of hard to hide.

And the point is in part that banning them meant that the option never came up. So if for instance there was something by 1600, no one will ever know unless Europeans offer it because no one is able to go to Europe.

So unless your point is that the Chinese ability to enforce the law is so totally ineffectual that the enforcers can't have any impact on merchants choosing to build ocean going ships with risk of presumably severe penalties, then it would play a role - probably enough to deter interest in a situation where safe profit is obtainable, so the risks of ocean going and law breaking add up to "not worth whatever profits can be achieved".

Probably, but it was a case that the local supply was adequately met by local demand. You don't necessarily want to go out looking for new markets when the local market more than adequately supplies you with profit.
Which is the attitude of a society content with what it has, not the attitude of somewhere like Europe where making 200% is grounds for finding a way to make 300% profit.

At any rate, the main problem was not that China couldn't sell goods to Europe, it's that there were no European goods that Chinese wanted to buy.
And banning ocean going ships means no merchants are ever going to be able to go to Europe in a situation where there are things the Chinese would to buy. It eliminates the possibility of European goods coming to China except via European merchants, it eliminates selling Chinese goods except to either the local area or to merchants who are traveling from afar.

You keep connecting oceanic trade, and I assume big ships that can travel to Europe and around the world; with an industrial revolution. I don't think they would necessarily coincide. Unlike Britain, China wouldn't have needed access to international trade markets to have an industrial revolution, it's purely domestic economy could have pulled one off in the right circumstances.
Necessarily, no, but the economic benefits - and the idea that there is nothing that China can gain by trade and exploitation outside China is close minded - are a boost.

Using Europe in this part of the argument incidentally because its the region catching up with China and eventually surpassing it, so its more reasonable to consider what trade with it would have done differently than what trade with the further off parts of Oceania would have, say.

There might have been climactic reasons that the Ming didn't catch up with Song. Song had it's heyday in the Warm Medieval Period, while the late Ming were in the Little Ice Age. Famine and rebellion was a constant problem, the financial destabilization caused by the influx of Spanish silver played a role, and fighting off Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea, these are factors which may have prevented the intensification of industry under the Ming.

I am critical of the Qing, because I feel they perpetuated Ming policies beyond their point of usefulness. Then again, the Qing pushed China to it's greatest territorial extent so they couldn't have been completely bad news.
Makes sense.

Maybe. It seems we differ in our opinions on our inevitable an industrial revolution in that period is. This is something we can probably never resolve, given our sample set of one :D
Well, the conditions are generally ripe for one. An invasion pillaging England may or may not fundamentally change the country.

On the issue in general: We can conclude that because it only happened in Europe that only something where at least some of the factors present in Europe when and where it occurred happening elsewhere would lead to one - but that still leaves us trying to pick out which ones.

I think having a generally healthy, commerically driven economy where trade is encouraged instead of restricted by the government and a lack of interest in any development outside China (either as in the rest of the world catching up or as in doing something to develop the equivalent of Carribean sugar plantations) would be a great boost to the ability for one to happen - and also a good boost to the state's income, which would help with some of the problems the Ming faced.
 
Last edited:
Hell, if the Chinese had been more pro-active, less restrictive, it might have made things worse. Chinese merchants get a bloody nose from European interlopers, the Chinese send a huge fleet and clear them out. Then, no cheap cotton for Britain, so no textiles, so no Industrial Revolution.

Depending on the year they meet, that could be a fun situation. English merchants meet Chinese merchants, and the Indian princes in the middle get to exploit both sides.

Until the Chinese start bringing along 'extra' fireworks, and the English get frightened away due to fire damage. The English return with cannon armed ships, and frighten away the Chinese merchants.

Then the Chinese 5th Fleet arrives, over a hundred strong, wanting to know What Is Going On.
 
This, which is a separate part of the Atlantic with its own rewards which Europe proceeded to say "Hey we see something here that might be promising." and explore further in search of a) a route to Asia, and b) a way to take advantage of the Americas.

Well, Europeans only really had interest in the Atlantic in order to find a passage to the East, and then a renewed interest once gold was found in the Americas. Otherwise, most prior European activity in the North Atlantic really had been about the herring and cod.

If they weren't building them, why was there a law banning it? Just stop construction. A lot easier than making up a law. In fact, why is there a law against overseas trade if there isn't anything significant enough to be worth the trouble of banning? Why not just make laws against smuggling outright if the problem is smugglers?
The ban on ocean-going ships was a bit much, I would agree.

Overseas trade wasn't banned, it was regulated. There were many laws against smuggling, these were often not effective. It's because so many of the state laws were blatantly ignored by Chinese merchants and seamen that I think the real significance of laws regarding large vessels to be overstated.

Yeah, its not as if that law could have been enforced. Ocean going ships being constructed are kind of hard to hide.

And the point is in part that banning them meant that the option never came up. So if for instance there was something by 1600, no one will ever know unless Europeans offer it because no one is able to go to Europe.

So unless your point is that the Chinese ability to enforce the law is so totally ineffectual that the enforcers can't have any impact on merchants choosing to build ocean going ships with risk of presumably severe penalties, then it would play a role - probably enough to deter interest in a situation where safe profit is obtainable, so the risks of ocean going and law breaking add up to "not worth whatever profits can be achieved".
You have a point, it would have factored into the risk analysis.

Which is the attitude of a society content with what it has, not the attitude of somewhere like Europe where making 200% is grounds for finding a way to make 300% profit.
I'm not sure Europeans thought in those terms. It was competition from other European powers that kept them on their toes.

And banning ocean going ships means no merchants are ever going to be able to go to Europe in a situation where there are things the Chinese would to buy. It eliminates the possibility of European goods coming to China except via European merchants, it eliminates selling Chinese goods except to either the local area or to merchants who are traveling from afar.
You can get to Europe via the monsoon trade system, though. European goods got to China through the Venetian trade through the Red Sea. The "local area" was huge, was most of the developed world.

My basic thesis is this. The Chinese never felt the same Need that the Europeans did, which is why ocean-going ship construction was allowed to decay and legislated against. If they had had a Need, those laws would have had either had little effect or never even been passed.

Necessarily, no, but the economic benefits - and the idea that there is nothing that China can gain by trade and exploitation outside China is close minded - are a boost.

Using Europe in this part of the argument incidentally because its the region catching up with China and eventually surpassing it, so its more reasonable to consider what trade with it would have done differently than what trade with the further off parts of Oceania would have, say.
I find it difficult to imagine what there would be for the Chinese to buy in Europe. Amber, perhaps. Wool was a non-starter. Until the Industrial Revolution in Europe saw a manufacturing boom, there was nothing there that would have had a great beneficial effect for China.

Remember, European expansion and imperialism was driven by a lack of things in their home countries. Trade and exploitation was the only way. China wasn't under the same pressure. This wasn't just their mindset, it was the economic reality of the time.

Makes sense.

Well, the conditions are generally ripe for one. An invasion pillaging England may or may not fundamentally change the country.

On the issue in general: We can conclude that because it only happened in Europe that only something where at least some of the factors present in Europe when and where it occurred happening elsewhere would lead to one - but that still leaves us trying to pick out which ones.
It could be that _all_ of the factors are necessary, in order to create the boom that was the Industrial Revolution. Remove some, and events may happen much much more slowly.

I think having a generally healthy, commerically driven economy where trade is encouraged instead of restricted by the government and a lack of interest in any development outside China (either as in the rest of the world catching up or as in doing something to develop the equivalent of Carribean sugar plantations) would be a great boost to the ability for one to happen - and also a good boost to the state's income, which would help with some of the problems the Ming faced.
Not really, the income that the Ming could have received from foreign trade was pretty meager compared to domestic sources of revenue. China was huge, and China was rich. More foreign trade would have benefited individuals, and probably regions such as the Fujian coast; but I am skeptical that it would have translated into much in the way of income gains for the state.

What's more, the possibility to get involved in foreign entanglements was quite high, and that would run the risk of overstretch and distraction. Getting pulled into petty squabbles in the Indies would be dangerous, especially in times of internal unrest and troubles along the northern border.

It could have happened, though. A surviving southern Ming might very well have done just that, it would have lost a lot of revenue if the Qing had conquered the north, and the effort to keep legitimacy via tribute from foreign kings (as inspired Zheng He's OTL voyages) might see renewed interest in the vassals of Southeast Asia and the Indian Rim. New ocean-going ships could be constructed, and with Europeans having established a presence in Asia the likelihood of a 17th century Chinese treasure fleet rounding Africa and visiting Europe is much higher. I remain skeptical there would be much in the way of economic boons, but it would certainly lead to interesting interactions. That could be an interesting scenario indeed.
 
Well, Europeans only really had interest in the Atlantic in order to find a passage to the East, and then a renewed interest once gold was found in the Americas. Otherwise, most prior European activity in the North Atlantic really had been about the herring and cod.

Which is still an interest in "can this be exploited?" rather than writing it off in say 900 AD and never returning to check if there's something there.

The ban on ocean-going ships was a bit much, I would agree.

Overseas trade wasn't banned, it was regulated. There were many laws against smuggling, these were often not effective. It's because so many of the state laws were blatantly ignored by Chinese merchants and seamen that I think the real significance of laws regarding large vessels to be overstated.

Kennedy says banned, you (from your source/s) say regulated.

As for the state laws being blatantly ignored and the significance of said laws being overstated: See below.

You have a point, it would have factored into the risk analysis.

And thus making it something which, in a system where there are alternatives, undesirable - despite any potential for further development. Why make the kind of investment that it would take to develop anything when you can get the law after you and Commonly Accepted Wisdom is that there's nothing out there? That's about the least favorable possible combination.

One closed door to possible further development, check.

I'm not sure Europeans thought in those terms. It was competition from other European powers that kept them on their toes.

Well, it would fit the developments that evolved into capitalism more readily than that they made more and more obscene profits without trying.

You can get to Europe via the monsoon trade system, though. European goods got to China through the Venetian trade through the Red Sea. The "local area" was huge, was most of the developed world.

The "local area" is not most of the developed world unless your definition of "developed" stops around Baghdad or further east.

Which would neatly fit the Chinese conceptions of the world.

My basic thesis is this. The Chinese never felt the same Need that the Europeans did, which is why ocean-going ship construction was allowed to decay and legislated against. If they had had a Need, those laws would have had either had little effect or never even been passed.

I find it difficult to imagine what there would be for the Chinese to buy in Europe. Amber, perhaps. Wool was a non-starter. Until the Industrial Revolution in Europe saw a manufacturing boom, there was nothing there that would have had a great beneficial effect for China.

There may or may not be anything that has a great beneficial effect in the sense having supplies of X suddenly gives China a bonus, but trade and money from trade would be beneficial.

There's no reason that, for instance, Britain Needed tea from China and India. Sure didn't stop that from being a big thing. Why? Because its valuable and desirable.

A Chinese attitude that there are things like that was to Europe out there - say China goes to the Americas (if Europe can trade with China, China can cross the Pacific if it has ocean going ships), chocolate and other New World stuff of that sort.

China with potatoes would be really interesting.

Remember, European expansion and imperialism was driven by a lack of things in their home countries. Trade and exploitation was the only way. China wasn't under the same pressure. This wasn't just their mindset, it was the economic reality of the time.

And the economic reality is drawing great strength from the social reality where the world outside China is neglected for the world inside China.

There are a things out there that don't grow in China natively that expeditions in search of places to get riches from could uncover, and Chinese colonies creating markets and economic growth the way European ones did is another possible boost - if China has such colonies.

It could be that _all_ of the factors are necessary, in order to create the boom that was the Industrial Revolution. Remove some, and events may happen much much more slowly.

Not really, the income that the Ming could have received from foreign trade was pretty meager compared to domestic sources of revenue. China was huge, and China was rich. More foreign trade would have benefited individuals, and probably regions such as the Fujian coast; but I am skeptical that it would have translated into much in the way of income gains for the state.

It would to the extent it would benefit those individuals and regions. More economic prosperity - more money, more money - more that can be taxed.

What's more, the possibility to get involved in foreign entanglements was quite high, and that would run the risk of overstretch and distraction. Getting pulled into petty squabbles in the Indies would be dangerous, especially in times of internal unrest and troubles along the northern border.

This is not speaking well of China's ability to be able to be a Great Power of the sort that the European nations who fought major wars in Europe and profited from the Indies managed.

It could have happened, though. A surviving southern Ming might very well have done just that, it would have lost a lot of revenue if the Qing had conquered the north, and the effort to keep legitimacy via tribute from foreign kings (as inspired Zheng He's OTL voyages) might see renewed interest in the vassals of Southeast Asia and the Indian Rim. New ocean-going ships could be constructed, and with Europeans having established a presence in Asia the likelihood of a 17th century Chinese treasure fleet rounding Africa and visiting Europe is much higher. I remain skeptical there would be much in the way of economic boons, but it would certainly lead to interesting interactions. That could be an interesting scenario indeed.

There might be one if China exploits the opportunities and takes advantage of any demands for Chinese goods (look at the way the British textile industry prospered OTL) instead of "we produce enough for our needs at home, why would we need more cotton and more cotton mills?"
 
Which is still an interest in "can this be exploited?" rather than writing it off in say 900 AD and never returning to check if there's something there.

Not really, it's just looking for new fisheries. Addressing a need.

Kennedy says banned, you (from your source/s) say regulated.

The China section in The Rise and Fall of Great Powers is tiny, the focus in that text was on Western powers. I would recommend Why the West Rules, For Now by Ian Morris as a better comparison between East and West.

And thus making it something which, in a system where there are alternatives, undesirable - despite any potential for further development. Why make the kind of investment that it would take to develop anything when you can get the law after you and Commonly Accepted Wisdom is that there's nothing out there? That's about the least favorable possible combination.

One closed door to possible further development, check.

I suppose. But I still think that the geography was the main causative factor for that, not individual decision-makers or culture.

The "local area" is not most of the developed world unless your definition of "developed" stops around Baghdad or further east.

Which would neatly fit the Chinese conceptions of the world.

Well, really the only part of the developed world which couldn't access China relatively easily through the monsoon trade or land routes was the western fringe of Europe.

There may or may not be anything that has a great beneficial effect in the sense having supplies of X suddenly gives China a bonus, but trade and money from trade would be beneficial.

Not if it's a loss-making trade it's not.

There's no reason that, for instance, Britain Needed tea from China and India. Sure didn't stop that from being a big thing. Why? Because its valuable and desirable.

A Chinese attitude that there are things like that was to Europe out there - say China goes to the Americas (if Europe can trade with China, China can cross the Pacific if it has ocean going ships), chocolate and other New World stuff of that sort.

China with potatoes would be really interesting.

American goods were certainly more interesting to the Chinese, chilli and corn was adopted relatively early and American ginseng was big in the 19th century.

Europe had a definate logistical advantage over China in reaching the Americas. Not only did the local naval environment tend to encourage the construction of hardy ocean-going ships, but the distance between western Europe and the Americas was less than half the distance between China and the Americas.

By the time the Europeans got some goods that were valuable and desirable, they were already heavily invested in the Asian trade. The European demand for Asian goods was higher than Asian demand for these new American goods, so the Chinese got all of what they needed and then promptly began to cultivate it themselves.

Creating a stronger demand in China for a European or American good of some kind would likely have a very stimulatory effect.

And the economic reality is drawing great strength from the social reality where the world outside China is neglected for the world inside China.

There are a things out there that don't grow in China natively that expeditions in search of places to get riches from could uncover, and Chinese colonies creating markets and economic growth the way European ones did is another possible boost - if China has such colonies.

Such as? You keep talking about these missed opportunities as a general thing, but you haven't given any actual examples.

It would to the extent it would benefit those individuals and regions. More economic prosperity - more money, more money - more that can be taxed.

More money going out as well, to purchase these new goods. More powerful individuals able to raise private armies. More destablizing booms and busts. I dunno, it looked pretty dubious from where the mandarin was sitting.

Remember, the important thing is the ratio of wealth that can be gained through foreign trade, and wealth from domestic sources. For European states, the former was a much larger slice. For China, the slice was much, much smaller.

This is not speaking well of China's ability to be able to be a Great Power of the sort that the European nations who fought major wars in Europe and profited from the Indies managed.

Calculations of risk and reward made sense for European nations to do so, not so much for China.

There might be one if China exploits the opportunities and takes advantage of any demands for Chinese goods (look at the way the British textile industry prospered OTL) instead of "we produce enough for our needs at home, why would we need more cotton and more cotton mills?"

Well, the problem was that the West had nothing to sell them that interested them, except bullion. If the West had had something that there had been a demand for, then there would have been an incentive to produce more goods to sell. There was plenty of demand for Chinese goods, and they were exported around the world at a profit, as far as East Africa.

China was a sellers market, and thus there was no incentive for them to go out looking for new demand because all the buyers in the world were coming to them. Unlike Europe, China didn't have to go out to find resources, and it didn't have to go out to find markets; all these things came to it. Their attitude was a symptom, not a cause.

If Western Europe as home to some kind of highly effective aphrodisiacal fungus that only grew in those climes and was wildly popular with everyone who tried it, then you would have seen hardy Asian navigators making their way around the coast of Africa to lay their wares out to trade for the stuff. In this scenario, Western Europeans would have no incentive to take the long and treacherous route around Africa to trade in Asian waters if Asians were willing to take the trouble for them. Sure, it would come to bite them in the ass when they get turned into Mallaccan or Omani colonies two hundred years later; but their laziness would be a result of human nature, not their culture.
 
Not really, it's just looking for new fisheries. Addressing a need.

Yes. And looking in an area that could have been written off as Not Worth the Risks in a society more concerned about risks than rewards.

The China section in The Rise and Fall of Great Powers is tiny, the focus in that text was on Western powers. I would recommend Why the West Rules, For Now by Ian Morris as a better comparison between East and West.
Will keep an eye out.

I suppose. But I still think that the geography was the main causative factor for that, not individual decision-makers or culture.
The geography certainly encourages it, but people rise to the occasion or fail to despite geography. If geography was destiny, England should never have amounted to much more than the Netherlands on the world stage.

Commercial interests far and wide but no great national power.

Well, really the only part of the developed world which couldn't access China relatively easily through the monsoon trade or land routes was the western fringe of Europe.
The problem is that its still stopping interest in what others have to offer besides specie around where the monsoons stop.

Not if it's a loss-making trade it's not.
And why are we assuming it will be again?

American goods were certainly more interesting to the Chinese, chilli and corn was adopted relatively early and American ginseng was big in the 19th century.

Europe had a definate logistical advantage over China in reaching the Americas. Not only did the local naval environment tend to encourage the construction of hardy ocean-going ships, but the distance between western Europe and the Americas was less than half the distance between China and the Americas.
And China has the advantage of being a much stronger place than any European nation. It can find ways to go further than the coast hugging trade.

By the time the Europeans got some goods that were valuable and desirable, they were already heavily invested in the Asian trade. The European demand for Asian goods was higher than Asian demand for these new American goods, so the Chinese got all of what they needed and then promptly began to cultivate it themselves.

Creating a stronger demand in China for a European or American good of some kind would likely have a very stimulatory effect.
Unfortunately for China, this would require either faster European development or more Chinese interest in affairs outside the monsoon region. And ideally both, but you can't have everything.

Such as? You keep talking about these missed opportunities as a general thing, but you haven't given any actual examples.
You just mentioned American goods China found interesting. How much grows in the New World that isn't native to China?

The point is that an attitude where those opportunities are sought is one where they can be found and exploited, not the value of (for instance) sugar specifically. The world outside China and the monsoon region is pretty broad and we see Europe exploiting and trading everything from whale oil to indigo.

More money going out as well, to purchase these new goods. More powerful individuals able to raise private armies. More destablizing booms and busts. I dunno, it looked pretty dubious from where the mandarin was sitting.
Yeah, if your idea of "good' is "stable and boring" (boring used as the antithesis of what we translation as "interesting" in the famous saying), then yes, it does look dubious. This is not the attitude of a dynamic society eager for gaining spuds for the spud God.

Hey, we needed something to lighten things up, and potatoes are awesome. :D

But more seriously, if the reaction if the Mandarins is "But the risks!" then that's going to have an effect harmful to the forces and energies that trigger the kind of explosive growth and leaps forward that took Europe from as industrially developed per capita as China in 1750 to almost twice as much by 1830 (with the UK being four times as much).

Remember, the important thing is the ratio of wealth that can be gained through foreign trade, and wealth from domestic sources. For European states, the former was a much larger slice. For China, the slice was much, much smaller.
Which doesn't mean that it isn't worth it, especially as wealth from foreign trade also means more money spent inside China which means more economic development there.

Its not as if its (making up numbers) making 25,000 within China and making 1,500 outside China with a change to making 2,500 having no impact on anything inside China. European states benefited internally from the growth of trade as making the economy stronger above and beyond what money was specifically made selling, for instance, cod.

"And all of this gave the greatest stimulus to the European shipbuilding industry, attracting around the ports of London, Bristol, Antwerp, Amsterdam, and man others a vast array of craftsmen, suppliers, dealers, insurers." for starters.

Calculations of risk and reward made sense for European nations to do so, not so much for China.
See above comment on Mandarins preferring safety and boredom.

Well, the problem was that the West had nothing to sell them that interested them, except bullion. If the West had had something that there had been a demand for, then there would have been an incentive to produce more goods to sell. There was plenty of demand for Chinese goods, and they were exported around the world at a profit, as far as East Africa.

China was a sellers market, and thus there was no incentive for them to go out looking for new demand because all the buyers in the world were coming to them. Unlike Europe, China didn't have to go out to find resources, and it didn't have to go out to find markets; all these things came to it. Their attitude was a symptom, not a cause.
Unlike Europe, China chose to regard the situation as the best of all possible worlds and preserving it was more important than improving it.

If Western Europe as home to some kind of highly effective aphrodisiacal fungus that only grew in those climes and was wildly popular with everyone who tried it, then you would have seen hardy Asian navigators making their way around the coast of Africa to lay their wares out to trade for the stuff. In this scenario, Western Europeans would have no incentive to take the long and treacherous route around Africa to trade in Asian waters if Asians were willing to take the trouble for them. Sure, it would come to bite them in the ass when they get turned into Mallaccan or Omani colonies two hundred years later; but their laziness would be a result of human nature, not their culture.
In this scenario, Western Europeans would still have an interest in exploiting the world unless we think they develop an equally indifferent attitude towards the fruits of commerce to what OTL China had.

"All the world comes to Europe for the fungus." doesn't make it undesirable to find cod or whale oil etc.
 
Last edited:
Yes. And looking in an area that could have been written off as Not Worth the Risks in a society more concerned about risks than rewards.

Looking for new fisheries wasn't particularly high-risk, and it had an obvious reward.

The geography certainly encourages it, but people rise to the occasion or fail to despite geography. If geography was destiny, England should never have amounted to much more than the Netherlands on the world stage.

Commercial interests far and wide but no great national power.
I think you're being a bit hard on the Netherlands, it definately had it's heyday as a great power. And I would argue that you could point to geography as a major causative factor as to why Britain became a great power and the Netherlands industrialized late.

There's the obvious one, the coal deposits of Britain, to start wirth

The problem is that its still stopping interest in what others have to offer besides specie around where the monsoons stop.
They didn't have anything to offer. We know this, because Europeans tried for centuries to sell the Chinese almost anything to try to get the trade balance more favorable: from woolens to cuckoo clocks. Everything was either inferior in quality to local produce, or more expensive than other options, or far too esoteric. If 18th century Europeans couldn't find anything to sell the Chinese that the Chinese wanted to buy, you want to blame the 16th century Chinese for not bothering to sail all the friggin' way around Africa to get at...what?

And why are we assuming it will be again?
Because there was nothing to buy in Europe, and because the Europeans wouldn't have been able to pay more for Chinese goods than the Indians or Arabs. Then there's the logistical costs. There is no way that the Chinese would have had any commercial gains from trading around Africa or across the Pacific with Europe.

And China has the advantage of being a much stronger place than any European nation. It can find ways to go further than the coast hugging trade.
It didn't need to, and doing so wouldn't have made any profits.

Unfortunately for China, this would require either faster European development or more Chinese interest in affairs outside the monsoon region. And ideally both, but you can't have everything.
Well the first possibility is too general to draw conclusions from. The latter is possible, I suppose. One possibility would be if the Europeans played their hand too early, and attempted an invasion or dressing down of China in the 16th or 17th century. This would likely end badly, but it could lead to a punitive expedition against whoever tried it.

You just mentioned American goods China found interesting. How much grows in the New World that isn't native to China?
Lots of things, but the thing is that when the Chinese got their hands on them, they were able to grow them in China itself. China is big enough, and has varied enough terrain and climate that it could just grow it locally. Lot cheaper to grow chillis in Sichuan or corn in Inner Mongolia than to buy it from the Spanish.

One possibility that bears exploration is tobacco, I think. It was banned under the Ming and Qing, but if you can either stop the ban or get it established early enough that the ban is ineffective, then there will be a New World good the Chinese would want to buy. Then problem is, this probably wouldn't encourage much in the way of China going out to get it, because the Spanish would come and sell it, and then others would likely come in and undercut the Spanish prices, and then the Chinese would start growing it themselves.

The point is that an attitude where those opportunities are sought is one where they can be found and exploited, not the value of (for instance) sugar specifically. The world outside China and the monsoon region is pretty broad and we see Europe exploiting and trading everything from whale oil to indigo.
They did it because it was not available in their backyard, so it had to be sought. China didn't have that problem. There wasn't really a difference in attitude, Europeans bureaucrats were no less risk-averse than Chinese ones, and Chinese merchants no less adventurous and profit-driven than European ones.

Yeah, if your idea of "good' is "stable and boring" (boring used as the antithesis of what we translation as "interesting" in the famous saying), then yes, it does look dubious. This is not the attitude of a dynamic society eager for gaining spuds for the spud God.

Hey, we needed something to lighten things up, and potatoes are awesome. :D
Potatoes are awesome, but their adoption was actually pretty spotty in Europe. It took centuries for people to be convinced they weren't poisonous.

But more seriously, if the reaction if the Mandarins is "But the risks!" then that's going to have an effect harmful to the forces and energies that trigger the kind of explosive growth and leaps forward that took Europe from as industrially developed per capita as China in 1750 to almost twice as much by 1830 (with the UK being four times as much).
Which doesn't mean that it isn't worth it, especially as wealth from foreign trade also means more money spent inside China which means more economic development there.

Its not as if its (making up numbers) making 25,000 within China and making 1,500 outside China with a change to making 2,500 having no impact on anything inside China. European states benefited internally from the growth of trade as making the economy stronger above and beyond what money was specifically made selling, for instance, cod.

"And all of this gave the greatest stimulus to the European shipbuilding industry, attracting around the ports of London, Bristol, Antwerp, Amsterdam, and man others a vast array of craftsmen, suppliers, dealers, insurers." for starters.
And the Fujian coast was no different.

You seem to have made a connection between the Industrial Revolution and lots of overseas trade that seems too general. It was specifically the textile trade, and the need to outcompete Indian cotton, that drove much early industrialization.

Delay some technical innovations for long enough, and it's likely that the struggling British cotton industry might be entirely strangled by low-quality but cheap Indian cloth, and high-quality and pricey Chinese cloth before the technical innovations lead to the ridiculous increases of efficiency that OTL saw. That would put a serious spanner in the works.

See above comment on Mandarins preferring safety and boredom.
So did everyone. But people liked cash more.

Unlike Europe, China chose to regard the situation as the best of all possible worlds and preserving it was more important than improving it.
You act as if China wasn't improving, when in fact it was. However, while Europe developed labor-saving techniques, East Asia was much more advanced in land-saving techniques and fuel efficiency. The idea that China was static and undeveloping is untrue.

Up to 1750, China had an edge on Europe in a lot of fields. People's views are far too influenced by the effects of the industrial revolution, which was a phenomenon without precedence in human history.

In this scenario, Western Europeans would still have an interest in exploiting the world unless we think they develop an equally indifferent attitude towards the fruits of commerce to what OTL China had.

"All the world comes to Europe for the fungus." doesn't make it undesirable to find cod or whale oil etc.
They wouldn't need to exploit the world if the world was coming to it. That's the point. Cod and whale oil could be sourced locally. And, would they be interested in finding whale oil if there were Asians and Arabs rocking up with other, better oils and were willing to sell pots and pots of it for some of the fungus? Human nature tends towards the path of least resistance in this case.
 
By the by, I've been doing some reading and I think I've stumbled across another reason that the Ming were unable to replicate Song success. The Song were able to produce a lot, and sell it on to foreign consumers in Southeast Asia and India for big profts as well as to the domestic market. This led to ever more intensive proto-industrialization.

The Ming problem was that, in the intervening period of rape and pillage, proto-industries had emerged in the local area. As for their trading parters domestic sources of the cheaper manufactures were now available, the Chinese sold less, and then mostly high-quality high-expense items. They also recieved relatively less resources for their manufactures than the Song had been able to. This meant that the same kind of intensive proto-industrialization was never again realized.
 
By the by, I've been doing some reading and I think I've stumbled across another reason that the Ming were unable to replicate Song success. The Song were able to produce a lot, and sell it on to foreign consumers in Southeast Asia and India for big profts as well as to the domestic market. This led to ever more intensive proto-industrialization.

The Ming problem was that, in the intervening period of rape and pillage, proto-industries had emerged in the local area. As for their trading parters domestic sources of the cheaper manufactures were now available, the Chinese sold less, and then mostly high-quality high-expense items. They also recieved relatively less resources for their manufactures than the Song had been able to. This meant that the same kind of intensive proto-industrialization was never again realized.

That would explain a hell of a lot.

Would also reinforce both my argument that foreign trade is a boost and yours that it isn't the Mandarins being evil obstructionists, interestingly.

Is it just me, or do we see a vicious cycle where instead of increasing profits meaning more development, less profits mean focusing on holding on to as much as possible of what is a known sure profit, which means the areas that might have gone further if focused on more get neglected, which makes them less profitable, which means they get ignored still further...

And so we end up with only luxury goods being sold outside China and China not swamping the world with made-in-China goods until the 20th century.

Not responding to the previous post if you don't mind, since this seems more attention-worthy.
 
Top