When the Europeans were on the Same "Level" with the Chinese?

When the Europeans and the Chinese were pretty much evenly matched?

  • Before 16th century

    Votes: 30 25.4%
  • 16th century

    Votes: 26 22.0%
  • 17th century

    Votes: 37 31.4%
  • 18th century

    Votes: 20 16.9%
  • 19th century

    Votes: 5 4.2%

  • Total voters
    118
. As someone has correctly put on before, Europe sent people around that much also because it FELT the need to catch up with more advanced civilizations. (Muslims did the same for mainly opposed reasons).
I am sorry but you are wrong there.
Neither europe nor china nor the middle east did not send people around.
People wanted to go around by themself, since there was a big profit to make in such a trade.
It is not a question of political/diplomatic embassies sent by a government, but of people who wanted to make money.
Everyone liked the idea of drowning in a pool of gold coins, be them frankish or arabs or chinese.
Only, in order to earn such profits, investments were to be made. A system of capital accumulation was to be developed. A system of credit letters was to be devised.
All this existed in europe and in part of the middle east, but not in china.
Thus chinese merchants were unable to make such trips, and were forced to gnaw teeths while the foreign devils cut the most of the profits
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
A important point in trade are what the different country had to export. If you look at Europe you will see a significat lack of natural luxury products. Europe didn't have spices or other high price low volume products, except mineral and manufactoried ones and those was often high volume objects (gold and silver the main exceptions). China on the other hand did have the perfect trade objects, silk, tee and porcelain, high value to weight and volume.
 
Technically speaking China was ahead of Europe for quite some time, and remained so well into the late Medieval/Early Modern era. Economically speaking China was an economic bloc that remained autarkial for long enough that by the time Industrial civilization took hold it did not quite need what that civilization had to offer or appreciate the changed nature of military power due to industrialization. Politically speaking to finally topple the Qing, a dynasty itself composed of foreigners, proved to take quite a bit, even the bloodiest war before WWII could not do that.

I really think China's history is the most obviously distinct from a European-style sequence of changes as it's hard to fit China's histories into most Western models.
 
Why was Qin Shi Huangdi able to single-handedly wipe out the century-old tradition of feudalism in China, creating a unitary state, while western Europe never did the same?

Technically speaking the Qin Empire, while devastating did not deal the Coup de grace to the feudal system. The civil war that culminated in the rise of the Han Dynasty did that, as the Han softened the nastier edges of the Qin state but kept consolidating the system. Europe never united because there were always barbarians attacking across a frontier without a shield and there was a large, rival civilization in the form of the Sassanians that had wrecked the Roman Empire, which in turn meant that Europe never had the overall stability that the Chinese system did.
 
Technically speaking China was ahead of Europe for quite some time, and remained so well into the late Medieval/Early Modern era. Economically speaking China was an economic bloc that remained autarkial for long enough that by the time Industrial civilization took hold it did not quite need what that civilization had to offer or appreciate the changed nature of military power due to industrialization. Politically speaking to finally topple the Qing, a dynasty itself composed of foreigners, proved to take quite a bit, even the bloodiest war before WWII could not do that.

I really think China's history is the most obviously distinct from a European-style sequence of changes as it's hard to fit China's histories into most Western models.

And I'd say Qing China is the biggest argument against autarky. :p
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
I am sorry but I really don't understand your point.
How does what you wrote (the parable of China alng the dynasties) relate with what you quoted (Europe having a capital-mercantile system and China lacking it) ?
You surely cannot imply that the apex of chinese civilization had happened before the invention of trade (that would be ridiculous), thus you mean something else, but I really cannot understand it.

The first post was not me, and I disagree with what he said.

China had a vibrant, rich system of capital accumulation and trade, which is part of the reason it raced ahead of the rest of the world during the Medieval period. China in 1200 more closely resembled the North Sea rim during the Modern period than anywhere else. Then it went ahead and lost that advantage over the course of the next few centuries.
 
The first post was not me, and I disagree with what he said.

China had a vibrant, rich system of capital accumulation and trade, which is part of the reason it raced ahead of the rest of the world during the Medieval period. China in 1200 more closely resembled the North Sea rim during the Modern period than anywhere else. Then it went ahead and lost that advantage over the course of the next few centuries.

I should know, the first post was mine :rolleyes:
Ok, we deeply disagree on how much china had or had not a system of capital accumulation.
My position is that there was not, since we have not any evidence that it was ever used in what at the time was the route granting the most high profits, while at the same times european and persian merchants were rushing into it like there was no tomorrow to have a slice of the cake, using elbows and sometimes daggers to get ahead of the others and get a bigger slice.
Your point of view is opposite
 
I should know, it was mine :rolleyes:
Ok, we deeply disagree on how much china had or had not a system of capital accumulation.
My position is that there was not, since we have not any evidence that it was ever used in what at the time was the route granting the most high profits, while at the same times european and persian merchants were rushing into it like there was no tomorrow to have a slice of the cake, using elbows and sometimes daggers to getb ahead of the others and get a bigger slice.
Your point f view is opposite

Song and Yuan China were certainly heavily invested in trade as foreign policy, though mostly oriented towards South East Asia, but the Song/Yuan system collapsed very very thoroughly in the 14th c. and the Ming had little understanding or interest in finance. In fact within one generation they were trading in silver specie.

However, Chinese merchants and especially Chinese Muslims were enormously influential in trade in SEA and Indonesia. I'd go so far as to say that without them, it'd be hard to recognize it. The local warrior elites disdained trade, and the situation persisted until serious European takeover attempts in the 17th c.
 
I am not saying they had not trade (that would be absurd), but they lacked the capital accumulation necessary to organize a caravan on the silk way, which was by far the most profitable route a merchant could take (but also the one needing the most capital to start with).
And my position is based on the fact that we do not have evidence of a single chinese merchant doing it from 100AD to 1700AD, while we have extensive evidence of european, syrian, arab and persian ones
 
And my position is based on the fact that we do not have evidence of a single chinese merchant doing it from 100AD to 1700AD, while we have extensive evidence of european, arab and persian ones

Right, so the Silk Route to the exclusion of other endeavours? Of course, there really was an edict forbidding lage-scale sea travel during Ming, so even the SEA trade was done overland for most part.

I don't know, I think you underestimate the degree of reaction and nationalism that Chinese society experienced in the post-Yuan era as well as the impact of political decisions. I don't think that China was doomed pre-Ming, in other words, and it coasted on residual strength until the early-Qing era. But it's very hard to estimate which criteria are more important, agreed.
 
Wasnt talking of Han China I was talking of Qin and Suei china where Engineering Marvels were built that far surpassed Rome.
Such as the great imperial palace, terracotta army, Great wall of China, The huge canal which connected North and South Chinese rivers..... Plus the Quin relied on heavy Calvary got rid of Chariots and had a very efficient army.
Regardless, you claimed that Chinese mining and metallurgy was far superior to the Roman, and that "comparing the two at this time is unfair to Rome". This claim is entirely specious and fallacious, even moreso when considering the Roman Empire vis-a-vis the Qin dynasty, as the evidence given below demonstrates.
To tap you as a source, where did you get this information? I'm genuinely interested.

Gladly. It’s a fascinating topic.

It should be noted that all the figures given below are very much rough estimates. Accurate and reliable estimates for pre-19th century economies are very hard to come by (if they can be accurately made at all), and all the authors repeatedly stress that their figures are very much rough estimates based on often conjectural premises suffering from a paucity of reliable data
, that would benefit from further analysis and research.

Angus Maddison in Countours of the World Economy: 1-2030 AD. Essays in Marco-Economic History (2007), pp. 43-47, p. 50, 54, gives the total GDP (PPP) in 1990 Geary-Khamis international dollars for the Roman Empire in 1 AD as $22,000,000,000 and that for the Han Empire as $26,820,000,000, but these figures, at least in regards to the Roman Empire are antiquated and only of limited use, since he gives a much too small figure for the Roman population (44 mio.) while employing the accurate ca. 59 mio. for Han China. For more recent estimates of the Roman population, which range from 60-70 mio. (low count) to 100-120 mio. (high count) see Walter Scheidel, Debating Roman Demography (2001), and Scheidel, "Population and demography" (2006). If we employ Maddison’s figure of $570 for Roman GDP (PPP) per capita given in Maddison, Countours of the World Economy: 1-2030 AD: Essays in Marco-Economic History (2007), and employ the current minimalist ‘low count’ of 60 mio. for the Roman population, that yields a total GDP (PPP) of $34,200,000,000. If we employ a compromise figure of 80 mio., that yields a GDP (PPP) of $45,600,000,000.


A more thorough and comprehensive estimate of Roman GDP, by Walter Scheidel and Steven J. Friesen in "The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire" Journal of Roman Studies (2009), vol. 99, pp. 61-91 gives the total GDP (PPP) of the Roman Empire as $42,700,000,000 in 1990 international dollars, while the most recent study, that by Elio Lo Cascio and Paolo Malanima in "GDP in pre-modern agrarian economies (1–1820 AD): a revision of the estimates" Rivista di Storia Economica (2009), vol. 25, pp. 391-420, gives the GDP (PPP) per capita for the Roman Empire in international dollars as $940. If we employ the Roman population ‘low count’ of 60 mio., that yields a total GDP (PPP) of $56,400,000,000. If we employ a compromise figure of 80 mio., that yields a GDP of $75,200,000,000. If we employ the Roman population ‘high count’ of ca. 100 mio., (of which Lo Cascio is very much a proponent, cf. "Cycles and Stability: Italian Population before the Demographic Transition (225 B.C. – A.D. 1900)", Rivista di Storia Economica, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2005, pp. 197–232) that yields a total Roman GDP (PPP) of $94,000,000,000.


In regards to GDP (PPP) per capita for the Roman Empire, Maddison in Countours of the World Economy: 1-2030 AD. Essays in Marco-Economic History (2007), p. 50 gives the Roman GDP (PPP) per capita as $570 in 1990 international dollars. Walter Scheidel/Friesen, Steven J. (2009): "The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire", Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 99, pp. 61–91 gives the Roman GDP per capita as $620 in 1990 Geary-Khamis international dollars, while, as previously noted, Lo Cascio and Malanima in ‘GDP in Pre-Modern Agrarian Economies (1–1820 AD): A Revision of the Estimates’, Rivista di storia economica, (2009), vol. 25, pp. 391–420 gives the Roman GDP per capita as $940--a figure that was probably only reached in China under the Song, and only definitely by the mid 1970’s (ref. Maddison The World Economy: Historical Statistics [2007]).


In short, given the massive positive re-evaulation of the size of the Roman economy in the past ten years or so (cf. esp. The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World), and using the most recent estimates and Maddison’s 2007 estimate for the GDP of Han China, the Roman economy was ca. 60% to ca. 400% larger then that of Han China.



In regards to the figures for gold and silver production for the Roman Empire and Han China, Walter Scheidel in "The monetary systems of the Han and Roman empires", Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires (2008), pp. 137-208, notes that although no estimates are available for silver and gold production during the Han period:
"we are told that the Tang empire enjoyed mining yields of 12,000-15,000 ounces of silver per year (or 450-550kg at 37.3kg per Tang ounce), although one source refers to as much as 25,000 ounces, or 930kg. These rates are extremely low compared to Roman silver production in Spain." This is corroborated by Claude Domergue in "Les mines de la péninsule ibérique dans l’Antiquité romaine" (1990), who notes that the Bæbelo mine in Spain produced--at a conservative estimate--35.4 tons of silver per annum--again, considerably higher then silver production figures for the Tang dynasty.

Scheidel goes on to note: "Under the Song, output was boosted to 145,000 ounces in 998 and a record 883,000 ounces in 1022 before dropping to 215,000-220,000 ounces in 1049/78. The most productive prefecture was then credited with 100,000+ ounces/year. These output figures range from 5.4 to 8.2 tons per year. Even the peak in 1022, at 33 tons, merely equals Roman production levels in a single province. [italics mine] In the same period, gold was produced at annual levels of c. 10,000-15,000 ounces, or 370-560 kg, an entire order of magnitude lower than output in any one of the most profitable Roman provinces [again, italics mine]. If anything, precious metal yields in the Han period must have been lower still: gold was mostly derived from placer deposits while underground mining of gold, in so far as it occurred at all, appears to have been rare: few of the known historical gold mines in China were active in that period. Silver was virtually unknown in central China prior to the Warring States period. This metal is generally rare in central China and concentrated in the far south, and the earliest evidence for the cupellation of argentiferous sulphide ores comes from the Tang period."


This is corroborated by Claire C. Patterson in "Silver Stocks and Losses in Ancient and Medieval Times" The Economic History Review (1972), vol. 25, p. 229, who gives the average Greek and Roman silver production output between twenty-five to two-hundred times larger then the maximum Chinese production during the Tang and Song dynasties:


Average Greco-Roman silver production in tons per year:

350-250 B.C. 25
250-150 B.C. 60
150-50 B.C. 100
50 B.C.-100 A.D. 200
100-200 A.D. 100
200-300 A.D. 30
300-400 A.D. 25


In regards to the mining and production of copper, Sungmin Hong, Jean-Pierre Candelone, Clair C. Patterson and Claude F. Boutron in “History of Ancient Copper Smelting Pollution During Roman and Medieval Times Recorded in Greenland Ice”, Science, vol. 272, no. 5259 (2001), pp. 246–249, give the following data:


15,000-17,000 tons during the peak Roman production

13,000 tons for Song production (the highest in Chinese history)

Furthermore, Sungmin Hong, Jean-Pierre Candelone, et al. note that the Roman production of copper, the basis for bronze and brass alloys, remained unsurpassed again until the Industrial Revolution.
It should also be noted that even using maximalist figures, the Song population was considerably higher (ca. by 18,000,000 mio.) then the Roman, Roman per capita production was far higher then even the figures given here suggest. It should also be noted that while copper was the single most important metal of the Song dynasty (the Song monetary system was largely based on copper coinage), the importance of copper in the Roman economy was far smaller, since Roman coinage was based on gold and silver circulation, which as has been noted, far outstripped Chinese production.


In regards to iron production, Paul T. Craddock in “Mining and Metallurgy”, in Oleson, John Peter (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, (2008), pp. 93-120 gives the total output of iron production for the Roman Empire as 84,750 tons per annum, while John F. Healy in Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World notes that it quite possibly reached as high as 120,000 tons per annum. Donald B. Wagner in “the state and the Iron Industry of Han China”, p. 73 gives “an average annual production of 100 tonnes per Iron Office, then total annual production in the Han Empire as a whole in AD 2 would have been about 5,000 tonnes, or about 0.1 kg per person.”
In regards to iron production output per capita, if we take the so-called ‘low count’ of 60-70 mio., for the Roman population, this yields as total of 1.4 to 1.2 kg. per person, compared to 0.1 per capita for Han China. Even if we employ the 100 mio. ‘high count’ of the Roman population, that still yields us 0.8 kg. per person: Han productivity is dwarfed by the Roman by a factor of eight up to fourteen. In fact, using the Roman ‘low count’ population figures, Roman iron production output per capita was roughly the same or greater then the 1.2 kg. per person for the Song dynasty given by Donald B. Wagner in “The Administration of the Iron Industry in Eleventh-Century China”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 44, no. 2 (2001), pp. 175–197. Thus:

Roman Empire: 84,750 tons/ 60-70 mio. to 100 mio. = 1.4-1.2 to 0.8 kg.

Han Dynasty: 5,800 tons/58 mio. = 0.1 kg
Song Dynasty: 114,000 tons/95 mio. = 1.2 kg

Figures for the populations of Han and Song China are taken from Ebrey, Patricia Buckley, The Cambridge Illustrated History of China, (2010), p. 50.



In regards to the production of lead, according to Sungmin Hong, Jean-Pierre Candelone, Clair C. Patterson and Claude F. Boutron in "Greenland Ice Evidence of Hemispheric Lead Pollution Two Millennia Ago by Greek and Roman Civilizations", Science, vol. 265, no. 5180. (1994), pp. 1841:
"A pronounced maximum of about 80,000 metric tons per year (approximately the rate at the time of the Industrial Revolution) was reached during the flourishing of Roman power and influence around two millennia ago (Fig. lA). The use of lead was ubiquitous, and most districts that were suitable for mining in the Old World were known and worked, especially those in Spain, the Balkans, Greece, and Asia Minor (5, 7)". Sungmin Hong, Jean-Pierre Candelone, et al. note that "…this occurrence marks the oldest large-scale hemispheric pollution ever reported, long before the onset of the Industrial Revolution…"


In regards to the overall monetization of their respective, economies, Scheidel in “The monetary systems of the Han and Roman empires”, Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires (2008), pp. 137-208 notes that “…the Roman empire had achieved higher levels of monetization than its Chinese counterpart” and that the total purchasing power of the entire Roman money stock was probably several times greater then the Chinese stock indicating a more developed and sophisticated economy: “my estimates for size of both the Han and the Roman money stocks vary by a factor of four or five. However, despite these very considerable margins of uncertainty, even the broadest range of guesses for the money stock in Han China of between 6 and 28 billion liters of grain equivalent barely overlaps with the much higher range from 22 to 90 billion liters proposed for the Roman empire.”

edit: I’ve done some looking around on the internet, since the printed edition hard-copies of the many of the cited works are not commonly available and quite difficult to obtain (not to mention prohibitively expensive). From a cursory examination, Scheidel "The monetary systems of the Han and Roman empires"(2008) is available online in PDF format here, as is "Population and Demography" here. Lo Cascio and Malanima "GDP in pre-modern agrarian economies (1–1820 AD): a revision of the estimates" (2009) is likewise available online here.
 
Last edited:
That's all well and good, but Roman Empire =/= Europe. You can't pretend that medieval Pamplona had the same silver output that Roman Hispania did.
 
Right, so the Silk Route to the exclusion of other endeavours? Of course, there really was an edict forbidding lage-scale sea travel during Ming, so even the SEA trade was done overland for most part.

I don't know, I think you underestimate the degree of reaction and nationalism that Chinese society experienced in the post-Yuan era as well as the impact of political decisions. I don't think that China was doomed pre-Ming, in other words, and it coasted on residual strength until the early-Qing era. But it's very hard to estimate which criteria are more important, agreed.

I was taking the silk route case since it was the path between china and europe which had been trodden for most of the time (and also was the most lucrative one).
During the 1600 years I mentioned there were also periods when trade was not subject to such rigid restriction, and deliberating trascuring a known opportunity of big profit is a bit strange for a merchant, be him european, persian or chinese.
A comparison of local sea trades would make europe appear much more active, but that would be an unfair comparison, because of the help given by the Mediterranenan sea in ancient times, and because of the ban in later times.
I agree with you that china was not 'doomed', nor I wanted to give that impression: my opinion was simply that it lagged a bit beyond europe until recent times (my position is a bit heretical respect to the thread title :rolleyes:)
 
I was taking the silk route case since it was the path between china and europe which had been trodden for most of the time (and also was the most lucrative one).
During the 1600 years I mentioned there were also periods when trade was not subject to such rigid restriction, and deliberating trascuring a known opportunity of big profit is a bit strange for a merchant, be him european, persian or chinese.
A comparison of local sea trades would make europe appear much more active, but that would be an unfair comparison, because of the help given by the Mediterranenan sea in ancient times, and because of the ban in later times.
I agree with you that china was not 'doomed', nor I wanted to give that impression: my opinion was simply that it lagged a bit beyond europe until recent times (my position is a bit heretical respect to the thread title :rolleyes:)

I think that the Silk Route was lucrative FOR persians, Europeans, Syrians, and the like. Oversimplifying, what the hell would the Chinese merchants bring home after that travel? Gold? Silver? The Barbarians were already more than willing to bring that stuff China on their own.
I think that the Chinese were not willing to travel along the Silk Route because it was not lucrative for them. While it was for those at other end of the route.
AFAIK, basically China exported refined products, while the western lands paid with gold, silver (Middle East had a very good artisan work especially prior the Mongols, but also before. They exported a lot of such works, but i have no idea if they exported them to China. I think not much but i'm not sure. For ceramics, I know they strove to reach Chinese standards before circa 1000 AD).
 
up to 13XX, mainly gold and silver.
A lot of gold and silver.
Foreigner devils had a lot of them in the west, and were eager to give a lot of it in exchange of silk and spices.
Swimming in a lake of precious metal coins was something everyone liked the idea of, be them european, persian or chinese.
.
After 15XX, european manufactured goods begin to kick in.
.
After 16XX, basically everything, going from lenses to clockwork
 
Top