Why Was China Passive In The Indian Ocean?

(namely Rowan Menzies*)

Isn't he the one who claims the Minoans were actually Atlantis and they ruled from the Americas to India...

Let's go check...*googles*

Yes he was. I think his claims can be safely ruled bullshit.

Anyway, on topic: the Chinese at this point has so many internal issues and external worries to focus on that actively opposing Portugal would be a waste of resources, while everything China might need can be more easily obtained closer to home.
 
Honestly, if you have ever seen a Chinese Gvt Internet troll, they tend to espouse this view more or less. There have been some on this site before and they are hilarious.

And in the modern era, Western governments love to meddle in the foreign affairs of other countries in the name of "democracy", thinking that by branding their form of governments as "democratic" and saying that other form of governments are not "undemocratic" means that they will magically become democratic.

In the modern era they called it "spreading democracy" and in the pre-modern era they called it "spreading religion/civilization" which is completely laughable.
 
In a sense, China always had more issues to deal with on land than at sea. Ming China (the core bits anyway) was approximately the size of half of Europe and several times its population: internal and external enemies were therefore proportionally much larger than what Portugal, France, or any other European power had to deal with.

This is not to mention the resurgence of the Mongols in the late 1400s under Esen Khan, the emergence of a unified Japanese state following the Sengoku period in the 1500s and the Imjin War, and finally the renewed threat of the Manchus in the 1600s. The Ming state spent disproportionate effort manning the northern frontier; there wasn't much left for an official push into the south - and one could argue that without state shouldering of risk, mercantile interests had no incentive to mount expeditions into the unknown.

The Ming dynasty itself was also a 'national-security state' of sorts, very suspicious about internal threats to its rule and frequently employing an array of agencies to control dissent. This also meant that it sought to control population movement, a tendency that only increased when the arrival of Japanese wokou created large refugee populations on the coast that were as likely to become bandits and pirates as they were to submit to Ming rule. A series of 'Coastal Ban Edicts' would be issued throughout the course of the mid-Ming, which banned all oceangoing activities and created a 'zone of exclusion' stretching c.10 miles from the coast. This method was again used during Qing times, and unsurprisingly it really tanked Chinese naval aspirations.

Generally speaking, the bulk of Chinese navigation was riverine, rather than sea-based. While in Europe international mercantile transport largely required mastery of the sea due to geographic reasons, in China you had the Yangtze and the Yellow River serving as two major conduits linking the country together. With the construction of the Grand Canal during the Sui, the merchants in the prosperous Yangtze Delta also gained the ability to transport goods to northern cities without going through the risks of shipping their goods using a sea-route. Not to say that oceanic activity never happened, but it simply wasn't such a big deal for China as it was for other nations.

^This.

Also, I feel obligated to mention as regards other posts that the endless Confucianism slamming I see on this board is kind of tiresome. We are talking about a belief system that persisted for well over a thousand years, and that possessed the same amount of intellectual variety as Christianity. When people state that "Christianity hated science" someone always arrives to point out that, no, it's more complicated than that--when they state "Confucianism hated merchants" the general response is a dull nod. The truth is it wasn't so much Confucianism as it was Chinese culture in general that didn't like merchants very much. And suggesting "Legalism" as a remedy is rather similar to proclaiming that the best way to cure your cold is to swallow arsenic...
 
^This.

Also, I feel obligated to mention as regards other posts that the endless Confucianism slamming I see on this board is kind of tiresome. We are talking about a belief system that persisted for well over a thousand years, and that possessed the same amount of intellectual variety as Christianity. When people state that "Christianity hated science" someone always arrives to point out that, no, it's more complicated than that--when they state "Confucianism hated merchants" the general response is a dull nod. The truth is it wasn't so much Confucianism as it was Chinese culture in general that didn't like merchants very much. And suggesting "Legalism" as a remedy is rather similar to proclaiming that the best way to cure your cold is to swallow arsenic...

I completely disagree with the opinion that Chinese culture in general don't like merchants.

It does not make any sense at all when compared to the real-life situations on the ground.

If Chinese culture don't like merchants then how come Chinese merchants spread all around the world !? How come for such a long period of time China was the richest country in the world before the 19th century !?
 
I completely disagree with the opinion that Chinese culture in general don't like merchants.

It does not make any sense at all when compared to the real-life situations on the ground.

If Chinese culture don't like merchants then how come Chinese merchants spread all around the world !? How come for such a long period of time China was the richest country in the world before the 19th century !?

Why did Italy create such vital banking concerns while serving as the virtual core of a religion that held usury in profound and utter contempt?

There was money to be made in it, and they were positioned to do it. Same situation, basically--in many ways actually a less extreme variation, as the general Chinese position on merchants (which I should add was a shifting and complex matter) wasn't that they were contemptible so much as they tended to be untrustworthy.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Originally Posted by 06294086
I completely disagree with the opinion that Chinese culture in general don't like merchants.

It does not make any sense at all when compared to the real-life situations on the ground.

If Chinese culture don't like merchants then how come Chinese merchants spread all around the world !?

overseas chinese, until 20th century, have very low status in mainland china. most mainland chinese consider overseas merchant to be no better than pirates (doing both work is common enough), not "real" chinese ( overseas Chinese is dominated by Hakka, Cantonese, and Fujianese, Hakka especially often considered not chinese even by other overseas chinese ).

cosmopolitan merchant culture is often considered low-status, not just chinese, Jews in Europe, Lebanese in Mid-East, and Indians in British Africa have same position. even Calvinist Netherlander is considered to have low-status by other European nobles.

Originally Posted by 06294086
How come for such a long period of time China was the richest country in the world before the 19th century !?

pre 19th century, Agriculture is MASSIVE part of economy. 90%+ of population work in farm and the easiest and safest way to become rich is to own land and become landlord. Agriculture in China is very productive, the Yellow and Yangtze is very fertile, and some part of southern China even managed to double harvest rice in single year.
 
Top