By "better" I simply mean they keep up with Japan and don't get semi-colonized by Europe, if this were to happen how would China fare in the 20th century?
If "better" starts early enough, then the Brits would loose the 1st Opium War and have a negative trade balance with China because "opium for the tea" schema is not going to work. If it starts after the Opium Wars then the Amur area is lost to Russia (Chinese government seemingly did not care because the area was practically uninhabited) and Hong Kong to Britain.By "better" I simply mean they keep up with Japan and don't get semi-colonized by Europe, if this were to happen how would China fare in the 20th century?
I suspect that one route to a better Chinese 19th century involves avoiding the Opium War altogether - as far as I can tell/recall,If "better" starts early enough, then the Brits would loose the 1st Opium War and have a negative trade balance with China because "opium for the tea" schema is not going to work. If it starts after the Opium Wars then the Amur area is lost to Russia (Chinese government seemingly did not care because the area was practically uninhabited) and Hong Kong to Britain.
Modernization, which started in OTL, goes along the Japanese model instead of being pushed by the individual governors. For it to be successful, the existing system has to be seriously revamped because in OTL it was killing all modernization efforts by the excessive corruption. Also, the Taiping Rebellion should be butterflied or at least minimized and opium trade abolished, which would require a successful war with the Brits.
Of course, it would be better to avoid the Opium Wars but the question is how? The Brits had been exporting a lot of tea from China with a resulting negative trade balance and to reverse the pattern they wanted an unlimited right to import opium produced in India into China. The Chinese government, understandably, was trying to stop these imports because the negative impact was serious enough for even the Chinese government to start paying attention. There were, of course, the additional issues with the Chinese trade guilds holding a monopoly on trade within the country but they were secondary to the main issue.I suspect that one route to a better Chinese 19th century involves avoiding the Opium War altogether - as far as I can tell/recall,
the Opium War was what made people realise you it was possible and worth it to make war and the kind of thinking on the Chinese
side that lead to it is not far from/overlaps with the thinking/factors that interfered with modernization.
Or (c) a change in trade policy/attitude that makes trade in other things than silver and opium meaningful options.So, to “avoid” the Opium wars, China had two main options: (a) to concede to all British demands (and allow the narcotics issue to continue) or (b) by the time of the 1st OW to be strong enough to defeat invasion so convincingly that there would be no new attempt in a foreseen future.
But again, that runs into the issue of "not-China provides and produces nothing that is needed or preferable toSo, just as an idea, they could do better by putting the internal affairs in a good order, getting as much of the technical information and modern equipment as possible without getting into an excessive dependency and producing their own things which are not necessarily the top notch but adequate. While doing so, they had to reform their army fundamentally getting rid of the obsolete banner system and replacing it with the quasi-European well-drilled troops willing to fight.
Well, this also would be an option (and to a certain degree happened) but it sounds close to “China must buy what Britain wants to sell”.Or (c) a change in trade policy/attitude that makes trade in other things than silver and opium meaningful options.
Maybe open a few more ports than Guangzhou to foreign trade as well.
But again, that runs into the issue of "not-China provides and produces nothing that is needed or preferable to
what China already has" that lies at the heart of the run-up to the Opium War.
It can also be phrased as "Britain must sell something that China wants to buy"... which is why there eventually was the First Opium War.Well, this also would be an option (and to a certain degree happened) but it sounds close to “China must buy what Britain wants to sell”.
The same googling around as above found some implications that some parts of the later Unequal Treaties were more ofWithout internal strength and ability to defend itself implementation of that program would be a classic semi-colonial schema in which the foreign imports are killing the local production, the foreign merchants are getting preferential treatment and the foreign governments are dictating the domestic policy.
I'm not sure Russia and China can be compared here.For the comparison, when Peter “opened Russia” (a BS term but nonetheless) he started with limiting number of ports (the existing trade through Archangelsk, Riga and Revel was severely restricted to favor St-Petersburg), regulated imports and exports and kept activities of the foreign merchants in Russia under strict control. Got away with it because he managed to create a strong army and for the next century (at least) Britain was OK with a negative trade balance with Russia.
Speaking of the markets, China “always” had trade with Russia through Kiahta and nomenclature of the imports had been pretty much defined by the Chinese demands with Russia not expressing any serious interest in changing the border or trading inside China until after the 1st OW. Even naval expedition at the mouth of Amur River happened only in 1849. A prevailing majority of the Russian cabinet was holding a strong opinion that existing profitable trade with China is better than the military adventures and only possibility of the British post-1st OW expansion into the Russian Pacific coast allowed governor of the East Siberia to get an approval for his expedition down the Amur River.It can also be phrased as "Britain must sell something that China wants to buy"... which is why there eventually was the First Opium War.
Then there's "something that China is allowed to buy", considering that another, possible THE, key background event is the 17th century(?)
imperial decree that demanded that all Chinese goods must be paid in silver, and there is unclarity as to whether trade in foreign (Western)
goods was prohibited or just of little to no interest, and exactly why the latter.
Googling around hints that Chinese merchants entusiastically traded with Southeast Asia and that, ackshually, more ports/custom stations
than Guanzhou were open (but further away, making going there less profitable and thus less popular/common).
On the other hand, another way for China to have a better 19th century would be to have little or nothing special to offer (except for the
potential markets). If Britain (and Russia) never gets hooked on tea or if the Chinese tea monopoly gets broken earlier (cf. china/porcelain),
things become vastly different.
The same googling around as above found some implications that some parts of the later Unequal Treaties were more of
clarifying or formally establishing what had already been going on, like a ban on Chinese merchants suing westerners in Qing courts,
than imposing foreign demands...
I'm not sure Russia and China can be compared here.
Different, to some extent opposite, starting positions, from what I can tell.
If memory serves, Japan had growing calls for opening up and modernization well before the Opium War, not to mentionIf I'm not mistaken one of the reasons in Japan the whole country had united itself behind modernization, was the humiliation of China. This gave them the determination to not end up like China.
So maybe we could do the opposite and let Japan be colonized, in the hope of throwing China in a scare.
Note the key word.A prevailing majority of the Russian cabinet was holding a strong opinion that existing profitable trade with China is better than the military adventures
Yeah, that's one of the key points. There was sufficient disinterest/active opposition to modernization at sufficiently high levels of government.So the Chinese rulers had at least some options in getting access to the reasonably modern things, which they preferred not to use.
Because, as I said, they started in different positions.Not sure why do you think that he Russian parallel is not working. Of course, the positions were different but Russia pre-ToT was quite closed state and even during the reigns of the first Romanovs the attitudes had been changing gradually. Peter did not really “opened” country to the foreigners: just as China, Russia kept things under the strong governmental control (in some aspects probably stronger than in China with all its domestic problems). For example, by the time of Taiping rebellion the foreign settlements in China had their own armed personal and had been actively involved in the weapons trade. Nothing of the kind could even be imagined in pre-/post-Petrian Russia.
And that is a pretty major difference.The main difference that I can see was a weakness of the Chinese government in pretty much every area with a resulting absence of the effective military force.
Perhaps I was not quite clear. Peter’s “opening” is a BS term (created by the political reasons) because Russia was already “open”. He spent a big part of his youth entertaining himself in the “German” Settlement near Moscow and there were already numerous foreigners on Russian service involved in modernization of the Russian army and other areas. However, before, during and after the Peter’s reign the government kept them under control in the terms of activities and freedom of movement. The preferred model for those hired to the Russian service was an offer to become the Russian subject.Because, as I said, they started in different positions.
As you yourself described it, Peter's "opening"* involved getting foreign trade and merchants under stricter control, which China already had
at the point of comparison.
And again, there is the whole "enough people at the top are in favour of modernization and maybe considering the possibility that the way
people do things in foreign parts might in some cases have some small advantage over the proper way of doing things". Russia did and China didn't.
Furthermore, regardless of how "closed" Russia was, it was still part of the larger European cultural sphere, including
things like Roman law. There was as little perceived need for one's own armed personel as in France or Spain.
*I think this discussion is the first time I've seen it described in those terms.
But first you need to get a China that is able and willing to go hog-wild building railroads from 1830 on...If they'd gone hog-wild building railroads from 1830 on like America did
I fear you (or they) may have missed or misphrased some step in the analysis or situation... the opium trade began atThe analysis (Irigoin and Man-houng Lin) I like of the Opium War and seems to make most sense is that the tea trade was driven by a complex arbitrage involving colonial Spanish silver dollars.
Roughly; colonial Spanish silver dollars were a reliable currency which traded for well above base silver value in China (because of lack of reliable silver currency standard), so Brit merchants traded a rough of triangle colonial Spanish silver dollars for tea, sell tea for profit in Europe, reinvest profits to buy colonial Spanish silver dollars. (Also purchase uncoined silver in China for export, because dollars high value:uncoined silver). Latin American revolutions collapse production of Spanish silver dollar, so merchants use opium cultivation and trade to maintain tea trade. (Not about "British governments wanted to avoid 'drain' of silver").
So to avoid Opium War, if you keep Spanish silver dollar production going (whether avoiding disruptions or not), probably never turn to opium as a substitution.
And perhaps I wasn't quite clear in pointing out that I can not recall having heard it being called "opening" until you used the term in this very discussion?Perhaps I was not quite clear. Peter’s “opening” is a BS term (created by the political reasons) because Russia was already “open”.
No one has argued otherwise. The questions has always been "How can this be done?" and "Why was it not done?" not "Can this be done?".Of course, China was different. If it was not, there would be no Opium Wars and other issues. The point is that there were no objective reasons for China not to adopt the similar course before it become too late.
Not A Roman law, Roman law, or strictly speaking its descendant Civil law, as opposed to Common law and very separate fromNot sure about Russia having a Roman law at the time of the first Romanovs.
Rome did have some sumptuary regulations, if not laws, but more importantly, due to the Romans' reverenceI’m not sure that the Roman law was regulating fashion of the trousers.
Yes, that is one of the key questions. Or rather, what would it take to change the attitude/number of relevant minds in China earlier, since two Opium Wars, one Tai-Ping Rebellion, one Sino-Japanese War and one Boxer Rebellion seems to have just barely done it.we are talking about a limited number of people on the top who were more (as in Russia) or less (China) willing to adopt the new things. Could that attitude be different in China? Why not?
These own armed personal guards:The part about “one's own armed personel as in France or Spain” is not quite clear as well. Are you talking about the military bands raised by the individual nobles?
which, phrased that way, sounds like somehing else and more than the thief-burglar-robber-deterring guards and possibly bodyguards that one wouldFor example, by the time of Taiping rebellion the foreign settlements in China had their own armed personal and had been actively involved in the weapons trade. Nothing of the kind could even be imagined in pre-/post-Petrian Russia
That depends. Is the main point that Russia had a truly autocratic government (even before Peter) and China did not,All that being said, you are seemingly missing the main point.
Yes, and the questions are "How far back do we have to go?" and "What needs to happen for it to start, and to stick?".Could this be changed if China started the process before and not after the OWs?
I fear you (or they) may have missed or misphrased some step in the analysis or situation... the opium trade began at
a time when according to conventional history the only American revolution was Anglo-American. If even that.
Then again, the later disruption of Spanish silver production can't have made opium less interesting/practical.
'First you'd need a China that was able and willing to go hog-wild on railroads'-But first you need to get a China that is able and willing to go hog-wild building railroads from 1830 on...
I fear you (or they) may have missed or misphrased some step in the analysis or situation... the opium trade began at
a time when according to conventional history the only American revolution was Anglo-American. If even that.
Then again, the later disruption of Spanish silver production can't have made opium less interesting/practical.
And perhaps I wasn't quite clear in pointing out that I can not recall having heard it being called "opening" until you used the term in this very discussion?
(I am however pretty sure that I was not very clear that part of my point was that Russia was already open to the rest of Europe pre-Peter,
especially compared to how open China was ca 1800.)
No one has argued otherwise. The questions has always been "How can this be done?" and "Why was it not done?" not "Can this be done?".
And the counterpoint is that it was the subjective reasons that was the problem.
Not A Roman law, Roman law, or strictly speaking its descendant Civil law, as opposed to Common law and very separate from
Confucian law.
I have been given the impression that the laws of third Rome, and of many other Slavic states, were influenced by those of
second Rome, which in turn has its basis in those of first Rome. (Even if the concept of third Rome as little or nothing to
with Roman/Civil law). Just like most of the legal systems ofthe rest of Europe.
Rome did have some sumptuary regulations, if not laws, but more importantly, due to the Romans' reverence
for the actual wording on the laws, any legal arguments regarding trousers would presumably have to
refer to them as tunica or whatever piece of clothing was referred to in the original text.
Yes, that is one of the key questions. Or rather, what would it take to change the attitude/number of relevant minds in China earlier, since two Opium Wars, one Tai-Ping Rebellion, one Sino-Japanese War and one Boxer Rebellion seems to have just barely done it.
These own armed personal guards:
which, phrased that way, sounds like somehing else and more than the thief-burglar-robber-deterring guards and possibly bodyguards that one would
expect of merchants in Europe.
That depends. Is the main point that Russia had a truly autocratic government (even before Peter) and China did not,
meaning, as I've said, that their "starting" conditions are so different that comparisons are not very useful for
questions like "How can this be done?". Or is it something else?
Yes, and the questions are "How far back do we have to go?" and "What needs to happen for it to start, and to stick?".