WI:Zheng He Fleet was not destroyed

The Ming declining mean the Ming have more immediate and local priorities, however.


And speaking of this question in general, a rather important question: Where are the materials to build these ships coming from?

I don't know the state of China's forests and such, but a large, powerful, ocean going fleet - even with the fact the size of the treasure ships has been grossly exaggerated* - needs an extraordinarily large amount of quality wood - for both masts and the hull.

I know the Chinese used bamboo to some extent, but even there - this isn't going to be in small quantities, whatever it may make up for in the "wood" department.

So the navy needs to be able to secure a supply of such resources reliably and affordably in order to even exist. How feasible this is, I leave to those who know China better than I do - but I do think it needs to be weighed in when determining what could have been.

* http://www.1421exposed.com/html/fathoming.html
 
In these discussions, I always have to bring up- what about rogue admirals, exiled rivals, weird refugee fleets, that breakaway from control of the central government and sail eastwards on their own, independent of the direction of the Ming?
 
In these discussions, I always have to bring up- what about rogue admirals, exiled rivals, weird refugee fleets, that breakaway from control of the central government and sail eastwards on their own, independent of the direction of the Ming?

They did that a lot in the Phillippines. That's how Koxinga started.
 
And while the Ming may be going indynastic decline in the 16th Century, SO IS SPAIN! And Spain is weaker by far than China in terms of sheer economic size and development, if China decides it wishes to expand and take over the source of the silver it depends upon. So it is at that point that the New World might become both attractive to and vulnerable to Chinese conquest.
Spain is not going into "dynastic decline" in the 16th Century. Even with the Dutch Revolt and defeat of the Spanish Armada, the Spanish are pretty much at the peak of their strength. And indeed, the late 16th Century saw the Spanish add the rather large Portuguese Empire to their holdings.

Furthermore, the Pacific is much more difficult to project power across than the Atlantic is. Just looking at a map makes the size difference fairly obvious. It's not like early modern sailors can just say "America is that way" and sail; discovering the sailing routes requires gifted navigators and a great deal of luck. It was 40 years after Magellan that the Spanish finally managed to do it. A China that has been focused on coastal expansion and brown-water warfare will be in worse shape to pull that off. They'd be much better off trying to dominate their near abroad.
 
, if China decides it wishes to expand and take over the source of the silver it depends upon. So it is at that point that the New World might become both attractive to and vulnerable to Chinese conquest.
Attractive, yes. Vulnerable, no. European trained troops under European leaders are superior to any other amies; see India when the British and French started conquering it. Also once the Euorpeans start building race built warships of the sort that Engish used against the Spanish Armada, they could gain local naval superiority just as the Portugese did on OTL in the Indian Ocean against the forces of Islam.

It is one thing in that era building a fleet that can sail half way round the world. It is another taking on the Europeans away from both your and their homes. The main reason why the Chinese and Japanese keep out the foreign devils until the 19th century was home advantage. Put an expeditionary force into Mexico and you lose that. Moreover, the Spanish have a shorter line of communication home.
 
Well... the way into India was already somewhat paved for them by a series of local rulers in debt with them or out right employed by the various Indies Companies and that said European powers more often then not made use of local troops in their campaigns...

The British were beaten to a stand still in two out of four wars with the Ashanti of West Africa in what was supposed to be the Victorian age of Supremacy...
 
Last edited:
Attractive, yes. Vulnerable, no. European trained troops under European leaders are superior to any other amies . . .

This is not necessarily true, especially in the 16th century (as opposed to 18th).

Of course, that means China would have to come up with the kind of forces that can appropriately deal with a European army of this era, which may or may not be similar to what are appropriate for their main interests, but its something to note. There's no inherent "Europeans are just better" until the 19th century sees them just that much more advanced than everyone else.
 
This is not necessarily true, especially in the 16th century (as opposed to 18th).

Of course, that means China would have to come up with the kind of forces that can appropriately deal with a European army of this era, which may or may not be similar to what are appropriate for their main interests, but its something to note."
European firearms and training was already starting to give them an edge. They would certainly have one over the first one or so Chinese expeditionary forces landed in Mexico. More than one if the Middle Kingodm thinks that it has an innate superiority over the western barbarians
There's no inherent "Europeans are just better" until the 19th century sees them just that much more advanced than everyone else.
They were already gained an edge in the 16th century: the Japanese copied Portuguese not Chinese fire arms and the Turks got decisively thumped at the Lepanto. Whilst the Turks did make a comeback at the gates of Vienna, European technology was still on the way up.
 
European firearms and training was already starting to give them an edge. They would certainly have one over the first one or so Chinese expeditionary forces landed in Mexico. More than one if the Middle Kingodm thinks that it has an innate superiority over the western barbarians

"Starting to give them an edge" is not the same as "European armies win ninety-nine times out of a hundred and the remaining one time requires idiotic, self-destructive decisions a la Elphinstone or circumstances like Isandhlwana".

And from other posters commenting in other threads that the Spanish forces in Mexico aren't exactly the most modern in the Spanish empire, I'm even less convinced that it would apply.

They were already gained an edge in the 16th century: the Japanese copied Portuguese not Chinese fire arms and the Turks got decisively thumped at the Lepanto. Whilst the Turks did make a comeback at the gates of Vienna, European technology was still on the way up.

I'm not sure what you're defining as "decisively thumped", so I'm going to refrain from quoting Space Oddity, but again - "on the way up" is not the same as "overwhelmingly superior".

Copying Portuguese firearms doesn't mean that a China that has made changes like what we're talking about can't/won't develop equal or better designs.

I don't think a Chinese invasion of the Spanish territories in the New World is feasible because of logistics, but if that's tackled, the Spanish military advantage isn't impressing me as particularly great.

Spain might win - it might well not.
 
European firearms and training was already starting to give them an edge. They would certainly have one over the first one or so Chinese expeditionary forces landed in Mexico. More than one if the Middle Kingodm thinks that it has an innate superiority over the western barbarians
Here is another board's thread on Ming military technology:

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/13165-ming-dynasty-military-garb-and-weapons/

Furthermore, the Ming in OTL were indeed several times victorious in wars against Western powers, such as in the First and Second Battles of Tāmāo, at Pénghú, or at Liàoluó. These victories, and other evidence, show that the Ming were at least equal to, if not superior to, the most advanced states in the contemporary Occident in terms of military technology and power.

Think about it: The Occident in the first half of the 15th century lacked mines, rockets, let alone naval mines and multiple rocket launchers. For that matter, the Occident didn't even have shells. Nor did they have nearly the level of metallurgical technology as the Chinese: The Catalan forge and the cementation furnace are rather backward when compared to the blast furnace and the Bessemer Process, both of the latter invented by the Chinese and well-established there by the Ming Dynasty (in fact, as the "Bessemer Process" link's reference points out, Chinese steelworkers in 19th century Kentucky were the key source of knowledge for Henry Bessemer when he named the process after him.)
Zheng He's biggest failing as an Admiral was in not working well and playing well with the rest of China's defense forces. Zheng He, by building galleys as well as treasure ships could have made a major material contribution to solving the Ming's Mongol problem by putting a fleet of galleys up the Heilongjiang (Amur River ) complete with horses and keeping it supplied by river. Also, keeping Chinese commanderies on the Wu-su-li (Ussuri) and Sung-hwa (Sungari) and it's tributary the Nun Kiang supplied. And perhaps conquering Ezo and Karafuto to serve as advance bases to protect the mouth of the Heilongkiang.
This would extend China's reach well into the Mongol (the Khalka and Buryat at any rate) heartland in the Selenge and Orkhon basins to Lake Baikal. And make Zheng He indispensable at Court along with China's navy. By giving China what amounts to a Marine Corps.
(Corrections in bright green) Interesting note; that makes plenty of sense to me.
 
Furthermore, the Ming in OTL were indeed several times victorious in wars against Western powers, such as in the First and Second Battles of Tāmāo, at Pénghú, or at Liàoluó. These victories, and other evidence, show that the Ming were at least equal to, if not superior to, the most advanced states in the contemporary Occident in terms of military technology and power..
1) The Ming victories were in home waters and a large number of their ships were small craft, which they would not be able to send across the Pacific.

2) Re military technology. To quote last paragraph of page: "By the 15th century, European innovations in firearms, cannons, and other gunpowder weapons began to surpass Chinese innovation that was made in the 14th century. This included the European breech–loading gun and culverin, the wheellock musket, and then the flintlock musket of the mid 17th century. By the late 16th century, the Chinese adopted Western-style muskets while employing Ottoman Turkish style firing positions."
Looks like a European edge here.

If the Chinese can get to Mexico or Peru first and establish a colony first then they have the advantage, especially if they have already taken out the Aztecs. The Spanish are likely then to consider it not worth the effort/give stuffed enough in the early landings that they decide leave alone. Once they start getting their hands on the gold and silver though, I can not see them backing off.
 
Here is another board's thread on Ming military technology:

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/13165-ming-dynasty-military-garb-and-weapons/

Furthermore, the Ming in OTL were indeed several times victorious in wars against Western powers, such as in the First and Second Battles of Tāmāo, at Pénghú, or at Liàoluó. These victories, and other evidence, show that the Ming were at least equal to, if not superior to, the most advanced states in the contemporary Occident in terms of military technology and power.



Hmmmm, in at least one of the linked battles, English cannon played an important role for the Ming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_B

There's no doubt in my mind that the Ming exhibited a technological edge that the West wouldn't be able to exceed in many ways until almost the dawn of the industrial age. However, having a tech edge isn't always a decisive element in being strategically or even tactically dominant in the military sense (witness the thumping the Ming received in the mid. 15th cent. at the hands of a much smaller and less sophisicated Mongol army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumu_Crisis) and of course, the Ming eventually were bound in tremendous domestic strife (late 16th cent.) that undercut its power and eventually set them up for their final fall to the Manchu.
 
Attractive, yes. Vulnerable, no. European trained troops under European leaders are superior to any other amies; see India when the British and French started conquering it.

Which was into the mid-18th century and was mainly done by treaties and the like more so than wars (though, yes, there were still many wars). Up til 1730, the edge would still go to the Mughal army, for instance, against the British, and in the 17th and 16th centuries, the edge by far goes to the Mughals.
 
Which was into the mid-18th century and was mainly done by treaties and the like more so than wars (though, yes, there were still many wars). Up til 1730, the edge would still go to the Mughal army, for instance, against the British, and in the 17th and 16th centuries, the edge by far goes to the Mughals.

Badshah is correct. People often seem to have the impression that Indian and Chinese armies in the 1700s still used spears and bows and arrows as primary weapons.

On the other hand, European naval technology started to pull away from Indian levels much earlier and was clearly superior to all others by 1800 at the latest.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
Top