Would not having the Qing help China in the long term?

Would no Qing help China?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 61.0%
  • No

    Votes: 16 39.0%

  • Total voters
    41
I actually agree. If the Manchus collapsed due to internal discord, and never unites, they would never have been strong enough to conquer the Ming. Presumably another dynasty, like Li Zicheng of the Shun Dynasty, would take over, and perhaps, would do the reforms that would enable it to conquer the North.
I hope people like Li Zhicheng would stay out of power forever.What China really needed was an emperor that's educated.Most of the so-called peasant emperors were in fact pretty horrible rulers in one way or another.Li Zicheng was a failure of a ruler.Zhu Wen was a bloody tyrant,and so was Zhu Yuanzhang.Zhu Yuanzhang while competent in a lot of ways basically had no idea how the economy works.He deliberately set up methods of preventing any reforms to the government and retarded the government's capacity to reform according to new situations.His insecurity due to his humble birth also made him bring authoritarianism in China to unprecedented heights.No dynasty in China had as many secret police forces as the Ming Dynasty.At one point in time,there were four different secret police organizations working in conjunction and spying upon each other.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know the nomads in the west are not really threatening, it is alwyas those in the North ala Xiongnu, Khitans, Manchu and their ancestor, and of course Mongols.

And Qing to go?
Yes, I have no idea why Qing in the 19th century can be so ignorant about the West, ignorant of their tech difference and ignorant that they can possibly be invaded.
 
Gunpowder weapons and their associated tactics weren't advanced enough yet.When they did,you see the Russians crushing nomads left and right.
And who is to say that the Chinese would emulate the Russians? The Ming believed in the "natural borders of China" idea, the Qing did not (they had to not).

Which ones might these be?The Manchus had heavy restrictions on who can or cannot go overseas.
It was part of the Jiaqing Reforms' response to the South China pirate crisis.
And yes, compared to most of the Ming the Qing were very, very mercantilist. The late 17th and 18th century saw enormous rise in overseas trade.

Talk about anachronism.Most people,even to the dying days of the Qing Dynasty called the Qing Dynasty "Da Qing"
The Manchus very often referred to their state as "the Middle Country," i.e. China. More-or-less every non-Sinophone subject of the empire, as well as virtually all foreigners (except Korea and a few others), also referred to the state consistently as China.

possibly even worst.
The Ming system as set up by Zhu Yuanzhang for permanence inherently encourages corruption. The Qing system was above-average, certainly not the worst.

But no where was it close to the slaughter as crazy as the Manchu slaughter of the Han.
The Han killed each other more than the Manchu did during the M-Q transition.
 
the wheel of China's dynastic cycle.
Could you cite a recent academic source that seriously argues for the dynastic cycle theory? The Cambridge History of China is pretty clear that arguing cyclical history for the collapse of specific dynasties should be discared academically.

There's absolutely zero chance of the Oirat Mongols or Dzhungar getting modern western cannons, and if the Qing aren't there to limit trade with the West, the Chinese are going to rapidly outpace the nomads.
Except Kangxi opened up the very old walls of the haijin in 1684. You see a dramatic rise in Chinese ships visiting Nagasaki and Batavia (two places where data is good) immediately after 1684. For Japan I believe it was a tenfold rise or greater. By this point "High Qing autarky" is completely discredited in academia.

Where are you getting these pessimistic ideas about the Junghar state? The Junghar state efficiently incorporated gunpowder warfare, that's part of how they survived to be the last nomadic empire. You realize much of the finances for the Junghar state came from Sino-Russian trade, and that they often had amicable relations with the Russians?

As far as I know the nomads in the west are not really threatening, it is alwyas those in the North ala Xiongnu, Khitans, Manchu and their ancestor, and of course Mongols.
The Junghars were Mongols and you underestimating them does not make them any less a threat.

Yes, I have no idea why Qing in the 19th century can be so ignorant about the West, ignorant of their tech difference and ignorant that they can possibly be invaded.
The Qing had far more data and far more information about the outside world than the Ming...
 
And who is to say that the Chinese would emulate the Russians? The Ming believed in the "natural borders of China" idea, the Qing did not (they had to not).
Bloody Zhu Yuanzhang deliberately set up laws which forbade conquest of anyone except nomads to the north,which only some powerful emperors like Zhu Di could ignore.The Ming dynasty was pretty much the exception rather than the norm.Nearly every single dynasty except the Ming Dynasty was expansionist if they managed to gain control of the entirety of China.The only one that didn't was the Jin and Song Dynasty,the Jin because China was just out of the Three Kingdoms period and soon fell into civil war and invasion while the Song Dynasty couldn't even recapture Gansu and the Sixteen Prefectures.If the Ming Dynasty did fall and was replaced by another Han Dynasty,it's likely they will be more expansionist than the Ming.

The Manchus very often referred to their state as "the Middle Country," i.e. China. More-or-less every non-Sinophone subject of the empire, as well as virtually all foreigners (except Korea and a few others), also referred to the state consistently as China.
It was popularly referred by it's own subjects as Da Qing and the Upper Country/Kingdom by tributaries.The term Middle Kingdom was more of a poetic/literature thing that you really see in diplomatic documents.Like you mentioned,it's really the foreigners who call the state 'Middle Kingdom'.


The Ming system as set up by Zhu Yuanzhang for permanence inherently encourages corruption. The Qing system was above-average, certainly not the worst.
That I agree,but the Manchus more or less inherited the same system.They got the same old authoritarian system Ming had minus the absurd amount of secret police but got an apartheid system instead.Most of the officials and generals they had initially were defectors they gained from the Ming Dynasty.So essentially they did have one of the worst systems.Ming was definitely one of the worst major dynasties nearly on par with the Qing.The only part that differs was that there wasn't an apartheid system going on(don't won't to discuss about apartheid system again,we've debated on this a lot already in other threads).
The Han killed each other more than the Manchu did during the M-Q transition.
That I agree,but commanded by the Manchus.Most of the Manchu soldiers were in fact bloody Han defectors.There were of course bastards like Zhang Xianzhong.
 
Last edited:
I hope people like Li Zhicheng would stay out of power forever.What China really needed was an emperor that's educated.Most of the so-called peasant emperors were in fact pretty horrible rulers in one way or another.Li Zicheng was a failure of a ruler.Zhu Wen was a bloody tyrant,and so was Zhu Yuanzhang.Zhu Yuanzhang while competent in a lot of ways basically had no idea how the economy works.He deliberately set up methods of preventing any reforms to the government and retarded the government's capacity to reform according to new situations.His insecurity due to his humble birth also made him bring authoritarianism in China to unprecedented heights.No dynasty in China had as many secret police forces as the Ming Dynasty.At one point in time,there were four different secret police organizations working in conjunction and spying upon each other.

But Li Zicheng didn't have to be. It isn't like the Shun Dynasty was bound to fail even though it was founded by a ruler of lowly birth. And it isn't like authoritarianism will produce a failed state from the get-go. Imperial Russia was horrific in terms of its secret police and levels of secret police bureaucracy, but it created one of the largest empires in the world and at times produced good results. Besides, the imperial system would end up correcting itself in the end or get overthrown in favour of a republic. And something tells me a Han dynasty might be more perceptive to those issues than Qing was, especially if a school of thought re-emphasises Li Zicheng's social position toward peasants.

Even if Shun couldn't conquer as much land as Qing did, I think it could still defeat Southern Ming or any other loyalists and go on to conquer at least one of the areas Qing did. I'd guess Manchuria would be the obvious target since it's closer than Dzungaria.
 
Bloody Zhu Yuanzhang deliberately set up laws which forbade conquest of anyone except nomads to the north,which only some powerful emperors like Zhu Di could ignore.The Ming dynasty was pretty much the exception rather than the norm.Nearly every single dynasty except the Ming Dynasty was expansionist if they managed to gain control of the entirety of China.The only one that didn't was the Jin and Song Dynasty,the Jin because China was just out of the Three Kingdoms period and soon fell into civil war and invasion while the Song Dynasty couldn't even recapture Gansu and the Sixteen Prefectures.If the Ming Dynasty did fall and was replaced by another Han Dynasty,it's likely they will be more expansionist than the Ming.
But it's not just a government thing, the idea of the natural borders of China was quite prevalent in the late Ming in elite society in general. The Qing changed that totally - if there's another Han dynasty we don't know if this will happen, or if they will simply follow late Ming precedent with a primarily off-hands approach in Mongolia and an ignoring approach to the ocean.

It was popularly referred by it's own subjects as Da Qing and the Upper Country/Kingdom by tributaries.The term Middle Kingdom was more of a poetic/literature thing that you really see in diplomatic documents.Like you mentioned,it's really the foreigners who call the state 'Middle Kingdom'.
My point is that most of the world did perceive the Qing as China. By contrast, not too many Afghans perceived the EIC as an Indian empire.

That I agree,but the Manchus more or less inherited the same system.They got the same old authoritarian system Ming had minus the absurd amount of secret police but got an apartheid system instead.Most of the officials and generals they had initially were defectors they gained from the Ming Dynasty.So essentially they did have one of the worst systems.Ming was definitely one of the worst major dynasties nearly on par with the Qing.The only part that differs was that there wasn't an apartheid system going on(don't won't to discuss about apartheid system again,we've debated on this a lot already in other threads).
I agree the Qing inherited a lot of the shitty Ming system, but the Qing eventually reformed a lot of the system, e.g. the Yongzheng Emperor reforms officials' pay schemes to lessen corruption.

That I agree,but commanded by the Manchus.Most of the Manchu soldiers were in fact bloody Han defectors.There were of course bastards like Zhang Xianzhong.
I don't know if the Manchus really killed more than the rebels. Besides Zhang Xianzhong, think of events like the destruction of Kaifeng.
 
But Li Zicheng didn't have to be. It isn't like the Shun Dynasty was bound to fail even though it was founded by a ruler of lowly birth. And it isn't like authoritarianism will produce a failed state from the get-go. Imperial Russia was horrific in terms of its secret police and levels of secret police bureaucracy, but it created one of the largest empires in the world and at times produced good results. Besides, the imperial system would end up correcting itself in the end or get overthrown in favour of a republic. And something tells me a Han dynasty might be more perceptive to those issues than Qing was, especially if a school of thought re-emphasises Li Zicheng's social position toward peasants.

Even if Shun couldn't conquer as much land as Qing did, I think it could still defeat Southern Ming or any other loyalists and go on to conquer at least one of the areas Qing did. I'd guess Manchuria would be the obvious target since it's closer than Dzungaria.
The Shun was doomed from the beginning.Thing is that Li Zicheng wasn't a revolutionary.He was merely a man who wanted to take the luxuries of being emperor by force but none of the responsibilities.Both Li Zicheng and his army wasn't there to help or save the people,they were none other than marauders who try to make a living but plundering the hell out of the common people and the wealthy alike.As I've described in one thread,they were basically ISIS but without the religious drive.This is the reason why the popular support for Li Zicheng and his supporters eventually ran out and unlike his time against the Ming Dynasty where he was able to repeatedly get come backs after defeats and defeats,the people abandoned him.

As for authoritarianism,the thing is that China hasn't had the level of authoritarianism it had since the Qin dynasty.Prior to the Ming Dynasty(I don't know much about the Yuan,so I'll skip it),officials had the right to criticize and even reprimand the emperor.You get you and your family executed if you try that in the Ming and Qing Dynasty.Tsarist Russia repressive regime ended up having Russia become a backwards country that could never fulfill it's full potential,furthermore it mostly controlled wastelands.The amount of authoritarianism in China caused by Ming and Qing caused backwardness,corruption and inefficiencies.The fact that the emperor had to create four secret police organizations serving at the same time and also spying upon each other times you just how much bureaucratic red tape and how insane it is.Haijin,which is an form of authoritarianism practiced by both the Ming and Qing dynasty was also a major reason why China became backwards.
But it's not just a government thing, the idea of the natural borders of China was quite prevalent in the late Ming in elite society in general. The Qing changed that totally - if there's another Han dynasty we don't know if this will happen, or if they will simply follow late Ming precedent with a primarily off-hands approach in Mongolia and an ignoring approach to the ocean.


My point is that most of the world did perceive the Qing as China. By contrast, not too many Afghans perceived the EIC as an Indian empire.


I agree the Qing inherited a lot of the shitty Ming system, but the Qing eventually reformed a lot of the system, e.g. the Yongzheng Emperor reforms officials' pay schemes to lessen corruption.


I don't know if the Manchus really killed more than the rebels. Besides Zhang Xianzhong, think of events like the destruction of Kaifeng.

Problem is that the corruption's back immediately after Yongzheng's gone.As for there being a natural border of China,emperors generally don't give a damn about that,especially the military minded emperors who establish their dynasties.A major problem that came up with the Ming dynasty was that Zhu Yuanzhang set up a whole list of restrictions for his descendants that conservative officials were able to use against the emperor if he tried to do something different.Many of the emperors simply didn't have Zhu Di's amount of authority which could be used to break the status quo_One thing that should be realized is that most Confucian writings suited the tastes of a dynasty's founder.
 
Last edited:
A lot of Chinese were also killed by the invading Manchus,in what would be called genocides in modern day.

Most dynastic transitions are messy. See the big picture, not just the 1640s.

Which ones specifically? Apart from the Qin conquests,only invasion by foreign enemies like the Xiongnu during the Wuhu Uprising were comparable in terms of wide scale slaughter of civilians.

I'm kind of amazed that no one is calling darthfanta out on his (or her) bizarre ahistorical apologia for Chinese history. These are blindingly, blatantly false assertions.

In absolute terms, the war of the Three Kingdoms definitely, and the Taiping rebellion probably, had higher death tolls by Han-centric violence than did the Qing conquest. Measure by percentages of Chinese population and at least the An Lushan rebellion, another internal conflict, surpasses the Qing conquest. Probably several other conflicts work just as well.

I mean, really.
 
Except Kangxi opened up the very old walls of the haijin in 1684. You see a dramatic rise in Chinese ships visiting Nagasaki and Batavia (two places where data is good) immediately after 1684. For Japan I believe it was a tenfold rise or greater. By this point "High Qing autarky" is completely discredited in academia.

Where are you getting these pessimistic ideas about the Junghar state? The Junghar state efficiently incorporated gunpowder warfare, that's part of how they survived to be the last nomadic empire. You realize much of the finances for the Junghar state came from Sino-Russian trade, and that they often had amicable relations with the Russians?

My understanding is that there aren't really any examples of Dzungar mongols successful besieging Chinese cities, whose walls were generally impervious to cannons. When the Qing conquered Liaoning, at first they tried to take cities by storm, but this failed when the Chinese adopted the Dutch cannon. Thereafter, the Qing adopted modern cannon of their own; they used their artillery to reduce a city's outlying fortification and gradually tighten their hold, until the general holding it defected. This required sophisticated supply systems and lots of bodies to dig and man the trenches. Did the Dzungar ever develop the means to pose an existential threat to the Chinese heartland?
 
I'm kind of amazed that no one is calling darthfanta out on his (or her) bizarre ahistorical apologia for Chinese history. These are blindingly, blatantly false assertions.

In absolute terms, the war of the Three Kingdoms definitely, and the Taiping rebellion probably, had higher death tolls by Han-centric violence than did the Qing conquest. Measure by percentages of Chinese population and at least the An Lushan rebellion, another internal conflict, surpasses the Qing conquest. Probably several other conflicts work just as well.

I mean, really.
I am talking mostly in terms of deliberate massacre of civilians.A lot of the wars you mentioned had deaths due to things like famines and plagues.Quite often during civil wars the warlords find it convenient to leave the civilian population alone.Generally,they needed population more than land.As for the Anshi Rebellion,it wasn't really strictly an internal conflict.A large degree of An Lushan's forces were nomadic tribesmen were submitted tribesmen who weren't assimilated.I'm talking about massacres by a particular entity,not warlords within a particular period as a collective group.You are right the Anshi rebellion and the Taiping rebellion were pretty bad,so my bad on those two.The Three Kingdoms period on the other hand was a conflict where most deaths were caused by famines,battles and plagues rather than deliberate attempts at exterminating population.As I've mentioned,generally during Chinese civil wars the goal was to take over population rather than just territory.
 
Last edited:
Top