Biggest Epic Fails in History

[Thanas]

That and the bigger issue of incorporating or importing some cannons is not really helping all that much against ships built to withstand such cannons and/or dish out much larger punishment.

[ray245]

Well, the Taipeng rebellion didn't really help China as well. One of the world's most devastating war really weaken the ability of the Qing government to mount effective reforms.

[Thanas]

Sure but really, it happened at a time when the period we are discussing was almost over, considering it happened in 1850.

[PainRack]

So what ultimately made China unable to protect not only its tributaries in Southeast Asia, but also its own coasts against Europeans in the 18th and 19th centuries? I would be curious to hear your thoughts in the matter.

I can't really say, but taking events from the 17th century and suggesting that its caused the technological stagnation 3 centuries down the road is a bit far fetched.

Especially when the context is different.

The whole Zheng He fleets shut down= huge fail theme runs along the lines of "what the Europeans did, China didn't". The idea goes that since Europeans sponsered Christopher Columbus, this gave them rewards from the age of Exploration, which bumped up Europe position nicely until the Industrial Revolution secured its niche at the top. As if there was no Age of Exploration, there would have been no Industrial Revolution.

This isn't Civilization.

In this context, there was no 'China trade' for Chinese explorers to go to during the Ming dynasty. Instead, the Ming Dynasty itself was responsible for the allure of the China trade, which drew the European powers into the Far East imperialism game in the first place.

The closest context the Chinese ever embarked on an Age of Exploration was during the Han dynasty, with the opening up of the Silk Road.

If people wish to argue that the stopping of the Zheng He fleet somehow meant that China never embarked on an era of colonisation and imperialism, its up to them to actually show it.. The Qing Dynasty imperial conquest of Tibet reveals that yes, the Chinese could 'colonise' other countries, and its not as if colonisation was something new. The whole reason why China is Han Chinese showed just how successful earlier dynasties were in their colonisation program. We're not talking about Romans, which created a Roman identity that everybody collaesaced upon. We're talking about an ethnic group which took over the space of tribes like the Miao people and etc and supplanted them, making said areas into 'China", colonised by Chinese people.

[PainRack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... China#Ming

A list of tributary states that China maintained. One should note that the Treasure Fleet expedition might have been motivated politically, as a form of imperial recognition of Yongle rule, in the sense that foreign nations recognised his stature and gave him tribute. The founding emperor was not above using the tribute system, claiming that a hundred states paid him tribute as a form of imperial recognition of his rule.


The surviving quotes about how the fleet was ended had the new Emperor quoting the founding consitution, which was to cut down excessive spending, which includes the hints of Confucian/Taoist principles of extravagance costs. Given that it directly quoted the huge costs of maintaining the tribute system on both sides, its..... incomplete to claim that it was a Confucianist political plot to win politically that shut down the treasure fleet.

Rather, it was the Confucianists factions, quoting law and philosophy, to argue that an austerity drive was needed to cut out costs. Given other documents about how the Treasury was bankrupt as well as the costs of maintaining the fleet base and the above quote....... a better analogy might be Britain current austerity drive. A political decision made on behalf of an political ideology yes, but a decision made against a real need.


In this context however, the Imperial tributary system of trade was however replaced by private trade ........ so its dubious to claim that the ending of the system had permanent negative consequences. Unlike say the British current austerity drive.
Think of it as the replacement of a feudal system of taxes to a mercantile system of trade.

[Irbis]

The surviving quotes about how the fleet was ended had the new Emperor quoting the founding consitution, which was to cut down excessive spending, which includes the hints of Confucian/Taoist principles of extravagance costs. Given that it directly quoted the huge costs of maintaining the tribute system on both sides, its..... incomplete to claim that it was a Confucianist political plot to win politically that shut down the treasure fleet.

But the problem is - that one decision beheaded the fleet. When European monarchs had financial problems, fleet also suffered but there was always the cadre of domestic and foreign ship captains that could be enlisted as navy or privateers in the moment of need. Often, the very merchants banded together to deploy often vast fleets against pirates or unruly nations (Hansa or Italian merchant republics). When these were eclipsed, it was by growth in strength by powerful national navies. In China, national navy died, and the trade bans and tributary systems ensured private ships (except for unregulated pirates) never really took off on the scale they easily could, IMHO.

Look at Europe, for comparison. Divided, constantly losing resources in internal wars, yet if Europeans had rich spice islands and easy Indian ocean monsoon trade system right under their noses they would exploit it on a far waster scale than Chinese would. They already did, despite being on the other end of the world. No one claims China needed 'age of exploration', they failed to use the resources they already explored anyway.

To give one example for big the Chinese failure in domestic south Asian trade was, from what I remember, Spanish currency usage eclipsed Chinese one in 17th and 18th centuries, to the point that in 19th century Chinese Yuan was equated to Mexican peso. It's like today Cuban currency was more widely used in North America than US dollar and Obama was openly talking about pegging dollars to peso for convenience - how is that not a big failure?

In this context however, the Imperial tributary system of trade was however replaced by private trade ........ so its dubious to claim that the ending of the system had permanent negative consequences. Unlike say the British current austerity drive.
Think of it as the replacement of a feudal system of taxes to a mercantile system of trade.

On the contrary. In the other thread, there were claims China had 'successes' by barely driving off Japanese pirates (same technological level, but far weaker nation) or by driving out small Dutch expedition off Taiwan. It's about as big "success" as if today full mobilization of US Navy was needed to drive North Korean expedition off Puerto Rico. The very fact tiny nation from opposite end of the world was free to occupy Chinese island despite barely any technological advantage says volumes how dumb the decision to disarm navy and abandon trade was (again, IMHO). Colonizing Tibet is cute, but it's empty mountain wilderness - country the size of China should easily be able to influence both politically and economically all of its neighbours, turning them into de-facto client states, instead they chose empty, token tributary system and closed borders.

Also, from what I remember of Chinese history, replacing 'feudal system of taxes to a mercantile system of trade' might not always be a good idea, if done badly. One example is Qing Chinese currency reform - instead of feudal corvée service obligations, one Emperor decreed a fixed tax in silver would be paid. Sounds good by today standards, right? Wrong. The decision initially caused crash in food production (as many peasants switched to growing cash crops and silk production to ensure they had silver to pay taxes to not lose land), flooded China with foreign silver (which merchants needed to pay taxes, too) and caused rampant inflation which both caused gold flow out of country and crippled Chinese budget as the tax in silver was fixed in value that no longer was worth anywhere near as much. Oh, and at the same time, merchants were tightly regulated and if a mine or trade licence brought too much profit, they were told to change or abandon it. Hardly a recipe for successful economic competition.

[PainRack]

The surviving quotes about how the fleet was ended had the new Emperor quoting the founding consitution, which was to cut down excessive spending, which includes the hints of Confucian/Taoist principles of extravagance costs. Given that it directly quoted the huge costs of maintaining the tribute system on both sides, its..... incomplete to claim that it was a Confucianist political plot to win politically that shut down the treasure fleet.

But the problem is - that one decision beheaded the fleet. When European monarchs had financial problems, fleet also suffered but there was always the cadre of domestic and foreign ship captains that could be enlisted as navy or privateers in the moment of need. Often, the very merchants banded together to deploy often vast fleets against pirates or unruly nations (Hansa or Italian merchant republics). When these were eclipsed, it was by growth in strength by powerful national navies. In China, national navy died, and the trade bans and tributary systems ensured private ships (except for unregulated pirates) never really took off on the scale they easily could, IMHO.

Evidence? We have evidence against the argument that private ships simply melted away. But first of all, let's clarify the issue. The dismantling of the treasure fleet is a seperate political decision from the naval ban. While they are related in the form of austerity, there are additional reasons for the naval ban related to China control of customs, piracy and smuggling,partially separate from the costs of maintaining an expensive tributary system that was by Yongle time negative in economic return.(And note, the tributary system wasn't wholly dismantled, rather, it was a deliberate decision by the Ming not to go casting for tributary states in SEA.Korea and etc still remained under China sphere of political and economic influence.)

1. The naval ban was officially instated in 1550,repealed in 1567, in response to the poor customs control China required as well as to control the trading/piracy of Japan, an enemy at this time.
That's a hundred years between the end of Zheng He and the naval ban.

If you wish to argue that the Ming navy melted away, which Ming navy defeated the Portugeuse then? Which Ming navy sent a fleet into the South China Seas to hunt pirates, making contact with the Spanish at Manila?

2. We do know that the private merchant navies were powerful. The 2nd wave of wukou pirates were joined by Chinese merchants, of which the most powerful required the combination of two Ming naval commanders squadrons to hunt down and destroy. This even though China had restricted the construction of twin masted ships for years.

3. Which leads us to the last point. The lack of China to actually halt private construction, suggested by the fact that the twin masted ships proclaimation was issued at least 3 times in the next few decades. Not conclusive sure, but the existence of Chinese wukou pirates tell us that private navies certainly did exist, large enough to challenge the central naval power.
And the central naval power can't possibly have been too small, because they were able to repulse a Portugeuse naval squadron.

They already did, despite being on the other end of the world. No one claims China needed 'age of exploration', they failed to use the resources they already explored anyway.

To give one example for big the Chinese failure in domestic south Asian trade was, from what I remember, Spanish currency usage eclipsed Chinese one in 17th and 18th centuries, to the point that in 19th century Chinese Yuan was equated to Mexican peso. It's like today Cuban currency was more widely used in North America than US dollar and Obama was openly talking about pegging dollars to peso for convenience - how is that not a big failure?

And that's 3 entire centuries away? During the Qing dynasty and not the Ming?
Let's talk about how the Chinese DID exploit their resources shall we? From the space of 1567 to 1640 when the Ming dynasty fell, they sucked in Spanish silver, dictating the creation of a Peru-Manila silver galleon route. We know that this trade was important enough that 37 junks and more visited Manila to conduct trade with Spain, acquiring their silver.

The influx of silver was so vast that it stabilised China inflationary currency, allowing them to transit to a silver backed coin.

This was combined with Portugeuese trade of course, based in Macao. The reintroduction of mechanical clockworks, itnroduction of Portueguese cannons, matchlock muskets, spices, tiger penises, ivory... all ranged around this trade. Just how was this a failure?

And let's DO talk about the Spanish dollar. The Spanish dollar, because of its use in the Americas, Far East and Europe became the world first currency by the 18th century. What happened to the Qing in this time?
The Taiping rebellion, a war which killed more people than the American Civil War. And others, such as the White Lotus Rebellion.

Before that, plagues, famines and the resulting weakening of the Qing central power.

You might as well ask why Europe became a weaker power compared to the USA after WW1.

On the contrary. In the other thread, there were claims China had 'successes' by barely driving off Japanese pirates (same technological level, but far weaker nation) or by driving out small Dutch expedition off Taiwan. It's about as big "success" as if today full mobilization of US Navy was needed to drive North Korean expedition off Puerto Rico. The very fact tiny nation from opposite end of the world was free to occupy Chinese island despite barely any technological advantage says volumes how dumb the decision to disarm navy and abandon trade was (again, IMHO). Colonizing Tibet is cute, but it's empty mountain wilderness - country the size of China should easily be able to influence both politically and economically all of its neighbours, turning them into de-facto client states, instead they chose empty, token tributary system and closed borders.

Dude. The Chinese didn't have ANY territorial claim to Taiwan. Just what are you smoking, in insuinating that the Chinese were invaded by the Dutch in Taiwan?

Oh. And it wasn't the mobilisation of the whole navy. Remember, Zheng was a warlord who mobilised the remnants of the Ming forces who escaped the Chinese mainland to conquer Taiwan. If the USN after being devastated by a nuclear war conquered England.....

As for colonising tibet, you missed the point. If the argument was that the dismantling of the treasure fleet= no age of Imperialism for China, counterparts have to argue WHY the Ming and Qing successfully conquered or colonised other areas. A much better example for why there was no colonisation is that unlike the Spanish, the Chinese didn't have the luck to capture a wealthy kingdom by devastating their population with disease, while having a technological advantage in terms of guns and cannons. As we saw from their defeat in Anman, the Vietnamese, the Japanese all had access to superior gun technology than the Ming, requiring a catchup that only stabilised their tech advantage.

Resources wise, the Chinese devoted more resources to their north than to the south.

There simply wasn't any rewards to be gained from an age of Imperialism for China, unlike the Europeans.

Also, from what I remember of Chinese history, replacing 'feudal system of taxes to a mercantile system of trade' might not always be a good idea, if done badly. One example is Qing Chinese currency reform - instead of feudal corvée service obligations, one Emperor decreed a fixed tax in silver would be paid. Sounds good by today standards, right? Wrong. The decision initially caused crash in food production (as many peasants switched to growing cash crops and silk production to ensure they had silver to pay taxes to not lose land), flooded China with foreign silver (which merchants needed to pay taxes, too) and caused rampant inflation which both caused gold flow out of country and crippled Chinese budget as the tax in silver was fixed in value that no longer was worth anywhere near as much. Oh, and at the same time, merchants were tightly regulated and if a mine or trade licence brought too much profit, they were told to change or abandon it. Hardly a recipe for successful economic competition.

And which era was this?

We can of course point to 1580, when the silver tax was FIRST put in place and the resulting economic growth and specialisation this resulted in for Ming China as a counter-argument. You know, the ACTUAL extant period.

[PainRack]

Actually, let's talk about the Qing dynasty naval ban.

The Qing on their establishment of the throne used the Bureau of Rites and another bureau to re-establish the tributary state trade. Most important of this would be the zhong li ya men, which coordinated trade with the Russians(the 12 overland caravans established yearly).

However, the Qing themselves put in place a naval ban of their own. Shipbuilders throughout the coast were corralled into state hands, trade overseas was curtailed, in an attempt to starve the Ming loyalists.It also attempted to regulate trade of goods.

We..... do know that the Qing still continued trade overseas at this time. The trade with Johore, Malacca, Singapore when the British established the colony(after the destruction of the Siamese trade settlement by the Johore Empire, Singapore remained nothing more than a naval base for their state and even this diminished after the Dutch alliance/colonisation).

We don't know the scale though. And indeed, we do know that trade was restricted, thanks to the existence of the Opium Wars. The controls put in place in 1700 lasted until 1830 until the First Opium War forced the opening of China to foreign trade by the Europeans.

However, even here, the question of just how significant this was to Qing resulting technological decline is questionable. We know from Kangxi that Jesuit missionaries, the whole Christian missions were welcomed due to their knowledge of astronomy and science. We know that the imbalanced trade system benefited China greatly., and part of the naval controls along with other economic reforms by Kangxi left the dynasty in an economically stable state..... until the Opium war, when China weakened military was unable to defend her sovereignty.

[Thanas]

Painrack, you have mentioned the victory against the Portugese naval squadron before. Which one is it and what are your sources for the ships involved?

[ray245]

However, even here, the question of just how significant this was to Qing resulting technological decline is questionable. We know from Kangxi that Jesuit missionaries, the whole Christian missions were welcomed due to their knowledge of astronomy and science. We know that the imbalanced trade system benefited China greatly., and part of the naval controls along with other economic reforms by Kangxi left the dynasty in an economically stable state..... until the Opium war, when China weakened military was unable to defend her sovereignty.

But the Qing never really industrialise to any major degree. There is a huge difference between welcoming Jesuits to advance astronomy and sciences, but applied science never really took off in the Qing dynasty.

[PainRack]

Painrack, you have mentioned the victory against the Portugese naval squadron before. Which one is it and what are your sources for the ships involved?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%8 ... _relations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Batt ... mao_(1521)

The articles here are quite adequately sourced by English sources, albeit, old ones.

The latest I read on this was a Chinese encyclopedia on world history, which unfortunately didn't quote any footnotes.

Another good source would be this.

Sino-Portugeuse Trade, from 1514-1644, Tien Tse Chang,

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=1AA ... &q&f=false

[PainRack]

However, even here, the question of just how significant this was to Qing resulting technological decline is questionable. We know from Kangxi that Jesuit missionaries, the whole Christian missions were welcomed due to their knowledge of astronomy and science. We know that the imbalanced trade system benefited China greatly., and part of the naval controls along with other economic reforms by Kangxi left the dynasty in an economically stable state..... until the Opium war, when China weakened military was unable to defend her sovereignty.

But the Qing never really industrialise to any major degree. There is a huge difference between welcoming Jesuits to advance astronomy and sciences, but applied science never really took off in the Qing dynasty.

Industrialisation and mercantilism(as opposed to trade) aren't necessarily linked. Both Republican era industrialization as well as Russian and Soviet industrialization didn't require a mercantile outlook.

[Sea Skimmer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Batt ... mao_(1521)

The articles here are quite adequately sourced by English sources, albeit, old ones.

That's also right at the dawn of European broadside warships, and caravels could never mount much artillery, indeed I believe it wasn't uncommon for the bow battery of a galley to outgun them. So in that context you'd kinda hope the Chinese could beat them, even if it meant piling land troops into civilian junks. I can not imagine the Chinese would beat a major European Galleon from say 1570 even with a massive numerical advantage. They just never matched the Europeans ability to cast large numbers of iron, as opposed to very expensive bronze cannon as was developed in the mid 16th century.

[PainRack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Batt ... mao_(1521)

The articles here are quite adequately sourced by English sources, albeit, old ones.

That's also right at the dawn of European broadside warships, and caravels could never mount much artillery, indeed I believe it wasn't uncommon for the bow battery of a galley to outgun them. So in that context you'd kinda hope the Chinese could beat them, even if it meant piling land troops into civilian junks. I can not imagine the Chinese would beat a major European Galleon from say 1570 even with a massive numerical advantage. They just never matched the Europeans ability to cast large numbers of iron, as opposed to very expensive bronze cannon as was developed in the mid 16th century.

That point not up for contention. Both ningdao n tamao featured overwhelming numbers for the chinese,2-1 losses in ships and the superior range of Portuguese cannons repulsing chinese junks.

It's meant to showcase the existence of a Ming navy,one large enough to defeat a technologically superior foe,not a navy on par to Europe.

[Sea Skimmer]

Superior foe yes, but it doesn't really tell us much if that navy existed beyond harbor craft or not. Its obviously implausible that a power with a coast would not at least have forces to police its own harbors and approaches, but we generally don't think of that as noteworthy naval power. I believe the Ming also sent ships to fight in the Imjin Wars but they seem to have had little significance and might just have been hastily armed merchantmen, as the entire Japanese fleet was anyway. Until you had cannon broadsides throwing infantry on the deck of a merchant ship worked pretty well, atl east as long as the enemy didn't have ram equipped galleys which as far as I'm aware were never used by anybody in the far east.

[Thanas]

Painrack, that battle is the one I thought it might be but I cannot see how it proves your point.

"In the meantime, after the departure of Simão de Andrade, the ship Madalena, which belonged to D. Nuno Manuel, came from Lisbon under the command of Diogo Calvo, arriving at Tamão with some other vessels from Malacca, among them the junk of Jorge Álvares, which the year before could not sail with Simão de Andrade's fleet because it had sprung a leak. When the instructions issued from Peking against the Portuguese arrived in Canton, together with the news of the death of the Emperor, the Chinese seized Vasco Calvo, a brother of Diogo Calvo, and other Portuguese who were in Canton trading ashore. On 27 June 1521 Duarte Coelho arrived with two junks at Tamão. Besides capturing some of the Portuguese vessels, the Chinese blockaded Diogo Calvo's ship and four other Portuguese vessels in Tamão with a large fleet of armed junks. A few weeks later Ambrósio do Rego arrived with two other ships. As many of the Portuguese crews had been killed in the fighting, slaughtered afterwards or taken prisoner, by this time there were not enough Portuguese for all the vessels, forcing Calvo, Coelho and Rego to abandon the junks in order to better man the three ships. They set sail on 7 September and were attacked by the Chinese fleet, but managed to escape thanks to a providential gale that scattered the enemy junks, and arrived at Malacca in October 1521. Vieira mentions that other junks that arrived in China with Portuguese aboard were all attacked, their crews either killed in the initial fighting or taken prisoner and slaughtered later.

A couple of comments here. The article does not say how many Portugese ships were even there and in fact seems to suggest that there were only three caravels even present. Which I am sorry to say are not the Portugese Navy or even anything a major European power would take for a fleet. In fact, the vast majority seem to have been converted junks. So what you have here is a Chinese fleet (with junks) attacking a European fleet and due to massive numbers taking the other junks, while failing to capture the modern vessels due to their superior seakeeping.

This does not prove anything regarding the capabilities of the chinese other than they were pretty pitiful. I concur with Sea Skimmer with regards to the likeness of the Chinese beating larger EUropean craft, like, for example the Manila Galleons.

[PainRack]

I'm sorry, but are we reading from the same sources or is there some confusion?

The navy in both cases comprised of dedicated war junks, since we know that the Chinese used naval cannon in both cases, at a time when naval cannon was relatively rare.

In attacking against Ningbo, the Chinese lost over 40 junks to the Portugeuse 20 odd vessels, and more importantly, this featured the use of naval cannon on both sides. The superior range of land based portugeuse cannon in particular kept the Chinese junks at range and forced them to land troops overland, and even this suffered heavy casualties to European firepower.


I'm still confused why the point emerged that the Chinese supposedly fielded a navy on par to the Europeans at this point. Given that the Folangji cannon had not been adopted by Ming junks, the number as well as weight of broadside by war junks were in no way comparable to European warships. Even in the ending years of the Ming, their cannonade was explictly stated to be inferior to that of the Dutch.


As stated, the point of the examples was to show that the Ming retained a central fleet capable of projecting power southwards, as they did when a squadron went south to Manila , as well as of significant numbers to challenge a technologically superior foe in the Portugeuse. If there was any implication of the Ming having a navy comparable to the Europeans in terms of technology or capabilities, I apologise, but surely this was never in doubt........


If nothing else, we have the existence of over 400 junks, a mixture of both war junks as well as converted ships as troop transports was used in the invasion of Taiwan by Zheng Cheng Gong, the example isn't as salient of course, since this was after the naval ban and over 2 centuries away from Zheng He.

[PainRack]

Double post

[Thanas]

Nah, I think the point was more that the power projection capabilities of the Ming may have sufficed for that age but were clearly lacking once the portugese came into play. Malacca etc. was out of reach.

[PainRack]

I don't see how that point was ever in contention, especially considering the Portugeuse were projecting power halfway across the world while the Ming were projecting power only as far south as Sumatra/Palembang, and even here, the aligned Chinese settlements soon went their own way post Zheng He.

Nothing changed significantly techwise. Even the tech upgrade from the Folangi cannons only brought their ships up so far, we know from Ming documents that they wished to further upgrade their ships cannon further by importing foreign advisors such as the Dutch . However, there is no data to suggest whether this step was taken in the end days of the Ming.

That's the reason why I have always brought up these examples as being examples of a Ming central navy, one that was large in numbers, to counter-act examples such as Irbis contention that the disbanding of the treasure fleet= disbanding of the Ming navy. There was never an intention to contest that the Ming navy had capabilities on par with a European navy, it would be.... quite unthinkable because every European encounter had the Chinese remarking about the superior cannonade of European ships.


Unless Sea Skimmer is trying to argue that the vessels here might very well be small size ships, something highly unlikely since we know of the existence of war junks and have archaeological evidence of the size and scale of said war junks. Three masts or more, of a certain size. Hell, a replica set sail to San Francisco just a few years back before being sunk.

[Thanas]

So why did they fail to develop a decent Navy then? Even nations which were taken completely unawares by the development of the Galleon managed to built comparable warships even when lagging behind in technology, see for example The Ottoman Empire.

[PainRack]

Errr....... define a decent navy then?

The Ming forces under Zheng Chengong was able to invade Taiwan and threaten raids around Phillipines, forcing the Spainairds to reinforce their garrisons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_Chengong

We know that the fleet invasion of Taiwan consisted of over 600 junks, a mixture of warships and transports. We know that even this was during the Southern Ming era, when the Ming military was a shadow of its former self and that a good bulk of its navy have been defeated by the Qing.

The thing is, I can't find any details on the late Ming cannons, every internet reference I can find is regarding the Qing era warships in the 19th century. The size of the ships were similar though, the main workhorses of the Treasure fleet was still present and working in the late Ming, the sole difference was the additional of frank cannons.

So, I can show you the size of Ming era junks, I can show you the numbers, but I can't show you their capabilities. I can't even adequately source much of this stuff, since I was never interested in the technical details.

[Thanas]

Decent Navy as in "being able to stop foreign incursions or at least make them significantly harder". From all the sources it sounds more like the Spaniards never really bothered to show up in force as they got what they needed peacefully.

[PainRack]

Historically, neither the Dutch nor the Portueguese felt the Ming military was weak enough for them to contest a trade factory on the mainland and Manila was considered vulnerable to a Ming raids at various times in her history......

Granted, this was more a weakness due to the end of a long supply line than the inverse, but given the Chinese numbers, I would hesitate to claim that they were that vulnerable. Afterall, the Portugeuse actions in India, Malacca and clearly showed that they were not above acts of violence for profit, yet, they were deterred from doing so to China.

Furthermore, given the thrust of this thread, I honestly fail to see how the continued funding of the treasure fleet would have created an environment where Chinese war junks metallagury would jump leap and bounds to be on par with the Europeans organically.

[ray245]

Furthermore, given the thrust of this thread, I honestly fail to see how the continued funding of the treasure fleet would have created an environment where Chinese war junks metallagury would jump leap and bounds to be on par with the Europeans organically.

Well, competitive interest would likely push the Chinese to adopt new technology at a faster rate I suppose.