Chinese Philosophy

[Stuart Mackey]

Actually they did. Japan purchased warships from Europe (Dutch, I believe) to escort their transports in the second Korean invasion and the turtleboats trashed virtually their entire fleet, sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to a watery grave.

You have got to give me a source on this, please! The Japanese bought Dutch ships in 1592???

Probably not Dutch. Maybe it was British or something. Like I said, I'm relying solely on my memory. Anyway, the ships were pathetic compared to the Turtleboats, and the fleet got trashed.

I remember a referance to these vessels somewhere. It was also pointed out that they were of poor sea keeping quality and were of short range. They were oar powered, I think.
These vessels may have given a local superiority, but they could not give sea control nor could they give the inititive to the defender against a serious, sustained threat from a european style enemy. Of couse its academic realy, as the Eupropeans could never have sustained armies/fleets out in asia large enough to do much untill after the end of Napoleons wars.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

They had far better science and technology by the 18th century, not the 19th. IMO, scientific advances count for a great deal, much more than other factors like agricultural output, manufacturing capacity, and population.

By the time of the American Revolution, I would say the West had all the tools it needed to accelerate its progress.

I'm starting to notice broken record syndrome here. You haven't dealt with anything I've said, merely repeated your original claim unmodified.

Semantics. What matters is that there was hardly peace throughout the land. Perhaps that was the reason for not industrializing?

It's not just semantics. Civil wars are far more destructive to a country than external wars. Besides, China may have had its share of conflict, but Europe was at war more or less continuously.

As for industrializing, I've already said why China didn't industrialize, and it had nothing to do with culture or the state of conflict.

So how did the Japanese do it? Why them, and not the chinese, with their infinitely greater territory, access to materials, and greater population? Perhaps sheer size was the problem, but industrialization started in Europe as a regional process, not a national one.

The Japanese have always been much better at waging war (especially ground war) than China (or anyone else, for that matter). At the time, the daimyos were battling it out for control of Japan, and needed any edge they could get.

You gotta give us some links or excerpts for that! Frank seems skeptical(actually, so am I).

I'll look for the book.

Trade of what goods? What items? Are you trying to say that cloth and salt are actually equivalent in value to steam engines?

I'm starting to get tired of your shell games. I'm talking about pre-industrial revolution. Why do you keep talking about steam engines and the like?

It's not just trade that's important. It's what that trade consisted of. If you compare two trade networks, one with exchanges of grains and fabric, while the other consists of TVs and VCRs, obviously you would consider the one with agricultural products and garments to be the 'backward, stagnant' one. And yes, this is really an exagerration. The Europeans dealt with items that were often worth more in value. Sugar, tobacco, opium, for example.

Got a source on that?

Future expeditions might have paid off. Damn Yongle for dying early.

China could have dominated the entire South East Asian region if they had dared to establish colonies. And once the importance of rubber came up in the 19th century... well, we would have been sitting pretty.

Had they "dared to establish colonies" they would have bankrupted themselves. The trade went on within China and between Asian powers dwarfs anyone else's trade. The best analogy I can think of goes like this: Europe is like Montana, while Asian powers are like California. If you're in Montana, the benefits from sending out expeditions are enormous, since what you produce yourself is insignificant, but if you're in California, expeditions don't even begin to pay for themselves, since you're already the center of activity.

So why not chinese imperialism? It's good to be on top of the world.

Even if we accept your assumption that imperialism is always beneficial even under radically different circumstances, without industry Europe would have just wrested their colonies away.

But yes, there was very little China could have gotten from its contacts that it didn't have itself. Save perhaps for metals, as you had mentioned. But then, they never saw much use for metal beyond weapons and tools, did they? Which brings me back to my first point. Unwilling, and unable to change.

You're starting to annoy me, and I'm starting to think you're doing it on purpose. You know damn good and well (I hope) that their inability to predict an industrial revolution centuries in the future does not equal "unwilling, and unable to change".

I don't think so. The culture persisted all the way until the start of the 20th century, by which time the imperial government should have uncovered or imported the mining methods necessary to further squeeze out mineral resources. Even after the Opium Wars, adavnced methods for mining were already present, possibly in China. Why didn't they industralise then?

But perhaps it was too little and too late.

I give two paragraphs of explanation and examples and you refute it with "I don't think so"?

The culture persisted until it was no longer convenient. If culture is not tied to present situation, then what is the mechanism for cultural change? If you're right, then culture shouldn't ever change. Of course, there's also the question of where culture came from in the first place. Do you think it's genetic or something?

Oh yes. Spain(and Austria, Italy) managed to achieve a certain level of industrialization. They did import machinery and techniques to modernize their traditional crafts. However, they remained agrarian based economies, because they had neither the labor for industrial production nor purchasing power for industrial goods. But they did have raw materials and primary products for their neighbours.

Are you blind? I said they didn't industrialize because they didn't have good navigable waterways, not because they didn't have the raw materials. Besides, the facts that they didn't have purchasing power was because they didn't have good navigable waterways, hence no cheap transportation, hence no significant trade, hence poor country. Lack of purchasing power is a symptom, not a cause.

It wsn't just rivers. The lack of well-built roads in Spain was also a factor. In many history texts, it was mentioned that the social structures, agricultural organization, and commercial policies in the European countries which did not industrialize all hindered the adoption of new methods, machines, and production. These were reasons why industrialization did not take place in Spain, Austria, and Italy. It wasn't just natural disadvantages. And when they did industrialize, it was mostly symbol without substance. Obviously, these countries were hardly at the forefront of colonialism, much less the imperial powers like Britain, France, and Germany. In fact, they seem rather similar to China!

Cart before the horse. How were they supposed to colonize without trade and industry? As for the social structures, policies, etc., that's also cart before the horse. Those facets of their culture existed because they didn't have good trade, because they didn't have cheap transportation, because they didn't have good navigable waterways.

China, with a population of 100 million, surely had the labor, and the purchasing power. They had the agricultural organization, the trade network in place. Sure, lack of metal was a problem. But the bigger one laid in its culture.

The lack of metal was a "problem"!?! How are you supposed to industrialize with no fucking iron? That's more than just a problem, and you haven't produced a shred of argumentation to refute my claim that culture was caused by those realities, not the other way around.

You'll have to show that chinese merchants and entrepeneurs were indeed more receptive.

Why do I have the burden of proof? You're claiming that merchants and entrepreneurs in China, contrary to everywhere else in the world and the very concept of entrepreneurship and merchanthood, weren't receptive to ideas that would increase their wealth and standing significantly. That sounds like an extraordinary claim to me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Industrilization occurred at regional, not national levels. The government doesn't need to be an active participant. It only needed to create the conditions conducive to industrialization. But China's one didn't do that.

This is a peculiar claim, how is industrialization that you yourself just said was regional and not national supposed to be stopped by government inaction? Maybe this is a good time to talk about Chinese silver. In the late 15th century, China was on a paper money standard that had collapsed. Despite the government doing absolutely everything in it's power to prevent the people from switching to silver as a currency, it happened. Whoops! Looks like I just refuted your asinine claim that the Chinese people wouldn't change their society in major ways if it were possible and beneficial.

Then again, the monopolization of metals by the state might have something to do with the fact that they could not build any factories.

Yeah that's it, especially seeing as how Europe didn't have resource monopolies, oh wait...

That doesn't change the fact they were bashed up.

After the industrial revolution. Concession accepted.

The superiority might not have existed before the revolution, but it certainly did after it. But before the revolution, what was it about the Europeans that enabled them to have the revolution in the first place? It's not just geographical reasons.

That's the spirit! State that it's not just geographical reasons over and over and it will come true! There's no place like home, there's no place like home... You're not a creationist, are you?

But trade wasn't the only factor in determining industrialization and/or superiority. Just because somebody has a greater volume of trade doesn't automatically confer on them 'developed nation' status.

It's a pretty strong indicator. And China was light years more developed than Europe before the industrial revolution.

The inward-looking trait isn't just about trade. It's about being receptive to new ideas, which the chinese, at the time, were not! If chinese merchants were, as you have said, receptive to new ideas, why didn't we see garment factories springing up in China? Light manufacturing industries for goods? It doesn't take much metal nor fuel!

China produced enough silk products to clothe basically the entire world. I shit you not, everyone from the natives toiling away in Spanish mines to European aristocracy was wearing different grades of Chinese silk. Their production and distribution networks were absolutely amazing. Whoops! Just refuted your asinine claim again. How about when the population of China tripled after the sweet potato was invented because the previously barren northern reaches of China, great for producing sweet potato but not rice was colonized at a phenomenal rate? I've got news for you, every society is hostile to change at some level, and there is no evidence (you certainly haven't produced any) that the Chinese were any more hostile to any than anyone else, and plenty of evidence against it. I've produced no less than 3 separate examples off the top of my head.

Something was obviously preventing them from doing so. Whether the merchants refused to invest, or whether the government didn't allow them, is moot. It all stemmed from the value system.

See above.

Oh yes. The Europeans were smart to be middlemen, earning something for practically little effort. That's called being clever.

It was the idea of the Chinese and Japanese, not theirs.

Chinese had greed. But not enough ambition, and not enough curiosity. They regarded the knowledge of the past as infallible, and that progress could only be made in incremental steps.

Bullshit. See above.

You missed the point. The europeans managed to break through to a new understanding of nature. They managed to realize that their past recovered knowledge is fallible. The chinese, unfortunately, did not.

Bullshit. See above.

The Enlightenment was just as important as the Industrial Revolution

By European standards, the Chinese were already enlightened. They didn't have a thousand year Dark Age period of cultural regress, and didn't need a sudden surge in progressive anti-religious thinking.

True, but then they leapt ahead, didn't they. Again, perhaps it was those 'barbaric' values that helped them. It wasn't just geographical advantages.

There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

It would have been very, very different. China might now be a modern state on par with the United States.

*dreams of world where everybody has to learn chinese*

No way. They couldn't have industrialized back then for very clear geographical reasons. They started to industrialize in a big way in the 1960s for two reasons. 1) The iron that was previously inaccesible became available because of better mining technology. 2) Global trade allowed them to get access to that which they lacked. Actually, the recent (relatively) monstrous surges in industrialization and modernization coming from Japan, Korea, and China are not so much some freak aberration but things finally returning to normal after 150 years of a freak aberration where European and European descendent (U.S.) powers were ahead of Asian powers. It's quite possible that everyone very well might have to learn Chinese, Japanese, or Korean within the next few centuries. Then again, there might be another shakeup that no one saw coming (like the industrial revolution) that could catapult virtually anyone to the head of the world.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

In any case, Japan had refined and put guns to far superior use than the Europeans ever did scant decades after seeing them for the first time, but they decided to give them up in the 16th century, so that by the time Commodore Perry showed up in 1868, most Japanese didn't even know what a gun was.

That is patently untrue. The Japanese used MATCHLOCK arquebuses unchanged from the Portugese models they were based on until the 19th century.

Who told you that?

How did the Japanese refine them?
How was Japanese use superior to European?

They invented devices that would allow them to work in the rain, they invented techniques for accurate firing in low-light conditions, they invented rifling techniques that allowed their guns to literally bullseye targets at 300 meters, they mass produced them in quantities the Portugese could only have wet dreams about, and the guns they built were of such quality that, I shit you not, they were converted to bolt-action rifles to fight the Russians 300 years later and still worked. There really aren't any areas that they didn't improve them, and frankly, seeing as how no one can seem to make swords as good as the old katanas even with modern computer controlled robotics, I don't see why any of this should surprise you. Japanese ingenuity was and is fucking amazing.

Are you telling us that they gave them up after improving them, improving their useage, and then simply gave up on them after less than a hundred years?[/i]

Read the damn book. It's only like 100 pages cover to cover. I read it in about 3 hours. Probably the best, most interesting book page for page I've ever read.

[Stuart Mackey]

They invented devices that would allow them to work in the rain, they invented techniques for accurate firing in low-light conditions, they invented rifling techniques that allowed their guns to literally bullseye targets at 300 meters, they mass produced them in quantities the Portugese could only have wet dreams about, and the guns they built were of such quality that, I shit you not, they were converted to bolt-action rifles to fight the Russians 300 years later and still worked. There really aren't any areas that they didn't improve them, and frankly, seeing as how no one can seem to make swords as good as the old katanas even with modern computer controlled robotics, I don't see why any of this should surprise you. Japanese ingenuity was and is fucking amazing.

The Europeans were useing rifleing at this time as well with similar distances, it wasnt that common due to slow reload times.

I would be extreamly carefull about describing Japanese swords that way. European, Indian, Arabic and Scandinavian swords were/are just as good as Japanese swords and better in a lot of circumstances.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

But Japan did modernize, while the chinese didn't. It's more than just geographical factors at work.

Why do you assume Japan's geography is identical to China's?

For example, the metal resource problem. If the chinese had imported western mining techniques, could they have increased their supply of metal? Quite possible. But again, they didn't. It's another symptom of the closed mind problem.

Their iron was locked deep in the mountains! No one's mining techniques could have gotten to it, not the Europeans', not anyone's. I love how you just assume with no information that they could have accessed that iron had they really wanted to.

At the regional levels, there has to be some place where local conditions existed for industrialization to take place, but they didn't. Coal, waterways, and metal are necessary conditions(though France managed to industrialize without much in canals and waterways, so I would consider that an enabling condition)

The hell it did. France was still predominantly agricultural well into the 20th century.

but taken together they are not sufficient. There's something else at work, and that's the people actually living on the land.

You have provided no evidence for this at all. You invent an unnecessary x-factor which you still haven't given any justification for, and then assume, also with no justification, that the Chinese culture is responsible.

You cannot just put a people on a land with all three conditions(coal, waterways, metal) and expect them to industrialize. They had to be at a certain stage of scientific and organizational development before they could take advantage of those resources. The chinese, quite evidently, were not at that stage.

Bullshit. See my last post.

So regardless of whether the chinese lacked the scientific knowledge, the organizational structures, or just plain hindered by their government, I would still boil it all down to one thing.

Bullshit. See last pst.

They simply could not accept ideas from the outside. Ideas to improve their mining techniques, ideas to increase their production, ideas to further their knowledge of the world. Ideas which could have brought them to the point where they could have industrialized if the opportunity presented itself.

Bullshit. See last post.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Let's deal with Britain first.There was an ecomoic failure of farms,in the sense that because of weather and new foodtypes,it no longer became profitable to grow the "best" food and they shifted to growing the "most" food.
From there,the failure of farms to compete and the begining of agroindustry further created a labour force on the industries.

Yes,its a pardigm shift,but one prepicitated by the non-viable farming methods of the past.

Supersititions is not just Taoism or even Confucianism.Yes,no doubt,the Han version of Confucianism,further adapted during the Song/Tang dynasty placed an inordinate amount of emphasis on "fa",a concepte that's translated as religious rites or tradition,whereas the orginal meaning was Law.
Yes,no doubt,this contribute to superstition because the Law,was religious in nature.

Taoism,in a religious sense is just lots of deities,and this wasn't a factor.

The factor,the key crippling death in China advance,was the fact that everyone from top to botton believed in superstition.It crippled and shackled them.This isn't a value based system or not,its an entire faith based belief that shackled them.

Europe unshackled themselves.Slowly and surely,they seperated the power from Church and State and undemonised the night.China never went through that stage.

Not to butt in here, but it seems to me that Asian powers wouldn't necesarily need to separate church and state for progress to occur. Christianity is a very destructive, violent, regressive religion, while Taoism isn't.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

The Europeans were useing rifleing at this time as well with similar distances, it wasnt that common due to slow reload times.

I know, but the point is that the Japanese invented rifling independently, with scant decades of experience with firearms rather than the centuries the Europeans had.

I would be extreamly carefull about describing Japanese swords that way. European, Indian, Arabic and Scandinavian swords were/are just as good as Japanese swords and better in a lot of circumstances.

You're shitting me! Who told you that? I've seen footage of a centuries old katana literally slicing the barell of a browning M2 .50 cal machine gun in half without dulling the blade. I've heard accounts of European swords shattering themselves against katanas.

[Stuart Mackey]

The Europeans were useing rifleing at this time as well with similar distances, it wasnt that common due to slow reload times.

I know, but the point is that the Japanese invented rifling independently, with scant decades of experience with firearms rather than the centuries the Europeans had.

Or some Portugese/Duchman told them of it?, or they got the Idea from a European book?. thats not to say they couldnt have invented it independently, but dont rule out other possibilities.

I would be extreamly carefull about describing Japanese swords that way. European, Indian, Arabic and Scandinavian swords were/are just as good as Japanese swords and better in a lot of circumstances.

You're shitting me! Who told you that? I've seen footage of a centuries old katana literally slicing the barell of a browning M2 .50 cal machine gun in half without dulling the blade. I've heard accounts of European swords shattering themselves against katanas.

Oh dear oh dear, another poor person has fallen for the 'Japanese swords are next to godliness' fallacy. I ofen wonder if this sort of hype has been promoted by fantical trekkies, as the arguments are often very similar in mentality to STvsSW debateing a few years ago.
Who told me? research has told me. Europeans could and did make swords that were just as good as Japanese swords. This Idea of euro swords 'shattering' against Katana's is bunkum, promoted by bad film's and ignorance. Infact go here http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm and get a better feel for the capabilities of Euro edges weapons and hype.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

The Europeans were useing rifleing at this time as well with similar distances, it wasnt that common due to slow reload times.

I know, but the point is that the Japanese invented rifling independently, with scant decades of experience with firearms rather than the centuries the Europeans had.

Or some Portugese/Duchman told them of it?, or they got the Idea from a European book?. thats not to say they couldnt have invented it independently, but dont rule out other possibilities.

Fair enough.

I would be extreamly carefull about describing Japanese swords that way. European, Indian, Arabic and Scandinavian swords were/are just as good as Japanese swords and better in a lot of circumstances.

You're shitting me! Who told you that? I've seen footage of a centuries old katana literally slicing the barell of a browning M2 .50 cal machine gun in half without dulling the blade. I've heard accounts of European swords shattering themselves against katanas.

Oh dear oh dear, another poor person has fallen for the 'Japanese swords are next to godliness' fallacy. I ofen wonder if this sort of hype has been promoted by fantical trekkies, as the arguments are often very similar in mentality to STvsSW debateing a few years ago.
Who told me? research has told me. Europeans could and did make swords that were just as good as Japanese swords. This Idea of euro swords 'shattering' against Katana's is bunkum, promoted by bad film's and ignorance. Infact go here http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm and get a better feel for the capabilities of Euro edges weapons and hype.

Interesting. Never heard that before, although I did know that swords were never primary battle weapons. What books do you recommend most?

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
Interesting. Never heard that before, although I did know that swords were never primary battle weapons. What books do you recommend most?

Well I have always tended to treat with suspition claims of such overwhealming superiority, steel is steel after all. And yes, swords have tended to be secondary weapons.
As to books, I dont have them at home, my own are at my parents. However your local library should have some works on the subject or you can get some idea from ARMA http://www.thehaca.com/reading.htm
Just dont take everthing at face value.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

snip
Interesting. Never heard that before, although I did know that swords were never primary battle weapons. What books do you recommend most?

Well I have always tended to treat with suspition claims of such overwhealming superiority, steel is steel after all. And yes, swords have tended to be secondary weapons.
As to books, I dont have them at home, my own are at my parents. However your local library should have some works on the subject or you can get some idea from ARMA http://www.thehaca.com/reading.htm
Just dont take everthing at face value.

I don't make a habit of taking everythings at face value, however, it didn't seem like an extraordinary claim to me, given Japanese current and historical superiority with regard to guns, cars, and engineering in general.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
Interesting. Never heard that before, although I did know that swords were never primary battle weapons. What books do you recommend most?

Well I have always tended to treat with suspition claims of such overwhealming superiority, steel is steel after all. And yes, swords have tended to be secondary weapons.
As to books, I dont have them at home, my own are at my parents. However your local library should have some works on the subject or you can get some idea from ARMA http://www.thehaca.com/reading.htm
Just dont take everthing at face value.

I don't make a habit of taking everythings at face value, however, it didn't seem like an extraordinary claim to me, given Japanese current and historical superiority with regard to guns, cars, and engineering in general.

There you go again If you ever study up on Japan you actually find that they tend towards inefficency in some areas and efficency in others.
Take the first Nissan Bluebird: That car had a British engine of some noteriety, it was crap, but the Japanese took that engine design and made it properly and voila, a good car they did make. And what does that prove? not that the Japanese made a good engine, so much as the Brits sometimes have good engine designs and piss poor quality control. The thing is that the Japanesesaw that engine for what it could be, and knew about good quality control, which is a serious issue in British cars.

Also, the Japanese post war method of statistical prosses control, Total Quality Management, and how they rebuilt their economy after the war, where did they get the Idea? An American by the name of Edwards Demming gave it to them affter the war, the American were no longer interested in his Ideas after he succefully used them in American industry.
I wont go into the details of Japanese errors in WW2, but suffice it to say you should look up Japanese optics vs Radar in naval warfare in the pacific.

Nations can be better in some things than others, but you have to look at things carfully and never at face value.
I presume you know of the Japanese Saleryman, slaving away at work for hours after close time for the company? well I can tell you its all bunkum, well most of it. The average Japanese saleryman does so much overtime not because he has to, his work gets done in around 40-45 hours a week, he does it because noone wants to loose face by being the first to leave the office lest he be seen as not striving for the company. A lot of things are myth, nothing more.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

There you go again If you ever study up on Japan you actually find that they tend towards inefficency in some areas and efficency in others.
Take the first Nissan Bluebird: That car had a British engine of some noteriety, it was crap, but the Japanese took that engine design and made it properly and voila, a good car they did make. And what does that prove? not that the Japanese made a good engine, so much as the Brits sometimes have good engine designs and piss poor quality control. The thing is that the Japanesesaw that engine for what it could be, and knew about good quality control, which is a serious issue in British cars.

Also, the Japanese post war method of statistical prosses control, Total Quality Management, and how they rebuilt their economy after the war, where did they get the Idea? An American by the name of Edwards Demming gave it to them affter the war, the American were no longer interested in his Ideas after he succefully used them in American industry.
I wont go into the details of Japanese errors in WW2, but suffice it to say you should look up Japanese optics vs Radar in naval warfare in the pacific.

Nations can be better in some things than others, but you have to look at things carfully and never at face value.
I presume you know of the Japanese Saleryman, slaving away at work for hours after close time for the company? well I can tell you its all bunkum, well most of it. The average Japanese saleryman does so much overtime not because he has to, his work gets done in around 40-45 hours a week, he does it because noone wants to loose face by being the first to leave the office lest he be seen as not striving for the company. A lot of things are myth, nothing more.

All I know is that I've owned American, Japanese, and German cars, and the American cars were utter shite, the German car was great but kind of unreliable, and the Japanese ones were rock solid (although maybe not quite as nice as the German one). That's all I was referring to. Well, that and the way they went from zero knowledge of guns in 1868 to kicking the Russians' asses in 1904. That was pretty damn impressive.

[PainRack]

Not to butt in here, but it seems to me that Asian powers wouldn't necesarily need to separate church and state for progress to occur. Christianity is a very destructive, violent, regressive religion, while Taoism isn't.

I disagree.The idea of supersitition created a mental immobility in the minds of the people.

Furthermore,let's look at a key difference between the West and China.

In China,when the telescope was present,it was used to anaylse the star.For astrological purpose{and its still inaccurate}

In Europe,it was used to open up science,and Kepler Laws of motion.Which was ultimately verified by Newton.

In China,water clocks were built.Not to keep time.Not to measure time and be used in a commercial and scientific manner.To anaylse trends for astrological purposes.And demolished once the trends they started were gone.

Their entire literature and historical texts are full of astrological comments and supersitition.Yes,even up to the Qing dynasty.This made a critical anaylsis of history and the past impossible.

China science was riddled with superstition,due to this mentality,the cause and effect ideology of science never took off.China science only measured effects,it never bothered to search for causes,at least,not in a systematic manner.

[Stuart Mackey]

All I know is that I've owned American, Japanese, and German cars, and the American cars were utter shite, the German car was great but kind of unreliable, and the Japanese ones were rock solid (although maybe not quite as nice as the German one). That's all I was referring to. Well, that and the way they went from zero knowledge of guns in 1868 to kicking the Russians' asses in 1904. That was pretty damn impressive.

Ahh, you see German cars are over engineered, and onlt expected to last a certain amount of time. Where American cars went wrong, lord only knows.
But it should be remembered that American vehicles were once excellent, their wartime stuff is still excellent stuff. As to Japans millitary changes pre 1904, well they had the Krauts training them there and their navy was British built and trained Ultimatly it was a societal change. But you can rest assured that there a lot of theings the Japanese do very poorly.

[XPViking]

And they weren't all exactly "revolutions" in terms of reshaping society and the power structures. They just put someone else in charge. If that person had virtue and people of talent to serve him, thing's would be alright. If he was inept or an asshole, well he or his house wouldn't last very long.

Are you kidding me? Do you realize how many civil wars China has been through? Dynastic changes, upheavels, rebellions, foreign invasions (and being conquered by non-Han!), splintering of the realm to be later reunited by force of arms..... etc....

For example, in the Three Kingdoms period, the total population of China was 56 million. The San Guo Zhi gives the final population figure of 8 million when the realm is finally reunited after decades of warfare. The San Guo Zhi is history, unlike Romance of the Three Kingdoms, so those numbers are reliable. In fact, I have a separate source, a Taoist book, that relates the same general figures for the population decline ("tens of millions perished").

BTW, I suggest some of you read "Ah Q".

You contradict yourself. Looks like I was right. China wasn't as stable as people would like to believe.

XPViking

[The Duchess of Zeon]

First of all, China was definitely surpassed by the west in the 17th century. There is a reason for that, however. You people are all forgetting what happened then - The Ming were overthrown and the Qing came in and set up a barbarian conquest dynasty. Splat. Right in the middle of the century, too - And to cement their rule their naturally cultivated the most conservative agrarian Confucians, though there were of course exceptions in the early period (mainly one of the Manchu Emperors briefly converting to christianity, until the Pope told him to suppress ancestor worship. When he tried to defend it as not, in fact, being worship, but rather veneration, nobody in the Church believed him and that was that).

Okay, so the Ming Dynasty was really China's height. China had been just as high before previously - Under the Hans it was equal to Rome - And under the T'ang it was probably equal to the Umayyad Caliphate. The Ming, though, had absolutely no competitors in the world. The 15th century was the Chinese century. Tamburlane died on his way to fight the Ming, but facing the Emperor Yongle I think his reputation would have fondered.

This was the century in which China might the largest wooden ships the world has ever seen, complete with modern intern subdivision, brilliant rudder designs, advanced navigational systems - with the technology of the time, one grants - and more than half a dozen masts in some cases. Chinese fleets sailed all the way to East Africa, and projected power in the form of landing punitive expeditions in India, forcing the local potentates to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Chinese Emperor. Though the average European historian ignores it, China invented maritime colonialism in the same century that Portugal was still merely trading a few hundred miles up and down the West African coast.

The Chinese merchant class flourished - little surprise, with that influx of trade goods - and Chinese trading colonies in Malay - purely ethnic and established by people interested in profit centuries ago, never under the authority or the safety of Heaven - were now protected, likewise, with Imperial arms. The result of the Pax Sinica was a blossoming in China of industry - of the Renaissance sort, various concentrated manufactures - and even ironmongry. For example, in the Ming Dynasty, China would produce nearly twice as much iron as all of Europe combined, and continue to do so until the Industrial Revolution began.

There were technological benefits, as well. Though Chinese society was too highly regimented to allow the Renaissance thinkers of the Italian sort, they had perhaps as good, perhaps even better: They established government research directorates tasked with improving technology, almost like Soviet design bureaus. It was one of these, charged with improving gunpowder technology, that refined the first Chinese bombards and handgonnes independent of Western influence.

Likewise during the Ming Dynasty, the awesome Grand Canal was completed, linking the Yellow and the Yangtze rivers for internal waterborne traffic. With that route to aide in the transport of foodstuffs, and an efficient and highly refined agricultural practice, China was at this time easily capable of supporting a hundred million of people.

This was the Ming Dynasty at its height. Imperial overcentralization, however, and the removal of the position of Chief Minister - placing enormous burdens on the Emperor to rule directly - allowed for a series of weak Emperors to reduce the competency of the government. One of these men, after the death of the great Admiral and Explorer Zheng He, and with piracy from Japan on the rise, was convinced by the conservative agrarian Confucians to ban further overseas expeditions and halt the construction of ships with more than two masts.

After the halt of the overseas trade, finished off by the Japanese piracy, the merchantile height of the Ming fell, and with it the chance for this brilliant moment in Chinese history to blossom into something more. The Manchus pressed harder on the border, and incompetent and overwhelmed Emperors could not hold them back. Finally in the mid-17th century they took the capital, and in the turmoil of the shift of power and the experiments and final necessities of the new Dynasty, chances for Chinese power and scientific genius were lost until later and more brutal revolutions of the world, which we still witness.

[PainRack]

This was the Ming Dynasty at its height. Imperial overcentralization, however, and the removal of the position of Chief Minister - placing enormous burdens on the Emperor to rule directly - allowed for a series of weak Emperors to reduce the competency of the government. One of these men, after the death of the great Admiral and Explorer Zheng He, and with piracy from Japan on the rise, was convinced by the conservative agrarian Confucians to ban further overseas expeditions and halt the construction of ships with more than two masts.

After the halt of the overseas trade, finished off by the Japanese piracy, the merchantile height of the Ming fell, and with it the chance for this brilliant moment in Chinese history to blossom into something more. The Manchus pressed harder on the border, and incompetent and overwhelmed Emperors could not hold them back. Finally in the mid-17th century they took the capital, and in the turmoil of the shift of power and the experiments and final necessities of the new Dynasty, chances for Chinese power and scientific genius were lost until later and more brutal revolutions of the world, which we still witness.

Only 1 mistake.Its well recognised that the maritime expeditions of China were halted due to court politics,not ideology.

Essentially,the naval enunchs lost the courts battle to the land enunchs.

Furthermore,mercentalism still flourished,along the Silk Road.The Xinjiang Province was at its most developed,and most historians will agree that the loss of the maritime exploration expeditions wasn't a factor,as the development of the Silk Road more than made up for the trade loss.


The so called naval option the Ming had was never a long term viable option.Maritime trade just could not compare to the centralised power of grain and iron in the Central Plains.Maritime trade,unlike the trade of Europe specialised in bringing in luxuries from East and South East Asia.This trade flowered only when the economic hinterland flourished.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Only 1 mistake.Its well recognised that the maritime expeditions of China were halted due to court politics,not ideology.

Essentially,the naval enunchs lost the courts battle to the land enunchs.

Forgive me for not being clear - I emphasized the ideology of the winners without explaining the battle waged in the court beforehand.

Furthermore,mercentalism still flourished,along the Silk Road.The Xinjiang Province was at its most developed,and most historians will agree that the loss of the maritime exploration expeditions wasn't a factor,as the development of the Silk Road more than made up for the trade loss.

The Silk Road had existed since the Han Dynasty in some form or another, and was being killed by western Imperialism in the 16th century - Portugal arranged for the trading facility at Macau to be set up then, after all. The reunification of Islam under the Ottoman Empire might have provided for easy transit to the west, but it came just in time to see the land route rendered worthless. That was a dead-end.

The so called naval option the Ming had was never a long term viable option.Maritime trade just could not compare to the centralised power of grain and iron in the Central Plains.Maritime trade,unlike the trade of Europe specialised in bringing in luxuries from East and South East Asia.This trade flowered only when the economic hinterland flourished.

A lot of the European trade was a luxury trade, too - You can hardly carry other things on European vessels of the time. Establishment of a full scale merchantile Empire throughout Asia would have opened the door, perhaps, to the surpluses that would have allowed for an industrial revolution in China. Even a conquest-based Empire like that of the Spanish might have done it consider China's far better existing base. Imagine, for that matter, a Chinese discovery of the New World. Even just trading, if they could exploit the silver revenues of Peru...

But it was not to be, neither in Asia, nor in other possibilities. And it was due to China's failure to exploit her potential as a naval power. This allowed Europe - First as the Hapsburg Dynasty and then in the form of the Dutch and then Britain - to establish sea dominance over the region. Now the USA has it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And yes, I few the case of Ming Dynasty China as one of the more straightforward applications of Mahanian theory to the world. They were the superpower of their day and it was because of Sea Power. When it vanished their status declined, and one can find a connection.

[PainRack]

The Silk Road had existed since the Han Dynasty in some form or another, and was being killed by western Imperialism in the 16th century - Portugal arranged for the trading facility at Macau to be set up then, after all. The reunification of Islam under the Ottoman Empire might have provided for easy transit to the west, but it came just in time to see the land route rendered worthless. That was a dead-end.

The trade was still being developed,and indeed,Xinjiang province was at its mot advanced during the Ming dynasty.The trade was dying off,as naval transhipment was easier for the Western powers which China traded with,but that option was not available for the Chinese.For the Chinese,it would have been less cost-effective to travel around South Africia to trade with Italy and the Mediterran powers than vice versa.For one,the surivial of Italy and other Mediterran powers required a naval aspect,and already,most of their trade was naval based.The converse is not true for China.Their waterborne trade is riverine,instead of coastal or oceanic.

The then system of bartering with India and the Arabs was a much better system than the alternative.

A lot of the European trade was a luxury trade, too - You can hardly carry other things on European vessels of the time. Establishment of a full scale merchantile Empire throughout Asia would have opened the door, perhaps, to the surpluses that would have allowed for an industrial revolution in China. Even a conquest-based Empire like that of the Spanish might have done it consider China's far better existing base. Imagine, for that matter, a Chinese discovery of the New World. Even just trading, if they could exploit the silver revenues of Peru...

In which era of European trade are we talking about?Most of Europe trade,indeed,the rise and fall of the Hessainatic League,the rise of both Dutch and England,the premier trading fleets of the North,Italy and Portugal with its salted fish,their primary trade was in neccesities.

European fleets graduated from a commerce based upon neccesities like iron,fish,salt,to luxuries like slaves,molasses and silver.

As for mercantilism,it already existed.Do not forget that even after the demolishing of the Ming navy,Chinese junks still trawled the South China seas to establish trade with the locals.Like the British which will come after them,they set up settlements in which entrepot trade was pracitised,and goods sent back to China.The difference was in scale.The British huge difference in trade imbalance was only possible because of opium.


As for the discovery of the New World?What is the impetus for discovery?Never forget that the Spanish courts sponsered Columbus because Columbus promised the king an alternative route to the Orient.A route that bypassed the naval controls already set up by her enemies,Britain and the Dutch.

But it was not to be, neither in Asia, nor in other possibilities. And it was due to China's failure to exploit her potential as a naval power. This allowed Europe - First as the Hapsburg Dynasty and then in the form of the Dutch and then Britain - to establish sea dominance over the region. Now the USA has it.

China naval options was always more limited than what it had now.Geography and geopolitics both worked against it.Its hinterland and rivers encourages internal trading.Its naval routes required it to go through then serious navigational problems,as well as severe weather.No available ports were present to facillate the journeys to South Asia,not on the scale that would have allowed China to make exploiting the sea profitable.