Could European powers have imposed will on China earlier?

[Bellator]

In the 19th century, China was repeatedly defeated by European powers on the battlefield. The Opium Wars being clear examples. This resulted in China having the bend over backwards to accomodate European demands (the Unequal Treaties).

My question is, would European powers be able to accomplish a century or more earlier provided they would have had the political will and incentive to do so?

(Note: This is not an alt-his. I'm just inquiring if it would even have been possible).

[Sea Skimmer]

The Europeans might have been able to win much smaller concessions earlier in the 18th century, but in reality as long as Europe was in its fight wars constantly phase (start of recorded history to about 1815) it would not be able to project significant power to the Far East. What’s more whatever power one nation could project would then quickly be subject to attacks by other powers. This weakness would surely be exploited by the Chinese to drive the invaders back out while they slaughter each other.

It took a combination of factors to allow the Europeans to overmatch China at last, and peace in Europe was the biggest one. Add on top of that the industrial revolution, steamships (very big factor, the China coast is not good for sailing ships of the line), exploding shells, rifled weapons and other new devices which make European forces far more powerful man for and ship for ship and you had exactly what was needed to do the job. If you go back even 25 years before the Opium wars, most of these factors are gone. I’m no expert on Chinese history, but I also believe by the 1840s China was at the end of a long period of decline, and would only belatedly begin to reverse it and attempt to modernize in the aftermath of the Opium wars.

[ray245]

In the 19th century, China was repeatedly defeated by European powers on the battlefield. The Opium Wars being clear examples. This resulted in China having the bend over backwards to accomodate European demands (the Unequal Treaties).

My question is, would European powers be able to accomplish a century or more earlier provided they would have had the political will and incentive to do so?

(Note: This is not an alt-his. I'm just inquiring if it would even have been possible).

To my knowledge, you really have to tell me which era are you talking about. The early 18th century or the late 18th century?

In the early 18th century, China is still pretty stable and is still comparable in terms of military technology to some extend. The technological divide is not that huge in the early 18th century.

Moreover, the presence of a united and stable Qing Dynasty is going to make it hard to for the European to recruit or even deploy sufficient troops to form a capable army against the Qing. The logistical issues is going to be a hard task for the Europeans. I mean after all, the Qing dynasty's golden age has only just ended during the early 18th century, and they are still able to mobilize their army pretty effectively.

[JGregory32]

Biggest question is where are the troops going to come from? Only Britain and Russia shared a land border and Britian only because of India being a colony. Everyone else had to take a ship to arrive in China and the chinese felt that no army large enough to threaten them could be transported by ship.
The first Opium war was more a gunboat war. Rivers were the key to china back then and Britain had gunboats that could navigate them.
China and Russia were good trade partners and Russian officals delt directly with the Imperial house rather than any of the ministries, plus Russia was more focused on Europe and European issues so don't count on them to invade China.
Britain had the possibility becasue of India but have you looked the map? Passage from India to China goes right through the Himalays, not someplace you want to move an army through.
Getting back to the question, the likelyhood of Europe invading CHina in the 18th century to change trade terms was slim to none at best.
Hope this helps.

[Thanas]

Another huge factor is that the Americas were far better located and easier to access - and that trade with China was already happening from the early 16th century onwards.

[Darth Wong]

The Europeans might have been able to win much smaller concessions earlier in the 18th century, but in reality as long as Europe was in its fight wars constantly phase (start of recorded history to about 1815) it would not be able to project significant power to the Far East. What’s more whatever power one nation could project would then quickly be subject to attacks by other powers. This weakness would surely be exploited by the Chinese to drive the invaders back out while they slaughter each other.

It took a combination of factors to allow the Europeans to overmatch China at last, and peace in Europe was the biggest one. Add on top of that the industrial revolution, steamships (very big factor, the China coast is not good for sailing ships of the line), exploding shells, rifled weapons and other new devices which make European forces far more powerful man for and ship for ship and you had exactly what was needed to do the job. If you go back even 25 years before the Opium wars, most of these factors are gone. I’m no expert on Chinese history, but I also believe by the 1840s China was at the end of a long period of decline, and would only belatedly begin to reverse it and attempt to modernize in the aftermath of the Opium wars.

China had been taken over by the Manchus (I believe it was in the 17th century), and the Manchus were considered a "barbarian" outsider culture with conservative thinking: sexually puritan, anti-intellectual, etc. Chinese technological progress, which had been ahead of European technological progress throughout most of history, pretty much halted under the Manchus. The negative consequences of their attitudes were not immediately felt because they were warlike and conquered much land, thus expanding the Chinese empire. But their anti-intellectual attitude came back to bite them in the ass when the Europeans invaded, and they realized that they had become technologically backward for the first time in their history.

If you go back too far, then the technological advantage shifts to China.

[ray245]

The Europeans might have been able to win much smaller concessions earlier in the 18th century, but in reality as long as Europe was in its fight wars constantly phase (start of recorded history to about 1815) it would not be able to project significant power to the Far East. What’s more whatever power one nation could project would then quickly be subject to attacks by other powers. This weakness would surely be exploited by the Chinese to drive the invaders back out while they slaughter each other.

It took a combination of factors to allow the Europeans to overmatch China at last, and peace in Europe was the biggest one. Add on top of that the industrial revolution, steamships (very big factor, the China coast is not good for sailing ships of the line), exploding shells, rifled weapons and other new devices which make European forces far more powerful man for and ship for ship and you had exactly what was needed to do the job. If you go back even 25 years before the Opium wars, most of these factors are gone. I’m no expert on Chinese history, but I also believe by the 1840s China was at the end of a long period of decline, and would only belatedly begin to reverse it and attempt to modernize in the aftermath of the Opium wars.

China had been taken over by the Manchus (I believe it was in the 17th century), and the Manchus were considered a "barbarian" outsider culture with conservative thinking: sexually puritan, anti-intellectual, etc. Chinese technological progress, which had been ahead of European technological progress throughout most of history, pretty much halted under the Manchus. The negative consequences of their attitudes were not immediately felt because they were warlike and conquered much land, thus expanding the Chinese empire. But their anti-intellectual attitude came back to bite them in the ass when the Europeans invaded, and they realized that they had become technologically backward for the first time in their history.

If you go back too far, then the technological advantage shifts to China.

Actually, the early years of the Qing dynasty was well remembered as one of the most stable periods in their history, with the additional fact that this is the time where Jesuits are invited into China for their knowledge of science.

One reason why technological and military advancement stalled can be linked to the fact that the Chinese did not face any immediate competition after the golden age of Qing. Things like advancement of gunpowder and Canons( especially advancement in Canon technology) was progression at a time where the Qing expanded their borders.

Although in comparison to the Ming dynasty, it is reasonable to argue that the technological progression of China was severely stalled in the 18th century.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, the early years of the Qing dynasty was well remembered as one of the most stable periods in their history, with the additional fact that this is the time where Jesuits are invited into China for their knowledge of science.

Yes, it was stable and prosperous, once the Manchus had defeated their enemies. But they were puritans and reactionaries. You can point to the fact that some foreigners were invited to China, but they did have a generally anti-intellectual attitude. Even today, modern religious conservatives have a clearly anti-intellectual attitude, but that doesn't mean you can't find contrary examples of behaviour. That does not disprove a general trend.

One reason why technological and military advancement stalled can be linked to the fact that the Chinese did not face any immediate competition after the golden age of Qing. Things like advancement of gunpowder and Canons( especially advancement in Canon technology) was progression at a time where the Qing expanded their borders.

They were like modern anti-intellectuals; they only favour scientific research when they can see some immediate use for it. The idea of scientific advancement for its own sake is alien to such people.

Although in comparison to the Ming dynasty, it is reasonable to argue that the technological progression of China was severely stalled in the 18th century.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? China's technological development was equal or superior to anyone else in the world until a relatively rapid fall from grace, starting around the time of the Manchu ascendancy.

[JGregory32]

The Manchu's have gotten a bad rap in history becasue people blame them for the fall of Imperial China. The truth of the matter is that dynasties in China fall all the time and the blame can be most often associated with the Eunichs and the Ministries.

Both the Eunichs and the Ministries were increadibly conservative and did not like change. Even during the Last Qing when there where attempts to change the system and make western knowledge more important these changes were resisted.

The real problem for technological and scientific advancement in China stems from the exam system. The exam system was one of the few methods of social advacement avaible to all in China but it was entirely based on ancient philosophy and and interperating cryptic sayings. The style of the exam system did not encourage the creation of formal schools geared towards the exam so a schooling system was never established as personal study was considered the only means of preparing for the exam.

It's easy to blame a single group for the fall of Imperial china but the truth is much more complex than that.
European aggression, massive ministries, conservative Eunichs, a society that never embraced formal education, droughts, and a breakdown of social order is what doomed Imperial China.

[Darth Wong]

The real problem for technological and scientific advancement in China stems from the exam system. The exam system was one of the few methods of social advacement avaible to all in China but it was entirely based on ancient philosophy and and interperating cryptic sayings. The style of the exam system did not encourage the creation of formal schools geared towards the exam so a schooling system was never established as personal study was considered the only means of preparing for the exam.

If this is the cause of the Chinese technological stagnation starting in the 17th century, then why didn't it also hamstring their scientific and technological development in prior centuries?

Or could we be looking at a situation where a few key visionaries in the West (such as Newton) made the difference as individuals, rather than looking at systemic differences?

[PainRack]

The real problem for technological and scientific advancement in China stems from the exam system. The exam system was one of the few methods of social advacement avaible to all in China but it was entirely based on ancient philosophy and and interperating cryptic sayings. The style of the exam system did not encourage the creation of formal schools geared towards the exam so a schooling system was never established as personal study was considered the only means of preparing for the exam.

It's easy to blame a single group for the fall of Imperial china but the truth is much more complex than that.
European aggression, massive ministries, conservative Eunichs, a society that never embraced formal education, droughts, and a breakdown of social order is what doomed Imperial China.

How so? By the Qing dynasty, the examination system had already reformed to allow for more creative essays on governing, agriculture and economic treatises. Similarly, military works and training were improved, although the singular Qing habit of decentralised and individual martial powress failed to create disciplined armies along the lines of European musketeers and etc.

As for schooling system, again, which dynasty are you referring to? The Ming certainly had various schools and schools of thought even for practicising for the exams, and this was when the education system was supposed to be more moribound and based on the classics.

The main difference would appear to be that while greater public wealth allowed for the opening of public schools and universities in Europe, greater wealth in China was consumed by increased population growth and the concentration of wealth in oligarches, which allowed only the rich and the elite to have a good education.

[PainRack]

China had been taken over by the Manchus (I believe it was in the 17th century), and the Manchus were considered a "barbarian" outsider culture with conservative thinking: sexually puritan, anti-intellectual, etc. Chinese technological progress, which had been ahead of European technological progress throughout most of history, pretty much halted under the Manchus. The negative consequences of their attitudes were not immediately felt because they were warlike and conquered much land, thus expanding the Chinese empire. But their anti-intellectual attitude came back to bite them in the ass when the Europeans invaded, and they realized that they had become technologically backward for the first time in their history.

If you go back too far, then the technological advantage shifts to China.

To be honest, while the Manchu were a "barbarian" culture and severely conservative, one wonders why the Yuan dynasty were able to adapt their own culture more significantly to the extent of a severe detoriation of military readiness due to the rise of decadence in the military.

I always wonder, could it be that the Ming as well as the Manchus own xenophobia prevented them from utilising all available talent and disdaining each other cultural differences. Could this had prevented the development of a more vibrant society designed to explore the sciences?

[Guardsman Bass]

The real problem for technological and scientific advancement in China stems from the exam system. The exam system was one of the few methods of social advacement avaible to all in China but it was entirely based on ancient philosophy and and interperating cryptic sayings. The style of the exam system did not encourage the creation of formal schools geared towards the exam so a schooling system was never established as personal study was considered the only means of preparing for the exam.

If this is the cause of the Chinese technological stagnation starting in the 17th century, then why didn't it also hamstring their scientific and technological development in prior centuries?

Or could we be looking at a situation where a few key visionaries in the West (such as Newton) made the difference as individuals, rather than looking at systemic differences?

I'm more inclined towards systemic factors, simply because it wasn't just Newton - you had multiple different scholars from different parts of Europe converging on the same type of stuff at roughly the same time (like Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, and Brahe all within the span of a century or so, in the case of astronomy).

[JGregory32]

Newton was a important man and a great thinker but history has made him out to be some kind of demigod who could do no wrong.
The British system of slavishly following Newton's methods of mathmatics actually hurt them more than helped.
In Newtonian notation something like a simple change in Y over change in X would be expressed by X with a dot above.
The system of notation that is used today is actually French in origin. Britian eventually had to abandon Newtonian notation becasue it wasn't compatable with the French style that everyone else used.
BTW if anyone wants a great read into the history of French mathmatics and the social orders of the day I suggest picking up "The Measure of a Meter" which describes the French project to determine the length of a meter.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

In Newtonian notation something like a simple change in Y over change in X would be expressed by X with a dot above.
The system of notation that is used today is actually French in origin. Britian eventually had to abandon Newtonian notation becasue it wasn't compatable with the French style that everyone else used.
BTW if anyone wants a great read into the history of French mathmatics and the social orders of the day I suggest picking up "The Measure of a Meter" which describes the French project to determine the length of a meter.

That notation is still in use mind you. I could point to numerous physics text that still have that in use. And the notation largely adopted is the Leibniz's notation which is German in origin.

I don't think notation is a key bug bear. Physics is filled to the brim with old and new notations that are still in use at the whims and fancies of some old Physics professor, and that is applicable to Mathematics.