What if the Song Dynasty had survived? Would it be in the industrial age by 1250 or 1300? What if Zhu Di had survived for decades after 1421? Would China be in the Industrial age by 1430 or 1450?

It depends. China wouldn't have developed the way Europe did. For all purposes, I will assume China slowly built power, the Europeans got scared and couldn't do anything against the advanced Chinese gunpowder/rocket technology and had to stay in the shadows.

Then, China makes vassals out of everyone and/or spreads culture. Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans now have guns and cannons, and althuogh are severely weakened by disease (thuogh not as much because they now have some CHinese blood in them...), repel the Spanish and others sucessfully.

So, the thing is, would China go Industrial? Would it get Steam Power, figure out Assembly Lines, make tanks?

The first and last are plausible. The middle one, not as much. Steam Power, mechanized cavalry... sure, they're inventable. China invents things, those should be no problem, althuogh whether they'll be applied in a similar manner as in Europe is another question. Althuogh tanks probably beat the crap out of Mongol horsemen, somewhat.

I would say assuming China is master of the world, the Industrial Age for them could be anywhere from 1500 to 2000.

China was already industrialised to some degree by the 1200s. The fall of the Song didn't actually mattered much culturally or technologically, since Chinese culture still flourish under the Yuan. It was the Black Death that did it I think (about half of China's population was wiped out, a ratio far more than that of Europe).

China was still on technological par with Europe until about the 1800s, when the British started using steam ships.

I would imagine ideological factors might have something to do with it. Traditional Confusianism tends to look down upon merchants and trade. It's hardly conducive for the kind of process Europe had.

Not that it has to be done that way, but something like industrialisation isn't just about technological capacity, but how you organise knowledge, money and manpower.

I would imagine ideological factors might have something to do with it. Traditional Confusianism tends to look down upon merchants and trade. It's hardly conducive for the kind of process Europe had.

Not that it has to be done that way, but something like industrialisation isn't just about technological capacity, but how you organise knowledge, money and manpower.

That pretty much sums it up. China and Europe developed differently and does different things with their technology.

Still China had a large merchant class which is very important throughout Chinese history despite Confucianism (see how capitalists took over the Chinese Communist Party after 1976 for example - the merchant class in China remained strong even after an attempt to erase them by Mao Zedong.). I think the reason why China didn't industrialise to the extent, say, England or the USA had was because China had a large population, which makes machinery a little less important, and because of the political upheavals and periods of stagnation during the late Qing dynasty which hinder industrial progress at the crucial period when Britain was having their "industrial revolution".

Afair from my old East Asian History classes, China might well have been able to absorb increased demand for production by expanding it's traditional cottage industry base — unlike Europe, where the Brits, in part, had to go industrial to keep expanding production.

In the early 18th c. Scotsmen forged as far abroad as northern Sweden to expand the base of cottage industry suppliers for their textile mills (I have at least one Scot ancestor who turned up for that reason). By the late 18th c. the textile industry had gone industrial in order to keep expanding production (and profits).

If one looks at the "agricultural revolution" prior to the industrial one, it turns out China was perfectly mirroring the European development, except in China the increased population, and increased productivity freeing people to do industrial work, didn't occur.

Also, it's not as if large scale manufacture was unknown in Europe prior to the industrial revolution. The French Ancièn Régime of Louis XIV got something like two-thirds of the revenues from the proceeds from the massive, state-run, textile manufactures. And France was stinking rich, relative to most nations of the day.

And that would have been more impressive, if it wasn't a fact that the gigantic, and technologically sophisticated, Indian textile industry was simultaneously swamping the world with high-quality, dirt-cheap floods of cotton fabric in the 17th c. The Portugese bought this stuff for next to nothing in India and sold them at a good profit in Eurpope, all the while textile-manufacturing nations like the French engaged in some high-level industrial espionage directed towards India.

Actually, when people ask "Why no China?", it should probably be followed by "And why not India?". India has historically been as big a player as China, if one looks at production capacity, standards of living etc.

If one looks at the "agricultural revolution" prior to the industrial one, it turns out China was perfectly mirroring the European development, except in China the increased population, and increased productivity freeing people to do industrial work, didn't occur.


Yeah - the problem being rice. Rice cultivation is harder to mechanise and multiply a workers productivity than with Northern European farming, so whilst absolute production was much higher, a far greater proportion of society had to work the land.

It was a problem in India (who were much more likely to industrialise IMHO) too.

Actually, when people ask "Why no China?", it should probably be followed by "And why not India?". India has historically been as big a player as China, if one looks at production capacity, standards of living etc.

THere is a difference, however. India was always truly divided; CHina, albeit divded, was always deep down united. And it always has been behind by a bit. Just a bit. :)

Anyhow, China probably could've gone industrial - but in a different manner, of course. They prefer to innovate, rather then scientifically research, at least in the manner of the Europeans. So, I think with China, a steampunk-like world is more plausible then with the Europeans.

It was the military competition between the numerous European states that drove Europeans to advance tremendously thru out that time period, whereas in the Chinese region, there were far longer periods of comparative peace. And China was mostly centralised during these peaceful periods - innovations were generally suppressed or discouraged since it would rock the existing order, except in small incrementals with very obvious non-threatening-to-central benefits.

In any case, now that the competiton is truly global, the Chinese are playing catch-up. Fast. ;)

Even if your scenario plays out it is very hard to tell if China would have developed along the technogical path as that of Europe as culturally they are isolated and completely different. Also you have to take into account the isolationism and conservatism that took root in Dar al-Islam and the Asian nations at the time while Europe blossomed due to liberalism.

China may have well been advanced, much more than europe - but not in the same way. Never never never in the same manner. Its kinda like two branches off the same tree - one may be longer, but they're all going outwards (or inwards).