Ming China

So imagine that China had chosen, that instead of becoming incredibly isolationist, instead it would continue with it's exploration of the world. Perhaps they would end up having regular trade with Europe, and even adopt European weapons and technology.

I realize they did do some of that. But like most East Asian nations, they only did so for a few decades. I personally feel that if this had happened, and that the Ming had stayed in power, China would be a very different place then it is now. For one, the Qing kinda screwed over the Han Chinese with their hardcore conservative values. They wanted very little outside influence, and anything that wasn't Manchu was in no way supported.
I mean, the whole stereotype of the "Silly, Chinaman's tied back hair" is based of a Manchu style, and not a Han style.

So what do you guys think. Would China have been better off if the Ming had stayed in power or not?

Well, Zheng He (oh boy here we go) would have most likely made it to America, conquered the natives, used the gold to outfit his new fleet of battleships, which he would've then used in a daring conquest of Europe and Africa, eventually conquering the entire world and then turning his efforts towards the moon and beyond...



Serious answer, they would've probably still ended up being screwed over by the Europeans.

Soda7777777 said:

I personally feel that if this had happened, and that the Ming had stayed in power, China would be a very different place then it is now. For one, the Qing kinda screwed over the Han Chinese with their hardcore conservative values. They wanted very little outside influence, and anything that wasn't Manchu was in no way supported.

Click to expand...

This is a pretty annoying and ridiculous myth. The various Chinese states were more or less on a par with most European states as far as technology (esp. military technology) went until about 1800, and the reasons for their relative eclipse lay in systemic flaws not with the Manju way of doing things, but with the Chinese education and bureaucratic system in general as it developed after the inception of the Song.

China would almost certainly be different if the treasure fleets had kept sailing - though I can't really think of a particularly good reason for them to do so - but not necessarily in the ways you suppose.

Dachs said:

China would almost certainly be different if the treasure fleets had kept sailing - though I can't really think of a particularly good reason for them to do so - but not necessarily in the ways you suppose.

Click to expand...

Of course, since I doubt he supposes that Zheng He would have made China the first superpower to colonise the moon, which is what would totally have happened - the man certainly had the balls to do it.

Soda7777777 said:

So imagine that China had chosen, that instead of becoming incredibly isolationist, instead it would continue with it's exploration of the world. Perhaps they would end up having regular trade with Europe, and even adopt European weapons and technology.

Click to expand...

Besides what Dachs said; if China had sailed into Europe in the 1430s and initiated the Renaissance opened up trade with Europe back then, the bias in the flow of trade goods and technology would probably be the other way around, ie from China to Europe, rather than from Europe to China.

I realize they did do some of that. But like most East Asian nations, they only did so for a few decades.

Click to expand...

This is pretty misleading. "Openness" and "isolationism" aren't absolute attributes; most countries had policies somewhere between two extremes. The most extreme isolationist examples are Japan and Korea, but even the most isolationist Tokugawa Shoguns were informed about and maintained relations with the outside world through the Dutch, Chinese, Koreans and Ryukyuans. And just as European powers exploited the local political or commercial climate and played local states against each other, so did the Asian states practiced similar tactics with the Europeans. One group of foreigners might fall out of favor (perhaps because they had too much power) to be replaced by other groups of foreigners.

I personally feel that if this had happened, and that the Ming had stayed in power, China would be a very different place then it is now.

Click to expand...

It was the Ming who stopped the ocean-going voyages and scuttled the Treasure Fleets in the first place.

Joecoolyo said:

Serious answer, they would've probably still ended up being screwed over by the Europeans.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. What finally enabled Europeans to conquer large chunks of Asia and humiliate larger states like China was the Industrial Revolution. A more "open" China might be quicker to industrialize and adopt new ideas and new weapons.

You do realise that China was probably the single largest market in the world, right? Here are a few rough and ready estimates that get bandied around in the circles I move in: Chinese demand for spice and pepper was respectively four times and ten times greater than that of Europe. Chinese pottery is so ubiqutious in Southeast Asian archaeological excavations that it was thought for a long time that 'for export' Chinese wares were local products. Really, the list goes on. The old lie that China was the thing that could have been is exactly that, a lie. It was already all that. It didn't fall back until much much later.

taillesskangaru said:

It was the Ming who stopped the ocean-going voyages and scuttled the Treasure Fleets in the first place.

Click to expand...

Those are massively overhyped anyway. Besides, it isn't like the Ming thrust out into the unknown in search of New Lands. A fair few places even as far abreast as India had accepted nominal Chinese suzeraity hundreds of years before the first voyage even set sail. Srivijaya, for instance, had doing it from the 680s onwards. We also know that individual Chinese made the trip around Malacca and all the way to Nalada as early as 671 courtesy of I-Tsing. And we know that I-Tsing was not the first Chinese to make the trip to China, just one of the first to do it by the southerly route.

Anyways, Chinese merchants were ubiqitious in Southeast Asia from around the 800s onwards. So much so, that we know of a number of Chinese merchants-cum-monarchs. There's even some support for some monarch in India being Chinese. So far as these things go, it was a pretty banal trip through waters that the Chinese had in some cases been traversing for, you know, close to a millenia or so?

Masada said:

You do realise that China was probably the single largest market in the world, right? Here are a few rough and ready estimates that get bandied around in the circles I move in: Chinese demand for spice and pepper was respectively four times and ten times greater than that of Europe. Chinese pottery is so ubiqutious in Southeast Asian archaeological excavations that it was thought for a long time that 'for export' Chinese wares were local products. Really, the list goes on. The old lie that China was the thing that could have been is exactly that, a lie. It was already all that. It didn't fall back until much much later.

Click to expand...

If that was directed at me, I'd like to clarify when I said flow of trade goods I mean that the demand for things like spices and chinaware, which originated in China or in nearby regions, in Europe would probably be more than the Chinese demand for European goods. IIRC European powers like the British were running a trade deficit with China until the early 19th century. (you're very welcome to discipline me on this one).

Those are massively overhyped anyway. Besides, it isn't like the Ming thrust out into the unknown in search of New Lands. A fair few places even as far abreast as India had accepted nominal Chinese suzeraity hundreds of years before the first voyage even set sail.

Click to expand...

Well, yes. But they were still, I think, the most advanced ships of their day, and a large fleet helps in power-projection. The continuation of a kind of Chinese overseas imperialism funded, supported and directed by the Ming state rather than merchants and settlers would be rather interesting.

Soda7777777 said:

Perhaps they would end up having regular trade with Europe, and even adopt European weapons and technology.

Click to expand...

China did carry out a lot of overseas trade (despite the various on-off official crackdowns); just that this trade was overwhelmingly with the rest of Asia. For centuries the only thing the Europeans had to sell to China was bullion.

And China did adopt Western weapons and technology - the Ming and the Manchus all were well-versed with gunpowder weapons, like muskets and artillery. Just that they never kept up with it later on, because inner China entered a relatively peaceful phase for a century plus prior to the Opium Wars.

For one, the Qing kinda screwed over the Han Chinese with their hardcore conservative values. They wanted very little outside influence, and anything that wasn't Manchu was in no way supported.

Click to expand...

The Manchus, to justify their rule, were very careful to adopt all the Chinese imperial trappings and methods of government. If that was conservatism, it's just the typical imperial Chinese conservatism.

taillesskangaru said:

Well, yes. But they were still, I think, the most advanced ships of their day, and a large fleet helps in power-projection. The continuation of a kind of Chinese overseas imperialism funded, supported and directed by the Ming state rather than merchants and settlers would be rather interesting.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't happen. For thousands of years, the main security concern of any Chinese court was from the north; from the horse-archers of the steppes.

The Qing eventually pacified the Mongols permanently, by co-opting the eastern Mongols into its own power structure and defeating/dispersing the western Mongol confederation. The age of the horse-archer pretty much came to a close with the arrival of gunpowder weapons as well.

And China was a largish, productive and contented empire. The court by itself would hardly be interested in overseas expansion and conquests.

Wasn't aimed at you. More the placing of China's relative decline a few centuries early.

taillesskangaru said:

IIRC European powers like the British were running a trade deficit with China until the early 19th century. (you're very welcome to discipline me on this one).

Click to expand...

Broadly correct, Europe ran a persistant trade deficit to China. It is important to note however that this irrelevant for comparative purposes for the reference period. The reason being that the money tended to accrue to middlemen and not to China directly. The flow at the Chinese would have been negligable.

taillesskangaru said:

But they were still, I think, the most advanced ships of their day, and a large fleet helps in power-projection.

Click to expand...

Nah, it didn't help them power-project at all. About all they managed was to steam out, engage in some trade and come home. In the long run the voyages achieved absolutely nothing. One of the justifications for cutting the voyages was simply that it offered China absolutely nothing on a lasting basis.

taillesskangaru said:

The continuation of a kind of Chinese overseas imperialism funded, supported and directed by the Ming state rather than merchants and settlers would be rather interesting.

Click to expand...

... Chinese government traditionally had a heavy input into trade. Traders during the Song were confined to certain cities and put under the aegis of a government department for more or less the whole dynasty. Even Chinese traders who ventured south were nominally under the protection of their government, even if that protection in practice came from the local monarchs.

Srivijaya apparently undertook this role for most of its history, which may account for its longevity. The Chinese seem to have made a fairly consistent policy, from what we know, of trying to prop it up. Sure, it couldn’t actually do it. But it tried anyway. So much so, that the final Srivijayan rump ended up with a Chinese governor, later King; which alone kept it going for a good 50 or so years.

Knight-Dragon said:

Wouldn't happen. For thousands of years, the main security concern of any Chinese court was from the north; from the horse-archers of the steppes.

Click to expand...

It did happen. Srivijaya proper was apparently full of Chinese, many of whom, shock and horror, didn’t speak Chinese! Ethnic Chinese were a major presence in Java for most of its history. So much so, that most of the Royal Houses of Java record quite proudly Chinese heritage, usually in the first few generations of rule, if not the first in some notable instances. Marriage to Chinese merchants was a pretty common thing for Javanese princesses. Srivijayan monarchs apparently did much the same thing on a regular basis. This helps explain how Srivijaya ended up with ethnic Chinese monarchs on semi-regular basis.

Knight-Dragon said:

Just that they never kept up with it later on, because inner China entered a relatively peaceful phase for a century plus prior to the Opium Wars.

Click to expand...

Well, sort of.

Masada said:

Nah, it didn't help them power-project at all. About all they managed was to steam out, engage in some trade and come home. In the long run the voyages achieved absolutely nothing. One of the justifications for cutting the voyages was simply that it offered China absolutely nothing on a lasting basis.

Click to expand...

I recall the fleet engaging pirates and intervening in a civil war in some place.

I was thinking more of the potential of what it could have achieved had it continue rather than what it actually did achieve, but yes, I guess the fleet was something of a white elephant.

Well, the industrial revolution would have happened in China 300 years earlier.

taillesskangaru said:

I recall the fleet engaging pirates and intervening in a civil war in some place.

Click to expand...

Whether or not those achieved lasting benefits for China is a whole other matter entirely.

taillesskangaru said:

I was thinking more of the potential of what it could have achieved had it continue rather than what it actually did achieve, but yes, I guess the fleet was something of a white elephant.

Click to expand...

That's in the realms of speculation. It wasn't like it was a one off thing, they tried it seven times. And not once during those seven attempts did it gain China any lasting benefit. With hindsight, we can see that maybe if they had changed tact they could have made good on the whole project. But with seven attempts under their belt and no gains already, that seemed like a big enough ask for them to cancel the project. I don't think we would have done it differently. If the moon mission had failed seven times, would we have continued on? Could we have sustained the momentum in the face of that kind of disappointment. (Granted, it isn't a perfect example but it does help one think of what might have been going through the minds of Chinese policy makers).

Kraznaya said:

Well, the industrial revolution would have happened in China 300 years earlier.

Click to expand...

I remember that one... with something less than fondness.

aelf said:

Of course, since I doubt he supposes that Zheng He would have made China the first superpower to colonise the moon, which is what would totally have happened - the man certainly had the balls to do it.

Click to expand...

Great joke!

aelf said:

Of course, since I doubt he supposes that Zheng He would have made China the first superpower to colonise the moon, which is what would totally have happened - the man certainly had the balls to do it.

Click to expand...

and then he would have stomped out Islam as a threat to Buddhism

Kraznaya said:

Well, the industrial revolution would have happened in China 300 years earlier.

Click to expand...

See here

gangleri2001 said:

Great joke!

Click to expand...

Just because he kept them in a jar doesn't mean he didn't have them.

A big problem with China was that it was too stable. The Chinese had successfully established a huge empire with good technology and a mighty economy. They had everything. So they were content to rest on their laurels. Europe, however, was divided, with its many states and merchants constantly seeking to gain some kind of edge and so developing new techologies. It was a continent in which only the fittest (or luckiest: see England) survived. The Chinese, meanwhile, often had long stretches of peace, no real rivals, an entrenched and conservative bureaucracy that occupied and closed the minds of most of China's best and brightest, and a general dislike of merchants. China never bothered with colonies or extensive and lucrative trade on the other side of the world.

BuckyRea said:

and then he would have stomped out Islam as a threat to Buddhism

Click to expand...

Funnily enough Zheng He himself was a Muslim, as were a fair number of his crew (probably, we don't know for sure)

Phrossack said:

Europe, however, was divided, with its many states and merchants constantly seeking to gain some kind of edge and so developing new techologies.

Click to expand...

I don't know how much that actually contributes to the eventual European dominance. India and Southeast Asia and the Middle East were also divided among various competing states or factions.

The Chinese, meanwhile, often had long stretches of peace, no real rivals

Click to expand...

Between the steppe nomads, wokous, internal rebels, and the two wars with Japan Ming China had its fair share of battles I think.

China never bothered with colonies or extensive and lucrative trade on the other side of the world.

Click to expand...

Not sure how lucrative trade with 15th century Europe would actually be.

Not to mention China's extensive history of colonization.