Why Was China Passive In The Indian Ocean?

I recently read about the Portugese establishment of naval superiority over the Indian/Asian trading theatre in the renaissance and early enlightenment period. The author mentioned that the more advanced and cannon-armed ships of the Portugese and other European fleets outclassed the local ships, making a military advantage an essential part of how relatively small and far away nations like Portugal could establish dominance over huge areas of the Asian trade theatre.

The author went on to mention that contemporary Chinese ships also carried cannon, and were often larger and more battle-worthy than the ships used by Portuagal and others. But he never explained why the Chinese never intervened in the trade dominance and later colonialism of Europeans in the Far East.

Could someone help me understand why the Chinese didn't seem to do anything on the seas in general? And what could have happend if they had decided to intervene in European asian-trade in a big way during the early stage of colonialism 1500s-1600s?
 
1) Take a look at a map. China didn't exactly do go as far as India by sea to reach a lucrative spice trade (Indochina, Indonesia, etc.) and as for India proper, land connection was less problematic.
While maritime road to Indias was the main focus of Portuguese, why they went trough all this effort in first place; it simply wasn't that important for China.

2) The naval expeditions of China in the Indian Sea were much less about trade than politics, and "dick waving" diplomacy, both in order to "persuade" other nations of the greatness of China than for allowing ennuch administration to gain points face to a more conservative and land-based mandarine administration.

3) As for the cannons in Chinese ships...There's a whole debate about it, actually. Catapults tended to be more present, as well "primitive cannons" to quote J.V.G. Mills.
The military chinese navy seems to have simply lacked practice by the XVth to be that fearsome, using recycled trade junks rather than vessels built for fight.
 
yeah ... to the best of my knowledge, China simply didn't have much, if anything, that they wanted out of India which they couldn't get easier some other place... By all likelyhood India was seen as a relatively fracmented backyard with little to interest China, since they had much more pressing issues everywhere else (Korea, Vietnam, Manchu and Mongol Hordes, Japan would have been one as well if they hadn't been to busy warring each other doing the Sengoku period)
 
Now, to be honest, you had an existing and dynamic naval trade between India and China during Tang , Song or Ming dynasty for example.

I don't know enough about Chinese history to explain why it didn't translated by a political control, and why Indian powers (as Chola Dynasty) managed to create an hegemon on eastern Indian Ocean afterwards; while I suspect it *may* be something akin to why Roman trade in Barbaricum didn't translated in political clientelism : as in, seen too "alien" to be considered as worthy of being integrated one way or another, except in the case of open aggression or threat that called for intervention.
 
China was not passive in the indian ocean, heck the vast majority of silver flowe dthrough it as one of the contributors of Spain's bankruptcy was due to the silver it lost trading with China and other Asian countries. Chines Merchants actively competed with India, European, Malaccan, and Japanese merchants for the lucrative trade on the indian ocean route. Perhpa sChina did not have an active military prescience or large navy in the region but its traders were certainly widespread. Though I guess an active prescence by the state was not in the cards because of the mindsets of the rulers of the late ming and qing dynasties. They had other issues to wrry about anyway such as revolts, overpopulation, starvation, and poverty.
 

scholar

Banned
There's a difference between China the state, empire, and dynasty and China the people. Chinese merchants were everywhere in Asia, some active as far west as the Ottomans and Persia depending on the time frame. To this day a large number of people in the southeastern regions can claim Chinese ancestry. Less so in India, but the presence was certainly strongly felt. However, the Government saw itself as above mercantile matters and rarely, if ever, intervened unless it threatened state revenue.

Which sort of shows a division between East and West: China was so rich it never had to bother with mercantile matters and could get away with turning their nose up at the practice, Europe was so poor that mercantile matters became of paramount importance to the survival of the state to the point where merchants eventually became the most powerful force in governance.
 
There's a difference between China the state, empire, and dynasty and China the people. Chinese merchants were everywhere in Asia, some active as far west as the Ottomans and Persia depending on the time frame. To this day a large number of people in the southeastern regions can claim Chinese ancestry. Less so in India, but the presence was certainly strongly felt. However, the Government saw itself as above mercantile matters and rarely, if ever, intervened unless it threatened state revenue.

Which sort of shows a division between East and West: China was so rich it never had to bother with mercantile matters and could get away with turning their nose up at the practice, Europe was so poor that mercantile matters became of paramount importance to the survival of the state to the point where merchants eventually became the most powerful force in governance.
indeed the reaowsn for the great divergence according to current historiography that's getting more popular anyway is that neccisity is what allowed Europe to advance so much due to relaince on coal due to deforestation, main reosurces near water for easy transport, and so on. India had many forests so it did not have this issue till later on. China was running out of forests but its coal resources were in the northern mountains away from water and difficult to transport south since pre industrial land trade wasn't as profitable as the sea routes.
 
sort of shows a division between East and West: China was so rich it never had to bother with mercantile matters and could get away with turning their nose up at the practice, Europe was so poor that mercantile matters became of paramount importance to the survival of the state to the point where merchants eventually became the most powerful force in governance.

I disagree there. Merchants (that filled the role of bankers) really became needed to the state survival when the state had to maintain a financial effort that was only temporary before.
The cas d'école being the Hundred Years Wars, where England and France had to maintain important bureaucracy and fiscality in order to sustain the military effort, increasing the reliance on financial experts, less on their quality of loaners than "men of the art".
Jacques Coeur's ascendency, for exemple, is due to his skills proven by his fortune, rather than by his fortune alone.

As for "poor"...Relativly to China, I agree, but unless we indulge in "Dork Ages" pretty pictures, the european wealth is not coming straight from maritime or far-trade. The first "societies by actions" came out being mills, for grain, paper or textiles; and was the backbone of the financial activity since the XIIth with the everyday loans.
Jacques Heers, in a recent book, pointed out that the seeding of fields represented a good source of loans (or that the loans given to traders, or rather the interests due, were rarely based on the ratio of trade value, but on a given scale).
 

Faeelin

Banned
China was not passive in the indian ocean, heck the vast majority of silver flowe dthrough it as one of the contributors of Spain's bankruptcy was due to the silver it lost trading with China and other Asian countries. Chines Merchants actively competed with India, European, Malaccan, and Japanese merchants for the lucrative trade on the indian ocean route..

Well...

I agree you see tons of Chinese in Southeast Asia and the Philippines; but how many do you see in the Bay of Bengal? Few, if any.
 
I agree you see tons of Chinese in Southeast Asia and the Philippines; but how many do you see in the Bay of Bengal? Few, if any.

It seems, nevertheless, that Indian Ocean had a noticable Chinese presence. Ming, for some reason were less involved (while still quite) than Tang or Song Chinese traders whom mention by Arabo-Islamic chroniclers certify.

It's just that their presence seems to have discontinued, and not went trough settlement OR not went trough non-metissed settlements. And not translated in terms of political control anyway, at the contrary of what European maritime powers did.
 
Catalina the pproblem china faced was sinple. OTL FROM 1500-1800 Asia lead the way in trade with cotton, silk, porclen, spices etc. It was tamil, arab, chinese, etc traders and large commercial centers such as cochin or malacca that fueled trade in the region.

Till the 19th century it was Asia not europe that accounted for the mahority of world trade and bullions were sunk by





the euro nations for these exotic goods.

IT was so onesidrd that british textile merchants couldnt compete well in the market because even though their cottons were cheaper they were seen as cheap imitations.

Thus out of neccisity the british govt intervened. BY successfully following protectionist policies and subsidizing/supporting the budding mercantile industry and the turn to steam power due to tuning to coal because of deforestation, lead Britain to dominate tradr in the region.

The chinese govt on the other hand took a hands off policy to its traders and even in some cases restricted them. Thus the nritish traders soon outcompeted the local merchants in the region and Britain managed to gain political power as well since now their was an incentive for the state to protect trade.

WHAT You need is for the chinese govt to take an active role in its trading policies and in the process allow chinese merchants to compete on even footing with competitors. THAT is the key to a political prescence for china in the indian ocean.

how to do it?
I Really dont know
 
Fredrick, I don't mean offence at all, but at this point I can only barely read you, as if you were drunk or writing from a phone (or both, then congrats :D). So, I may get your point quite wrong there.

The main problem is the distinction between mercantile power and governemental power. From what I gather, imperial authority resorted essentially to political solutions rather than economical (More protectionist than colbertism, again, from what I gathered)

But it seems as well that traders didn't gave a gǒu shǐ about imperial restrictions : an absurd lot of restricted goods from the periods of imperial edict was still found in chinese harbours.

I think, but again that's with my limited knowledge on China, that the whole separation from a clerical (in the non-religious sense) bureaucracy and traders increased with the Ming and the Qing, maybe in relation with the invasion of China by Mongols, or rather its effects on Chinese indentities and society and eventually thinking it was better to let foreign merchants bringing useful goods to China (as American silver) rather than play the odds. (I'm talking of my take on imperial vision, not traders or chinese society).

While European maritime powers enjoyed the incestuous relationship between state and capitalism, with financial experts being seen onpar with military elites and clerks, giving an official boost. I don't think you could just copy/paste that to China, but if we butterfly aways Mongols invasions, couldn't Song and later dynasties be less rigid about it and without mix trade and state at least use the economical presence in India up to forming a maintained rivality?
It wouldn't be what you ask, but at least prevent a geoeconomical withdrawl (by the late XV, there was no Chinese in India, at the point Portuguese were first seen as Chinese by locals, even if Arabs quite understood the issue)

With that, and a more realistic grasp on European rivality (if not butterflied by the lack of Mongols invasions, of course. It would be just Arabo-Islamic rivality as well or no rivality at all. I'm making a big leap there), maybe the situation could evolve to an imperial take on the situation? (At the very last, to prevent Portuguese to bomb their way up to Indochina and Indonesia, and enter in Chinese sphere).
 
No im sober but on a pho
As for otl like I said previously even though the protugues controlled parts of the ocean recent data on commerce in the period according to roark suggests that in that time the asian traders retained much of their dominence.

This is based on the amount of bullion imported to the regio and the export of textiles, silk, porcleans and spices.

The protugues played more of a middleman role.

As for otl song I definatly see what you suggest as a possibility. Say the mongol invasions are butterflied away and Jin remains in the north
With northern expansion blocked the song china will undoubedtly turn to southeast asia and the indian ocean .


Also the jin manage to take most of china xcept the coastal regions and cantonese areas.


If this happens you could see mercantalism start to play a bigger rolr because with raids from pirates abd jin fleets the song would need their own navy. Plus with a decline in reveniew the song will be forced to turn to trade to maoe money.

What do you think?
 
Could someone help me understand why the Chinese didn't seem to do anything on the seas in general? And what could have happend if they had decided to intervene in European asian-trade in a big way during the early stage of colonialism 1500s-1600s?

This is an internal Chinese government problem. If you butterfly this in the 1400s, you would see a different Asia wherein Chinese government interferes in 1500s.

The issue here is not if it will happen but how long it will last. You will not always have a trade/naval friendly emperor. For the Chinese, there are more bigger problems at home than dealing than dominating the trade.
 
I read a theory lately that it was the plague; it killed a bunch of people and cut tax revenues such that the emperors decided that the giant fleets were no longer worthwhile.
 
In the role of chinese products, most probably. For Indians goods, however, we know there wasn't anymore chinese traders by then. If something, Indians played the role of middlemen between China and Portuguese.

That said, they began really quickly to settle on former chinese shoes, as building their production centers in the same places.

With northern expansion blocked the song china will undoubedtly turn to southeast asia and the indian ocean .
Well, they already did. Everything between Japan and Philippines were their inner sea after all.

If this happens you could see mercantalism start to play a bigger rolr because with raids from pirates abd jin fleets the song would need their own navy. Plus with a decline in reveniew the song will be forced to turn to trade to maoe money.
I honestly doesn't understood that.
 
I honestly doesn't understood that.
right im on a pc now so let me clarify.

Basically if the Song are cut off from Northern and Central China they will turn to Southeast Asia looking for revenue and most likely war with Ayyuthya, Khmer(was it still around) and the other states in the region. Lets say luck is on the Songs side and they manage to subjugate Indochina up to ayyuthhya and come within reach of Aceh. With all these new lands under their control the Chinese would then turn to focus in on Southeast Asia and the Indian ocean as well as getting into conflicts with perhaps Burma.

In turn the Son will realize the need to compete with the Indonesian states, the Portuguese, and the Spanish and so will turn to building a powerful navy to control trade in the region. Once they build the navy they can then project power into the Bengal region and trade with the Bengal sultanates and eventually the traders with support from the Song government which by this point will be facing active competition from European and other traders will focus more on trade for its revenue and perhaps you can see them projecting power even as far afield as Ceylon.

What do you think?
 
I'm not sure. We have to compete with a whole geo-ideological view on the world there, not mere geopolitics.
You had several dynasties stuck on the southern shore before, and it never went into a mercantlilist power turning its backs to the mainland and eventually renouncing to be China. I think the chinese view on it may be an huge obstacle there.

This seems to be quite interesting on the chinese vision of China, but I don't know if you can understand french.
Basically, China understood first itself as the center of the world, it's worthwhile part, surrounded by other peoples you have to be wary of, and if possible, "civilize" or at least use as marches.

As the territory itself is centered on the Northern coast, when it's lost face to barbarians, the South have to open itself but never loose the vision of a whole territory.

If the Jin, or other peoples, eventually take the north China : either they'll sinicize themselves and understanding themselves as Chinese or at least rulers of China, go for the south; either the South would go for "Gathering the Lands"

As for portuguese or minor kingdoms, again, it would ask for a change of geopolitical and geoideological paradigm I'm not sure barbarian invasions would give : if Mongols didn't managed to do that, it must be hard (hell, Opium Wars didn't really managed to do that themselves).
Relations can only be between a dominant power (China) and minor, fighting sometimes powerful but to be put outside China, kept in check.
Entering in a commercial rivality with them, would be acknowledging them not longer on a relation with the survival of China as China, but going down at their level.

I can be wrong, again, but it's what I gather from how ancient China saw itself.

So, less than trying to inforce European mercantilism on China, it may be easier to simply keep China as a Far East hegemon, centered on the mainland but without the moral trauma of Mongols, more disposed to deal with foreigners and more wary of the need of intervening in a special sphere of influence : basically, instead of China vs. the world; China AND its marches (Korea, Japan, Indochina, Philippines, etc.) vs. the world.
It already existed, somehow, with the Tang or Song, but if systematized up to oversea (simply seen as not as threatening, as Barbarians came from West and North, not sea), would allow a better grasp.
 
Top