I have wondered for quite a while what would happen if china continued it technological advance during the Song Dynasty or if a subsequent dynasty, whether Yuan or another potential option, would continue this process and how it would affect China, it's neighbors and the world as a whole?
WI: early industrialization in China during the Song Dynasty
- Thread starter Iudeus Rex britannicus
- Start date
For this to happen you need to get rid of the Mongols, it was the main difference that made Europe and China diverge.
While Europe experienced only the Black Death, which basically created the basis for the future middle class dominance (and the decline of feudal contracts), China got the Mongols to stomp their society and advancements (more social than technological, i believe). I don't really know Chinese history, but i think you should need some kind of political fragmentation, which may lead to competition in the Indian Ocean (yeah, some kind of colonization). Maybe the Mongols in the North compete for the title of Emperor, while the South gets ignored and thrives on its own.
It would be like having two Europes competing, really interesting.
RousseauX
Donor
No it wasn't.
As of 1750, Europe and China had roughly the equal level of development.
Colonialism was probably the big factor in why Europe pulled ahead.
1750 is incorrect.
1600 is closer.
I agree that colonialism is what put the bullet in Asia's dominance (except for Japan, but that's a different case) and secured European dominance of the world for a century.
1600 is before most of Europe was rich from colonialism, and before the tumult imposed on China by the Qing.
By 1750 most of Europe was quite wealthy and Qing policy had taken quite a toll on China.
According to Ian Morris in his book Why The West Rules Europe pulled ahead of China around 1775.
Europe probably benefited just as much from being very well situated to take advantage of the global trade routes (their geography favored the development of multiple naval powers), regardless of any benefit from building colonial empires.
I doubt that it would make so much of a difference. After all, Indonesia also is well placed to take advantage of multiple trade routes and it didn't help all that much. Without the precious metals of the Americas, you could not have had the growth in the India/China trade we saw, and as a consequen ce a much reduced European presence in the Indian Ocean, quite possibly no dominance in the 'Country Trade'. Without the enormous gains realised from plantation agriculture, there would not have been the transatlantic slave trade. And without the lands available for settlement in the 19th century, Europe's demographic development would have been much more problematic.
It's not that Europe was fated to be a backwater or a barbarian peninsula, but I find it hard to see anything like OTL's development without the economic benefits from conquering America. That said, it is hard to see how Europe, once it had attained a certain stage of maritime development, could not conquer America.
Actually, I don't entirely agree. I do think that, due to the nature of Europe's geography and the favorable currents, that European powers could become pre-eminent from trade alone. Doesn't matter if its Spaniard's running the gold mines or if its Aztecs, Europeans are still likely to be the ones actually transporting that gold.
Morris also points out that while the actual surpassing happened in the second half of the 18th century, the roots for that go back to at least 1600, when the East failed in formulating a scientific method of its own.
Europe & China
Basically, that just elaborates on Morris so forgive me if it's too detailed. It's just that the question of when Europe overtook China has more than one answer.
There may be more than one area in which "Europe" surpassed China and these occurred at different times. It's perfectly plausible that overall economic activity (GDP though no-one can measure such that far back) in China in 1800 still equalled that of Western (or all) Europe. However, by then I strongly suspect it had fallen behind in the level of technology, labour productivity, use of steam power in mines and other areas that determined "income per head". Of course, European powers also had access to the resources of the Americas from 1550 or so. Good and silver helped pay for spices etc. from the East, as European goods didn't find export markets until much later. The profits from sugar and other commodities plus the boost to trade helped drive the improvements to infrastructure, agricultural productivity and urbanisation during the British industrial revolution.
Basically, that just elaborates on Morris so forgive me if it's too detailed. It's just that the question of when Europe overtook China has more than one answer.
Obviously it's difficult to say, but we can probably posit the following points:
1) Industrialization will probably be preceded/proceeded by a population explosion in China, which means that the arable land/capita ratio will fall quite drastically - judging from OTL Chinese and European experience, this creates a large pool of dispossessed farmers, which is a particular bane of Chinese dynasties since this class provides perfect fuel for rebellions.
Now you could argue that industrialization can absorb some of this surplus labor, but again the sheer scale of the Song peasant migration would be unprecedented and even OTL China today doesn't allow 100% free rural-urban movement (the hukou system prevents access to urban amenities for migrants).
There's also the posited 'high-level equilibrium trap', where such a high level of rural-urban migration pushes the cost of labor so low that no amount of early industrial technology can compete, which in the long-run stifles innovation and prevents sustained industrial progress.
2) Song Dynasty China was quite anti-militaristic. Its founders had learnt from the previous collapse of the Tang Dynasty due to powerful military commanders, and turned the Song military into a pretty weak if numerically-imposing force. Song soldiers were pretty much at the bottom of a rather stratified society, and the Dynasty used every opportunity to consolidate civilian control over the military, even to the extent of appointing civilian co-commanders in the field.
Obviously this creates severe limitations to Song military power, especially considering the growing strength of their increasingly-advanced neighbors such as the Khitan Liao, the Tangut Xi Xia and the Jurchen Jin. Technology isn't going to alleviate the basic problems of poor morale, hobbled leadership and perennial bureaucratic suspicion of military leaders. I doubt an industrialized Song army would perform much better in battle than a pre-industrialized one.
3) Song government was the first true 'bureaucratic' government in China. Previous dynasties had a major aristocratic component to them, especially in the rural areas - but the system was totally wrecked during the turmoil of the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms. Further developments to the examination system also consolidated central control over the entire country. Even imperial power was curtailed in the face of Song bureaucrats. This expansion of the Song bureaucracy was what made large-scale intervention in the Chinese economy possible, such as in Wang Anshi's New Reforms.
However, as with all bureaucracies the Song government was very prone to deadlock. Debates over policy were very common and dramatic new shifts in policy would create disputes that paralyzed the country for years and years: examples include the debates over Wang Anshi's New Reforms and the perennial pro-war/anti-war disputes.
There's also a disturbing tendency for extremism in Song policy - a New Reform government, for example, would abruptly introduce a whole raft of economic and social reforms during its tenure, only for them to all be scrapped when a conservative government returned to power. Rival governments would routinely purge their opponents from all offices, sometimes along with even moderate members of their faction like Su Shi. The Confucian mindset, which judged virtue on how rigidly one followed the precepts of Confucius, could be as intolerant and zealous as any standard religion.
The OTL Song bureaucratic system didn't work too well in dealing with the issues facing the Song Dynasty, and I don't see how it would perform better in an industrialized Song TL, where the social problems facing the dynasty would multiply in intensity many times over.
So tl;dr - Song Dynasty industrialization probably won't lead to uber-China, and it's even possible that the whole phenomenon eventually just collapses in a haze of economic and social ruin rather than ushering in a sustained era of progress.
Last edited:
It was the Arabs who invented a recognizably modern scientific method, built on earlier Greek empirical approaches. The achievements of the Islamic Golden Age rubbed off on Europe far more so than China. The Industrial Revolution would not have been possible without the European Age of Reason. Even avoiding the disaster of Mongol invasion, Song China would probably need greater trade with the Middle East to industrialize on its own.
well based on barioch and maddison data on gdp per capita, agriultural productivity, urbanization levels and so on china was overtaken by England at least by 1700 if not slightly earlier. though compared to the rest of europe aside form perhaps the netherlands, china want overtaken till the 1750s.
Oh and even without mongols, urbanization rates and agricultural productivity eg the yield per hectacre of land in china wasnt as efficient. At the same time wages and factror prices were also key. IN china due to large labor supply wages were low and so entrepreneurs were less interested in investing in capital to cut costs. Plus china did not suffer form deforestation also england and england only turned to coal due to its forests being depleted.
On the not of resources Chinese coal deposits were located mainly in the mountaneous northern ares and so they were difficult to transport south, a problem england and other European nations did not have.
Due to these and other reasons it appears very difficult for china to catch up with the west post 1700 though I do agree in 1600 they were relatively equal and thus while the americas played a role no doubt in terms of british and other european nnations industrialisation colonization would not have matttered because the prexisting conditions required for industrialism were already met in countries such as england.
And even then I would argue that even by 1800 china was still the equal of a middling europenan power, eg Italy or Spain. In fact in a one on one fight I see no reason why it couldnt hod its own against Russia even. Only when the preminent power of the world at the time attacked it did it really get beatean badly in the first war and as for the second it took two of the most pwoerful nations on earth to beat china and event hen they had difficulty and if it wasnt for disunity, their is no doubt the qing soldiers could have reppelled the english. After all 8000 qing soldiers armed with rifles and artillery that were maybe a alf century older would still be able to crush an army of 7000-8000 british and french soldiers.
Last edited: