9 ms·

I'm not an expert, but to me it seems that every recent account of west vs. east vastly overestimates how awesome China was, just for shock value. This article

I'm not an expert, but to me it seems that every recent account of west vs. east vastly overestimates how awesome China was, just for shock value. This article seems to claim that Europe didn't surpass China until the 1800s. Why then did math, astronomy and other sciences, and natural philosophy not originate in China, but centuries earlier in Europe (with a loose definition of "originate", I know Europeans were not the first)? Most of Chinese philosophy seems to me to be mostly about society and the duty of men etc. I'm sure China excelled at organizing an efficient society with a comparatively huge population, but that doesn't mean that they were on the cusp of something bigger. Perhaps they were at a local optimum as a society. And while Europe was worse off early on, it allowed the region to discover math and science AND make USE of it. China had a big fleet, but cancelled the project. China invented printing but it did not push literacy. China invented gun powder, but they didn't use it to gain a military advantage. Traditional Chinese Medicine used penicillin indirectly, but never managed to understand or extract it. China is a sea of lost opportunities, it's not as simple as blaming it on opium and intervening western powers. edit: it seems that further down this article gives more explanations and actually states that China was in stagnation from 1200 onwards. However, there are many other articles and books making the argument I'm trying to refute. For me, the interesting part of the article is: Perhaps the root problem was the absence of a new world rich in resources to exploit and helpless because of technological backwardness. Perhaps the root problem was the lesser weight attached to instrumental rationality as a mode of thought Perhaps the root problem was the absence of dissenting hidey-holes for ideological unconformity. Perhaps the root problem was the fact that the merchants and hand-manufacturers of China's cities were governed by landlords appointed by the central government rather than governing themselves. Perhaps the root problem was that large-muscled animals like oxen and horses turned out to be powerful productive multipliers for temperate rain-irrigated wheat-based agricultural but not for sub-tropical paddy-irrigated rice-based agriculture Perhaps the root problem was some combination of these. Perhaps the root problem was one or a combination of any of a host of other possibilities over which historians will struggle inconclusively (but thoughtfully and fruitfully) for the rest of time.

Symmetry 13y ago
Really he just says that china was way ahead in 1200 and way behind in 1870. It's really hard to say when one pulled ahead of the other since there are so many areas you could compare in, but I'd put the transition point somewhere around 1650, near the fall of the Ming.
moogleii 13y ago
What is the argument that you're trying to refute? I got more of a vibe from your comment. I feel like this is a great opportunity for the AskHistorians subreddit. But I think generalizing to just Europe says something, though, rather than comparing countries to countries. And while I do agree there has likely been some exaggeration, I also think you may be underestimating the logistics of massive populations considering the time period (as well as just how early they had certain things, if you're ever near the Met in NY, check out their Chinese stuff and the dates next to them, though their collection is pretty small). The best hypotheses I've seen (which I can't find, it was in passing long ago somewhere), suggests European division fueled a lot of later innovation. War does seem to drive technology. When you're China back then, who are you really competing against? You've already finished the conquering and unification phase that individual European countries are still dreaming about. So why do you need guns? You're essentially Rome of East Asia (and Romans are no more, perhaps not a coincidence). Korea, Japan, and Vietnam are either vassals or non-threats. You've got silk, porcelain (which itself was pretty amazing compared to "European" alternatives), and tea to pass your time instead (and to trade with). You're already pretty huge for the time period, and managing a country of that size and technology level is already pretty challenging. Meanwhile, Europe is a perfect climate for border skirmishing and competition. When England came knocking on China's door in a more aggressive fashion, the Emperor at the time still had arrogant delusions about China's comparative might. And they paid for that. But the opium wars and WW2 were a wake up call. Also, glass. China never discovered glass, and glass unlocked all sorts of technologies. Edit: So the other way of looking at it is: The Han tribe did get ahead of their neighbors with all their fancy doodads early on, and perhaps that's why China is the size it is now. The Romans almost did it in their local sphere, and arguably England later, although by then technological spread was more uniform. If ancient Europe had been sitting next to ancient China, perhaps they'd be speaking Chinese now?

Symmetry 13y ago

Really he just says that china was way ahead in 1200 and way behind in 1870. It's really hard to say when one pulled ahead of the other since there are so many areas you could compare in, but I'd put the transition point somewhere around 1650, near the fall of the Ming.

moogleii 13y ago

What is the argument that you're trying to refute? I got more of a vibe from your comment. I feel like this is a great opportunity for the AskHistorians subreddit. But I think generalizing to just Europe says something, though, rather than comparing countries to countries. And while I do agree there has likely been some exaggeration, I also think you may be underestimating the logistics of massive populations considering the time period (as well as just how early they had certain things, if you're ever near the Met in NY, check out their Chinese stuff and the dates next to them, though their collection is pretty small). The best hypotheses I've seen (which I can't find, it was in passing long ago somewhere), suggests European division fueled a lot of later innovation. War does seem to drive technology. When you're China back then, who are you really competing against? You've already finished the conquering and unification phase that individual European countries are still dreaming about. So why do you need guns? You're essentially Rome of East Asia (and Romans are no more, perhaps not a coincidence). Korea, Japan, and Vietnam are either vassals or non-threats. You've got silk, porcelain (which itself was pretty amazing compared to "European" alternatives), and tea to pass your time instead (and to trade with). You're already pretty huge for the time period, and managing a country of that size and technology level is already pretty challenging. Meanwhile, Europe is a perfect climate for border skirmishing and competition. When England came knocking on China's door in a more aggressive fashion, the Emperor at the time still had arrogant delusions about China's comparative might. And they paid for that. But the opium wars and WW2 were a wake up call. Also, glass. China never discovered glass, and glass unlocked all sorts of technologies. Edit: So the other way of looking at it is: The Han tribe did get ahead of their neighbors with all their fancy doodads early on, and perhaps that's why China is the size it is now. The Romans almost did it in their local sphere, and arguably England later, although by then technological spread was more uniform. If ancient Europe had been sitting next to ancient China, perhaps they'd be speaking Chinese now?