3 ms·

I disagree with this, I think it's a fallacy that poor circulation of written works contributed meaningfully to China's stagnation. Yes, books were more expensi

by kyllo 12y ago

I disagree with this, I think it's a fallacy that poor circulation of written works contributed meaningfully to China's stagnation. Yes, books were more expensive, but higher learning (and related, the civil service exam system) was still one of the strong points of Chinese society throughout history. My opinion (having majored in China Studies in university) is that China's biggest handicap was that the regional geography made it very easy for pastoral peoples from the Central Asian steppes to ride in on their horses and conquer the Yangtze and Yellow River basins. This happened over and over again, and the cycle of repeated war and subjugation by foreign tribes, kept China from making more significant advances in technology or stabilizing internally enough to focus on expanding their reach outward. To this day instability and unrest is the bogeyman of Chinese society, that's why they're always talking about maintaining "order" and "harmony."

marcosdumay 12y ago
> the cycle of repeated war and subjugation by foreign tribes, kept China from making more significant advances in technology or stabilizing internally enough to focus on expanding their reach outward Very like medieval Europe, isn't it? What did break that cycle in Europe? (I remember from my school's history classes the explanation that nations and empires grew over the entire territory - what clearly didn't happen; and that the more war-liking population were conquered - quite a contradiction. Also, it happened before Europe got rich, not after, thus that argument is invalid.)
- kyllo 12y ago
  Europe was a little different in that no single power was really able to conquer it all after the fall of the Roman Empire. The political fragmentation and diversity of Europe may have actually contributed to the growth of commerce, shifting the balance of power away from aristocratic rulers and toward the merchant class. Europe also has better farming land and more stable waterways than China, which allowed more efficient use of farming technology, keeping famine at bay and allowing the region to support a larger urban population, which had sufficient free leisure time for innovation. Whereas drought and famine were constant threats, and subsistence farming was an all-consuming effort for most people in China up until the late 20th century.

by kyllo 12y ago

marcosdumay 12y ago

> the cycle of repeated war and subjugation by foreign tribes, kept China from making more significant advances in technology or stabilizing internally enough to focus on expanding their reach outward Very like medieval Europe, isn't it? What did break that cycle in Europe? (I remember from my school's history classes the explanation that nations and empires grew over the entire territory - what clearly didn't happen; and that the more war-liking population were conquered - quite a contradiction. Also, it happened before Europe got rich, not after, thus that argument is invalid.)

kyllo 12y ago
Europe was a little different in that no single power was really able to conquer it all after the fall of the Roman Empire. The political fragmentation and diversity of Europe may have actually contributed to the growth of commerce, shifting the balance of power away from aristocratic rulers and toward the merchant class. Europe also has better farming land and more stable waterways than China, which allowed more efficient use of farming technology, keeping famine at bay and allowing the region to support a larger urban population, which had sufficient free leisure time for innovation. Whereas drought and famine were constant threats, and subsistence farming was an all-consuming effort for most people in China up until the late 20th century.