SinoDefence Forum

solarz

To those who claim that Ming was just as advanced as Europe in military technology, how do you explain that the most powerful of Ming's firearms arsenal is always imported? Anywhere in the history books you read, you don't find mention of how effective Ming's domestic firearms production is (if there even was any), but rather how powerful their imported cannons (usually from the Dutch) and rifles were.

Roger604

Ming Dynasty invented the cannon. It also had hand-held firearms 50 years before the same thing appeared in Europe. Ergo, it was far more advanced than the Europeans at that time. Like all Chinese dynasties, it declined later as time wore on.

yehe

Ming was not just as advanced, Ming was MORE advanced in most field, many of the record from Ming was completely destroyed during Qing Dynasty, especially during the 文字狱 time。
The dutch only came to China much later, during the end of Ming dynasty, fire arms was used extensively by the ming against the Yuan mongol dynasty, during the uprising.


Please, soldiers of every other dynasty weared armor, even if it was light armor, not only reserved for commander and lords. During Qing, even cavarys weared only light armor, reason is def fire arms.

The Qing military used the Han troops, just like they used Wu San Gui, but do they trust them? No. Same thing goes for Mongol Yuan dynasties, Han troops were the base for thier conquest, yet, they were hardly trusted.

yehe

Who ever said about Tang? I said Song, and it's just facts, Song dynasty were by FAR more advanced than the europeans at the time, so your logic about HanWuDi and the Confucianism as the reason simply doesnt hold, and who ever said about the noble class didnt bothered with science and technologies? Why did you think Zhugenu诸葛弩 is called Zhuge？ there were plenty of scientist and mathematicians amongst the aristo class.

Western europe was never destroyed by the Mongols, thus seeds was saved, so its hardly the same thing as the entire China invaded by the mongols, you obviously underestimate the historical implications of Mongol invasion, they pretty much massacered every single town they ran across, from China to middleeast, the more resistance they encounted the less suvivor, how would science thrive in such an enviroment? Would take centries to recoved after mongols, and it did took that long, not only China, but Middleeast and central asia too, also after such event like a foriegn invasion a sociaty tenders to become less open minded and more conservative, this is also a fact.

maozedong

Confucianism is the ideological basis of China's feudal rule,Neo-Confucianism in the Song Dynasty, China's ideology and culture is negative, it becomes a tool for the ruling class, the Song Dynasty, China was a feudal society into mourning ups and downs, the Ming and Qing Dynasty, extreme tyranny and closed, stagnation of scientific and technological development of China's development, including firearms.
I also mentioned that the geographical context, the Mongol occupation of Russia. But the West after the Industrial Revolution, the Russian fast becoming a military power.
China's firearms stagnation, is not an isolated phenomenon, any body to blame for the Manchurian and Mongolian, is wrong.

maozedong

Mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th century, Europe was in the Middle Ages, was a dark period ,the Song dynasty also the dark feudal society,China and Russia both have been a several ten years of Mongol rule. in European history, has been repeatedly nomadic invasion, such as the Huns and the Turks.
Ming Dynasty was founded in 1368,Europe's industrial revolution occurred in the 18th century.shirked the responsibility on the Mongols, is unreasonable.I think every body should look at the Ming dynasty, look at its true face.
On the contrary, China Southern and Northern Dynasties, the invasion and domination by the nomads, much more longer than the Mongols,after Southern and Northern Dynasties, Tang Dynasty established, it is a powerful empire ever.
I would like to add that, with regard to the Confucian doctrine.the problem is not in the Confucian doctrine itself,the problem is in emperor HanWudy,He exclusion of all other thought,罢拙百家,独尊儒术 is harmful. Far-reaching. Confucian thought has been distorted,He was the exclusion of all other thought, is harmful. Far-reaching. Confucian thought has been distorted. While the feudal rulers continue to strengthen the ideological control,the ancient Chinese science and technology indeed be interfered with.
China has five thousand years of history and glorious civilization, but we should also see that 3000 years of feudal rule, it is slowly diffuse the reasons for China's development.

yehe

Although I agree the neo confucianism was a hinder for development of science, but the confucianism was no more negative in this field than the Christian churchs in europe, it certainly has nothing to do with China's ideology and culture.

You talk about Hanwudi, but he wasnt the one that invented neo confucianism 1000s years later, infact, Hanwudi is the one that made china what it is today, without him, and confucianism, China most likely will not even exist today.

And talk about the Russian are simply irrelevant, there is no such thing as “Russia” during the mongol invasion, the Dukes of Moskow completely surrendered them self and offered no resistance vs the mongols.
The mongol invasion are ofc the MAIN reason, Song dynasty was a quite open society, its already early on its way of industrialisation, mass production are already a fact, its GDP and productivity and technological level are unprecedented in the entire human history at that time. The mongol invasion completely destroyed this, and the entire chinese social structure of a much open society where powerful noble families can counter even the decision of an emperor simply collapsed(note that alot of tech advances actually are funded and came from these noble families, some of which are 1000s of years old), even the Ming later still retained alot of the dictatorial aspect of the Yuan, the emperor become far more absolute than dynasties before, Qing are even worse, everyone except for the emperor was to become slaves.

Anyway, I know your point now, lets just say we agree to dissagree, since this is becoming off topic.

solarz

The siege of Xiang Yang showed that had the Song been under capable leadership, it would've been able to resist and even defeat the Mongols. However, Southern Song was infamous for its incompetence and corruption, so claiming that it was the Mongol invasion that destroyed a nascent Chinese industrialization is absurd.

A society where powerful nobles can counter the emperor does not mean an "open society", it is just as feudal as ever, it only means that the emperor does not have as much power. Europe Dark Ages was not an "open society" by any means!

maozedong

reply to some one, if you dont like,please accept my apology.
I said that neo confucianism from Song dynasty. Han wudi just started, and I also said its hamful,it will be far-reaching.that means,gradually increased over time, the impact until it evolved into Neo-Confucianism.I already say so many times.
At the same time, its degree of distortion, and the decline of feudal society in China, is directly proportional.
In fact, since the demise of the lessons of the Ming dynasty, the Qing made many reforms, some of the reform's court within, but the most significant is that it has carried out land reform.
I agree you said,some respects, it is even worse.
with regard to the Mongols, we must both see them, they bring the war and caused damage,slaughter,looting,but can not say that they would destroy the science and technology, nomadic freedom-loving, open, willing to accept new things, they don't have so many Han's weird customs of the feudal shackles.Kublai Khan is an enlightened emperor, he studied Han Chinese management practices.
Yuan Dynasty operas, novels, was at that time began. such as Outlaws of the Marsh,水浒传 the other dynasty is prohibited.
we should understand that China since ancient times often have war, every war, have caused damage.
I know at that time the Grand Duchy of Moscow, was Russian name, but I called it Russian, what is the problem then? in fact, it should be referred to as a Khanate.
With regard to the Song dynasty, I know that Song dynasty continues to be defeated, the country annually to the Liao, Western Xia contribute a large number of silver,the emperor is still a large-scale construction of the palace, which is truly exploiting the people, forced people to delivery of a large number of Taihu Dan,花石岗The people of extreme poverty, can not survive as a result, a large-scale peasant uprising broke out, historically known as the Fang La 方腊 uprising,the results were Jin occupied the north China,Song retreated south of the Yangtze River, the emperor continued to Hangzhou pleasures, living the life of shameless debauchery,they had to contribute to Jin every year a large number of silver, the treasury empty, and the people in very poverty.Song countless a traitor, the ruling class of serious corruption.
I really don't know what wer the Song rulers capable of mass production?

yehe

You are just missguided by the official historical view of Song, absolutely nothing new in what you have said, it wasnt anymore corrupt than any other dynasties, only problem of Song was the military structure, where the court and offcials never really trusted any generals and military commanders, also was the problem of song hade virtuely no where they can breed horses, and ancient calvary are the tank of modern days, you simply cant mount a counter attack vs the mongols without the calvarys.
And where did you got the ide of Song was incompetent? It was by far the richest, most populous and technologically most advanced nation on earth at the time,
So claiming that it was the Mongol invasion that destroyed a nascent Chinese industrialization are completely right, without a doubt it was the main reason.

About open society, well there is still NO completely open society in the world till today, so what? I am talking about a relatively far more open society than any and all dynasties after it, a point you simply refuse to see?
So what if it was still a feudal society? Nobody claimed it wasnt, Industrialization in Europe was also developed out of a feudal society, there is no conflict in what I have claimed.

And? Did ever said anything about Europe Dark Ages was an "open society"?
Ofc it wasnt, thats why it was lagged behind at least 100 years in every aspect compared with china at that time.

yehe

Some of what you said I agree, some of it I dont, anyway, the much hated tribute to Jin dynasty hade its reasons, as I said before, its lack of trust of military commanders as the first song emperor was a general that did a coup, the military structure that disallowed personal/family loyal militia, persistent lack of calvarys caused the Song militarily weak, yet the fact is also that Song was a extremely rich dynasty, Southern Song especially, to most part, it could simply afford the tribute, to buy peace.

Also as I said before, a foreign ruled(by military conquest, fear and brutality) society tenders to be far more conservative, this will have a huge impact on science and social developement, this is what I am talking about of the mongols been the reason of China started to lag behind after that, not to speak of the fact that the mongols invasion directly and indirectly caused a population decrease to only about 30% of what it once was, so it wasnt just damage, it was a CATASTROPHIC nightmare!

solarz

How about all the history books? Seriously, if you're going to claim something that goes against established thought, you need to back that up with some kind of source.

Richest? Sure. Incompetent? That too. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In addition, if you're going to claim that Southern Song had a nascent industrialization going on, we'll need to see some sources.

You don't see the irony in this? You're claiming that Southern Song was a more open society because noble houses could counter the emperor's powers. Don't you realize that that's exactly the kind of society medieval Europe had?

Nobody would claim Europe was an "open society" because of that aspect.

yehe

Those history books are all written by late comers, while chinese history records are especially used to blame the goverment for all kind of failuire including even natural disasters, while have little other aspect in mind, they simple claim it was the incompetence of the imperial official and court, without describing any other reason. Not to speak of all the historical books are officially written by the later dynasties that over took them, hardly any good words would be reserved for them. You can read the history books, but if you cant do any kind of independent thinking on the fact/stories written on the books you would hardly be able to understand what actually happened, this is call read and learn without ever using a brain.
By claim thier previously defeated dynasties to be incompetent and corrupt are the simpleist thing to do, but can hardly be the entire truth.

During Song they already have large factory like workshops, whether this would have developed into full industrialization is of course open to debate, but the mongol invasion undoubtly destroyed any chance of that happening.

And about europe and Song having powerful noble families, you always miss the point and go question something else, as I have said, RELATIVELY, nothing is either black or white, relatively you need more open societies than those of later dynasties in china after the Song to achieve the enviroment of where science can thrive.
Besides, the catholic church was the real power not the kings, they are hardly able to be counted by any noble families or even royal families in european medieval, and was the main reason of why the medieval are so dark. The church hade more absolute power than a chinese emperor at song dynasty, thats the point.

solarz

Like I said, back up your claims with sources.

Source please. Are you saying neither the Ming nor the Qing had such workshops?

Ummm, no, you're the one missing the point. In a feudal society, whether the power is centralized, or distributed across the nobility, has no bearing on the "openess" of that society!

The catholic church had power, yes, but hardly in the same way as Chinese Emperors. Local lords and Kings still held much of the day-to-day power over their lands. While it is true that the Church contributed much to the "darkness" of the Dark Ages, that's not because it had a centralized power, but rather because of the way it wielded that power.

Likewise, Song isn't a more open society than Ming or Qing because whether the power lies in the Emperor or in the Nobles, they still wielded it in the same feudal way.

yehe

Are you even watching my post? Or you just choose to ignore the "relatively" word I said?

And pls, source for what? That the history books are mostly written in the way I said in earlier post in china? Not my problem that you cant read and also think at the same time. I read enough of history books to know it cant be fully trusted, I suggest you go read more as I did in this matter.

Are you kidding me?

We are talking about the scientific developement not the day-to-day tax collecting power here are we? When the church claim the earth is flat and you go claim the earth is round, the result is? The social, mental power the church have was by FAR greater than the chinese emperor， I dont know if you understand what the difference are between centralized power and absolute power, cuz I never talking about centralized power.

Likewise, Song IS a more open society than Ming or Qing because the power that the Emperor held was less absolute, doesnt matter if they still wielded it in the same feudal way or not.[/