Is a modernized, superpower Qing China possible?

[Roon von Bismarck]

We know what happened in the late 19th century. Japan was able to modernize and become a strong regional power, defeating the Chinese and Russians.

What about China? They had a movement to modernize at almost the same period, but this wasn't really successful and led to China being pushed around by various European nations and Japan for almost a century. Was any of this avoidable or was China just in a very poor spot to modernize?

Meanwhile I want to know if there were potential divergence points where Japan's rise to power could have been significantly hampered or straight up stopped.

 

[Lalli]

Probably avoiding Taiping Revolt and killing Cixi off early would are best ways.

 

[TimTurner]

Definitely possible, the question is how and how much of a possibility that outcome really is.

 

[sarsenapati]

Would a Han dynasty, had there been one during the 19th century instead of the Qing have been more popular? And therefore might have been able to push through modernising reforms easier?

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

I think it's certainly possible. If the Qing began to modernize early, say around the 1840s or 1850s, they would probably become a hyperpower similar to OTL's USA. If they modernize later they're more similar to modern China, but a bit stronger imo.

 

[Jürgen]

I doubt it, China won’t change before it get a rude awakening and when that happens it’s too late. In fact China likely got lucky, imagine no opium war and China not doing anything for even longer only to get their rude awakening in the late 19th century with all the European sharks smelling blood at the same time.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Not without totally co-opting the intellectuals of China so they identify with the Qing instead of looking toward the Ming or getting swayed by the idea of republicanism. The foreignness of the Qing made them an easy scapegoat for why China failed in the 19th century.

Would a Han dynasty, had there been one during the 19th century instead of the Qing have been more popular? And therefore might have been able to push through modernising reforms easier?

Possibly, but I could see it becoming incredibly conservative and only doing the bare minimum. It probably would be less likely to end up in a republic though barring a communist revolution and could look like the Shah's Iran--a corrupt, nationalistic, and repressive nation.

 

[Henry III]

The Qing Dynasty was on its way out the issue with China that when it's ruling dynasty starts to collapse it leaves China in chaos

But for China it was compounded with foreign interference

Also the Chinese turn foreign interaction into diplomatic incidents with the bow

China never been a sea power so they would focus on land development and building a coastal navy and taking Tibet and Xinjiang

To secure China Weastern borders and the high ground of the Himalayas

 

[Hydra1234]

Depends. I think post-unification Qing (any POD after 1660) was too unwieldy and decentralized to reform itself as a modern nation-state and thus implement the reforms needed for industrialization.

On the other hand, a Qing that failed to conquer Southern China and competed against a rival Southern Ming Dynasty would have been significantly more open to reform and European contact out of sheer necessity for a technological/military advantage, while also having the flexibility to implement said reforms without risking instability or revolt.

 

[von Adler]

While China could become a very strong regional power, or even a grand power in east and southeast Asia, I doubt they would become a hyperpower of the scale of Britain 1815-1886 or US 1945-today.

China traditionally lacks the ambition to build colonies, extend their influence over far reaches of the globe or a geopolitical enemy of roughly the same capacity to build a coalition against and motivate military spending through.

A much stronger China will feud with the colonial powers over influence in central and southeast Asia and with Russia over Mongolia and Manchuria, and may very well come out on top, but I doubt China will have the geopolitical ambition to intervene in European conflicts or have naval stations in the Atlantic.

 

[sarsenapati]

Also the Chinese turn foreign interaction into diplomatic incidents with the bow

What does that mean?

 

[von Adler]

What does that mean?

Traditionally, the Chinese were arrogant about their own position in the world and forced foreign diplomats to kow-tow (kneel and then bow so the forehead touches the floor) before the Emperor. While this was the "natural" way to show deference to the Emperor in China, Europan diplomats thought it designed to humiliate them.

 

[sarsenapati]

Traditionally, the Chinese were arrogant about their own position in the world and forced foreign diplomats to kow-tow (kneel and then bow so the forehead touches the floor) before the Emperor. While this was the "natural" way to show deference to the Emperor in China, Europan diplomats thought it designed to humiliate them.

Ah, I see. IIRC the Sublime Porte also required a similar abasement from foreign emissaries.

 

[BlackCrown]

I will say I do think people tend to overpatronize the Qing dynasty and play up its isolationism, when it was actually unprecedentedly open to European traders. The Macartney mission was rejected, sure, but a lot of things really screwed the Macartney embassy's diplomatic pursuits. In a broader context, it came after it was perceived Britain violated restrictions, quite a few fuck ups with the attaches to the embassy lying to the Emperor to overplay English submissiveness, and Britain's demands being not exactly nice. The Emperor was particularly incensed by Britain asking the right to own and settle an island off the Chinese coast. Economically, there also wasn't an incentive for it from the Qing perspective - as the dynasty had undone the prior tribute and embassy requirement for trade with China, and Britain wasn't really offering a good the Qing wanted.

Not without totally co-opting the intellectuals of China so they identify with the Qing instead of looking toward the Ming or getting swayed by the idea of republicanism. The foreignness of the Qing made them an easy scapegoat for why China failed in the 19th century.

Possibly, but I could see it becoming incredibly conservative and only doing the bare minimum. It probably would be less likely to end up in a republic though barring a communist revolution and could look like the Shah's Iran--a corrupt, nationalistic, and repressive nation.

I think this is a bit of a chicken and an egg. The Han rejection of the Qing comes more out of the Qing dynasty's decline and collapse, rather than being an inherent cause for the collapse of the Qing dynasty. During the High Qing, you saw Han advisors and intellectuals utilized and relied on by the Qing dynasty. There was definitely an existing tension, but not nearly one enough to inherently doom the country.

Would a Han dynasty, had there been one during the 19th century instead of the Qing have been more popular? And therefore might have been able to push through modernising reforms easier?

You'd need a Han dynasty interested in reform. The Ming Dynasty were heavily invested in conservative - practically reactionary - thought, going so far as to ban all private maritime trade - something which would most certainly cut them off from modernization if repeated.

 

[BlackCrown]

Depends. I think post-unification Qing (any POD after 1660) was too unwieldy and decentralized to reform itself as a modern nation-state and thus implement the reforms needed for industrialization.

I'd also push back on this thought. Practically every empire at some point could be seen as unwieldy and decentralized, the centralization process is an inherent process of reforming oneself into a nation-state.

 

[sarsenapati]

You'd need a Han dynasty interested in reform. The Ming Dynasty were heavily invested in conservative - practically reactionary - thought, going so far as to ban all private maritime trade - something which would most certainly cut them off from modernization if repeated.

Yikes, I didn't realize they had banned all private maritime trade, I knew the voyages of exploration had been discontinued though. Pretty sure-fire way to insulate yourself from new inventions.

 

[BlackCrown]

Yikes, I didn't realize they had banned all private maritime trade, I knew the voyages of exploration had been discontinued though. Pretty sure-fire way to insulate yourself from new inventions.

Yeah, the Ming get a lot of credit for their internal policy (and lionization as the Han dynasty the Qing conquered), but their approach to the seas was mildly unhinged. It was bad enough that for a solid century, the act of boat fishing was forbidden for fear of fishers collaborating with bandits and rebels (or foreign nations)

 

[Insane Ranter]

Yikes, I didn't realize they had banned all private maritime trade, I knew the voyages of exploration had been discontinued though. Pretty sure-fire way to insulate yourself from new inventions.

I want to say that I remembered reading or hearing in class that the area of the world with the largest number of piracy was the in Asia and not the Atlantic. If I remember this correctly then that might have something to do with no private boating. So the government of China did not have to waste resources in fighting pirates.

 

[sarsenapati]

Yeah, the Ming get a lot of credit for their internal policy (and lionization as the Han dynasty the Qing conquered), but their approach to the seas was mildly unhinged. It was bad enough that for a solid century, the act of boat fishing was forbidden for fear of fishers collaborating with bandits and rebels (or foreign nations)

The 'yikes' just keep coming.

 

[BlackCrown]

I want to say that I remembered reading or hearing in class that the area of the world with the largest number of piracy was the in Asia and not the Atlantic. If I remember this correctly then that might have something to do with no private boating. So the government of China did not have to waste resources in fighting pirates.

There is some truth to that, though the Ming actually contributed to it.

The ban originally came about because:
1) The Hongwu Emperor (Ming Founder) was a peasant warlord from the interior, who lacked a sea presence. When he pushed to secure the coastline, his coastal rivals' armies took to the islands off the Chinese Coast. A similar ban was established underneath the Qing Dynasty at the founding of the dynasty due to the coastal Zheng Group which was loyal to the Ming (though this was abolished after the Dynasty took Taiwan)
2) There was a plague of Japanese piracy that came about towards the beginning of the dynasty as a result of the Tang collapse

However, the "solution" was counterproductive. Because the coastline depended heavily on trade (or fishing) for profit and survival, many took up smuggling to live. When Japan was cut off from the tribute trade with China (the only way one was allowed to trade with the Ming legally), the Japanese, who still wanted Chinese goods, basically housed and funded the smugglers. When the ban was most enforced, these smugglers would take up arms and become the Wokou pirates. Its a fascinating thing, albeit off topic