This post seems to be riddled with inaccuracies and misleading statements. I’ll just name a few here, since documenting all of them would take more time than I’m willing to spare.
For most of history, China was the center of civilization. It had the biggest cities, the most complex government, the highest quality manufacturing, the most industrial capacity, the most advanced technology, the best historical records and the largest armies. It dominated East Asia at the center of an elaborate tribute system for a thousand years.
This is simply false. China sometimes had the biggest cities and sometimes did not. In the early Roman imperial period, for example, the biggest cities in the world were Rome, Alexandria, Seleucia and Luoyang. Only one of those cities was in China. The same pattern holds later in history also; for example, at the height of the Abbasid Caliphate Baghdad was the biggest city in the world, at the height of the Ottoman Empire Constantinople was the biggest city in the world and so on.
It’s also a big stretch to say that China “dominated East Asia” for a thousand years. Sometimes China was dominant, sometimes it was not.
Western Europe was a backwater’s backwater. It had few cities. Most people lived on the countryside. Technology regressed after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
There’s no evidence for the claim that technology regressed after the fall of Western Rome. There were not as many big cities in Europe as there were in the time of Western Rome, but where do you get the impression that technology went backwards in this period?
The technical reason Britain won was the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution started in Britain. Guns and ships require lots of iron. The Industrial Revolution gave Britain the best guns and the best ships.
This is misleading at best. In most cases the reason European armies were able to defeat local armies was not that the locals lacked the equipment the Europeans had; indeed they could buy that equipment from Europeans on the open market! Both sides in the Taiping rebellion were armed with modern equipment for the time, for example. Especially when it came to land battles, the reason European armies were superior was for organizational reasons. They were better led, individual soldiers were better trained and more capable, soldiers were better able to coordinate their actions with each other, et cetera.
This is still true, by the way: the United States and Saudi Arabia often use the very same equipment for their military since the Saudis buy the equipment from the US, but if the US army actually had to fight the Saudi army the Saudis would lose without even putting up much of a fight. That’s what happened when the UK went to war with China in 1839.
Britain started the Opium Wars right after the China had just finished fighting both sides of multiple civil wars including the Taiping Rebellion and the Dungan Revolt.
This is incorrect. The Taiping Rebellion began in the early 1850s, while the First Opium War (as you cite in your post) began in 1839 and ended in 1842. Ditto for the Dungan Revolt, it occured well after the end of the First Opium War.
European hegemony was caused by the Industrial Revolution was caused by high labor value relative to material costs was caused by discontiguous empires was caused by long-range trade.
This explanation clearly would have been extremely unpersuasive ex ante, so there’s no reason for us to take it seriously ex post unless we somehow got a lot of detailed evidence about all the causal links mentioned in this speculation. We didn’t get any such evidence, so this explanation should just be dismissed unless someone can give a stronger argument for it.
What I don’t like about this post is that everything in it is stated as fact, while at best it consists of implausible speculation (at worst of outright falsehoods).
This is simply false…. In the early Roman imperial period, for example, the biggest cities in the world were Rome, Alexandria, Seleucia and Luoyang…. The same pattern holds later in history also; for example, at the height of the Abbasid Caliphate Baghdad was the biggest city in the world, at the height of the Ottoman Empire Constantinople was the biggest city in the world and so on.
I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. Do you have more precise numbers?
There’s no evidence for the claim that technology regressed after the fall of Western Rome. There were not as many big cities in Europe as there were in the time of Western Rome, but where do you get the impression that technology went backwards in this period?
Roman concrete fell out of use after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It is my impression that not many aqueducts were built either.
My reference point for technological regression after the fall of the Western Roman Empire comes from science rather than technology. My understanding of the Renaissance (from reading Destiny Disrupted) is that much of European philosophy (including science) only survived because it was preserved by the Arabic-speaking world.
In most cases the reason European armies were able to defeat local armies was not that the locals lacked the equipment the Europeans had; indeed they could buy that equipment from Europeans on the open market!
I agree. This is why Europeans choosing the terms of engagement was so important. They won when the Mughal and Qing empires were at their weakest.
I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. Do you have more precise numbers?
There’s obviously quite a bit of uncertainty when it comes to ancient city populations, but Wikipedia has a nice aggregation of three different sources which list the largest city in the world at various times in history. Estimates of city populations can vary by a factor of 2 or more across different sources, but the overall picture is that sometimes the largest city in the world was Chinese and sometimes it was not.
My reference point for technological regression after the fall of the Western Roman Empire comes from science rather than technology. My understanding of the Renaissance (from reading Destiny Disrupted) is that much of European philosophy (including science) only survived because it was preserved by the Arabic-speaking world.
I’m not an expert on the subject but this has always appeared highly implausible to me. I’d need to see strong evidence, ideally from multiple different sources, to be convinced that this really happened.
I agree. This is why Europeans choosing the terms of engagement was so important. They won when the Mughal and Qing empires were at their weakest.
I’m not sure why we should think the Qing empire was especially weak in 1839 compared to, say, 1789. On paper they look stronger: China’s population was bigger in 1839 than it was in 1789. If the criterion for judging whether China is weak or not whether they lose in wars against foreign countries, then tautologically whenever China is doing badly it will be because they are “at their weakest”.
What I think actually happened is that the Qing dynasty of 1839 was either about as strong as the Qing dynasty of 1789 or even slightly more so, but the Europeans were much more so. The Europeans also had a greater ability to project power at a long distance in 1839 than they did in 1789. If the Qing dynasty had to fight the armies of the Napoleonic era in 1789, it’s clear to me that the Qing dynasty would have been massacred, and I don’t think the reason would have much to do with technology.
Thank you for the link. I’m curious what the table would look like if we examined the top 10 or 20 cities instead of just those tied for the top position.
If the Qing dynasty had to fight the armies of the Napoleonic era in 1789, it’s clear to me that they would have been massacred, and I don’t think the reason would have much to do with technology.
Who does “they” refer to in this sentence? It could mean two very different things.
Thank you for the link. I’m curious what the table would look like if we examined the top 10 or 20 cities instead of just those tied for the top position.
I think this is quite a tall order for ancient times, but a source I’ve found useful is this video by Ollie Bye on YouTube. It’s possible to move his estimates around by factors of 2 or so at various points, but I think they are correct when it comes to the order of magnitude of historical city populations.
Who does “they” refer to in this sentence? It could mean two very different things.
Edited the parent comment to make it clearer. “They” refers to the Qing dynasty.
It is my impression that not many aqueducts were built either.
My understanding is that not many were built because they didn’t have much need for them (since they didn’t have the huge cities that needed water imported). They did eventually lose the specific knowledge of building aqueducts, much like we today have lost the knowledge of how to make Dhaka muslin, but it represents a single datapoint not an overall regression.
Cathedrals are an example of a engineering project that was possible in medieval Europe but not in Roman Europe.
Europe 1300 A.D. was more advanced both technologically and scientifically than the Roman empire in a lot of ways. Europe 1000 AD is more debatable and Europe 700 AD surely was not more advanced.
This post seems to be riddled with inaccuracies and misleading statements. I’ll just name a few here, since documenting all of them would take more time than I’m willing to spare.
This is simply false. China sometimes had the biggest cities and sometimes did not. In the early Roman imperial period, for example, the biggest cities in the world were Rome, Alexandria, Seleucia and Luoyang. Only one of those cities was in China. The same pattern holds later in history also; for example, at the height of the Abbasid Caliphate Baghdad was the biggest city in the world, at the height of the Ottoman Empire Constantinople was the biggest city in the world and so on.
It’s also a big stretch to say that China “dominated East Asia” for a thousand years. Sometimes China was dominant, sometimes it was not.
There’s no evidence for the claim that technology regressed after the fall of Western Rome. There were not as many big cities in Europe as there were in the time of Western Rome, but where do you get the impression that technology went backwards in this period?
This is misleading at best. In most cases the reason European armies were able to defeat local armies was not that the locals lacked the equipment the Europeans had; indeed they could buy that equipment from Europeans on the open market! Both sides in the Taiping rebellion were armed with modern equipment for the time, for example. Especially when it came to land battles, the reason European armies were superior was for organizational reasons. They were better led, individual soldiers were better trained and more capable, soldiers were better able to coordinate their actions with each other, et cetera.
This is still true, by the way: the United States and Saudi Arabia often use the very same equipment for their military since the Saudis buy the equipment from the US, but if the US army actually had to fight the Saudi army the Saudis would lose without even putting up much of a fight. That’s what happened when the UK went to war with China in 1839.
This is incorrect. The Taiping Rebellion began in the early 1850s, while the First Opium War (as you cite in your post) began in 1839 and ended in 1842. Ditto for the Dungan Revolt, it occured well after the end of the First Opium War.
This explanation clearly would have been extremely unpersuasive ex ante, so there’s no reason for us to take it seriously ex post unless we somehow got a lot of detailed evidence about all the causal links mentioned in this speculation. We didn’t get any such evidence, so this explanation should just be dismissed unless someone can give a stronger argument for it.
What I don’t like about this post is that everything in it is stated as fact, while at best it consists of implausible speculation (at worst of outright falsehoods).
I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. Do you have more precise numbers?
Roman concrete fell out of use after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It is my impression that not many aqueducts were built either.
My reference point for technological regression after the fall of the Western Roman Empire comes from science rather than technology. My understanding of the Renaissance (from reading Destiny Disrupted) is that much of European philosophy (including science) only survived because it was preserved by the Arabic-speaking world.
I agree. This is why Europeans choosing the terms of engagement was so important. They won when the Mughal and Qing empires were at their weakest.
There’s obviously quite a bit of uncertainty when it comes to ancient city populations, but Wikipedia has a nice aggregation of three different sources which list the largest city in the world at various times in history. Estimates of city populations can vary by a factor of 2 or more across different sources, but the overall picture is that sometimes the largest city in the world was Chinese and sometimes it was not.
I’m not an expert on the subject but this has always appeared highly implausible to me. I’d need to see strong evidence, ideally from multiple different sources, to be convinced that this really happened.
I’m not sure why we should think the Qing empire was especially weak in 1839 compared to, say, 1789. On paper they look stronger: China’s population was bigger in 1839 than it was in 1789. If the criterion for judging whether China is weak or not whether they lose in wars against foreign countries, then tautologically whenever China is doing badly it will be because they are “at their weakest”.
What I think actually happened is that the Qing dynasty of 1839 was either about as strong as the Qing dynasty of 1789 or even slightly more so, but the Europeans were much more so. The Europeans also had a greater ability to project power at a long distance in 1839 than they did in 1789. If the Qing dynasty had to fight the armies of the Napoleonic era in 1789, it’s clear to me that the Qing dynasty would have been massacred, and I don’t think the reason would have much to do with technology.
Thank you for the link. I’m curious what the table would look like if we examined the top 10 or 20 cities instead of just those tied for the top position.
Who does “they” refer to in this sentence? It could mean two very different things.
I think this is quite a tall order for ancient times, but a source I’ve found useful is this video by Ollie Bye on YouTube. It’s possible to move his estimates around by factors of 2 or so at various points, but I think they are correct when it comes to the order of magnitude of historical city populations.
Edited the parent comment to make it clearer. “They” refers to the Qing dynasty.
My understanding is that not many were built because they didn’t have much need for them (since they didn’t have the huge cities that needed water imported). They did eventually lose the specific knowledge of building aqueducts, much like we today have lost the knowledge of how to make Dhaka muslin, but it represents a single datapoint not an overall regression.
Cathedrals are an example of a engineering project that was possible in medieval Europe but not in Roman Europe.
Europe 1300 A.D. was more advanced both technologically and scientifically than the Roman empire in a lot of ways. Europe 1000 AD is more debatable and Europe 700 AD surely was not more advanced.