Why Didnt The Chinese Exploit Their Firearm Technology?

[jankren]

As we know, the development of firearm was like the following:

China->Middle East->North Africa->Spain->Rest of Europe

Thus obviously the Chinese had the technology before everybody else and we all know as well how advantageous the muskets were which the Ottomans for example smartly quickly adopted that enabled them to conquer huge swath of lands.

So why didnt the Chinese exploit this technology and possibly conquer the world with it?

[ehecatzin]

I think it was in large part due to the highly competitive warfare in Europe, every nation had the interest in developing a better gun, or better cannon. Also gun and cannon technology advanced a lot thanks to sea combat, ranged fire capabilities became a must for any ship of the day.

So I think it was both the competitive aspect of European nations along with the unique sea warfare in the age of sail.

[Blau&Gruen]

This is a good question. Fresh from the liver without having read much in East Asien and Middle Asien History, I would think the main reason were the distances and the inner stability of the empire. The case of your question is comparable to that of the imperial chinese oversea expeditions. There might be reason also which are hidden to us which have to do with the person of the empreror, reasons of social or religious nature. Last but not least it might also be a technical quesiton if you consider the practical use of fire weapons before the matchlock or the devolopments of the cannon tube. The gunpowder artillery of the 16th century was mostely a siege weapon and even in the 16h century just barley to handle on a battle field. The Burgundians (as an example) could not move the tubes of their guns downhill when the Bernese took their position in storm during the Battle of Grandson. Therefore, I would think the chinese gun technic or that what had been receiped by the Empires of the Dar al Islam and later the medival european countries was not ripe enough for a successful robust and practical use, hence. Just a guess, of course.

[Dr. Croccer]

Mind you, the Arabs had the first real guns.

However, the Chinese had firelances, rockets and mines long before the Arabs even left their homelands. I think the main reasons are

1) They didn't really care.

2) They didn't know untill it was too late

3) Too busy with enemies

4) Combination of them all.

[SigniferOne]

jankren, the Ottomans didn't have a Gustavus Adolphus or anyone of that kind, to reform and teach a completely new way of having a military. Even the Ottoman gunpowder technology was adopted from the West. The Chinese got it first, but they had no creative impulse to change it or refine it in any way, so much so that in the 16th century the Portugese were teaching them how to properly build guns. They were simply lacking the idea of science and of empirical experiment, with chemical properties (for greater power), with metallurgical consistency (for greater hull endurance), with rifling (eventually), etc. As is commonly known, they used it mostly for fireworks more than anything else.

[Erebus Pasha]

jankren, the Ottomans didn't have a Gustavus Adolphus or anyone of that kind, to reform and teach a completely new way of having a military. Even the Ottoman gunpowder technology was adopted from the West. The Chinese got it first, but they had no creative impulse to change it or refine it in any way, so much so that in the 16th century the Portugese were teaching them how to properly build guns. They were simply lacking the idea of science and of empirical experiment, with chemical properties (for greater power), with metallurgical consistency (for greater hull endurance), with rifling (eventually), etc. As is commonly known, they used it mostly for fireworks more than anything else.

Actually the Ottomans didn't adopt firearms until they fought the Hungarians during the early 15th century. Seeing how useful they were the Janissaries started to adopt them and use them to better effect than their enemies. The Ottomans also held on to their matchlocks longer as they were more reliable in the desert than the flintlocks. The Turks were also aware of the new tactics and systems being employed in 17th Europe but lacked the strength or the will to impose reforms on the Janissaries who were now an all too powerful force within the Empire. The despised the fighting ways of the infidel who they regarded as robots and not true warriors like themselves.

As for the Chinese then I agree with your points of view. The Chinese invented it but lacked the ability to progress or improvise on their initial success.

[hellheaven1987]

The assumetion that "Chinese did not exploit their firearm technology" was rather baseless. Chinese were, like many other Asian countries, did develop more advanced firearmed weapons than European up to 18th Century and applied it into both navy and army. It seems that, Chinese' firearm technology only started lacking behind once Qing Dynasty adopted an isolationism policy.

I would say, because this isolationism, which closed the contact between East and West, that Chinese firearm stoped developing.

[andrei_deny]

The assumetion that "Chinese did not exploit their firearm technology" was rather baseless. Chinese were, like many other Asian countries, did develop more advanced firearmed weapons than European up to 18th Century and applied it into both navy and army. It seems that, Chinese' firearm technology only started lacking behind once Qing Dynasty adopted an isolationism policy.

I would say, because this isolationism policy , which closed the contact between East and West, that Chinese firearm stoped developing.

I do agree that china tried to shield her self a little bit too much , all her resources gone to that direction , they were thinking on a defensive strategy , it is right to say that china evolved faster and with a continuos curve but halted once it closed her self to any relations with the outside, firearms were only one example but they had the biggest fleet also bigger ships than most countries "Jing He" was her admiral , but then it wasn't competing whit other countries and so there was no need for larger more powerful weapons because their border enemy wasn't so advanced to create problems, the problems arrived whit the european ships and their guns going 200-300 years of evolution ant test on the battle field,
and starting whit the 19 century the weapons of european really got to evolve with the industrial age for example krupp heavy guns, maxim or gattling machine guns etc
in the end the need is the mother of all invention , and china took care of her problems so it was no need to invent other weapons , until was to late to do any thing about it , th industrialisation of europe was the second revolution that china missed putting her behind 100 years to any global power such as england , germany , france , america ( which evolved during her civil war , the battlefield needs created the first industrial war - machine guns , subs etc, and the war wasn't reduced to one big battle or to , but came to last for years on end, whith continuos fights along front front lines rather than borders )

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The assumetion that "Chinese did not exploit their firearm technology" was rather baseless. Chinese were, like many other Asian countries, did develop more advanced firearmed weapons than European up to 18th Century and applied it into both navy and army.

Ummm, so why were Chinese rulers so keen to get European gunsmiths and cannon-makers to produce their weaponry as early as the Sixteenth Century? It's because European metals technology had outstripped that of the Chinese in the late Middle Ages, making European gun technology superior.

[gambit]

China probably was only interested in it's own borders and a bit into Middle East/North/South asia areas. To them, most of the world as already under control, and they were fighting amongst themselves for it.

Not to mention, they might've not simply cared enough to conquer the world, or realize they could. They had a pretty big empire to deal with, if they began to expand they'd probably end up like the Roman/British/Greek empires. They'd eventually expand far and wide across the world, but since NO ONE can keep that much of the world under their own rule, they'd crumble and probably end up even weaker than they'd ever been.

[Nero2000]

Quote:China probably was only interested in it's own borders and a bit into Middle East/North/South asia areas. To them, most of the world as already under control, and they were fighting amongst themselves for it.

Not to mention, they might've not simply cared enough to conquer the world, or realize they could. They had a pretty big empire to deal with, if they began to expand they'd probably end up like the Roman/British/Greek empires. They'd eventually expand far and wide across the world, but since NO ONE can keep that much of the world under their own rule, they'd crumble and probably end up even weaker than they'd ever been.

I think its because china did not have the problems that europe was facing overpopulation,Politicial instabily between nations,and resource shortages.The europeans had to exspand or they would perish thats why Portugal,Spain and Italy and soon the rest of europe looked for a faster route to Asia for quicker and more efficient trade.If a country in europe had this advantage they would definetly have more power than anyother country in the continent of europe.

China just did not have that rivalry with the nations around it they were fine with what they had and have been since.

[gambit]

China just did not have that rivalry with the nations around it they were fine with what they had and have been since.

Nailed it.

[jankren]

Yes, I think I agree with most of the opinions that the relative lack of competition and tension in East Asia in comparison to the Middle East and Europe during the Medieval Era was probably the reason why the contemporary Chinese were not very dynamic and inventive especially in terms of military technology.

As they say, warfare boosts creativity.

[Exarch]

hellheaven's got it down pat
also,

Needham argued, and most scholars agreed, that cultural factors prevented these Chinese achievements from developing into what could be called "science".[3] It was the religious and philosophical framework of the Chinese intellectuals which made them unable to believe in the ideas of laws of nature:

It was not that there was no order in nature for the Chinese, but rather that it was not an order ordained by a rational personal being, and hence there was no conviction that rational personal beings would be able to spell out in their lesser earthly languages the divine code of laws which he had decreed aforetime. The Taoists, indeed, would have scorned such an idea as being too naïve for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it.[38]

Similar grounds have been found for questioning much of the philosophy behind traditional Chinese medicine, which, derived mainly from Taoist philosophy, reflects the classical Chinese belief that individual human experiences express causative principles effective in the environment at all scales.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese...cal_stagnation

[SigniferOne]

Needham argued, and most scholars agreed, that cultural factors prevented these Chinese achievements from developing into what could be called "science".[3] It was the religious and philosophical framework of the Chinese intellectuals which made them unable to believe in the ideas of laws of nature:

It was not that there was no order in nature for the Chinese, but rather that it was not an order ordained by a rational personal being, and hence there was no conviction that rational personal beings would be able to spell out in their lesser earthly languages the divine code of laws which he had decreed aforetime. The Taoists, indeed, would have scorned such an idea as being too naïve for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it.[38]

Similar grounds have been found for questioning much of the philosophy behind traditional Chinese medicine, which, derived mainly from Taoist philosophy, reflects the classical Chinese belief that individual human experiences express causative principles effective in the environment at all scales.

That's a powerful statement. It pretty much gives most of the important reasons right there. It's not out of jingoism that people say that science has been an exclusive provenance of Europeans and Arabs.

[jankren]

It's not out of jingoism that people say that science has been an exclusive provenance of Europeans and Arabs.

By "Arabs" Im sure you mean "Middle Easterners" because the Persians too were great scientists.

[krips22]

By "Arabs" Im sure you mean "Middle Easterners" because the Persians too were great scientists.

In Europe we tend to generalize the Arabo-muslim as "the Arabs". Historically, the scientists of this cultural world were also often from other "background" indeed, such as Persian, Berber, Jew, and many others, you're right ...

[ray243]

Then there is the fact that late crossbow weapsons are usually better than a early gunpowder weapon for the chinese...

Add in the fact that they have to face the mongolians and other tribe who is used to conducting cavalry based warfare...early gunpowder weapons isn't going to be of much help until the technology has refined itself.


To the chinese, the adoption of gunpowder is a short term disadvantage...a disadvantage that could possibly get their empire destroyed.

[hellheaven1987]

To the chinese, the adoption of gunpowder is a short term disadvantage...a disadvantage that could possibly get their empire destroyed.

That is not true actually; in fact, Chinese adopted firearm even more earlier than European, especially in siege warfare. Cannon, rocket and fragement grenade were developed during the Southern Song Dynasty (irony, the endless war against steppe barbarians did force Chinese to develop firearm quicker than any other time).

Ummm, so why were Chinese rulers so keen to get European gunsmiths and cannon-makers to produce their weaponry as early as the Sixteenth Century? It's because European metals technology had outstripped that of the Chinese in the late Middle Ages, making European gun technology superior.

I would like to see sources; just point out that Chinese also hired Portugee mercenaries in 17th Century.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I would like to see sources; just point out that Chinese also hired Portugee mercenaries in 17th Century.

"By the mid-Ming period, alongside the indigenously developed cannons, there were cannons imported from Europe known as Folangji or "Frankish Machines" and Hongyi Pao or "Red-haired Barbarian Cannons". Most of these were from Portugal and Holland and had superior range, caliber and durability compared to locally cast Chinese cannons. The Chinese quickly began making their own based on the European designs but the name stuck and they continued to be called Folangji and Hongyi Pao. These types of cannon formed the backbone of the artillery of Chinese armies until well into the Qing dynasty."
(Leong Kit Meng, Chinese Siege Warfare)

In this same period the Chinese used Europeans, including Jesuit missionaries, to teach them European metallurgy specifically so that they could cast superior European-style Folangji. Not only did superior European metallurgy give their cannon greater range, calibre and durability but it also allowed for a greater variety of gunpowder weapons, ranging from arquebuses to mortars.

European gun technology became far more advanced than that of the Chinese thanks to the technological advances in metallurgy gained in Europe in the Middle Ages. China only caught up again by importing European weaponry and then European production techniques.