From the Song dynasty onward, I would argue that commercialization steadily grew with each successive dynasty. However, the later stages of these dynasties were often characterized by persistent political and economic struggles within the imperial courts, which gradually eroded their authority. This dual dynamic had both positive and negative effects on the development of a commercial society: while it loosened some of the restrictive controls imposed by the state, it also introduced instability that disrupted markets across much of China.
Moreover, certain regions, particularly along the southeastern coast, developed economic systems in which commercial power arguably eclipsed agrarianism in influence. The extent to which these commercial forces could be regulated or restrained often depended on the strength and reach of imperial authority at the time.
I believe China possessed significant potential to transition into a commercial and industrial society, second only to Europe. Given a few more dynastic cycles, this transition might well have been realized. Evidence of this potential is evident in British accounts of their leased ports during the late Qing dynasty. Many of these ports demonstrated an almost immediate capacity to shift toward commercial and industrial development, as many of the necessary foundational conditions were already in place.
I suppose the analogy can be extended too far, but the three rivers of China have a somewhat similar look to the Loire-Rhine-Danube complex in Europe. I had not appreciated how the rivers in China were "so close and yet so far from each other".
Would it be fair to say that the social structures and norms desired or required to manage and control major irrigation systems and related agricultural output, storage, distribution, etc., creates a more closely joined situation compared to Mongol or other pastoral raiding societies? And that those kinds of societies tend to have a greater trust factor among "strangers", a situation also desired to evolve towards commercial activities?
This also suggests that there are another 3 or 4 factors that should be added to the set required for a space traveling technological society to develop on some star systems/ planets rather than on others. Besides the "Goldilocks" 3rd planet from the Sun kind of situation, said planet needs some of your factors as well? Further lowers the probability of other space based somethings developing out there.
It might be fair to instead say that Nagasaki was short-circuited by the arrival of Westerners who had already imbibed the preconditions for a commercial society. Absent that, it would be possible to see how a native Japanese version of this might have come about. It may be that it would have happened on its own in the Renaissance period if it hadn't been for those pesky Europeans and their firearms, first encouraging the isolation of the Shogunate and then providing a model for the modern Japanese state.
Maybe, but you might also argue that the arrival of the Westerners actually increased the possibilities of Nagasaki evolving into a separate Commercial society. We will never know, as their political autonomy was crushed by the shoguns. This was the fate of many fledgling Commercial societies.
From the Song dynasty onward, I would argue that commercialization steadily grew with each successive dynasty. However, the later stages of these dynasties were often characterized by persistent political and economic struggles within the imperial courts, which gradually eroded their authority. This dual dynamic had both positive and negative effects on the development of a commercial society: while it loosened some of the restrictive controls imposed by the state, it also introduced instability that disrupted markets across much of China.
Moreover, certain regions, particularly along the southeastern coast, developed economic systems in which commercial power arguably eclipsed agrarianism in influence. The extent to which these commercial forces could be regulated or restrained often depended on the strength and reach of imperial authority at the time.
I believe China possessed significant potential to transition into a commercial and industrial society, second only to Europe. Given a few more dynastic cycles, this transition might well have been realized. Evidence of this potential is evident in British accounts of their leased ports during the late Qing dynasty. Many of these ports demonstrated an almost immediate capacity to shift toward commercial and industrial development, as many of the necessary foundational conditions were already in place.
Thanks for the comment. I agree with you that Chinese coastal cities might have developed into autonomous Commercial societies, but I do not think that Chinese imperial policy was actually moving in that direction (intentionally or unintentionally). Its political and economic power was too centralized and to a large extent because of that urbanization rates ware far too low (about 3%).
The only dynasty that actively did so were the Song and Yuan dynasties, for Ming and Qing, there participation in the silver trade, sometimes forced policy to move.
From the Song dynasty onward, I would argue that commercialization steadily grew with each successive dynasty. However, the later stages of these dynasties were often characterized by persistent political and economic struggles within the imperial courts, which gradually eroded their authority. This dual dynamic had both positive and negative effects on the development of a commercial society: while it loosened some of the restrictive controls imposed by the state, it also introduced instability that disrupted markets across much of China.
Moreover, certain regions, particularly along the southeastern coast, developed economic systems in which commercial power arguably eclipsed agrarianism in influence. The extent to which these commercial forces could be regulated or restrained often depended on the strength and reach of imperial authority at the time.
I believe China possessed significant potential to transition into a commercial and industrial society, second only to Europe. Given a few more dynastic cycles, this transition might well have been realized. Evidence of this potential is evident in British accounts of their leased ports during the late Qing dynasty. Many of these ports demonstrated an almost immediate capacity to shift toward commercial and industrial development, as many of the necessary foundational conditions were already in place.
A great summary. Thanks.
I suppose the analogy can be extended too far, but the three rivers of China have a somewhat similar look to the Loire-Rhine-Danube complex in Europe. I had not appreciated how the rivers in China were "so close and yet so far from each other".
Would it be fair to say that the social structures and norms desired or required to manage and control major irrigation systems and related agricultural output, storage, distribution, etc., creates a more closely joined situation compared to Mongol or other pastoral raiding societies? And that those kinds of societies tend to have a greater trust factor among "strangers", a situation also desired to evolve towards commercial activities?
This also suggests that there are another 3 or 4 factors that should be added to the set required for a space traveling technological society to develop on some star systems/ planets rather than on others. Besides the "Goldilocks" 3rd planet from the Sun kind of situation, said planet needs some of your factors as well? Further lowers the probability of other space based somethings developing out there.
"Take me to your river basins!"
It might be fair to instead say that Nagasaki was short-circuited by the arrival of Westerners who had already imbibed the preconditions for a commercial society. Absent that, it would be possible to see how a native Japanese version of this might have come about. It may be that it would have happened on its own in the Renaissance period if it hadn't been for those pesky Europeans and their firearms, first encouraging the isolation of the Shogunate and then providing a model for the modern Japanese state.
Thanks for comment.
Maybe, but you might also argue that the arrival of the Westerners actually increased the possibilities of Nagasaki evolving into a separate Commercial society. We will never know, as their political autonomy was crushed by the shoguns. This was the fate of many fledgling Commercial societies.
From the Song dynasty onward, I would argue that commercialization steadily grew with each successive dynasty. However, the later stages of these dynasties were often characterized by persistent political and economic struggles within the imperial courts, which gradually eroded their authority. This dual dynamic had both positive and negative effects on the development of a commercial society: while it loosened some of the restrictive controls imposed by the state, it also introduced instability that disrupted markets across much of China.
Moreover, certain regions, particularly along the southeastern coast, developed economic systems in which commercial power arguably eclipsed agrarianism in influence. The extent to which these commercial forces could be regulated or restrained often depended on the strength and reach of imperial authority at the time.
I believe China possessed significant potential to transition into a commercial and industrial society, second only to Europe. Given a few more dynastic cycles, this transition might well have been realized. Evidence of this potential is evident in British accounts of their leased ports during the late Qing dynasty. Many of these ports demonstrated an almost immediate capacity to shift toward commercial and industrial development, as many of the necessary foundational conditions were already in place.
Thanks for the comment. I agree with you that Chinese coastal cities might have developed into autonomous Commercial societies, but I do not think that Chinese imperial policy was actually moving in that direction (intentionally or unintentionally). Its political and economic power was too centralized and to a large extent because of that urbanization rates ware far too low (about 3%).
Urbanisation would be more around 10%-20% by my quick search here. https://pure.knaw.nl/ws/files/8633887/Urbanization_in_China_ca._1100_C1900.pdf
The only dynasty that actively did so were the Song and Yuan dynasties, for Ming and Qing, there participation in the silver trade, sometimes forced policy to move.
Thanks for the comment. Glad that you enjoyed it.
Yes, I intend to write an article about the impact of rice production on Asian history in the near future.