The Age of Discovery

[[wcip]Angel]

.. or rather, lack thereof.

Hello all.

This year I'm doing a history course at my local university college, and one of the essays I've been assigned is about the European expansion between 1400-1600. I'm trying to find out why Europeans took to the seas in the beginning of the 1400s and discuss the the consequences of these historical events. In order to fully explain the reasons for the European expansion, I've touched on economy and technology so far, but having said that neither alone can fully explain this phenomenon. I imagine I will need to touch on religion sooner or later. But that's irrelevant.

My professor told me that it would be a good idea to explain why European countries expanded while others didn't. Obviously, everyone didn't have the necessary technology or know-how, but among those who did, the Chinese still stayed at home. I'm asking you "Why did the Chinese adopt more of an isolationist policy while Europe expanded in every direction?"

If you have any thoughts on the matter, or if you have any other comments related to my essay, I'd very much appreciate your input.

Best regards

- [winzip]Angel

edit: I have a problem. At one point in my essay I say that one of the reasons for the expansion is that the European countries needed trade routes west after the fall of the Mongolian Empire which had, up until that point, kept the road to Asia open.

Another place in my essay I say that one of the reasons China didn't take to the seas in the middle of the 15th century is because they were ravaged by the Mongols in the north and needed to divert their attention to that particular problem.

Aren't these two statements antitthetical? If the Mongolian empire is dead and buried, how can they be attacking the Chinese?

[ShadowHM]

Hi

Try a quick look at this link:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHEMPIRE/YUAN.HTM

It gives a quick summary of what went on in China just prior to the European expansion, and will provide some key words for further searching.

I suspect that consolidation preoccupied them for some time. Also, I suspect that the cultural aftermath of being occupied for so long by foreigners who could not even speak their language may have had some bearing on how they greeted the Europeans.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Advanced seafaring technology, including hull designs that could weather long-term voyages and an emphasis on global navigation through both celestial and chronometric techniques that allowed voyages to be made across blue water with relatively high confidence.

That, and Europeans had guns.

That, and Europeans had a whole new frontier available for conquest: the Americas.

[Bun-Bun]

You might want to check out "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. It may address the issues you're after - why was Europe ascendant? It uses geography, climate, biodiversity, and other factors. I haven't finished it - I'm still in Chapter 2 - but it's a good read and the facts presented hold together so far.

Edit: misspelled "ascendant". The Law of Conservation of Errors receives yet another evidentiary boost.

[Sailboat]

Guns, Germs, and Steel is in fact your resource. In a chapter Bun-bun probably hasn't reached yet, Diamond specifically addresses Chinese seafaring and his reasoning as to why it did not expand in the way Europeans did.

You may or may not find his arguments persuasive, but I find him logical and compelling.

Sailboat

[--Pete]

Hi,

Added Guns, Germs and Steel to my list of books to look for. Sounds interesting. Thanks.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

I love the Toronto Public Library. Open a second browser window, go to the website, paste in the book name, and presto, it will be held for me and I will be telephoned when it arrives at my local branch. :D

[Jester]

Don't forget religion. Them christians felt one heck of a driving need to convert the heathens, and that's something that comes up a *lot* in looking at the Portugese and Spanish colonial empires.

Buddhists and confuscians, not so much.

Jester

[Yrrek]

From what I remember of Chinese history, religion played a large part in this. Or if not religion, the Chinese culture is very traditional, and the Europeans brought change and violence etc. with them. The Chinese people had been living in almost total isolation (traders were allowed) for hundreds of years with little problems. So of course, being the traditional society saw no reason to change, and even feared change. I'm sure religion also had something to do with this, but that is a brief explanation you can look into. Hope this helps! :)

[Medicine Man]

I'd just like to chime in with my endorsement for Mr. Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel.

I'm embarrased to admit that I'm not that heavy a reader anymore, but I had no problems ripping through this one; A very interesting read. Without falling back on Eurocentric or ablist explainations, Diamond puts forth some intersting theories about how the Europeans ended up with the technological advantage in the first place.

There is a few sections in his book about China. Not an easy task trying to understand the reasons for China's stagnation, but I think the does a relatively good job.

Cheers.

[[wcip]Angel]

Thank you for your replies, everyone.

I've touched on ideology and religion as reasons for the European expansion. On the one hand the Chinese idea of trade and commerce as something deteriorating and destrucive was absent in 15th century Europe. Also a quest for knowledge, understanding and experience was central to the Renaissance, which factored in as a motive for exploring the world. On the other side of the coin you had a religious intolerance coupled with missionary zeal which also fuelled the fires of expansion. Also, the high tolls of the Ottoman empire were not only frowned upon because it diminished the profit margin of European traders, but supporting another religion, indirectly, through funding - the tolls - verged on sacrilege.

This is what I've written about religion. Short and concise. I only have 3-4000 words for this essay, and I need to discuss the ramifications of the expansion, both for the expanding and for the expandee as well. In addition I will present an overview of how the European Expansion changed the world, our view of it; their (meaning the expandee) view of it so I need to conserve what little space I have.

edit: Damn concord. "It was, they were", etc.

[Haider]

Between 1405 and 1433 the "Treasure fleet" of China conducted seven expeditions, with ships far superior to western or Arabic ships. But then the northern borders were again under pressure by the Mongols, Zhu Di (the Yongle emperor) died, his shorttime successor turned more inwards, the next successor Zhun Zhanji, was influenced by his confucian ministers, who mistrusted the Admiral of the Treasure Fleet, Zhen He, who was an eunuch. They argued that the money is better spent for agricultural things. They were aided by the Chinese culture of "turning inwards". The emperor followed this advise. 1436 it was forbidden to build seagoing ships, later even costal ships were forbidden. Thus China has missed to dominate the world with their advanced ships and seamenship.

[[wcip]Angel]

Yepp. I've touched on that briefly. Another explanation as to why funding was removed from seafaring expeditions is the construcion of Bejing, which was given priority.

[Jester]

Oh yeah, one more thing: Europe was a competitive environment, where numerous moderately powerful nations struggled for all sorts of things, usually territory, trade, or religion. Gaining an advantage in seafaring commerce, or a profitable colony (*coughspaininperucough*) could give them an immediate advantage over their neigbours.

China's neighbours, on the other hand, were a whole lot smaller than China. They were the big fish in the pond, ruled by one enormous imperial bureaucracy. Europe had hundreds of noble families, all closely related enough to hate each other bitterly. The motivation to get ahead of their rivals just wasn't present in China like it was in Europe.

Jester

[Medicine Man]

A 10 cent explaination for China's inward retreat is to say that the middle kingdom had a decisive regional superiority that was never reproduced in Europe. Even well into the age of exploration, China was pretty much untouchable in her own sphere of influence. That really is the rub -- power like that possessed by 14-15th century China tends to remove the pressure to innovate.

On the other hand, the balkan nature of Europe put a lot of pressure on otherwise conservative regimes to embrace new technologies. Those rulers that were too traditional to employ firearms could rest asured that that someone in their region was going to experiment.

Even as I write this I think of another good example of bizarre technological trends -- Japan. Medeval Nippon was engulfed in a spirited civil war for much of the Age of Exploration. Despite being a highly traditional, socially stratified people (then), numerous Japanese lords embraced foriegn religions and weaponry in an attempt to gain advantage over their rivals; kind of a Europe in microcausm. After the civil war ended and a strong shogunate was established, the Japanese were quick to rid themselves of christianity, foreigners and firearms, not necessarily in that order.

I'd say that anyone writing about colonization and exploration could make a pretty strong arguement that competition is a prominent motive. At the very least, competition provides the impetus for innovation and innovation provides the technology that makes colonization possible and/or profitable.

[Assur]

Hi

Most of the answers have mentioned Jared Diamond, he wrote a really good book! You might like to have a look at:

Paul Kennedy: The Rise and Fall of Great Powers

He touches upon China in the beginning, and also tries to explain/find out why some nations achieve dominance!

good karma

[Ajax]

I was wondering when someone was going to mention this! The treasture fleet expeditions are a powerful representation of the "lost opportunity" for Chinese world domination along the European model.

The explanation I have heard for this usually focuses on the cultural factors which limited exploration and colonization by China. For one thing, the traditional Chinese philosophies (Taoism, Buddhism, and Confusianism) all center around attaining an "enlightened" state, or at least a state of contentedness.

The treasure fleet expeditions opened up vast new areas of exploration to China, but China didn't need to go out into the world. The Chinese were "content" with their world, and viewed an extensive involvement with very alien cultures to be a threat to this "contentedness." Thus, we see the beginnings of the isolationist policies which would run all the way up to the Opium Wars with the British.

It is also interesting to note another factor, which isn't usually cited in such discussions: the ethnocentrism of the Chinese Empire. While it is somewhat ironic for Europeans—who defined the practice—to make that claim about other cultures, the shoe does fit. The prevailing view was of China as the "Middle Kingdom," i.e. the center of the world. Distance from the center decreased the importance of the place. This view is seen in the trade interactions between China and Europe as the Europeans expanded.

During the age of exploration, and the beginning of the colonialization era, the Chinese Empire largely limited its trade with Europeans. The Chinese produced tea, silk, and ceramics through trade secrets, and refused to accept any European goods except gold or silver (specie). (This of course offended the European merchantilist notions of the day and led to the production of opium and its distribution to China; and the resulting Opium Wars.) But up to the opening of China through the Opium Wars, the European states tried to convince the Chinese that they had goods worth trading; and they frequently gave gifts of clocks to the Chinese emperor. These were the pinnacles of European industry--complex machinery on a grand scale, with artistic housing. A museum in Bejing still houses several hundred of these magnificent clocks, I believe. But the Chinese weren't impressed with them--strict mechanical relationships are the domain of artisans, not the higher aspirations of the educated.

Oh well. Think I've begun to ramble. Of course history is taught differently in different places and by different people, too. Hope it helps.

[[wcip]Angel]

Thanks for your help so far. It's good to know that what I've been writing are the same things you've been suggesting. It convinces me that I'm on the right track.

I'm a bit lost now though.

I've given a minor overview of the Portugese expansion eastwards to Asia via Africa. The point of the essay is not to re-write history or to present history in a superficial "this is what happened"- kind of way. Any pupil could pick up a book and write an essay on what happened. What *I* have to do is talk about why it happened - the reasons behind it - and the consequences of it. That being said, my short, sketchy presentation of the history of Portugese naval engagements in the 15th and 16th century only serve as background material for the "real" questions, namely what the consequences were, and what effect it had on the Portugese and the native African and Asian populations.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I've done the "Portugese goes East"-thing, and now I'm going to do the same with Spain. I've visited several web-sites that deal with the history of Spain, and they all seem to say the same thing:

"In 1492 the muslim and jewish population were driven out of Spain. The same year, Christopher Columbus discovered America. Everyone lived happily ever after. The end."

Whereas the historybooks and websites went into some detail concerning the adventures of the Portugese, they are severely lacking any real descriptive knowledge of the Spanish expansion in this time period. Like I said, I will not go into great detail, as a superficial presentation of the past will drag my grade down. I merely want a small piece of descriptive history telling what happened, so I can write about the consequences, and the impact it had both on the Spanish as well as the Native Americans.

PS: I got Guns, Germs, and Steel at the local library, and used its chapter on the Chinese in my essay. Thanks a bunch!

edit - Update!
I wanted to compare the two expansions - Portugese and Spanish - the former being a more "benign" than the latter. Portugese establishment of trading companies vs Spanish conquest and colonisation, etc. (I'm not going to paint the picture that black and white, the Portugese *did* in fact establish colonies of their own and conduct slave trade, it's just that the sources I've read so far leads me to believe that the Spanish in a stronger degree than the Portugese sought to take control over the areas they explored rather than cooperating with the people who lived there.

In one of the books I'm using it says that Columbus originally intended to do trade with the natives in the Americas, but because communications failed, he turned to conquest instead.

[TaMeOlta]

Are you trying to say that the Chinese boats were Junk ? ;)

[[wcip]Angel]

Are you trying to say that the Chinese boats were Junk ? ;)

No I never said that. In fact, some of the books I've read clearly stated that the Chinese boats were some of the largest ever in naval history.

Contrafactual question (A big no-no for us historians) : What would've happened if Columbus would've been successful in establishing trade relations with the native population of the Americas in 1492?

1. Relations between the two people would've been vastly better than what it turned out.
2. Cortéz and his fleet probably wouldn't have conquered and colonised America in 1519.
3. The European cruel treatment of native Americans would never have taken place.
4. A mutual respect between America's and Europe's people would have prevented the slaughter of millions of indians when the English set foot on Plymoth rock some time later.
5. European settlers and native Americans would have coexisted in peace due to this mutual respect and native Americans wouldn't have the position they hold in American society today.

That's one mighty leap of faith :) (Believe me, this was just for my amusement, and although I will mention this contrafactual train of thought briefly in my essay, I will also stress how unlikely these things get the more you keep adding conditions and "what ifs".)