40 replies to this topic

[Pyrrho22]

Jared Diamond writes about this question in Guns, Germs, and Steel, in the context of why China didn't rise to power and exploit the rest of the world the way Western Europe did. One of his speculations is that perhaps China's relative lack of interior barriers and a smooth coast line made it easier for one government to control and unify the region. China, like the rest of Euroasia benefited from the long East-West axis which eases sharing of technology (especially agricultural tech) from England to Shanghai, but was at a relative disadvantage in that there wasn't as much political diversity in the region.

Take Columbus as an example (horrible person, good to illustrate a point): he was turned down by five governments before finally receiving funding; a Columbus-like character in China would have been turned down once, and that would be it (or maybe a much longer ocean voyage to get turned down three times).

The idea is: if you're too isolated you don't get technology trade, but if you're too unified you don't get enough diversity. As a result, China's history is filled with long periods of rapid advancement and then long period of stagnation. So, China: advantaged by relative lack of interior barrier and smooth coastline, disadvantaged by the same.

I've never heard a serious Chinese historian address this idea, and I'm curious to hear all of your thoughts on it. Have at.

(P.S. If Diamond sounds like a nutcase, remember that he did win a Pulitzer for this book, so he may not be completely off his rocker)

[Freddy1]

I also think China's soil condition and climate puts it in a disadvantage. Its not like in India where there is an abundance of plant life due to the climate and abudnat fertile soil.

[Pyrrho22]

I also think China's soil condition and climate puts it in a disadvantage. Its not like in India where there is an abundance of plant life due to the climate and abundant fertile soil.

Really? But China was one of the first countries to discover agriculture, supported the largest populations the earliest, and yet has not (yet) been transformed into desert like the Middle East as a result of it. It's only now with global climate change and massive industrial farming that the Yellow River basin is losing its fertility. I don't mean to be pessimistic, but don't you think the lack of plant life around industrial cities is due to industrialization, not climate? Traveling in the under-developed areas all over China (except where mining is a major industry) still shows off some impressively dense and resilient plant life (how many times can a clear-cut forest regrow? It's amazing).
In addition, unlike India, China has had a much larger swath of east-west land, which means the growing seasons remain roughly constant. You can transfer crops with minor modification all the way from Western Europe to coastal China; the same trick is much harder even from Northern China to Southern. Soil types and precipitation differences create minor hurdles (with the exception of extreme environs like Himalayan mountain plateaus and vast deserts), seasonal differences can take thousands of years to overcome. Yes, northerners eat wheat, southerners eat rice, but compare that to the difference of diet in North and South India, or (in the extreme) Northern/Southern Africa. China just had to develop two agricultural "packages" (one of which got help from the rest of Eurasia), only Europe "proper" was graced with a more homogeneous growing region. India may have had more rainfall and better soil to start off with, but developing crops was a much slower process for them.
And, sure, loess's fickle nature contributed to population boom-starvation cycles, but the predominant pattern was boom.
Am I wrong? Please teach me.

[Pyrrho22]

Okay, guess I'll just argue with myself for a little bit:
Pyrrho, you're completely off base with your tendency to geographical determinism! Sure, China shared the geographic advantages of the rest of Eurasia, but it was too cut off; if you look throughout history and you see the general pattern of ideas flowing out of China, with little flowing in. The rest of Eurasia benefited from China, but China got little in return except invading nomads. Mountains kept out cultural exchange with India and everyone else worth exchanging with, but the plains of Mongolia made for a vast unconquerable breeding ground for invaders, which continuously undermined stability of the mainland.

Besides, the reasons China flourished are almost entirely cultural. There was an emphasis on education and stability. It was the emphasis on stability that lead to such a large swath of land falling under central control. A culture of education and experimentation (notably with Daoism) produced rapid advances in technology and science. It was only after many centuries of these ideas flowing to Europe, where the entire subcontinent competed with each other to outdo the other in exploiting them, that China was surpassed, and her cultural emphasis on stability produced isolationism and ultimately defeat. China flourished despite the geographical disadvantages it had, but because of its culture.

[YuenKamSiu]

LOL Pyrrho,

Anyways I think China's geographic played a vital role in the development of her civilization. There are clear advantages and disadvantages and the Chinese people were not always dealt the best card but in general, China was quite blessed geographically if you ask me.

[haidao]

I do not think China is disadvantaged. There geographic location has made it possible for them to produce enough food to sustain a growing population. If China had been further north or west then that might not have been true. Further south they would have had to fight against the tropical jungles. So China's location was a good one.

[Freddy1]

I do not think China is disadvantaged. There geographic location has made it possible for them to produce enough food to sustain a growing population. ....

I'm not so sure about its geographic location being good. Theres alot more fertile land lets say eg. in India than there is for China.

[Moloko]

I read a very interesting article about China's geology. It is more than a year old, but it really shed some light on my insight: http://www.marketora...rticle5059.html

[BigWang]

How can people say China is geographically disadvantaged? Their geography was what allowed China to remain one entity rather than breaking up like Europe.

<div><br></div><div>Also, people need to remember that the reason why China didn't develop any sea technology was because they had no need to do any international trade. The whole reason why Opium Wars started was because the British was&nbsp;hemorrhaging silver to the Chinese because Chinese didn't want anything that the Europeans had.</div>

Edited by BigWang, 30 December 2010 - 07:24 PM.

[phead128]

HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm taking a class at university on this subject!!!!

I'm taking a course on 'Geopolitics, Power, and Geography', so this is what I learned in the class so far.

Modern Eurasian Stepppes were flat plains which was equivalent to modern Superhighway system for nomadic Calvary to move from East to West (Huns, Mongols, Xiongnu, Turks, etc...)

Not very good to border these regions. :-P

Before I went to this class, I thought to myself: "China is so blessed to be living member of the Eurasian continent" because I went to class after reading about MacKinder's Geopolitic theory about World Conquest and Heartland.

Without a position Asia, China will never dominate the world. He who rules the Heartland rules the Eurasian Supercontinent, and thus the WORLD.

China is SUPER LUCKY to have access to the interior Central Asia, and have a long coastline. The insular nature of geography allowed China to be kept safe with invaders from India, Western world, etc...

China's position allows it to rule Siberia, Central Asia, South East Asia, Australia, and have direct influence on the Middle East and Europe. GREAT geographical position, honestly.

Edited by phead128, 08 February 2011 - 09:38 PM.

[Karakhan]

HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm taking a class at university on this subject!!!!

I'm taking a course on 'Geopolitics, Power, and Geography', so this is what I learned in the class so far.

Modern Eurasian Stepppes were flat plains which was equivalent to modern Superhighway system for nomadic Calvary to move from East to West (Huns, Mongols, Xiongnu, Turks, etc...)

Not very good to border these regions. :-P

Before I went to this class, I thought to myself: "China is so blessed to be living member of the Eurasian continent" because I went to class after reading about MacKinder's Geopolitic theory about World Conquest and Heartland.

Without a position Asia, China will never dominate the world. He who rules the Heartland rules the Eurasian Supercontinent, and thus the WORLD.

China is SUPER LUCKY to have access to the interior Central Asia, and have a long coastline. The insular nature of geography allowed China to be kept safe with invaders from India, Western world, etc...

China's position allows it to rule Siberia, Central Asia, South East Asia, Australia, and have direct influence on the Middle East and Europe. GREAT geographical position, honestly.

Mackinder's Heartland theory basically focused on modern day Central Asia, parts of far western Siberia/Urals, and the Mid-East as being the heartland, and thus the region's importance during the "Great Game" between the UK, Russians, etc in the 19th and 20th centuries. Of course Mackinder's writing is rather old and there are many who have since dismissed his theories.
However if one were to apply it to the modern day period, then it is Russia, followed by the US that has the most influence over the hinterland.
Why? Russia still controls the large steppe area (which also contains much of its oil wealth) that lies between the Urals and Yakutia. Much of the Central Asian countries that have became independent, are still very much within Russia's sphere of influence for multiple reasons.
1. Kazakhstan is the closest with Russia, followed by Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, with Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan being the most distant.. but still heavily influenced by them
2. Russia exercises considerable influence, as seen in what happened recently in Kyrgyzstan's revolution which got rid of the pro-US president, and one that is now pro-Russia.
3. Russia strong arms the countries into adopting pro-Russia policies. Several wikileaks articles has shown that there were attempts for these countries to distance itself from Moscow, but that Russian agents, are very active within these countries. The Russian military bases in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are doing much more than just protecting borders and fighting terrorism.
4. There will be periods where countries such as Kazakhstan will look to the US, Europe, or China to balance out Russian interests, but they can never replace Russia as the dominant power in the region for several strong reasons, which are:
a. Geography. You may look at a map and see that China borders Central Asia, and that there are ethnic relations between them and China's minorities and increase in trade. But many forget that this very same map shows the main problem with building links with China. and that is the Tien Shan.. an extension of the Himalayas. There are very few roads/rail links that traverse it. the few that exist are very limited in what can pass through because its very difficult to build infrstracture there. In contrast, the border with Russia is flat steppe land. Thats why all the pipelines, rail, highways, etc are going in that direction (and also because of Soviet era projects).
b. Many Central Asians work in Russia. Many of them still speak Russian fluently. They go to Russia for better opportunities and send money home. For Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, a big part of their GDP comes from remittances. The number of Mandarin speaking Central Asians are very low, and they will probably prefer wages in Russia than Chinese wages.

as for the rest of the heartland.. Russia practices strong influence over the Caucasus as well, as seen with Georgia's attempt to break away from this. the Mid-East, with the exception of Syria and Iran, are within the US camp. This puts much of the world's PROVEN energy reserves within the influence of those two.

Now moving beyond Mackinder's theory.. some would say the US is the most geographically advantaged since not only does it possess a huge land and maritime area that is productive for resources.. but more importantly.. that it has direct high seas access to BOTH the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
China in this regard, has no access to the Atlantic, and no high seas access to even the Pacific, as it is surrounded by the EEZs of its neighbors.. and one of the reasons why China is very assertive in its maritime claims.