There is a long and painstaking question that I would like to ask:

Why Chinese and Indian Society as well as Ottoman Empire were backward as compared to European Powers In 19th century?

China, India and Mesopotamia are regions which develop earlier than European Continent. China and India particularly were more advanced in Europe until the late 16th century. It is even more frightening that in 18th century, these two countries were invaded by European power. In the case of India, I could understand due to the lack of centralised government, as always in her history. But in China, since the unification of Qin Shihuangdi, Chinese political system could be seen as much more advanced that any of the systems that Europeans could boast. And when she reached her peak of power in Qing dynasty, she started getting backward.

One of the trend I have researched is that in Europe is that at the end of 15th century, towns grew very rapidly. Trading and commerce were stimulated by the development of science. In a very interesting paper "The Reform of Coinage In Venice From 1189 - 1535" witten by a famed Polish social scientist, he emphasises that it was the degree of freedom which aristocrats received from the Feudalism that laid the solid background for the developement of town. And because European Western Nations such as England, France and Spain enjoyed the seperated administration from their lords, it virtually helped the bourgeoise to grow into power, culminated by their French Revolution...

So, I would like to hear what do you think. I know this is exceptionally broad, but is it not worthwhile to contemplate?

I think there are a number of reasons which can be cited here.

There is no doubt that from the end of the fifteenth century the conditions existed in Europe which promoted the growth of capital, and that these were absent in China. For example, much of the exploration and exploitation of distant parts of the world was undertaken by corporations, such as the Dutch East India Company (the VOC), the East India Company, and the Levantine Company. I can find no comparable entities in China. The importance of these companies is that they allowed the equipping of expeditions and trading missions which would otherwise be beyond the capacity of any individuals other than the crown.

Another factor which allowed capital formation was the development of a banking system, first in the Italian republics, and along the Rhine, and later in the Low Countries and Britain.

There were also scientific factors which were important. From the seventeenth century onwards, European science embraced experimentation and deduction as the basis of scientific method. This, combined with a more rigorous taxonomic treatment knowledge allowed Western science to leapfrog that of the East.

How do people feel about these explanations?

I think that in terms of social science, the class of bourgeoise in Europe has nothing comparable in China. I agree with you that the growth of towns and banking system toward the late 15th century formulate the construction of the middle class. Bourgeoisie led the kings borrow their money, as in the case of France, or the Parliament used their capital resource in preparing wars. We can see that the rising wars in Europe in 17th century such as the 30 years war stimulated the flow of capitals. In China, I think the major avenue of the country is collected by taxes and the king, as the Son Of Heaven, owned the power to possess all the wealth of nation.

A system of centralised power as seen in China proved totally a failure, as the case of Louis XIV's efforts. In contrast, the system of England worked terribly fine which is why this kingdom emerged later as the major power in Europe. Backward countries such as those in Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Russia) fell far behind due to the undevelopment of the middle class.

Anyhow, using Marxist ideology to account for this may not be the sole methodology, do you have any suggestion on this?

I think the reformation that took place in Europe had a lot to do with it. The importance of scientific advancement played a major part. Off course the way how the countries governed themselves had a lot to do with it.

China fell into decline in the Ming dynasty because it got too paranoid about dealing with the outside. We decided to spend all of our money rebuilding our wall when at the time we were possibly at the height of our development just after the Yuan dynasty.

Its never easy governing China because of its vastness and population this hindered development further. Another invasion from the Manchus did little good to us in terms of advancing on the world stage but in-directly it expand the territories under our realm which is such a hotly contested issue in the media these days..

The Major European powers did not have to govern a place of this vastness.

But one of the most important reasons why countries like UK, France, Spain, Netherlands got so much better was because their Ocean facing location naturally allowed them to seek colonies and develop. The Ottomans and China never took up this opportunity. The colonies allowed these European powers to get hold of labour and materials at a very good price and then industrialisation spiralled. Is well as that these colonies gave the population of these countries good place to expand their activities to. Basically, there was good land to ship poor people from these places to. Therefore, these favourable conditions allowed these countries to ascend.

The Ottomans, China, India and Eastern European countries did not have the same opportunity.

Russia went East becaue of its location.

This is not quite correct. From the tenth century AD onwards, China developed a significant navy, and extended the territory over which it exercised power until it reached as far as Southern India and Sri Lanka. This came to an abrupt end in the fifteenth century for reasons well covered on other threads.

Although there is a difference between revenue and wealth, I will accept your point, since revenue is essential as the basis for building some capital, which can then be used for speculation.

I think the middle class is important here, but I don't know enough about the formation of the merchant or middle class in China after the Yuan dynasty to make any valid comparison. I would be happy to hear from those better informed than I.

The one thing that is often forgotten is that Jewish merchants provided the early banking facilities in Europe, and that their general exclusion from the landed aristocracy necessitated some other outlet for their energies.

In terms of the Reformation, I am not entirely sure how important this was. Perhaps what was more important was the general intellectual freedom of the Low Countries.

I don't think Marxist analysis adds anything to this. Just because we consider the role of the middle class in capital development does not mean that it is necessary to adopt the intellectually bankrupt tools of Marxism.

Actually what you corrected was exactly what I was trying to say but I had not expanded fully. Up till the second half of Ming Dynasty we were right up there in terms of Ocean exploration. But we never took up the opportunity and therefore lost it.

Without sounding nationalistic, if we had taken our opportunity back then and got a colony in the Americas, we would have been right up there amongst the traditional European powers. The colony country that we would have set up would also rival the US.

Some of the other countries like Eastern European countries never even had the chance. If they had the chance they would have done well too.

Don't worry Sinoid, I still get your point. Of the fact that Chinese are "paranoid", as you said, is quite understandable. Since in her history, the Yuan dynasty was perhaps their nightmare.

I think another factor that contribute to European success is the deterioration of the Feudalism system (I can use this word in European History, although I do notice that treating "Feudalism" is quite sensitive"). The model of fiefdom has been disrupted and then gradually "moltened" due to the impact of Crusades. However, what amazed me is the contrast between England and France. In the 17th century, as we all know, the Glorious Revolution gave birth to a new political system that would become the most effective model in Europe prior to the First Industralisation. While France under the reign of Louis XIV developed a government under the doctrine of Absolutism. In some senses, French politics in the 17th and then perhaps 18th century actually took some forms of similiarities with China ruling doctrine.

However, it could be said that Absolutism carried some problems. Its argonising transformation into Capitalism created a violent outburst such as French Revolution. Such an event convulsed the whole Europe. The revolution would permanently changed Europe. And this is perhaps the interesting part. While in China, under the reign of the Qing dynasty, China declined. It could not be blamed solely to this dynasty, since her neigbours also plunged into the same situation, such as the Nguyen Dynasty in Annam Tokin, or the Mogul Empire in India, or even the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Thus, I think we still need a clearer anatomy upon the mechanism of political developement in both Western and Eastern from the 16th century to the late 19th century.