Would 19th century China have fared differently under an ethnically Han dynasty?

[AllthetTropesMan]

The story of late Qing is most frequently remembered as the epitome of a nation which relied on outdated notions of its superiority as well as a corrupt upperclass unable to adjust to modernity, but less immediately talked about is how China's internal problems and large scale rebellions were caused by hatred for the foreign ruling class and its imposition of Manchu customs onto the natives, meaning there was little incentive to stand by the Empire as it was picked apart by foreign powers. I want to discuss however another consequence of the Qing being non-Chinese and from a culture rooted in the nomadic lifestyles of the north. I've lately come to believe the downfall of the Qing didn't start just with Baron Macaulay's expedition but ironically enough with the conquests pursued under its earlier emperors (yes, even Kangxi). Looking at Chinese history through a pattern of dynasties, a difference is noticeable in how each regime handled foreign relations, with Han states centering heavily around the notions of a tributary system rooted in cultural and hegemonic power over the surrounding states, with this sense of centrality being what kept imperial China a unified ideal, while barbarian run states tended to keep the warmongering and steppe expansion which initially gained them a large imperial state (The exception of course is Tang, with the the expenses of northwestern militarism and entanglements with the Gokturks leading to the rebellions that destabilized the dynasty.). Under the Qing this contrast reached its zenoth with not only the total imposition of non-Chinese customs onto the Han, but also the total conquest and subjugation of the Turkic peoples to the west of traditional boundaries. Say however, the Qing had failed to the Shun or Wu Zhou had led a successful bid fro the throne and kept tributary policies similar to the Ming; how would the court and general population react differently to European incursions? Would this alternative China have been able to command greater respect from its subordinates and more unified effort at modernization? Most likely the imperial regime would still fall due to cultural posturing as well as the rapid sevelopments of Europe and America, but I imagine there would be quicker transition between two Chinas, with musch shorter period of rule by warlords, with the newer China becoming a state aligned with western influenced ideologies.

TLDR: How would the collapse of the Chinese Empire have played out differently had the Qing been eliminated in favor of a native dynasty?

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

Given how much European technology and science progressed starting from the 17th century onwards, it could be possible for a Chinese dynasty to adopt European technology and science if China keeps a eye on how Europeans are behaving in Asia.

 

[Citycat]

Were the Qing really that different from the Han Chinese dynasties? I mean, other than their dress and unusual hairstyle, didn't they adopt most Chinese customs and traditions in an attempt to legitimise themselves as rulers of China under the "Mandate of Heaven"?

 

[Lalli]

Were the Qing really that different from the Han Chinese dynasties? I mean, other than their dress and unusual hairstyle, didn't they adopt most Chinese customs and traditions in an attempt to legitimise themselves as rulers of China under the "Mandate of Heaven"?

They even abandoned their native language pretty quickly and already by mid-19th century if not even earlier they were pretty effectively forgotten Manchu language and spoke Mandarin Chinese.

And Ming Dynasty was too very isolationist. But I don't know would Han Chinese dynasty be so much against reforms as non-Han one.

 

[Avrorrange]

They even abandoned their native language pretty quickly and already by mid-19th century if not even earlier they were pretty effectively forgotten Manchu language and spoke Mandarin Chinese.

And Ming Dynasty was too very isolationist. But I don't know would Han Chinese dynasty be so much against reforms as non-Han one.

Early part of the Ming Dynasty yes, but after the 1500s, the Ming Dynasty more or less opened up to foreign trade etc, and there was a massive effort to coopt merchants/smugglers into the ruler class. There was also quite a number of prominent Christian converts amongst the scholar elite. The Confucian scholar elite during that period was also thrilled with anything from the West. After the Manchu takeover however, trade became far more restricted again, limited to only a few ports before limited almost exclusively to Canton. The Manchus also completely gutted the coastal community by using fairly arbitrarily methods during their early rule by killing or expelling all coastal communities alongside the coast in an effort to deny resources to the Zhengs of Taiwan. All of this meant that the Chinese elite once again became less communicative with the West.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

Given how Chinese settlement of Taiwan only really came about after the Dutch and the Spanish came along, and the Manchu only banned Chinese marine settlement along the coast because they did not want support of the Zhengs of Taiwan, who kicked out the Europeans, a good point of divergence is the Europeans never settle on Taiwan to begin with.

 

[Avrorrange]

Given how Chinese settlement of Taiwan only really came about after the Dutch and the Spanish came along, and the Manchu only banned Chinese marine settlement along the coast because they did not want support of the Zhengs of Taiwan, who kicked out the Europeans, a good point of divergence is the Europeans never settle on Taiwan to begin with.

Better way to go would be to have the Zheng Zhilong not being an idiot to surrender Fujian. That way the Zhengs have the entirety of Fujian and could rally support for the Longwu emperor to counterattack the Manchus. The Zhengs most likely takesover the empire eventually and focuses on maritime trade.

 

[lynxpt]

the Qing being non-Chinese and from a culture rooted in the nomadic lifestyles of the north.

The Manchus were not nomadic, they practiced agriculture where it was possible and otherwise engaged in hunting and fishing.

 

[Onedotman]

Let's not forget that the distinction between the Han people and the "barbaric" Manchu only came about in the late 19th century, when the Chinese intelligentsia picked up Western race theory (hence the racist and genocidal statements made in Zou Rong's Revolutionary Army). Previously, the Manchu have already assimilated perfectly into Chinese civilization to the point that they could be considered as the Hua as in the Hua-Yi distinction.

 

[rfmcdonald]

I suppose that, if China was under a dynasty that had unquestioned legitimacy in the 19th century, it might well have had more options, more chances to avoid collapse and to successfully reform. The details matter.

 

[Henry III]

My be having China split into multiple kingdoms in the 19th century and the being forced to implement changes to survive

Like with Japan after 1868 with the restoration of imperial authority

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Like other people here have said it, the Manchu weren't much different from the other dynasties when it came to ruling China but I do understand OP's question and it's likely a different dynasty wouldn't have be as closed off to the world and would've likely kept updated on the technological progress of the West, whether they can adopt them or even decide to is another question of course.

One thing I'm not seeing mentioned is how the trade with outsider nations was seen as a rational thing at the time, in hindsight it's easy to judge but remember, China was a massive country with the biggest population and a mass of internal revenue that generated what it needed for the population already, the West didn't have much novel things to offer that China already hadn't, especially once the British started importing in massive amount of drugs into the country because they were having a trade deficit with the Chinese because of the tea they wanted, so it gives even less incentive for the Chinese to open up trade, regardless of dynasty.

 

[WhatSantayanaSaid]

My be having China split into multiple kingdoms in the 19th century and the being forced to implement changes to survive

Like with Japan after 1868 with the restoration of imperial authority

India was split into multiple kingdoms in the wake of the collapse of central authority when the Europeans came knocking. That didn't end very well for the Indian kingdoms.

Japan had an easy unifying figure and decades of nobility going over to Europe to see how far ahead the Western powers were and realizing they had to play catch up. Sans that, a divided China probably has more in common with India than it would with pre-Meiji Restoration Japan.

I suppose that, if China was under a dynasty that had unquestioned legitimacy in the 19th century, it might well have had more options, more chances to avoid collapse and to successfully reform. The details matter.

Eh, in Korea, the Joseon were ethnic Han Korean and had no rivals to threaten their legitimacy. They still went heavily isolationist (more so than Qing China or Tokugawa Japan) all the same due to internal unrest from famines, disease, and corruption. The conditions have to be right for external trade and diplomacy to be opened up; otherwise, it'd be seen as a route for potentially dangerous foreign ideologies and entities to enter the country (like how the Spanish and Portuguese missionary and colonial activities alarmed the Japanese and provided part of the reasoning for increased isolationism during the Edo period).

Let's not forget that the distinction between the Han people and the "barbaric" Manchu only came about in the late 19th century, when the Chinese intelligentsia picked up Western race theory (hence the racist and genocidal statements made in Zou Rong's Revolutionary Army). Previously, the Manchu have already assimilated perfectly into Chinese civilization to the point that they could be considered as the Hua as in the Hua-Yi distinction.

Wasn't anti-Manchu sentiment somewhat widespread, especially in South China, by the first half of the 19th century? The Taiping were especially gung-ho about wiping the Manchu race from the face of the planet and that doesn't seem to have been connected with race theory. The Manchu did assimilate well, but the targeted anti-Manchu rhetoric and massacres in the Taiping Rebellion, which was not led by elites and intelligentsia, point to pre-existing underlying tensions.

 

[Avrorrange]

Let's not forget that the distinction between the Han people and the "barbaric" Manchu only came about in the late 19th century, when the Chinese intelligentsia picked up Western race theory (hence the racist and genocidal statements made in Zou Rong's Revolutionary Army). Previously, the Manchu have already assimilated perfectly into Chinese civilization to the point that they could be considered as the Hua as in the Hua-Yi distinction.

India was split into multiple kingdoms in the wake of the collapse of central authority when the Europeans came knocking. That didn't end very well for the Indian kingdoms.

Japan had an easy unifying figure and decades of nobility going over to Europe to see how far ahead the Western powers were and realizing they had to play catch up. Sans that, a divided China probably has more in common with India than it would with pre-Meiji Restoration Japan.


Eh, in Korea, the Joseon were ethnic Han Korean and had no rivals to threaten their legitimacy. They still went heavily isolationist (more so than Qing China or Tokugawa Japan) all the same due to internal unrest from famines, disease, and corruption. The conditions have to be right for external trade and diplomacy to be opened up; otherwise, it'd be seen as a route for potentially dangerous foreign ideologies and entities to enter the country (like how the Spanish and Portuguese missionary and colonial activities alarmed the Japanese and provided part of the reasoning for increased isolationism during the Edo period).


Wasn't anti-Manchu sentiment somewhat widespread, especially in South China, by the first half of the 19th century? The Taiping were especially gung-ho about wiping the Manchu race from the face of the planet and that doesn't seem to have been connected with race theory. The Manchu did assimilate well, but the targeted anti-Manchu rhetoric and massacres in the Taiping Rebellion, which was not led by elites and intelligentsia, point to pre-existing underlying tensions.

More like they enforced a lot of Manchu customs on the Chinese like the clothing as well. That’s why when the Taiping Rebellion broke out, the rebels caste away their qipaos in favour of theatre customes(theatre customs were the only lingering Hanfu that remained legal, as well the clothing of Taoist priests I believe). The Manchus were also running a de facto apartheid regime where the highest ranking government posts were dominated by ethnic Manchus, and the Manchus have guaranteed government pensions by just being born.

That said, I think a lot of the hate was propaganda.

 

[Onedotman]

More like they enforced a lot of Manchu customs on the Chinese like the clothing as well. That’s why when the Taiping Rebellion broke out, the rebels caste away their qipaos in favour of theatre customes(theatre customs were the only lingering Hanfu that remained legal, as well the clothing of Taoist priests I believe). The Manchus were also running a de facto apartheid regime where the highest ranking government posts were dominated by ethnic Manchus, and the Manchus haven’t guaranteed government pensions.

Most ordinary people back then didn't really care about being ruled by a non-Han dynasty, unless said dynasty was deliberately mistreating them like your example. Sure, back then there certainly was hatred against foreign invaders, but after the dust has settled business would still be as usual.

That said, I think a lot of the hate was propaganda.

I second this. There is this Chinese idiom: 非我族類，其心必異 (one who is not our people would have a different heart/mind), which means you should not be trusting foreigners because their "nature" is apparently unlike that of your kin. Thus you have such atrocities as Ran Min's Order to Kill the Barbarians (殺胡令), or the massacre of Manchus during the Xinhai Revolution. To this day you can occasionally come across such sentiment on the Chinese internet, e.g. "The Qing failed to modernize China because they were barbarians who only knew to conquer".