History of Ancient Chinese Technology

This thread may involve too many topics. I'll let the community and moderators decide how to handle or divide up this thread.

All of the below sites have a WEALTH of information. It's awesome, but they only represent a very small fraction of the stuff found in China.

Here is a forum about Chinese history:



Here is a website of an European professor who studies Chinese history. He works with lots of other well-informed people. He has recommended books, academic journals, and online stuff.



Here is a website about the mixture of Chinese society and Western society working together (for the most part):



Here is website about the basics of iron metallurgy:
"Carbon content, steel classifications, and alloy steels"
By Bob Capudean, Contributing Writer



Here are websites about ancient Chinese swords: (lots of neat pictures and information)
(1)

(2)

(3)

Check out the above and below websites. Read about ancient Chinese metallurgy, especially in regard to weapons. Notice how methodical, effective, and productive ancient Chinese metallurgy was compared to other ancient civilizations. India had its AMAZING Wootz steel sometime between 500 BC and 300 BC, but this was the exception not the norm. Ancient Rome was impressive but not that impressive (THE ROMAN SWORD IN THE REPUBLICAN PERIOD AND AFTER: ).


Here is an Amazon link to an awesome book. I wish I owned it, but I have glanced through it. It's friggin' awesome. Did I mention it's awesome?
"Weapons in Ancient China" by Yang Hong



It's a shame China progressed so quickly, and then became lazy or hedonistic. Hopefully, the current and future China will focus on improving people's self-expression, morals, lives, intelligence, and skills, and get rid of any stupidity and corruption.

Recently learned that steam engine was first invented during the Song Dynasty. Didn't know that before.

Sure? The ptolemids also had a working (steam engine) one, but it didnt went through since slaves were cheaper.

On the subject of Chinas history, I harbor the notion that China was too rich, too well developed and too unified to conquer the world (like the colonial Europeans more or less did) when it could.

Namely the Ming dynasty created a state where wealth was so abundant (and surrounding countries were relativly poor) that the drive to innovate, to go out and to explore was more or less missing, or, in cases like Zheng He, silenced.

If any of the European states unified Europe (basically, recreated the Roman Empire), something very similiar may have happened there.

As a matter of fact, I do wonder why states like France and England eventually became permanent, while states like Wu, Shu, or other split states from other periods never became more than an interesting footnote of history. I daresay that, before the advent of nationalism, the difference between a "French" and a "German" peasant were not significantly bigger than the ones between a "Wu" and a "Wei" one.

I think that the aristocratic system of Europe (vs the more meritocratic one of China) had a lot to do with that, and that Europes unification was "prevented" by Europe beeing Feudal, but I obviously only know the European side of that question.

Concerning why Europe conquered, its colonialism started at a time where it was fairly advanced (although not more than at this time the islamic world or east asia, also, in the 15-17 century, the West african countries like Mali or Songhai had significant militaries and were far from beeing pushovers), also, colonies lay outside of the social restriction of Europe. The colonies offered tremendous opportunities for advance, especially for the not-noble born colonists. Also, the fact that Europe was fairly advanced but individual European countries were small allowed them to administrate the new gains in a relativly efficient way.

for the Ming, advance was (correct me if I am wrong here) possible in China (provided one was competent or well connected), so the incentive to seek a new life far away was not that big.
Also, all Chinese empires were at the limits of their administrative efficiency, so each additional colony may have strained their administrations to the limit. if you want to find out what happens when a country goes over this limit, look at the fates of Russia or the ottoman Empire.

Last but not least, the fact that several main European powers colonised at the same time meant that a race between them developed, this competition greatly increased the amount of ressources that were poured into colonial efforts.
With precisly whom however was China supposed to compete?

IMHO, Europe never got to enjoy the benefits of a truly unified empire.
When Qin united China, they created a single system of writing and a single currency, which made scholarly exchange and commerce very easy. All citizens of the empire were offered the possibility to join the zhonghua culture, and be integrated into a single unified identity.

The Roman empire encompassed much of Europe, however the people of the empire was divided by citizenship status, with Roman at the top with Latin following a close second but above all else by a large margin. They didn't try to create any universal systems to give the people a unified identity, they commonly referred to different groups like Spaniards, goths, gauls, saxons, numidians, etc.

I think the earliest western example of a similar concept was in 1776 when the 13 colonies shook off British control and set to create a country of integrated people with a single language(the most widely used language in the world) and a single currency(the most influential currency in the world).

Mightypeon said:

As a matter of fact, I do wonder why states like France and England eventually became permanent, while states like Wu, Shu, or other split states from other periods never became more than an interesting footnote of history.

Click to expand...

The hundred years war was fought because the English King was also the Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine with other minor feifs like Gascony. If England had won, they would be one state. later the division was made permament by the reformation.

I daresay that, before the advent of nationalism, the difference between a "French" and a "German" peasant were not significantly bigger than the ones between a "Wu" and a "Wei" one.

Click to expand...

Not quite, the Germans traced their royal linage to a different son of Charlemagne. This started the divide, and later the reformation made it much more permanent at least for those Germans who became Lutheran. But the issue over who owned the Alsace-Lorraine was not settled until 1945.

I think that the aristocratic system of Europe (vs the more meritocratic one of China) had a lot to do with that, and that Europes unification was "prevented" by Europe beeing Feudal, but I obviously only know the European side of that question.

Click to expand...

Western Europe started as mostly Celtic, then the Latins from Southern Europe invaded. Then the Germanics invaded out of the East and North. Even before the final fall of Rome you had severe religious divides separating the groups who were already divided by race, history and language. The late Roman Empire was Catholic Christian, while many of the invading Germans were pagan or Aryan Gnostic Christian. These divides ultimately proved insurmountable so the new arrivals were not able to become Roman like the earlier Celts had. This destroyed the Pax Romana which otherwise could have continued to serve as an over-culture.

Concerning why Europe conquered, its colonialism started at a time where it was fairly advanced (although not more than at this time the islamic world or east asia, also, in the 15-17 century, the West african countries like Mali or Songhai had significant militaries and were far from beeing pushovers), also, colonies lay outside of the social restriction of Europe. The colonies offered tremendous opportunities for advance, especially for the not-noble born colonists. Also, the fact that Europe was fairly advanced but individual European countries were small allowed them to administrate the new gains in a relativly efficient way.

Click to expand...

The big drive in the age of Exploration was the loss of the Silk road following the black death and the collapse of the Mongol and Byzantine empires. This sealed off the East and its goods for which Europe had become fairly hungry. Add to this that Europe is precious metal poor and to get spices and silk required precious metals combined with the knowledge that Africa was the main supply of Arab gold with the final ingredients that the Reconquista had created an army of experienced warriors who could be transported by ships built with the new naval technology and you have everything needed for the beginnings of colonization. Until the Americas were discovered the goal was a way to India, China and Ceylon in the East and salves and African gold along the way.

Last but not least, the fact that several main European powers colonised at the same time meant that a race between them developed, this competition greatly increased the amount of ressources that were poured into colonial efforts.

Click to expand...

Besides Spain and Portugal there was actually very little competition in the early days. By the time the English and Dutch got into the game, Spain had already squandered the Gold and silver of the Americas buying mercs for the wars in Europe instead of creating a self sustaining military system. The more gold and silver Spain spent to buy mercs the less the metal was worth and the more they had to spend and it was a vicious cycle. This when England and Holland got into the game the Spanish were already past their prime even if no one knew it yet. Portugal never set out to colonize the east, instead it ran "factories" to harvest gold, slaves, silk, and spices for resale in Europe. On Brazil and a few Islands were really colonized and then populated with slaves. This was all Portugal could do with such a small population. This left their holdings vulnerable to British, French and Dutch expansion and Portugal was rapidly supplanted in many areas.

xywdx said:

IMHO,
I think the earliest western example of a similar concept was in 1776 when the 13 colonies shook off British control and set to create a country of integrated people with a single language(the most widely used language in the world) and a single currency(the most influential currency in the world).

Click to expand...

Actually the US did not have a Unified Monetary system on till the post Civil war era when the US government Took sole authority of Printing money and made it a crime to print US$. Before that the only universal currency the US had was gold and silver coin. The US dollar did not become a influential currency on till after the end of WWII, and that was because the US was the only country that survived with a functioning economy.

cmb=1968 said:

Actually the US did not have a Unified Monetary system on till the post Civil war era when the US government Took sole authority of Printing money and made it a crime to print US$. Before that the only universal currency the US had was gold and silver coin. The US dollar did not become a influential currency on till after the end of WWII, and that was because the US was the only country that survived with a functioning economy.

Click to expand...

I couldn't really think of any examples where a western nation tried in integrate its entire population, so this one is what I used.
Of coursea currency won't just appear and dominate the international market overnight, but I think the creation of the dollar was a very important step for economic development.

Well, a humourus anecdote I remember was trying to fine tune the game balance of a historical simulation game called "Europe Universalis 3". While it was quite easy to get at least "semi historical" data for the riches of provinces, results of the simulation were OK in Europe, until Super expansive Ming came. The AI in this game was the same for all countries (so basically, if it could eat a neighbour with few reprecursion it would do so). With that AI it, on average, took the Ming (starting from 1400) about 150 years to reach the north pole, Australia and the eastern border of the ottoman Empire.
While the current versions keep China in check (via some totally unhistoric modifiers), it raised, for me at least, the question wether the "peacefullness" of China was really the most expected result of the constellation of forces we had in this times.

Mightypeon said:

Well, a humourus anecdote I remember was trying to fine tune the game balance of a historical simulation game called "Europe Universalis 3". While it was quite easy to get at least "semi historical" data for the riches of provinces, results of the simulation were OK in Europe, until Super expansive Ming came. The AI in this game was the same for all countries (so basically, if it could eat a neighbour with few reprecursion it would do so). With that AI it, on average, took the Ming (starting from 1400) about 150 years to reach the north pole, Australia and the eastern border of the ottoman Empire.
While the current versions keep China in check (via some totally unhistoric modifiers), it raised, for me at least, the question wether the "peacefullness" of China was really the most expected result of the constellation of forces we had in this times.

Click to expand...

Well China did gobble up all the areas that were easy to get, and worth going after. Mongolia and Siberia didn't really add anything, no reason to go there. The Indian subcontinent was isolated by the Himalayas and the Central Asian areas didn't have a lot to offer except the Silk road which since China was the exporter and only imported Gold and silver from the traders, it didn't need.

Mightypeon said:

As a matter of fact, I do wonder why states like France and England eventually became permanent, while states like Wu, Shu, or other split states from other periods never became more than an interesting footnote of history. I daresay that, before the advent of nationalism, the difference between a "French" and a "German" peasant were not significantly bigger than the ones between a "Wu" and a "Wei" one.

Click to expand...

I thought states like Wu and Chu were theoretically under a central command, the Zhou emperor. People in different states still indentified themselves as countrymen, especially against foreign enemies like the Huns. This was especially true in the Spring and Autumn era when warlords were still loyal to the Zhou emperor. Things like Emperor Ping of Zhou fooled his warlords with beacon fires could happen because the warlords were still loyal to the emperor. Instead, states in Europe were all independent nations.

And I believe people in various states during Zhou dynasty also believed that they shared the same ancestor, Emperors Yang and Huang. And they also identified themselves collectively in an area called Zhong Hua, the central kingdom (my interpretation). This made the integration and unification much easier for Qin.