Ming Dynasty Case

1. Evaluate the relative power and capabilities of Chinese naval power and technology during the early Ming dynasty based on the sources in this chapter. Are you convinced by the arguments that is was a lack of will, rather than ability, that turned China away from active government support of overseas exploration, commerce, and settlement during this period? Why or why not?
Yes, I am convinced the Chinese chose not to further their overseas explorations during this time period. The Ming dynasty possessed an impressive navy consisting over 3,500 ships as well as thousands of sailors, marines and merchants. Their fleet was more than twenty times the size of the Spanish Armada. Their ship making abilities were superior, incorporating sturdy bamboo,
a local resource into their structures. The possessed knowledge of navigation beyond what was widely known at the time. Finally, the Ming dynasty embarked on seven voyages more than fifty years prior to Vasco da Gama’s expeditions. However, China had internal issues that swayed them to fixate on issues within their borders rather than exploring other countries. China claimed to be self-sufficient and did not feel the need to look for resources. Even with limited trade, China proved to be able to support their people without assistance. In order to accomplish a truly self-sufficient nation, the government needed to focus on developing new skills and discovering new resources. Finally, the Ming dynasty was threatened by the Mongols who were unresponsive to Chinese authority and violently infiltrated the border.
2. How do Chang and Li explain the Ming Dynasty's rapid shift away from naval activity and the emperors' failure to pursue overseas exploration and conquest in the fifteenth century? In your opinion, how important was the continued threat from Mongols and other groups of the Asian interior?
The Chinese had 3,500 of ships consisting of 1,700 warships and 400 armed transports. Their fleet was globally superior. Additionally, they had established navigational skills that considered weather conditions such as monsoons and utilized a navigational tool, the magnetic needle. However, the expeditions were conducted during a tumultuous time period when Confucianism and Chinese traditions were in question. As Chinese cultural traditions began to restore themselves, global expeditions and ways of accomplishing these missions began to dissipate. Chinese leaders began to resist foreign trade and focused on local resources. Li noted the Ming Dynasty’s interior military struggles against the Mongols. Unable to control the Mongols, China began to appear weak. The government attempted to regain their strength, but the Mongol’s battle tactics led the killing of many Chinese.
The threats from the Mongols and other groups of the Asian interior were significant during the Ming Dynasty and affected the government’s priorities. Global expeditions had to be delayed due to the growing need to strengthen their military defense. The cost and efforts to protect the border from the Mongol’s attacks as well as preparing the army for an impending battle likely pulled funds from naval exploration.

3. According to Pomeranz, in what ways were Europe and China similar around 1500? What factors caused their divergence? What does he consider the "East Asian Miracle," and why was it significant?
According to Pomeranz, China and Europe were similar around 1500 because they were in need of discovering resources as well as new ways to support their growing population.
Great Britain and China’s Yangzi Delta share commonalities in their environmental issues such as a dwindling timber supply and soil depletion. In response to their nations ecological disadvantages and dominant needs, China focused on its citizens through internal technologies whereas Europe began to explore other lands. Europe was able to discover America and began to extract its resources. Additionally, England’s discovery of coal help to fuel the industrialization and a capital intensive focus. In contrast, East Asia chose a labor intensive focus that concentrated on their own people and resources. Europe’s discoveries nullified the need to “manage [their] land intensively.” The “East Asian miracle” refers to the growth in Asia and the ability for Asia to support and develop skills. Whereas, Europe’s miracle is more economic driven and focused on
industrialization.
4. Consider Pomeranz's argument that China solved its need for resources through improved agricultural practices while Europe came to rely on goods from the American colonies. Also consider Chang's comment that "never was there any pressing need or driving impetus for ... a new route around Africa" for the Ming emperors. Is it arguable that China's "stagnation" and "fall" resulted in fact from its self-sufficiency and success? Was the incentive for transoceanic ventures actually western European societies' relative backwardness and nee of key resources?
China’s “stagnation” and “fall” was a result of its self-sufficiency and success.
As stated by a Manchu emperor, “there is nothing we lack.” East Asia was able to produce enough to sustain their people. However, the dynasty’s pride in their own success eventually led to their downfall. Europe utilized their centuries old knowledge of conquest continued to embark on expeditions, this time overseas, to extract resources from foreign lands. Europe, unlike China searched for what they could use from other lands, rather than what they could utilize on their own soil. Although, China grew and developed, its inability to continue maritime expeditions left the Ming Dynasty unsustainable. Both Europe and China focused on what could they achieve right now, but ultimately the European’s decision to invest in discovering and extracting outside resources solidified their future whereas China was left weakened and frozen in
the