The Gunpowder Age - Tonio Andrade

So, gunpowder, and the earliest weapons utilizing it, were developed in China. It was a few centuries before we can confirm its appearance in Europe, but by the 1800s, China had fallen well behind the European powers when it came to guns and cannons. Andrade is trying to investigate why that happened, and when the gap really appeared, and whether a lot of the classic explanations hold water. Ideas like "Confucianism discouraged focus on militarism", "China was closed to ideas from other cultures", "China never had a high use of gunpowder weapons".

He starts at the earliest records he could find of gunpowder weapons, describes the different types, their usage in battle based off whatever historical records were available (apparently, most dynasties in China kept extensive records, other than the stretch where the Mongols were running things). So he can show that soldiers with early guns or fire lances might comprise up to 30% of their armed forces, centuries before an European armies could make similar claims.

It seems like China falls behind twice, during periods where there's a dynasty firmly entrenched, and it doesn't face any external threats to its independence. Meanwhile, everyone in Europe is busy fighting and killing each other over one thing or another, so everyone it trying to get an edge. During the 1600s, China faces off against first the Dutch, then the Russians, and while they acknowledge that they've been surpassed in artillery and firearms, they quickly close the gap, and manage no worse than a draw.

But when there's another long period of peace in the 18th and 19th centuries, they fall behind again. This time, even though the Opium Wars convince the Qing Dynasty it needs to close the gap, things are advancing so swiftly that proves difficult. There's a quote from a British naval historian that notes that the most advanced ship in the British Navy of 1867 could have trounced the entire British Navy of 1857. And that the same would have been true 10 years after that, and 10 years after that. When you're already behind, keeping up with that level of advancement is tricky.

It's an interesting read. Andrade takes his time and tries to address the past explanations, show why they do or do not match the evidence we have. That one reason why China may have fallen behind Europe in artillery was because the walls around cities and fortresses in China were so much thicker and resistant to artillery than those in Europe, attacking walls wasn't seen as a feasible approach. It's the difference in building a cannon to break through a 2-meter thick wall, versus a 20-meter thick wall.

'The problem for an old state isn't so much embracing the new as getting rid of the old. Qing subjects got good at manufacturing steamships and training rifle corps, but the Qing government had to spend enormous sums on armies it had established in the seventeenth century. By the mid-nineteenth century, those forces, hundreds of thousands of men, were nearly useless. The court could not abolish them or even change them in any fundamental way - they were powerful interest blocs invested in the status quo. But it also couldn't afford them.'