The West vs. the Rest. When and why?

[ywxiao]

The Confucian scholars lost in "The Debate on Salt and Iron". The issue wasn't an ideological unwillingness to collect taxes; the problem was taxation was done through tax farming, state monopolies and other wasteful systems. Their problem was similar to ancient regime France; the peasants had little and the nobility were untaxed, but the nobility were the people carrying out government functions so it was politically untenable to tax them- who else had the position and experience to run administration of rural areas?

Yet the Song had no problem collecting taxes, they could extract 10-40% depending on need and had 5-10 times the annual income of Ming. Zhu Yuanzhang during his rise also did not have trouble, he made a conscious decision to change this once he ascended the throne. Despite widely hailed as a hero, Yu Qian is also one of the culprits that led Ming down the wrong path regarding economic policy. Merchants were barely taxed/regularly evaded tax compared Europe, the Imperial throne did not spend the necessary energy to change this.

You are going to have to expand on that. I'm pretty sure, just like in Europe, merchants attempted to enter the nobility/literati by marriage and having their children attempt to pass the examination.

I'm also not sure what you mean by exploitation; isn't this the dynasty where the government set prices and used the ever-normal granary to keep food at a reasonable level?

Think about this for a moment. All peasants are required to pay taxes in silver, so when tax time comes, they will need to exchange their coinage into silver. Now if you were a merchant, what would you be doing before tax time? Hint: You should be buying in some type of precious metal to sell at an inflated price later.

Your opinion may differ, but I believe Ming's problems stemmed mostly from its initial economic and military policy. Zhu Yuanzhang had some interesting but uneducated ideas, the implementation of these ideas and subsequent generation's failure to improve/correct paved the way to Ming's decline.

Despite these fatal weaknesses, Ming still managed to keep up with the west pretty much till the end. They did not always adopt western tech, but that's because often there is no need to. For example when the Ming navy fought several skirmishes against the Portuguese, they did not see the need to load their ships with cannons like the Portuguese did. Ming Junks were armed with fire rockets that were just as threatening if not more so due to sailor's unnatural fear for fire. Yet when they blew up one and capture two Portuguese ships, they still reverse engineered the cannons and put them to use in the army. Even at the bitter end, the cannons produced by Ming were almost on par with Portuguese, perhaps 5-10 years behind which is hardly anything during that period.

 

[Maq]

@Båtsman presented a critique of my theses on feudalism focused on Swedish example.
Let me say first that within the West I understand (originally) Catholic part of Europe, and that I can see three subgroups within this group:
The first one is direct successors or offsprings of Carolingian Empire.
The second is that part where the influence of ancient Roman culture and institutions (and Roman law!) remained remarkably limited, and traditional Germanic customs prevailed. British islands, and Europe's North.
The third is Switzerland.
What I want to say is that Sweden is not very suitable in order to search for common patterns within Western societies. I'd rather suggest to focus on the core of Carolingian realm, i.e. France, Low Countries, and Germany. Following that, we should use Sweden (or England) to verify our findings. If they fit for both subgroups, we can consider them a design-pattern-feature common for the whole West. And if such a finding is present in the West, but largerly missing in the Rest, then we have possibly found something that helped to make the West so special.

Båtsman is quite correct when pointing to the fact, that rich farmers (those able to adopt agricultural innovations) may appear even if nothing like 'feudalism' ever occured in given society. That's correct. My counter-arguments are following:
Rich landowners are probably the most likely forerunners in new technologies, but not all innovations required large expenses to get adopted, especially in the early stages. Crop rotation requires market economy, if anything. Deep plough requires cattle or horses.
Agricultural innovations are not that much driven by abundance of capital, it's rather the ratio between two other prodution factors: land and labour. If land is scarce and shortage of labour is unknown (China) then there's no need to increase productivity of labour in farming. (Indeed, in China, innovations were outright opposed precisely for that reason.) If legal owners are not engaged in farming but only collect rents (Near East and India), any increase in crops leads only to higher rents. Typically, such landlords left their peasants with nothing above minimum level for surviving. And in Russia, landlords were usually more warriors than farmers, so they did not pay necessary attention to their estates (until 19th century).

Next point: Legal protection of proprietary rights. In Sweden, the King allied the yeomen against magnates. The reason is obvious, and it's also obvious why conflicts between these three parties differed in time and place. The balance of power might have been different, the logic of the conflict always the same.

Third point: Landlords were armed. Here, Båtsman's objections are clearly specific for Sweden and similar countries. There were few serfs in Sweden, but many serfs in France. So virtually all Swedes carried weapons, while only aristocrats and relatively minor group of freemen did in France.
But what can we see outside Europe? Armed freemen-farmers? Where? That is my point.
In Russia, Near East, and India, the armed aristocracy was far more military-based and -oriented. In China, only Imperial soldiers were permitted to carry weapons.
My point is that in the West, free farmers enjoyed freedom and dignity unparalelled in the Rest. Like Båtsman said, all Swedish kings might have dreamed about turning freemen into serfs, but they couldn't! Compare that with Russia, Egypt, or China...
Free men - not only farmers - enjoyed legal protection and status significantly better than in the Rest. They were also stronger in numbers, and as European economy developed, also in wealth and power. That seems clear when observed in 18th century, but I say - it all began in feudal times, when free farmers carried weapons.

 

[Maq]

There were fundamental changes in Ming China and the concept of Mandate of Heaven.
Think for a moment, Ming has a far larger economic base than Song, yet the taxes collected were much lower, in some years only 1/10 of what Song collected. Have you ever lived in in a major power nation that only had 1.5-2% taxes? You haven't, because there is none.

You could say with the establishment of Ming, China no longer has a clear goal, there was really nothing worthwhile to be pursued around them. In contrast, Song was in a much more difficult situation, with several hostile nations eyeing its holdings, similar to the situation in Europe.

I've always said the rivalry system and army/navy traditions should be made much much stronger, since that's where Europe's strength was at. It would be nice if Prussia would become Ming like after it conquered all of HRE PLC and France, then fall into decadency because of no rivals and get unexpectedly trashed by superior Muscovy infantry or something. It would make the game much more dynamic and realistic.

I don't think that innovations require competition on national scale. It's rather differing conditions around you, and real opportunity to choose. National borders can be - and often were - one of the obstacles which limited such opportunity.
I've got personal exprience with that: In my youth, I lived in a country totally controlled (totalitarian, right?) from one power center (the Party central committee). All citizens were subject to the same rules, and the frontiers were closed. For good reason - otherwise all people would escape in search for better life.
Totalitarian system killed competition, that's why it proved to be a failure. Open society, on the other hand, approves differences in methods, approaches, ideas, etc. If China were ever liberal like that, she would actually benefitted from political unity.
I agree that while being small, it's harder to stagnate against all neighbours. But it does not mean that you inevitably stagnate when you get big.

 

[SDSkinner]

Think about this for a moment. All peasants are required to pay taxes in silver, so when tax time comes, they will need to exchange their coinage into silver. Now if you were a merchant, what would you be doing before tax time? Hint: You should be buying in some type of precious metal to sell at an inflated price later.

I'm pretty sure the price of silver was set by the Ming government precisely to prevent that from happening.

Your opinion may differ, but I believe Ming's problems stemmed mostly from its initial economic and military policy. Zhu Yuanzhang had some interesting but uneducated ideas, the implementation of these ideas and subsequent generation's failure to improve/correct paved the way to Ming's decline.

No, I agree those were a major contributor.

Despite these fatal weaknesses, Ming still managed to keep up with the west pretty much till the end. They did not always adopt western tech, but that's because often there is no need to. For example when the Ming navy fought several skirmishes against the Portuguese, they did not see the need to load their ships with cannons like the Portuguese did. Ming Junks were armed with fire rockets that were just as threatening if not more so due to sailor's unnatural fear for fire. Yet when they blew up one and capture two Portuguese ships, they still reverse engineered the cannons and put them to use in the army. Even at the bitter end, the cannons produced by Ming were almost on par with Portuguese, perhaps 5-10 years behind which is hardly anything during that period.

I believe the Mughals, Persia, the Ottomans and Japan also accomplished that feat. Keeping up with 17th century military was well within the capabilities of centralized states even if they didn't have Europe's background.

 

[ywxiao]

I'm pretty sure the price of silver was set by the Ming government precisely to prevent that from happening.

Didn't work very well, as evidenced by the massive inflation in the second half of Ming. You can set a price for silver, but if no one wants to sell at that price, what are you going to do? Farmers don't have the choice of postponing taxes, so they have to pay up.

 

[Henry IX]

A critical factor that gave the West a huge advantage in the 16th century, when in general they had little in the way of other fundamental advantages yet were still beginning to project power globally, was in ship building. Whilst in medieval times the dhow or junk were as good or better than the cog by the 16th century this was increasingly not the case. European ships were capable of far longer journeys, and hence the Europeans could project power. The end result of this was that they could make gains when others were weak, but were insulated from anything other than local counter attack.

If you look at the history of European colonialism in India during this time, what you tend to see in the Europeans forced back into their costal fortifications on a regular basis, but the locals being unable to completely drive them out, partly due to the European ability to resupply from sea and also their superior mobility, which allowed rapid concentrations of available strength. This is in spite of the Indians having guns that were as good as the Europeans.

The reasons for this superior shipping capability are complex and subject to criticism, but I would argue that financial innovations from the late middle ages such as insurance, corporations (which function to limit liability) and competitive large scale banking made high cost, high risk, high return ventures like long distance trade possible. This in turn produced a competitive market for better shipping, which helped to drive a continuous cycle of improvement.

 

[Maq]

I believe the Mughals, Persia, the Ottomans and Japan also accomplished that feat. Keeping up with 17th century military was well within the capabilities of centralized states even if they didn't have Europe's background.

There's a lot of historical evidence that firearms of all non-Western countries were not on par with European ones. All these empires were eager to hire European engineers as advisors.

 

[Maq]

A critical factor that gave the West a huge advantage in the 16th century, when in general they had little in the way of other fundamental advantages yet were still beginning to project power globally, was in ship building. Whilst in medieval times the dhow or junk were as good or better than the cog by the 16th century this was increasingly not the case. European ships were capable of far longer journeys, and hence the Europeans could project power. The end result of this was that they could make gains when others were weak, but were insulated from anything other than local counter attack.

If you look at the history of European colonialism in India during this time, what you tend to see in the Europeans forced back into their costal fortifications on a regular basis, but the locals being unable to completely drive them out, partly due to the European ability to resupply from sea and also their superior mobility, which allowed rapid concentrations of available strength. This is in spite of the Indians having guns that were as good as the Europeans.

The reasons for this superior shipping capability are complex and subject to criticism, but I would argue that financial innovations from the late middle ages such as insurance, corporations (which function to limit liability) and competitive large scale banking made high cost, high risk, high return ventures like long distance trade possible. This in turn produced a competitive market for better shipping, which helped to drive a continuous cycle of improvement.

You point to shipbuilding, and at the same time stating that "they had little in the way of other fundamental advantages". But shipbuilding progress was fuelled mainly by trading interests, and advanced trade is indeed a fundamental advantage.
You point to important achievements behind this advance yourself, like banking, joint ventures, insurance, a.o. These were instruments remarkably more advanced in Europe (from 14th century on) than in the Rest, and their importance and significance can hardly be overestimated.
===
And when it comes to trade in Indian ocean, combat superiority of European ships was important, of course, but it could not save the day on its own. It was the European trading skills which made them THE traders of the oceans.
Many people on these forums noted that Europeans had little to offer to Asian societies, while they imported many goods unavailable in Europe. That is not entirely correct. What Europeans offered vere service - the trade itself. They created trading net ranging from Basra to Japan, effective on the level which has not been achieved ever before. (It is during this period when Silk Road definitely lost in importance, and Central Asia became impoverished.) Europeans realized 90% of their turnover in Asian seas alone. Imports to Europe were marginal in volumes.

 

[icedt729]

A critical factor that gave the West a huge advantage in the 16th century, when in general they had little in the way of other fundamental advantages yet were still beginning to project power globally, was in ship building. Whilst in medieval times the dhow or junk were as good or better than the cog by the 16th century this was increasingly not the case. European ships were capable of far longer journeys, and hence the Europeans could project power. The end result of this was that they could make gains when others were weak, but were insulated from anything other than local counter attack.

If you look at the history of European colonialism in India during this time, what you tend to see in the Europeans forced back into their costal fortifications on a regular basis, but the locals being unable to completely drive them out, partly due to the European ability to resupply from sea and also their superior mobility, which allowed rapid concentrations of available strength. This is in spite of the Indians having guns that were as good as the Europeans.

The reasons for this superior shipping capability are complex and subject to criticism, but I would argue that financial innovations from the late middle ages such as insurance, corporations (which function to limit liability) and competitive large scale banking made high cost, high risk, high return ventures like long distance trade possible. This in turn produced a competitive market for better shipping, which helped to drive a continuous cycle of improvement.

I absolutely agree European ship designs were a key element in reaching the Americas and making it to India around the Cape. But, before long those galleons were being built in India and the Philippines by local labor rather than assembled in Europe and shipped over. So the issue is not a technical failure to recognize and adopt new technologies on behalf of society as a whole, but a strategic failure on the part of states to expand or modernize their navies.

 

[Maq]

I absolutely agree European ship designs were a key element in reaching the Americas and making it to India around the Cape. But, before long those galleons were being built in India and the Philippines by local labor rather than assembled in Europe and shipped over. So the issue is not a technical failure to recognize and adopt new technologies on behalf of society as a whole, but a strategic failure on the part of states to expand or modernize their navies.

I would not call backwardness 'a strategic failure on the part of the states'. The thing is much more complex. If it were not, then engaging a few experts from developed countries would quickly turn Togo into a new economic tiger.

 

[icedt729]

I would not call backwardness 'a strategic failure on the part of the states'. The thing is much more complex. If it were not, then engaging a few experts from developed countries would quickly turn Togo into a new economic tiger.

The problem Togo has now is exactly the opposite of the problem that South or Southeast Asia had in the 16th century. Elites from Togo can now go study in the finest universities and get the most up-to-date knowledge on development and economics, then go home to a country that doesn't have the physical or human capital to implement that knowledge quickly. Yet smiths in numerous Asian countries were able to quickly set up domestic production of Western-standard guns, and their shipwrights were equally capable of building ships to Western standards- in India, they could build more durable ones and for a lower price. Manila was nowhere near the top tier of Asian ports but even it had a shipbuilding industry capable of churning out massive galleons for Spain's treasure fleet. You mentioned the importance of Europe's carrying trade, but you missed the fact that that trade was overwhelmingly conducted with Asian-built ships.

The point here is that there was very technical little gap between, say, the English and the Bengalis is the 16th century. They were both capable of rapidly adapting each other's technologies and techniques. Europeans didn't simply stroll into Asia and overawe the natives, they gradually increased their power and influence over the course of centuries, expanding most rapidly and easily when they found a local state in political or military crisis. The key factor in whether a region was conquered or not was political organization and effective response, not any fundamental economic-technological difference.

 

[Maq]

smiths in numerous Asian countries were able to quickly set up domestic production of Western-standard guns, and their shipwrights were equally capable of building ships to Western standards- in India, they could build more durable ones and for a lower price

No. Indian smiths were unable to fully imitate European cannons even under guidance of Europeans. I've read that they kept on smelting bronze cannons as they were unable to produce suitable iron.
And as for the shipwrights, yes, they were situated in Asia and used Asian labour force, but remained owned and led by Europeans. So, despite local labour force had the opportunity to learn and adopt Western standards in shipbuilding - like the Togolese students - they failed to transfer this knowledge to genuinely domestic shipbuilding - to a country that doesn't have the physical or human capital to implement that knowledge.
This is a general rule which I'm ready to repeat over and over: before you create things, they must be in your mind. By which I don't mean that much a mind of an individual, but the mind of the society.
I'm sure that many Indian merchants were rich enough to purchase a caravel, but only very few were on the level - mentally - for such a venture. It's not easy to evade patterns uniformly shared by one's kinsmen.
(In fact, from 18th century on, we can find evidence of Asian traders and sailors participating not only in positions of hired labour, but also for their own profit. But these individuals achieved no more but to adopt and add to European trading network. In a sense, they joined the colonialists in their enterprise.)

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

No. Indian smiths were unable to fully imitate European cannons even under guidance of Europeans. I've read that they kept on smelting bronze cannons as they were unable to produce suitable iron.

Japanese smiths quickly copied European muskets and even improved them.

 

[civfanatic]

No. Indian smiths were unable to fully imitate European cannons even under guidance of Europeans. I've read that they kept on smelting bronze cannons as they were unable to produce suitable iron.

Where did you read that? Smiths in India were already producing iron cannons by the late 15th century. In fact, when the Portuguese first arrived in India in the early 16th century, they hired Indian smiths to produce guns for them, because they found the local iron artillery to be superior to the German artillery (the Germans and Bohemians at that time were renowned as being the best gun manufacturers in Europe):

Here is a surviving example of an early Indian iron cannon, produced between 1500 and 1520 in South India:

Also, generally speaking, the later British conquest of India in the 18th and early 19th centuries had almost nothing to do with superior military technology.

 

[Maq]

Where did you read that? Smiths in India were already producing iron cannons by the late 15th century. In fact, when the Portuguese first arrived in India in the early 16th century, they hired Indian smiths to produce guns for them, because they found the local iron artillery to be superior to the German artillery (the Germans and Bohemians at that time were renowned as being the best gun manufacturers in Europe):

Here is a surviving example of an early Indian iron cannon, produced between 1500 and 1520 in South India:

Also, generally speaking, the later British conquest of India in the 18th and early 19th centuries had almost nothing to do with superior military technology.

This is quite new and surprising to me.
I've read that when Vasco da Gama arrived to India in 1498, he found there Italian (and other European) mercenaries hired as advisors for gunmaking.
Also, during the early war of the Protuguese against Calicut (there's a detailed description of this war on Wikipedia), Portuguese were not afraid of Indian guns, as they were far inferior to theirs. Only when two Venetian experts arrived to Calicut and helped them to forge five guns, the Portuguese were alarmed. Indeed, their main condition during peace negotiations was to get handed on those two Venetians.
Also, I've read that Osmans hired a Hungarian engineer to create their biggest cannon for the siege of Constantinople.
On the other side, I've never read about Europeans hiring Asian advisors on guns or muskets. Never heard of any Indian gunsmith teaching any Europeans how to make guns.
===
You know, I sometimes argue against some revisionists who claim Europeans possessed no advantage against Asians before Industrial revolution except military ability, greed, and murderous temper. Now, you point to an example of Indian superiority in gunsmithing. Why then Europeans quickly gained control in Indian ocean and were able to maintain control in coastal trading posts? If it were not their better guns, then what? Nasty language?
===
That is not to say that I dismiss your example... It just does not fit with everything I know on the topic... I'm confused. What is your source exactly?

 

[Maq]

Japanese smiths quickly copied European muskets and even improved them.

I don't know of any improvements, but generally, yes, Japanese were apt pupils. Not only in this case.

 

[civfanatic]

This is quite new and surprising to me.
I've read that when Vasco da Gama arrived to India in 1498, he found there Italian (and other European) mercenaries hired as advisors for gunmaking.
Also, during the early war of the Protuguese agains Calicut (there's a detailed description of this war on Wikipedia), Portuguese were not afraid of Indian guns, as they were far inferior to theirs. Only when two Venetian experts arrived to Calicut and helped them to forge five guns, the Portuguese were alarmed. Indeed, their main condition during peace negotiations was to get handed on those two Venetians.
Also, I've read that Osmans hired a Hungarian engineer to create their biggest cannon for the siege of Constantinople.

The most advanced part of India when it came to gunpowder weapons technology was the Deccan Plateau region, where the use of gunpowder weapons is first attested both archaeologically and in literary sources (by the 1460s, and possibly earlier). Other parts of India, both in the north and in the farthest south, seem to have been less advanced when it came to military technology. In North India, for example, it seems that gunpowder weapons were only introduced after the Mughals under Babur invaded the Indo-Gangetic plain in the 1520s. At the Battle of Panipat in 1526, Babur's army possessed the latest matchlock muskets and cannon, while his enemies (the Lodis) did not possess any gunpowder weapons at all. Likewise, places like Calicut in the far south do not seem to have had the advanced gunpowder weapons (iron cannons and guns) that the Deccan Plateau had.

It is not why clear why the Deccan Plateau deployed gunpowder weapons sooner than other parts of India, but it was probably due to a combination of factors, including the highly competitive nature of warfare between the Bahmani Sultanate and the Vijayanagara Empire, the innovative nature of several ministers (especially the famous Mahmud Gawan of the Bahmani Sultanate), close contacts with the Middle East, and the advanced metallurgical traditions of the Deccan (the famed "Damascus steel" blades of the Middle East were produced using imported Deccan steel).

On the other side, I've never read about Europeans hiring Asian advisors on guns or muskets. Never heard of any Indian gunsmith teaching any Europeans how to make guns.

In 1513, the Portuguese captain Afonso de Albuquerque sent Pero Masqarenhas back to Portugal with samples of local Indian guns, which he judged to be as good as the Bohemian guns (Bohemians were regarded as the best gun manufacturers in Europe, along with Germans). These Indian guns were probably reverse-engineered in Portugal. We also know that in India itself, the Portuguese relied on local gunsmiths for their arsenal, and the Portuguese Estado de India exported these Indian guns as far as Japan.

You know, I sometimes argue against some revisionists who claim Europeans possessed no advantage against Asians before Industrial revolution except military ability, greed, and murderous temper. Now, you point to an example of Indian superiority in gunsmithing. Why then Europeans quickly gained control in Indian ocean and were able to maintain control in coastal trading posts? If if were not their better guns, then what? Nasty language?

You are asking two separate questions here: why the Europeans gained control of the Indian Ocean, and why they were able to maintain control in the coastal trading posts. These questions have different answers.

For the first question, Europeans (starting with the Portuguese in the early 16th century) were able to dominate the Indian Ocean because of their superior navy and superior seamanship, not because of their superiority in gunpowder weapons. Many Asian states did not even have formal navies during this time. For example, there is no evidence that Vijayanagara, the most powerful state in South India and an early user of gunpowder weapons, ever had a formal navy. For whatever reason, it was not considered strategically important for the state to maintain an active navy. When Asian states had navies, however, there are multiple occasions when European fleets were defeated in armed combat. For example, the Portuguese were defeated by the Ming Chinese navy at Tuen Mun (1521) and at Sai Tso Wan (1522). The Portuguese acquired Macau in southern China only because the Ming government voluntarily decided to lease Macau to the Portuguese.

For your second question, the Europeans were able to maintain control over the coastal trading posts only to the extent that they maintained friendly relations with the major inland Asian powers. I already gave the example of Macau in China. In India, the Portuguese (and later, the Dutch, French and English) were able to maintain trading posts because they had negotiated favorable alliances and trading agreements with the major Indian powers. For example, the Portuguese allied themselves with Vijayanagara and promised to give Vijayanagara exclusive access to war-horses that the Portuguese shipped in from the Middle East, thus securing the Portuguese possession of Goa. However, when the Portuguese antagonized the major powers, their trading posts were easily overrun. A good example would be the decision by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan to expel the Portuguese from Hughly (in Bengal) in 1632 because of their kidnappings and slavery, and later, the Mughal governor Shaista Khan conquered the Portuguese settlement at Chittagong in 1666 (after defeating the state of Arakan). The Mughals were also able to easily defeat the English in the 1680s, and the Mughal navy was able to blockade the major English trading ports like Bombay. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child's_War.

That is not to say that I dismiss your example... It just does not fit with everything I know on the topic... I'm confused. What is your source exactly?

The source is the article "Warfare on the Deccan Plateau, 1450-1600: A Military Revolution in Early Modern India?" by Richard Eaton and Philip Wagoner.

 

[icedt729]

This is a general rule which I'm ready to repeat over and over: before you create things, they must be in your mind. By which I don't mean that much a mind of an individual, but the mind of the society.
I'm sure that many Indian merchants were rich enough to purchase a caravel, but only very few were on the level - mentally - for such a venture. It's not easy to evade patterns uniformly shared by one's kinsmen.
(In fact, from 18th century on, we can find evidence of Asian traders and sailors participating not only in positions of hired labour, but also for their own profit. But these individuals achieved no more but to adopt and add to European trading network. In a sense, they joined the colonialists in their enterprise.)

Europeans built caravels to explore the Atlantic. Why did they explore the Atlantic? In search of the Indies. Meanwhile the Indies already had a maritime trade network reaching from Nagasaki to Mombasa, supported by indigenous labor and technology. Asian merchants had no reason to round the Cape of Good Hope or drive straight into the open Pacific other than pure curiosity, where Europeans could view it as a calculated risk with a chance for gain. It has nothing to do with one people being more adventurous or creative than another and everything to do with different incentives.

Also, you'll have to support your claim that Europeans dominated Asian shipping in the 16th century. Military advantage in areas without formal navies is not the same as making up a majority or even large share of commercial traffic.

 

[Maq]

Also, you'll have to support your claim that Europeans dominated Asian shipping in the 16th century.

16th century? Not yet. But soon after that - yes, definitely.
And as for whether Asians had good reasons to navigate... Well, it's the eternal argument of the losers, isn't it? At first, they did not have reason to do it. And later, when Europeans did do and became rich through it, well, it was because Asians were so lenient, and Europeans so greedy...
And now, it looks like all Asians and Africans blame the Europeans for their poverty.

 

[SDSkinner]

Didn't work very well, as evidenced by the massive inflation in the second half of Ming. You can set a price for silver, but if no one wants to sell at that price, what are you going to do? Farmers don't have the choice of postponing taxes, so they have to pay up.

Inflation means that silver is cheap (since it is the unit of currency). Opposite problem, caused by the continual import of silver.