Which country was more powerful militarily in 1910: China or Germany?

Isoroku295 · Dec 13, 2019

betgo said:
China had to be reasonably formidable or it wouldn't have remained independent.

It was "independent" because it was too large and valuable for only one European power to lay claim. NOT because no European power was strong enough, but because no other European power would allow for such a dominance in China. It was "independent" because European powers kept each other in line. Hence why it was under a multitude of sphere of influences. So everyone could have a piece without any one taking the whole cake.

Lee-Sensei · Dec 13, 2019

heavenlykaghan said:
While China was not a first rate power by any means, people seem to underestimate Qing power in the 1900s, after the New Policy was implemented.
I would like to point out that the late Qing was also beginning to be industrialized, its not to the same degree as Japan obviously, but factories and rail ways were built and steel production rose. In 1910, the Qing could produce over 100,000 tons of modern industrial steel, almost half those of Japan (albeit still several times less than Italy or Austria).

The Hanyang factory founded by the Qing could also produce 2000-3000 of native made type 88 Mousers (and native made Maxim guns) annually by the 1900s, and the Qing also produced 3,900 heavy cannons, and over 80 of its own iron clad battle ships.

The revolution of 1911 killed Chinese industrialization. Industrial steel production dropped to 43,000 tons in 1914.
The ROC mostly used old Qing equipment, only produced 98 cannons during the war against Japan and cannot make a single battleship outside of importing foreign made parts and putting them together. At no point in history did the ROC produce more steel or weapons than the Qing dynasty in the 1900s.

By 1911, the New Army of the Qing dynasty, has reached roughly 16 garrisons and 16 combined battalions(hunhe lu ) large. Each garrison is roughly 12,500, while each combined batallion ranged from 3000-10000. This means that in 1911, the Qing had a modern standing army of over 200,000; contemporary Japan had 300,000-350,000, while Austria fluctuated between 440,000-480,000, Italy's was around 270,000. So the size of the modern Qing army actually wasn't significantly smaller than those of Italy's. Both the Qing and Italy's forces lacked reserves, but the Italians probably had the Qing beaten there. Worse is that the Qing also lacked a strong central command. However, the Qing does have a much larger second rate equipped military reserve due to its sheer population. Even if it lacked projection power, it was dauting enough to give invading powers a headache.

The Qing navy might have had a noticeable presence in 1890, when it ranked #9 in total tonnage and #6 in firepower in the world, rivaling those of Austria, but behind Italy's; but after the Sino-Japanese war, it completely fell off the top 15 list in terms of naval power; however, it was being rebuilt in the 1900s, and in 1910, the Qing ship Hai chi was able to enter American waters, sailing to Mexico and forcing it to agree to pay an indemnity on a local anti-Chinese riot there which killed 300 Chinese merchants. This indemnity was never paid because of the revolution of 1911, and naval built up also halted after that date.

In sum, when it comes to the standing army, the Qing actually could put up a fight against Italy in 1910, while its steel production was several times less, its sheer population size does account for something, if not just bogging down an invading army.

1) I mean no offense to the Chinese. I just wouldn’t compare it to any of the larger industrial powers at the time. I think that it would be more fair to compare it to countries like Brazil, Argentina or the Ottoman Empire. It was a regional power (although Russia was stronger by the early 19th Century at the latest and Japan had eclipsed them by the late 19th Century). China was without question, the third strongest country in its region.

2) Could the Italians or the Austrian-Hungarians conquer China. Nope. I’ve never said that and I’ve never believed it. Even Japan couldn’t do it in WW2 and they were neighbors. On the other hand, the Italians and Austria-Hungarians project power in that region? Yes. They did that during the Boxer Rebellion when they landed 1000’s of soldiers and Marines in China. Could China project power in the Mediterranean or the Adriatic? That’s doubtful. The Italian Navy one every engagement with the Ottoman Navy decisively during the Italo-Turkish War and they were neighbors. The same applies to the Austrians.

3) I knew some of the stuff here, but I didn’t know the details. I’d like to read more. Do you have any book recommendations on early Chinese industrialization?

Lee-Sensei · Dec 13, 2019

Lee-Sensei said:
It depends on how you compare them, but I wouldn’t really compare China to Italy or Austria-Hungary. These countries were both semi-industrialized, were capable of fielding millions of troops, had the infrastructure and know how to manufacture guns, artillery pieces, shells and planes by the hundreds of thousands and had some of the largest fleets in the world (Italy’s navy was roughly comparable to Japans in size and Austria-Hungary’s was the 6th largest).

That was a typo. Austria-Hungary was the 8th largest.

Isoroku295 · Dec 13, 2019

heavenlykaghan said:
The Hanyang factory founded by the Qing could also produce 2000-3000 of native made type 88 Mousers (and native made Maxim guns) annually by the 1900s, and the Qing also produced 3,900 heavy cannons, and over 80 of its own iron clad battle ships.

That is a rather puny number of Mousers. And those iron clad ships were not exactly a major concern against any first world power, by any means. It was a paper tiger fleet. It looked good when described as "iron clad battle ships", but in practice it simply wouldn't hold a candle.

By 1911, the New Army of the Qing dynasty, has reached roughly 16 garrisons and 16 combined battalions(hunhe lu ) large. Each garrison is roughly 12,500, while each combined batallion ranged from 3000-10000. This means that in 1911, the Qing had a modern standing army of over 200,000; contemporary Japan had 300,000-350,000, while Austria fluctuated between 440,000-480,000, Italy's was around 270,000. So the size of the modern Qing army actually wasn't significantly smaller than those of Italy's. Both the Qing and Italy's forces lacked reserves, but the Italians probably had the Qing beaten there. Worse is that the Qing also lacked a strong central command. However, the Qing does have a much larger second rate equipped military reserve due to its sheer population. Even if it lacked projection power, it was dauting enough to give invading powers a headache.

Much like the warships, this was a paper tiger. It merely looked good during parade, but it simply wasn't on the same level. It was "modern" in appearence, but paled in comparison to true modern forces.

In sum, when it comes to the standing army, the Qing actually could put up a fight against Italy in 1910, while its steel production was several times less, its sheer population size does account for something, if not just bogging down an invading army.

It almost certainly would have put up a fight largely because of the sheer distance from Italy, but also because Italy was itself a second rate power in Europe.

Lee-Sensei · Dec 13, 2019

Isoroku295 said:
That is a rather puny number of Mousers. And those iron clad ships were not exactly a major concern against any first world power, by any means. It was a paper tiger fleet. It looked good when described as "iron clad battle ships", but in practice it simply wouldn't hold a candle.

Much like the warships, this was a paper tiger. It merely looked good during parade, but it simply wasn't on the same level. It was "modern" in appearence, but paled in comparison to true modern forces.

It almost certainly would have put up a fight largely because of the sheer distance from Italy, but also because Italy was itself a second rate power in Europe.

The last point is key. Fighting off an Italian or an Austrian invasion wouldn’t mean much, because of the distances involved and because these were second tier powers with relatively weak industrial bases. Switch them out for France, Germany, Russia or Britain.

Isoroku295 · Dec 13, 2019

Lee-Sensei said:
The last point is key. Fighting off an Italian or an Austrian invasion wouldn’t mean much, because of the distances involved and because these were second tier powers with relatively weak industrial bases. Switch them out for France, Germany, Russia or Britain.

Then it's a curb stomp battle. The Chinese dressed up their military like it was first rate, but when everything was put to the test, it was still a third rate military wearing a first rate mask, focusing on quantity over quality.

Lee-Sensei · Dec 13, 2019

Isoroku295 said:
Then it's a curb stomp battle. The Chinese dressed up their military like it was first rate, but when everything was put to the test, it was still a third rate military wearing a first rate mask, focusing on quantity over quality.

That was a rhetorical question. My point was that if they’d have difficulty with distant second tier powers, they wouldn’t perform well against first tier powers with much stronger industrial bases, generally better technology and a much easier time projecting power in that region since all 4 of them had land near China.

Isoroku295 · Dec 13, 2019

Lee-Sensei said:
That was a rhetorical question. My point was that if they’d have difficulty with distant second tier powers, they wouldn’t perform well against first tier powers with much stronger industrial bases, generally better technology and a much easier time projecting power in that region since all 4 of them had land near China.

I entirely agree

heavenlykaghan · Dec 13, 2019

Lee-Sensei said:
1) I mean no offense to the Chinese. I just wouldn’t compare it to any of the larger industrial powers at the time. I think that it would be more fair to compare it to countries like Brazil, Argentina or the Ottoman Empire. It was a regional power (although Russia was stronger by the early 19th Century at the latest and Japan had eclipsed them by the late 19th Century). China was without question, the third strongest country in its region.

2) Could the Italians or the Austrian-Hungarians conquer China. Nope. I’ve never said that and I’ve never believed it. Even Japan couldn’t do it in WW2 and they were neighbors. On the other hand, the Italians and Austria-Hungarians project power in that region? Yes. They did that during the Boxer Rebellion when they landed 1000’s of soldiers and Marines in China. Could China project power in the Mediterranean or the Adriatic? That’s doubtful. The Italian Navy one every engagement with the Ottoman Navy decisively during the Italo-Turkish War and they were neighbors. The same applies to the Austrians.

3) I knew some of the stuff here, but I didn’t know the details. I’d like to read more. Do you have any book recommendations on early Chinese industrialization?

China was much stronger than countries like Brazil or Argentina through its sheer size, which does factor in, despite the lack of industrialization. Argentina was more of a rival to Mexico, which the Qing was able to force to agree on an indemnity in 1910 by merely showing up with its ship Hai Chi. The Great Power system was a Eurocentric measurement of power, only the intervention of combined forces from Britain and France forced countries like China to accept unequal treatises with countries like Prussia at first (the Qing refused on the grounds that Prussia wasn't strong in Asia, but Britain and France forced to Qing to negotiate, claiming Prussia was a great power in Europe).

I wasn't even talking about conquering China, other than Russia, Japan, and possibly Britain which might have been able to take a province or two because of their promixity, even France merely stalemated the Qing in 1884 in Vietnam. Italy and Austria would have likely been defeated by the Qing in Asia in the late 19th century, and certainly on a land war there in the 1900s. Italian and Austrian presence in China was sheerly the result of joining the spoil of the other powers, not their own military prowess. Japan's military dominance over the ROC was much greater than its dominance over the Qing army in 1910. It wasn't until after the collapse of the Qing that Japan was able to exert more influence in China and Manchuria.

The Italian Navy one every engagement with the Ottoman Navy decisively during the Italo-Turkish War and they were neighbors. The same applies to the Austrians.

The Qing navy was much stronger than the Ottoman Navy, even in the 1900s.
That the Italian and Austrian navy was stronger in 1910 is without question, however, this wasn't such a landslide in the late 1880s.
Below are the rankings by tonnage (1890) of the top world's navy:

1) Britain: 413 ships, 898280 tons
2) France: 357 ships, 535098 tons
3) Russia: 232 ships, 258904 tons
4) Italy: 188 ships, 223043 tons
5) Germany: 179 ships, 192677 tons
6) Spain: 91 ships, 126532 tons
7) United States: 60 ships, 122247 tons
8) Austria 107 ships, 121077 tons
9) Holland: 94 ships, 89716 tons
10) China: 97 ships, 78190 tons
11) Japan: 30 ships, 44635 tons

By tonnage China ranked 10th, not much behind Austria, by number of ships, China ranked 7th.

However, Jane's Fighting Ship of 1890 ranked the Chinese navy at number 6 because of its heavy armament (thanks to the heavy armors of its two capital warships), ahead of those of Austria, Japan, and the United States.

The Chinese navy did relatively well against Japan in 1894, despite the fact that no new ships were bought since 1888. The Battle of Huanghai was essentially a draw, even though China suffered greater losses. However in 1910, China navy was much smaller, although it was recovering, and China could still put to the seas self built warships, which the ROC couldn't do.

heavenlykaghan · Dec 13, 2019

Isoroku295 said:
That is a rather puny number of Mousers. And those iron clad ships were not exactly a major concern against any first world power, by any means. It was a paper tiger fleet. It looked good when described as "iron clad battle ships", but in practice it simply wouldn't hold a candle.

That the Qing navy was no longer large is true. I have no idea why you bracketted "iron clad battle ships" as if they are not true iron clad ships, because they were. Many of the Qing warships were also purchased from Europe. The Qing fleet was ranked #6 in the world in 1890 according to the Jane's Fighting Ship, see above.

Much like the warships, this was a paper tiger. It merely looked good during parade, but it simply wasn't on the same level. It was "modern" in appearence, but paled in comparison to true modern forces.

No it wasn't. Military experts of the time have noted the quality of these soldiers when a small portion of them did well against the allied forces in 1900.

The New Army under the late Qing and the Beiyang army that succeeded it under Yuan Shikai were just as well equipped as the most updated forces in Europe. Each battalion was organized with one gattling gun, 27 heavy guns and 18 field cannons, compared to just 12 field cannon per battalion organizations that were circulating in most modern armies of the time, including much of the Japanese and Russian army.

It almost certainly would have put up a fight largely because of the sheer distance from Italy, but also because Italy was itself a second rate power in Europe.

I didn't compare the Qing to first rate powers in Europe, I compared it specifically with second rate powers, or even third rate powers like Italy. The Qing army would have put up a defensive fight even against Japan in 1910, not just Italy.

betgo · Dec 13, 2019

Navies on paper with tonnage don't mean that much. The US and Spain looked comparable and Russia had a bigger navy than Japan.

No Bias FTW · Dec 13, 2019

Isoroku295 said:
That is a rather puny number of Mousers. And those iron clad ships were not exactly a major concern against any first world power, by any means. It was a paper tiger fleet. It looked good when described as "iron clad battle ships", but in practice it simply wouldn't hold a candle.

Not sure if you guys know this already, but the correct spelling is 'Mausers' not 'Mousers'.

Lee-Sensei · Dec 13, 2019

betgo said:
Navies on paper with tonnage don't mean that much. The US and Spain looked comparable and Russia had a bigger navy than Japan.

The US defeated Spain and the Russians sailed half way across the world to fight the Japanese on their own turf IIRC.

Lee-Sensei · Dec 13, 2019

heavenlykaghan said:
China was much stronger than countries like Brazil or Argentina through its sheer size, which does factor in, despite the lack of industrialization. Argentina was more of a rival to Mexico, which the Qing was able to force to agree on an indemnity in 1910 by merely showing up with its ship Hai Chi. The Great Power system was a Eurocentric measurement of power, only the intervention of combined forces from Britain and France forced countries like China to accept unequal treatises with countries like Prussia at first (the Qing refused on the grounds that Prussia wasn't strong in Asia, but Britain and France forced to Qing to negotiate, claiming Prussia was a great power in Europe).

I wasn't even talking about conquering China, other than Russia, Japan, and possibly Britain which might have been able to take a province or two because of their promixity, even France merely stalemated the Qing in 1884 in Vietnam. Italy and Austria would have likely been defeated by the Qing in Asia in the late 19th century, and certainly on a land war there in the 1900s. Italian and Austrian presence in China was sheerly the result of joining the spoil of the other powers, not their own military prowess. Japan's military dominance over the ROC was much greater than its dominance over the Qing army in 1910. It wasn't until after the collapse of the Qing that Japan was able to exert more influence in China and Manchuria.

The Qing navy was much stronger than the Ottoman Navy, even in the 1900s.
That the Italian and Austrian navy was stronger in 1910 is without question, however, this wasn't such a landslide in the late 1880s.
Below are the rankings by tonnage (1890) of the top world's navy:

1) Britain: 413 ships, 898280 tons
2) France: 357 ships, 535098 tons
3) Russia: 232 ships, 258904 tons
4) Italy: 188 ships, 223043 tons
5) Germany: 179 ships, 192677 tons
6) Spain: 91 ships, 126532 tons
7) United States: 60 ships, 122247 tons
8) Austria 107 ships, 121077 tons
9) Holland: 94 ships, 89716 tons
10) China: 97 ships, 78190 tons
11) Japan: 30 ships, 44635 tons

By tonnage China ranked 10th, not much behind Austria, by number of ships, China ranked 7th.

However, Jane's Fighting Ship of 1890 ranked the Chinese navy at number 6 because of its heavy armament (thanks to the heavy armors of its two capital warships), ahead of those of Austria, Japan, and the United States.

The Chinese navy did relatively well against Japan in 1894, despite the fact that no new ships were bought since 1888. The Battle of Huanghai was essentially a draw, even though China suffered greater losses. However in 1910, China navy was much smaller, although it was recovering, and China could still put to the seas self built warships, which the ROC couldn't do.

1) You might be right about their military being superior. I compared China to Argentina and Brazil, because Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world until the 1950’s and at least during WW2, they had the 8th largest Navy in the world. Brazil wasn’t as wealthy as Argentina, but it had a large army that was experienced, well trained and well equipped.

2) You can say it was Eurocentric if you want, but Europeans really did dominate the world at that point. The French won their war with China from what I recall.

3) According to your numbers, their was solidly smaller than Austria’s, almost overwhelmingly smaller than Germany’s, Italy’s, Russia’s, France’s and Britain’s.

4) Can you link me to information on the Battle of Huanghai? I haven’t read about this war in a long time. When I google it, I’m being lead to the Battle of Yalu River and that looks like a decisive Japanese victory.

5) If China was a second or tertiary tier power, why didn’t they get a seat at Versailles or a permanent seat in the League of Nations Council like Italy and Japan did?

betgo · Dec 13, 2019

Spain had a lot of tonnage, but it was all obsolete. The US destroyed the Spanish Navy so Spain couldn't resupply its colonies. Without that much land fighting, Spain had to agree to peace giving up practically everything.

You can't say China had the 8th or whatever navy based on tonnage and that means much.

At Each Kilometer · Dec 13, 2019

A photo of soldiers from the Eight-Nation Alliance, Beijing, 1900. These guys represent a multinational alliance fighting the Boxer rebels in Qing China. The German guy is right in the middle, much shorter than the Brit, first in the row. In fact Anglo-Saxons are the first three taller guys in the row (i thought that the third guy is Russian but he is an Australian), the second is the American soldier, all three + the forth / Indian soldier put there to show leading position of the British empire in this coalition i read.

betgo · Dec 13, 2019

At Each Kilometer said:
A photo of soldiers from the Eight-Nation Alliance, Beijing, 1900. These guys represent a multinational alliance fighting the Boxer rebels in Qing China. The German guy is right in the middle, much shorter than the Brit, first in the row. In fact Anglo-Saxons are the first three taller guys in the row (i thought that the third guy is Russian but he is an Australian), the second is the American soldier, all three + the forth / Indian soldier put there to show leading position of the British empire in this coalition i read.

I guess you got this from Wikipedia, which captions: Troops of the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900 (Russia excepted).Left to right: Britain, United States, Australia, India, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan.

Yeh, apparently, there were British, Australian, and Indian troops. Not sure if that meant Britain had the most important role. Obviously, India and Australia were closer than Europe, so their soldiers could be brought to China quicker.

China was pretty badly pushed around, but it wasn't conquered or partitioned.

The Boxer rebellion resulted in attacks on foreign embassies, presumably reflecting Chinese hostility to foreign domination. The eight nations were supposedly upholding international law, but looted badly, including much early art work etc.

sparky · Dec 14, 2019

there wasn't an Australian country in 1900 , the federation was formally instituted on the 1st of January 1901
the soldier is probably a member of the Royal Navy Australian squadron

At Each Kilometer · Dec 14, 2019

betgo said:
I guess you got this from Wikipedia, which captions: Troops of the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900 (Russia excepted).Left to right: Britain, United States, Australia, India, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan.

Yeh, apparently, there were British, Australian, and Indian troops. Not sure if that meant Britain had the most important role. Obviously, India and Australia were closer than Europe, so their soldiers could be brought to China quicker.

China was pretty badly pushed around, but it wasn't conquered or partitioned.

The Boxer rebellion resulted in attacks on foreign embassies, presumably reflecting Chinese hostility to foreign domination. The eight nations were supposedly upholding international law, but looted badly, including much early art work etc.

This is the article i read very recently and from it i learned that the third guy from left to right is an Australian soldier.

Troops of the Eight-Nation Alliance lined up in a propaganda picture, 1900 - Rare Historical Photos

The Boxer Rebellion was a violent anti-foreign and anti-Christian uprising that took place in China between 1899 and 1901.

rarehistoricalphotos.com

I am familiar with the photo for quite some time and always thought / assumed that he is an Russian. I did research a bit the subject. In Russian this rebellion is known as Ikhetuanskoye (transliteration) which is taken apparently from pinyin yihetuan. All Russian websites claim that he is an Russian. Left to right / British, American, Russian, Indian, German, French, Austro-Hungarian, Italian and Japanese. It is quite confusing indeed.

Anyway i posted this photo to show the presence of German troops in China in the very beginning of XXth century.

heavenlykaghan · Dec 14, 2019

Lee-Sensei said:
1) You might be right about their military being superior. I compared China to Argentina and Brazil, because Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world until the 1950’s and at least during WW2, they had the 8th largest Navy in the world. Brazil wasn’t as wealthy as Argentina, but it had a large army that was experienced, well trained and well equipped.

2) You can say it was Eurocentric if you want, but Europeans really did dominate the world at that point. The French won their war with China from what I recall.

Whether Europe dominated the world wasn't the point. The definition of a Great Power was based on the European international system, which while dominant, wasn't the only system around (the Chinese didn't follow it in many ways, especially before 1895; the fact that Korea was both a sovereign state and a vassal of China was a fact western and Japanese diplomats had to tolerate until 1895 despite complaints).

France didn't win on the battlefield. The war in Vietnam became a stalemate, with China winning the final battle before truce was called upon. While France annihilated the Nanyang fleet, its assault on Taiwan failed. The war has being interpreted as a strategic loss for China when viewed retrospectively because of relinquishing Vietnam to France, opening up the way for French extention of its sphere into Southern China after 1900, yet the fact is that China already planned to withdraw from Vietnam before declaring war on France, and did not in fact pay an indemnity as the French government demanded. There was hence no clear victor in the war.

3) According to your numbers, their was solidly smaller than Austria’s, almost overwhelmingly smaller than Germany’s, Italy’s, Russia’s, France’s and Britain’s.

Are you talking about the army size in 1910? It was certainly smaller than Austria's, but not much smaller than Italy's. However, these are just the new army we are talking about, the Qing still had a sizable less equipped force, which although not as effective, does factor in when it comes to a defensive war. The Qing was able to stalemate France with this force in 1888 despite having only around a 2:1 numerical superiority.

4) Can you link me to information on the Battle of Huanghai? I haven’t read about this war in a long time. When I google it, I’m being lead to the Battle of Yalu River and that looks like a decisive Japanese victory.

The Battle of Huanghai IS the Battle of Yalu, and it was not a decisive Japanese victory. The Chinese side suffered greater losses, but it was not annihilated, and both sides withdrew.

5) If China was a second or tertiary tier power, why didn’t they get a seat at Versailles or a permanent seat in the League of Nations Council like Italy and Japan did?

Versailles was post-ww1, we are talking about 1910. The ROC was a much weaker regime than the more centralized Qing state.

Search

Search

Which country was more powerful militarily in 1910: China or Germany?

More powerful military power overall in 1910?

Qing Empire

German Empire

Isoroku295

Lee-Sensei

Lee-Sensei

Isoroku295

Lee-Sensei

Isoroku295

Lee-Sensei

Isoroku295

heavenlykaghan

heavenlykaghan

betgo

No Bias FTW

Lee-Sensei

Lee-Sensei

betgo

At Each Kilometer

betgo

sparky

At Each Kilometer

Troops of the Eight-Nation Alliance lined up in a propaganda picture, 1900 - Rare Historical Photos

heavenlykaghan

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions