51吃瓜

While the West declines, the East emerges. Power, indeed, seems to be shifting to the East and very particularly to China. A very important question we must ask ourselves as we examine this shift is how long the West has been on top. Was it only during the last 200 years, when Pax Britannica and Pax Americana ruled the world? Or, conversely, was it for the last five centuries, when scientific progress and global expansion were clearly led by the West? This is a relevant debate, as it may show whether Western dominance was but a brief and superficial parenthesis in the history of humanity or, by contrast, a larger and more rooted feature. 

Two hundred or 500 years?

Singaporean diplomat and scholar Kishore Mahbubani and Scottish historian Niall Ferguson are on opposite sides of this debate. Mahbubani that such control dates back to the 1800s. In his , 鈥渢he kind of incredible domination of the world that America and the West enjoyed for the last 200 years was a hugely artificial moment of history.鈥�

Meanwhile, Ferguson that it began in the 1500s. He asserts that 鈥渨e are living through the end of 500 years of Western dominance 鈥� when the greater part of humanity was more or less subordinated to the civilization that arose in Western Europe in the wake of Renaissance and Reformation.鈥�

When China ruled

No one would put in doubt, though, that until the 15th century the world鈥檚 supremacy was on China鈥檚 side. Two hallmarks that took place at the beginning of the 1400s, when the 鈥� the greatest of the Ming rulers 鈥� was on the throne, are testimony of that. The first hallmark is the Emperor鈥檚 commissioning of a compendium of Chinese knowledge that filled more than 11,000 volumes, the largest encyclopedia known to humanity until the appearance of . That was at a time when the West had not yet invented the printing press, when knowledge of classical antiquity had mostly vanished and when what little remained was laboriously copied by hand on parchment in Christian monasteries. 

The second hallmark is that the Yongle Emperor backed the gigantic fleet and the six epic voyages to Southeast Asia, India, the Persian Gulf and East Africa that Chinese Admiral undertook between 1405 and 1424. The fleet was composed of 317 ships, of which over 60 were more than 400 feet long and 160 feet wide. Being several stories high, these big vessels had nine masts and 12 sails. It would take until World War I to assemble another armada of such proportions. Around 28,000 people participated in the first such , which, in addition to sailors and soldiers, included scholars and astronomers. What a striking difference from the three tiny caravels that, under the leadership of Italian explorer , ventured into the wider Atlantic Ocean at the end of that same century.

Moreover, at that point in time China had already invented, among many other things, paper, the printing press, gunpowder, the magnetic compass, advanced iron production and sophisticated hydraulic engineering. Indeed, in engineering, chemistry, metallurgy, medicine, mathematics and navigation, the Chinese enjoyed overwhelming scientific and technological over the rest of the world. On top of that, much of the world鈥檚 existing commerce flowed through the Chinese . 

Europe鈥檚 achievements

Hence, before 1500 Europe was clearly peripheral. The question is whether, after that date, the West took the lead, as Ferguson argues, or, conversely, whether China remained on top until the beginning of the 1800s, as Mahbubani does? The answer is not clear-cut, as evidence goes both ways. 

Beginning in the 16th century, Europe established global maritime networks, overseas empires and a permanent military presence around the globe. Meanwhile, through figures like Polish astronomer , Italian polymath , German astronomer , German philosopher and mathematician , English physicist and mathematician , and English astronomer and mathematician , Europe set in motion a scientific revolution unparalleled elsewhere.

However, two arguments could be made on China鈥檚 behalf in this regard. First, that as seen when referring to Admiral Zheng鈥檚 fleet and travels, China could have had the lead in global maritime networks or overseas empires, if it had so desired. However, this ran counter to China鈥檚 mentality. China鈥檚 version of universalism has historically been a stay-at-home one. Indeed, considering itself as the Middle Kingdom 鈥� a middle-staged location between the Heavens and the Earth鈥檚 barbarian territories 鈥� China was an inward-looking nation. As Mahbubani : 鈥淭he Chinese mind always focused on developing Chinese civilization, not developing global civilization.鈥� In this regard, Zheng鈥檚 experience during the Yongle period represented an outlier.

Secondly, Europe鈥檚 scientific revolution owed much to China, which had laid the groundwork. This assertion is made by several authors, chiefly among them . According to him, China鈥檚 and Eastern development in multiple technologies became an essential prerequisite for Europe鈥檚 later achievements.

China鈥檚 economic might

But notwithstanding what China could have done but wasn鈥檛 interested in doing, or its effective contribution to Europe鈥檚 scientific revolution, the fact is that between 1600 and the early 1800s, China accounted for around a quarter to a third of global GDP. Even as late as 1820, China accounted for of global GDP. As Scottish economist Adam Smith in 1776, China was richer than all of Europe put together. Or, as German economic historian Andre Gunder Frank , China was the center of the world economy until 1800.

Hence, both assertions regarding how long the West was on top have standing. However, the fact that China remained the world鈥檚 leading economy until around 200 hundred years ago carries considerable weight. Indeed, no country under such circumstances can be considered to have been left behind, as Ferguson argues. In this regard, Mahbubani鈥檚 position is more credible.聽

What remains clear, though, is the downturn China suffered in the 19th century. While parts of Europe embraced the Industrial Revolution, that country remained bound to traditional economic structures. Europe鈥檚 economic and military modernization outpaced China, initiating what came to be known as the 鈥渃entury of humiliation.鈥� By 1900, indeed, China and India together accounted for just of global output.

As China bounces back, it remains important to ascertain, indeed, for how long and to what extent the West remained dominant. Was it a simple blink of the eye within China’s multimillennial paramount role in the history of humanity, or something more durable, with far broader and deeper consequences? As we have seen, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.