I haven't seen so many challenges to the idea that the dynastic rulers tended not to use force in their dealings with the outside world. For example, Kissinger accepts this idea. But you provided a good reference to challenge it. The issue is important because some scholars say we can anticipate how the government will deal with other nations by consulting the past, which itself is a claim that can be challenged.
Predicting how a nation will deal with other countries based on its past, or how it will govern itself domestically based on its own history, can be highly unreliable and often misleading.
Thanks interesting to read and illuminating. But what about the part about the tribute giver receiving much more in value than the tribute given? Is that a myth? I heard the exchange was so favourable to the tribute giver that it became a source of conflict!
At the official court level, the tribute giver absolutely gained more, to the point where the emperor often tried to limit the frequency and size of tribute missions to cut fiscal expenses.
However, at the actual trade ports, a parallel economy existed. Local governments and merchants used highly favorable official exchange rates, sometimes paying absurd amounts of silver taels for a single porcelain plate, to enrich the local economy. In essence, the tribute system acted as a massive economic externality, subsidizing a thriving regional trade ecosystem at the expense of the central government's treasury.
I do wish I was here 200 years from now to look back and see with clarity the Grand Game *really* going on. They’ve never told the Little People more than the next move, we’ve to figure it for ourselves.
I haven't seen so many challenges to the idea that the dynastic rulers tended not to use force in their dealings with the outside world. For example, Kissinger accepts this idea. But you provided a good reference to challenge it. The issue is important because some scholars say we can anticipate how the government will deal with other nations by consulting the past, which itself is a claim that can be challenged.
Predicting how a nation will deal with other countries based on its past, or how it will govern itself domestically based on its own history, can be highly unreliable and often misleading.
Illuminating as usual. Thank you.
Thanks interesting to read and illuminating. But what about the part about the tribute giver receiving much more in value than the tribute given? Is that a myth? I heard the exchange was so favourable to the tribute giver that it became a source of conflict!
At the official court level, the tribute giver absolutely gained more, to the point where the emperor often tried to limit the frequency and size of tribute missions to cut fiscal expenses.
However, at the actual trade ports, a parallel economy existed. Local governments and merchants used highly favorable official exchange rates, sometimes paying absurd amounts of silver taels for a single porcelain plate, to enrich the local economy. In essence, the tribute system acted as a massive economic externality, subsidizing a thriving regional trade ecosystem at the expense of the central government's treasury.
This is perfect. Brilliant, in fact. Thanks much.
I do wish I was here 200 years from now to look back and see with clarity the Grand Game *really* going on. They’ve never told the Little People more than the next move, we’ve to figure it for ourselves.