The Chinese Navy-why I build it, views on it and the modern world

I thought it better to take this outside the game discussions. I should say what follows if very much my personal thoughts. I am not a Chinese historian, though have known a few, though I have been a specialist in maritime history generally and also have a strong academic interest in the (mis)use of the past by contemporary society.

One of the things about playing a Chinese position in Glory games is what to do about a navy. At the start of a game in 1700 there isn't a navy in any of the provinces so an early decision for any player of any of the Chinese positions is whether to build a navy from scratch. It of course depends on the position you are playing as to whether to do this or not, as at least one position has a relatively short coastline. There is, of course, no "central" fleet for the empire any more than there is a "central" army for the empire so there is no secret elsewhere in game that can defend the coast.

An issue in game is the perception that the Qing Dynasty was somehow scared of the sea, so the idea of a Chinese Navy is seen in the same way as that of a Russian Navy or a Prussian Yacht Club. Add in the knowledge of Ming loyalists who became pirates, plus the weakness of the Imperial Chinese Navy in the late 19th Century and a tendency to project that back in time, and the idea of developing an early 18th Century Chinese fleet can seem almost comical.

Things however have become complicated in recent times. in 2002 Gavin Menzies, a retired RN officer, published "1421" concerning the journeys of a number of Chinese fleets, under the overall command of Zheng He, that started in that year. What made Menzies book unusual was his claims about how far these fleets had gone. Many accept that the fleets did travel to a range of locations in the Far East, India and even the east coast of Africa, but Menzies claimed they had circumnavigated the world. Among his claims are that the Bimini Road is the remains of a Chinese attempt to repair part of a fleet that was damaged and that an obscure record from 15th Century Iceland records a Chinese attack there. One thing that is worth stressing is that Menzies never claimed one fleet went everywhere but rather a series of fleets undertook these global adventures.
The book itself is I think an interesting insight into early 15th Century Chinese naval technology and is a good way of highlighting there was an ocean-going tradition in China...but it's up to you how much you want to believe of how far these fleets actually went.
Menzies went on to write a sequel called "1434", which claims a small Chinese squadron, led by Zheng He, reached Italy in 1434 and kickstarted the Renaissance. It does go against some of his claims in "1421" and while I won't pass judgement on it let's just say I still have a copy of "1421" but not "1434".

Menzies claims have quite rightly been questioned by many historians and, to be frank, much of his "global" claims have been shown to be false. In many ways it is a shame as a more limited work, restricting the claims to say Far Eastern/Indian/African travels would have possibly been much more accepted...but perhaps of less interest to a western audience.

What has happened however is how the claims of "1421" have become accepted in China. It is fair to say that really from the mid 15th Century up until the early 21st Century, Zheng He's journeys and naval exploits were ignored and even wiped from the history books. However in recent times, I think we can all agree that China has started to expand its influence, in the Far East and Africa and this, I feel, has led to a renewal in the earlier naval traditions of China and Zheng He's journeys. While I would not say that Chinese academia has fully endorsed Menzies claims, some elements do appear to and there are long-standing claims of recent archaeological finds of the remains of some of his ships (that "prove" their immense size) as well as the building of replicas of his ships and of Zheng He theme parks. Interesting though the maritime museum in Hong Kong has been quite dismissive of Menzies work...however this could be due to a lingering legacy of its British roots and the tendency of British maritime historians to be a bit dismissive of the naval achievements of other nations
In a world however where China is trying to become a naval power, has recently added aircraft carriers to its fleet, with claims of up to 12 being built, as well as assault ships, nuc subs with inter-continental missiles...it is not surprising there would be a desire to reconnect with an earlier naval tradition.

Then there is the issue of Qing naval policy. As I said above, there is a belief that the Qing Dynasty was "scared of the sea". This is supposed to be seen in the decision to force a large part of the coastal community to move inland. This was at a time when remaining Ming loyalists were pirates, operating out of Taiwan among other places and there was a feeling among the Qing that the coastal communities in the South of their new empire at least were sympathetic to the Ming.
There have been efforts in recent years to suggest a different perspective, that the early Qing were not "scared of the sea" and did operate a powerful fleet, if a coastal one. A conference in 2012 at SOAS included a seminar called "The Dragon Navy:Maritime Militarization in the Great Qing", which argued there was a coastal Qing fleet and that the early Qing had a cohesive naval policy. The speaker's phd paper on the subject is online at https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/18877/1/PhD_Dissertation_CyPO.pdf and I understand this was published as a book last year that has had mixed reviews. I have noticed there are also now, online at least, some passing reference to an "Eight Banners Navy" and "Green Standard (Army) Navy" that I am sure were not obvious a couple of years back.
As with Menzies, I do not agree with all of the claims now being made by some about the early Qing fleet and naval policy and I suspect at least some of it has to do with modern Chinese diplomatic ambitions.

so, what does this mean for how I play a Chinese position in Glory? While I don't agree always with the claims made, I am willing to use them as inspiration in a game that is, by nature, alternative history, to play a Chinese governor who wants to recall a time when Chinese fleets did travel far and wide (even if how far and how wide is open to interpretation).

However when looking at interpretations of Chinese naval history, I feel it is a useful study of the old line "History is written by the victors". That is generally true and when it comes to Chinese naval history I feel the victors were the European powers in the late 19th Century and so it is often seen as they saw it, weak and a sign of the weakness of the Empire. However in the 21st Century, there is an effort to rebalance things, offer an alternative perspective on Chinese naval history and while that rebalancing is, to a degree, essential, to give us a more realistic picture, there is a danger of embracing it too much and going too far the other way.

Thank you Jason2 - a very interesting post.

I don't think 1421 is that fanciful - I do vaguely remember reading it a few years ago and found it very interesting.

I accept your broader point that Chinese provinces had a coastal naval strategy, and perhaps that is all they needed. If they wanted to send out large trading convoys then they could add specific protection to that convoy; otherwise it made sense to concentrate on coastal patrols to scare away pirates.

One aspect which might be relevant, though is a consideration of why certain ships were built. The SoL (as known in 1700) was a relatively modern invention and as a tool, admirals had to learn how best to use it. Before c.1650 the vast majority of ships in any fleet were effectively armed merchantmen, hastily requisitioned and loaded with cannon. They did not fight in line of battle (though they may have tried to form line, this proved impossible without some rudimentary standards of design/sail and signals/communication). They were required to carry lots of soldiers across to another ship which could be captured, so it was very much ship on ship action. It was not a case that ships were designed so they could form line of battle, but that line of battle became possible/desirable through improvements in ship design. The fleet (as known in 1700) was very much work in progress throughout the period from 1650 - it was not simply that ships became bigger, but that they were used differently. There were of course prestige large vessels built long before 1700 (hence the tradition of the admiral's ship being the largest), with too many guns on board, but they were so expensive to maintain that they tended to be more of a liability than a serious contribution to a fleet or naval tactics.

To build larger vessels required 3 design elements to work together:
1. Stability. Early ships were broad to help with this. If you look at models of ships from the 1500s they are only as long as a corvette in 1700. The extension of this design was ultimately the East Indiaman (for carrying capacity) and Spanish galleon (for sheer size). Push stability too far and the ship was slow and handled poorly.
2. Weight. Early cannon was heavy, not just in itself, but in terms of the extra timber required to hold the ship together. It wasn't really until the mid-1600s when the cannon became lighter and the maths had developed to show how ships could be lighter and longer without sacrificing structural integrity. The Spanish galleon was the ship to beat, and instead of starting from the base of a stable merchant ship the Dutch and English needed speed, so started from the corvette model. Frigates and ultimately SoL were all basically larger corvettes. The purpose was to increase the number of guns (broadside) to try and damage the almost unsinkable galleons so ships became long and thin.
3. Propulsion. A stable, heavy ship is no use unless the sail/rigging and masts had been developed to help the ship to sail, otherwise any smaller ship could simply be boarded by the galleons. Too much sail or sail in the wrong place would affect stability and make it harder to fire the guns. Can't remember where I read it, but a SoL only needed to lose about 20% of its sail to be immobilised, so perhaps the French idea of firing at the sail rather than the hull was not completely stupid after all. Again, this favoured the development of long/thin ships since there is a limit to the height of masts (even in broad ships).

Once you have solved these 3 design elements, you also had to:
4. build and maintain efficient onshore facilities to keep the ships supplied/repaired. Pepys did the English a great service in this whereas the French navy was always handicapped by poor onshore support (Colbert understood this and made significant reforms, but his successors were not so industrious and if they knew what a yard needed, they preferred to award contracts to their friends). It is no coincidence that the highpoint of the French navy occurred when its onshore facilities were at their best. A SoL is an incredibly complicated machine requiring many specialised industries to supply its components: rope-making, sail-making, barrel-making, nails, the right type/shape of timber, a highly skilled workforce. This takes effort and co-operation. Smaller, less complicated ships (like the Venetian galley) could be assembled quickly from kits, but even the English could not reproduce the efficiency of the Venetian Arsenal.
5. find/build suitable ports - bigger ships require bigger ports, not just for draught, but to concentrate enough ships in to build the fleet. This was always a problem for the French: Marseilles was simply not a big enough port so the French Mediterranean fleet had to relocate to Toulon instead. The French also lacked good sized ports on the English Channel whereas England had plenty of natural deep ports. UDP lacked ports capable of taking large ships so was restricted in design accordingly.

The strategic push to develop SoL was initially to meet the challenge from the Spanish galleons, then later to provide significant firepower to protect colonies from other European powers. I suggest that China didn't need to do either until long after the western SoL had been developed. So it just wasn't a priority for them. Coastal patrols, yes, so a large quantity of cruiser-sized ships makes sense.

This means that of the 3 design elements, weight/stability ratios had already been achieved to suit Chinese needs. As for propulsion, Chinese vessels used junk sail/rigging not western sail/rigging. Junk rigging works better in certain conditions, so again there was no need to change what worked. I can't comment on Chinese onshore facilities or suitable ports, but smaller ships built to a traditional design would demand much less complicated facilities (as in the Venetian example). Thus it is quite possible that these 2 factors were also not required for the Chinese to protect against pirates so not developed.

Taking the 5 elements together perhaps explains why the Chinese did not produce vessels comparable to the European SoL. No doubt they would have been able to do so if they saw the need and applied themselves (never underestimate the Chinese), but by the time such SoL were seen as a threat to China it was probably a bit late. They could copy the design, but did not understand the need for the other elements. By the time the Japanese started getting serious about building a modern navy in the last century, it was mindblowingly obvious just how important these other elements were and how they had to work together, so when they put their minds to it, they produced a fearsome weapon. This line of reasoning does not just apply to China: India suffered a similar fate. Bengal was a major global shipbuilding centre in 1600s-1800s, producing more merchant ships than many European nations and with technological developments that were used by the English to improve their own ships. This is understandable given the availability of hemp, cotton and timber, yet Indian princes were more interested in the commercial application than in building large warships. The problem was because many Indian ports required improvement before they could handle ships larger than a frigate.

None of this takes away anything from Jason2's post, but perhaps offers a more practical perspective.

It still surprises me, though, that there is no central naval reserve that the provinces can call upon. Perhaps there is also an honour reason? The French always looked down on their navy compared to their army, whereas the English held the navy in higher regard. Perhaps with China glory was associated with the army, but not with the navy? And that, combined with the factors already mentioned could be part of the reason why the Chinese navy was neglected?

I'm glad you found the post interesting...and if you ever had the time to read a 300 page phd dissertation simply out of idle curiosity, then the link I included is worth a read esp the chapters that given the strengths of the various early 18th Century fleets in China and how the Chinese perceived the sea as an inner and outer zone. If we ever had G11 I would be tempted to pull out the relevant bits and present them to Richard to ask him to give the provinces with medium sized naval forces from the start.

The issue with 1421 is when it seems to go beyond what there is any evidence base for. I know some maritime historians effectively deny it completely and I do feel there is a bit of, shall we say, sinophbia in their attitude. I am ok with the idea of the fleets getting as far as the East coast of Africa and even maybe the western coast of the Americas and perhaps even southwards beyond Australia and New Zealand to the ice and snow...interestingly, if you follow some of the "Ancient Alien" theories, the legends that in 1421 are used as evidence that Zheng He and his fleets explored Australia, they are also "proof" of aliens meeting the Aborigines. I just find, given the lack of evidence, the idea of the fleets reaching the Bahamas, Iceland, the east coast of South America harder to accept without some firm evidence.

On the SoLs, completely take onboard (no bad pun intended) everything you say. In Glory the Chinese can build up to Heavy Frigates, they do have War Junks, which only carrying 40 guns, are considered to be SoL in game and a design breakthrough is the 60 gun Large War Junk When the Chinese wanted to, they could build ships as heavily armed as the western powers, plus in Glory and real life, the Chinese were good at developing naval rockets for their warships to carry that were the equal of cannon carried by SoL and even made cannon look like popguns. Possibly its one of those historical ironies that it was only as the Europeans developed the SoL concept that the Chinese moved away from large, heavily armed warships and by the time the Europeans were able to send proper war fleets to Chinese waters, the Chinese really no longer saw the need for such large warships. However the Junk is a technological marvel compared to the Western ships of the time-internal bulkheads that reduce the risk of sinking for example.
Possibly it's not that the Chinese didn't have their own versions of SoLs, rather we need to rethink our view on what they had and even accept the standard view on the Chinese naval forces of the time is infact inaccurate.

Perhaps the major difference is the difference in attitudes, for the Chinese at this period, fleets aren't about territorial expansion. There is this division of the oceans into an inner and outer zone, the inner is the coastal waters of China, theirs as it were and they police them control them, they are as much part of the Empire as Peking. The outer zone is more a free for all. The fleet does go there, to deal with threats that may emerge there, but it's not the Empire's business to police it. Also for the Chinese the idea of the fleet being a tool of territorial expansion was not in their mindset. You might send a fleet as a sign of goodwill or to apply diplomatic pressure but to conquer others territory? Not in their mindset.

On the central fleet bit, you simply have to understand the way the five Chinese positions are set up in game. you have five provincial governors (one being "king" of Korea), no one is senior, no one is in charge, and more importantly no one is the Emperor. So there is nowhere for a central fleet to sit, just as there would be nowhere for a central army to sit, as everyone has an equal share of the military. Link into that, until recently the accepted attitude in the west was that the early Qing didn't have a navy so why would Agema include regional naval forces in the setup? I would argue that even since we started G9, our understanding of the early Qing in regards naval forces has changed and while that change isn't universally accepted, now a new game would include regional naval forces as new research shows existed and (more importantly) it wasn't neglected-far from it-however due to historical prejudices in the past we have led ourselves to believe that. Perhaps I should ask Agema for a hundred extra warships to make up for this historical bias?

But we also need to bear in mind how some of the changes in how the Qing and naval matters are perceived may, or may not, be linked to contemporary Chinese foreign policy.

There is, of course, no truth in the rumour that in G9 Kwantung has invented the aircraft carrier and currently has 12 under construction

Jason2 wrote:I'm glad you found the post interesting...and if you ever had the time to read a 300 page phd dissertation simply out of idle curiosity, then the link I included is worth a read esp the chapters that given the strengths of the various early 18th Century fleets in China and how the Chinese perceived the sea as an inner and outer zone. If we ever had G11 I would be tempted to pull out the relevant bits and present them to Richard to ask him to give the provinces with medium sized naval forces from the start.

I will try and scan it, time permitting. I do find China interesting probably because it is so different and I am learning more about it as I'm building up a collection of Chinese stamps. My dealer is actually Chinese and is trying to teach me a few characters so I can read the postmarks and identify some of the overprints! I'm not doing very well so far.

I have at various times sent Richard suggestions for additional information to be included in future rulebooks (as I'm sure have others). Sometimes it appears (usually in a modified form), so given your knowledge of China it sounds like a good idea to me.

Jason2 wrote:The issue with 1421 is when it seems to go beyond what there is any evidence base for. I know some maritime historians effectively deny it completely and I do feel there is a bit of, shall we say, sinophobia in their attitude. I am ok with the idea of the fleets getting as far as the East coast of Africa and even maybe the western coast of the Americas and perhaps even southwards beyond Australia and New Zealand to the ice and snow...interestingly, if you follow some of the "Ancient Alien" theories, the legends that in 1421 are used as evidence that Zheng He and his fleets explored Australia, they are also "proof" of aliens meeting the Aborigines. I just find, given the lack of evidence, the idea of the fleets reaching the Bahamas, Iceland, the east coast of South America harder to accept without some firm evidence.

It won't be a surprise that I'm not a believer in ancient alien theories! And yes, I can accept more easily the exploration of East Africa, India and Indonesia. Chinese artifacts could have been shipped from there by other traders and end up in other locations. I doubt we will ever know for sure.

I do accept the point about sinophobia. Language/cultural barriers are hard to overcome and when it comes to naval history it does seem to be almost exclusively written from an English viewpoint. The first history of the French navy in English was published in 1973 (A History of the French Navy, E.H.Jenkins) and if you are interested in an alternative viewpoint this book is excellent. What strikes me in particular is how the French struggled to get a fleet to work as an efficient unit and how disagreements between commanders would cause so many problems. It sometimes reads like a catalogue of disasters (or a typical turn of LGDR).

Jason2 wrote:On the SoLs, completely take onboard (no bad pun intended) everything you say.

I did quite a bit of research into ships/design/use from a European perspective - necessary as I had to sort out England's navy. When I looked at the French navy, then into the development of signals, how fleets/tactics evolved, I really found it fascinating. So my response was not in any way to criticise your China-specific findings, just try to understand them from a western perspective.

Jason2 wrote: In Glory the Chinese can build up to Heavy Frigates, they do have War Junks, which only carrying 40 guns, are considered to be SoL in game and a design breakthrough is the 60 gun Large War Junk When the Chinese wanted to, they could build ships as heavily armed as the western powers, plus in Glory and real life, the Chinese were good at developing naval rockets for their warships to carry that were the equal of cannon carried by SoL and even made cannon look like popguns. Possibly its one of those historical ironies that it was only as the Europeans developed the SoL concept that the Chinese moved away from large, heavily armed warships and by the time the Europeans were able to send proper war fleets to Chinese waters, the Chinese really no longer saw the need for such large warships.

Probably. It has always been a problem for navies that large capital ships had limited uses, but swallowed the bulk of the navy's budget. Admirals rarely moaned that they didn't have enough SoL, but they always wanted more frigates. For Europeans once the Line of Battle doctrine had become established, major powers had to keep up enough of them to maintain a fleet of SoL strong enough to hold off the enemy. Naval battles became very defensive and largely inconclusive despite the attempts of English admirals to find a winning tactic. Please don't start me on Byng and Nelson as the result might surprise!

I'm glad the game does reflect some naval development for Chinese positions. Perhaps it would be helpful if there was a consolidated supplement just for Chinese positions so that all Chinese technology is together in one place? Might give an incentive for players to try a Chinese position. I suppose it is theoretically possible for Chinese positions to develop western ships as a research improvement, or is there just a total ban, or is it a case that if they develop western shipbuilding techniques they lose the junk technology?

Jason2 wrote: However the Junk is a technological marvel compared to the Western ships of the time-internal bulkheads that reduce the risk of sinking for example. Possibly it's not that the Chinese didn't have their own versions of SoLs, rather we need to rethink our view on what they had and even accept the standard view on the Chinese naval forces of the time is in fact inaccurate.

Perhaps the way of looking at Chinese technology is to find the problem it was designed to solve. So internal bulkheads could have been developed because of tsunamis or monsoons, or because extra stability was needed to fire rockets from? Fit naval rockets to western SoL and they are useless (or worse, a liability), the rockets make a nice fireworks display but struggle to hit anything and drain powder reserves very quickly. They also stand a good chance of starting a fire (note this is not the reason for recent events in G7). On a junk platform, though, they may be much more effective ... don't know, never tried it. But the Chinese are surely too intelligent to keep a weapon on board that didn't work properly.

Jason2 wrote:Perhaps the major difference is the difference in attitudes, for the Chinese at this period, fleets aren't about territorial expansion. There is this division of the oceans into an inner and outer zone, the inner is the coastal waters of China, theirs as it were and they police them control them, they are as much part of the Empire as Peking. The outer zone is more a free for all. The fleet does go there, to deal with threats that may emerge there, but it's not the Empire's business to police it. Also for the Chinese the idea of the fleet being a tool of territorial expansion was not in their mindset. You might send a fleet as a sign of goodwill or to apply diplomatic pressure but to conquer others territory? Not in their mindset.

I can see that the internal zone was considered part of China, and if I've read the map right then that should cover trade within the Yellow Sea which foreign vessels are banned from? But I do struggle with the notion that the inner zone is shared by 3-4 provinces with no central oversight. That sounds very dangerous. What would happen, for example, if a Korean-flagged ship attacked a ship from Shansi? It seems too easy for a pirate to use false flags and cause chaos. If there is no central fleet (and/or each Chinese position starts without a fleet) then it seems to be an open invitation for 3rd parties to cause trouble. And surely not very realistic which is odd given there has been some attempt to limit Chinese shipbuilding to match history.

Jason2 wrote:On the central fleet bit, you simply have to understand the way the five Chinese positions are set up in game. You have five provincial governors (one being "king" of Korea), no one is senior, no one is in charge, and more importantly no one is the Emperor. So there is nowhere for a central fleet to sit, just as there would be nowhere for a central army to sit, as everyone has an equal share of the military. Link into that, until recently the accepted attitude in the west was that the early Qing didn't have a navy so why would Agema include regional naval forces in the setup? I would argue that even since we started G9, our understanding of the early Qing in regards naval forces has changed and while that change isn't universally accepted, now a new game would include regional naval forces as new research shows existed and (more importantly) it wasn't neglected-far from it-however due to historical prejudices in the past we have led ourselves to believe that. Perhaps I should ask Agema for a hundred extra warships to make up for this historical bias?

Don't know about a hundred extra warships, but there seems to be a strong case for a central naval reserve, perhaps controlled by the Emperor. That could surely be added to existing games and deployed automatically on patrol to protect merchants in the inner zone. If players then wanted to build a fleet (as you have) then they could. That would perhaps be the more historical compromise and reflect the research you have found.

I take the point about the Chinese mindset not really thinking of the use of navies in the same terms western nations did.

I obviously haven't quite grasped the way the provinces are set up in the game yet, but perhaps if it continues to rain you'll be able to post a bit more on this. The Emperor must be more than just a nominal figurehead perhaps protected by a palace guard otherwise how can/does he keep control? Why should any provincial governor obey him? What would actually happen if one province invaded another or was attacked by a 3rd party? Surely the Emperor exists to either stop this kind of thing happening or order a response? If (recalling an earlier discussion) Kwantung was attacked by Japan, surely the other provinces would be ordered by the Emperor to help defend Kwantung? If not then is China not simply 5 divided countries with an Emperor who just sits there in name only? And if he is then what is to stop Lord Fong invading the Imperial Palace and proclaiming himself Emperor? He could sail there in his newly-built 12 aircraft carriers and launch his marines by rocket?

Think if the Manchu Emperor was a player position it would start with around 600,000 troops and probably around four or five times the income and recruits of the next strongest position. Based on Population of around 130,000,000 and rising rapidly

In game only 4 coastal provinces of the Manchu Empire plus the tributary state of Korea can be played which effectively takes out the other 18 provinces of China, inner Mongolia, the Imperial Court and most of the best units of the Manchu Army. Meaning that the mighty Lord Fong is way down the Manchu pecking order (Think Gov of Normandy or Viceroy of Mexico......important but not that important) and has at his command some Manchu Garrisons and local levies.

It should be noted that a few years before the game starts 1674-1683 eight southern provinces and western provinces inc Fukien & Kwangtung who were then run by former Ming Loyalists who had defected to the Manchu made common cause with the Pirates/Ming loyalists based on Taiwan and rose in revolt in the War of the Three Feudatories. Shang Chih-hsin Gov of Kwangtung was very much Number two (or even three or four) in the revolt after Wu San -Kuei Gov of Yunnan and Kweichow.

Kwangtung & Fukien active part in the revolt only lasted from 1674-1677 when they were crushed by Manchu forces from the North, cutting off the rebels in the interior from Cheng Ching and their "pirate" allies.

Feel that to call Cheng Ching and his men "pirates" makes them seem rather less important than they actually were. Since while major English "Pirates" like Morgan and Blackbeard did not command the numbers of ships or men to take on Royal Fleets the Chinese "Pirates" were de-facto the Chinese Fleet, collected taxation from all seaborne trade and were "courted" with titles and other offers by both the Manchu and the Ming Governments. Both before and after our period the Pirate Confederation's leaders could muster 70,000 to 80,000 men and hundreds of Junks and other craft and nothing was able to have much effect on the Chinese pirates traditions prior to the introduction of iron clad steam powered warships by European Powers in the 1840's.

If the fleets which fought fot the Ming or Manchu Ching dynasty (or for themselves) are to be compared to anyone its probably best to compare them to the fleets of the Dutch West Indies under Piet Hein or the Barbary Corsairs who joined the Ottomans or even the English Fleet which sailed against the Armada. True men of the Sea and rather better sailors than a bunch of impressed serfs, like the Ottomans and the Dutch they also fought for plunder and to capture ships rather than destroy them and often fought on land so favouring boarding and hand to hand combat over fire power.

Thus the larger Pirate Seagoing Junks (of which Cheng I & his wife had over 200) would only carry a few large guns (rarely larger than six pounders.....often purchased from Portugese and Dutch merchants) but would have lots of Swivel Guns and a well armed fighting crew equal in numbers to a small line ship (around 400 men) or the last of the European Galleys.

However, their main class of ships were small river craft and the "hai-ch'uan" small seagoing junks also suitable for coastal and river operations. Compared to American schooners or Portugese brigs the later Pirate Confederation had between 600 & 800 of these craft which were approx 40 feet long and 14 foot wide and carried at most 200 men and between 12 and 25 small guns. Roughly the same size as Columbus ships and the ships of the Dutch Sea beggers. If carrying their full fighting crews I suspect thair range would be limited by storage for food and water.

Faced with the problem of how to keep the celestial peace and harmony of the Empire from being troubled by naught coastal types and make sure trade (which for China in this period means internal domestic trade centralized under state supervision not Wako smugglers and a few unimportant shiploads to the other side of the world) flowed how did the unified agrarian bureaucracy based on principles of Confucian legalism (ie Lord Fong and his ilk) cope?

Normal time honoured reaction was to co-opt/bribe one set of maverick energies from the coast to "return to their allegiance" and put down other "pirates". Thus Cheng Chih-lung was made "Earl of Nan-an" by one of the Southern Ming rulers and before making his peace with the Ch'ing dynasty while in son fought on.

Interestingly in the 1660's the Manchu did not try to gain the co-operation of the Dutch, Portguese or other elements along the southern coast but followed the example of William of Normandy against the Danes and their fellow horse Nomads turned settled elite the Mamlukes against the Crusaders and devestated the coast lands of Kwangtung and Fukien burning towns and villages to the ground and forcing the people to move 10 miles inland. A policy they only ended in 1683.

I suspect what this should mean is that any Manchu Governor who starts building up Naval forces is should be viewed as "going Native" and mixing with very suspect individuals. Even perhaps as setting himself up as a new member of "Three Feudatories"!!

Always feel that Manchu postions should be played with the real danger not being the Shogun or Europeans but ones fellow Manchu.

Internal politics certainly seems to have been the reason why Cheng Ho fail from favour and his fleet was broken up.......sending thousands of his sailors back to their traditional pursuits of fishing, smuggling, honest trade and piracy. None of which were mutually exclusive occupations.

In some ways the fleet of Cheng Ho is a bit like the French Fleet of built for Louis XIV by Colbert. Some powerful ministers of a very strong agrian based land power decide to build a fleet which is fully the equal of any rivals. But while its a very impressive force its of limited use against the main Mongol/Hapsburg foe and basically gets closed down as an expensive vanity project as soon as times get tough and cash gets tight.

So Louis XIV very expensive line ships spend the later part of the 9 years war and the WSS laid up in favour of the cash being spent on support for Spain and bribes to Bavaria. While Cheng Ho also very expensive fleet gets up the victim of cost cutting after a series of equally expensive wars with the Mongols and Annam lead to disaster in Annum in 1427 and a series of crushing defeat's at Mongol hands including the capture of an Emperor in 144includal el and capture of the Emperor in 14s in Mongolia leading to the Capture of the Emperor in 1449.

In view of the wealth of the Ming Dynasty think the break up of Cheng Ho's fleet has less to do with actual costs and more to do with a power struggle between factions which favoured "expansion" outside of China ie take over of Mongolia, Annum and Korea and Ocean expansion and those who favoured a more defensive position. Not unreasonable when you consider that at Admiral Ho was setting sail Timur the Lame (unrivaled Military leader of his age and one of the worlds greatest ever bandits) and was sitting down and trying to work out which of the neighbours he was going to invade next.

I have now read through the dissertation which started this thread. There’s quite a bit in there which Jason2 doesn’t mention, but which players of Chinese provinces may well find very useful. Some sections of it are more convincing than others.

For me the weakest bits concern the concept of seas. He rightly challenges Braudel, but in his exploration of alternatives doesn’t really land any convincing blows. I can see that control of local waters was required for cultural projection and unification, and that given the geography this was more important than building trade. But this doesn’t mean that the Chinese would not have moved on to a western conception once they had established control. Where other nations think in decades, China thinks in centuries, and it is likely that when Western powers broke into ports within the Yellow Sea and exposed how weak Chinese control of trade was through their naval strategy, we are at risk of interpreting a half-complete design and trying to construct a thesis around it.

As an example, this passage … “Unlike the Portuguese in C17 who claimed sovereignty over a sea space not through its proximity but by economic and martial forces, it never occurred to the Qing court that the control of a monarch could transcend physical and geographical boundaries across thousands of miles of ocean. Instead the Manchu monarchs insisted on the importance of continued action in order to properly govern their inner sea space. They saw the inner ocean as a legitimate arena that was critical to the building of the empire as well as to national security. The Qing court in the 18th century thus expended energy in ruling and supervising their inner sea space through the establishment of the imperial navy.” i.e. by martial forces. But if the purpose of those continually active martial/naval forces was to boost trade/cultural cohesion, there is very little difference between what the Chinese did and what European powers were doing. What Europeans did at a distance, the Chinese did closer to home. The difference (p91) is that “the Chinese imperial court did not seek to claim sovereignty across other sea spaces in order to generate economic wealth.” I suggest the generation of economic wealth through trade is the inevitable outcome of a sea where piracy is at least minimised and national authority is maintained.

The stronger parts are when he discusses the practical steps China made to link customs offices, trade routes and navies. He does demonstrate very well that linking these aspects does form a coherent naval strategy which was incrementally developed and successful until it was challenged by western ships. One reason he gives for the preponderance of smaller ships in the Chinese navy was that piracy/smuggling was a particular problem in the internal islands. Large war junks couldn’t navigate shallows between islands, so although a large ship would be sent to where pirates were sighted, they couldn’t pursue them.

This ties in with some of Stuart’s points about river piracy. The dissertation does not suggest that the pirates were effectively the Chinese fleet or that the Emperor effectively bribed the pirates to control their activity. In contrast according to the dissertation, the initial efforts to break the pirates were to control the internal fishing grounds which were an important source of food. Of course I doubt governors would have recorded the kinds of things Stuart suggests, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I actually quite like Stuart’s explanation as well until it gets to the point about Colbert’s fleet. Jenkins’ book provides a much more accurate exposition of the ups and downs of the French fleet, and it was not mothballed to pay bribes.

As I was going through it, I formed the impression that the Chinese conception of the sea was a little like the Arabian conception of the desert: the sea was something to be used rather than lived in. The Chinese approached the Yellow Sea in a similar way they did the Gobi Desert – the desert itself wasn’t important, but maintaining a secure passage through was. This parallel isn’t mentioned in the dissertation, but I think it is closer to the mindset than the conceptions of the sea which are discussed.

Compared the the competitive, multicentered political situations which prevailed in Europe, round the Mediterranean and elsewhere China and its Naval trends developed rather differently. In think the key points concerning this different development are:

1) Following its early unification under the first Emperor the threat to China aways came from the Steppe and prior to the 1840's China never faced a real State sponsored Naval threat from outside. This had two results a) Naval power was never key to the defence of China and b) China never entered a State v State arms race such as inspired the shipbuilders of Western Europe and the Mediterranean to build purpose built warships finally resulting in the C15 to C19 lineships.

Two possible exceptions being the defence of the River Lines by the Southern Sung Dynasty which resulted in Tower Ships and rockets and the Korean Naval defence against the Japanese invasions which lead to the development of Turtle ships. But I would argue that both of these were fairly short periods nothing like the hundreds of year contest between the Christians and Islam for control of the Med.

2) Generally speaking Naval operations in China was about movement of troops and supplies and the control and protection of the great rivers, the grand canal and coastal waters which were key to so much military movement and logistics.

Again we have exceptions with the Mongol Yuan Dynasty invasion of Japan and the Ming Invasion of Annam plus the voyages of Admiral Cheng-ho. But again I would argue these were very much the exceptions to the normal duty of Chin Naval power which was to keep the Pirates under control and move troops and supplies up the Grand Canal to the Northern Garrisons. It should also be noted that these exceptions did not end well what with the divine wind.

This need to operate on inland waters and in-shore in support of the Army tended to result in more and smaller ships and an emphasis on troop and cargo capacity.

3) Trade - with some exceptions the overwelming amount of Chinese trade was internal with the great cities of the Yangtze Delta developing into industrial centres and sending their textiles all over China. While they were supplied with grain and raw cotton down the grand canal from the North and down the Yangtze from the interior. While vital raw materials & Foodstuffs like Grain, Rice, Fish, Salt and Timber were moved along the Coast by Coastal Junks.

In terms of tonnage and total value merchant groupings like the Kiangsu salt merchants and the Fukien maritime merchants make the Polo's and the merchants adventurers of Venice, Genoa and the Hanse look like paupers. But they lacked the drive to search out new markets and profits.......probably because they could make sure good profits at home and they normally had the world at their door begging for a new crumbs inc from the early C16 Europeans.

The fact that Chinese trade of huge value was carried on Coastal shipping and inland water ways naturally attracted Piracy and smuggling which was the major concern Chinese Navy forces and dominated the development of Chinese Naval forces.

4) Piracy - unlike the Med, Baltic, Black Sea, North Sea etc were ships from one country raided another often with the active backing of their rulers esp in time of war almost all Chinese Piracy was Chinese on Chinese and may be divided up into:

a) Petty Piracy - Petty Pirates were basically Fisherman who when the fishing was poor in the summer turned to Piracy to make economic ends meet. Taking advantage of southern winds in the summer often with no more than a couple of dozen stout lads they would sail north to raid ships or land targets before returning to their southern homes and fishing in the winter. Such petty pirates typically only remained at sea for a few days launched one or two attacks before getting rid of their loot and returning to being lawfull fishermen untill the next time. Such men provided many of the rank and file for larger pirate groupings generated by:

b) Political Piracy - Dispite the fact that the rulers of China were not normally backers of Piracy for purposes of Trade and colonial expansion (no Chinese VOIC) at times Political dislocation and Dynastic change could lead to a massive growth in Piracy. One such period was the change from the Ming to the Manchu dynasty. A change over which also showed that total domination at sea by the Ming could not stop an invasion from the North.

&

c) Economic Piracy - when the economic policy of the government proves out of step with the demands of Society this tended to lead to smuggling and a crack down on smuggling in turn leads to Piracy. A classic example from a Chinese viewpoint would be be the later Opium Wars were the capture of the opium smuggling "Arrow" lead to destruction of hundreds of Junks by forces in alliance with the Opium dealers. Another would be the destruction of Shuang-hsu-kang in 1547 and the crushing of illegal Sino-Japanese trade which triggered decades of "Wako" attacks.

"Wako" actually means Japanese Pirate but it seems the majority were Chinese and "Wako" attacks only started to decline when much over seas trade was made legal again.

Finally it should be noted that compared to the Southern Sung & Yuan Dynasty who raised much revenue from trade and paid troops and sailors. Both the Ming and the Manchu who followed them were basically anti trade (doing away with that nasty paper money for starters) and wanted to go back to an earlier system based on landed income and settled hereditary troops.

For the two I would argue that early Ming who came from the South started with a understanding of trade and maritime matters before the huge prestige of the Tang Dynasty and tradition plus a crisis in the north dragged them towards a more traditional northern outlook. With the ending of Admiral Ho voyages and the move of the capital to Peking in 1421 being a tipping point.

As for the Manchu they were born and breed Northern types with zero liking or understanding of the sea. Plus as foreigners they seem to have been on a mission to prove themselves almost more Chinese than the Chinese and helped by Mandarians who they developed a close working relationship with they seem to have set out to model themselves on the mighty Tang Dynasty. So conquest of Central Asia and Tibet in - building sea going fleet - out.

Stuart seems to have raised some very interesting questions about the nature of Chinese trade:

Most trade was in bulk commodities which was easier to move by sea, but given the size of market and supply base, the prices for these commodities was not likely to fluctuate greatly so opportunities for excess profit through trade would surely have been minimal. To make piracy/smuggling pay, the profit has always been in luxury goods or heavily taxed goods. Given the distances involved in transportation, there would surely be no viable trade in commodities if taxes on them were high?

One point the dissertation makes is that only select coastal settlements were designated ports and permitted to trade in certain goods. Land forces within these ports were primarily employed to ensure only permitted goods were traded through these ports. This implies a high level of control which could have extended to prices. It could not have been the case that merchants made excessive profits, but that competition was not a major concern: perhaps the Chinese valued security of supply and a merchant operated on fixed price contracts which he kept provided the goods were delivered? Under that kind of economic system, traditional western piracy would not work. A cargo of timber turning up in a port which was not permitted to trade in timber would be quickly spotted, and the legal merchants who normally supplied that port with timber (and suddenly found they couldn’t sell their legal timber) would likely raise the alarm to the authorities who would investigate. So smugglers actually had a really tough time of it. Yes, they could try to offload their timber in a port trading in timber, but how if the customs officials (and soldiers) were policing it? Bribing a single customs official might be possible, but not thousands of them. And the Chinese took a very tough line with forgery – not really worth the risk for a pile of timber?

Stuart’s points on piracy make sense given the priority of using naval strategy to promote cultural unity across the Yellow Sea: Chinese piracy would then be increasingly seen as Chinese on Chinese.

I can see ‘petty piracy’ being a threat for people during tough times and hard to detect. I would also lump wrecking in with the same activity. Don’t know if that happened much in China, but it would be an obvious way to eliminate the competition.

I can also see that at times of great disruption ‘political piracy’, rebels could flee overseas (as the Taiwan episode demonstrates), form their armies and then sail back. A bit like English nobles used Calais in the Wars of the Roses.

I’m not so convinced by ‘economic piracy’ in the LDGR period – it clearly did exist later when the west broke into Chinese trade.

I don’t know much about Wako attacks, but if it was hard to sell stolen Chinese goods (proceeds of piracy) in Chinese ports, logically they had to be sold in foreign ports. If Wako attacks declined when trade was legalised then presumably the pirates simply found legal employment because demand for their services was high. Or perhaps the expansion of the Qing navy pressed a lot of pirates into Imperial service so there simply were not that many pirates left to prey on traders?

Although I can accept Stuart’s characterisation of the Ming/Manchu in the north being less interested in foreign trade than the southern Sung/Yuan, it doesn’t make much sense that they would have been anti-trade. With a large internal market which supplies and meets most needs in China, surely the obvious way to protect tax revenue is to dump excess products on foreign markets? I can understand the point about prioritising armies to expand in central Asia rather than building up the fleet, but this is precisely what the dissertation argues did not happen. The Chinese navy (and land forces which supported it) was engaged in projecting Chinese power across the Yellow Sea to promote cultural unification. The method was slightly different to that used by the Chinese army to expand westwards, but the objective was the same and it occurred simultaneously.

It is hard to compare the profitability of Chinese piracy and its related smuggling and protection rackets compared to the West Indies and North African versions since the West Indian & Barbary Corsairs seem to have been rather lacking in accountants. Hell, Blackbeard and Edward Lowe seem to have problems counting higher than twenty even with their Sea boots off and no one trusted Henry Morgans figures.

In contrast the various Chinese Pirate Confederations did have accountants but sadly their records do not seem to have survived.

But its fair to say that the various Chinese Pirate confederations :

- Put more men and ships to sea than any of their rivals........Morgan raid great raid on Panama was with 40 ships and 3000 men. While the Chinese confederations could go as high as a 1000 Junks and 50,000 men.

- The were also better organized than most of their international rivals and with help from secret societies they were able to levy "Protection" payments at set rates such as fifty yuan of silver for each 100 pao (packages of salt) from merchant shipping, coastal towns and villages and even those quite some way inland, which gave them regular income. Remarkably such "protections" were respected by all pirates and could be purchased even in Canton. Though the major market place was in Portugese Macao (easier for Chin officials to ignore?). Getting control of the Salt trade may lack the glamour of Spanish Gold but this would be easily exceed French Wine merchants of the HEIC paying Protection money.

- Outsailed and outfought all attempts by Chin officials to surpress their activities for hundreds of years. Even today when the South and East China sea are getting back to their C16/C17 & C18 century levels of importance in world trade the old traditions are still going with half of the Worlds Pirate attacks recorded in these waters.

Basically, if anyone fancies a Pirate position I think the South China Pirates are well worth looking at. See how badly you can frustrate Lord Fong and the other slaves & lackies of the Manchu Barbarian who claims to be Emperor.

Oddly in game the Confederation is still called "Wako"......the actual Wako period was somewhat earlier. Basically after Admiral Ho fleet was broken up the edict was extended to destory all Ocean going Junks and Chinese coastal merchants were banned from voyaging overseas for private purposes and trading with the "outer barbarians". Note when I said the Court was often anti-trade I was not saying they were anti all trade, rather like Japan under the Shogan there was a strong Isolationist feeling which wanted to pull up the drawbridges on the Great Wall etc and protect China from outside influences.

Naturally, the result of his ban was that smuggling of Chinese silks and textlies and Japanese silver and other metals rocketed and when the Government cracked down on the smugglers things turned really nasty. Made worse by the fact that the Ming Dynasty had effectively disbanded the Navy and the collapse of Ouchi power in Japan in 1551 had thrown upon many Japanese Ports to the Wako.

The high tide of Wako attacks was 1549 to 1561 but it was not to 1567 that Imperial forces regained control of coastal Kwangtung and at the same time made legal trade with all points apart from Japan. No doubt it suited all concerned to place all the blame on the Japanese and by then as well the Portugese had been granted their settlement at Macao. Allowing trade between China & Japan to be conducted via the agency of the Portugese and later the Dutch.

In the Glori period main Pirate bases were in China or Vietnam but if someone wants to play fast and loose with historic time line line and really mix thing up - what about having the Confederation based in Western Nippon and as Ming Loyalists lead by Madam Cheng I (mild mannered Gasha by day - Wako Chief by night).

Naturally, since Japan was at this stage eth

Stuart Bailey wrote:Naturally, since Japan was at this stage eth

seems to have been cut off mid post, but please continue Stuart - it is rather interesting.

It sounds, given their size and organisation that the Chinese pirates were almost a maritime state in themselves? Asserting control over the Yellow Sea and taxing any trade that went through it, if not directly through seizing ships then by running a kind of protection racket? If so then the way to counter it would have been through more customs posts and rigorous penalties if officials were bribed which seems to tie in with the dissertation.

If Macao was where they sold their cargo, I'm amazed the Chinese didn't just take it back and shut it down. Wonder if Hong Kong plays the same role in LGDR?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Basically, if anyone fancies a Pirate position I think the South China Pirates are well worth looking at. See how badly you can frustrate Lord Fong and the other slaves & lackies of the Manchu Barbarian who claims to be Emperor.

Not very nice for Lord Fong ... don't tell me China is added to the Bailey list of nations to be disliked (like Venice, Jacobites, etc)

Stuart Bailey wrote:Oddly in game the Confederation is still called "Wako"......the actual Wako period was somewhat earlier. Basically after Admiral Ho fleet was broken up the edict was extended to destroy all Ocean going Junks and Chinese coastal merchants were banned from voyaging overseas for private purposes and trading with the "outer barbarians".

I found there are sometimes discrepancies in period for elements which are not often played. There plenty of oddities on the list of Cardinals for the Papacy, some of whom seem to have been alive since the Council of Trent. Same goes for titles/responsibilities. I had started to address this on the Papal Powers thread.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Note when I said the Court was often anti-trade I was not saying they were anti all trade, rather like Japan under the Shogan there was a strong Isolationist feeling which wanted to pull up the drawbridges on the Great Wall etc and protect China from outside influences.

Naturally, the result of this ban was that smuggling of Chinese silks and textiles and Japanese silver and other metals rocketed and when the Government cracked down on the smugglers things turned really nasty. Made worse by the fact that the Ming Dynasty had effectively disbanded the Navy and the collapse of Ouchi power in Japan in 1551 had thrown upon many Japanese Ports to the Wako.

The high tide of Wako attacks was 1549 to 1561 but it was not to 1567 that Imperial forces regained control of coastal Kwangtung and at the same time made legal trade with all points apart from Japan. No doubt it suited all concerned to place all the blame on the Japanese and by then as well the Portugese had been granted their settlement at Macao. Allowing trade between China & Japan to be conducted via the agency of the Portugese and later the Dutch.

In the Glori period main Pirate bases were in China or Vietnam but if someone wants to play fast and loose with historic time line line and really mix thing up - what about having the Confederation based in Western Nippon and as Ming Loyalists lead by Madam Cheng I (mild mannered Gaisha by day - Wako Chief by night).

I suppose pirate players can set up a base wherever they choose so pirates operating out of Japan and preying on Chinese trade would probably work. Of course it would no doubt create a backlash if Lord Fong's navy can track them down and it would be hard for the Shogun to deny knowledge that pirates were operating out of his territory. One thing I've never really grasped about Chinese trade is determining what they would need to import: I can see how Europeans would be keen on tea, pots and silk, but China has its own luxury goods, can produce all raw materials it needs, so what can Europeans bring to China that is needed? This is partly why I struggle to see why "the smuggling of Chinese silks... rocketed when the Government cracked down on smugglers". Illegal activity must be done at a profit and I can see that if there were super high taxes this would make smuggling more attractive (like cross-Channel smuggling of tobacco, wine etc). But it was not mentioned in the dissertation that China had super high taxes on products internally. Foreigners could trade through mandated ports so could get hold of Chinese goods legally without having to deal with smugglers and risk losing their trading privileges.

By the 17th century if not much earlier China had fully developed considerable regional specialisation's and a nationwide marketing system much of it moved by water. In terms of both area, population and volume of trade between them the individual provinces of the Empire were fully the equal of the European states and combined former a greater trade area than the whole of Europe.

Which resulted in Chinese pirates having just as many targets if not more than say the Barbary Corsairs or other Pirates who were active round the coasts of Europe but it did mean some major differences between European/North African piracy and far eastern piracy:

- Most European Piracy was against foreigners, this was not the case in China. Indeed many Chinese pirates seem to have ignored foreign ships as more trouble than they were worth. Not sure if this is a case of a) European factors with knowlege of how much their cargo was worth back home being happy to buy "protections" b) Dutch & English East Indiamen plus Spanish and Portugese ships which could make the trip tending to be big, well armed and not knowing the local rules liable to put up a fight or c) Pirates not wanting to upset their own suppliers or a mix of all three.

- Many European Pirates like the Knights of St John, Dutch Sea Beggers and the Barbary Corsairs often claimed to be acting for political or religious motives. Political reasons like the Ming Loyalists and the Vietnam rebel Privateers were not unknown but rarer than in Europe and religious motives virtually unknown. Generally Piracy in the far east was on a pure cash basis but I am sure players in Glori should be able to come up with some other motives.

Quite why the Ming and later the Manchu at the height of their power were unable to stop the Pirates and why they put up with Macao acting as a clearing house for "protections" and the ransoming of captured ships and cargo is a bit like saying why did Spain at the height of its power fail to stop North African and English Piracy.

Think Macao was just too handy for all sorts of reasons to close it down....front for Sino-Japanese trade for instance. Also like the Emperor Charles V the Emperor of China and his government were generally too busy with other things. If things got too bad like in the Wako period they would take action but generally this just damped down the problem and it flared up again when the pressure was off or moved elsewhere. Think Glori could reflect this fairly well......a NPC Emperor is much too busy doubling the size of his Empire in area'a which really matter to the Manchu like Mongolia to worry about the problems of a minor Flunky like Lord Fong in a unimportant southern province which is viewed as hardly Chinese by Peking. And if Lord Fong makes life too hard for them (note Gov of Canton just after our period executed 500 Pirate Agents in attempt to disrupt their supplies and it had zero effect) they still have another four coastal provinces plus Nippon and Annum they can move too with officials more open to "gifts".

It may shock Papa Clement but some player character Shogan may even be willing to totally ignore what some of their "merchants" and Western Clans are getting up too. A few might even offer positive incentives while planning to invade Korea.

Finally if any would be Wako player is wondering about international trade with China and it worth trying to take a East Indiaman. The Major imports of China in our period was Furs, Gold, Copper, Ginseng, Spices some Ivory & Opium and depending if you class the Manchu homeland and Mongolia as part of China or lot Merc Soldiers. Major Exports were Tea, Silk, Fine Cottons, Ceramics and Lacquer.

Up to 1820 when Opium Imports really took off the China was running a huge balance of payments surplus and the balance of trade was made up with bullion (mostly silver). First from Japan and then from South America.

Essentially, the world had a huge demand for Chinese exports but it was only American silver and gold from Africa and America which allowed that rest of the world too buy. Helping this demand was the fact that the Ming had abandoned Paper money and the Ming/Manchu wanted taxes paid in silver as the Manchu and Mongol troopers of the Manchu Army demanded to be paid in silver much of which then got turned into Dowry jewellery.

Result of millions of ounces of silver coins being sucked out of the Chin economy and hung round the necks of young ladies was a ongoing liquidity problem and Chinese merchants needing silver or gold to pay their taxes. So basically Russian merchant shows up with a load of Sable and Northern Ivory and the Hongs are happy to see him, Swedish merchant shows up with load of copper and he will probably find a buyer, Ditto the Dutch merchant shows up with a load of spices and Indian Ivory (probably also flogs some Canon and high quality gun powder to nice man down a back alley) but the merchant the Hongs really want to see is the cash buyer!

And in case Papa Clement thinks taking only shipping goods one way and basically nothing but cash the other way is stupid it seem's to work fine for Apple these days and the VOIC and the HEIC also made it work for them. Perhaps because the in our period Silver/Gold was actually worth more in China than in the rest of the world.

Stuart Bailey wrote:By the 17th century if not much earlier China had fully developed considerable regional specialisations and a nationwide marketing system much of it moved by water. In terms of both area, population and volume of trade between them the individual provinces of the Empire were fully the equal of the European states and combined former a greater trade area than the whole of Europe.

Which resulted in Chinese pirates having just as many targets if not more than say the Barbary Corsairs or other Pirates who were active round the coasts of Europe but it did mean some major differences between European/North African piracy and far eastern piracy:

- Most European Piracy was against foreigners, this was not the case in China. Indeed many Chinese pirates seem to have ignored foreign ships as more trouble than they were worth. Not sure if this is a case of a) European factors with knowledge of how much their cargo was worth back home being happy to buy "protections" b) Dutch & English East Indiamen plus Spanish and Portugese ships which could make the trip tending to be big, well armed and not knowing the local rules liable to put up a fight or c) Pirates not wanting to upset their own suppliers or a mix of all three.

- Many European Pirates like the Knights of St John, Dutch Sea Beggers and the Barbary Corsairs often claimed to be acting for political or religious motives. Political reasons like the Ming Loyalists and the Vietnam rebel Privateers were not unknown but rarer than in Europe and religious motives virtually unknown. Generally Piracy in the far east was on a pure cash basis but I am sure players in Glori should be able to come up with some other motives.

Which surely poses this obvious question: since China is closed to western trade, the obvious way to obtain Chinese goods is for Western navies to prey on the pirates. They get the goods they need for nothing and it should improve relations with the Chinese government and possibly even lead to opening up of trade? The problem of piracy then goes away one way or another.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Quite why the Ming and later the Manchu at the height of their power were unable to stop the Pirates and why they put up with Macao acting as a clearing house for "protections" and the ransoming of captured ships and cargo is a bit like saying why did Spain at the height of its power fail to stop North African and English Piracy.

No it isn't. The critical difference is that piracy in the Yellow Sea took place within a relatively small area surrounded by Chinese ports/naval bases - not 3,000 miles away on another continent. Spain had a sprawling Empire covering a third of the world's land area. She was never able to adequately defend these lands whilst many other European countries deliberately targeted her ships. Spain was understandably upset, but this is one reason why she sent her Armada against England. Arguably the loss of (75% of) the Armada was enough for Spain to realise that it was more cost effective for her to tolerate piracy rather than build a new Armada and try again. In the intervening time of course English piracy increased and probably paid for most of the improved English navy which helped defend against any new Armada. Spanish strategy to cut off the scourge of English piracy by invading England and compelling Elizabeth to stop probably made sense, but it failed in its execution and due to Spanish overconfidence. So we know why Spain at the height of its power failed to stop English piracy. We don't know why the Chinese failed to stop Chinese piracy. Was there an equivalent armada sent against the Chinese pirates?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Think Macao was just too handy for all sorts of reasons to close it down....front for Sino-Japanese trade for instance. Also like the Emperor Charles V, the Emperor of China and his government were generally too busy with other things. If things got too bad like in the Wako period they would take action but generally this just damped down the problem and it flared up again when the pressure was off or moved elsewhere. Think Glori could reflect this fairly well......an NPC Emperor is much too busy doubling the size of his Empire in areas which really matter to the Manchu like Mongolia to worry about the problems of a minor Flunky like Lord Fong in a unimportant southern province which is viewed as hardly Chinese by Peking. And if Lord Fong makes life too hard for them (note Gov of Canton just after our period executed 500 Pirate Agents in attempt to disrupt their supplies and it had zero effect) they still have another four coastal provinces plus Nippon and Annum they can move too with officials more open to "gifts".

It may shock Papa Clement but some player character Shogan may even be willing to totally ignore what some of their "merchants" and Western Clans are getting up too. A few might even offer positive incentives while planning to invade Korea.

It does indeed - there does seem to be a contradiction between an internally-looking trade policy (China/Japan) and providing incentives for pirates to conduct such trade illegally. I can see how it could arise, and yes if you are (as Japan) intending to invade Korea, weakening their trade/navy in advance could yield benefits. But the political risks of being discovered are very high.

I guess I just don't think like a pirate.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Finally if any would be Wako player is wondering about international trade with China and it worth trying to take a East Indiaman. The Major imports of China in our period was Furs, Gold, Copper, Ginseng, Spices some Ivory & Opium and depending if you class the Manchu homeland and Mongolia as part of China or lot Merc Soldiers. Major Exports were Tea, Silk, Fine Cottons, Ceramics and Lacquer.

Up to 1820 when Opium Imports really took off the China was running a huge balance of payments surplus and the balance of trade was made up with bullion (mostly silver). First from Japan and then from South America.

Essentially, the world had a huge demand for Chinese exports but it was only American silver and gold from Africa and America which allowed that rest of the world too buy. Helping this demand was the fact that the Ming had abandoned Paper money and the Ming/Manchu wanted taxes paid in silver as the Manchu and Mongol troopers of the Manchu Army demanded to be paid in silver much of which then got turned into Dowry jewellery.

Result of millions of ounces of silver coins being sucked out of the Chin economy and hung round the necks of young ladies was a ongoing liquidity problem and Chinese merchants needing silver or gold to pay their taxes. So basically Russian merchant shows up with a load of Sable and Northern Ivory and the Hongs are happy to see him, Swedish merchant shows up with load of copper and he will probably find a buyer, Ditto the Dutch merchant shows up with a load of spices and Indian Ivory (probably also flogs some canon and high quality gun powder to nice man down a back alley) but the merchant the Hongs really want to see is the cash buyer!

And in case Papa Clement thinks taking only shipping goods one way and basically nothing but cash the other way is stupid it seems to work fine for Apple these days and the VOIC and the HEIC also made it work for them. Perhaps because in our period Silver/Gold was actually worth more in China than in the rest of the world.

As a techno-luddite I don't understand Apple either, so I'll have to take your word on that. I can see that silver/gold can be more valuable in some places than other as I think the price of gold is higher in India for cultural reasons than some other lands.

The detail on Chinese imports/exports is much more interesting. Tea/silk/cotton can surely be found in India instead of having to go all the way to China? I can see how the Japanese would value lacquer, but didn't realise it was very popular in Europe. Ceramics, yes, though once the secret leaked out European pottery surely substituted it to some extent. As to imports, furs would logically come from Russia as you state; gold and copper could also come from Russia assuming Indonesia isn't producing them in 1700; ginseng is native to China/Korea so not sure why they would need to find another source; spices from Indonesia, ivory from India, opium largely outside our period ... so where does Europe come in apart from luxuries?

I don't pretend to be an expert on China - I leave that to Jason2, but I am finding this discussion rather educational.

I'll reply to the questions asked , sometimes of me and sometimes generally, as and when time allows.  Afraid the 21st C has yet again thrown me a curve ball yet again, taking up most of my time.

I must start by pointing out Stuart in his first post in this thread made a very inaccurate statement about the Empire and the in-game positions,  to be completely honest it was so inaccurate that it took me quite some time to work out his mistake.  Stuart did get the overall size of the Empire's population and the number of provinces (18) right but his claim that the playable positions only covered four of the provinces (and were very minor positions as a result) seemed bizarre to me, as Stuart has often commented in reply to my posts where I have talked about the population size of Kwantung province in-game.  I started to wonder if Stuart had been to Lords, been hit on the head by a cricket ball and was concussed (or was just having a dig at those who play Chinese positions).

Now, the thing is yes there were 18 provinces in the Empire proper at this time (Plus Korea and Manchuria) however the in-game provinces are infact each an amalgamation of roughly five or six provinces  into one.  Just to really confuse things Kwantung, Shantung and Shansi in-game positions are five or six real-life provinces while the Manchuria position, largely the homeland of the Manchus and so outside the 18 provinces in real life, does have, in addition to the Manchu territory, a part of one of the 18 provinces in its territory (I think)
What I suspect is Stuart looked at a list of the real-life provinces, noticed that the names of some of the provinces matched those of the game positions and when making his post made the reasonable assumption that they matched each other, though to be honest a quick glance at the Glory maps and a map of the real provinces would have shown that the game positions of Shantung and Shansi were much larger than the real-life provinces of the same names...while the province in-game called Kwantung is not only much larger but also uses a name that was also associated with a northern part of the Empire at a later date.  I took quite some time to work this out as the maps I tend to use give the provinces names that are nearer the native versions whereas in-game the province names we use for the positions use Anglicised versions.
In real life there were eight viceroys, each of a varying number of the 18 provinces, so perhaps we would be better thinking of the in-game positions as viceroys and not provinces.  Things are confused however as there are more viceroys than in-game positions and not all provinces were part of a viceroy and two viceroys only contained a single province.
Frankly given the complications of the admin nature of the Chinese Empire, I am impressed Richard has produced a model that is manageable and playable.

Now Papa asked about the team structure and what stopped it simply being five independent positions, given the Emperor isn't playable (I think that was the sum of the query).  
When I first played a Chinese position, back in the early 2000s, it was stated clearly that the Emperor was never going to be played (or was played by Agema I suppose), you couldn't try and seize the throne and you couldn't declare war on the other provinces.  I think that is roughly in line with the Ottoman position where I think the Sultan can't be played?  Perhaps the difference with the Chinese positions is that all are considered equal, no one is in any way more senior; even Shansi Province (which includes Peking) when played is played by someone who is "just" a governor, controlling Peking doesn't give them any seniority.  With the Ottoman you can be the Grand Vizier who I think in theory at least is more senior than other Ottoman rulers?  (my knowledge of Ottoman politics is a bit hazy).
Now, to me, in an ideal game, the Chines positions would attract five players who want to work together as a team, to achieve team goals and also divide up responsibility between them so (for example) Manchuria deals with Russia, Korea with Japan, Kwantung with the European colonial powers, etc. Because you're that sort of player, who wants to play as a team, that should stop you playing the position as an independent one.  Unfortunately it's rare for there to be more than one Chinese position active at any one time but when there has been I think those have worked together in such a way.  My only experience personally is from G8, I was Manchuria and Aradagor (I think) was Kwantung and we worked in such a way and I feel it worked.
Now, you may still ask "but what is to really stop you playing it as an independent position" and I would say that is where "Agema as the Emperor" comes into play.  In-game the Emperor doesn't do a great deal on a day-to-day basis as long as you play the position in (for lack of a better word) a Chinese way, so long as you don't try and copy the Europeans too much, don't give recruits to other nations, don't act too independently, etc, the Emperor/Agema doesn't need to do too much.  In fact the only times the Emperor has ever got actively involved with me is
1) in a game where he ordered me to go and conquer some islands
2) telling me off for implying other rulers were his equal
3) to stop me giving recruits to another player
4) to tell me to stop making out I am loyal and humble, only he can say who is so.
The other power the Emperor has is control of taxation, if you want to change it, you need his permission.  Tax rates across the Empire are constant, if they change in one province they change in all.

Of course, there is always the question of what does the Emperor have at his disposal in regards resources. I think in-game turns that doesn't matter, as Agema is (effectively) the Emperor, Agema isn't going be active in-games as such except in regards to player-created situations.  So, it doesn't matter (in-game) if the Emperor lives in the Forbidden City by himself, has to took his own meals, clean out the privies and open the gates to visitors and invaders...or if he has 1,000 cooks, 5,000 night soils men, 10,000 Mandarins and an army of 1 million...if the game requires the Emperor to have something, he will have it.  To be honest, I suspect if in-game the Empire, with active players,  was invaded and Peking besieged I doubt the Emperor would suddenly tune out to have a vast army, in the same way that if the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire isn't played/is played by Agema and Constantinople is besieged by the Russians, it wouldn't suddenly turn out he has a corp of 100,000 Janissary in the city of his own.  Wars involving active players, the inactive supreme rulers don't have hidden resources to suddenly repeal invaders (in my experience).
Having said that, I suspect if I tried to stage a coup and seize the throne, at the critical moment I suspect I would find the Emperor's personal host was 10 times mine in size, that he had thousands of spies in my camp who had given him all the details of my cunning plan and that my supposedly loyal second in command was in fact a true man of the Emperor who would slip the fatal sword into my heart for my treachery

Can confirm while the Manchu Emperor is a NPC position with the undivided loyalty of all his officials & troops which means that any internal Manchu plots against him are going to fail 100% of the time and private wars between rival Manchu Generals are not going to happen. This was not the case with the Ottoman Emperor and his Grand Vizier in G2. In G2 both started as Player Character positions with the Sultan in direct control of Constantinople and Anatolia while his Albanian Grand Viziers had their power base in Rumelia.

In game but also historically Grand Viziers got sacked (and even murdered! I am not bitter.....honest!!) due to the hostility of the Janissary Corp and were replaced by Constantinople based Grand Viziers with a power base in the capital. Leading to a full scale blood feud between the Turkish Notables in Rumelia and the Janissary Corp.

Can also confirm that such a feud is very expensive in honour, think it cost between 30 to 40 points which was odd since I was following the Albanian honour code to the letter.

As the Grand Vizier could come from a Provincial leadership position but probably more of them had a power base in the Palace or the Janissary Corp and various Sultans in this period were not that active in later games I think Richard has had both the Sultan and the Grand Vizier attached to the Anatolian position. And Anatolian players can use either as their own personal position, think Richard went through a period of wanting players to run Chief Ministers to Louis XIV, Peter the Great etc but players wanted to play the Monarch rather than De Torcey etc.

For would be Ottoman Sultans being head of the Empire is a bit like being Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire or King of Poland. In that it may be very good for your honour score but you are expected to be nice and protect your vassels, but just try to get the blighters to do anything! Oddly player character vassels may be under more pressure to help you out while being seen to stand up for provincial interests in the original big apple.

Jason2 wrote:I'll reply to the questions asked , sometimes of me and sometimes generally, as and when time allows.  Afraid the 21st C has yet again thrown me a curve ball yet again, taking up most of my time.

Have come to the conclusion that every ball is a curve ball - something to do with gravity. More seriously, though, I hope you will find you have more time to continue this thread which does benefit from the experience of someone who has actually played Chinese positions in multiple games.

Jason2 wrote:I started to wonder if Stuart ... was just having a dig at those who play Chinese positions.

Or just confuse me and others. To be fair to Stuart (yes it does happen occasionally), my own reading about China shows that the number of provinces varied under different administrations, so I can understand the confusion. I can see, though, that from a game simplification perspective, having a limited number of Chinese positions which are 'regional' rather than 'provincial' makes it more manageable.

Jason2 wrote: I took quite some time to work this out as the maps I tend to use give the provinces names that are nearer the native versions whereas in-game the province names we use for the positions use Anglicised versions.

I am also confused by Chinese maps (and Agema maps). Town names seem to change under different dynasties (as did some European towns), but with China is it complicated by spellings. I might be coming at this from the wrong perspective since my knowledge of Chinese towns is from postmarks on stamps so the towns I have heard of are mainly from the Treaty Port era. As examples, Hankou = Hankow; Chonqing = Chungking; Ningbo = Ningpo; Fuzhou = Foochow; Tianjin = Tientsin; Shantou = Swatow = Santow; Weihai=Weihaiwei. On the Agema maps it might help if there were fewer towns, but more rivers or other natural features which could be used to confirm town locations. I guess that with Chinese positions only rarely played, it isn't worth the effort of producing a more accurate map.

Jason2 wrote:Now Papa asked about the team structure and what stopped it simply being five independent positions, given the Emperor isn't playable (I think that was the sum of the query).

Yes, that was about the jist of it, in the context of trying to understand the relationship between Emperor/provinces/players.

Your explanation (and Stuart's later points about Ottomans) does make sense, but perhaps this should be made clear in the rules (or a special Chinese supplement which consolidates specialised technology/rules).

The point about Shansi not being superior (despite controlling Peking) is particularly interesting. I still wonder, though, about the idea of division of responsibility between provinces. The theory/ideal makes sense, but it does mean each player would need to accept limited objectives at the start and perhaps that does make Chinese positions slightly less attractive. A player interested in foreign trade would need to play Kwantung (since only Kwantung is allowed foreign trade?); a player who wants to fight Japan would have to pick Korea?; a player who wants to fight Russia (if indeed there are any out there mad enough to try it) would have to pick Manchuria? Not sure what the set objective would be for Shansi and Shantung?
 

Jason2 wrote:Now, you may still ask "but what is to really stop you playing it as an independent position" and I would say that is where "Agema as the Emperor" comes into play.  In-game the Emperor doesn't do a great deal on a day-to-day basis as long as you play the position in (for lack of a better word) a Chinese way, so long as you don't try and copy the Europeans too much, don't give recruits to other nations, don't act too independently, etc, the Emperor/Agema doesn't need to do too much.

Which makes it even more restrictive ... needing to play in a Chinese way! Do Chinese positions really leave any room for metahistory? I'm not doubting what you write, Jason - it is from your own experience which is the only yardstick we have and a valuable one - but as I have written elsewhere, for me a major part of the game is the ability to explore alternative histories, e.g. what if James Stuart had become King, how would he have ruled, how would people have responded, etc. If Chinese positions have to be played in a Chinese way, with objectives already determined, and accepting the limits of team play, perhaps this is why they are seldom played?

Jason2 wrote:  In fact the only times the Emperor has ever got actively involved with me is
1) in a game where he ordered me to go and conquer some islands
2) telling me off for implying other rulers were his equal
3) to stop me giving recruits to another player
4) to tell me to stop making out I am loyal and humble, only he can say who is so.

You weren't joking when earlier you said how hard it was to raise honour as a Chinese player! I can understand (1) and (3), but (2) and (4) must have placed you in a no-win situation! Shame the Emperor doesn't have his own honour listed on the table because then (if as a governor you can't have higher honour than the emperor) you might be able to tell when your honour is 1 point below his?

Jason2 wrote:The other power the Emperor has is control of taxation, if you want to change it, you need his permission.  Tax rates across the Empire are constant, if they change in one province they change in all.

That must make foreign trade a headache for Kwantung - can you enter into 0% trade treaties with foreigners or is all that fixed as well?

Jason2 wrote:Of course, there is always the question of what does the Emperor have at his disposal in regards resources. I think in-game turns that doesn't matter, as Agema is (effectively) the Emperor, Agema isn't going be active in-games as such except in regards to player-created situations.  So, it doesn't matter (in-game) if the Emperor lives in the Forbidden City by himself, has to took his own meals, clean out the privies and open the gates to visitors and invaders...or if he has 1,000 cooks, 5,000 night soils men, 10,000 Mandarins and an army of 1 million...if the game requires the Emperor to have something, he will have it.  To be honest, I suspect if in-game the Empire, with active players,  was invaded and Peking besieged I doubt the Emperor would suddenly tune out to have a vast army, in the same way that if the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire isn't played/is played by Agema and Constantinople is besieged by the Russians, it wouldn't suddenly turn out he has a corp of 100,000 Janissary in the city of his own.  Wars involving active players, the inactive supreme rulers don't have hidden resources to suddenly repeal invaders (in my experience). Having said that, I suspect if I tried to stage a coup and seize the throne, at the critical moment I suspect I would find the Emperor's personal host was 10 times mine in size, that he had thousands of spies in my camp who had given him all the details of my cunning plan and that my supposedly loyal second in command was in fact a true man of the Emperor who would slip the fatal sword into my heart for my treachery

This is where it perhaps becomes rather unrealistic. It has also long been a feature of the game that players make their own objectives and that the game evolves as players do that. Dynasties do change in China and although I take Stuart's later point about it costing him 30-40 honour points when he moved against the Ottoman Sultan, it was possible for him to do so. Perhaps if there were multiple players in China then unifying China (or becoming Emperor) would be allowed if a player was really determined? I accept that this would break up the team balance, but reading Jason's analysis I can't help but wonder if the reason Chinese positions are seen in the way described is more because nobody has tried to do things differently?

I'm not suggesting that there should be multiple applications to take on Chinese positions and launch an invasion of India, with several governors seeking to impress the Emperor by conquering a continent for him. But it does seem to me that if played imaginatively Chinese positions do have plenty of possibilities beyond nation building and perhaps some day a player will try to do so?

Another possibility could be for a player to assassinate the Emperor and start a Chinese civil war with each province being obliged to take sides and the eventual winner becoming Emperor? A diplomatic player who lined up the support (or neutrality) of other provinces before he made his move might succeed? I would imagine that if there were multiple Chinese players (forming a proper 'team China') then there would inevitably be times when one of them upset the others, even if this is down to having a slightly different vision to how China should be played. And that would be very interesting to watch.

Think as a rule of thumb with China:

1) Historically official trade (not smuggling) with various regions went via certain set ports so if you want to trade with Europeans its Canton, Russia, Indo-China or Japan its a different port. This means that all the various "Provinces" of China can trade with anyone they want too but if they want to export your Ceramics and tea to Europe via the HEIC or the VOIC for instance you may need to have a factor and warehouses in Canton and pay Lord Fongs harbour duties/taxes........which seems like a good reason to take up smuggling to me, not that a good Manchu should ever consider this.

2) Provincial Viceroys are all playing Manchu loyal to the Emperor (who's troops etc are even more loyal to the Emperor) - If you want to alter History, overthrow the Emperor, bring down the Manchu domination of China and restore the Ming or some other Dynasty you need to be playing the other side.

3) If someone like the Shogun does invade China and marches on Peking when Player Character Viceroy's are in play.......I assume that the Emperor is going to be ill or busy fighting Mongols and its going to be up to the player to rally the defence and save Peking from the Wako hordes. What would be interesting is if the player gets smashed by the Shogon? Will Richard cut your honour in half and give you command of a 2nd Army or a 3rd? And at what point does your Character get his head cut off?

Looking at some of Papa's comments and questions, my apols if it seemed like I was suggesting you were limited in the "alternative history" possibilities for playing a Chinese position, far from it and I would argue a lot of what I have done in G9 is "alternative history" and am sure Chinese players in other games would agree.

Rather, I would see it as there being some in-game checks in place simply to make sure we don't play a position too much as a "European position in the Far East" so you can be creative and go beyond history a lot but just don't (for example) convert your position to Christianity or import Western technology wholesale  
I was once told, long long ago (maybe even pre-forum days) by an Ottoman player that there were some checks in place that stopped them being too progressive, so don't go for "New Order" reforms.

So I see it more as being reminded this is 1700's China not 1890s China

Have never played a Manchu or a Japanese position in Glori so I do not know if what you can do or not do differs markedly from other positions but I assume that like all positions there are a) Actions - which will get you sacked, executed, locked up or exiled by your own Government..........such as a Russian Czar who converts to Islam or a Ottoman Sultan who converts to Hinduism & b) Actions - which will encounter a strong amount of opposition.

Having played Ottoman Rumelia in G2 think that were the Ottoman Ottoman may differ from a "standard" western European position (if such a thing exists) is not over the totally off the wall conversions to Hinduism and the like but over what type of actions cause the strong opposition and how this is expressed.

For instance trying to introduce absolute rule & tax changes can in Europe cause all sorts of problems with Estates General and the like.....but in the Ottoman Empire they just seem to go through on the nod. While Military changes which in western Europe hardly attract any attention can result in Constantinople in flames and blood on the streets.

With Western European positions upset and strong opposition normally results in your loyal Army trying to contain Jacobite clans and other provincial or urban revolts. In the Ottoman Empire this can happen but more normally its the Elite Janissary Corp & Religious leaders turning their cooking pots upside down and demanding an end to reform.

If you have played say England and then try a Ottoman position.......finding your capital in flames and yourself trapped in your Palace by the Ottoman answer to the Brigade of Guards and the Archbishop of York demanding a purge of half of your Government just because the Army Minister decided to give your Guards a new hat or improve your infantry by teaching them platoon fire via a Prussian Drill mission may come as a bit of a shock.

Have noticed that there are two ways for Ottoman players to deal with l with this type of "strong opposition" the easy way is to just execute a couple of spare Viziers for leading you away from the true Islamic path, rewarding the Janissary corp for their loyalty and generally treating a bloody mutiney as no more than a vote which has gone against you. Believe it or not this can be quite good for your honour score and shows you are in touch with Ottoman "public opinion".

The other alternative is to go full "James Stuart from G7" and arrange to slaughter the opposition. This is possible but it helps if you avoid all mention of reform and go really retro - my Character avoided all mention of reform, followed Sufi Islam and C14 Albanian honour codes and had a military had more in common with the Timur than Frederick the Great. Also do it in stages with gaps for honour recovery (AKA Jihads against unbelievers). Since its certain that you will get the blame for disorder in the Empire and Agema will start to drop your honour score.

The "third way" and probably the best way for a Ottoman Sultan to handle things is to basically move with great care - getting religious views (from Agema) before trying anything and keeping the Janissary Corp on side by pointing out its a hostile world out there full of Russians, Poles, Hapsburg's, Persians etc who gain honour by killing them and can they please stop winding up the Albanians and Turkish notables.

Thanks Stuart, always good to get that personal experience of the Ottoman positions. Nearest I have ever got is playing the leader of the Janissary in a Napoleonic Period PBM game (now long defunct); as an aside in that the Sultan declared a military zone around Istanbul that the Janissary weren't allowed into.

Despite how it might appear, in-game I am not that radical in how I play the Chinese positions. In fact the only "reform" I tend to do is introduce flintlocks and western-style field artillery (always modified to look more "Chinese") and always then make sure a lot of units are still armed with Chinese weapons such as repeating crossbows. I don't, for example, introduce Western-style SoLs, as that would likely backfire in regards honour, etc

Jason2 wrote:Looking at some of Papa's comments and questions, my apols if it seemed like I was suggesting you were limited in the "alternative history" possibilities for playing a Chinese position, far from it and I would argue a lot of what I have done in G9 is "alternative history" and am sure Chinese players in other games would agree. Rather, I would see it as there being some in-game checks in place simply to make sure we don't play a position too much as a "European position in the Far East" so you can be creative and go beyond history a lot but just don't (for example) convert your position to Christianity or import Western technology wholesale. So I see it more as being reminded this is 1700's China not 1890s China

Despite how it might appear, in-game I am not that radical in how I play the Chinese positions. In fact the only "reform" I tend to do is introduce flintlocks and western-style field artillery (always modified to look more "Chinese") and always then make sure a lot of units are still armed with Chinese weapons such as repeating crossbows. I don't, for example, introduce Western-style SoLs, as that would likely backfire in regards honour, etc

Probably my misunderstanding as well Jason2 - easily done with China. Since you referred to it, I did glance at the G9 thread, but it didn't seem to give that much background on what Lord Fong had done. I suppose it is necessary to have a better understanding of Chinese history in the period before 1700 than I do to be able to see just how much Lord Fong has been a reforming ruler.

Trying to stay on topic I have tried to understand the rules on Chinese ships, but am still not that clear. In the rules there are various styles of Chinese ships all of which seem to have the junk as the basic design template, so we have:

Junk: "Chinese junks have internal bulkheads which help them keep afloat even if the outer hull is breached, keeping them seaworthy. Junks are rigged with 3 coarse cotton square sails braced with bamboo strips, and also carry long oars in case the sea is becalmed. They have broad and flat bows and higher sterns and are of shallow draught with a long rudder. They have no speed advantage compared to European vessels, but are slightly slower than comparable types. However, they have oars and are better able to operate in shallows, as well as having better underwater protection." I read this as being the equivalent of an EiM rather than a L, slower and more stable, but sacrificing speed.

This then allows the improvements of "improved junk rigging" which makes the junk faster than European unmodified cruisers, but less stable and gives a longer turning circle. And "improved junk hull" which removes the bulkhead and makes them less stable with a wider turning circle. I think that means they are closer to European liners.

The same part of the rules also details "War Junk" which seems to be the equivalent of a Chinese SoL with 40x24pdr, but a crew of 1,000: long and wide-beamed ship of war, reasonable turn of speed but very wide turning circle, oar-propelled and sail-rigged.

A transport junk seems to be a cut down version of a war junk rather than an upgraded junk.

The really interesting Chinese ship appears to be the Kobukson which has 40x3pdr, 1 flamethrower and 1 smoke generator, is completely covered in iron plates to make it impossible to board. This is a Korean special.

All this then begs 2 obvious questions:
1. If China is run as a team position does it mean that all Chinese positions can build Kobukson and technology developed by one province is automatically available to the others? That would seem to make sense in a team position. If so then logically honour could be gained by developing technologies and sharing them with the Emperor for the greater good of China?
2. If the best China can build is either a slow war junk at a much higher cost in terms of recruits and less heavily armed than a western SoL, then why would introducing western SoL cause Lord Fong to lose honour? Modern China seems quite happy to seek out the best technologies from wherever they come and then incorporate them into their own products, so why should this be any different in 1700? Unless there is another example somewhere in the rules that I didn't find, it seems like Chinese War Junks (the closest they have to SoL) are a bit like a Spanish Galleass, but with fewer guns. They would have the armament of a standard western Frg, but be considerably slower.

And perhaps a 3rd question - if a Chinese liner is a junk, then is a Chinese cruiser basically a slimline junk rather than a western frigate/corvette? It probably doesn't apply in G7 since I don't think there is an active Chinese position, but I am curious what "SoL" means in the Chinese context. For western ships the newspaper does often report HFrg as SoL, and a "Cruiser" can be anything from a corvette to a frigate. The rules describe a Kobukson as a cruiser, but if the maximum guns a Chinese War Junk can have is 40 (the same as a western frigate) then are all Chinese ships described as cruisers?

Stuart Bailey wrote:The other alternative is to go full "James Stuart from G7" and arrange to slaughter the opposition.

A little unfair! From the Jacobite perspective, the Williamite government was not legitimate - they had usurped the throne and those who supported them were traitors. There are very few examples in history where those who lead rebellions against the true king did not pay for it with their heads. I did not pursue a witchhunt against those traitors who invited William over, but have continued to employ some of them subject to them taking an oath to serve me. I have actually been very fair by only executing a handful of hard core rebels, usually after they had previously been released on good behaviour and offended again. Stuart may want me to continually release rebels so he can use them to rebel again, but it does get awfully tedious and tends to demoralise my policeforce. They've had 8 game years to get used to my rule and if it hadn't been for Spain spending £24M to support rebellions against me, there would be peace by now and my people would be happy and content. Everyone knows now that if they commit crimes they will be punished (and the standard punishment for most serious crimes in 1714) was death. It is not a case that I am particularly bloodthirsty, but if I fail to uphold the law then I am not meeting the expectations of my people. Far from gaining me honour, leniency is more likely to reduce it, which of course is what Stuart is keen to see.

On the questions around junks Papa, just to give some additional background.

First time I played a Chinese position in G2 at first China could not build anything bigger than a liner or corvette.  After a little bit Richard introduced the War Junk and from that I then developed the Transport Junk so your understanding of it is completely correct.  As to the Kobukson, this is something I asked Richard about and got introduced into the game; I found out about it as the ex-Mrs-Jason is into Kaekwondo and the ship is (for reasons I never fully understood) part of the ethos of that martial art.  In later games the rule was you couldn't build SoL but all types of cruiser were ok
There is also a "Large War Junk", 60 cannon and technological breakthrough.
It's also worth saying that while the Chinese can't built SoL-junks, they can build frigate-junks including Heavy Frigate-junks so while they can't have "proper" SoL-junks they do have the "small" SoL-junks.  
You also have to remember Chinese warships can be armed with various types of naval rockets without losing any cannon, so can be more heavily armed than might first appear (even if rockets can be a danger to the person who fired them)

On the first question, at the start of the game only Korea can build the Kobukson and even for the other Chinese positions you have to ask them to send a mission (which I haven't yet done in G9 it has to be said).  I realise that might sound a bit odd but I guess the reasoning was it was always just a Korean invention and the Empire proper never used it.  I think another in-game comparison is the Xebec, only available to North African positions...so would be available to Ottoman Egypt but not Ottoman Anatolia.
If a position develops a new technology, say improved rigging or the improved plough, it isn't automatically available to the others, missions have to be sent to teach it.  However I believe this applies in other team positions, such as the Ottoman Empire.

On the second question, at this time the Chinese believed that their technology was superior and didn't maybe see the Western SoL as better.  Junks do have some advantages, like operating in shallower waters than SoLs, which also could make SoLs seem less attractive to China.  In Chinese history it really wasn't until the mid 19th Century that they realised they were behind in the technology race, you could argue the current drive by China to copy/obtain Western technology if a continuation of that rather than their older attitudes around technology. I must admit on a personal level I do also like the idea that my fleet would simply look different to any Western fleet it encountered
I suppose also in Chinese history they didn't really have naval battles with other nations in a big way until the mid 19th Century.  Yes, there were naval battles earlier in Chinese history during their civil wars as well as in the conquest of Taiwan but they didn't really engage western fleets in major battles at this time.  I think there were a couple of encounters with the navies of Portugal and the Dutch in the 17th Century but the western forces were small and defeated by the Chinese.  So for the Chinese, why obtain the technology to build ships they easily defeated?  Maybe a comparison is the history of the tank, in hindsight we know it was a game-changer in warfare yet so many nations ignored it or considered a minor weapon and so didn't use it or didn't use them to its full potential at first, until they learnt the hard way.  
Now, as far as I am aware, there has not actually been a large-scale naval battle in any game between a Chinese and Western position.  Who knows, maybe it would turn out that the larger armed junks (war junks, Heavy Frigate-junks) are a match for western SoL?  Chinese ships may carry less guns but their design means they can take more damage, plus who knows maybe that combined with the various types of naval rockets might be more effective than some might expect?  

Onto the 3rd question, my take on it is the way we describe the junks in game terms is more a case of "nearest equivalent type" when we call them corvettes, frigates, cruisers, etc and they perform that role.  The War Junk, despite only having 40 guns, is considered to be an SoL and of course the Large War Junk is also an SoL.  As to Heavy and Great frigate-junks, I guess it depends on how each Chinese player writes their naval regulations as to if they are cruisers or SoLs.

Thanks Jason - I still think this is probably the most interesting thread on the forum at present. You will appreciate that I am coming at this from the viewpoint of my experience in G7 where ship design/tactics have played an important role.

The history of how you have managed to get different types of junks incorporated into the game does make sense. I suspected it had been player-driven, but also based on your own historical research so does provide an example of Lord Fong's reforms in that sense.

I take the points about rockets, but given the danger of misfires and potential fires breaking out on ships with powder/cannon, it would be a braver man than I who put rockets on a SoL (sorry, large war junk?)

It is from a design perspective that I really struggle to see the value of some of the combinations. I can see that a basic junk sacrifices speed for stability and in shallow draft Chinese waters enabling them to sail up rivers is an advantage. I can also accept that from a SoL perspective, a War Junk also has advantages despite having fewer guns - they would be very difficult to sink and so may be able to continue to fire for longer against a normal-sized western SoL. But the same logic makes no sense at all for cruisers which sacrifice armament for speed. So the junk-corvette or junk-Frg is a design white elephant. There are plenty of western design white elephants as well (rather archaic galleons/galleasses, gFrg, etc) so I'm not just picking on China here. I've also been less than impressed with such overly specialised vessels such as large sloops which cost a fortune to maintain and are easily sunk in storms. Experience has taught me that unless you have very good reasons for doing otherwise, sticking with the basic design of each class of ship usually works out better than tinkering with it. Once you start up-gunning you get stability issues (unless you have researched stable ship design); if you get too big then the largest ships tend to be the ones that mysteriously get sunk; if you get too small then you are probably overpaying for a few extra guns compared to simply building a smaller ship.

So looking at it purely from a design perspective, War Junk vs SoL might work out about even depending on conditions/numbers. If Chinese fleets are as huge as previous posts have indicated then I can see a larger number of War Junks being able to use their oars to get into a better tactical position to cause SoL some trouble. But when it comes to Junk-Frg vs Frg/Corvettes, the western ships should win hands down. Which raises more questions about how best for Chinese fleets to respond to pirates. If all Chinese ships are built to a basic junk design (slow and stable), it doesn't bode well for their use as pirate vessels. So there must be a fast, light cruiser more akin to western designs which would enable them to take on junk-designed ships?

Where the Chinese ship design does have a tactical advantage over western designs is the Kobukson - I could really do with some of these in G7! I won't even begin to ask about how this is related to Kaekwondo(?!), but it would seem to be a very good idea to have a few of them in any Chinese fleet. I take the point that they were set as a Korean only invention due to historical use, but in that case the Chinese really missed a trick!

When I first read about Xebecs, I thought they were potentially useful, but have found them to be slightly overrated. They are available to all Mediterranean shipbuilders, but are really more like a large armed galley with a cannon on the prow so useful in rounding up becalmed merchantmen, but otherwise rather easy to sink/capture and not very easy to board taller vessels from.

Shame there is no automatic sharing of inventions. I can sort of see why it would be more difficult for Ottoman positions (or the HRE)since there are potentially many more players and both geographic and cultural variations are greater. Ottoman lands in the Balkans are very different to Tangiers or Egypt. But I would have thought that Chinese lands (having been under Chinese rule for hundreds of years) would have had much more in common so a case could be made for creating a Chinese technology pool which positions could draw on and contribute to gaining honour as a result. There would have to be rules prohibiting the sharing of Chinese technology with barbarians, but from what you have written elsewhere I suspect that anyone trying to do that would face heavy honour penalties?

I accept your aesthetic sensibilities, but the King James side of me would point out that ships all look the same when they are sunk. I can't think of any naval battles involving Chinese fleets and western ones during the LGDR period either, but perhaps someone knows better than I do. Just seems really strange to me that the Chinese attitude was to ignore the developments going on around them when they would surely be aware of reports of battles brought back by merchants trading through Kwantung and of western voyages of exploration. The Japanese were equally insular, but once they saw the value of muskets they adopted them even if under most conditions they were less effective than traditional weaponry. I don't have any better explanation that you provided, Jason2, but I do find it odd.

"Nearest equivalent type" I suppose, but my point from a design perspective is that with cruisers there is no practical comparison.

Perhaps one day this will be tested - will the heroic navy of Lord Fong sail to India and attack English colonies, taking on a western fleet? If this does happen then please do post the newspaper writeup on here because I would be very interested in how it turns out. I might be completely wrong, but I don't know of any battlefleet in the Age of Sail which was not dependent upon fast cruisers to be its eyes. Cruisers were the hardest working ships in any fleet and Admirals always complained that they did not have enough of them.

I'm glad you've found the discussions interesting. Chinese positions are underplayed in games so the chances to even try out the warship designs haven't been fully explored.

As to naval battles, I think China v England is unlikely, I suspect we would see a conflict with the Dutch or Spanish first. However if we want to go with the "1420" story line, I think we will see Chinese fleets turning up in European-controlled ports in India in the near-ish future. Must admit do have this fantasy of a Chinese fleet visiting London in-game on a friendship visit.
Besides, its the time it takes for a Chinese position to build up a fleet that also limits the opportunities for naval warfare. I have been Lord Fong in G9 for six game years and it's taken me that long to build up a fleet of 200 warships (of various sizes), plus 200 liners, but given my initial navy was 0 plus 0 liners...

On technology sharing, I put it down to a game mechanic, it's simply easier to manage the games if there isn't that automatic sharing even in team positions You have to bear in mind it is quite rare to have more than one Chinese position active at any one time, so who would you be sharing with? In G9 we had about three months a little while back where Shantung was active, played by Roy/Rozwi (and am now trying to work out if someone else is playing Shantung). In G8 we had two positions active for a few years and we had two periods where a third was active...in fact we might have had a wild heady month when four were active. But in G10 there is just an active Kwantung and in G7, as you know, no Chinese positions are active.

On the Kobukson, risk of stating the obvious, in G7 is it worth sending an envoy to Korea and seeing if you can get hold of the technology? I have never played Korea and can only recall one game (G8) where it was an active position-and even then briefly-but I think Korea has more independence than the other Chinese positions. You might be able to do a deal? Hell, if you're really lucky, maybe you will find a Korean King who wants English support so he can break away from the Empire?

About the only clash between Chinese naval forces and European warships from very roughly the Glori period is the invasion on Dutch Taiwan in 1661-1662 by Ming forces seeking a base away from Manchu pressure on the mainland.

Since Zheng's invasion fleet consisted of a reported 900 warships and 50,000 men the Dutch I assume the Dutch were badly outnumbered. But it seems that Dutch ships did engage the invaders at Sea but failed to stop the invasion and later on a Dutch fleet tried to relieve the siege of Fort Zeelandia and a battle took place.

Wonder if a kindly German or Dutch speaker could add extra information?

From the little information you do tend to picture a sort of Far Eastern Spanish Armada which worked, with a huge fleet loaded with troops heading towards its targe. While Dutch gunboats snapped at its heels trying to avoid close combat and try to figure out how to stop them.

Ref Papa Clement comments about some Junks and western classes being a a design white elephant. I think with a lot depends on the user and what purpose you use them for:

- For instance at the 4 day day battle and the raid on the Midway the Dutch managed to capture some of the Royal Navy's best ships. Probably some of the most most modern and most powerfull warships in the world at that date but totally useless to the Dutch due to their deep draft. In the end all they could do was break them up.

- As for Lord Fong wanting to spend lots and lots of the Emperor's silver on building western style Lineships I think the Mardarins would be asking a) Is the spending any use against the Mongols? b) Can the new Class carry troops/cargo? c) Is this new class any good at hunting pirates esp in inshore and river waters & on getting the answers no, no and no will decide that Fong is either mad or is taking back handers from the Ship builders.

- Think in many ways Junks are tactically more like large European Galleys than the floating Gun battaries of Western European Navies in that they are perfectly designed to take large numbers of fighting men, supplies and guns almost anywhere on the Coast and up rivers. Indeed from a Chinese point of view a lineship can be classed too large, over specialized and not flexible enough to do the jobs they want doing.

On subject of Great and Heavy frigates I think a lot of players agree with Papa Clement that they are a waste of space in a line of battle and standard Frigates make better and faster cruisers for lower costs and fewer recruits. While this is indeed true it is a pity that more people do not consider convoy protection and attack.

Given time and consideration almost all ship classes have a use at sometime and to someone, but for the life of me I can not work out a use for the Cavalry Galley (page 9 advice for Princes)