An Accelerating Divergence? The Revisionist Model of World History and the Question of Eurasian Military Parity: Data from East Asia
AbstractOver the past few years, this journal has hosted a debate central to world history and historical sociology: Joseph M. Bryant’s bold assault on the revisionist model of global history and the revisionists’ equally trenchant defense. A key point of disagreement concerns Europeans' relative military advantages vis-a-vis Asians. Both sides cite literature from historians’ Military Revolution Model, but each takes different lessons from that literature. The revisionists see a slight military imbalance in favor of Europe but deny that it reflects a general European technological lead. Bryant believes that the European technological lead is significant and reflects a more general modernizing trend. This article tries to resolve the disagreement by appealing to data from East Asia. First, it argues that recent work in Asian history points to what we can call a Chinese Military Revolution, which compels us to place the European Military Revolution in a larger, Eurasian context: not just western European but also East Asian societies were undergoing rapid military change and modernization during the gunpowder age. Second, it adduces evidence from a new study of the Sino-Dutch War of 1661-1668 (a war that both Bryant and the revisionists cite, each, again, taking divergent lessons) to come to a more precise evaluation of the military balance between China and western Europe in the early modern period: western cannons and muskets didn’t provide a discernible advantage, but western war ships and renaissance forts did. The article concludes that the revisionists are correct in their belief that Asian societies were undergoing rapid changes in military technology and practices along the lines of those taking place in western Europe and that the standard model Bryant defends is incorrect because it presumes that Asian societies are more stagnant than is warranted by the evidence. At the same time, the article argues that counter-revisionists like Bryant are correct in their belief that military modernization was proceeding more quickly in Europe than that in Asia, which may indicate that the counter-revisionists are correct on a basic point: there was an early divergence between the west and the rest of Eurasia. At first this divergence was slight – so slight, indeed, that it probably left little clear evidence in the noisy and poor early modern data we have available. But the divergence increased over time. Thus, we can speak of a small but accelerating divergence.
1. The CJS will perform the usual functions of copy-editing on the article. The Author(s) will be given an opportunity to read and correct proofs, but if they fail to return them by the date set on the proofs, production and publication may proceed without the Author(s)'s approval of proofs.
2. The CJS will publish this article pursuant to this contract at its cost. CJS has the exclusive right to determine how the article will appear in the journal and elsewhere.
3. The Author(s) warrant that permission to publish the article has not been previously assigned elsewhere. The Author(s) further warrant that the contribution is original to them, except for any copyrighted material of others incorporated in it, and that the Author(s) will advise us of any material, either text or illustration, the rights for which are controlled by others. Where necessary, the Author(s) will obtain, before publication and at their expense, permission in writing from the owner of the copyright in that material for publication by us. Copies of any such permission must be submitted to CJS for our files.
4. The Author(s) further warrant that the article contains no defamatory or otherwise unlawful matter and that it makes no improper invasion of the privacy or personal rights of anyone. The Author(s) undertake that all statements in it purporting to be facts are true; and that they will advise us of any statements that might be construed as defamatory or otherwise unlawful. We may require substantive revision of the manuscript to avoid including material that may infringe rights or be defamatory or otherwise unlawful. 5. In the unlikely event of any claim, action, or proceeding based on an alleged violation of any of these warranties, we shall have the right to defend the same through counsel of our own choosing. The Author(s) agree to pay all resulting costs and damages, except that this indemnity shall not apply to any changes in the manuscript by us that were not approved by the Author(s) in advance of publication, or to any material that the Authors had warned us in advance of publication might be construed as defamatory or otherwise unlawful.
6. In order to protect both Author(s) and CJS from unauthorized use of the article, the Author(s) agree to refer to us any subsequent requests to publish it or a substantial portion thereof. If we choose to grant any such request, we will normally exact a standard fee for reprinting, the amount of this fee to be fixed by us from time to time; this fee will be divided equally with Author(s). We will accede to any request by the Author(s) to use part or all of their article in a article published under either Author(s)’s exclusive authorship or editorship, provided that acknowledgment of its first appearance is made in a manner approved by CJS, and in such cases no fee for reprinting shall be payable to us.
7. Subject to the above conditions, and in consideration of CJS undertaking to subsidize costs of publication of the article, the Author(s) assign to CJS the exclusive world rights to the article in its present, or substantially its present, form, and the parties hereto agree upon the foregoing terms for themselves and their respective executors, administrators, assigns, or successors. The Author(s) herby waive any claim for royalties and reprint fees arising from the use of their article. CJS hereby obtains the right to use the article in any future publication, including, but not limited to, publication in electronic media, issued under its auspices and to authorize others, including reproduction rights organizations such as CanCopy, to do the same.