Abstract
In European historiography, there is a school of thought which attributes an important role to the military in the process of state formation. Starting in the early modern period, the introduction of gunpowder weapon technology is thought to have conferred a decisive edge to rulers in Europe, allowing them to consolidate their power against competing aristocratic interests and leading to centralisation of state power. The military demands of unrelenting warfare in Europe are also supposed to have accelerated this process of state formation, spurred on by a “coercion-extraction cycle”, eventually leading to the fiscal military state. This is seen by some scholars as a veritable juggernaut of centralised armed might, which gave European polities a definitive edge over their Asian counterparts from the late eighteenth century onwards (di Cosmo 2001: 119, 134; Parker 1996; Tilly 1992). For the still-independent Asian polities at this time, European military technology and organisation were their most visible markers of strength, and processes of transfer in the military sector were undertaken to defend against external imperialistic pressures. But, just as important in the context of the historiographical school of thought mentioned above, these processes helped Asian polities in the consolidation of central rule against internal enemies (Horowitz 2005: 458). This was perhaps nowhere more pronounced than in late Qing China (1644–1911), where many rebellions raged in the mid-nineteenth century. The Chinese had also been faced with the strength of European armies in two Opium Wars (1839–1842 and 1856–1860), and the combination of internal and external threats led a group of reform-minded officials, many of whom had risen to important positions during these upheavals, to initiate the first steps in what would become a process of transfer in the military field between Europe and China (Horowitz 2002: 154–155). This process is interesting to examine in detail, because it allows us to study transfer in the military sector at a time when a clear technological asymmetry existed in favour of Europe, after centuries of a relatively stable military equilibrium. I will argue here that this process constituted not a simple transplantation of European military technology and tactics to a Chinese context, but was mediated by a complex process of ideological negotiation and appropriation, channelled by institutional factors with the occasional aid of European personnel. I understand transfer here in the way Matthias Middell has defined it, as “an integration of foreign cultural elements into a culture defined as native” (Middell 2000: 26). Adopting his approach, I opt to focus on the people who were the carriers of transfer processes, the transferred technology, and the Chinese systems of thought legitimising the transfer, as the three main entry points to study this transcultural encounter, which produced hybrid armies incorporating aspects of both European and Chinese military origin. The Sino-French War (1884–1885), the first war China fought with a European power since the start of the transfer process, will be used to illustrate the characteristics of these hybrid armies in action on the battlefields of Tonkin, in the north of present-day Vietnam. This way, the extent and nature of the transfer can be highlighted, relying mainly on accounts by French soldiers and other eye-witnesses, whose familiarity with European techniques of warfare gives us the opportunity to view Chinese armies as seen through contemporary French eyes. However, in order to explicate the transfer process, I deem it necessary first to start with a consideration of the changes which accrued to European warfare, at home and abroad, because of technological developments in the nineteenth century. These changes will have an impact on my analysis of the performance of the Chinese armies during the Sino-French War, further highlighting what the consequences of hybridity were in the context of late nineteenth-century warfare.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The present article is based on my MA thesis, which I wrote as part of the history curriculum at Leiden University and which was supervised by Peer H. H. Vries and Petra M. H. Groen. This rewritten and abridged version benefitted greatly from the helpful input of Antje Flüchter.
- 2.
Many scholars still understand transfer to be a process between an active sender and a passive receiver. The latter is assumed to take over the transferred entity without alteration and the receiver’s internal dynamics often do not figure at all as a force shaping the transfer process. Similar to Middell’s understanding of transfer, there are many other concepts which challenge this model in transcultural and transsocial contexts. Important for this article were current ideas on practices of appropriation, Jeremy Black’s concept of tasking, Stefan Brakensiek and his views on state-building from below (in this volume) and Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger’s use of performativity to elucidate the functioning of social reality (Ashley and Plesch 2002; Black 2004; Stollberg-Rilinger 2009).
- 3.
I include the American Civil War here since it mirrors European wars of this period in the weaponry used, and the evolution of tactics employed. Since Native Americans played no notable role in the war, the war resembled a European conflict.
- 4.
The French training of Indian sepoys in the eighteenth century constitutes an even earlier example, but there is an institutional discontinuity between the armies of the early modern French East India Company and the nineteenth century French colonial army.
- 5.
Research on military transfer from Europe to the rest of the world in the nineteenth century often assumes the form of a “deficit analysis”. As a rule this measures the relative success of the process against the completeness with which the European model was copied, but hardly takes stock of the extent to which internal factors on the part of the receiver shaped and channelled it. Ralston (1991) is an example of this tendency. I will argue below that the Chinese approach to military transfer fitted their political realities and tasking very well and as such did not constitute a “failure”.
- 6.
The term “hybrid expert” is anachronistic in the context of nineteenth-century China, since the Empire wanted them to be vaccinated against European culture, so that they would not be in danger of cultural contamination. It is only in the present-day understanding of the author that they are considered “hybrid”.
- 7.
See Peter Trummer’s article in this volume for more on the European instructors in nineteenth-century China.
Bibliography
Anonymous I. 1885. “De Fransche oorlogvoering in Tonkin.” Indisch Militair Tijdschrift 16/7-12: 1290–1291.
Anonymous II. 1885. “De vechtwijze der Franschen in Tonkin.” Indisch Militair Tijdschrift 16/1-6: 611–619.
Ashley, Kathleen and Véronique Plesch. 2002. “The Cultural Processes of “Appropriation””. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 32/1: 1–15.
Bays, Daniel H. 1970. “The Nature of Provincial Political Authority in Late Ch’ing Times: Chang Chih-tung in Canton, 1884–1889.” Modern Asian Studies 4/4: 325–347.
Bidwell, Shelford. 1971. Swords for Hire. European Mercenaries in Eighteenth-Century India. London: John Murray.
Black, Jeremy. 2001. Western Warfare, 1775–1882. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Black, Jeremy. 2004. Rethinking Military History. London: Routledge.
Long Zhang 龍章 (1996) Yuenan yu Zhong Fa Zhanzheng 越南於中法战争. Taibei: Taiwan shangwu yinshu guan 台北: 台湾商务印書館
Deák, István. 1990. Beyond Nationalism. A Social and Political History of the Habsburg Officer Corps, 1848–1918. New York: Oxford University Press.
Di Cosmo, Nicola. 2001. “European Technology and Manchu Power: Reflections on the “Military Revolution” in Seventeenth-Century China.” In Making Sense of Global History, ed. Sølvi Sogner, 119–39. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Elleman, Bruce A. 2001. Modern Chinese Warfare, 1795–1989. London: Routledge.
Elman, Benjamin A. 2004. “Naval Warfare and the Refraction of China’s Self-Strengthening Reforms into Scientific and Technological Failure, 1865–1895.” Modern Asian Studies 38/2: 283–326.
Fung, Allen. 1996. “Testing the Self-Strengthening: The Chinese Army in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895.” Modern Asian Studies 30/4: 1007–1031.
Grisot, Paul-Adolphe and Ernest-Auguste-Ferdinand Coulombon. 1888. La légion étrangère de 1831 à 1887. Paris: Berger-Levrault.
Hacker, Barton C. 1977. “The Weapons of the West. Military Technology and Modernization in 19th-Century China and Japan.” Technology and Culture 18/1: 43–55.
Headrick, Daniel R. 1981. The Tools of Empire. Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hocquard, É. 1999. War and Peace in Hanoi and Tonkin. A Field Report of the Franco-Chinese War and on Customs and Beliefs of the Vietnamese (1884–1885). Bangkok: White Lotus Press.
Horowitz, Richard S. 2002. “Beyond the Marble Boat: The Transformation of the Chinese Military, 1850–1911.” In A Military History of China, ed. David A. Graff and Robin Higham, 153–174. Boulder: Westview Press.
Horowitz, Richard S. 2005. “International Law and State Transformation in China, Siam, and the Ottoman Empire during the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of World History 15/4: 445–486.
Jackman, Steven D. 2004. “Shoulder to Shoulder: Close Control and “Old Prussian Drill” in German Offensive Infantry Tactics, 1871–1914.” The Journal of Military History 68/1: 73–104.
Kaske, Elisabeth. 2002. Bismarcks Missionäre. Deutsche Militärinstrukteure in China 1884–1890. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kuhn, Philip A. 1978. “The Taiping Rebellion.” The Cambridge History of China. Volume 10. Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911, Part I, 264–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kunz, Hermann. 1902. Taktische Beispiele aus den Kriegen der neuesten Zeit. 1880–1900. Drittes Heft: Die Feldzüge der Franzosen in Tonkin. 1883 bis 1885. Berlin: Mittler.
Kwong, Luke S.K. 1993. “The T’i-Yung Dichotomy and the Search for Talent in Late-Ch'ing China”. Modern Asian Studies 27/2: 253–279.
Lecomte, Jean François Alphonse. 1888. Marche de Lang-Son à Tuyen-Quan. Combat de Hoa-Moc; Déblocus de Tuyen-Quan (13 février - 3 mars 1885). Paris: Berger-Levrault.
Liu, Kwang-ching. 1994. “The Confucian as Patriot and Pragmatist: Li Hung-chang’s Formative Years, 1823–1866.” In Li Hung-chang and China’s Early Modernization, ed. Samuel C. Chu and Kwang-ching Liu, 17–47. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Liu, Kwang-ching and Richard J. Smith. 1980. “The Military Challenge: The North-West and the Coast.” In: The Cambridge History of China. Volume 11. Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911, Part 2, ed. Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbank, 202–273. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McAleavy, Henry. 1968. Black Flags in Vietnam. The Story of a Chinese Intervention. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Middell, Matthias. 2000. “European History and Cultural Transfer.” Diogenes 48/1: 23–30.
Parker, Geoffrey. 1996. The Military Revolution. Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porch, Douglas. 1981. The March to the Marne. The French Army, 1871–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porch, Douglas. 1991. The French Foreign Legion: A Complete History. LondOn: MacMillan.
Powell, Ralph L. 1955. The Rise of Chinese Military Power 1895–1912. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Presseisen, Ernst L. 1965. Before Aggression. Europeans Prepare the Japanese Army. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Ralston, David B. 1991. Importing the European Army. The Introduction of European Military Techniques and Institutions into the Extra-European World, 1600–1914. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sarrat, Louis. 1987. Journal d’un Marsouin au Tonkin, 1883–1886. Paris: Éditions France-Empire.
Smith, Richard J. 1975. “The Employment of Foreign Military Talent: Chinese Tradition and Late Ch’ing Practice.” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 15: 113–138.
Smith, Richard J. 1976. “Foreign-Training and China’s Self-Strengthening: The Case of Feng-huang-shan, 1864–1873.” Modern Asian Studies 10/2: 195–223.
Smith, Richard J. 1978. “The Reform of Military Education in Late Ch’ing China, 1842–1895.” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 18: 15–40.
Smith, Richard J. 1994. “Li Hung-chang’s Use of Foreign Military Talent: The Formative Period, 1862–1874.” In Li Hung-chang and China’s Early Modernization, ed. Samuel C. Chu and Kwang-ching Liu, 119–142. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Spector, Stanley. 1964. Li Hung-chang and the Huai Army. A Study in Nineteenth-Century Chinese Regionalism. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara. 2009. “The Impact of Communication Theory on the Analysis of the Early Modern Statebuilding Processes.” In Empowering Interactions. Political Cultures and the Emergence of the State in Europe 1300–1900, ed. Wim Blockmans, André Holenstein and Jon Mathieu, 313–318. Farnham: Ashgate.
Teng, Ssu-Yu and John K. Fairbank. 1970. China’s Response to the West. A Documentary Survey 1839–1923. New York: Atheneum.
Thomazi, A. 1934. La Conquête de l’Indochine. Paris: Payot.
Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, Capital and European States, AD 990–1992. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Van Creveld, Martin. 2005. “Technology and War I: To 1945.” In The Oxford History of Modern War, ed. Charles Townshend, 201–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vandervort, Bruce. 1998. Wars of Imperial Conquest in Africa, 1830–1914. London: UCL Press.
Van de Ven, Hans. 2003. “Military Mobilization in China, 1840–1949.” In War in the Modern World since 1815, ed. Jeremy Black, 20–40. London: Routledge.
Waley-Cohen, Joanna. 1993. “China and Western Technology in the Late Eighteenth Century.” American Historical Review 98/5: 1525–1544.
Wawro, Geoffrey. 1995. “An “Army of Pigs”: The Technical, Social, and Political Bases of Austrian Shock Tactics, 1859–1866.” The Journal of Military History 59/3: 407–433.
Wawro, Geoffrey. 2000. Warfare and Society in Europe, 1792–1914. London: Routledge.
Wesseling, H.L. 1989. “Colonial Wars: An Introduction”. In Imperialism and War: Essays on Colonial Wars in Asia and Africa, ed. J.A. de Moor and H.L. Wesseling, 1–11. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Wright, Mary Clabaugh. 1957. The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism. The T’ung-Chih restoration, 1862–1874. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Yu, Maochun. 2002. “The Taiping Rebellion: A Military Assessment of Revolution and Counterrevolution”. In A Military History of China, ed. David A. Graff and Robin Higham, 135–151. Boulder: Westview Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Noordam, B. (2012). Technology, Tactics and Military Transfer in the Nineteenth Century. In: Flüchter, A., Richter, S. (eds) Structures on the Move. Transcultural Research – Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe in a Global Context. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19288-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19288-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19287-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19288-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)