Which country was more powerful militarily in 1910: China or Germany?

More powerful military power overall in 1910?

  • Qing Empire

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • German Empire

    Votes: 54 96.4%

  • Total voters
    56

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,510
Portugal
But a campaign isn't just a battle. It's the lead up to the battle, and the aftermatch of a battle. Unless you think these troops got drop off in the summer and left before winter, the campaign logistic require a much longer planning than just the summer. Which is why someone mentioned about the port. Russian ports are different ports than Tianjing.
And all that is true and didn’t saw here anyone denning it.

But the relief force commanded by Gaselee disembarked, moved in Chinese territory, and occupied Pekin. It happened.

We saw a similar situation in 1860.

Don’t recall if we saw a similar action against Saint Petersburg. Even during the WWII, when Germany invaded the Soviet Unit, with the Finish as allies. Maybe because it wasn’t that simple. Even in the summer. Even if Saint Petersburg (Leningrad) is closer to the sea.

Meaning, per se, distance from the sea is not an argument. Much less to a quick campaign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,057
Los Angeles
And all that is true and didn’t saw here anyone denning it.

But the relief force commanded by Gaselee disembarked, moved in Chinese territory, and occupied Pekin. It happened.

We saw a similar situation in 1860.

Don’t recall if we saw a similar action against Saint Petersburg. Even during the WWII, when Germany invaded the Soviet Unit, with the Finish as allies. Maybe because it wasn’t that simple. Even in the summer. Even if Saint Petersburg (Leningrad) is closer to the sea.

Meaning, per se, distance from the sea is not an argument. Much less to a quick campaign.
The argument was never about the distance from the sea, at least from what I understood. It was the ease of logistics. And it's silly to compare WWII a total war with the Boers Rebellion. You guys can compare whatever you want, but if the war in China was about the destruction of the state, the occupation would be far more different than some minor concession compare to what Hitler demanded of the USSR.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,510
Portugal
The argument was never about the distance from the sea, at least from what I understood. It was the ease of logistics.
The argument that I read and answered was about distance: “While Beijing is not too far from the coast. One only has to land in Tianjin, then march into the open fields into Beijing.”

Speculatively, the same can be done in Saint Petersburg in the summer, as in the summer was made in Peking. The only reasons that it wasn’t done a relief expedition there are that one was never considered needed and because Russia/Soviet Union is not China.

And it's silly to compare WWII a total war with the Boers Rebellion. You guys can compare whatever you want, but if the war in China was about the destruction of the state, the occupation would be far more different than some minor concession compare to what Hitler demanded of the USSR.
You probably have a typo and mean Boxer, not Boers.

If by “You guys” you mean me, then you can understand that I am not comparing WWI with the "Boers" or Boxer Rebellion. I was comparing a relief expedition that existed, was made in the summer, with the closest thing that happened in Saint Petersburg, of the arriving of an enemy force. But I agree with you, this is getting silly. Good night!
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76
Dec 2015
370
NYC
Hmmm... I have the idea that Saint Petersburg is much closer to the coast that Peking.
It's still far to the North, much harsher winters, and it's surrounded by other countries. Invading forces have to fight through the Swedes, Finns and the Baltic states before taking Saint Petersburg.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,057
Los Angeles
The argument that I read and answered was about distance: “While Beijing is not too far from the coast. One only has to land in Tianjin, then march into the open fields into Beijing.”

Speculatively, the same can be done in Saint Petersburg in the summer, as in the summer was made in Peking. The only reasons that it wasn’t done a relief expedition there are that one was never considered needed and because Russia/Soviet Union is not China.
well since Beijing is the capital, capturing it is different than capturing St Petersburg.

To suggest it was NEVER done because USSR is not China entirely ignores the nature of the conflict that was the Boxer vs the total war that was the Siege of Leningrad.

And further more, if St Petersburg was the capital, how could you suggest that there wouldn't be a landing? On what basis do we hold that opinion?




If by “You guys” you mean me, then you can understand that I am not comparing WWI with the "Boers" or Boxer Rebellion. I was comparing a relief expedition that existed, was made in the summer, with the closest thing that happened in Saint Petersburg, of the arriving of an enemy force. But I agree with you, this is getting silly. Good night!
But you did. You did make the comparison with St. Petersberg.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,558
I believe in what I can see... Pekin was taken three times in 70 years....Between 1860 to 1937...Paris twice... Saint Petersburg.. none...Chinese Army was very weak in Opium War in 1839-1842.. it was very week in 1860, it was very weak against Japan.. it was very weak against 8th Powers Alliance.. it was very weak against Japan in 1894-1895.... No... I don´t like words... I love FACTS.

The Powers in Pekin... TAKEN by Eight powers alliance



And 37 years later.... JAPANESES in Pekin



Facts, as if you like or not... Chinese army as minimum was enough Weak,... lacked of the power (if you prefer) to defend the Chinese Capital.. nor in 1900 nor in 1937.. nor in 1860... Chinese Army was able to defend Pekin...

Russian army defended Saint Petersburg and Moscow... and in both places.. they achieved the victory!



The movement is proved walking... end.
The ROC is not relevant to this discussion, which is about the power of the late Qing (and mostly after the self strengthening movement of the 1860s). You might as well bring up the fact that the PRC defeated the US in North Korea if you want to generalize "Chinese army" and discuss events after the collapse of the Qing. Nanjing has never been captured during the Qing dynasty, and neither has Xi'an and the other secondary capitals.
You are also still ignoring the fact that the Qing stalemated France in Vietnam as a competitive colonial power, not as a power defending itself against imperialism.

In any case, you are off topic, the debate was whether China can be conquered, not defeated. Capitals are easy to take, holding it and conquering the rural masses is a monstrous task by the late Qing as numerous regimes, from the Taiping to the Japanese found out. The prevalent militarization of the Chinese masses was a modern phenomenon developed internally in China which had no pre-19th century precedent (at least after the mid-Tang period). The prevalence of muskets owned by the masses and tolerated by law (popular possession of weapons such as powerful crossbows or guns were supervised or banned from the Song to the Ming) was a sight many Europeans and Chinese observed since the late Qing.

Even under the PRC the militia forces existed and numbered 28 million (in addition to the 6 million standing soldiers) until they were cut at the turn of the 1980s. Unlike earlier regimes however, the PRC had full control over them.
 
Last edited:

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,953
Spain
China was weak, yet Japan in the Second-Sino war couldn't conquer China beyond that they occupied, that is, west of Manchuria, west of Shanxi, west of Hubei and couldn't advance beyond the coasts of Fujian and Guangdong. China was weak, yet the alliance was afraid of pursuing the empress when she fled into the interior to the ancient city of Xi'an.

Once again, using Saint Petersburg as a strawman argument to show how easy it was to conquer Beijing but not Saint Petersburg when they are both very different cities with different climate and terrain. Saint Petersburg is too far north with very harsh winters for any conquering force to fully conquer. By the time any army (for example, Germans in WW2) marches through the Northern European plains into Saint Petersburg, they become overstretched with their resources exhausted and have to deal with the extreme cold. While Beijing is not too far from the coast. One only has to land in Tianjin, then march into the open fields into Beijing.
I think China was strong in the past... it is strong nowadays.. but It was not strong in 19th Century and early 20th Century... I think Republic of China was stronger in 1937 than Imperial China in 1900...
 
  • Like
Reactions: betgo

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,953
Spain
The ROC is not relevant to this discussion, which is about the power of the late Qing (and mostly after the self strengthening movement of the 1860s). You might as well bring up the fact that the PRC defeated the US in North Korea if you want to generalize "Chinese army" and discuss events after the collapse of the Qing. Nanjing has never been captured during the Qing dynasty, and neither has Xi'an and the other secondary capitals.
You are also still ignoring the fact that the Qing stalemated France in Vietnam as a competitive colonial power, not as a power defending itself against imperialism.

In any case, you are off topic, the debate was whether China can be conquered, not defeated. Capitals are easy to take, holding it and conquering the rural masses is a monstrous task by the late Qing as numerous regimes, from the Taiping to the Japanese found out. The prevalent militarization of the Chinese masses was a modern phenomenon developed internally in China which had no pre-19th century precedent (at least after the mid-Tang period). The prevalence of muskets owned by the masses and tolerated by law (popular possession of weapons such as powerful crossbows or guns were supervised or banned from the Song to the Ming) was a sight many Europeans and Chinese observed since the late Qing.

Even under the PRC the militia forces existed and numbered 28 million (in addition to the 6 million standing soldiers) until they were cut at the turn of the 1980s. Unlike earlier regimes however, the PRC had full control over them.
China was stronger in 1937 than in 1900.. that´s the reason because Japan failed (1937 - 1945) but Britain, France and Eight-Powers alliance won against China in China. Not off topic.. because topis is Imperial China and II Reich.... welll... II Reich NEVER lost the capital... 1871 - 1918. In fact... never a Big Imperial City was conquered by their enemies (nor München, nor Strasburg, nor Metz, Frankfurt, Dresde, Hamburg, Hannover etc etc)...So.. yes.... II Reich evidenced to be stronger than China in 1871 - 1918.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,510
Portugal
On what basis do we hold that opinion?
It is not an opinion. To my knowledge it never happened.

But you did. You did make the comparison with St. Petersberg.
Indeed, I followed the comparison made by other poster, and commented and objective situation: Saint Petersburg is closer to the sea than Peking. That was my initial comment. Let us not begin to walk in circles.
 

At Each Kilometer

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
4,132
Bulgaria
As a side note the name of former Leningrad in Cyrillic alphabet ergo the original name dont contain letter 's' / it is Санкт Петербург / Sankt Peterburg. Oddly enough in English it becomes St. Petersburg. Same with the name of the capital of PRC / Peking is based on Qing dynasty Romanisation system now obsolete, whilst Beijing is based on the current Hanyu Pinyin. Transcribing Chinese characters into Cyrrilic letters is even an older system, developed in XIX century and still in use today, so the capital of China written with Cyrillic letters is Пекин / Pekin (transliteration to Latin mine)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius