Mongol Rule in China vs. Russia Due to the Mongols ultimate desire for economic power, the Mongols highly affected both Russia and China in both political and economic aspects. When the Mongols invaded both territories, they destroyed a lot and the key differences and similarities come from how it became reconstructed. Many similarities in politics and economics arose such as the way the facilitated trade, and how their economies dropped. However, many differences occurred like the way they ran the governments, their centers of power, and how the Mongols fell from both states. In many ways, both states were extremely similar in the way Mongols ruled them.
Though the Mongolian expansion led to devastation in both Russia and China, Mongol rule had positive long-term effects on both civilizations that eventually supported their rise as political and economic powers in the 15th and 16th centuries. Under Mongol rule, the economies of both civilizations grew; however, they expanded for different reasons. Chinaâs economy flourished after the re-opening of the Silk Roads, while many of Russiaâs princes became wealthy because of their ability to manipulate their roles as tribute collectors. Politically, China and Russia were influenced in different manners. As a result of Mongol contact, China became unified whereas the trace amount of Russian unity disintegrated.
By looking at charts that show the relationship between the year and the amount of silver imported, I will be able to support my belief that major factors to the fall of the Ming dynasty was the collapse of foreign trade and the over-dependency on silver as monetary funding. In the fourteenth and fifteenth century China had become dependent on precious metals as they started using them for monetary use. They were able to mine their own copper and silver for so long but even that soon turned scarce. The merchants of China were smart though and knew they needed to find a way to get silver. Throughout the sixteenth century substantial deposits of silver were found in Japan.
These other causes are all political social and economical factors which helped to free the serfs. And had the Tsar taken a more liberal view on his rule the emancipation may never have happened. Firstly there are many political causes for the emancipation of the serfs. The bankruptcy of nobles who were the tsar’s main supporters was, caused because of the inefficiency of using serfs to farm lands, which meant most nobles were losing money and by 1860 over 60% of serfs were mortgaged to the government meaning they were “unofficially” no longer tied to their land. This meant serfdom was already coming to its own natural end, and for Alexander II to support his nobles he had to emancipate the serfs so they could go start increasing their wealth and get out of debt.
After the rule of the Mongol over Russia, many of the free peasants had fallen into debt and were forced to work as laborers on the large estates owned by nobles. The Russian serfdom system expanded as more land was added to the empire. This similarity exists between these two systems of forced labors because as both the Spanish and Russian empire expanded, forced labor became necessary to maintain the empires’ economic status. The best social classes to demand labor from are the poorer social classes, in this case, the Russian peasants and Native Americans of the new world. Another similarity between Russian serfdom and the Spanish encomienda system is that both the serfs and the natives were born into their social class, thus born into the system of forced labor, although
As a result, books became less expensive, more people could afford them, more people learned to read and write, and helped to spread knowledge throughout China. The Mongols: They conquered all of China within 20 years. They didn’t let the old Chinese ruling class in government and kept their own language and customs. Kublai Khan, the Mongol’s leader used to welcome visitors from all over the world , one of them was Marco Polo who wrote about what he saw in Khan’s court, which caused trade between Europe and China to grow. Mongol rule in China came to an and when Chinese peasants led an uprising against the
This was instrumental in gathering support. Sneevliet and Borodin essentially organised both parties, the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party, however the Kuomintang had significantly a much higher membership than the Chinese Communist Party did. Moreover, The Soviet Union’s cadre also helped form the ideas of the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership and were therefore, also instrumental at its formation. The Soviet Union gave back concessions to China however, this only furthered the cause of Communism than any propaganda. The Chinese people could relate to the anti-Empire element of communism which attracted more Chinese people to support the Soviet Union and allow them to help aid the country to defeat the warlords in China and the Soviet Union be-giving the government in league with the warlords.
Chiang faced many problems during his period as Nationalist leader, one of which being the insurance that all warlords were defeated, especially the powerful warlord Zhang Zuolin of Manchuria, and that China would be united under one leader. Additionally, Chiang had to deal with the treat of both the Communists and the Japanese. However, Chiang did pass many policies in his period as leader in order to stabilise the Chinese economy due to the vast inflation
Essay #1 The increased production and flow of silver during the mid-16th century to the early 18th century caused many social and economic effects all around the world. It helped increase the integration of Europeans in the world trade, hurt Spain’s economy, and created more economic opportunities and greater social divisions within China. The flow of silver during this time had a large effect on the division of social classes in China. Documents 1, 3, and 7 show the greater social division in China due to the over-production of silver. Document 1 [Ye Chunji] gives a quote about how Chunji has noticed the social gap and how the upper class is becoming increasingly unsatisfied and greedy; whereas document 3 [Wang Xijue]tells more of the economic social gap between the two main classes and explains how the economy is aiding the social gap through the harvest.
In 1949, the loss of the war by the GMD wasn’t mainly because the CCP were too strong for them but because they had many flaws and corruption within the bureaucracy. It all began in 1911, when the Qing Dynasty collapsed due to the overpowered alliance of foreign imperialist armies, which caused their authority to decrease. Furthermore in 1916, consequences of the failure in democracy established by the GMD (Guo Ming Dang) were resulted in dividing China under the rule of provincial military generals otherwise known as warlords, and struggled to maintain power in China. Later in 1927 although the GMD managed to reclaim power and unify China under the leadership of Chiang Kai-Shek, not too long in 1931 the Japanese War broke out causing the GMD to lose power and authority furthermore at the same time this served as a chance to rise for Chinese communist party (CCP). Throughout the Japanese invasion in 1937 all over China, they conquered the military and economic strongholds of the GMD, hence coercing them to retreat back to their capital Chueng King leaving them politically powerless and economically paralyzed.