had changed.^3 This was thanks to the Mongols. Whereas the Tang
and Song dynasties had, for the most part, relied upon the power of
virtue (de) to convince barbarians to acknowledge Chinese suzerainty
and superiority, the Yuan had relied much more on ‘majesty’ (wei), and
military force, to extend the empire and subdue foreign powers. As bar-
barians themselves, the Mongols could claim little virtue, in Chinese
eyes at least, and their loss of the mandate of Heaven only confirmed
this. The Ming, by contrast, claimed great virtue; but they did not
forget the lesson of the Yuan: where foreign relations were concerned,
they saw ‘no real contradiction’ between virtue and force, providing
the force was applied by a virtuous ruler.^4
The tributary system
Under the Ming, imperial authority was extended to include all rela-
tions between Chinese and barbarians, including trade relations.
Private overseas trade by Chinese merchants was prohibited and
Chinese were forbidden to voyage abroad. The only officially sanc-
tioned trade was by merchants from countries that acknowledged
Chinese suzerainty, and then only when they accompanied actual
tribute missions. Such trade attracted only a minimal 6 per cent tax, a
clear indication that the dynasty did not count on trade as a major
source of revenue. Three ports only were designated to receive tribute
missions, depending on where they came from. The port for missions
from Southeast Asia was Canton, though the envoys of some inland
kingdoms arrived via Kunming.
The whole tributary system was also placed on a more formal
footing. Regulations were issued specifying how tribute was to be
offered and how frequently. ‘Near countries’ on China’s borders, such
as Vietnam, were required to send tribute every three years. ‘Distant
countries’, which included all of Southeast Asia beyond Champa, were
required to send tribute only ‘infrequently’. Tribute did not need to be
Sea power, tribute and trade