As an admirer of the Great Qing Dynasty, I will say, in their defense, that they did improve the Imperial Army of China, in part with the use of the Bannermen system, which allowed a speedy mobilization of armies to different regions throughout the vast domain of the Chinese Empire.
Remember, in the late 18th century, the Qianlong Emperor (the Great), who waged 3 wars with the Burmese Overlord King Hsinabyushin, in an attempt to draw out the Burmese occupying army that had sacked Kingdom of Ayudhya (Siam), which was an long time friend and partner of the Chinese Empire. Tactically speaking, Qianlong's military forrays into Burma proved unsuccessful due to the terrain and the subsequent deaths due to malaria, and shortage of supplies, but it did achieve strategic success. Burma had exhausted its forces and supplies in fighting off 3 Qing Armies in its northern Corridor, and had left Ayudhya (Siam) largely unoccupied, and thus led to the revolution of the Thais against Burmese yolk. Thus led to the rise of the Taksin and the subsequent Chakri Dynasty of Siam. The Thais owe their independence , truly, to Qianlong's military intervention.
China , under the Qing, were very interventionalist in regional affairs. What happened was during the latter part of the Qing Dynasty, led to decadence of the Imperial House. The unregulated power of generals throughout the Empire led to Warlordism. Had there been great Emperors such as Qianlong in the 19th century, China would have industrialized by the 18th century or ealry 19th century. And it would have never been placed in such position as the Unequal treaties.
