AHC China keeps the far west
- Thread starter varyar
- Start date
Do you mean the two protectorates west of anxi?
If so, no. The chinese wouldn't be able to exert their (quite overwhelming) military strength over the pamirs effectively, and the protectorates would fall prey to western states. Anxi, however, is rather doable, as long as the tibetans do not seize control of it, and the chinese are able to establish themselves there (settle some of that titanic population there, or maybe move some undesired groups there? worked for byzantium!)
In any case, as long as china is able to properly settle the tarim basin, and maintain their ability to project power outside of the regions watered by the pearl, yellow river, and yangtze, I think it can work.
If so, no. The chinese wouldn't be able to exert their (quite overwhelming) military strength over the pamirs effectively, and the protectorates would fall prey to western states. Anxi, however, is rather doable, as long as the tibetans do not seize control of it, and the chinese are able to establish themselves there (settle some of that titanic population there, or maybe move some undesired groups there? worked for byzantium!)
In any case, as long as china is able to properly settle the tarim basin, and maintain their ability to project power outside of the regions watered by the pearl, yellow river, and yangtze, I think it can work.
Cool, thanks!
What about the other peripheral protectorates? (Korea, Siberia, Vietnam, etc)
Siberia is doable, but I have absolutely no idea why. Trying to maintain control over the steppe and the far north is what screwed the ming so badly, ruling it isn't a venture that can be positive or profitable.
Vietnam is certainly possible, plenty of chinese dynasties before the tang had subjugated the red river and plenty more after them also would. There's the issue of the vietnamese though, as you can't exactly just get rid of them. At a certain point, they'll most likely get it back.
Korea would have to be a no. Korea's rather considerably different from china. Religously, Linguistically, Ethnically, Culturally, etc..they differ from China, and that's not an issue that can exactly be resolved. They'd want their own autonomy and, as has been demonstrated before (even under tang rule!) they'll have it if they have the resolve to do what they need to.
China is a positively gigantic, and immensely powerful country. If they weren't sorrounded on all sides by mountains, steppe, and hostile peoples, asia would have been theirs long, long ago, and not just in a hegemonic way. They can only take so much territory before they overextend and lose it, due to the sheer amount of territory that needs to be garrisoned, governed, et cetera.. In my opinion, the most sustainable china would most likely be china proper, the tarim, and manchuria.
Fair enough! Thank you for the informative answers.
Re Korea and Vietnam, I wonder how much of that ‘they’ll keep or regain independence’ is because that’s what happened in OTL? I can see a timeline where Koreans and Vietnamese end up like the other non-Han ethnic groups around the core of China proper, assimilated or reduced to small minorities - or do they have advantages the southern non-Han realms didn’t?
They're already extremely well established in their specific regions, and there's not much room for anyone else to butt their way in. I mean, the red river valley was one of the most populated regions in southeast Asia period, to the point where even though Chinese dynasties had possessed strong rule over it for decades or even centuries, it never really sinicised properly. Integrated into China, they might actually be a bit of a threat, as the Zhuang (close relatives of the Vietnamese, who are both descended from the yue) gave the Chinese hell otl, and I believe even had some considerable success in revolt.
As for Korea, China can't really effectively rule it over the Yalu River and the changbai mountains. Any communication/reinforcements between the mainland and the Protectorate General to Pacify the Eastern Barbarians would have to be maritime, which can be interdicted, as China has proven itself time and time again to be very beatable by sea, so they're at a considerable disadvantage against any Korean rebellion that isn't pounded into the dirt by local forces.
In fact, managing korea might actually be relatively costly for those reasons.
Manchuria and the steppe have always been headaches for a Han Chinese regime. Even Tang suffered great losses to Koguryo and only beat them at great length with many losses and with the help of Silla, who then betrayed them. The OTL settlement of Manchuria by Hannese was due largely to the fact that without them, it would be severely underpopulated and weak, and so even that is difficult. I have no doubt, however, that a hypothetical China that has the fiscal and military organizations as well as the technology of OTL Europe from exploration to industrialization (assuming their immediate neighbors do not) would naturally seek to claim the far west and north once more, whether as clients, colonies, or outright provinces... in the mean time, however, the conquests would likely be lost with the first sign of chaos (as the Tarim was lost to Han after the Xin usurpation or the west to Tang after the An Lushan rebellion) while the north has the potential to become more organized and formidable (see Liao, Xi Xia, and Mongols) and Yunnan and Annan, especially the latter if lost, will become tough thorns in the side of China if they are not crushed swiftly, fully, and decisively.
China is not necessarily doomed at sea. Yes, it has not largely had a naval tradition, however I always point to the Song, especially the southern Song, as an example of the potential of China if it develops a naval tradition. Korea is difficult to conquer but not impossible. The problem is that I believe any developments in the Sinosphere may diffuse before one power develops an overwhelming advantage, while other powers may ally to keep a balance of power in the region in the meantime. Then there’s the question of whether China will want to spend the effort of conquering and pacifying these regions: perhaps ideology and a “strike first” mentality will suffice, perhaps not.
China is not necessarily doomed at sea. Yes, it has not largely had a naval tradition, however I always point to the Song, especially the southern Song, as an example of the potential of China if it develops a naval tradition. Korea is difficult to conquer but not impossible. The problem is that I believe any developments in the Sinosphere may diffuse before one power develops an overwhelming advantage, while other powers may ally to keep a balance of power in the region in the meantime. Then there’s the question of whether China will want to spend the effort of conquering and pacifying these regions: perhaps ideology and a “strike first” mentality will suffice, perhaps not.
The soft control over the steppe is certainly profitable if an empire such as the Kushan exist on the opposite end of Tocharia. In otl, the Tang had utterly opposed enemies logistically and imperially in the Umayyad-Abbasid and the Tibetan Empire, which preyed upon the Tang. Each of the three major powers in the region (post Turkic Khagnate and pre-Uyghur) present counter narratives to each other and victory of one, entails weakening the other two. This cannot be resolved to a satisfactory state as did the vaunted Silk Road relation between Han and the Kushanshahs. Thus, the situation is very unfavorable for China in this period even when the Tang decimate steppe empires, they must contend with enemies who despite possible economic benefits of peace, seek to expand their domains.