AHC: China retains control over Vietnam to the Present Day
- Thread starter Vingilótë
- Start date
Hmm, the last period of Chinese rule was in... the 15th century?
By that point Chinese priority had traditionally been to look towards the north and the west, to protect against the threat of hostile nomads (or because the nomads had already taken over, depending on time period). So with the military focus being primarily in the north, it makes it harder to try and hold down the south by military force. Not impossible, but pretty hard. Plus even if that's successful its still 600 years between 1400 AD and the 21st century. Even longer if you start with an earlier period.
So the logical conclusion is that Vietnam needs to be assimilated and Sinocized enough that when unrest and instability occurs, Vietnam is content with merely demanding the head of the Emperor instead of independence when they revolt.
Though in the frontier regions, Sinoization and assimilation usually didn't work out so well. Mongolia was conquered but continued to maintain a separate identity. The Jurchen's and Manchus were supposedly subdued and integrated, then they ended up conquering China by force. In Korea and Formosa they didn't even try. And Tibet is still complaining about the whole colonization thing. Not sure how to get it to work in Vietnam.
But on the other hand, it worked in other cases, such as Inner Mongolia or the Muslim peoples. The southern China minority ethnic groups as well, but those are a rather special case as far as assimilation goes.
By that point Chinese priority had traditionally been to look towards the north and the west, to protect against the threat of hostile nomads (or because the nomads had already taken over, depending on time period). So with the military focus being primarily in the north, it makes it harder to try and hold down the south by military force. Not impossible, but pretty hard. Plus even if that's successful its still 600 years between 1400 AD and the 21st century. Even longer if you start with an earlier period.
So the logical conclusion is that Vietnam needs to be assimilated and Sinocized enough that when unrest and instability occurs, Vietnam is content with merely demanding the head of the Emperor instead of independence when they revolt.
Though in the frontier regions, Sinoization and assimilation usually didn't work out so well. Mongolia was conquered but continued to maintain a separate identity. The Jurchen's and Manchus were supposedly subdued and integrated, then they ended up conquering China by force. In Korea and Formosa they didn't even try. And Tibet is still complaining about the whole colonization thing. Not sure how to get it to work in Vietnam.
But on the other hand, it worked in other cases, such as Inner Mongolia or the Muslim peoples. The southern China minority ethnic groups as well, but those are a rather special case as far as assimilation goes.
Last edited:
The 1400s are too late for China to retain control. I think a more appropriate strategy would be to go back, rather far back, to the Tang Dynasty. During the later half of the dynasty, sometime in the mid-800s, foreign invaders from Nanzhao repeatedly overran the area that became Vietnam, and the Tang lost control. I'm sure that contributed to the area's sense of independence and weakened the legitimacy of China. If the Tang somehow survive and last longer, I think China's rule could last longer basically due to inertia.
I think the best PoD for this could be any time up until the Tang Dynasty, where bureaucrats identify the Red River Valley as a suitable place for a city. Successive waves of Han migration due to disturbance in the north 'snuff out' the local culture.
A more militant Song Dynasty could have snuffed out the nascent Vietnam as well, and through trade assimilated the local people.
A crazier PoD could have Mao successfully invade North Vietnam and annex it like what happened to Tibet.
Re: Kome - Sinicization isn't something that happens in like 50 years, and the Qing and Yuan were the only dynasties that ruled over Outer Mongolia, so it's not surprising that they didn't bother with sinicization. I would also argue that total cultural conversion of foreign tribes wasn't generally something that Chinese Emperors actively worked towards.
A more militant Song Dynasty could have snuffed out the nascent Vietnam as well, and through trade assimilated the local people.
A crazier PoD could have Mao successfully invade North Vietnam and annex it like what happened to Tibet.
Re: Kome - Sinicization isn't something that happens in like 50 years, and the Qing and Yuan were the only dynasties that ruled over Outer Mongolia, so it's not surprising that they didn't bother with sinicization. I would also argue that total cultural conversion of foreign tribes wasn't generally something that Chinese Emperors actively worked towards.
Huh? There is a ridiculous amount of Chinese influence in Korean culture. A slim majority of words in Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese are borrowed from Chinese. The plains tribes of Taiwan were almost entirely assimilated and Sinicized to the point that they're almost impossible to distinguish from and in most cases are included with the Han. China didn't need to try and assimilate people. For the most part, they did it themselves. Most of southern China, what used to be the "frontier regions" long ago, is populated by people descended from assimilated and Sinicized Austroasiatic, Hmong-Mien, Austronesian, and Tai speaking tribes that have mixed with the Han.
What difference is that from history, when Hanoi (then called something else) was already the center of Tang administration. There are cities. I guess the other option would be to try to encourage waves of migration there. Perhaps if a city in Vietnam replaced Guangzhou as the main foreign entrepot, the incentive to keep control over Vietnam is increased.
The context was referring to the 1400s, and China didn't even bother to try to assimilate Korea by then. As for Taiwan, I guess the rulers in Beijing, Ming or Qing, never decided "Okay, now we are going to make this territory Chinese and assimilate it," but that probably applies to most of China's historical frontier.
As said, it occurred with better results in some places than others.
When the Hui people revolted for example, the conflict became a violent race war, but seeing how it was an internal dispute rather than a secessionist attempt, that seems to be a success as far as assimilation goes. Same situation with the rebellion among the Miao people in southern China. If Vietnam is merely another ethnic group in China then any conflicts that come up would be an internal disorder rather than a secession attempt.
Though taking out the proto-Vietnamese identity/state early on might do that just as well.
And as for the matter with Vietnamese language, if that was enough then we wouldn't be having this thread.
Last edited:
Regarding Sinoxenic terminologies for Korean and Japanese (and I would also assume something similar for Vietnamese), while the formal usage does trend towards 50-70% for both, this estimate also includes relatively obscure terminologies. On the other hand, more informal contexts average around 30-40%, which would generally be more common.
Chinese assimilation had been extensive within Korea for centuries, but this had generally occurred in three early major waves, specifically after Gojoseon's collapse (108 BC), along with Goguryeo's (100-200 AD) and Silla's (500-600) relative consolidations. The process was also greatly facilitated particularly because the Han had conquered Gojoseon due to the latter's refusal to open trade routes, although its control generally became limited to Liaodong and Lelang after a few decades. As a result, the process would have taken much longer if not for direct intervention, as Southern Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula had been fragmented for centuries due to the Han's indirect influence, which also involved indirect rule. In addition, stiff resistance from local states when the Sui and Tang later attempted to reinstate similar policies (Goguryeo held out for 70 years, while Silla suspended diplomatic relations with the Tang for 50 years due to the Silla-Tang War) suggests that active intervention would have been integral for further assimilation.
It's also important to note that most of the initial transmissions of Chinese culture to Japan occurred through Korean entities from around 300-700, and greatly facilitated more direct transfers from China to Japan for centuries afterward. On the other hand, while Vietnam had generally remained under direct Chinese control for around a millennia or so, sporadic resistance forced China to quell multiple rebellions, and eventually declared independence due to fragmentation after the Tang's collapse. In addition, the fact that it managed to break free even after two decades of Ming rule suggests that it would have required more drastic measures centuries earlier in order to completely absorb Vietnam.