A Warring States period after Ming

Though China tended towards unification under a single dynasty, it did have it's periods of disunification. Now, I'm not too worried about the exact details, but image a scenario in which the Ming collapse results not in a Manchu dynasty but rather another period of disunity.

On a macro-scale, how are things going to proceed? I expect that interstate warfare would likely mean that weapons development, particularly in firearms, does not degrade as under the Qing OTL. Foreign ideas, particularly religious and scientific, might make an entry.

How about foreigners? There is some definite opportunity for divide-and-conquer here. Not just the Europeans, but the Japanese might see the disunity as an opportunity to try again in invading the mainland.

As for the big nosed of the West, a lot depends on timing here. A warring states period in the 17th century might lead to more powerful, more advanced and even aggressive Chinese states that can go toe-to-toe with the Europeans. However, if the Ming manage to totter on until the late 18th century and then collapse into Warring States, then European imperialists may end up carving the place up.

Any thoughts?
 
Could there be a possibility of China even after the period remaining divided?

Possibly say only two Chinas (not counting anything anyone else has seized in the process of taking advantage of this), but something where All Under Heaven has not been brought back together this time.

Using "the period" to mean the initial struggle/s over the Mandate of Heaven. So if things break up in the 17th century, still divided in the 19th or even 20th. It seems sort of strange that a period of disunity would be inevitably followed by all of China being brought back together, rather than "permanently" being divided.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it's possible. Regional identities could develop in the south, particularly if there is a, say, Wu-speaking state that institutes mass education. European colonialism is also another possibility for keeping things divided.

"Reunite China!" will be a popular political meme, but circumstances could certainly keep it from ever happening.
 
I'd say it's possible. Regional identities could develop in the south, particularly if there is a, say, Wu-speaking state that institutes mass education. European colonialism is also another possibility for keeping things divided.

Is there anywhere else this kind of regionalism would occur? I don't know enough about how China breaks down by region - the north and south being potentially separate (at least for a time) is all I know.

"Reunite China!" will be a popular political meme, but circumstances could certainly keep it from ever happening.
How long would that idea last as a real force?

I mean, would it be possible for the regional division/s to develop into a sense that "We don't want to be controlled by the (North/South/East/West/Whatever)" so that even if there's common ties, they grow apart as part of the circumstances at work, or would that be too contrary to everything Chinese culture is built on?

It seems like after a century or more (maybe less) that there would at least be less enthusiasm - if other things line up that's one thing, but most people will be focused on other things so that "reuniting China" is up there with other dreams of a mighty empire that other peoples have had, where some people believed in it but it became increasingly irrelevant.

With or without foreign influence being anything significant here.
 
There's a reason China has not had a period of disunity for a thousand years. The northern "barbarians" became quite powerful and organized. Any disunity would mean a China ruled by steppe invaders.

Ever since credible foreign threat became the new paradigm, the incentive to remain a unified state became overwhelming.
 
Which still leaves the issue of the old dynasty failing badly enough to be challenged but not badly enough to simply roll over and die.

And the idea that all under heaven is needed to face Mongolia (among other such places) in say, 1700...

Really? The steppe hordes are that threatening at that time?

Its not as if "China divides" can't be a result of whatever issues people have being even stronger than the steppe threat.
 
Which still leaves the issue of the old dynasty failing badly enough to be challenged but not badly enough to simply roll over and die.

And the idea that all under heaven is needed to face Mongolia (among other such places) in say, 1700...

Really? The steppe hordes are that threatening at that time?

Its not as if "China divides" can't be a result of whatever issues people have being even stronger than the steppe threat.

By 1700 China was occupied by the Manchus. So yes, the steppe threat was pretty real. :rolleyes:
 
By 1700 China was occupied by the Manchus. So yes, the steppe threat was pretty real. :rolleyes:

Brandenburg-Prussia rising to be a power and then uniting Germany wasn't inevitable, and other states having a policy being based on keeping it from happening would be unrealistic.

Why is this something more reasonable to worry about?

"A Northern barbarian group did take over OTL" does not mean the same thing as "Northern barbarians will take over if China is disunited."

Since the Manchus failing to do what they did OTL seems to be the basis for the POD (or a good part of it), I stand by my comments and questions at this point. No united Manchu-based Northern "Barbarian" nation is in a position for conquest, or at least not the one of OTL. Are China's neighbors so mighty that this is going to happen anyway with a latter Ming collapse?

I hope this came out coherently.
 
Last edited:
The geography and culture of China tend to encourage unity in the long run but it's definately something that can be overcome by political circumstances.

Steppe barbarians were a reasonably constant threat. They conquered China outright two and a half times (including the Manchu Jin dynasty), and massive raids were a common occurence. A great many things, from the construction of the Great Wall to the Tang expansion into Central Asia, were reactions to the steppe threat.

That said, I think firearms post-1700 tend to be able to nuetralize the steppe nomads as a major military force. If military technology is spurred onwards by the warring states then eventually you would probably see the northern border being defended by the equivalent of Gatling guns.

Preventing the Manchus, Mongols or someone else from uniting China under their own dynasty is important. Both the Mongols and the Manchus were moving toward unification, so it might be a matter of getting them too busy fighting each other that they are unable to take advantage of China's division.
 
Preventing the Manchus from taking Beijing is not hard. Prying the Manchu out of Manchuria would be extremely hard. Independent Manchuria ruled by OTL's Qing with the Shun dynasty actually getting off the ground in "China" is practical.

I'm not sure how warring you actually get, though. After the psychotic founder passes away and someone comes to the throne by inheriting it rather than by killing everyone who disagrees with him, the incentive to try and conquer Manchuria is - limited. Especially once big-nosed wolves begin sniffing around. I don't see the Manchu making a serious try again either - invading a disordered state without a clear Emperor is one thing, taking on a *China with a functioning Court is another.
 
Basicly the Ming have to go all decentralized with various political heads based in regional areas. So lots of corruption and competition. Unless you want to go along a Shogun-Route and have one court official/general take the Emperor from Beijing and bring him within the guy's home territory and the other generals react by declaring foul.
 
That said, I think firearms post-1700 tend to be able to nuetralize the steppe nomads as a major military force. If military technology is spurred onwards by the warring states then eventually you would probably see the northern border being defended by the equivalent of Gatling guns.

Post 1700 the barbarians came from the sea and they had cannon armed steam ships. :D

The environment around China changed. It was no longer the only superpower and that's why it simply can't go back to a Warring States period anymore than Renaissance Italy bring back the Roman Empire. Like I said the last period of disunity was a thousand years ago, the idea is practically foreign by the 18th century.

When the Ming dynasty fell for example, in earlier times it would simply break up into realms controlled by Li Zicheng, Zhang Xianzhong, and Wu Sangu. But instead it was ruled by the Manchus in the north and a consortium of Three Feduciaries in the south. This arrangement didn't last and soon the Manchus ruled the whole thing. Had the Kangxi emperor been a weakling, the Rebellion of the Three Feduciaries would have resulted in Wu Sangu being made emperor. Lasting fragmentation was no longer possible.

We can also talk about improved economic and transportation ties, but the fact that the security environment had fundamentally changed is crucial.
 
Post 1700 the barbarians came from the sea and they had cannon armed steam ships. :D

The environment around China changed. It was no longer the only superpower and that's why it simply can't go back to a Warring States period anymore than Renaissance Italy bring back the Roman Empire. Like I said the last period of disunity was a thousand years ago, the idea is practically foreign by the 18th century.

It certainly broke up during the Warlord period.
 
Eh, I dunno. I don't think the Europeans were going to be a major existential threat until the 19th century, even for a divided China. A state based around Fujian for instance could probably fend off Spanish or Dutch invaders pretty handily.

The economic and transportation ties probably paid a bigger role. I would say that a Warring States is definately a low-probability outcome, but I would dispute that the political environment made it impossible.
 
It certainly broke up during the Warlord period.

1912-1926? Please that's a rather poor example. I'm not saying the end of a dynasty would instantly result in a unified successor empire. But what you're talking about hasn't happened for a thousand years. People need to keep that in perspective.

Eh, I dunno. I don't think the Europeans were going to be a major existential threat until the 19th century, even for a divided China. A state based around Fujian for instance could probably fend off Spanish or Dutch invaders pretty handily.

My point is by 1700 the Manchus were in power, they were in fact at the height of their power during the 18th century. By the time their control had waned, Europeans had became the great external threat. At no time from the Song dynasty to the present did China live in an environment where external pressures permitted prolonged internal division.

Your supposition is based on China being both under extreme external pressure and at indefinite disunity. These two situations are incompatible. This is how civilizations end. If China were in the habit of doing that it wouldn't have lasted several thousand years.
 
Last edited:
And of course, China would naturally follow the path of most wisdom. Isn't the whole nature of a Warring States period the result of failure?

One might also note that the HRE never united as an effectively glued together state in the 15th-19th century period despite being threatened by enemies.

Or how Poland-Lithuania dissolved from within. People don't always follow the state's best interests over their own ambitions.
 
1912-1926? Please that's a rather poor example. I'm not saying the end of a dynasty would instantly result in a unified successor empire. But what you're talking about hasn't happened for a thousand years. People need to keep that in perspective.

This is an argument for a divided China to be conquered by Mongols, Manchus, etc. It is not an argument that China was run by rational, enlightened actors who put aside their desires to rule for the greater good.
 
Top