AHC: Chinese republics defeat the Dutch

In the 19th century there were three Chinese-ruled polities in Borneo that the Dutch called republics or democracies. Wikipedia has a short article about them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsi_federations

There were three major kongsi federations: Fosjoen (Heshun), Lanfang, and Samtiaokie (Santiaogou). Some of these federations were truly democratic for the Chinese citizens - if less so for their indigenous slaves - with elections every four months, and others were more oligarchic with many rich families dominating the government. They also had different attitudes toward the Dutch colonizers: Fosjoen was called an "irreconcilable enemy" of the Dutch while Lanfang was pro-Dutch. But (from an academic book on Chinese in Borneo):

In spite of their rivalries and weaknesses, in all of West Borneo from 1819 to 1850, large kongsis like Lanfang and Fosjoen established control over territory, regularly chose their leaders, dealt with criminal and civil offenses, meted out corporal punishment, maintained a standing army, improved overland communications (via a network of footpaths), promoted trade, commerce, and industry, collected taxes and tolls, minted coins, set up schools, and regularly held religious ceremonies to insure solidarity and public welfare. [.....] They often built a network of forts in their territories, stationing officials there or in subordinate towns and settlements, and they levied taxes, rents, tolls, and import and export duties, even from native vessels sailing under the Dutch flag. The colonial authorities in West Borneo, for their part, only began to attempt many of the tasks expected of a state in the late nineteenth century.
[.....]
Whatever their constitution, the markedly independent and powerful kongsis enraged the colonial authorities. As perceived by the Dutch, these Chinese organizations had arrogated to themselves powers to which they were not entitled, including access to land, while colonial policy dictated that the land belonged to the sultans and not to the Chinese, who were merely entitled to use it if they paid a tax or rent. The Chinese punished crimes cruelly, even with the death sentence, on their own authority. They avoided the taxes and monopolies set up by the Dutch. Insofar as they were democratic, they could remain democratic by resisting the rule of an outside authority. [....] From the Dutch perspective, the Malay principalities could be tolerated, more because of their weaknesses then their virtues; Chinese organizations, whatever their virtues, were intolerable because of their strength.​

With all this in mind, have at least one of the three big kongsis remain independent up to 2016 (IOTL Lanfang, which survived to the end mostly because it was a Dutch ally, was finally dissolved in the 1880s).
 
Last edited:
highly unlikely, they will get the same treatment as atjeh/aceh.

the dutch colonial government may have been known for many things, but backing off from this kind of problems wasn't one of them.
these kongsi 'states' are a challenge of their authority, and as such cannot be ignored, or else they will lose authority elsewhere too.
 
highly unlikely, they will get the same treatment as atjeh/aceh.
the dutch colonial government may have been known for many things, but backing off from this kind of problems wasn't one of them.
That's what happened OTL to Fosjoen and eventually even Lanfang, during the three Kongsi Wars in the 19th century. That's why it's a challenge.

these kongsi 'states' are a challenge of their authority, and as such cannot be ignored, or else they will lose authority elsewhere too.
Why parentheses on the word states? The kongsi states were definitely more of a centralized, territorial state than the local sultanates or the Dutch in the area.
 
a state is only a state if it is recognised by anyone. a bunch of warlords taking over a territory does not make a state

and also stopping too much chinese influence has been a core policy in the east-indies, especially borneo (it was upsetting the balance of power)

and the wiki article is somewhat dubious, since it says
the Malay principalities could be tolerated, more because of their weaknesses then their virtues; Chinese organizations, whatever their virtues, were intolerable because of their strength
seems to be written by someone rather pro-chinese and anti-malay.
the malay principalities in sumatra fought quite a while against the dutch (atjeh wars), and i would not call that weakness, more rebellious.
the malay were far from weak, and took quite a lot of military action to beat them.

the kongsi areas seem to be just another warlord area, not unlike those on mainland china in its history, although the feeling i get they were not so much warlords, but more like organised crime with the difference that tried to legalise itself.
the statement that they were sovereign in the wiki article is kinda naive, a state can only be sovereign as it is recognised as such. these were just criminal operations (illegal gold mining) that got out of hand (size wise).

the dutch not acting against them is impossible, since it would make the whole power balance collapse. they would be seen as weak, and they would have uprising pop up everywhere.
the balance of power in the east-indies never was static. the only way for the dutch to stay in power was to stay on top of the game, otherwise the local sultans would go their own way in a heartbeat.
 
Last edited:
a state is only a state if it is recognised by anyone. a bunch of warlords taking over a territory does not make a state
The Kongsi states had nothing to do with warlordism. Like, nothing at all.

and the wiki article is somewhat dubious, since it says seems to be written by someone rather pro-chinese and anti-malay.
That's from an academic work by Southeast Asian Publications - Golddiggers, Farmers, and Traders in the "Chinese Districts" of West Kalimantan, Indonesia - not Wikipedia. Not sure if you actually read the OP, you clearly didn't read the Wikipedia article.

the malay principalities in sumatra fought quite a while against the dutch (atjeh wars), and i would not call that weakness, more rebellious.
From context it's talking about Malay states in West Borneo, and besides Aceh is obviously Acehnese, not Malay.

the kongsi areas seem to be just another warlord area, not unlike those on mainland china in its history, although the feeling i get they were not so much warlords, but more like organised crime with the difference that tried to legalise itself.
Still a state with a more organized government , just as the early 19th century South China pirates had a state, or the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom had a state.

the statement that they were sovereign in the wiki article is kinda naive, a state can only be sovereign as it is recognised as such. these were just criminal operations (illegal gold mining) that got out of hand (size wise).
This is early modern Southeast Asia. Your claim is on par with saying that the Tanguts did not have an empire because its neighbors did not recognize them as having one.


the dutch not acting against them is impossible, since it would make the whole power balance collapse. they would be seen as weak, and they would have uprising pop up everywhere.
That's why it's a challenge, yes?
 
Top