AHC: Korea annexed by China and not by Japan

[democracy101]

You are, of course, assuming that they would still join the tributary system and that they would continue to be within it when such events occurred. Further, China imposing the borders it draws to Europe would imply that there was a war in which China won. Unless the victory is Chinese soldiers conquering Europe the borders will naturally exclude Europe and most likely virtually everything outside of East and Southeast Asia.

Actually, it doesn't. There's only two pieces: A modernizing China imposes its "borders" and "areas of control" to the outside world and said borders contain within them Korea. Later annexation is later annexation.

I guess, assuming that this somehow occurs, but this contradicts your points below. If the PoD was about a milennia ago or so, the "two pieces" you're referring to would be swimming in a sea of millions of other changes which would potentially make this alternate world virtually unrecognizable from our own, as you admitted.

Also I have no idea why you are referencing "larger problems" at stake, there are no larger problems currently present in my scenario. You are imposing them based on OTL events and struggles which would be radically different and most likely avoided with a modernizing China with the capability to enforce its will on Europeans. I am not referring to a country that is at war with dozens of other areas, but rather a country that was at war with and imposed its borders and zones of control to Europe. You seem to be missing my thoughts on this in its entirety. The POD could be during the Song Dynasty and the events taking place could be in 1860; which readily makes the political landscape unrecognizable and any assumptions of other issues or other agendas nonexistent.

Here's a "larger problem": Korea's population increases significantly as well, allowing it to establish colonies by following China's footsteps after trade routes are gradually extended, not to mention potential expansions into Manchuria. The nomadic invasions devastated Korea much more than China, as the censuses taken by the Tang after temporary occupations suggest that the population on the peninsula was around 7-10 million, as Baekje's population was close to 4 million. By the time that Goryeo reunified the peninsula, the population was probably around 8-12 million after numerous Balhae refugees streamed in, although the population was only around 6 million by the time that Joseon was established, suggesting that the amount could have fallen as low as 4-5 million soon after the Mongol invasions. The population did not pick up again until the 17th century or so, due the the Japanese invasions, although it almost tripled after cash crops were introduced. If the proportion was mapped to that of China, it would have been analogous to the population meandering around 50-60 million from 600-1600, although it only sunk to that level soon after the Mongol invasions.

In other words, if the nomadic invasions had been extremely minimal, which I would consider to be extremely unlikely, Korea's population could potentially rise to 20-40 million by 1200-1500, and possibly reach 50-70 million after significant territorial expansion, along with the introduction of cash crops. While this would also potentially mean that China's population would have surpassed 200 million within the 13th century, Korea would still theoretically have a larger presence within East Asia in this scenario. This could also technically lead to Korea pushing for a more "balanced" relationship after centuries of developments concerning both sides, although it would probably still remain as a tributary after thoroughly weighing the possibilities. In addition, if China expands overseas after diluting its ethnocentric viewpoints, Korea would almost certainly follow suit as well, not to mention Japan. As a result, China would probably not even think about directly incorporating Korea after taking the various butterflies into account.

 

[scholar]

I guess, assuming that this somehow occurs, but this contradicts your points below. If the PoD was about a milennia ago or so, the "two pieces" you're referring to would be swimming in a sea of millions of other changes which would potentially make this alternate world virtually unrecognizable from our own, as you admitted.

There is a difference between what a POD could be and what the POD is. As a loosely defined scenario with only a few outline points the POD doesn't have to be a millennium ago, it could be fairly recent and may occur along a timescale a century or two predating the Meiji Restoration.

Here's a "larger problem": Korea's population increases significantly as well, allowing it to establish colonies by following China's footsteps after trade routes are gradually extended, not to mention potential expansions into Manchuria.

Where are you getting this? The state of Manchuria, regardless of whether or not its in play, is of hardly any concern. In any concerted battle for influence Korea would lose, as it had. The only way for Korea to win is for China to have many major distractions, something that simply isn't at play here. I also do not understand what you mean by colonies, as that is an artificially induced construct that would actually not exist in the original scenario as colonies did not exist. IE, there were no footsteps to follow.

As a result, China would probably not even think about directly incorporating Korea after taking the various butterflies into account.

I'm having trouble taking this even remotely seriously. Did you mean for it to be? 20-40 million. The Joseon's population was under 20 million with centuries of relative peace at a time when China's population was over 300 million with comparatively frequent warfare. If the two ever even began to compete with one another who would win? The answer is obvious. Further, the over 20 million population did not prevent annexation. If one mirrors the absurd population growth so that it is proportional with China, Chinese settlers easily win out in any close territories. Furthermore, this is not taking into account "various butterflies." Rather it is taking into account extraordinarily unlikely circumstances to artificially inflate Korea's stance in the scenario to the point where it becomes impractical to attempt incorporation.

The idea that China suffered less from northern invaders is clearly incorrect upon any reflection. How many barbarian dynasties are there in Korea? How many peoples have moved into Korea and made their own states there? Was Korea economically ruined almost like clockwork with the devastation of the north? Did Korea see a movement of population where the entire north was depopulated to the point where outsiders outnumbered the native populous leaving only the south as a haven inside of the core territories of Korea? If the answer is yes to all of those questions then that puts them at about even when dozens of other factors and events are taken into account.

 

[democracy101]

There is a difference between what a POD could be and what the POD is. As a loosely defined scenario with only a few outline points the POD doesn't have to be a millennium ago, it could be fairly recent and may occur along a timescale a century or two predating the Meiji Restoration.

That's fine, but my point was that if butterflies allowed China to gain a more significant footing, they could also theoretically affect Korea along similar lines as well.

Where are you getting this? The state of Manchuria, regardless of whether or not its in play, is of hardly any concern. In any concerted battle for influence Korea would lose, as it had. The only way for Korea to win is for China to have many major distractions, something that simply isn't at play here. I also do not understand what you mean by colonies, as that is an artificially induced construct that would actually not exist in the original scenario as colonies did not exist. IE, there were no footsteps to follow.

Not at all. The Ming frequently requested Joseon's assistance in confronting the Jurchen nomads, suggesting cooperation, and both had made significant incursions into Jurchen territory long before the Japanese invasions, such as Sejong doing so in 1433 when he pushed the border to the Yalu and Tumen Rivers. In fact, most of the territory north of what is now Pyongyang was originally part of "Manchuria" a century or so after Balhae's fall, as most of the population within the northern regions of the "peninsula" was composed of nomads such as the Jurchen, and it took centuries for the border to be moved north, due to frequent invasions from outsiders, which often led to depopulation.

I'm having trouble taking this even remotely seriously. Did you mean for it to be? 20-40 million. The Joseon's population was under 20 million with centuries of relative peace at a time when China's population was over 300 million with comparatively frequent warfare. If the two ever even began to compete with one another who would win? The answer is obvious. Further, the over 20 million population did not prevent annexation. If one mirrors the absurd population growth so that it is proportional with China, Chinese settlers easily win out in any close territories. Furthermore, this is not taking into account "various butterflies." Rather it is taking into account extraordinarily unlikely circumstances to artificially inflate Korea's stance in the scenario to the point where it becomes impractical to attempt incorporation.

The idea that China suffered less from northern invaders is clearly incorrect upon any reflection. How many barbarian dynasties are there in Korea? How many peoples have moved into Korea and made their own states there? Was Korea economically ruined almost like clockwork with the devastation of the north? Did Korea see a movement of population where the entire north was depopulated to the point where outsiders outnumbered the native populous leaving only the south as a haven inside of the core territories of Korea? If the answer is yes to all of those questions then that puts them at about even when dozens of other factors and events are taken into account.

Korea's population was severely devastated after the Liao and Mongol invasions, to the point where the population most likely decreased from 8-12 million to around 5-7 million, which is certainly a significant amount, as I stated before. In addition, within most of the territory north of the Daedong River, nomads such as the Jurchen heavily outnumbered the Koreans until significant immigration policies were implemented beginning in the 15th century, not to mention that comparatively few Koreans resided north of what is now Seoul, where most of the depopulation occurred, which was part of the reason why the border was not pushed to the Yalu and Tumen Rivers until Joseon had been established. The Mongols also directly governed most of the territory north of Kaesong from 1270-90, which would have led to significant immigration during that time period. The population also deceased again after the Japanese invasions, as I stated before. so it was not until the mid-17th century that Korea was finally able to recover.

As a result, the peninsula's population was only able to increase significantly during the 17th-19th centuries (200 years), when the population actually tripled after cash crops had been introduced, and had been declining or stagnating due to frequent devastating invasions from 1000-1600 (600 years). In other words, removing significant population pressures by diminishing nomadic invasions, along with eventual expansion into Manchuria over centuries, could theoretically boost population levels significantly over time.

 

[scholar]

That's fine, but my point was that if butterflies allowed China to gain a more significant footing, they could also theoretically affect Korea along similar lines as well.

OTL could say the same because Japan made significant moves and China made minor moves; Korea opted not to follow in a significant fashion until it was too late.

Not at all. The Ming frequently requested Joseon's assistance in confronting the Jurchen nomads, suggesting cooperation, and both had made significant incursions into Jurchen territory long before the Japanese invasions, such as Sejong doing so in 1433 when he pushed the border to the Yalu and Tumen Rivers.

The Chinese Dynasties frequently made use of tributary states when dealing with barbarians; the Ming also made use of Jurchen nomads against Jurchen nomads most likely more extensive than Joseon's own forces. In fact, most maps will show either direct Ming control or sphere of control with all of southern Manchuria; not with Joseon.

In fact, most of the territory north of what is now Pyongyang was originally part of "Manchuria" a century or so after Balhae's fall, as most of the population within the northern regions of the "peninsula" was composed of nomads such as the Jurchen, and it took centuries for the border to be moved north, due to frequent invasions from outsiders, which often led to depopulation.

Which provides a lesser mirror to things occurring inside of China.

Korea's population was severely devastated after the Liao and Mongol invasions, to the point where the population most likely decreased from 8-12 million to around 5-7 million, which is certainly a significant amount, as I stated before.

Significant, but not even the most noteworthy depopulation events.

In addition, within most of the territory north of the Daedong River, nomads such as the Jurchen heavily outnumbered the Koreans until significant immigration policies were implemented beginning in the 15th century, not to mention that comparatively few Koreans resided north of what is now Seoul, where most of the depopulation occurred, which was part of the reason why the border was not pushed to the Yalu and Tumen Rivers until Joseon had been established.

While this particular point your making clashes with a previous argument we have had, I do wish to note that the Daedong river only divided a comparatively small piece of Korea from the rest. Further, this is hardly exceptional for why Korea was more affected than China; if anything a comparison of percentages of land and depopulation would suggest that northern china had it worse.

The Mongols also directly governed most of the territory north of Kaesong from 1270-90, which would have led to significant immigration during that time period. The population also deceased again after the Japanese invasions, as I stated before. so it was not until the mid-17th century that Korea was finally able to recover.

China was conquered by the Mongols for a longer period and there were other events which caused significant depopulation during the Ming. It took about a century for the Qing to recover from it, and when it did the population was over 300 million.

Please keep in mind that you stated that Korea was somehow more effected by northern nomads. So far you only matched some of the questions, others we both know Korea didn't experience. Even if you get a "just as bad as any Chinese province", such as the Han provinces of Liangzhou [which was so devastated by warfare and barbarian incursions it was no longer a viable independent province and required extensive movements of people in order to simply make the land governable], Korea was still less affected by it than China for the lack of northern dynasty type scenarios.

As a result, the peninsula's population was only able to increase significantly during the 17th-19th centuries (200 years), when the population actually tripled after cash crops had been introduced, and had been declining or stagnating due to frequent devastating invasions from 1000-1600 (600 years). In other words, removing significant population pressures by diminishing nomadic invasions, along with eventual expansion into Manchuria over centuries, could theoretically boost population levels significantly over time.

There is a serious disconnect with the theoretically possible points you suggest may occur with unique additional butterflies and the points you tried to make in the past. Further, 40 million is a ridiculous number. More than doubling a 300% increase within a similar timeframe with cash crops; then you introduced a far greater number with said assumed territorial expansion. Keep in mind the Joseon didn't experience much more growth if my data is correct from the 18th to early 20th century. Hell 1940 showed the population as just over 24 million (and it was less before, about 17 million in the 1920s).

Do you disagree that similar logic would seem to suggest that China may have 300-600 million population in your projected scenario and possibly being well over a billion with territorial expansion. That means later when China has the modern population explosion there can be in excess of 2 billion Chinese people in the world: dramatically shifting the balance of power to an absurd degree; drowning out any Korean expansionist existence as there would be direct and fierce competition.

 

[democracy101]

OTL could say the same because Japan made significant moves and China made minor moves; Korea opted not to follow in a significant fashion until it was too late.

Yes, but this analogy doesn't really make sense because Korea ignored events occurring within Japan due to sporadic diplomatic and trading relations during the 19th century, partially because the Japanese government shunning diplomats from Korea during the former's political turmoil, while the peninsula continued to maintain close ties with China.

Please keep in mind that you stated that Korea was somehow more effected by northern nomads. So far you only matched some of the questions, others we both know Korea didn't experience. Even if you get a "just as bad as any Chinese province", such as the Han provinces of Liangzhou [which was so devastated by warfare and barbarian incursions it was no longer a viable independent province and required extensive movements of people in order to simply make the land governable], Korea was still less affected by it than China for the lack of northern dynasty type scenarios.

Comparatively speaking, Korea's population mapped to that of China as a whole was comparable to North China virtually becoming depopulated for centuries. Korea's population as a whole decreased significantly due to foreign invasions, but most of the losses were heavily skewed toward northern regions. Seogyeong, located in modern-day Pyongyang, was essentially the northern limit of Korea for centuries, similar to the situation of Beijing within China, and was one of the reasons why the capital was not shifted north from Gaegyeong to Seogyeong during Goryeo's existence. When I mentioned the Daedong River, I did not mean that the northern limit was located along the entire river, but that only the western portions were relevant, in line with Silla's border. As a result, a more accurate description would be a latitudinal line from Pyongyang to the east coast, not to mention that the region between Gaegyeong and Seogyeong was very sparsely populated. In terms of territorial expansion, Korea increased by around 1/3-1/2 IOTL after taking territory that originally belonged to nomads, such as the Jurchens, and were theoretically considered part of Manchuria at the time.

In other words, given how the northern border would probably still remain unstable due to frequent raids, Korea would almost certainly attempt to push north of the Yalu and Tumen Rivers. However, it would probably expand further east into what is now Jilin, Helongjiang, and Primorsky Krai, although it would probably not expand further north than the Songhua River, while the western regions, such as what is now Liaoning, along with parts of Jilin, would most likely come under Chinese control.

There is a serious disconnect with the theoretically possible points you suggest may occur with unique additional butterflies and the points you tried to make in the past. Further, 40 million is a ridiculous number. More than doubling a 300% increase within a similar timeframe with cash crops; then you introduced a far greater number with said assumed territorial expansion. Keep in mind the Joseon didn't experience much more growth if my data is correct from the 18th to early 20th century. Hell 1940 showed the population as just over 24 million (and it was less before, about 17 million in the 1920s).

To begin with, your numbers are based on Japanese figures, which are not very accurate because they often ignored numerous regional populations. According to Japanese censuses, Korea's population was around 5.8 million in 1905 and 13.1 million in 1910, which really doesn't make sense, while more recent Korean estimates suggest that it was already around 17.4 million by 1910, suggesting around 18-20 million by 1920. The population eventually increased to 25 million according to both estimates, which still suggests that the population increase was gradual over a few decades. On the other hand, other sources suggest that the population increased to around 18.6 million by the 18th century, a significant increase from 6.5 million around 1500. However, it gradually decreased for a century or so due to the lack of major cities and established infrastructure, and dipped to a temporary low in the 19th century at around 15 million, which was why it took several decades for the population to recover once more. Regarding the earlier population, I already stated figures around 8-12 million from 700-1200 or so based on the fact that Baekje's population was around 3.8 million, suggesting around 7-10 million for the entire peninsula. However, it reached a new low of around 4-7 million soon after the Mongol invasions, a decrease of essentially 50%, based on estimates around 6 million around 1400, not to mention that almost all of the regions north of Gaegyeong were essentially depopulated.

In other words, after assuming that invasions were minimal, if Korea's population growth had picked up around the 11th century, then there is a very high probability that it could increase from around 10 million in 1000 to around 20 million by 1300-1400 after trade with China and other countries increases. Doubling this number after gradual territorial expansion and introduction of cash crops yields a figure of 40 million around 1600-1700, and further increases could push it to over 50 million by 1800-1900 or so. For comparison, OTL Japan, which did not experience any foreign invasions, had a population around 5 million in 1000, 10 million by 1400, and around 15-20 million by 1600. Although the population stagnated in the 17th and 18th centuries around 25-30 million due to the Sakoku policy, which significantly curtailed trade, the figures increased again to around 45-50 million by 1900. Considering that Korea's population was essentially double that of Japan around 1000, and that the former could potentially triple its territory after centuries of expansion starting in 936, a figure of 40 million after more than 500 years of demographic and territorial growth isn't particularly unreasonable.

Do you disagree that similar logic would seem to suggest that China may have 300-600 million population in your projected scenario and possibly being well over a billion with territorial expansion. That means later when China has the modern population explosion there can be in excess of 2 billion Chinese people in the world: dramatically shifting the balance of power to an absurd degree; drowning out any Korean expansionist existence as there would be direct and fierce competition.

At this point, I would like to refer to our previous argument about how a single country cannot maintain such a large population and territory, as far-flung regions would be much more motivated to revolt and declare independence once they gain access to large militias. As another example, the Sui's invasion of Goguryeo illustrated how an immensely large army will eventually be overextended because it cannot maintain its supply lines for long, and are extremely vulnerable to guerrilla tactics, not to mention terrain, along with local resistance within multiple regions. In addition, China's population will eventually reach its peak once significant resources are exhausted, not to mention natural disasters and inefficient allocation of resources across regions, so after taking all of these conditions into account, I highly doubt that an entire state before the 17-18th century would be able to hold much more than 300 million people together. On the other hand, as Korea would not be subject to similar conditions given a much smaller area and population, if it manages to reach 40-50 million by 1700 or so, it will almost certainly attempt to claim a much more significant presence within East Asia.

 

[scholar]

Yes, but this analogy doesn't really make sense because Korea ignored events occurring within Japan due to sporadic diplomatic and trading relations during the 19th century, partially because the Japanese government shunning diplomats from Korea during the former's political turmoil, while the peninsula continued to maintain close ties with China.

Yet in spite of its close ties to China, China did make moves. Sporadic, chaotic, and localized moves that were made worse by corruption. Yet, when Japan went to war with China the west thought China would win; giving off the impression of modernization even if the moves were not even tangible. While Korea was insular, it is hard for them to ignore that some steps were taken while they mostly did not follow.

Comparatively speaking, Korea's population mapped to that of China as a whole was comparable to North China virtually becoming depopulated for centuries.

Which means Korea can boast similar numbers, but can they boast similar suffering? Even if the same amount of people died there is less suffering if independence is maintained in relation to whether independence is lost.

In terms of territorial expansion, Korea increased by around 1/3-1/2 IOTL after taking territory that originally belonged to nomads, such as the Jurchens, and were theoretically considered part of Manchuria at the time.

Uh... Let me know if these maps are wrong.

It was not half or a third. From Unified Silla to the Joseon, some 1000 years, you can make the argument the state grew an additional fourth in size. From Goryeo to modern china, maybe an 8th.

In other words, given how the northern border would probably still remain unstable due to frequent raids, Korea would almost certainly attempt to push north of the Yalu and Tumen Rivers. However, it would probably expand further east into what is now Jilin, Helongjiang, and Primorsky Krai, although it would probably not expand further north than the Songhua River, while the western regions, such as what is now Liaoning, along with parts of Jilin, would most likely come under Chinese control.

I don't believe Korea would not expand to more OTL-ish borders, but I do firmly state that such expansion would not bring about your desired results.

In other words, after assuming that invasions were minimal, if Korea's population growth had picked up around the 11th century, then there is a very high probability that it could increase from around 10 million in 1000 to around 20 million by 1300-1400 after trade with China and other countries increases.

20 million within their current borders only became likely after the introduction of various crops from other places through the Colombian exchange. We had an discussion over this a little white ago. I don't doubt that the population could rise significantly, I simply doubt it could rise that significantly before interactions with the west started occurring. The steady growth of the twentieth century is something you cannot and should not expect under this scenario until all the factors existing in the twentieth century can be found.

Further, the northern part of Korea is not as fertile as the southern part. More fertile than Manchuria, but less fertile than what was already in their possession.

Considering that Korea's population was essentially double that of Japan around 1000, and that the former could potentially triple its territory after centuries of expansion starting in 936, a figure of 40 million after more than 500 years of demographic and territorial growth isn't particularly unreasonable.

Japan was able to do this because the state iself and its society evolved to the point where it could. Japan was hardly developed at the time, but through those centuries Japan decentralized and allowed independent urban areas and territories to grow and thrive, turning backwaters into rich lands. Korea, by comparison, had much more development. The two growth rates aren't, nor should they be taken as, comparable figures when plotting population growth. Not unless you want to regress Korea to the point where it was comparable to Japan in development, urbanization, and government and that would simply make Korea becoming a prominent international partner much more unlikely.

At this point, I would like to refer to our previous argument about how a single country cannot maintain such a large population and territory, as far-flung regions would be much more motivated to revolt and declare independence once they gain access to large militias.

Oh, I never said that such a large population would be stable. Frankly, neither would Korea's.

As another example, the Sui's invasion of Goguryeo illustrated how an immensely large army will eventually be overextended because it cannot maintain its supply lines for long, and are extremely vulnerable to guerrilla tactics, not to mention terrain, along with local resistance within multiple regions.

That's an example highlighted by thousands of battles within China itself, it is just that they simply do not learn from their mistakes. The art of war itself advices against it. This is a remark of tactical and strategic blundering, not of how Korea is always going to beat China in every campaign.

In addition, China's population will eventually reach its peak once significant resources are exhausted, not to mention natural disasters and inefficient allocation of resources across regions, so after taking all of these conditions into account, I highly doubt that an entire state before the 17-18th century would be able to hold much more than 300 million people together.

China can simply expand elsewhere. It got 300 million while the Joseon records showed them in the 17-19 million range. Hairs being split Joseon can be bumped higher than that, but similar hairs put China significantly over as well. Also, we have the Spanish Empire and several others to highlight just how big empires can get in comparison to their native home population. The British Empire is the best, and largest, example to use, if out of your range.

On the other hand, as Korea would not be subject to similar conditions given a much smaller area and population, if it manages to reach 40-50 million by 1700 or so, it will almost certainly attempt to claim a much more significant presence within East Asia.

A number of problems with this. First off, Korea was somewhat comparable to China in terms of development. Korea may have borrowed and adapted ideals in its development and turned to copying in OTL, but it was similar. China itself thought of them as a model state and the phrase little china was a marker of said development as well as an intended compliment [though now its seen as an insult]. The notion that Korea would be so foolish and so backward a nation to not have developed itself even 40% of itself in relation to china is frankly wrong. I don't know how else to say it. The korean peninsula will not have 40-50 million by 1700 if Joseon was 20 million by 1800 and ITL China still hovers in 300 million (which assumes that China develops its lands significantly less than Koreas, another plainly wrong statement).

Now if this is taking into consideration massive expansion this leads into the second problem: it assumes no competition with China, or said competition would be light. Frankly, Korea's far more boxed in than China is and far less likely to get off the ground. Even if Korea is ridiculously successful and takes all of OTL Manchuria the only way it can closely expand is into China, Siberia, or Japan. China on the other hand has the entire steppe, southeast asia, the philipines, and would most certainly have made significant gains there if the two are reflections of each other. You had already stated that this is merely following China's footsteps. This means China already needed to have made the first move and made it in a big enough and successful enough way to inspire Korea. This means China will get to Australia and develop massive colonies first. Korea, however, will have to wait until it can reach the new world. By the time it starts to do that the west should already have made the first moves and China will be close on its heels. Korea, again, will get last picks. As successful as Korea can become, it will be closed off and mitigated by Chinese expansionism. Warfare over colonies will only tend to favor China unless there's civil conflict.

So... yeah

Let's just make the note that my scenario doesn't actually have a lot of problems. It simply runs on two things happening, and not too unlikely things. One would naturally follow the other. Direct integration would likely result in war, but by then it wouldn't matter and the disparity would be plainly apparent. This expanded discussion that we're having adds in five additional things at least which need to develop independently from one another in order to create the desired outcome. Just one of which, the most important part of it, has already been deemed unlikely by you.

 

[democracy101]

Well, to begin with, you're making it extremely difficult for me to respond because you've been sub-quoting your points for some reason, but I'll try to respond to each.

China did make some moves, but they were mostly erratic and negated each other, so they did not result in significant progress in the long run, and its failure in both Opium Wars was what ultimately motivated Korea to turn inward in order to prevent potential disasters as a result of possible devastating contacts with the West. If China had been much more successful in its efforts by consolidating most of its reforms, however, it would have taken at least a few decades to apply the changes to multiple far-flung regions, while if Korea had attempted to carry out similar changes as well, it would have been easier for them to be dispersed and put into effect within a shorter period of time.

In addition, independence is not the only factor that dictates the degree of "suffering." For a hypothetical example, if an independent state is theoretically cut off from most resources due to destruction of large amounts of terrain after extensive wars, and is surrounded by hostile states, it is much worse off than a subjugated state that has access to a large amount of resources, along with extensive trade. After the Mongol invasions, Korea's population was reduced to levels similar to that of the peninsula almost 1000 years ago, around the 3rd-5th centuries, and while China as a whole was devastated as well, it had a much larger population base to recover from over time.

Regarding the borders, I will say that for a rough reference, North Korea is currently slightly bigger than South Korea, and half of North Korea would be around 1/4 of the peninsula. Even after roughly eyeballing it, it becomes clear that the region from the northern Silla border to the Yalu and Tumen Rivers is much bigger than the one between the border and Namgyeong/Seoul. As a result, your first map actually confirms my 1/3 estimate, as 1/3>1/4, not to mention that 1/3 of the entire peninsula today is significantly bigger than 1/3 of Silla's possessions. The border remained stable near Pyongyang from 668-936, and it was not until after Goryeo finally reunified the peninsula in 936 that the borders were finally pushed north and temporarily stabilized near the Yalu River in 993, so I'm not sure why you're showing the second map when I specified expansions after 936. My 1/2 estimate is based on the fact that Goryeo temporarily pushed north of the Tumen River when confronting the Jurchen, and briefly seized fortresses in Liaodong when the Yuan was falling apart, although neither gains lasted for long. In other words, Korea expanded its territory by more than 1/3 regardless of whether we're focused on territory that was permanently retained or temporarily seized and later lost. In addition, expansion from 936-1433 is around 500 years, not 1000.

In terms of the population growth, I'll recap a short list of what occurred IOTL next to the potential figures after a PoD around 900-1000:

668-936: 7-10 million
936-1231: 8-12 million; 10-15 million
1273-1592: 4-7 million; 15-25 million
1598-1637: 5-7 million; 25-30 million
1637-1750: 6 to 18.6 million; 30-40 million
1750-1850: 15-18 million; 40-50 million
1850-1945: 15 to 25 million; 50-70 million
1945-Present: 25 to 75 million; 70 to 150-200 million (?)

These figures take into account Korea gradually modernizing beginning in the mid/late 19th century after China does so as well. IOTL, the most significant changes were from 1231-73, when the population was essentially cut by half, and from 1637 to 1750, when the population essentially tripled within a century. In the alternate scenario, however, there is no relatively significant population increase in terms of the proportion, while the increase after 1945 assumes relatively similar conditions as that of OTL, as both China and Korea would need to significantly improve technology for significant increases in the population in order to retain most of their respective territories efficiently.

In terms of comparing Korea and Japan's demographics, while the former might have been socially more developed for centuries, it was never able to exploit this advantage because outsiders reduced major cities to rubble multiple times when each had the potential of becoming major urban centers. This was why Hanseong (Seoul) continued to be the only major city for the duration of Joseon's existence, not to mention Gaegyeong during Goryeo, and why cities like Pyongyang and Busan failed to follow in their footsteps due to devastating invasions from the north and south, respectively. However, if Korea did not suffer from major invasions while managing to expand further north in response to numerous raids, it would most likely have moved its capital to Pyongyang around the 13th-15th centuries, greatly increasing the urban capacities within multiple regions after migrations, along with internal and external trade. The northeastern regions within the peninsula are dotted with mountains, so the inhospitable terrain would encourage emigrants to move further north into Eastern Manchuria, closer to what is now Vladivostok, Harbin, and possibly Jilin City, for extremely rough examples, while the capital could potentially be moved to a region near Vladivostok around the 17th-19th centuries as well once population levels in northern regions become significant.

I'm also not sure why you're comparing China directly with European colonial powers, as the latter were forced to explore and expand into extremely far-flung regions in order to gain resources for significantly lower core populations, with very gradual expansions. In addition, even the British Empire, which was the largest by far, only managed to reach a peak of around 458 million in 1938, which is nowhere near the 17th-18th century limit that I stated, and only vaguely close to your 600 million (high) estimate, not to mention that all of its possessions were only held together for around a century or so. However, the European colonial powers were significantly different from China, as it would initially need to control an extremely large core population, requiring efficient allocation of resources even before significant expansion. It would also have consistently raised hundreds of thousands of troops for each major campaign, causing dissent after resources are used up, not to mention natural disasters, and the state would eventually collapse under its own weight after the results of multiple campaign failures, along with revolts, such as the An Lushan or Taiping Rebellions, eventually set in.

I also still have no idea why you're still comparing my current points to the one that I made in that previous thread, as I fully took the nomadic invasions into account in that one, while I'm temporarily handwaving the invasions away in this one in order to somehow understand your scenario, which I would still consider to be very vague.

Let's just make the note that my scenario doesn't actually have a lot of problems. It simply runs on two things happening, and not too unlikely things. One would naturally follow the other. Direct integration would likely result in war, but by then it wouldn't matter and the disparity would be plainly apparent. This expanded discussion that we're having adds in five additional things at least which need to develop independently from one another in order to create the desired outcome. Just one of which, the most important part of it, has already been deemed unlikely by you.

But you're still assuming that China will experience virtually no invasions whatsoever, or at least no significant ones, which I already had stated was highly unlikely. If both of us fully admit that the nomads would have caused significant devastation in any scenario, then we should not be having this discussion at all. In addition, I was making the point that butterflies will affect China and Korea significantly after temporarily conforming to your unlikely scenario, because you seemed to only focus on China.

 

[scholar]

Well, to begin with, you're making it extremely difficult for me to respond because you've been sub-quoting your points for some reason, but I'll try to respond to each.

A subquote doesn't make copy/paste any more difficult. I just wanted to separate a tangent from the actual scenario I proposed. You calling my scenario unlikely is rather unfounded. A successfully modernizing China having the power to draw its own borders and sphere of control is entirely possible with the right POD at the right time, and is even likely with a change or two from the Han to the early-mid Qing era.

Rather, the scenario you have painted in this debate is the unlikely one. What we're talking about is no longer my scenario. Its yours.

I will respond to it tomorrow or the next day.