So I'm thinking of restarting and making a third draft/revision of my TL. Thing is, this time around I don't want to charge in balls first and realize I still haven't figured out the affairs of half the globe after I've started. I'm relatively happy with how I've figured European affairs in the second go on things, but I'm still not satisfied with coverage of some parts of the globe, mainly Asia (Middle East, India, Far East, all of it really) and the Caribbean (I really have no idea who would get what bloody little island). Now some of you gents are quite knowledgeable in these other areas, and I'd like to get your opinions and input on things.
Remember, the main gist of the TL is a more powerful Netherlands (via death of Alexander Farnese in 1571).
China
How much would butterflies affect the collapse of the Ming? What is the probability of the Shun dynasty (assuming the dramatis personae are not butterflied away) succeeding?
-How much would the POD and changes in Europe affect China between 1571 and 1644? From what I've read, the only major interaction between China and European powers in the early 17th century was with the silver trade. Although the loss of Brazil may impact Portuguese opinions of the Madrid government in the early 1600s, Potosi and other silver mining areas in the Spanish Americas should be relatively unaffected by the changes in the TL and silver flow to China should not change much. Am I missing something here, or is China relatively untouched by a Greater Netherlands in the 1600s?
-Can Li Zicheng convince Wu Sangui to join forces, or at least find some way to prevent a joint Ming/Qing army forming in the north and allowing Manchurian forces to pour in? That would massively improve the chances of the Shun dynasty succeeding.
-Ideally, would it to be feasible for Li Zicheng (likely with the Emperor's name of “Shun Taizu”) to re-establish a court-and-council system similar to the old Song or Tang model (as opposed to the less organized Ming system which periodically saw court eunuchs seize influence and power to the country's detriment) in an attempt to establish a “new beginning” for the dynasty and reinforce claims of legitimacy? If not, then what would be the model for the new dynasty? Surely it wouldn't just adopt the Ming model without some modification at the very least.
-Would it be easier or harder for a Shun government to take all Ming territories? Or, in other words, would the entire country be quickly taken over by the new government based in Beijing, or would there develop a “Southern Ming” dynasty based in Nanjing (or elsewhere)?
-There would be less loyalty to the later Ming if the new dynasty was also Han Chinese instead of Jurchen/Manchurian, correct? Would it then be feasible for personages such as Wang Fuzhi, Huang Zongxi, Gu Yanwu, and Fang Yizhi to be major players in an early Shun government? Assuming Shun Taizu adopts a “warrior-emperor” stance and tends to avoid the administrative work, how much influence could the above personages have on the shape of Shun government?
-Why did paper currency fail in the Yuan and Ming dynasties? From the Tang onwards, it looks like practically every Chinese dynasty attempted to (re-)introduce paper money, and usually that would work for a few decades before the bills would suddenly suffer massive devaluation and everybody would go back to using silver and copper. Why did paper money fail like that dynasty after dynasty?
The Middle East
How would the butterflies alter the history of the Ottoman Empire, Persia, and the Middle East up to 1700 or so?
-I still am terribly shaky with my knowledge of 17th-century Ottomans and Persians. Any help and input in this area would be appreciated.
-I'm still partial to the Armada-Stuart-Revolution-Republic idea for England, which means that they'll be terribly occupied with internal affairs for most of the time between 1580 and 1635 (or so). As I understand it, England in OTL was fairly influential in the Mediterranean markets up until the 1650s. Would the absence of England and greater influence of the Dutch on Mediterranean/Levantine markets seriously change anything significant?
-From what I understand, there was some instability in the Empire in the early 1600s due to Janissaries and palace intrigue. Is there a way to avoid this instability or solve it faster than OTL? It'd be absurd for the Caliph to abolish the Janissary corps, but didn't one of them later manage to lower Janissary recruitment rates and increase the size of other parts of the army? Seriously, I don't like the idea of just reading Wikipedia for information on the Ottoman Empire, but my local library has virtually nothing on them.
-Would a Russian attack on the Crimean Khanate in the mid-1600s be an incredibly stupid thing for them to do? The Romanovs may not necessarily be in power ITTL, mind you.
-As I'm also happy with the French portion of the TL, would a Protestant France change the relationship between Paris and Constantinople? I'm thinking of things like French support of the Ottomans as a way to distract Austria from German affairs, etc. Would a Calvinist France be more aggressive and open in a relationship with the Ottomans, or less so?
-Following on the above question, if the Ottomans fair better/become more involved in the Balkans and Austria, how does Safavid Persia fare against the Ottomans on the Mesopotamian front? Would European countries (sans France) be more inclined to support Isfahan against a stronger Ottoman threat in Europe?
I know even less about India than I do about Ottomans and Safavids. Anything about them would be great.
Seriously, I want your thoughts about any of this. Hell, even about European affairs.
Remember, the main gist of the TL is a more powerful Netherlands (via death of Alexander Farnese in 1571).
China
How much would butterflies affect the collapse of the Ming? What is the probability of the Shun dynasty (assuming the dramatis personae are not butterflied away) succeeding?
-How much would the POD and changes in Europe affect China between 1571 and 1644? From what I've read, the only major interaction between China and European powers in the early 17th century was with the silver trade. Although the loss of Brazil may impact Portuguese opinions of the Madrid government in the early 1600s, Potosi and other silver mining areas in the Spanish Americas should be relatively unaffected by the changes in the TL and silver flow to China should not change much. Am I missing something here, or is China relatively untouched by a Greater Netherlands in the 1600s?
-Can Li Zicheng convince Wu Sangui to join forces, or at least find some way to prevent a joint Ming/Qing army forming in the north and allowing Manchurian forces to pour in? That would massively improve the chances of the Shun dynasty succeeding.
-Ideally, would it to be feasible for Li Zicheng (likely with the Emperor's name of “Shun Taizu”) to re-establish a court-and-council system similar to the old Song or Tang model (as opposed to the less organized Ming system which periodically saw court eunuchs seize influence and power to the country's detriment) in an attempt to establish a “new beginning” for the dynasty and reinforce claims of legitimacy? If not, then what would be the model for the new dynasty? Surely it wouldn't just adopt the Ming model without some modification at the very least.
-Would it be easier or harder for a Shun government to take all Ming territories? Or, in other words, would the entire country be quickly taken over by the new government based in Beijing, or would there develop a “Southern Ming” dynasty based in Nanjing (or elsewhere)?
-There would be less loyalty to the later Ming if the new dynasty was also Han Chinese instead of Jurchen/Manchurian, correct? Would it then be feasible for personages such as Wang Fuzhi, Huang Zongxi, Gu Yanwu, and Fang Yizhi to be major players in an early Shun government? Assuming Shun Taizu adopts a “warrior-emperor” stance and tends to avoid the administrative work, how much influence could the above personages have on the shape of Shun government?
-Why did paper currency fail in the Yuan and Ming dynasties? From the Tang onwards, it looks like practically every Chinese dynasty attempted to (re-)introduce paper money, and usually that would work for a few decades before the bills would suddenly suffer massive devaluation and everybody would go back to using silver and copper. Why did paper money fail like that dynasty after dynasty?
The Middle East
How would the butterflies alter the history of the Ottoman Empire, Persia, and the Middle East up to 1700 or so?
-I still am terribly shaky with my knowledge of 17th-century Ottomans and Persians. Any help and input in this area would be appreciated.
-I'm still partial to the Armada-Stuart-Revolution-Republic idea for England, which means that they'll be terribly occupied with internal affairs for most of the time between 1580 and 1635 (or so). As I understand it, England in OTL was fairly influential in the Mediterranean markets up until the 1650s. Would the absence of England and greater influence of the Dutch on Mediterranean/Levantine markets seriously change anything significant?
-From what I understand, there was some instability in the Empire in the early 1600s due to Janissaries and palace intrigue. Is there a way to avoid this instability or solve it faster than OTL? It'd be absurd for the Caliph to abolish the Janissary corps, but didn't one of them later manage to lower Janissary recruitment rates and increase the size of other parts of the army? Seriously, I don't like the idea of just reading Wikipedia for information on the Ottoman Empire, but my local library has virtually nothing on them.
-Would a Russian attack on the Crimean Khanate in the mid-1600s be an incredibly stupid thing for them to do? The Romanovs may not necessarily be in power ITTL, mind you.
-As I'm also happy with the French portion of the TL, would a Protestant France change the relationship between Paris and Constantinople? I'm thinking of things like French support of the Ottomans as a way to distract Austria from German affairs, etc. Would a Calvinist France be more aggressive and open in a relationship with the Ottomans, or less so?
-Following on the above question, if the Ottomans fair better/become more involved in the Balkans and Austria, how does Safavid Persia fare against the Ottomans on the Mesopotamian front? Would European countries (sans France) be more inclined to support Isfahan against a stronger Ottoman threat in Europe?
I know even less about India than I do about Ottomans and Safavids. Anything about them would be great.
Seriously, I want your thoughts about any of this. Hell, even about European affairs.
Last edited: