Challenge: The Great Powers of the East

[Euskadi]

Anyway, I had an idea for an alternate history where power has shifted more to the East, with Russia, China and Japan claiming the top three 'Great Power' slots, the more 'Western' nations having fallen behind some time in the early 1800s (But I would also be fine with post-Reformation era), perhaps due to some alteration in the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty-Years War, or an ousting of the Qing from China. Both Russia and China could easily have made a serious dent in the powers of the era with some decent leadership. Japan's history wouldnt need to be altered a whole lot, obviously.
The US could be removed from the 'superpower' region simply by letting Mexico keep its northern territories, or having some other power take them before the US and securing them in such a fashion as to either assimilate or keep out US colonists or the XYZ affair going too far.
The technology should be roughly the same, albiet with some new names on some inventions.

 

[Communist Wizard]

What about Siam as a minor Great Power?

 

[Euskadi]

What about Siam as a minor Great Power?

I love the idea, sure.

 

[Faeelin]

I don't know if this qualifies, but one thing I was planning to explore in Perpetual Brightness was a Europe that languaged under Bourbon hegemony, while interstate competition, Jesuits, and Dutch commercial techniques drove East Asia into an IR.

Of course, when the Southern Ming fall in the late 18th century to the Dynasty of Righteousness, all hell breaks loose as only Nippon's walls of wood keep Asia free.

 

[Euskadi]

t the same time there could be some sort of Ming rebellion in China, the idea was certainly popular enough even if it never happened. That would stop the worst of the Qing period from happening, no Cixi

So, I would say that the big powers would be:
Russia
China
Japan
Germany
Siam

The map will, IMO, look significantly different, a Russian victory in the Great Game would be good, but to avoid unbalancing things too greatly it would be a tossup between giving them the Straits and Constantinople (which they always wanted anyway) or Northern India. The Straits seems more likely though. They most likely would have expanded into Oregon Country and parts of California to.

China would most likely have expanded its control of into British India a little, and would have kept the Vladivostok area as well as its eastern bits, and maybe Korea.
Japan could have its usual colonies (Phillipines, all the islands they could possibly want, etc), and maybe a colony on the west coast of America...Japanese California, anybody?

 

[Faeelin]

China would most likely have expanded its control of into British India a little, and would have kept the Vladivostok area as well as its eastern bits, and maybe Korea.
Japan could have its usual colonies (Phillipines, all the islands they could possibly want, etc), and maybe a colony on the west coast of America...Japanese California, anybody?

Why not a Chinese? 400 million people can't be wrong....

Bwahahaha

 

[Euskadi]

Help would be nice

 

[Euskadi]

The POD will be 1798

 

[Dean_the_Young]

The biggest problem is industrialization. The West was Great because the West could produce more for less, letting trade blossom. Russia only was able to get its act together under the fist of Stalin. China, as big as it is, is still considered a developing country, the average industrialization less than other countries, though size makes up for some of it.

Japan? Japan has a small home base, so any and all colonization will be of a small country trying to hold down someone bigger than itself. Second, Japan wasn't exactly a "nice" colonial power, even by colonial standards. Xenophobia was quite common in Asia. Third, Japan has always been entwined with China, so both would try to vassalize the other, and China would have the edge with anything near equil ability.
As for America (or Canada) not becoming a real power, America pretty much had expansion ready for it. The interior of the continent was mostly empty, plenty of resources, few rivals, and Mexico's Army was rather backwards at the time of the Mexican War, and it didn't exactly have a steady govt. N. America would most likely be dominated by either the US, Canada, or Mexico. The US has it made once it becomes transcontinental, as its hold on the Great American Desert becomes fait accompli. Canada could dominate if it headed the US off in the Ohio valley, and teamed with Mexico in blocking the US from the west coast. Mexico would only really have a chance if it moved quickly into the fertile California and Texas lands, and spread a rapidly growing population quickly.

I could go on, as we covered this abit in AP History last year with essays and such, but it's a long discussion.

 

[B_Munro]

The biggest problem is industrialization. The West was Great because the West could produce more for less, letting trade blossom. Russia only was able to get its act together under the fist of Stalin.

It was industrializing at a pretty good trot before WWI. Not saying that it couldn't have all gone smash really badly, but to say it _needed_ Stalin to become a major power is, well... .

China, as big as it is, is still considered a developing country, the average industrialization less than other countries, though size makes up for some of it.

Careful or I sic Hendryk on you. If you say "China was unlikely to be a major power in 1900, given post-1798 PODs" I'll buy it. If you say "China in 2007 is in the great majority of TLs as poor or poorer than OTL", be prepared for some arguments.

Japan? Japan has a small home base, so any and all colonization will be of a small country trying to hold down someone bigger than itself.

The UK did OK for a while, and Britain has _always_ had a smaller population than Japan. Before the 19th century, quite a bit smaller.

Second, Japan wasn't exactly a "nice" colonial power, even by colonial standards.

Really pretty variable: they were quite civilized in Taiwan, for instance. And OTL they got into the colonial game in an era when racist determinism was the _norm_ for colonial powers.

Xenophobia was quite common in Asia.

Unlike, say, the British, the Germans, the French...

Third, Japan has always been entwined with China,

Culturally, yes. But they've only actually tried invading eachother once apiece in the last 800 years, not counting pirates, and China was under Mongol rule at the time.

so both would try to vassalize the other, and China would have the edge with anything near equil ability.

If modernizing China gets into overseas adventures in a big way, I suppose they would come in conflict. But if China remains content with mucking around in it's traditional balliwick (Korea, Vietnam, central Asia) do they really care if the Japanese sieze Indonesia from the Dutch and establish colonies in California and Hawaii?

As for America (or Canada) not becoming a real power, America pretty much had expansion ready for it. The interior of the continent was mostly empty, plenty of resources, few rivals, and Mexico's Army was rather backwards at the time of the Mexican War, and it didn't exactly have a steady govt. N. America would most likely be dominated by either the US, Canada, or Mexico. The US has it made once it becomes transcontinental, as its hold on the Great American Desert becomes fait accompli. Canada could dominate if it headed the US off in the Ohio valley, and teamed with Mexico in blocking the US from the west coast. Mexico would only really have a chance if it moved quickly into the fertile California and Texas lands, and spread a rapidly growing population quickly.

Now this _is_ a serious problem with post-1798 PODs. A unified US is going to be at least _one_ of the world's great powers in most circumstances: a breakup of the US into several smaller states _after_ the ratification of the Constitution is difficult, and just breaking off New England or the Confederacy isn't going to be enough. And if Canada _is_ strong enough to stop the US, that means the British Empire is strong, which takes us back to square one again.

(Hmm. By _when_ must the Eastern powers dominate? If the Evil British Empire and the US smash eachother in a nuclear war in the 1960's, and Europe west of Russia is relatively minor states...)

Bruce

 

[Euskadi]

(Hmm. By _when_ must the Eastern powers dominate? If the Evil British Empire and the US smash eachother in a nuclear war in the 1960's, and Europe west of Russia is relatively minor states...)

Bruce

By about the 1910s, pre-WWI era.

 

[Euskadi]

I could go on, as we covered this abit in AP History last year with essays and such, but it's a long discussion.

I highly doubt that you would cover counter-factual history in an AP class, what one, Euro, US?

 

[Dean_the_Young]

I highly doubt that you would cover counter-factual history in an AP class, what one, Euro, US?

Actually, I meant American Western expansion from sea to sea, not Asian/World history. It did come off a bit arrogant, didn't it? My apologies.

In North America, at least, Ocean access is vital to economic/geographic expansion. The US was preparing to go to war for New Orleans, for the simple fact that the US right of deposit was about to expire and not be renewed, which could have stripped lands west of the Appalachian Mtn.s from the US to France, who would be able to insure that the settlers that far could get their goods to market. Only the Louisianna Purchase prevented an early Anglo-American Alliance in Jefferson's term.

By the same reasoning, the Western US, lacking rivers as it is, would be vulnerable to any nation that controlled the West Coast. Without a way to get goods to market, economically minded people might join a nation who could ensure economic prosperity, and strip most of the Great Plains (Great American Desert at the time) from the USA. Oregon was in dispute with the British, so some historians have speculated that a good part of the reasoning behind the push for the Mexican War was that the US felt it needed guaranteed access to the Pacific. (Please note I said some, not all.)

So, I apologize for arrogance, and just want to note that America's push for future security expanded it to the point where it was all but destined to become a great power.

 

[M79]

Ming dynasty recovers its technological heritage from the Song and builds on it. Japan conquers Korea in 1598 and the Manchu as the Ming fight their Southern neighbors. Japan and Manchuria square off for a few decades, build trans-oceanic navies/colonies, and advance accordingly in technology, kick-starting an Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. Russia hoards the tech as they can and develop close behind China. By 1800, Europe has technology along 1840 lines with Russia 2 decades ahead and China/Japan 10-15 years ahead of that.

 

[Jomazi]

The US population was 2.5-3 millions at the time of the war of independence. That's not very much, us Swedes were 2 million at the time and our nation did not grow into a superpower... Millions of european settlers as well as the lack of serious competition and plentiful natural resources mentioned before was instrumental in making USA what it is today.

How to ameriwhack this away? I see some possibilites, although they're quite remote:

1. Much fewer / no settlers arrive during the 19-th century. Perhaps the brittish won't let them, or the Americans go xenophobic?

2. The French bring in a lot more settlers (perhaps those missing above, even) to their Louisiana colony, eventually blocking US expansion westwards. "Le unêited states de lousiana"!

Now, the US, even if the expansion stops after the Appalachians, are still in possession of quite a lot of "lebensraum", and arguably the small 2.5 million colonies will increased it's population quite a bit by f.ex 1900. But, as twenty-million+ settlers are missing, things will be different.

Say there were 3 million Americans in 1800, even with (in the long term) enormous rate of natural increase, things could be as follows.

3% per annum: 3M --->58M (signicifantly fewer than OTL's 100M, if I've read the tables correctly)

2% per annum: 3M ---->21.7M. Making the US a worldpower is getting hard...

1.5% per annum: 3M---->13.3M, now, this enough to avoid being gulped up by other powers, but not enough to be a power of any significance if the poor Americans are not ultra-militarized....

 

[Flocculencio]

I'm going to make my usual remarks RE Japan in ATLs.

Everyone seems to back-project post-Meiji Japan's capabilities. For the vast majority of it's history, Japan was an insignificant backwater. In a TL with an outward-looking China, Japan would be dominated, just as Korea and Vietnam were.

 

[Agentdark]

Just after 1865 have America become a Xenophobic Isolationist Nutcase Power...cant be that hard

 

[Euskadi]

Actually, I meant American Western expansion from sea to sea, not Asian/World history. It did come off a bit arrogant, didn't it? My apologies.

In North America, at least, Ocean access is vital to economic/geographic expansion. The US was preparing to go to war for New Orleans, for the simple fact that the US right of deposit was about to expire and not be renewed, which could have stripped lands west of the Appalachian Mtn.s from the US to France, who would be able to insure that the settlers that far could get their goods to market. Only the Louisianna Purchase prevented an early Anglo-American Alliance in Jefferson's term.

By the same reasoning, the Western US, lacking rivers as it is, would be vulnerable to any nation that controlled the West Coast. Without a way to get goods to market, economically minded people might join a nation who could ensure economic prosperity, and strip most of the Great Plains (Great American Desert at the time) from the USA. Oregon was in dispute with the British, so some historians have speculated that a good part of the reasoning behind the push for the Mexican War was that the US felt it needed guaranteed access to the Pacific. (Please note I said some, not all.)

So, I apologize for arrogance, and just want to note that America's push for future security expanded it to the point where it was all but destined to become a great power.

What if the Americans fought a war with the French which ended in a stalemate, but when the British win the Napoleanic Wars, Louisiana Purchase goes to the Brits, who refuse to grant the US a right of deposit, and then the war of 1812 leaves both of them weak.

 

[Faeelin]

I'm going to make my usual remarks RE Japan in ATLs.

Everyone seems to back-project post-Meiji Japan's capabilities. For the vast majority of it's history, Japan was an insignificant backwater. In a TL with an outward-looking China, Japan would be dominated, just as Korea and Vietnam were.

I think this depends on when this happens.

Even during the 18th century, Japan was pulling ahead in some respects; it's financial system was more "modern", for instance.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

What if the Americans fought a war with the French which ended in a stalemate, but when the British win the Napoleanic Wars, Louisiana Purchase goes to the Brits, who refuse to grant the US a right of deposit, and then the war of 1812 leaves both of them weak.

When would the US fight France without getting into alliances, considering France's power? Even before the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson was planning to seek an alliance with Britain against France so that the US could get New Orleans. The Louisiana Purchase prevented a war and gave money to Napoleon, rather than a costly war over useless territory.

A potential POD for such a war/alliance was the XYZ Affair, and someone (apologies for forgetting who) has made an excelent timeline about the POD. It features, amoung other things, an early US-Britain friendship/alliance, a more Hamiltonian driven nation with earlier industrialization and end to slavery, and rather than a Louisianna Purchase a massive landgrab of the West and Caribbean at France's expense.