China marches West - much, much earlier

Call it the real "First World War." It is interesting to contemplate the world in which China uses its economic and population strengths to achieve greater geopolitical weight in Eurasia much earlier. Many responses to this idea would indicate that China's central government throughout its many dynasties was not really interested in settling and controlling far-away lands that its considered unimportant or populated by "barbarians." But that world view begun to change by the end of the 16th century, and was replaced by an aggressive foreign and military policy by 1750s. By mid-18th century, Qing China expanded all along its borders, defeating and destroying the remnants of Mongolia/nomadic forces that have threatened its security for millenia, and penetrating deep into present-day Central Asia. There is even a book about that period of Chinese history: http://www.amazon.com/China-Marches-West-Conquest-Central/dp/067401684X

I would like to consider the POD either in 1580s, or around 1670s. By late 16th century, Ming China was weakening, and ultimately fought ruinous wars against expansionist Japan that led to the downfall of the native Chinese dynasty. At that time, Chinese population was anywhere between 150 -200 million people, and its economy was unmatched anywhere in the world. By 1670s, the time of China's conquest by the Manchus, China was willing to fight, but its ultimate expansion would come in the 18th century, decades away. It would be an incredible and globe-changing event if China - already fully aware of the European powers, as well as Russian, Asian and Middle Eastern states that stretched to the west - decided on the policy of territorial expansion much sooner than in OTL. In a major difference, along with the armies, millions of Chinese settlers would march to colonize the new territories.

Would such a policy stand the test at home, and would China's economy and treasury handle such a massive expansion? Something similar to that did take place during Han and Tang dynasties, but Chinese leadership settled only on a system of military forts and installations. When trouble struck, there were not that many Chinese to get in the fight, or present a natural "human border." In this ATL, China's armies and settlers marched west into Central Asia and what is now Russian Siberia and South Ural region. While by 1670s, Russia nominally controls these territories, it does not have enough manpower to stem the tide of China's settlers. Fighting breaks out, and even when Chinese armies lose in engagements with locals or Russian Cossaks- as in OTL- there are more men to draw into the military from the large numbers of new colonists. Once the Chinese settler-armies break through the remaining nomad tribes- remnants of once-powerful Asiatic hordes that shook the world - only Russia and Persia remain as two major buffer states between Europe and Beijing.

In late 17th century, Russia was experiencing major upheaval - it just suffered a wide-scale rebellion led by Stepan Razin, its economy was struggling and its population was a mere fraction of China's - only around 10-12 million people. It could not defeat Crimean Tatar kingdom, an ally of the Ottomans, and it was pressured from the west by Sweden and the remaining Polish power. The news of a massive Chines expansion nearing Russian borders may have been terrifying to Moscow, and the arriving remnants of the defeated tribes, smashed and removed by Han armies and Han settlers, did not add to Russia's overall domestic security. It started fearing an eventual defeat by the Chinese and ultimate absorption of Russia proper into the ever-expanding Chinese empire. Everywhere they went, Chinese set up towns and villages, built roads and canals to jump-start the economy and connect the new territories to the Han heartland.

By 1690s, almost two decades into this expansion, European powers were worried. They understood that if Russia is conquered, nothing would stop the numerically-superior Chinese armies from marching further west, smash the Poles and Lithuanians and to take advantage of major divisions in Europe. And while Han armies may have lacked modern weapons of the time, their sheer numbers more than made up for that. In one battle near Ural mountains, Chinese lost 20,000 soldiers - to Russia's 4,000. The outcome was a victory to the Han, who simply steamrolled over the remaining Russian defenders in their westward march.

Taking into account China's aggressive posturing, the European powers convened an extraordinary meeting in Paris in 1691. In attendance were delegations from Russia, Poland-Lithuania, Prussia, Austria, France, England, Spain, Portugal, Bavaria, Lower Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Saxony. It was decided that the "Christendom" would fight China on two fronts- Russia, Poland-Lithuania, Sweden, Prussia, and Austria would field land armies to try and prevent Russian collapse. And the five major naval powers of the time- England, France, Spain, Portugal and Lower Netherlands- would send their navies half-way around the world in the largest armada since the Roman times to strike at China from the east, at its weakest point. Lacking a navy, China would not be able to adequately challenge this bold move - theoretically speaking, of course.

The Paris Conference did not go as smoothly as planned, but almost everyone was in overall agreement that China had to be stopped. Absent from the meeting were the Ottoman and Persian representatives, whom the Europeans distrusted. Beijing learnt of the event as its troops begun to approach Volga river - Russia's new heartland. In Paris, spies were everywhere. Fear hung in the air, but the resolve to fight was unwavering.(this is Europe in 1700: http://www.euratlas.com/big/bis1700.htm)

I would appreciate your comments, and perhaps a map - as I learn how to make AH maps on my own. Thank you all in advance!

DCInsider
 
I think there are two points to be made here.

1) China did not expand westwards with much enthusiasm because there was nothing of value there. The deserts of Central Asia haven't had much economic worth since the Mongols smashed everything and the Silk Road died off. The Han, the Tang, and later the Qing were all interested in driving off or otherwise impeding the nomadic tribes of the area, but it has never been profitable to go any further.

2) Before railroads, you are never, repeat, never, going to see large armies crossing Central Asia. Supporting a few companies of cavalry would be hard enough with supply lines that long and over such poor terrain; an actual army is completely out of the question. And before the Suez Canal and steamships, you aren't going to be able to mount an intercontinental seaborne invasion either, so the part about China invading Europe proper has got to go.
 
I think there are two points to be made here.

1) China did not expand westwards with much enthusiasm because there was nothing of value there. The deserts of Central Asia haven't had much economic worth since the Mongols smashed everything and the Silk Road died off. The Han, the Tang, and later the Qing were all interested in driving off or otherwise impeding the nomadic tribes of the area, but it has never been profitable to go any further.

2) Before railroads, you are never, repeat, never, going to see large armies crossing Central Asia. Supporting a few companies of cavalry would be hard enough with supply lines that long and over such poor terrain; an actual army is completely out of the question. And before the Suez Canal and steamships, you aren't going to be able to mount an intercontinental seaborne invasion either, so the part about China invading Europe proper has got to go.

Silk road did fine under the Mongols - what do you think Marco Polo was travelling along? Central Asia certainly did decline as a center of civilization, but it was the bypassing of Central Asia by European shipping to the south and Russia to the north and the "cold war" between the Ottomans and the Persians that really finished the Silk Road off.

The same Mongols you mentioned managed to send more than "a few companies of cavalry" across the area. The Ming didn't expand west because

[1] they never developed a truly efficient gunpowder army, which meant they always had trouble with horse-nomad armies - the Manchu, which _did_ expand, were of horse-nomad origins themselves, and therefore had a certain expertise in the area.

[2] before modern agricultural methods, the area was too cold and dry to support a shitload of Chinese settlers _anyway_. Same with Siberia, only more so.

[3] any settlement would be thin, scattered, and in poor communication with the government in Beijing - and the Chinese government has always had paranoid feelings about Chinese populations outside their control. There historically has been a fear of people in the borderlands "going barbarian", joining with the pastoralist enemy - the Great Wall keeps Barbarians _out_, but it also keeps Chinese _in_ and in their proper roles in society. "Cossacks" can please not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

In any event, this begins to sound like a 17th century version of the "unparalelled invasion"...

http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/StrengthStrong/invasion.html

Bruce
 
Silk road did fine under the Mongols - what do you think Marco Polo was travelling along? Central Asia certainly did decline as a center of civilization, but it was the bypassing of Central Asia by European shipping to the south and Russia to the north and the "cold war" between the Ottomans and the Persians that really finished the Silk Road off.

Actually, those were two separate things that I mentioned. I did not mean to imply that the Mongols wrecked the silk road as well as the region's agricultural productivity. I meant that by the time of the Qing, the silk road had mostly died out independently.

The same Mongols you mentioned managed to send more than "a few companies of cavalry" across the area. The Ming didn't expand west because

A steppe nomad army is quite different from a civilized army, whether or not you have gunpowder, and the Qing army was a civilized one. Nomad ponies don't need grain the way civilized cavalry horses do, and in any case, the Mongol armies relied on technological, organizational, and tactical superiority rather than numbers the way the OP posits, which is very much a losing game when supplies have to cross Central Asia on camelback.
 
A steppe nomad army is quite different from a civilized army, whether or not you have gunpowder, and the Qing army was a civilized one. .

The Quing armies included large numbers of nomadic horsemen as support and auxilliaries, IIRC. Xianjing and Mongolia aren't particularly nice places for "civilized" armies, either.

Nomad ponies don't need grain the way civilized cavalry horses do, and in any case, the Mongol armies relied on technological, organizational, and tactical superiority rather than numbers the way the OP posits, which is very much a losing game when supplies have to cross Central Asia on camelback.

Oh, I'll agree that mass armies aren't the way to go (although I'll remind you the Mongols brought along plenty of auxilliaries themselves in the form of Chinese military engineers and so on), but if the Chinese had been able to conquer the Mongols and steppe people on their borders, they certainly might have been able to coopt them to aid in a conquest of Central Asia. (And for the record, I'm not so sure that the Russian conquest of Central Asia didn't run several hundred miles ahead of their furthest railway stops. Organization, building depots, and technological and organizational advantages allow a more modern army to operate and win in pretty crappy conditions: note the French conquest of the Sahara.).

Bruce
 
Comments

Good points all around - but I agree that it would be entirely possible for large armies to cross Central Asia on route to Russian lands. This was accomplished by a succession of nomads from Huns to Avars to Mongols - their armies ranged from about 100,000 to several hundred thousand people.

My other point was that by 1670s, Chinese knew what lay beyond the deserts, so to speak- there has been extensive contact with Russia, Persia and other kingdoms through the Middle Ages, thanks again to Mongols- a point made earlier as well. So when they start marching westward in ATL, they know what their goal is going to be and what to expect once the remnants of nomads are cleared out. In OTL, when the Qing armies went into Central Asia, they were able to sweep aside the Kalmyks and other nomads with relative ease.

Another point that is important here is that for many countries- Russia. Persia, China - the warfare in the 1670s-1690s did not differ that much from the 1500s, on account that their were slower to modernize as compared to some European powers and the Ottomans. So for that time, the warfare would be a slug fest between large infantry and cavalry units- the way it has been for centuries prior.

Thank you for offering links to other threads - good stuff. I do wish to have a map of my time line as well, especially with the European response to Chinese invasion.
 
The Manchus spent the latter half of the 17th century consolidating their rule in China. Although the Qing dynasty officially started in 1644, south China was ruled by Chinese generals nominally loyal to the Qing court who had to be crushed eventually. It was only after this consolidation that the Manchus were able to focus on their 18th century westward expansion. That's why Qing dynasty rulers couldn't make this happen earlier than it did.

For China to march west earlier you'll either need to have the Manchus consolidate their control over south China earlier, or have the previous dynasty do it. The Ming rulers however saw themselves as carrying on where the Song left off than a resurrected Tang or Han.
 
One possible early POD might be if Timur had survived a few years longer. He died in 1405 on the way to invade China. If he had managed to launch a destructive invasion for a few years, winning a series of battles without overthrowing the Ming dynasty, perhaps the Ming would have decided that they must control Timur's empire to ensure that no further invasion occurred. They might have also tried to bring the Golden Horde under Chinese rule.
 
The Chagatai Khanate was a Timurid vassel, a war between the Ming and Timurids would likely turn the khanate into a warzone. If the Ming subjegated Chagatai, I could see attempts to bring the Golden Horde into the tribute system and expansion into Transoxiana at the expense of the Timur Empire as both institutions crumbled in the late 15th century.

This may change Mughal invasion of India.

Ivan the Terrible vs Ming army could be interesting.
 
The Quing armies included large numbers of nomadic horsemen as support and auxilliaries, IIRC. Xianjing and Mongolia aren't particularly nice places for "civilized" armies, either.


Oh, I'll agree that mass armies aren't the way to go (although I'll remind you the Mongols brought along plenty of auxilliaries themselves in the form of Chinese military engineers and so on), but if the Chinese had been able to conquer the Mongols and steppe people on their borders, they certainly might have been able to coopt them to aid in a conquest of Central Asia...

I like the basic plot of this scenario, but I think perhaps the Chinese would move a bit slower, like take a good 150 years or more before they contemplated moving any further east than the Caspian Sea.
 
Good points all around - but I agree that it would be entirely possible for large armies to cross Central Asia on route to Russian lands. This was accomplished by a succession of nomads from Huns to Avars to Mongols - their armies ranged from about 100,000 to several hundred thousand people.

100,000? The Mongols never fielded close to that many, not even after capturing vast swathes of land with which to field local auxiliaries, and the Mongols were steppe barbarians themselves supremely talented at moving things on their own turf. The only nomad armies that numerous were full on barbarian migrations with women, children, and the elderly along with the warriors. For the Qing to field a 100,000 man army in Russia is a near logistical impossibility, and if done, will totally drain the Qing coffers. During the Han Dynasty campaigns against the Xiong-nu, it took 9 soldiers moving supplies/guarding those who move supplies/supplying those who move supplies to support a single cavalryman on the steppe, and that was just Mongolia. You are talking supply lines an order of magnitude longer, over worse terrain, to support armies an order of magnitude larger. The Xiong-nu campaigns ended up practically bankrupting the Han, and this would completely destroy the Qing.

Now consider what the Qing could possibly gain out of this invasion, assuming it's a success. Conquering Western or Central Europe is an impossibility since they would run into technologically superior enemies. Even Eastern Europe/Russia is near impossible without some supreme generalship/luck; we aren't talking about a scattering of feuding Russian principalities anymore. But even assuming the Qing win, they will be stuck with a territory months away from Beijing even by courier and near impossible to control before telegraphs and railways. And unlike Central Asia and Mongolia, control of those territories don't even shield the core Chinese territories from nomadic incursions.
 
Now consider what the Qing could possibly gain out of this invasion, assuming it's a success. Conquering Western or Central Europe is an impossibility since they would run into technologically superior enemies. Even Eastern Europe/Russia is near impossible without some supreme generalship/luck; we aren't talking about a scattering of feuding Russian principalities anymore. But even assuming the Qing win, they will be stuck with a territory months away from Beijing even by courier and near impossible to control before telegraphs and railways. And unlike Central Asia and Mongolia, control of those territories don't even shield the core Chinese territories from nomadic incursions.

The premise for such a westward expansion would be a strong central government in China that can not only consolidate its power but to stimulate the economy ion order to sustain the expansion. Qing Dynasty's expansion and progress at home were made possible through the long reign of Emperor Kangxii: To consolidate the empire, Kangxi Emperor personally led a series of military campaigns against Tibet, the Dzungars, and later Russia. He arranged the marriage of his daughter to the Mongol Khan Gordhun to avoid a military conflict. Gordhun's military campaign against the Qing failed, further strengthening the Empire. Taiwan was also conquered by Qing Empire forces in 1683 from Zheng Keshuang, grandson of Koxinga. Koxinga had conquered Taiwan from the Dutch colonists to use it as a base against the Qing Dynasty. By the end of the 17th century, China was at its greatest height of power since the Ming Dynasty.

And while Russia is indeed united by 1670, it is a weak state in late 17th century, as I have mentioned in the original timeline, having suffered rebellions, invasions and economic decline. Other participants in this discussion indicated that Qing expansion would be slower due to natural obstacles - as you have also indicated. But in this timeline, the westward movement is driven not just by the idea of protecting China's core territory, but by the desire to dominate far-away lands for economic and security reasons. So an efficient central government in Beijing plus a strong economy could make such westward invasion and eventual war with Russia a reality. And Russian Empire - unlike her Western European neighbors - does not have a military armed with the latest weapons(as compared to France, England or Swiss of the same time period).
 
And Russian Empire - unlike her Western European neighbors - does not have a military armed with the latest weapons(as compared to France, England or Swiss of the same time period).

Pray tell, what are Alexei's soldiers, dragoons, reitars, streltsi, tatars and cossacks armed with, in your mind? And how would that make them incapable of facing the Qing the same way the French could?
 
sorry, but this is just asb out of proportion. as mentioned by other posters, there seems to be a disregard for the concept of logistics and supply; even with your doctrine of "army-settlers," 16th-17th century era was just not up to the task. and no matter how much you centralize beijing, there is no way that communications doesn't become, in the least, "strained" between beijing and some remote province in the urals. and to lose 20,000 men in some poor, unknown far-away conquest, then simply shrugging it off as a small number relative to the chinese population, is just overestimating the capabilities the chinese numbers. i mean sure they were - and still are - the most populous nation, but there is no way they could attack and hold territory for that long, much less if you're considering they'll be heading for europe. just imagine, with the purported "small" number of 20,000. say the chinese do reach at least the fringes of eastern europe. how many more battles of 20,000 casualties had been fought by then, and will still be fought in not just conquering, but holding the remaining portions of europe? 20,000 certainly isn't no small number by then
 
Thanks for the feedback on this story. While part of it may be difficult to contemplate, it is still an AH scenario - as are all the posts in other threads, so some element of wishful thinking is always present. Nonetheless, a large army can definitely cross Central Asia en route to other conquests, no matter how long or cumbersome its logistics and supply trains may be. In 1219, Genghis Khan planned one of his largest invasion campaigns by organizing together around 200,000 soldiers for the conquest of the Kwarezmian Empire of Persia. Later Ming, or Qing dynasties may have also launched large-scale invasions westward - presuming that the central government had a good hold on the population and the economy. It would also require sheer determination by the Beijing rulers - the Qing march into Central Asia in the 1700s was not an isolated incident, but a carefully planned series of campaigns that established Chinese control over vast areas far from the core Chinese territory.

I agree with earlier comments that the Chinese spread would be a slower process than the one I have originally anticipated. And a proposed scenario in which Ming fight Tamerlane and then seek to control areas formerly under Timur's thumb also merits closer attention. As for the Russian army - it did have the weapons that the Qing may not have had by 1670s, but its internal situation was dire, making an alternate Sino-Russian clash less difficult to predict.
 
Top