Chinese siberia

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by blueczar, Jul 9, 2009.

  1. blueczar Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Suppose that China colonised Siberia before Russia did, 17th century or so, and managed to hold on to this territory, how does this affect the events of the 19th,20th,21st centuries?

    Would there be a Chinese colony in Alaska which was also purchased by USA? How different would world war I be? A faster defeat of Russia? No Russian Revolution?

    Would China have still been invaded by all the allied powers because of the Boxer Rebellion-style uprising or would it be too large now? Would there be a warlord-era in China? Who would win and what would China be today? Nationalist? Communist? Still divided? If there was still a communist revolution in China would there be a Cold War between USA and China instead of USSR? How much different would this be?

    Would the nazis have still come to power in Germany and maybe they could defeat Russia quickly? Would Japan have been able to invade China now that it is larger and has many more resources?

    [​IMG]
     
  2. DaSla -

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Such a POD would radically alter the course of history to the present day, so what you are asking, if what has occurred in OTL would be present in this ATL, the answer is no.
     
  3. othyrsyde Sana ka'aha yo pendejos!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    Lost in Sukaria
    :eek: wow, China's big!
     
  4. blueczar Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Yeah but it's interesting that its only a frozen wasteland thats changing hands which is having that big an effect on history.
     
  5. Ofaloaf Nothing really mattress

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Location:
    Detroit
    Start working on the POD, and only after that's picked at go after butterflies

    China? Go northwards in the 17th century? During the century when the old Ming dynasty fell to the Manchurian Qing dynasty which rushed in from the north in the first place and knew full well the value of the land north of the Buryats (nil)?

    I don't see that as a particularly likely occurance. Outside of oil production, which is a relatively new development, and trade routes, Siberia's not good for a lot. It's got miserable soil with too small a period of time for agriculture to be worth it, and there's not terribly much there. It's the Great Plains of Asia, except without the soil quality needed for farming.

    Not to mention the unexplained expansion westwards into traditional Turkic lands. Ming-dynasty policy was never much inclined towards westwards expansionism, and Qing-dynasty policy just wanted the northern Mongolian confederations to look to the Manchurians for leadership.
     
  6. blueczar Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    China wouldn't have had to go very far north to get a hold of Siberia. The inhabitable part is a thin strip along the trans-Siberian railway which is right next to the border. Maybe the Chinese could take an interest in controlling the fur trade and reselling them to the Russians?

    It does say something about Qing dynasty China's westward expansion, here in "China marches west" by Peter C. Perdue. They would just need to keep going a little further to get Central Asia.
     
  7. Nugax talks in diagrams

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Location:
    London's sludgy aorta
    Interesting definition of 'bit' considering it's a thousand miles of high mountains and chill deserts full of angry nomads. Plus when you get to the other side its boreal forest that the chinese had no experience exploiting/surviving.

    Even if the Chinese could cross it, whoevers coming out of the Volga basin to contest it will have many advantages as a) the agricultural and technological package will be vastly more adapted to the conditions as they already live in siberia lite b) the have much smaller geographic barriers and the siberain river routes are excellent for east-west movement whilst shit for north-south c) its not even further away -Krasnoyarsk is a close to Moscow as it is to Beijing, d) siberias best starter trade good - furs, are in much higher demand in chilly europe.

    Whilst China holding to the Amur Basin and Mongolia is perfectly feasible, them competeing with the Russians for Siberia is very much not, necessitating a PoD of removing a united Russian polity and China gaining a very loose suzerainity over a underused northern region.
     
    Clement Yang likes this.
  8. rcduggan 大元帅

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location:
    New England Democratic Republic
    We've discussed this before, and the general conclusion was that China has no impetus to expand into Siberia. What of value is in Siberia, beyond a few thousand nomadic tribesmen? AFAIK there is nothing in Siberia that 17th-century China could not obtain via trade. So the Qing dynasty has nothing to gain by expanding to the north.
     
  9. virgulino Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Location:
    Brazil
    Where are the butterflies anyway? President Obama would still be elected the President of the USA?
     
  10. tallwingedgoat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    But the Lake Baikal area is decent land, perfectly worthwhile. The Chinese may not have the means to do it, but the Manchus, Mongols did.
    Manchuria and Mongolia are not so different from Siberia in climate. The Manchu led Qing empire therefore did posses the technological ability to colonize. I also disagree that the Siberian rivers would prove disadvantages, as they all run from south to north, making colonization from the south easier than from the west. As far as fur goes, the Chinese were big buyers of Russian fur. Many Russian Siberian towns existed only to trade with the Chinese.

    The physical barriers are considerable however. Napoleon said of the three barriers, mountains, rivers, and deserts that make natural national borders, mountains make minor obstacles while deserts are the most problematic. The Ural mountains was Russia's barrier to overcome, while the Gobi desert was in China's way to Siberia.

    Historically the Ming was not in the least bit interested in Siberia. It's the Manchus that were expansionist and prized fur. However by the time the Manchus were in a position to expand north the Russians were already firmly entrenched and it wasn't worth the effort to dislodge them just for the fur trade. The Treaty of Nurchinsk was the result of Manchu-Russian border conflicts and resulted in mutual accomodation.

    For the Qing dynasty to take Siberia away from the Russians in the 17th century would require either a later arrival of Russians or a militarily stronger and more aggressive Qing empire.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  11. Abdul Hadi Pasha Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Pacifica (Now with 6 CVNs!)
    Also, the "thin habitable strip" may appear that way if you look at a population map, but there is a "chicken and egg" situation there. The population is thicker along the Trans-Siberian rail line because the Trans-Siberian rail line is there. If it weren't, I'm not sure many Russian colonists would have preferred to move there.

    Distance isn't necessarily a barrier to political control, nor is proximity a benefit - as you've pointed out, it's much more practicable to control Siberia from Moscow than it is from Beijing. The Golden Horde is a pretty impressive demonstration, if a bit of a backwards one.

    One mountain range is way more of a barrier than several thousand miles of steppe.
     
  12. Abdul Hadi Pasha Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Pacifica (Now with 6 CVNs!)
    But wouldn't Napoleon's opinion be colored by the experience and technology to which he had access? He might consider a desert the most problematic obstacle, yet the Sahara has always been a conduit, not a barrier, to the peoples that had experience with it.
     
  13. Hawkeye Source?

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Location:
    Iowa
    Even when an individual takes a left turn when he should of made a right turn will have massive consequences in the future.
     
  14. tallwingedgoat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Deserts were not impassable, just hard to do so. Sure Caravans traversed the Sahara, but so the Alps also did not prevent trade. Mountains slowed down travellers, deserts killed them. Desert trade was relatively costly and typically only high value goods were economical to transport.

    The Urals were not very formidable obstacles. As far as mountain ranges go, they were not so intimidating. Not only was it possible to get around it from the south, but there were Tartar towns to the east which were conquered and used as staging bases for gradual eastward movement of settlers.

    For these reasons I think natural barriers were the more critical of factors.
     
  15. Mr Stereo1 Shutting up now

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Location:
    In a state of uncertainty
    Yes, Siberia is pretty useless up until the 20th century, the main reason that Russia expanded in that direction was as a pride thing. All the other powers were building empires, so they felt they had to as well, so they went for quantity before quality, and so we have the underdeveloped overexpanded Russia of the last 1800s. That's why they didn't develop us to European standards, they had a massive resources drain.
     
  16. Umbral Member Donor Monthly Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    So...if something kicks Russia down a bit so they don't expand east as fast, we end up with a much stronger Chinese presence in Siberia, and a smaller, more modernized Russia?
     
  17. DCInsider Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Location:
    DC
    China controls Siberia

    Blueczar,
    The map you posted is essentially the blueprint for the following:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123836150260267093.html

    In "Uhappy China", the underlying theme now is that the concept of "liebensraum" needs to be eventually rehabilitated because China's natural grwoth and desire for global leadership requires resources- and land- all of which are within Beijing's grasp, but is inder comtrol fo Russia. There are lots of comments on this - as far early as 1954, USSR was concerned that China was still publishing books that showed large parts of Siberia and Far East under Chinese control.

    But a China as massive as having all of Siberia under its control would be only as strong as its government. If there would be internal rebellions like the Taiping Rebellion in mid-19th century, other great powers would seek to take advantage of the situation and carve their own zones of influence.

    DCInsider
     
  18. Mr Stereo1 Shutting up now

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Location:
    In a state of uncertainty
    I reckon so.
     
  19. tallwingedgoat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    China has never had any claims on Siberia. It did lose the territory of Outer Manchuria in 1858 which amounts to a slice of the Russian Far East, not in Siberia.
     
  20. kasumigenx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    If the Manchus don't invade china or try they might expand north..which needs a stronger Ming Empire...