Could China have kept northern Vietnam?

1. Couldn't the Ming have kept Annam if they had simply thrown more manpower into the region? Or alternatively, the Tang manages to keep hold of Annam even in its decline.

2. What are the repercussions of northern Vietnam slowly assimilating into one of the peripheral regions of China?
 

FDW

Banned
1. Couldn't the Ming have kept Annam if they had simply thrown more manpower into the region? Or alternatively, the Tang manages to keep hold of Annam even in its decline.

2. What are the repercussions of northern Vietnam slowly assimilating into one of the peripheral regions of China?

They might have been able to keep it for a little longer, but the constant costs of having to deal with rebellion would probably compel The Ming to withdraw regardless.

As for your second question, it might mean that the neighboring peoples (The Thai, Khmer, Champa) all come under a stronger degree of Chinese influence than what was the case OTL, the increased Chinese influence might actually be enough to push the Thai toward adopting Hanzi over the local version of the Brahmanic alphabet that they did OTL.
 
Why did the Viet rebel more than say the Zhaung or the Miao or any of the other random ethnicities that the Han slowly assimilated over the centuries? I'd say it's probably owing to their geographic distance, but then China was able to win over Tibet, Mongolia, and Manchuria eventually, and those places were usually considered to be less core than Annam was.
 
Bump.

Wasn't Annam also under Chinese domination for more than a millennia? I am surprised it WASN'T sinicized, considering what's happened to outlying regions taken over by China Proper like Manchuria and Xinjiang and Guangxi.
 

FDW

Banned
Why did the Viet rebel more than say the Zhaung or the Miao or any of the other random ethnicities that the Han slowly assimilated over the centuries? I'd say it's probably owing to their geographic distance, but then China was able to win over Tibet, Mongolia, and Manchuria eventually, and those places were usually considered to be less core than Annam was.

I think it might be that Vietnam had more collective consciousness of living under an independent centralized state than most of the other groups you mention, a situation that also existed in the Korean Peninsula.

Bump.

Wasn't Annam also under Chinese domination for more than a millennia? I am surprised it WASN'T sinicized, considering what's happened to outlying regions taken over by China Proper like Manchuria and Xinjiang and Guangxi.

Sinicization was something that went very slowly in the south, it only really started under the Tang dynasty and probably wasn't wholly completed until Mongol times.

And even though Annam was under Chinese control for a Millennium, it wasn't actually continuous, and there were numerous rebellions popping up, and several of these actually managed to break Chinese control (if only for a short period).
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Viet rebel more than say the Zhaung or the Miao or any of the other random ethnicities that the Han slowly assimilated over the centuries?

I think its not just number of rebellion, but also numbers of rebels.

Chuang, Miao, Yi, etc usually are hill tribes. They live on hill while river valley settled by Han Chinese. Even Guangdong river valley settled by Chinese in Han dynasty times. Luckier tribes such as Bai (Dali/Nanzhao) only have lake, other settled on smaller river. They cannot have number to fight enormous number of Chinese from Yellow/Yangtze.

Viets have Red River basin to settle. so they can have number to fight the chinese, but even then they conquered for several hundred years.
 
Why did the Viet rebel more than say the Zhaung or the Miao or any of the other random ethnicities that the Han slowly assimilated over the centuries? I'd say it's probably owing to their geographic distance, but then China was able to win over Tibet, Mongolia, and Manchuria eventually, and those places were usually considered to be less core than Annam was.

I'm fairly certain it has to do with the fact that the Zhuang and Miao were never organized states, whereas Vietnam was, especially by the Ming period. Also, the Zhuang and Miao are a bit closer to Chinese centers of power.

It doesn't really make much sense to say that China won over Tibet and Mongolia, given how those two areas were never assimilated completely. Yes, there are Chinese settlers in many areas of both regions (depending on how Mongolian you consider Inner Mongolia), but neither can be assimilated in the way that Manchuria is.

1. Couldn't the Ming have kept Annam if they had simply thrown more manpower into the region? Or alternatively, the Tang manages to keep hold of Annam even in its decline.

2. What are the repercussions of northern Vietnam slowly assimilating into one of the peripheral regions of China?

The Ming were a little late. By the 1400s, Vietnam had been an independent country for several centuries. You'd have to go earlier to keep Vietnam as part of China.

Also, the Tang did keep Annam. The Tang collapse was the last straw, so to speak, for Chinese control over the area.
 
Vietnam is, to state shortly, the remaining one of the Ten Dynasties of Wudai.

Vietnam was first conquered 207 BC by Zhao Tuo - a ruler of Chinese state of Nanyue with capital at Guangzhou. The whole Nanyue including Vietnam was conquered by Han empire in 111 BC.

China controlled Vietnam continuously from 111 BC to 544 AD. With just brief rebellions from 40...43 and 248. Even during disruptions of central government from 17...27, 189...220, 280 and 311...317, Vietnam was loyal to whoever held South China.

A major rebellion started 543 against Liang Dynasty - and won in 557 when Liang dynasty was divided between Ly Dynasty, Later Liang Dynasty and Chen Dynasty anyway. After Sui united Southern China, however, Later Liang in 587 and Zhen in 589, Sui also reunited Vietnam in 602.

And then Vietnam was part of China - became autonomous under local jiedushi governors at the end of 9th century, as did the rest of South China.
 
It depends on the definition of Vietnam.

If you mean the entire Northern half of modern Vietnam, then yeah, very unlikely, you'd have the numerically significant Vietnamese minority rebelling all the time.

Now, that said, if you mean just Tonkin, as roughly defined in the below map, then it becomes much more doable as you not only have an overall smaller population, but a much more diverse* and divided one.


*Fun fact, while 86% of Vietnams population are ethnically Vietnamese, the ethnic Vietnamese population themselves actually inhabit less than half the countries territory.

Tonkin.png
 
Last edited:
1. Couldn't the Ming have kept Annam if they had simply thrown more manpower into the region? Or alternatively, the Tang manages to keep hold of Annam even in its decline.

The state was relatively centralized by the time that the Ming attempted to interfere, and the fact that it remained independent even after three invasions by the Mongols suggests that the Ming wouldn't have been able to fare much better. Of course, it was ultimately forced to pay tribute in order to avoid further incursions, but it remained politically independent, allowing the region to develop a separate identity for centuries after Chinese domination.

The problem with your second condition is not that the Tang couldn't keep hold of Northern Vietnam, but why any of the numerous fragmented successor states would consider it important to retain the area when they were more concerned about achieving dominance over the other states.

2. What are the repercussions of northern Vietnam slowly assimilating into one of the peripheral regions of China?

It would take several centuries for Northern Vietnam to be fully assimilated, which would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without butterflying away the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. This era of fragmentation was possible at the time because each region had a roughly similar population and had access to about the same amount of resources, but this situation would not have held true after the coastal/river areas increased in population under the Song.

However, it would be highly unlikely for the Tang to remain centralized for more than three centuries, while Vietnam was part of China before the Tang because South China had never been fragmented among numerous states, such as the situation which occurred in North China, during the chaos between the Han and Sui.

Why did the Viet rebel more than say the Zhaung or the Miao or any of the other random ethnicities that the Han slowly assimilated over the centuries? I'd say it's probably owing to their geographic distance, but then China was able to win over Tibet, Mongolia, and Manchuria eventually, and those places were usually considered to be less core than Annam was.

Tibet was not fully politically incorporated into China until 1950, and still remains ethnically, culturally, and linguistically distinct. In the past, it was a tributary of the Tang, although it sacked Chang'an, the Tang capital, at one point, and was later governed separately from China under the Mongols. Tibet was a tributary of the Ming, and although it was politically incorporated under the Qing, it theoretically remained independent in practice, as large areas remained geographically hostile and/or sparse in population.

Outer Mongolia was under Qing control for a few centuries, but it remained unorganized and theoretically independent, similar to the situation in Tibet, and became politically independent after the Qing collapsed. Meanwhile, Inner Mongolia was not fully incorporated until the mid-1900s, as it was subject to Japanese interference, although it had become occupied mostly by Han Chinese due to the Qing's policies in order to curtail Russian incursion during the 19th century.

Using Manchuria as an example doesn't really make sense, as the Manchus invaded China Proper and established the Qing. In other words, Vietnam would have to swallow China whole in order for an adequate comparison to be made, which would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, considering that Vietnam decided to shift its focus south into conquering Champa IOTL. In this case, the Manchus were gradually assimilated into Chinese culture within a century or so after utilizing Chinese policies, and although Manchuria remained relatively free of Han Chinese until the mid-19th century or so in case of a Han Chinese resurgence, the large volume of migrations afterward due to fear of Russian encroachment caused the area to be essentially part of "China" by 1900-50. If Manchuria had remained separate from China Proper, however, and a population boom had occurred around 1700-1800 due to trading links, it would probably remain culturally and politically separate from China today.

Wasn't Annam also under Chinese domination for more than a millennia? I am surprised it WASN'T sinicized, considering what's happened to outlying regions taken over by China Proper like Manchuria and Xinjiang and Guangxi.

Again, Manchuria doesn't count because the Manchus conquered China, not the other way around. Annam was also probably very "sinicized" by the time that the Tang asserted control over the area, which explains the abundant number of Sino-Vietnamese words, along with the lasting influence of Confucianism.

Meanwhile, the area roughly consisting of what is now Xinjiang (East Turkestan) was under military occupation by the Han, Tang, and Qing, but numerous native states in the region continued to maintain independence during other periods, and large areas still have a predominately Uighur population today. Guangxi is vague because it, along with Yunnan, was originally home to several native states in the region, such as Nanzhao and Dali, but was later absorbed into the Yuan, and the Ming attempted to retain control afterward. However, the natives continued to resist foreign incursions for decades, if not centuries, so the process was gradual. If the Mongols had not taken over the region, however, then it might have remained independent for centuries afterward, and possibly remain as a politically separate state today.
 
Last edited:
I don't get why people always use Tibet, Manchuria, and Mongolia in these comparisons. They were all separated from China for agricultural and logistical reasons that do not apply to the historically Chinese chunk of Vietnam.

If we want a useful comparison, we should be holding up equivalent regions. That is, ones that were neither Han nor long-ruled by Han powers at the beginning of the Chinese imperial system, but were suitable for rice/wheat/millet agriculture and were in a position where an army could receive supplies. So what does make a valid comparison? The Liaoning peninsula, Korea, Sichuan (Szechwan [including Chongqing]), Yunnan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Guizhou, Hunan, Jiangxi, Fujian, Zhejiang, and Taiwan all fall within this category. You may note that includes near half the Han provinces of modern China. In only two of those places would you find people disclaiming Chineseness, and in one of them they'd be denying it in Chinese!
 
Excellent answers, everyone!

It depends on the definition of Vietnam.

If you mean the entire Northern half of modern Vietnam, then yeah, very unlikely, you'd have the numerically significant Vietnamese minority rebelling all the time.

Now, that said, if you mean just Tonkin, as roughly defined in the below map, then it becomes much more doable as you not only have an overall smaller population, but a much more diverse* and divided one.

I mean the parts that were ruled as part of Nanyue.

It would take several centuries for Northern Vietnam to be fully assimilated, which would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without butterflying away the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. This era of fragmentation was possible at the time because each region had a roughly similar population and had access to about the same amount of resources, but this situation would not have held true after the coastal/river areas increased in population under the Song.

True, but why did the other successor states and regimes of that time eventually become part of China proper, while Annam remained distinct?

Guangxi is vague because it, along with Yunnan, was originally home to several native states in the region, such as Nanzhao and Dali, but was later absorbed into the Yuan, and the Ming attempted to retain control afterward. However, the natives continued to resist foreign incursions for decades, if not centuries, so the process was gradual. If the Mongols had not taken over the region, however, then it might have remained independent for centuries afterward, and possibly remain as a politically separate state today.

So alternatively, had the Mongols pursued different goals and campaigns, the same could have happened to northern Vietnam?
 

scholar

Banned
Wasn't Annam also under Chinese domination for more than a millennia? I am surprised it WASN'T sinicized, considering what's happened to outlying regions taken over by China Proper like Manchuria and Xinjiang and Guangxi.
It was sinicized, very much so. It became independent after the right opportunity arose and exerted its independence every since fiercely. As time went on a mostly sinicized Vietnam became less and less so. Even with this in mind, Vietnam today still follows similar religious and philosophical traits as China and follows many of the same social customs. Modern Vietnamese culture is either a hybrid culture, or a chinese offshoot that assimilated a lot of native values into its society.

Sinicization was something that went very slowly in the south, it only really started under the Tang dynasty and probably wasn't wholly completed until Mongol times.
That's not actually right. The Tang did some extensive sinicization, but the process is as old as the first chinese dynasty, as chinese cultural expansion (and the so called Han ethnicity) has been in a state of constant southward progression since its founding (as well as northward and westward and for a short time eastward until it reached the cost).

But the reason why its wrong has to deal with Shi Xie, or the so-called King Si of Vietnamese history. He was a governor of the Later Han-Three Kingdoms era of Jiaozhi. Jiaozhi was the name of a commandery in northern vietnam, it was also the name of a city, and was also the name of the entirety of vietnam depending on who you ask. This chinese governor ruled over a city that had a growing chinese population. He, himself, was a native of Jiao province and his family lived in Jiaozhi. The process of sinicization began with the Nan Yue and continued until the Later Han until it was a functioning peripheral province that had extensive native population, but in that way it was no different from most of Wu's southeastern provinces or Shu's southwestern, or Wei's every periphery. It was prosperous and wealthy enough to be divided in half, leaving most of Vietnam under Shi Xie and the other half under the rule of Sun Quan, the Emperor of Eastern Wu. Later Wu would incorporate it directly after a particularly bloody campaign that saw Shi Xie's clan almost completely eradicated because it had too much influence there. In many ways Jiao province under his rule was richer and more prosperous than Wu's provinces, which is saying something. It was also more Chinese, and experienced little rebellion under his rule while Sun Quan spent most of his reign dealing with the Shan Yue tribes which dotted almost the entirety of his lands a few miles away from the rivers.

For the record, Jiao province, and by extension Vietnam, was more Chinese than Yunnan province during the time of the Later Han. Of this I have no doubt. This means that whatever occurred to make Vietnam independent and harshly resistant to Chinese over lordship occurred well after this and could easily be avoided.

Sun Quan is the man who engineered China's stranglehold on the South, and he was a later Han governor general/Eastern Wu Emperor. He extensively oversaw the sinicization of the South that would later lead to Eastern Jin's ability to effectively resist conquest by the northern nomads. You can read more on him and his family's role in the south here.
 
Last edited:
True, but why did the other successor states and regimes of that time eventually become part of China proper, while Annam remained distinct?

Annam was geographically more distinct from the other areas of what eventually became part of China Proper. This explains why the area was subject to frequent uprisings, and that the region managed to successfully establish a separate identity even after a millennium of Chinese domination. It was also much closer to unassimilated native tribes outside of Chinese influence at the time, unlike other Chinese regions which bordered several other culturally Chinese regions.

So alternatively, had the Mongols pursued different goals and campaigns, the same could have happened to northern Vietnam?

My point was that if the resistance in what is now Yunnan/Guangxi had been more coordinated, then the region could have remained politically independent. The fact that the Mongols sent three expeditions into Vietnam but failed suggests that logistics was the main issue, especially considering the rivers and coastal areas. Considering that the Mongols were forced to retreat from Burma and Java as well, it would be virtually impossible for them to succeed in Vietnam.
 
Annam was geographically more distinct from the other areas of what eventually became part of China Proper. This explains why the area was subject to frequent uprisings, and that the region managed to successfully establish a separate identity even after a millennium of Chinese domination. It was also much closer to unassimilated native tribes outside of Chinese influence at the time, unlike other Chinese regions which bordered several other culturally Chinese regions.

My point was that if the resistance in what is now Yunnan/Guangxi had been more coordinated, then the region could have remained politically independent. The fact that the Mongols sent three expeditions into Vietnam but failed suggests that logistics was the main issue, especially considering the rivers and coastal areas. Considering that the Mongols were forced to retreat from Burma and Java as well, it would be virtually impossible for them to succeed in Vietnam.

Meh.

Much of the Chinese assimilation of Yunnan and Guangxi occurred in the Qing dynasty - the last 350 years. Had China received a big setback two hundred years ago, we'd no doubt have someone arguing the same about both regions. That does nothing to suggest Vietnam was out of reach. Much of the time when sinicization could have been in effect was after Vietnam's thousand year stint as a Chinese frontier province. Had earlier dynasties done worse and later ones better, or even if Cochin had gone to the late Qing (say as Europeans were digesting the south), Vietnam would have undergone an identical transition.
 
Top