DBWI China never Colonizes America or Australia.

As most of us know, China was the First to reach the New World and the Island of Australia shortly before the Europeans did, and to this day the Qing Dynasty is one of the Most Powerful Dynasty's on the planet. But this lead me to wonder, What if the Chinese did not build Colonies in the New World or in Australia? How would it effect the Qing Dynasty along with China's Dominance over the Globe in General?
 
As most of us know, China was the First to reach the New World and the Island of Australia shortly before the Europeans did, and to this day the Qing Dynasty is one of the Most Powerful Dynasty's on the planet. But this lead me to wonder, What if the Chinese did not build Colonies in the New World or in Australia? How would it effect the Qing Dynasty along with China's Dominance over the Globe in General?
((Why the Qing? Delaying the invention of the caravel for two hundred years rewrites history in a way much larger than this and is really the only way that the Qing could even have a chance. The Qing were isolationists, only in the mid to late ming did isolationism catch on, where before there were the treasure fleets. Simply allow the treasure fleets to continue, unabated?))
 
We wouldn't be bowing under our benelovent and gracious emperor. May his mandate continue forever!

Ugh, that sort of stuff. So glad we in the Chinese colonies cast off Qing rule in the long run. Bad enough the Manchu barbarians rule in China, even worse they held sway for so long outside of it. If we were still under Qing rule, then I don't know what we'd do.

Europeans (non-Iberians at least) would've been better colonists than Qing China. The Qing underdeveloped our land and Australia's as well, and we still suffer from it. It tells how much they sucked out of us that they barely even winced when we left, since we had not much left to give them. If Europeans had colonised our lands, they'd be a lot richer nowadays than on par with the Latin Americans. Maybe the English would've been best, but France is good too. Anyone but the Qing!
 

SRBO

Banned
ooc: did you srs choose a neomongol dynasty for this

No way in hell will the Qing do anything that has to do with sea boats
 
The Qing were isolationists
You're essentially falling for propaganda, first created by the British to further their imperialist ends and inherited by Chinese reformers and nationalists. The Qing were among the least isolationist of major Chinese dynasties. Although the Manchus made serious efforts to destroy foreign trade in the first years of their empire, during the bloody struggle with the Zheng state in Xiamen and Taiwan, once the Zheng state was no more the Qing were quick to restore foreign trade to its pre-Ming vigor. In 1684 (only one year after the conquest of Taiwan!) the Kangxi emperor allowed the Chinese throughout the four southeastern provinces to trade with foreign countries as they wished. This revolutionized Chinese trade. For instance, the number of Chinese ships visiting Nagasaki rose from 41 between 1680 and 1684 to 445 between 1685 and 1689. The following year, all foreign merchants - including those not from tributary nations unlike in Ming times - were able to visit some four customs houses (Shanghai, Ningbo, Xiamen, and Guangzhou) and 161 customs stations. The establishment of the Canton system changed this to some extent, but still, a tributary relationship was totally unnecessary to trade in Guangzhou. This is far superior to the Ming tribute trade system, as well as the Song system where only nine ports were prepared for trade.

To quote a 1751 Parisian encyclopedia,
At the present time... by opening commerce with other countries, the Chinese have increased the means of enriching their own. They now not only suffer, but encourage both near and distant nations... to come and trade with them; ad bring them the most valuable commodities; and, at the same time, allow their own people unto a great number of foreign parts... No wonder then that it is so opulent and powerful, when all the four parts of the globe contribute to make it so.​

before there were the treasure fleets
Zheng He's expeditions were extremely anomalous and born out of the poor economic policies of the Ming, which suppressed private trade and attempted to expand tributary trade across the entire Indian Ocean. They were only active between 1405 and 1433, and the transcontinental reach of Song merchants or the economic transformations of Southeast Asia incurred by Qing merchants did not require any treasure fleets.

a neomongol dynasty for this
Manchus, not Mongols. Calling the Qing "neo-Mongol" is about as accurate as calling the English "neo-Normans." The Manchus and Mongols shared some of their lifestyle (although the Manchus were much more agricultural) and some cultural concepts (the universal khanate or the script), but they spoke different languages, had vastly different histories, and each conceived each other as alien. The Dzungars, for instance, called the Manchus "southern barbarians." The Manchu emperors' sources of legitimacy was also very different from those of Mongol khans; while they did claim support from God, they did not belong to an illustrious Chinggisid lineage and did not derive their legitimacy from their recognition by the Yellow Teaching in Tibet.

Also, it's ironical you claim a "neo-Mongol" dynasty would have nothing to do with "sea boats" when the Mongols invaded Java and Japan by sea and was generally extremely interested - if not successful - in maritime expansionism.

No way in hell will the Qing do anything that has to do with sea boats
Oh really?

"Maritime trade benefits the well-being of the common people" (haiyang maoyi shi youyi yu shengmin) - the Kangxi emperor, 1686
 
(Daichingtala, you fail to address that this dbwi operates on delaying the invention of the caravel by two centuries, because the Qing are described as the first and only. And don't give me killing Columbus malarkey- it is utterly implausible to think no one would, in two hundred years, have a similar idea or discover the new world by accident.)
 
(Daichingtala, you fail to address that this dbwi operates on delaying the invention of the caravel by two centuries, because the Qing are described as the first and only.
Not only are you simply wrong about OP's scenario having the Chinese the only people to colonize the New Worlds, there is absolutely no information given whatsoever about the nature or the date of the PODs. Here, I'll quote the entirety of the OP (emphasis mine):
As most of us know, China was the First to reach the New World and the Island of Australia shortly before the Europeans did, and to this day the Qing Dynasty is one of the Most Powerful Dynasty's on the planet. But this lead me to wonder, What if the Chinese did not build Colonies in the New World or in Australia? How would it effect the Qing Dynasty along with China's Dominance over the Globe in General?
Please read the OP carefully before accusing me of not doing so. Nowhere does it say that Australia and the Americas were discovered during the Qing, only that it was discovered shortly before the Europeans did and that the Qing is powerful to this day. Nowhere does it say when Europeans discovered Australia and the Americas. Nowhere does it say who the Qing are.
 
Not only are you simply wrong about OP's scenario having the Chinese the only people to colonize the New Worlds, there is absolutely no information given whatsoever about the nature or the date of the PODs. Here, I'll quote the entirety of the OP (emphasis mine):

Please read the OP carefully before accusing me of not doing so. Nowhere does it say that Australia and the Americas were discovered during the Qing, only that it was discovered shortly before the Europeans did and that the Qing is powerful to this day. Nowhere does it say when Europeans discovered Australia and the Americas. Nowhere does it say who the Qing are.


"The Qing Dynasty....was the last imperial dynasty of China, ruling from 1644 to 1912"

DBWI still utterly implausible.
 
"The Qing Dynasty....was the last imperial dynasty of China, ruling from 1644 to 1912"
OP never states that the Qing are Manchus. There is nothing specifically Manchu about the character 淸 qing. While we don't specifically know why the Manchus chose this character, the most likely explanation is because water (and the three dots on the left of 淸 are the water radical), according to the Five Phases of Chinese cosmology, suppresses fire (明 ming, meaning "radiance," is associated with fire). So 淸 could be a plausible dynastic title for any anti-Ming rebels. Not only that, dynastic names are still fundamentally at the whim of the founding emperor. With the information given in the OP, the Qing could be anyone.

DBWI still utterly implausible.
Is it? Chinese contact with northeast Australia is fully plausible - the Makasarese did it, after all, and Chinese dominance over the Southeast Asian Archipelago was in fact attempted, albeit by the Mongol Yuan. As for the Americas, we know that the Ainu had contact with Kamchatka and may have had some very limited contact with southwestern Alaska. If we have a Chinese Japan (again possible), who is to say that the Chinese cannot expand on these links to a fuller contact with northwestern America, especially considering the pre-existing Inuit iron trade that the Chinese can tap into? These scenarios may not be plausible, but with careful justification they are not "utterly implausible" at all. And going from these tentative links to Chinese global dominance is a very big leap that should also be justified. But utter implausibility is simply not what I see.
 
OP never states that the Qing are Manchus. There is nothing specifically Manchu about the character 淸 qing. While we don't specifically know why the Manchus chose this character, the most likely explanation is because water (and the three dots on the left of 淸 are the water radical), according to the Five Phases of Chinese cosmology, suppresses fire (明 ming, meaning "radiance," is associated with fire). So 淸 could be a plausible dynastic title for any anti-Ming rebels. Not only that, dynastic names are still fundamentally at the whim of the founding emperor. With the information given in the OP, the Qing could be anyone.


Is it? Chinese contact with northeast Australia is fully plausible - the Makasarese did it, after all, and Chinese dominance over the Southeast Asian Archipelago was in fact attempted, albeit by the Mongol Yuan. As for the Americas, we know that the Ainu had contact with Kamchatka and may have had some very limited contact with southwestern Alaska. If we have a Chinese Japan (again possible), who is to say that the Chinese cannot expand on these links to a fuller contact with northwestern America, especially considering the pre-existing Inuit iron trade that the Chinese can tap into? These scenarios may not be plausible, but with careful justification they are not "utterly implausible" at all. And going from these tentative links to Chinese global dominance is a very big leap that should also be justified. But utter implausibility is simply not what I see.

You addressed these separately. They were not separate, the statements were tied together. I am well aware that a power which was the strongest nation in the world for most of our current instance of civilization is able to colonize the world, but because I am not a specialist, Qing conjured a single dynasty to mind, which was that Qing, which was, with all the context given by the DBWI, way too late to actually work within that context (save for Australia maybe). I was not aware that there was no cultural reason why the character was selected, only a political one.

Also, certain individuals (of questionable character) have roleplayed the Qing as a Manchu dynasty already, and everyone else assumed this thing as well.
 
OOC: just change the "Q" to a "M" and the problem is fixed.
(Or just remove the first bit. Even if the Qing get on the train late it will still probably make them the greatest nation in the world, look at the British and French. With a little coopting they could probably even sieze colonies from Europe.)
 
I personally don't know what the Americas would look like without China's Influence, because i have grown up here my entire life being taught how great China is and i don't know how it would be living In a America dominated by Someone like the French. This leads me to Wonder, If China never colonized the Americas, Or Australia, then what European Power would? i Always thought if China never Colonized the Americas, we would all be Speaking Spanish or French.

P.S. I apologize for any grammar mistakes. Where I live, our English is highly influenced by Mandarin due to its close proximity to the Chinese Colonies, so it may appear a bit weird to anyone who lives in Great Britain or its Colonies.
 
Also, certain individuals (of questionable character) have roleplayed the Qing as a Manchu dynasty already, and everyone else assumed this thing as well.
I was only responding to your linking the Wikipedia article about the Qing. As for OP's scenario, I assume that the story is similar to the history of the one overseas territory the Qing had in real life; Taiwan. Taiwan was first conquered from the Dutch by a powerful and anti-Qing maritime kingdom (the Zheng state), and the Qing advanced into the island only to destroy the said kingdom. If the Qing are Manchus as people have roleplayed, I would imagine that an earlier Chinese dynasty has colonized the New World and Australia and that the Qing have taken these territories to suppress the remnants of Han Chinese independence.

OOC: just change the "Q" to a "M" and the problem is fixed.
The Ming were the most oppressive major dynasty when it comes to maritime (or even Mongol) trade, while the Qing were among the most liberal. The well-known treasure fleets are actually a symbol of oppression; the Ming state wanted to monopolize all Chinese foreign trade through the carefully controlled tribute trade while suppressing private trade, and the Zheng He expeditions were essentially an attempt to convince the entire Indian Ocean world to enter into tributary relations with China. The Ming wanted to kill private maritime initiative. So no, the Ming era could not have easily led to the Chinese discovery of Australia unless by criminals/smugglers/Ming loyalists such as the Zheng, whereas the Qing-era travelers could easily have done so.
 
OOC:
The Ming were the most oppressive major dynasty when it comes to maritime (or even Mongol) trade, while the Qing were among the most liberal. The well-known treasure fleets are actually a symbol of oppression; the Ming state wanted to monopolize all Chinese foreign trade through the carefully controlled tribute trade while suppressing private trade, and the Zheng He expeditions were essentially an attempt to convince the entire Indian Ocean world to enter into tributary relations with China. The Ming wanted to kill private maritime initiative. So no, the Ming era could not have easily led to the Chinese discovery of Australia unless by criminals/smugglers/Ming loyalists such as the Zheng, whereas the Qing-era travelers could easily have done so.
As much as I like the Qing, keep in mind about how awesome the Ming Hongwu Emperor was. He had the willpower to organize a naval expedition that I doubt anyone else after him, not Qing, and definitely not Ming could have. The Qing is honestly, too concentrated on land expansion.
 
@ Xianfeng Emperor, you are talking about the Yongle emperor, yes? The Hongwu emperor had bad experiences with maritime trade. His enemies to the east, Zhang Shicheng in Suzhou and Fang Guozhen in Ningbo, extensively relied on their overseas links, and the late 14th century was the heyday of Japanese pirates. This is why the emperor set up a restrictive tribute trade system. But anyways, the treasure fleets would and could not be the driver of Chinese colonization and exploration because they were meant to be the conduits of tribute trade with established states. This is why I'm focusing on private initiative; unlike the treasure fleets, private Chinese traders would have economic incentives to visit places without organized tributary states, like Australia. Treasure fleets were not ready to deal with hunter-gatherers (or even a small port - the treasure fleet would presumably have issues staying in the Malukus because of how little food is grown there), while small private ships would be.
 
Top