If no European colonialism in Asia, would it be much more atomized or unified?

[AV69]

Vietnamese, Thais and even Qing China and Japan Tenno after the Sino-Japanese War were effective European Clients, it is nearly impossible to stop colonialism when imperialism flourished as in the case of Rome expanding into Mediterranean and Asia. (Local princes submitted to become Roman Clients). For example in 18th century there was a certain pressure for many Vietnamese to convert into Catholicism in order to curry favour of the Europeans, this had been a crucial factor for imperialism to transform into colonialism.

European arms, ideas, even money plays a part too as in the case of Bengalis and EIC, Qing and HSBC. "Europeans not colonialing Asia" scenario was effectively meaning these huge loans to Asian rulers becoming non-recoverable bad debts.

 

[TimTurner]

Which was a product of Europeans exporting technologically-advanced muskets and guns to friendly rulers. Vietnamese and Thai had thus filled the power vacuum in Indochina. Otherwise there would be no partition that fast.

Interesting, I was not considering that angle, but it does make sense if it would turbo-charge expansion from states already eager to expand and able to do so.

 

[Zincvit]

Which was a product of Europeans exporting technologically-advanced muskets and guns to friendly rulers. Vietnamese and Thai had thus filled the power vacuum in Indochina. Otherwise there would be no partition that fast.

Eh I had to disagree with this assertion, even before the Europeans coming into full force in the 16th century, Lê Thánh Tông had already began launching wars of expansion in both the South and East. I’d argue it was really the instability of the Lê that allowed Champa to lived longer than it might have.

 

[AV69]

Eh I had to disagree with this assertion, even before the European coming into full force in the 16th century, Lê Thánh Tông had already began launching wars of expansion in both the South and East. I’d argue it was really the instability of the Lê that allowed Champa to lived longer than it might have.

And Chinese threats as well, who was a nominal imperial seignor over Viets and Chams.

Annam in historical records of Mings, were recorded to possess a superior gunpower knowledge advantage by as early as early-15th century, it is arguably a product of Indo-Pacific trade routes which conversed with the Turks.

Arms influence from the West did not only affect the Vietnamese, but also the bloody conflicts between neighbouring Burma and Siam. Without European arms these wars of Indochinese conquest would certainly not be that bloody. Viets won't dare to colonise and treat Khmers as sub-humans.

 

[Workable Goblin]

We see the opposite in countries today. India had like 8 different major Industrial centres, why would any of them be capable of creating a state any stronger than the others? Why would there there be a "great empire" and not just several roughly equal states?

I’m not sure how relevant the conditions of today are to this question, given that (for example) Alexandria and Byzantium were major centers in the Roman Empire but this didn’t prevent, well, the Roman Empire. In general, while large empires might not be the most likely thing there is certainly a reasonable chance that good leadership or differences in timing (i.e. some centers industrializing sooner or faster than others) or other differences in resources (either actual or effective) could allow one or more states to conquer or dominate many others in a region that on paper are equal or even superior to it (again, Rome…Prussia/Germany provides a similar example, bearing in mind how poor Bradenburg was originally).

 

[Zincvit]

And Chinese threats as well, who was a nominal imperial seignor over Viets and Chams.

Annam in historical records of Mings, were recorded to possess a superior gunpower knowledge advantage by as early as early-15th century, it is arguably a product of Indo-Pacific trade routes which conversed with the Turks.

Arms influence from the West did not only affect the Vietnamese, but also the bloody conflicts between neighbouring Burma and Siam. Without European arms these wars of Indochinese conquest would certainly not be that bloody. Viets won't dare to colonise and treat Khmers as sub-humans.

Tbh, European trade and influence does not equate to inevitable European Imperialism, also the colonization of the Mekong Delta happened due to a variety of factors: invitation by the Cambodian king, territory ceded because of marriage alliance, negotiations and of course military conquest, and from what I read the region seem lightly populated and controlled pretty loosely by the Cambodians since, Chinese adventurers was able to establish themselves and appointed as officials by the Cambodians.

Also from what I read there was really no official policy before Minh Mạng (even that is pretty overblown) to “civilize” the Cambodians. Hell even Cambodian sources praised Gia Long (the first Nguyễn Emperor) for his tolerance, though due to him implementing a policy of segregation between Vietnamese and “barbarians”.

 

[AV69]

Tbh, European trade and influence does not equate to inevitable European Imperialism, also the colonization of the Mekong Delta happened due to a variety of factors: invitation by the Cambodian king, territory ceded because of marriage alliance, negotiations and of course military conquest, and from what I read the region seem lightly populated and controlled pretty loosely by the Cambodians since, Chinese adventurers was able to establish themselves and appointed as officials by the Cambodians.

Also from what I read there was really no official policy before Minh Mạng (even that is pretty overblown) to “civilize” the Cambodians. Hell even Cambodian sources praised Gia Long (the first Nguyễn Emperor) for his tolerance, though due to him implementing a policy of segregation between Vietnamese and “barbarians”.

European mercenaries played a huge part in the Siam & Annam court factions and in wars both home and foreign, which I'd argue resembles the role of the Turks, Turkish mercenaries, and Turk's eventual dominance and lordship over Persia and the Middle East.

As for the religion factor, Catholicism (broadly includes American Protestantism in the 19th-century) was always a focus point in the Far East, either persecuting or converting into Catholicism was always a point to further instigate imperialism and colonialism.

 

[AV69]

Vietnamese, Thais and even Qing China and Japan Tenno after the Sino-Japanese War were effective European Clients, it is nearly impossible to stop colonialism when imperialism flourished as in the case of Rome expanding into Mediterranean and Asia. (Local princes submitted to become Roman Clients). For example in 18th century there was a certain pressure for many Vietnamese to convert into Catholicism in order to curry favour of the Europeans, this had been a crucial factor for imperialism to transform into colonialism.

European arms, ideas, even money plays a part too as in the case of Bengalis and EIC, Qing and HSBC. "Europeans not colonialing Asia" scenario was effectively meaning these huge loans to Asian rulers becoming non-recoverable bad debts.

Further I would argue it was the interest of European powers to prevent the Far East from fragmentation, as it is always better to negotiate with fewer clients than too many, in the case of the Qing, Mughals and Ottomans the British always maintain the sole imperial authority as her client as fragmentation always mean potential space for other European powers to intervene and take part.

Referring to Persia and Siam, the British/Russian and British/French despite carving the country into spheres of influence themselves, still maintained the central government as principal client to negotiate with. Therefore I would argue this is a priority over establishing new client-states/a fragmented Far East.

 

[Hearkener]

Let's suppose that European colonialism had been completely butterflied after the 15th century, for one reason or another, what would Asia's current geopolitical situation be? With hundreds of different cultures and languages, would Asia have been completely divided? Or would we have seen the emergence of great empires throughout Asia? For example, a Vietnamese Empire holding all the land east of the Mekong River, an Indian Raja ruling all of South Asia, a Sultan unifying the entire Insulindian Archipelago, a Chinese Empire owning all of Eastern Siberia as far as the Yenisey River, a Japanese Empire colonizing all of Oceania, etc.

China'd probably still be the hegemon of East Asia, as the Qing aren't wrecked by massive economic collapse after the Opium Wars. Japan doesn't get a head start in development, and likely remains unable to challenge China for supremacy over the region. Mongolia doesn't exist, and the Vietnamese states stay under the Chinese thumb. I don't see the Qing expanding into Siberia; if they expand anywhere it will be south-east into Maritime SEA.

The Indochinese states cannot hope to challenge the Qing for dominance, but they can frustrate any effort to expand into their own territory. Thailand is the likely regional power, with an orbit of weaker polities around it which unite against either Indian or Chinese ambitions.

The Moguls probably still collapse after Aurangzeb, and the subcontinent is "balkanized" under new powers like the Marathas, Afghans, Sikhs, Bengalis and Nepalis. Airquotes because many of these states would be huge by European standards. Bengal, Nepal and the Sikhs could be a serious problem for the Qing, seeing as they all have good motivations to expand against Chinese interests.

Maritime SEA would probably be divided into an Indic and a Sinitic sphere, with the later more unified than the former.

 

[kasumigenx]

Maritime SEA would probably be divided into an Indic and a Sinitic sphere, with the later more unified than the former.

Maritime SEA would be under Arabic/Indian influence.

 

[Hearkener]

Maritime SEA would be under Arabic/Indian influence.

Culturally and religiously, yes. But there aren't really any Arab states operating in Maritime SEA in this period. The Arabs are incredibly unlikely to have any sort of direct political control over the region, since the nearest majority Arab nations would, I believe, be Yemen or Oman. And unlike Bengal and China, these have virtually no history of political involvement that far east.

I think that the two states most likely to carve the region up are Qing and Bengal. Qing because they're huge and need the ressources if they want to industrialize, which ITL may look a lot like the way Japan did it. They could also appeal to nationalist ideologues by claiming to defend Chinese migrants across the region. Bengal because its a rich country with a developed maritime tradition and economic interests all over MSEA.

 

[kasumigenx]

Culturally and religiously, yes. But there aren't really any Arab states operating in Maritime SEA in this period. The Arabs are incredibly unlikely to have any sort of direct political control over the region, since the nearest majority Arab nations would, I believe, be Yemen or Oman. And unlike Bengal and China, these have virtually no history of political involvement that far east.

I think that the two states most likely to carve the region up are Qing and Bengal. Qing because they're huge and need the ressources if they want to industrialize, which ITL may look a lot like the way Japan did it. They could also appeal to nationalist ideologues by claiming to defend Chinese migrants across the region. Bengal because its a rich country with a developed maritime tradition and economic interests all over MSEA.

Qing is more likely to conquer Indochina, likely Vietnam like the Ming did since there is a precedent already which favors the Chams.

Although will be fewer Chinese immigrants if the downfall of Ming is butterflied.

 

[Beatriz]

Asian states creating Asian colonial Empires would help consolidate the region somewhat, particularly as a means of “catching up” to Europeans in the New World and possibly Africa [1]

[1] Atlantic Africa is possibly a candidate for colonization even without much trade to India, and the Cape as a waystation to India is possible

 

[Beatriz]

Would Zomia remain independent ?

 

[AV69]

Would Zomia remain independent ?

View attachment 836845View attachment 836847

Taiping loosely resembles Zomia, its leaders speak Hakka which is a mountainous language mutually intelligible with Cantonese and Hokkienese in many cases.

 

[AV69]

Qing is more likely to conquer Indochina, likely Vietnam like the Ming did since there is a precedent already which favors the Chams.

Although will be fewer Chinese immigrants if the downfall of Ming is butterflied.

Qing the Manchus had a perspective that Inner Asia was predominantly important, herself was intertwined with Mongols and Tibetans while discouraged civillians from moving across the seas. There had been a ban coherent with Japan's that was enforced from time to time in sea trade.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Would Zomia remain independent ?

Zomia is by definition a place where state control is almost non-existent. So the question is what do you mean by independent?

 

[Beatriz]

Zomia is by definition a place where state control is almost non-existent. So the question is what do you mean by independent?

Not dominated by lowland states

 

[Zincvit]

Would Zomia remain independent ?

View attachment 836845View attachment 836847

Depends, if the lowland states became modernized then it negates the advantage highland peoples have. Not to mention, though they are defacto autonomous, most chiefs tend to get into arrangements with the lowland states like Vietnam with the Tusi system.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Would Zomia remain independent ?

No, for basically the same reason that the steppes came under the control of exterior governments in this time frame, that is that modern technologies and organizations render many of the geographical factors that impeded state formation and control less relevant. Now, mountains and jungle are less clearly negated by modern technology than huge open grasslands (just ask the French and Americans), but they are still less significant than they used to be. To the extent that the highlands remain free of lowland and state control, it will probably be by forming their own states to have a counter-force.

(Obviously I am assuming here that an Industrial Revolution of some kind still happens)