Ancient Chinese history is mostly made up of dynasties taking up their mandate of heavens to rule the land, but with several hiccups like during the Three Kingdoms period. However, with enough divergences, is a region divided into several states taking its place plausible, or will it be too unstable, considering the potential bloodshed arising from the want of dominating the region?
Is a Permanently Divided China Plausible?
- Thread starter Simeon
- Start date
These threads pop up every so often. Why are people so fascinated about tearing apart China?
That being said, a permanently divided China is very plausible. Just keep the PRC from retaking Taiwan and its surrounding islands, indefinitely. As for how far back you'd need to go to divide China, you'd probably have your last real chance during the fall of the Qin. Following its fall, an attempt was made at restoring the Warring States, and destroying the idea of an united China. However, the idea then failed, with the various states blobbing into other ones, a few power plays, and in the end, China was reunited under the Han.
There have been attempts (on this website) to design a perfectly balanced divided China. I'll see if I can link one of them up.
EDIT: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...d-china-post-yuan.399245/page-5#post-13233476
That being said, a permanently divided China is very plausible. Just keep the PRC from retaking Taiwan and its surrounding islands, indefinitely. As for how far back you'd need to go to divide China, you'd probably have your last real chance during the fall of the Qin. Following its fall, an attempt was made at restoring the Warring States, and destroying the idea of an united China. However, the idea then failed, with the various states blobbing into other ones, a few power plays, and in the end, China was reunited under the Han.
There have been attempts (on this website) to design a perfectly balanced divided China. I'll see if I can link one of them up.
EDIT: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...d-china-post-yuan.399245/page-5#post-13233476
Last edited:
Because we believe that it would create a culture of inventiveness, and a more vibrant philosophy on par with Europe?
Anyways, just stand by to my next thread.
China has had periods of disunion lasting hundreds of years, so yes, it's not implausible to suppose an era of disunity stretching on indefinitely.
Because we believe that it would create a culture of inventiveness, and a more vibrant philosophy on par with Europe?
Anyways, just stand by to my next thread.
To divide China is to create bloodshed, and in vast amounts. Furthermore, it will not result in some sort of magically-made culture of inventiveness - China already had that, and I don't see how balkanizing it will create more. While it's true that the Spring and Autumn Period/Warring States resulted in significant developments in philosophy and war, it's notable in that regard for not bleeding China dry.
The Three Kingdoms inspired magnificent literature, military innovation, and some incredible video games. That being said, it was some 60-odd years of constant warfare, and cost some 40 million lives, if the census records (and wikipedia) are to be believed. The Northern and Southern Dynasties were even more chaotic and bloody. By the time of the Sui and Tang, China had just spent over 150 years, from the fall of the Eastern Jin, in relative chaos. Now, following unification, did the culture of inventiveness disappear?
It did not. The Tang dynasty, rather than stifling innovation, brought it to new heights. The same occurred in many of China's golden ages. An united China is not one that stifles innovation, rather, it enhances it. A broken, warlord-ridden China is not one that will prosper.
That's not to say that China couldn't be divided, I'm just saying that it wouldn't necessarily give you any more innovation or inventiveness than what China already had. Philosophy, maybe, but more could easily be gained by butterflying away the Qin's suppression of non-legalist thought.
Very possible, especially noting the N/S Dynasties. You'd need to avoid sinicization, as well as the drive to unite China. Hence, why I'd argue that it's easiest to permanently (Assuming no world government) divide China through a POD in the Zhou dynasty, where the seeds for an imperial China was sowed.
Because China is perceived as being permanently united, and this being an alternate history board, people naturally wonder how this OTL condition could be reversed. You have a similar impulse when it comes to Europe, except that Europe being disunited through most of history it expresses itself as curiosity about how to permanently unify Europe, usually under the Romans.
...Which led to the rise of peace-niks, and distaste for blood knights. Also, I do not necessarily believe in that magic.
However, if they grew decadent, and they had a particularly biased emperor, they are pretty fucked, with the politics that was deciding for the region as a whole, instead of only a part of it.
Besides, warlordism can take a more peaceful, subdued character, especially if they adopted confucianism.
Well, yes, you had a point in that, but that doesn't stop me fantasizing about an ATL western Chinese state making a gunpowder empire, only to fall.
Thanks for a PoD.
I'd say Confucianism isn't the best philosophy for this. The great majority of China's dynasties adopted this philosophy, but this didn't stop quite a number of them from being aggressively expansionist. As I have stated in another thread from some time ago, Mohism might work better.
The real question, and this is one that's fascinated me for a while, is the results of a Zhou-era POD. There's World Without West, where the Chu (rather than the Qin) take power, and set off to unite All Under Heaven, but the question is, what would a Zhou-era POD China look like today, even if there was one? Any of the major warring states, notably Chu, could have united rather than the Qin, but the butterflies from that itself, let alone the butterfly hurricanes from a failed unification, would have completely changed the globe....Which led to the rise of peace-niks, and distaste for blood knights. Also, I do not necessarily believe in that magic.
However, if they grew decadent, and they had a particularly biased emperor, they are pretty fucked, with the politics that was deciding for the region as a whole, instead of only a part of it.
Besides, warlordism can take a more peaceful, subdued character, especially if they adopted confucianism.
Well, yes, you had a point in that, but that doesn't stop me fantasizing about an ATL western Chinese state making a gunpowder empire, only to fall.
Thanks for a PoD.
Because China is OP, also if China truly does attack Europe, guess who shall lead the resistance?
Cesare Borgia
With the Wei, Han and Zhao as the Holy Roman Empire, the Qin as the shadow kingdom, the Zhou Dynasty as the Papal States, the Qi as the French, the Yue as the Spanish, the Yan as Poland, Korea as the English and Japan as the Norsemen!Or more like the Holy Roman politics.
...OK this doesn't make sense.
I don't think you'd need to go back that far. After all, the Romans managed to rule over large swathes of Europe and hundreds of years after the Empire fell people still considered themselves to be Romans, but Europe was never reunited.
I'd have thought that Japan would be the England, since they're both islands. Plus Korea looks a bit like the Scandinavian Peninsula if you squint a bit.
I think the Viking comparison comes from the Wokou, and Korea as England makes a certain amount of sense- a country in the same cultural sphere but with a distinct identity.
Because it's unity is one of its most pervasive and fascinating characteristics.
Besides, its balkanization can incentivize expansionism, not from the Mordor China will be, but towards the ocean.
Basically. I'm trying to do it on my own. And its working! MWAHAHAHAHAHA
Praise be to God-Emperor Cesare Borgia-Palaiologos.
The warlords were Confucian....Which led to the rise of peace-niks, and distaste for blood knights. Also, I do not necessarily believe in that magic.
However, if they grew decadent, and they had a particularly biased emperor, they are pretty fucked, with the politics that was deciding for the region as a whole, instead of only a part of it.
Besides, warlordism can take a more peaceful, subdued character, especially if they adopted confucianism.
Well, yes, you had a point in that, but that doesn't stop me fantasizing about an ATL western Chinese state making a gunpowder empire, only to fall.
Thanks for a PoD.
Why not Jin for Poland? The Jin were partitioned into three, after all...