No Confucius/Confucianism

I discovered, some years ago, that the history of Confucianism in China has something in common with the history of Christianity in Europe: both were persecuted in their first centuries of existence, only to become the main religion/state ideology later. So, what if Confucius simply did not exist, or what if master Kong's teachings did not manage to overcome persecution and become the ideology of the Chinese Empire for millennia? Butterflies would be huge, since Confucianism as a school of thought is as widespread in Asia as Christianity is in Europe and America. What would become of China without Confucianism? The most immediate answer would be a bigger influence of Buddhist and Taoist morals and/or religion even more than OTL, but is it the most plausible scenario?
 

Delvestius

Banned
Basically the retardation of the royal court and central bureaucracy, as well as scientific development in China as a whole.
 
I discovered, some years ago, that the history of Confucianism in China has something in common with the history of Christianity in Europe: both were persecuted in their first centuries of existence, only to become the main religion/state ideology later. So, what if Confucius simply did not exist, or what if master Kong's teachings did not manage to overcome persecution and become the ideology of the Chinese Empire for millennia? Butterflies would be huge, since Confucianism as a school of thought is as widespread in Asia as Christianity is in Europe and America. What would become of China without Confucianism? The most immediate answer would be a bigger influence of Buddhist and Taoist morals and/or religion even more than OTL, but is it the most plausible scenario?

I would assume there'd be greater Legalist influence in China and the rest of East Asia. Thing is, if you have a POD in 551 BCE when Confucius was reportedly born, there should be tremendous other effects thanks to the butterfly effect. If you had a POD in roughly 200 BCE (forgot the exact dates) when Confucianism became state ideology, there'd be less butterfly effects. As for Daoism and Buddhism, I should point out that Daoism as a religion didn't finish forming until after Buddhism arrived, and Buddhism didn't arrive until I think 50 BCE or 50 CE, so there's centuries of time for Chinese society to change without Confucianism or Buddhism or Daoism.

Basically the retardation of the royal court and central bureaucracy, as well as scientific development in China as a whole.

Not at all, if you're referring to the Zhou royal court. The Qin imperial court was already run on Legalist lines when it unified China after the Warring States Period, when all of the major seven states structured their bureaucracies along Legalist lines. You might be right about scientific development though.
 

Delvestius

Banned
Not at all, if you're referring to the Zhou royal court. The Qin imperial court was already run on Legalist lines when it unified China after the Warring States Period, when all of the major seven states structured their bureaucracies along Legalist lines. You might be right about scientific development though.

Admittedly Chinese history is not one of my strong points, but I was under the impression that Confucianism helped with administrations and magistrate workings and all of that. Do you know to what degree?
 
Last edited:
Admittedly Chinese history is not one of my strong points, but I was under the impression that Confucianism helped with administrations and magistrate workings and all of that. Do you to what degree?

Of course, but in Chinese terms there's a difference between kings (wang) and emperors (huangdi). The imperial courts (Han through Qing) relied on Confucianism. The Qin imperial court did not. The royal courts (Qin when it was still a kingdom, Han, Zhao, Chu, Qi, Wei, and Yan) of the Warring States Period employed Legalism too. The imperial courts I would say relied on Confucianism more than the royal courts did.

Without Confucianism as an ideology, the history of Chinese history post-Qin would definitely be radically different. For example, I think Legalism might be less likely to institute the civil service examinations.
 

scholar

Banned
What would become of China without Confucianism? The most immediate answer would be a bigger influence of Buddhist and Taoist morals and/or religion even more than OTL, but is it the most plausible scenario?
First and foremost it is important to recognize that Confucianism wasn't a radically new ideology that was founded entirely by Confucius, rather it was a stratified and organized ethic based on already occurring practices and ceremonies. Confucius did much to change some of the practices and added his own commentary on it, but the Confucian Ethic may have arisen in a similar form later on. Confucius was around at a time when those practices were in decline, he just refocused them and gave it a new life and applied it to everything in society. He did meet someone who basically agreed with his entire ethic with on a few exceptions who was a minor lord in southern China (or southern China at the time).

However, Buddhism was probably butterflied away without Confucius as he predates it. Even if it wasn't there is no guarantee that it would even be remotely similar to what it was or evolve in a recognizable fashion. Further, while Taoism was "the religion of the masses" there's no guarantee that it would maintain this status. There were other ethics in China at the time. Unfortunately some of the most colorful and flavorful of these ideologies appeared after Confucius, often by more than a century. Mohism and Legalism were most undoubtedly butterflied away. Lesser known schools of thought such as Agrarianim, Naturalism, and Logicians are gone as well. Regardless, I don't think China would be the better for it with Confucianism never forming. His teachings and ethic have had a more profound influence on China than the entirety of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates in the West. It robs China of some of its most defining characteristics and some of its most greatest achievements.
 
Butterflying Buddhism in this case just seems like butterflies for the sake of butterflies. There wasn't enough interaction between China and India in this period to have a direct influence, and even if chaos theory dictates that Buddha would be butterflied it is still highly probable an evangelical dharmic tradition would arise. It might be more similar to Jainism or it might be different, but since these kind of butterflies are indirect they're pretty much just hitting a randomize button for the sake of supposed plausibility. I think assuming Buddhism or an analogue is not unjustified.

You also seem to be making the assumption that since the various philosophical schools will be butterflied away then nothing will take their place. This makes no sense. As you said, Confucius's thought wasn't made out of the whole cloth, and neither were the other pbilosophies. While mohism, daoism, etc likely wouldn't develop just as they did otl, we can take them as a guide to indicate the kind of thoughts that would develop sans Confucius.

I would also question the assumption a lack of Confucianism would stifle science. What is the basis for this?

Legalism has it's limits as a philosophy and I wonder how it would develop sans Confucius. In it'll, confucianism took on elements of legalism as it developed. Another school could do the same. A fusion of legalism and Buddhism might be interesting to see. Or
 
Confucius's emphasis on the supposed superior moral qualities of the Zhuo set the stage for the reverence of ancient sage kings as a source of legitimacy for the ruling class. He created the Chinese conception of the gentleman. He also expanded on the concept of ritual, making it a more abstract and secular concept important for the organization of society.

Lacking this, Chinese society may be more aristocratic in nature, with legitimacy determined by other means, such as simple birth, divine right or prowess on the battlefield. Ritual will remain a purely religious concept and develop in a different way.

One thing to consider is this period coincided with Chinese expansion against non Chinese peoples. I believe Confucian concepts of civilization were part of the phenomenon of Chinese assimilatory success. Without him this could be different. Perhaps a caste system may develop, particularly in the south.

Whatever teaching replaces Confucianism ittl may not share his disinterest in the afterlife. In that case, ancestor worship( in a more literal sense than the Confucian version) and blood oath rituals may be more important . Chinese society may be more violent and more religious than otl. This may lead to longer and more frequent periods of disunity.
 

scholar

Banned
Butterflying Buddhism in this case just seems like butterflies for the sake of butterflies. There wasn't enough interaction between China and India in this period to have a direct influence, and even if chaos theory dictates that Buddha would be butterflied it is still highly probable an evangelical dharmic tradition would arise. It might be more similar to Jainism or it might be different, but since these kind of butterflies are indirect they're pretty much just hitting a randomize button for the sake of supposed plausibility. I think assuming Buddhism or an analogue is not unjustified.
Direct contact? No. Indirect contact? Yes. Not just through the movement of people, but interaction through air, animal life, weather, and and other factors. People make the assumption that if humanity isn't interacting with different factions of the world then nothing could possible match that fact. The problem is that the world is a complex system, the slightest variation in the number of ants around the Great Lakes would effect Europe in unforeseeable ways within months. The interactions between life forms on our world and their effect on their environments is something that is scarcely understood. Its not butterflies for the sake of butterflies, it is likely to be gone because the effects of removing Confucius throws every event that would succeed his arrival into doubt, even if they were only fifty years in the future a couple thousand miles away.

As for whether or not another dharmic religion would take Buddhism's place is inherently irrelevant. The fact of the matter would be that it is impossible to know or predict how said religions would evolve. And no, it does not stand to reason that it would be similar to OTL in its formation and in its execution through centuries of time while experiencing completely different stimuli in the form of civilization and so forth. Even if Buddhism could be butterflynet secured for several centuries it is almost impossible to believe that it would have remotely similar influence on the outside world.

You also seem to be making the assumption that since the various philosophical schools will be butterflied away then nothing will take their place. This makes no sense. As you said, Confucius's thought wasn't made out of the whole cloth, and neither were the other pbilosophies. While mohism, daoism, etc likely wouldn't develop just as they did otl, we can take them as a guide to indicate the kind of thoughts that would develop sans Confucius.
I never made an assumption like that of any kind, however many of those philosophical schools came about in reaction to Confucianism. Either directly because of the butterflies or directly because the philosophers who founded the various schools of thought specifically mentioned Master Kong in their essays.

I never said nothing could take its place, I actually hinted that another Confucian-like ethic could arise stating that what Confucius did, while immensely important, was simply provided a uniform structure for the many different practices in the past. Assuming that another ideology would take its place is a safe bet as there has never been a people that has not had an ideology (even if their ideology is that there is no ideology :rolleyes:). Speculating as to what it would be, apart from a possible Confucian analog, inherently impossible without essentially making it up. Could we assume that a Legalistic Philosophy/Doctrine could arise? Sure. Hell, its basis for government and execution while predating many similar ideas was hardly unique. Others could arise to fill that void. Could we assume that Agrarianism could once again form its utopic message? Sure. We can equally assume that it will remain marginalized because of the nobility or it will be altered to fit into what the nobility wants. Could Mohism and his idea of universal love take form in a similar fashion? Sure. There are a few, but not many, people that make similar ideas in other cultures.

The point is, by saying something similar could take its place that doesn't mean it was likely or even realistic. It just seems like attempting to direct butterflies rather than seeing what would actually happen. Sure, every single one of the hundred schools of thought could form similar to the way they did in OTL, but under different names and founders, without Confucius; and that Buddhism would form exactly the way it did in OTL and spread to China in a similar fashion resulting in the same blending of thought, custom, and ethic. Its all very possible. But its all very unrealistic. There's a reason why I hate early changes like this one.

I would also question the assumption a lack of Confucianism would stifle science. What is the basis for this?
Never made that assumption. Rather I was pointing to all of the Confucian achievements directly or indirectly and how they helped forge what we call China from the Han onward, and removing Confucius would rob history of this. I would say that others would say that assumption would be based on Taoism and Buddhism's ideology and how it relates to science.

Legalism has it's limits as a philosophy and I wonder how it would develop sans Confucius. In it'll, confucianism took on elements of legalism as it developed. Another school could do the same. A fusion of legalism and Buddhism might be interesting to see.
I do not believe that Legalism and Buddhism would mesh well together. Certainly less so than Confucianism and Buddhism or Taoism and Buddhism. The basis for this is the harshness of Legalism and the apparent lack of many similarities that are found in either Confucianism or Taoism. Don't get me wrong, Confucianism and Taoism clash with Buddhism, and in many ways contradict one another, but with Legalism we have an entirely different animal. About the only thing it shares is its desire for harmony, but how it achieves this is radically different. One could say that without Confucianism a legalistic doctrine would evolve with many Confucian ideologies in order to make it more acceptable to the gentry and more compatible with other faiths and ethics, but this just seems like wishful thinking to me.
 
Direct contact? No. Indirect contact? Yes. Not just through the movement of people, but interaction through air, animal life, weather, and and other factors. People make the assumption that if humanity isn't interacting with different factions of the world then nothing could possible match that fact. The problem is that the world is a complex system, the slightest variation in the number of ants around the Great Lakes would effect Europe in unforeseeable ways within months. The interactions between life forms on our world and their effect on their environments is something that is scarcely understood. Its not butterflies for the sake of butterflies, it is likely to be gone because the effects of removing Confucius throws every event that would succeed his arrival into doubt, even if they were only fifty years in the future a couple thousand miles away.

Yeah, I know and understand the concept, its just not very helpful. Widespread, diffuse, indirect and unquantifiable changes? Basically you can either hit a randomize button, ignore them, or give up on speculation entirely. Sometimes I enjoy the first option, but I am willing to excuse the second for the sake of a coherant discussion. The third option I have no time for.

As for whether or not another dharmic religion would take Buddhism's place is inherently irrelevant. The fact of the matter would be that it is impossible to know or predict how said religions would evolve. And no, it does not stand to reason that it would be similar to OTL in its formation and in its execution through centuries of time while experiencing completely different stimuli in the form of civilization and so forth. Even if Buddhism could be butterflynet secured for several centuries it is almost impossible to believe that it would have remotely similar influence on the outside world.

If we went back in a time machine and killed Confucius in his cradle, sure. But it doesn't really matter for a speculative discussion, and it offers no insights.

We have some choices.
A) Declare ceteris paribus, ignore indirect butterfly effects and assume Buddhism rises anyway.
B) Assume indirect butterfly effects change the details, but assume the general social and cultural conditions that led to Buddhism in OTL lead to a roughly analogous dharmic faith that has a roughly equal effect.
C) Same as above, but adjust for taste. Have it more or less successful or widespread.
D) Look at the social and cultural environment and the existing philosophical and religious mileau and use this to construct another dharmic faith (or several) that replace Buddhism due to the raging butterfly winds. An admirable effort, but doesn't add much to a discussion about Confucius-less-ness.
E) Throw our hands in the air and declare it all too difficult and forget about it. Not my favorite option.

I never made an assumption like that of any kind, however many of those philosophical schools came about in reaction to Confucianism. Either directly because of the butterflies or directly because the philosophers who founded the various schools of thought specifically mentioned Master Kong in their essays.

This is true, particularly in the case of Mohism. Still, my point stands, other philosophical schools will arise anyway, and they will probably share some characteristics with OTL schools.

I never said nothing could take its place, I actually hinted that another Confucian-like ethic could arise stating that what Confucius did, while immensely important, was simply provided a uniform structure for the many different practices in the past. Assuming that another ideology would take its place is a safe bet as there has never been a people that has not had an ideology (even if their ideology is that there is no ideology :rolleyes:). Speculating as to what it would be, apart from a possible Confucian analog, inherently impossible without essentially making it up. Could we assume that a Legalistic Philosophy/Doctrine could arise? Sure. Hell, its basis for government and execution while predating many similar ideas was hardly unique. Others could arise to fill that void. Could we assume that Agrarianism could once again form its utopic message? Sure. We can equally assume that it will remain marginalized because of the nobility or it will be altered to fit into what the nobility wants. Could Mohism and his idea of universal love take form in a similar fashion? Sure. There are a few, but not many, people that make similar ideas in other cultures.

We can't know for sure, because there's no right answer. We can try to make educated guesses, though, based on what we know about the body of thought that existed at the time.

The point is, by saying something similar could take its place that doesn't mean it was likely or even realistic. It just seems like attempting to direct butterflies rather than seeing what would actually happen. Sure, every single one of the hundred schools of thought could form similar to the way they did in OTL, but under different names and founders, without Confucius; and that Buddhism would form exactly the way it did in OTL and spread to China in a similar fashion resulting in the same blending of thought, custom, and ethic. Its all very possible. But its all very unrealistic. There's a reason why I hate early changes like this one.

That's a reason why I love them, they leave so much scope for huge changes in trajectory. An element of creativity and winging it is unavoidable. What is your definition of "unrealistic" in this sense?

Never made that assumption. Rather I was pointing to all of the Confucian achievements directly or indirectly and how they helped forge what we call China from the Han onward, and removing Confucius would rob history of this. I would say that others would say that assumption would be based on Taoism and Buddhism's ideology and how it relates to science.

That was someone earlier up in the thread I think. It's hard to characterise this situation as robbing China of tradition, as thats a value-loaded way of describing it. It might be better, it might be worse. More likely, there are a multitude of different ways China can develop sans Confucius some better and some worse.

That said, I have never seen Confucianism described as advancing human knowledge and science. Confucius himself said "I invent nothing", after all. What advantages it might possess in encouraging scholarship and learning for learnings sake seems to be taken away by a generally conservative mindset and tendency to use brainpower on purely metaphysical or moral quandries.

It's also worth making the point that Daoism helped advance science in many ways. Mixing various chemicals in the search for an elixer of immortality led to gunpowder and the classification of many plants and animals. But sure about Buddhism and science one way or the other.

I do not believe that Legalism and Buddhism would mesh well together. Certainly less so than Confucianism and Buddhism or Taoism and Buddhism. The basis for this is the harshness of Legalism and the apparent lack of many similarities that are found in either Confucianism or Taoism. Don't get me wrong, Confucianism and Taoism clash with Buddhism, and in many ways contradict one another, but with Legalism we have an entirely different animal. About the only thing it shares is its desire for harmony, but how it achieves this is radically different.

One could see Legalism and Buddhism complementing each other as secular and private faiths, like Confucianism and Daoism did OTL. I think they're fundamentally focused on different things, so there's not as much of a clash as you think. In OTL, Buddhist conceptions of right-ruling kings had an influence on many Chinese nobles, and this didn't conflict with their use of Legalist ideas and structures.

One could say that without Confucianism a legalistic doctrine would evolve with many Confucian ideologies in order to make it more acceptable to the gentry and more compatible with other faiths and ethics, but this just seems like wishful thinking to me.

Not really, considering that many aspects of Confucianism predated Confucius, and as Confucianism developed it took on Legalistic elements. It seems to me to be the most conservative prediction, and as such I find it a bit boring.
 

scholar

Banned
Yeah, I know and understand the concept, its just not very helpful. Widespread, diffuse, indirect and unquantifiable changes? Basically you can either hit a randomize button, ignore them, or give up on speculation entirely. Sometimes I enjoy the first option, but I am willing to excuse the second for the sake of a coherant discussion. The third option I have no time for.
If we had a more perfect image of society and developing philosophies at the time in the region we wouldn't have to hit a randomize button. But given the information we know we can do little but marvel at the most basic of overviews for what truly was going on in the region. We don't have to hit a randomize button, but we do need to accept that something will change, has to change, and that this may radically alter what will follow.

If we went back in a time machine and killed Confucius in his cradle, sure. But it doesn't really matter for a speculative discussion, and it offers no insights.

We have some choices.
A) Declare ceteris paribus, ignore indirect butterfly effects and assume Buddhism rises anyway.
B) Assume indirect butterfly effects change the details, but assume the general social and cultural conditions that led to Buddhism in OTL lead to a roughly analogous dharmic faith that has a roughly equal effect.
C) Same as above, but adjust for taste. Have it more or less successful or widespread.
D) Look at the social and cultural environment and the existing philosophical and religious mileau and use this to construct another dharmic faith (or several) that replace Buddhism due to the raging butterfly winds. An admirable effort, but doesn't add much to a discussion about Confucius-less-ness.
E) Throw our hands in the air and declare it all too difficult and forget about it. Not my favorite option.
C&D.

This is true, particularly in the case of Mohism. Still, my point stands, other philosophical schools will arise anyway, and they will probably share some characteristics with OTL schools.
True, but there may be schools that arise that have nothing to do with OTL schools, or may be a mixture of two of the schools, or one that is the exact opposite of it. In a sense you can do anything with this and simply create your own ideology as long as you can make it so that it could reasonably have formed there.

We can't know for sure, because there's no right answer. We can try to make educated guesses, though, based on what we know about the body of thought that existed at the time.
There may not be a "right answer", but there are plenty of wrong ones. :p

That's a reason why I love them, they leave so much scope for huge changes in trajectory. An element of creativity and winging it is unavoidable. What is your definition of "unrealistic" in this sense?
I prefer them when there's enough information to make a more realistic set of alterations across the world, or I prefer that its focused in the region in which the original POD is placed and then only return to the outside world after a few centuries so you can avoid some of the problem and allow yourself a vastly greater amount of leeway.

That was someone earlier up in the thread I think. It's hard to characterise this situation as robbing China of tradition, as thats a value-loaded way of describing it. It might be better, it might be worse. More likely, there are a multitude of different ways China can develop sans Confucius some better and some worse.
Not of tradition, but of everything that China became based on the tradition established by Kong. In other words, all the tradition that we recognize as China. Its gone, having never existed. After that we can easily assume that new traditions and a new definition of China comes about. Or we could see China fall to pieces and disappear or never reform at all after the Zhou. There's a lot of ways to go about this. A TL in which Confucius never existed lead to a more chaotic chinese civilization as a new dominant ideology never managed to gain complete acceptance, and as invaders came from the North and the South remained uncolonized Chinese civilization ends. When you think about it the fact that Chinese civilization lasted as long as it did was borderline ASB anyways. We know Japanese and Korean civilization managed to survive largely because of China, not only were their civilization dominated economically, philosophically, and architecturally by China, China's stabilizing effect on the East both protected and nurtured their civilization.

That said, I have never seen Confucianism described as advancing human knowledge and science. Confucius himself said "I invent nothing", after all. What advantages it might possess in encouraging scholarship and learning for learnings sake seems to be taken away by a generally conservative mindset and tendency to use brainpower on purely metaphysical or moral quandries.
You should know not to take that statement at face value. Not only did Confucius practice humility above all affairs and show reverence towards past practices, perhaps the only philosopher that can share a similar standing with him as an analog, Socrates, made the famous statement that he knew nothing. In the chaos and hedonism that plagued China he wanted to return to the old ways (at least how they were recorded) and practice virtue, ritual, humility, education, and filial piety; stressing harmony above all else. True, Confucius didn't invent these principles nor their importance to China, but he gathered them and focused them in order to make them unified into a single ethical system that spread across all factors of life.

Another could do the same, and it may even have been similar, but Confucius's role inside of Confucianism can only be downplayed so far. We know that he basically worked with preexisting virtues, beliefs, and customs, but his importance is very profound.

One could see Legalism and Buddhism complementing each other as secular and private faiths, like Confucianism and Daoism did OTL. I think they're fundamentally focused on different things, so there's not as much of a clash as you think. In OTL, Buddhist conceptions of right-ruling kings had an influence on many Chinese nobles, and this didn't conflict with their use of Legalist ideas and structures.
Not really, but I'll leave it at that.

Not really, considering that many aspects of Confucianism predated Confucius, and as Confucianism developed it took on Legalistic elements. It seems to me to be the most conservative prediction, and as such I find it a bit boring.
It is because said aspects of Confucianism predates Confucius that said aspects can be more heavily influenced in a Legalism analog like government philosophy. The fact that Confucianism would adopt some of Legalism's elements after Legalism fell into the mists of time should only make the case that the opposite could occur far stronger.
 
If we had a more perfect image of society and developing philosophies at the time in the region we wouldn't have to hit a randomize button. But given the information we know we can do little but marvel at the most basic of overviews for what truly was going on in the region. We don't have to hit a randomize button, but we do need to accept that something will change, has to change, and that this may radically alter what will follow.

True, and I would definitely want to acknowledge that if I was writing a timeline on this topic. But because there is a degree of author discretion in what changes occur, in a more general discussion it might be more helpful to stick with the OTL script but recognize its limitations. Having a discussion about the spread of *Buddhism in Confucianless China is more coherent, and more likely to produce insights that would be useful if someone ever wanted to build something more concrete.


It is important to note, though, that B is not really very different from the options in C. Just because it resembles OTL the most doesn't make it less likely than any of the options presented in C.

In a timeline, I'd probably end up going with D, I suppose.

True, but there may be schools that arise that have nothing to do with OTL schools, or may be a mixture of two of the schools, or one that is the exact opposite of it. In a sense you can do anything with this and simply create your own ideology as long as you can make it so that it could reasonably have formed there.

Yep. You'd need to exercise creativity, but keep within the bounds of what was possible at the time.

There may not be a "right answer", but there are plenty of wrong ones. :p

And working them out is part of the fun :D

I prefer them when there's enough information to make a more realistic set of alterations across the world, or I prefer that its focused in the region in which the original POD is placed and then only return to the outside world after a few centuries so you can avoid some of the problem and allow yourself a vastly greater amount of leeway.

Makes sense, but still has limitations because even if you concentrate on the area in question you still have to take the butterflies into account.

Not of tradition, but of everything that China became based on the tradition established by Kong. In other words, all the tradition that we recognize as China. Its gone, having never existed. After that we can easily assume that new traditions and a new definition of China comes about. Or we could see China fall to pieces and disappear or never reform at all after the Zhou. There's a lot of ways to go about this. A TL in which Confucius never existed lead to a more chaotic chinese civilization as a new dominant ideology never managed to gain complete acceptance, and as invaders came from the North and the South remained uncolonized Chinese civilization ends. When you think about it the fact that Chinese civilization lasted as long as it did was borderline ASB anyways. We know Japanese and Korean civilization managed to survive largely because of China, not only were their civilization dominated economically, philosophically, and architecturally by China, China's stabilizing effect on the East both protected and nurtured their civilization.

Yep, lots of possible routes. I don't think Chinese civilization would end entirely, there would likely be Han penetration into the South anyway and it is unlikely that northern invaders would wipe out the local cultures. It could very well be more diverse and disunited, with more survivals in terms of non-Chinese cultures. Could be interesting.

I think civilization would develop and prosper in Korea and Japan anyway, but in a different way from OTL. They would either be influenced by whatever takes the place of Confucianism in Korea, or from other sources of culture (Indian traders in Japan, perhaps), or through their own native sources. But it would be necessary to determine what happens in China first.

You should know not to take that statement at face value. Not only did Confucius practice humility above all affairs and show reverence towards past practices, perhaps the only philosopher that can share a similar standing with him as an analog, Socrates, made the famous statement that he knew nothing. In the chaos and hedonism that plagued China he wanted to return to the old ways (at least how they were recorded) and practice virtue, ritual, humility, education, and filial piety; stressing harmony above all else. True, Confucius didn't invent these principles nor their importance to China, but he gathered them and focused them in order to make them unified into a single ethical system that spread across all factors of life.

Yep, and without him those component elements would still exist and have influence but not likely come together in the same way.

Not really, but I'll leave it at that.

Please elaborate, I'm still not sure how Legalism and Buddhism necessarily have to clash.

I was thinking about how in the disunited period when Buddhism entered Korea, its success was due to many local rulers patronized Buddhists over Daoists in part because of wanting to live up to the Buddhist concept of the cakravartin ("wheel-turning") king in which piety and material support for the Buddhist church served to legitimate their rule.

Confucianism was successful because it was also useful as a legitimating element, with rulers able to look back to the 'sage kings' of the Zhou dynasty as models for their benevolent rule, with the Mandate of Heaven to back them up. Absent this factor, *Buddhist concepts of a wheel-turning king or similar could become more prominent as a legitimizing element. This would be even more so in some scenarios, if China was disunited and *Buddhist influence stronger, then China could end up more like Indochina.

That said, local sources of legitimation would likely also arise, whether it be the gods or semi-divine figures and their teachings like OTL's Laozi.

It is because said aspects of Confucianism predates Confucius that said aspects can be more heavily influenced in a Legalism analog like government philosophy. The fact that Confucianism would adopt some of Legalism's elements after Legalism fell into the mists of time should only make the case that the opposite could occur far stronger.

Oh, for sure, that is another route you could take, and a plausible one. But it is a rather conservative one, and one that tends to downplay the importance of ol' Master Kong in the grand scheme of things.
 
Top