Questions in History - please assist?

Some odd questions wandering around in the back of my head as I try to keep a TL moving past a mere 100 years. These all apply, and I haven't found any *good* reference material to address any of them.

What was the state of the Chinese Naval Industry from 0AD - 1500AD? Was it sufficient to find Hawaii? South America?

When Europe began it's imperialistic colonization efforts, what spared African natives from the plagues that hit American natives, or, to a lesser extent, the same plagues that hit Austrailian Aborigines?

What's the best reference on how the Chinese discovered Gunpowder?

Why didn't the Inuit bloodlines (genetically speaking) move south out of what is now N. Canada? Speculation welcome.
 
Some odd questions wandering around in the back of my head as I try to keep a TL moving past a mere 100 years. These all apply, and I haven't found any *good* reference material to address any of them.

What was the state of the Chinese Naval Industry from 0AD - 1500AD? Was it sufficient to find Hawaii? South America?

When Europe began it's imperialistic colonization efforts, what spared African natives from the plagues that hit American natives, or, to a lesser extent, the same plagues that hit Austrailian Aborigines?

What's the best reference on how the Chinese discovered Gunpowder?

Why didn't the Inuit bloodlines (genetically speaking) move south out of what is now N. Canada? Speculation welcome.

1. Can't help you with the early bit but I do know about the Ming Treasure Fleets. Such huge constructions didn't just appear so there was obviously developed maritime technology. These ships reached the East Coast of Africa and some say even further. The oint isn't whether they could find Hawaii, but why would they? What's to offer?

2. The native African peoples weren't so affected by European diseases because there was still movement and trade along the Nile, Sahara etc. which meant that diseases etc. were kept in common. Smallpox etc. existed in these areas just not as prevalent. Indeed, it was the Europeans who were felled by various tropical diseases. As for Aborigines, they were less affected because they were descended from a relatively late fof-shoot of the Eurasian genepool-the Polynesians, Meganesians etc. only moved to where they are relatively recently and sea levels have changed since then-there was once a land bridge between New Guinea and Australia, I believe.

3. No idea. I'd guess it would be to do with Taoist monks trying to find the elixir of life. That's how alchemy and eventually chemistry were born so it makes sense. Furthermore, those developements were very old, dating at least to the mid 1st millennium BC.

4. They didn't move sout hbecause of: 1 the fact that they were culturally adapted to where they lived, and that moving south would disrupt their way of life. 1. It's hard to move. There's thousands of miles of tundra between the Arctic and the prairies. The Arctic may be cold but there are seals etc. to hunt, in hte tundra there's nothing, so any movement south of any large numbers of people would eb very hard. 3. There were already large population further south. The Inuit were pressed to the North because all the good land was taken. There were the Huron etc. etc. who held southern Canada who were numerous and warlike. Don't forget how small the Inuit numbers are.

Hope that helps.
 
Indeed yes, that helps.


1) Still lacking a reference on early chinese naval tech :(
As for what it offers? Exploration :) That's a bit too much liking asking why did the first sailor who did it, sail out of sight of land?

2) Ah ok - so major plagues came from the swamps and rivers of Africa, then up into Europe. Makes sense.

3) Gunpowder from Taiost search for elixir of life? fascinating :) Got references? Anyone?

4) So the major hindrances to Inuit spread southward were Culture and Tundra?

Of the two, I think the Tundra would likely be the main stopping point. Other cultures have, historically, always morphed when migrating into new climates. So if the Tundra weren't barren, the Inuit might well move southward. Other than the Huron, what other S. Canadian tribes might they have encountered? (particularly on the east - Great Lakes area over to Newfoundland)
 
Good info is hard to find, I have seen bits and pieces in a lot of places and smashed together a picture in my head of what things were like in the pre Treasure Fleet era.

The Chinese knew of the African coast all the way down to Sofala in the 3rd Century AD, the had trade contacts with the Roman Empire. The Tang and Sung Dynasties built trading junks over 200ft long and with 4 masts. This makes sense to me, surely the Ming fleet didn't appear fully formed with itineries and charts by magic, other large ships preceeded them and merchants built up charts and itineries over time for the Ming fleet to utilise.
 
What was the state of the Chinese Naval Industry from 0AD - 1500AD? Was it sufficient to find Hawaii? South America?

Regardless of whether the technology was sufficient (and keep in mind that many of the more extravagant claims about the size of the Treasure Ships have been essentially discredited), it seems unlikely that China would find Hawaii or South America. In general, China didn't undertake large voyages dedicated to exploration or discovery. Again, consider the Treasure Fleets of Zheng He: exploration wasn't the purpose. The Ming already knew what was there, more or less. The purpose was to expand the tributary system. It would be rather uncharacteristic of Imperial China to send a bunch of ships into the vastness of the Pacific Ocean for no other reason than to see what was there.

What's the best reference on how the Chinese discovered Gunpowder?

Google Books has a limited preview of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China: The Gunpowder Epic. Needham is definitely an authoritative source on the topic, so it may be of some use to you. Here's a link.
 
Indeed yes, that helps.


1) Still lacking a reference on early chinese naval tech :(
As for what it offers? Exploration :) That's a bit too much liking asking why did the first sailor who did it, sail out of sight of land?

2) Ah ok - so major plagues came from the swamps and rivers of Africa, then up into Europe. Makes sense.

3) Gunpowder from Taiost search for elixir of life? fascinating :) Got references? Anyone?

4) So the major hindrances to Inuit spread southward were Culture and Tundra?

Of the two, I think the Tundra would likely be the main stopping point. Other cultures have, historically, always morphed when migrating into new climates. So if the Tundra weren't barren, the Inuit might well move southward. Other than the Huron, what other S. Canadian tribes might they have encountered? (particularly on the east - Great Lakes area over to Newfoundland)

Exploration is a cultural value, not a universal human drive. Western Civilization and Islamic civilization produced many explorers, Roman and Orthodox civilizations produced a few, most other civilizations have produced none. Colombus got state sponsorship, later Ming people interested in sailing overseas got exiled to inland deserts.

On disease, the Subsaharan Africa disease set isn't hermetically sealed off from the Eurasian ones the way the New World and Australia were. There wasn't normally a lot of trade and migration across the Sahel and Sudan, but there was always a little. Even limited exposure goes a long way toward building up some immunity, especially to things like mumps and measles.

The Chinese discovery of gunpowder as an explosive is indeed ancient; it was definitely used in fireworks around 0 BC/AD. When somebody got the idea that it could be used to blast holes in walls or propel a projectile is tricky; they were using fire lances around 900 AD, but that's a gunpowder-based flamethrower more than a true firearm. The first documented firearm we have for them is I believe 1276.
 
Some odd questions wandering around in the back of my head as I try to keep a TL moving past a mere 100 years. These all apply, and I haven't found any *good* reference material to address any of them.

What was the state of the Chinese Naval Industry from 0AD - 1500AD? Was it sufficient to find Hawaii? South America?

When Europe began it's imperialistic colonization efforts, what spared African natives from the plagues that hit American natives, or, to a lesser extent, the same plagues that hit Austrailian Aborigines?

What's the best reference on how the Chinese discovered Gunpowder?

Why didn't the Inuit bloodlines (genetically speaking) move south out of what is now N. Canada? Speculation welcome.

Chinese maritime tehcnology was definitely up to the task of opening the Pacific. They had trading missions in the Phillipines and throughout Indonesia well in advance of the Ming Dynasty. Why didn't they find the Americas or Polynesia? They didn't get blown off course in the right direction. I have looked at the prevailing winds and currents of the areas they did sail, and with the possible exception of bad navigation around japan, It would have been difficult for them to move much farther east than they did unless they wanted to. They had the ability and technology almost the entire time you specify.

Africa was never as isolated from the rest of the world as the Americas. There was always commerce and contact through varying degrees of separation with Asia and Europe.

Those damn Taoists again. The first documented use of grenades (thrown by catapult) and fire lances was in the year long siege of Kaifeng, the Jurchen capital. The year was approximately 1232.

Perhaps Inuits were loath to mingle with the transients moving through their territory during the Ice Age. Just speculation.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
Regardless of whether the technology was sufficient (and keep in mind that many of the more extravagant claims about the size of the Treasure Ships have been essentially discredited).

Thank you. I do find the oft-quoted overblown claims rather absurd and indeed it impugns Zheng He's actual achievements, which were quite impressive enough.
 
The one issue I'd raise with the Chinese ability to find America so quickly - especially South America - is the size of the Pacific Ocean. If it took the European explorers 3 months to cross the Atlantic it's going to take freaking ages to go from China to America, and that's asking a lot. Bear in mind that for the European countries, even into the 19th century using favourable wind conditions along known routes, ships tended to only carry 6 months of supplies.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I do find the oft-quoted overblown claims rather absurd and indeed it impugns Zheng He's actual achievements, which were quite impressive enough.

True, and as Falastur said, the Pacific Ocean is enormous compared to the Atlantic etc. so the question is even with their technology, could the Chinese even cross it, or would they starve to death first? The Treasure Fleets island hopped, so they could take on provisions. The Pacific Islands are far to small to support a fleet of such a size as the T Fleets(which were undoubtably large) and so it may be that people tried but never succeeded.
 
I'll have to agree with the comment on why

Research indicates that, to the Chinese, the ocean was just 'out there'
They had enough land that they never really felt the need to explore until much later, and even then, just for nearby trading resources. No scarcity of anything inland meant no real desire to journey into the unknown sea - a dangerous proposition compared to treading further inland to get away from other peoples.


Course, that raised a new question ::grin::
Why ever did the POLYNESIANS migrate eastward???
They had a very large landmass north of them, and a very good island chain to get to it.
They had another one south of them, with yet another island chain connecting them.
So why go so far east as Hawaii, when Chinese didn't?
 
What was the state of the Chinese Naval Industry from 0AD - 1500AD? Was it sufficient to find Hawaii? South America?
No.
At the end on 1400 it was capable of long voyages along the coastboard, but not of high-sea travel

When Europe began it's imperialistic colonization efforts, what spared African natives from the plagues that hit American natives, or, to a lesser extent, the same plagues that hit Austrailian Aborigines?
Because trade (Ivory, Nubian Gold, Slaves, exotic animals) was well developed from at least 2000-3000 years both on the coast, along the nile, and even across the desert
 
The one issue I'd raise with the Chinese ability to find America so quickly - especially South America - is the size of the Pacific Ocean. If it took the European explorers 3 months to cross the Atlantic it's going to take freaking ages to go from China to America, and that's asking a lot. Bear in mind that for the European countries, even into the 19th century using favourable wind conditions along known routes, ships tended to only carry 6 months of supplies.

Getting from China to Africa was basically a matter of following way stations along islands and coasts. The Romans had been trading with India, and the Chinese trading with Africa. It can take a while but it looks worthwhile when you know where you're going, you know how to get there, and you are usually in sight of land.

The simplest way to find anything American is go up the Kurils, Kamchatka, the Aleutians, and then you're in Alaska - but its not exactly welcoming there! I imagine at the time that what Alaska had for the Russians was available for the Chinese elsewhere (after all some of the Kuril islands are clearly named after the animal products available there http://www.alternate-history-fiction.com/history-kuril-islands.html)

One might island hop EAST and get to Guam, but Hawaii is further across an open ocean, and the coast of N America, let alone South, much further

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I'll have to agree with the comment on why

Research indicates that, to the Chinese, the ocean was just 'out there'
They had enough land that they never really felt the need to explore until much later, and even then, just for nearby trading resources. No scarcity of anything inland meant no real desire to journey into the unknown sea - a dangerous proposition compared to treading further inland to get away from other peoples.


Course, that raised a new question ::grin::
Why ever did the POLYNESIANS migrate eastward???
They had a very large landmass north of them, and a very good island chain to get to it.
They had another one south of them, with yet another island chain connecting them.
So why go so far east as Hawaii, when Chinese didn't?

Because there were already large population groups to the north and the area was reacing its population limit with only primitive agriculture.
 
No.
At the end on 1400 it was capable of long voyages along the coastboard, but not of high-sea travel

Beg to differ here. The Chinese had better sails, better rudders and better hulls than Europe. And they had them very early.

They also had a long tradition of navigation. Granted, their journeys were primarily coastal in many cases, but some of the routes across the Indian Ocean were most definitively open ocean voyages.

Junks were considerably more manageable than a Carrack or Caravel and far more practical than a Norse Longboat or the twin hulled canoe/rafts used by the Polynesians.

The problem is not capability, but desire and need. If they had sailed east to the Americas, it would have been by accident. Based on their trading routes, there was little likelihood that they would have been blown off course or carried by currents across the Pacific. The only reasonable or likely route is indeed, as has been mentioned, north through the Kurils and Aleutians.There is some non-Menzian evidence that this may have actually happened, but it is very circumstantial.
 
4) So the major hindrances to Inuit spread southward were Culture and Tundra?

Of the two, I think the Tundra would likely be the main stopping point. Other cultures have, historically, always morphed when migrating into new climates. So if the Tundra weren't barren, the Inuit might well move southward. Other than the Huron, what other S. Canadian tribes might they have encountered? (particularly on the east - Great Lakes area over to Newfoundland)
Err... No.

The land to the south of the Inuit was already populated, by locals who hated them. To move south, they would have to conquer the various Dene / Athapaskan peoples to their south.

The tundra wasn't a problem. Look at OTL Nunavut territory - that's all tundra, and it's all Inuit populated - that's how they chose the boundary.

However, the various Dene / Athapaskan peoples were well adapted to the forest biome, so the Inuit would have to firstly conquer them (how?) and then learn to live in the forest.

Also, remember that the ancestors of the modern Inuit were the LAST wave of immigation from Asia. They are the only first nations peoples who have recognizable linguistic connections to Siberia.

Remember also, that the modern Inuit culture is quite recent. cf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_people
(Thule are the direct ancestors, culturally and ethnically of the modern Inuit.)

Once you get to Ungava (northern Quebec) the Indians to their south are Algonquian speakers (Montagnais, Cree, etc.), you don't get Iroquoians until you get some ways up the St. Lawrence River.

It's entirely possible that the 'Skraelings' the Norse encountered on Newfoundland were Dorset culture 'Eskimo' (Dorset preceded Thule culture; 'Inuit' may refer specifically to the modern culture.).

You could certainly have a Dorset culture subset take over Newfoundland from the Beothuk, who were very poor (didn't have such tools as pottery, for instance), but taking on the Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq is going to be a lot tougher. They were hunter gardners (possibly even that early), with some limited agriculture, and fairly rich hunting land (plus things like pottery for storing things). They would be able to have higher population densities than your hypothetical Dorset descendants, and thus likely able to resist an invasion.
 
Perhaps Inuits were loath to mingle with the transients moving through their territory during the Ice Age. Just speculation.

The transients moving through their territory during the Ice Age were there before they were. The Inuit, Yupik, Tlingit, etc. came over in a separate, later migration than did the ancestors of the Iroquois and Aztecs and Tupi and everyone else. By the time they got here, all the warmer and more fertile areas were already spoken for. Besides, they had just migrated from Siberia, so conditions were similar to what they had already acclimated to. In fact, there are still Yupik groups and languages in the Russian Far East as well as in Alaska. They weren't transported there during the Russian colonization of Alaska; they're native to the area.
 
Top