I'm now curious: what was Stirling's supposed subtext? I assume racism of sorts, but I would have thought a racist would prefer Aryans conquer the darkies of the Indian subcontinent rather than the by no means darkie Shang Chinese.
I'm now curious: what was Stirling's supposed subtext? I assume racism of sorts, but I would have thought a racist would prefer Aryans conquer the darkies of the Indian subcontinent rather than the by no means darkie Shang Chinese.
Frankly, I think it's impossible, unless you butterfly away East Asian agriculture.
In OTL, both the Mongols and the Manchu invaded China. However, neither group transmitted their culture to China. Rather the reverse - the ruling classes of both groups became very Sinicized - in the case of the Manchu, their culture essentially died out.
The closest I could see to an "Indo-European" China is if there was no Turkish migration from the Altai region. Central Asia stays Iranian, and Xinjiang remains IE speaking. The horse nomads may even move into Mongolia, wiping out the Mongols as a distinct people.
Past this, you'd be hard pressed though. Some IE group of horse nomads may well invade China, either from Mongolia or less likely via the Silk Road. There would almost certainly be no language transmission, although I could see China becoming Nestorian or Manichaean - particularly if Islam never makes it into the region.
tormsen said:That assumes that all racism is a dichotomy of white/black, which it isn't.
Well, it depends how you define 'Aryan". Iranic people consider themselves Aryan don't they?... hell, thats supposed to be the basis of the word. So maybe if you "Iranize"(/Persianize?) more of Central Asia besides the more fertile areas of Tajikistan and Fergana(the Ferganans were fairly Iranized/Persianized prior to the Mongold devestation), we could see an arguably "Aryan" group conquer China(though I don't know of any state in that region succesfully conquering China in OTL. Steppe conquerers tended to be from the North rather then the West didn't they?