So... why didn't Imperial China keep northern Vietnam?

I once had a thread asking about this, as well as other places China could have expanded to. The situation with Annam always perplexed me. Why bother having a 'colony' that's basically no more than a tributary state? Why occupy a place off and on for a thousand years and not bother to keep it?

Anyone know their southern China/southeast Asian history on this?
 
They could've kept trying, they had the manpower to do it. The questions are why didn't they keep at it, and also why did they bother to go for a bloody occupation in the first place.

From my understanding, Vietnam was the closest thing China had to a colony. Everything else was either a tributary state or annexed territory.
 
With all the uprisings China constantly faced. I think keeping Vietnam was more bother than it was worth. Even if they kept onto it after their isolation they probably would've ceded it after the first or second opium war.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
The Ming occupied northern Vietnam under Yongle, but also the occupation ended almost right after his death. The two successors, Hongxi and Xuande, were either too pacifist or busy with the northern nomads to focus on the south. Because of this, Xuande officially recognized Annam as an independent state. After this recognition, the Ming would continue to focus on the north, since the Mongols were a constant threat (example: Wuande's successor Zhengtong was captured by the Mongols).


I think a surviving Song could conquer and Keep Vietnam better..
*Facepalm*
 
The Ming occupied northern Vietnam under Yongle, but also the occupation ended almost right after his death. The two successors, Hongxi and Xuande, were either too pacifist or busy with the northern nomads to focus on the south. Because of this, Xuande officially recognized Annam as an independent state. After this recognition, the Ming would continue to focus on the north, since the Mongols were a constant threat (example: Wuande's successor Zhengtong was captured by the Mongols).



*Facepalm*

That is what I am pointing out a surviving Song will have less worries about the Northern Barbarians because they will never have a head ache with the Northern Barbarians so they can focus on the conquest and keeping Vietnam unless if they are of good terms with the Jin or Yuan Dynasty, alternatively a United China could conquer and keep Vietnam if the Northern Nomads or Barbarians had been pacified first.
 
The Ming occupied northern Vietnam under Yongle, but also the occupation ended almost right after his death. The two successors, Hongxi and Xuande, were either too pacifist or busy with the northern nomads to focus on the south. Because of this, Xuande officially recognized Annam as an independent state. After this recognition, the Ming would continue to focus on the north, since the Mongols were a constant threat (example: Wuande's successor Zhengtong was captured by the Mongols).



*Facepalm*

It's kasumigenx, he tends to go on tangents like this.

Also, I don't think northern Vietnam would be worth it. China as it was was already very large.
 
It's kasumigenx, he tends to go on tangents like this.

Also, I don't think northern Vietnam would be worth it. China as it was was already very large.

I think Vietnam would be too much rebellious to handle for China mind you some right wing Chinese are very much interested for China to annex Northern Vietnam or Annam again because they say they have a historical rights on it.

I think the Northern Barbarians being pacified does not mean that they will be annexed to China..they could be pacified by being weakened so they would not attack China anymore..
 
I once had a thread asking about this, as well as other places China could have expanded to. The situation with Annam always perplexed me. Why bother having a 'colony' that's basically no more than a tributary state? Why occupy a place off and on for a thousand years and not bother to keep it?

Anyone know their southern China/southeast Asian history on this?

Vietnam was basically a frontier province that broke away. Calling it an occupation is more a contemporary Vietnamese nationalist interpretation.

As students of history we know you can't occupy a place for a thousand years. There's no difference between a literate person in Vietnam or elsewhere in China in ancient times. They used the same language and had the same aspirations to become part of the Imperial bureaucracy. The rest of the 99% were farmers who minded their own business and paid taxes to the local magistrate.

It's like the relationship between England and Scotland. There's ups and downs in the history, but it's not always an "occupation". We like to project present mindset back in time and assume ancient people saw themselves as part of the same narrative we do. If modern Vietnam had good relations with China their schools will be teaching about a thousand years of Chinese heritage rather than using the occupation narrative.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
Vietnam was basically a frontier province that broke away. Calling it an occupation is more a contemporary Vietnamese nationalist interpretation.
This is about the worst kind of BS I've ever seen on this forums concerning (Greater) East Asian history, right after "Korea was always part of China". So basically, are you saying that using the same characters amounts to having the native elite be the same as the Chinese occupiers who had to deal with periodical rebellions that attempted to overthrow the foreign rule out of the country? Are you saying that the types of administration established in the region (Annam, a short term meaning Protectorate General to Pacify the South) is the same sort of administration that would be established in a China Proper region?

Before Vietnam, the other country which China held for long but then lost for good was Korea.
Come again? Exactly when was Korea "held" by China, except for that Lelang Commandery supposedly located in northern Korea?
 
This is about the worst kind of BS I've ever seen on this forums concerning (Greater) East Asian history, right after "Korea was always part of China". So basically, are you saying that using the same characters amounts to having the native elite be the same as the Chinese occupiers who had to deal with periodical rebellions that attempted to overthrow the foreign rule out of the country? Are you saying that the types of administration established in the region (Annam, a short term meaning Protectorate General to Pacify the South) is the same sort of administration that would be established in a China Proper region?

I'm saying back then the people who lived in that era didn't make nationality distinctions like we do now. People didn't think of themselves as Korean or Chinese, or Vietnamese. They had a much more local identity. I'm from this town, village, etc. Korea had its own monarchs and the people there would identify with their ruler, however distant to their daily lives he may be. Vietnam had a different situation as it did not have its own monarchy during Chinese rule.

Rebellions were rarely directed at foreigners because people rarely if ever saw one. There were of course occasional foreign invasions which would be recognized as such, but certainly the image of foreign troops and overseers pushing people around for a thousand years is not at all realistic.
 
Answered in reverse order.

Come again? Exactly when was Korea "held" by China, except for that Lelang Commandery supposedly located in northern Korea?

Large parts of Korea were held during both the Han and Yuan dynasties. I think there was another presence as well, but I couldn't find it with a quick search. That it was never an incorporated province to the same extent as - say - Jiangsu.... that's irrelevant for the reasons I cite below.

This is about the worst kind of BS I've ever seen on this forums concerning (Greater) East Asian history, right after "Korea was always part of China". So basically, are you saying that using the same characters amounts to having the native elite be the same as the Chinese occupiers who had to deal with periodical rebellions that attempted to overthrow the foreign rule out of the country? Are you saying that the types of administration established in the region (Annam, a short term meaning Protectorate General to Pacify the South) is the same sort of administration that would be established in a China Proper region?

Most of what is now southern China can be described identically. Ethnically different peoples were conquered and treated colonially. Taxes were extracted. A foreign language and philosophy was imposed on the elite. Settlement attempts were made. Prior to the Qin and Han dynasties (the latter being the first to edge a foothold into modern Vietnam) "China" entailed an area perhaps one-tenth its modern dimensions. Even if you exaggerate it and include neighboring regions with Chinese influence before conquest it was still less than one-fifth the modern.

What is the difference between Dalian and Pyongyang? Between Vietnam and Guangdong? Distance and success. Two were slightly closer to China proper, and those two eventually became so assimilated that the idea of an independent identity was lost. Two were slightly further away, and those two did not become as assimilated.
 
Last edited:
Vietnam was basically a frontier province that broke away. Calling it an occupation is more a contemporary Vietnamese nationalist interpretation.

As students of history we know you can't occupy a place for a thousand years. There's no difference between a literate person in Vietnam or elsewhere in China in ancient times. They used the same language and had the same aspirations to become part of the Imperial bureaucracy. The rest of the 99% were farmers who minded their own business and paid taxes to the local magistrate.

It's like the relationship between England and Scotland. There's ups and downs in the history, but it's not always an "occupation". We like to project present mindset back in time and assume ancient people saw themselves as part of the same narrative we do. If modern Vietnam had good relations with China their schools will be teaching about a thousand years of Chinese heritage rather than using the occupation narrative.

These statements are tricky especially because both China and Vietnam expanded over the course of their history to cover other ethnicities. China originally occupied the area roughly between the Huang He and the Yangtze, but eventually managed to absorb the natives further to the south and assimilated some north to a degree. Meanwhile, Vietnam was originally located in the northern area, but then eventually spread south beginning in the 1400s, assimilating and conquering the Champa, and later the remnants of the Khmer empire around the Mekong river delta.

Also, although both languages are grammatically similar, their core vocabularies are extremely different, and they belong to different language families.

Before Vietnam, the other country which China held for long but then lost for good was Korea.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Vietnam was literally a part of China for about a thousand years, although there were brief interruptions, while the only Chinese dynasty to occupy Korea was the Han, which briefly ruled Liaodong and a small part of the northern Korean peninsula as commanderies for about 200-300 years. However, Goguryeo destabilized the area by raiding it numerous times.

I guess you could argue that China held Korea for the second longest time out of the temporarily held places, but this is also disputable. There is no concrete record that proves that Gojoseon (which was divided) completely collapsed after the Han invaded, and because Buyeo was most likely established before Gojoseon fell, not to mention the states in the peninsula, "Korea" still remained independent.

On the other hand, Vietnam was mostly located around Hanoi at the time, and China mostly maintained dominance from about 100 BC to AD 900 from the Han to Tang dynasties, although this included mass atrocities when the province attempted to revolt numerous times.

Sumeragi: I don't know my Greater East Asian history at all well, but it sounds like a province like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria_(Roman_province)

Held longer, perhaps, if they're using the same characters, but ultimately the same problems for the occupier.

I agree with this interpretation.

I'm saying back then the people who lived in that era didn't make nationality distinctions like we do now. People didn't think of themselves as Korean or Chinese, or Vietnamese. They had a much more local identity. I'm from this town, village, etc. Korea had its own monarchs and the people there would identify with their ruler, however distant to their daily lives he may be. Vietnam had a different situation as it did not have its own monarchy during Chinese rule.

Rebellions were rarely directed at foreigners because people rarely if ever saw one. There were of course occasional foreign invasions which would be recognized as such, but certainly the image of foreign troops and overseers pushing people around for a thousand years is not at all realistic.

This is true as well, but once again, the problem is that the concept of "China" is vague especially because it covered, and still somewhat covers, various ethnicities.

Large parts of Korea were held during both the Han and Yuan dynasties. I think there was another presence as well, but I couldn't find it with a quick search. That it was never an incorporated province to the same extent as - say - Jiangsu.... that's irrelevant for the reasons I cite below.

"Large parts" is misleading. The Han held the territories I stated above, while various other Korean states coexisted with them until Goguryeo absorbed the commanderies by 250-350. Meanwhile, although the Yuan did occupy Goryeo for about 100 years, the relationship between the two states was complicated, as culture was transmitted freely both ways, and members of both royal families married each other.

The closest other presence was during the Tang, when it occupied Goguryeo's and Baekje's former territories after they fell by setting up a protectorate in 668. However, there were constant rebellions, aided by Silla, and after the Silla-Tang wars, Tang forces withdrew from the peninsula in 676. Balhae (Jin) was later established in 698, and the protectorate was destroyed in 756. The Qing also later invaded Joseon, but left its internal policies alone, similar to the situation in Vietnam.

Most of what is now southern China can be described identically. Ethnically different peoples were conquered and treated colonially. Taxes were extracted. A foreign language and philosophy was imposed on the elite. Settlement attempts were made. Prior to the Qin and Han dynasties (the latter being the first to edge a foothold into modern Vietnam) "China" entailed an area perhaps one-tenth its modern dimensions. Even if you exaggerate it and include neighboring regions with Chinese influence before conquest it was still less than one-fifth the modern.

This is in correspondence to what I stated above.

What is the difference between Dalian and Pyongyang? Between Vietnam and Guangdong? Distance and success. Two were slightly closer to China proper, and those two eventually became so assimilated that the idea of an independent identity was lost. Two were slightly further away, and those two did not become as assimilated.

These statements are vague. Dalian was not completely absorbed/assimilated until the 19th/20th century, when mass emigration from areas like Shandong sinicized the area. Until then, since the fall of Balhae in 926, there was no significant population in the region, as the Jurchens/Manchus/other regional ethnic groups were too few in number. The Qing prevented immigration to the area because they wanted to retreat in case of a Han rebellion, but were forced to rescind it when Russia began to encroach on the area.

Meanwhile, although Guangdong was settled by tribes which were closer to Southeast Asia, it became sinicized after the Southern and Northern Dynasties, when people emigrated from the north as the nomads (most of whom had become sinicized) began to reassert control, and their influence would be cemented after the Sui.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, although Guangdong was settled by tribes which were closer to Southeast Asia, it became sinicized after the Southern and Northern Dynasties, when people emigrated from the north as the nomads (most of whom had become sinicized) began to reassert control, and their influence would be cemented after the Sui.

Actually, I think that the Zhuangs do have a window of opportunity to have an independent state in the dark ages, they rebelled in the dark ages against the Song dynasty as I remember.
 
True, but you would also have to butterfly the Yuan away, and also weaken a state analogous to the Ming. The Kingdom of Nanchao/Dali was also independent around the time, but was eventually absorbed by the Yuan and Ming.
 
True, but you would also have to butterfly the Yuan away, and also weaken a state analogous to the Ming. The Kingdom of Nanchao/Dali was also independent around the time, but was eventually absorbed by the Yuan and Ming.

I think having the Zhuangs and Dali be and stay independent especially without the Mongolian Empire existing might mean a more progressive South East Asia compared to OTL.
 
Top