The Birth of a One World Empire

scholar

Banned
Not sure If I'm actually responding to your points, but then again I'm not really sure you understand mine as at the moment this debate seems scattered over many different points.

Anyway, in line with the above, I had to thoroughly explain numerous times why almost all of your main assumptions about Korea were wrong. Yes, we certainly agreed on various overarching concepts, but this was only after I pointed out the specifics which needed to be corrected, so your viewpoints technically shifted over time.
Only one comes to mind as I had believed that the two river boundaries which largely form the modern border had been around the limit of direct Korean control since Unified Silla. Which was wrong. There are probably others though.

Comparing China to other entities doesn't really make sense. China was able to grow the way it did mostly because its expansion was relatively gradual, and cultural diffusion generally occurred in areas that were neither consolidated nor had writing systems.
The assimilation I am referring to is the consistent and reliable kind that occurs within a Chinese Dynasty with people that are directly linked to it, politically, socially, and economically. For instance no state has every conquered a large portion of the contemporary era of China without presenting itself as China somewhere along the way. All Northern Dynasties did this, there are no exceptions to my knowledge. This Russo-Mongol state taking over northern China would do the same, or its fragment inside of China would do it after it was falling apart because of the Yuan Dynasty. The sinification process occurred to just about every group that established itself in the state.

By the way, Manchuria was a consolidated state with its own written language before going into China. Chinese cultural diffusion also occurred in areas that were consolidated states, Korea was at its most dominated by Chinese culture long after it was consolidated.

In addition, the Mongols, which technically achieved your general objective, if only for a short while, were ultimately unable to expand further due to stiff resistance in remote regions, which also held true for other large OTL entities as well. It was bogged down in Korea, Southeast Asia, India, and the Levant due to small entities in each respective region, and it never advanced further into Europe because of succession issues, not to mention that pushing much further would have been a stretch due to the hostile terrain involved. As a result, even if the hypothetical empire is somehow held together for a while, continuous defeats in far-flung regions will give each region an incentive to break away, along with the fact that the decentralization of power across such a vast expanse of territory will almost certainly lead to fragmentation within several decades or so.
And yet this will be smaller, at least, by half. There will be no holdings in Southern China, where resistance was most stiff. Levant, most of India, Southeast Asia, and other problematic areas are not part of the borders of this state. The frontiers are not as far away and not as problematic to deal with if one uses OTL as a measuring stick. With this in mind would it still fall apart in the same time table?

Why would they serve as a check? They have nothing making them give two shits for the khagan.
Because their authority officially is derived from them? I'm really not sure what you are trying to suggest here. That any state with some level of decentralized governance is doomed because once that occurs there is no social, cultural, political, or economic reason that they might possibly want to remain part of the state so long as one of them decides that they don't care about the ruler anymore? Or that none of the nobility in those regions have any of those motivations or that other sub-governmental factions would wish to gain power by giving lip and deriving the ability to wage war without any worry of being attacked by other sub-states against a rebelling one without them too being branded a traitor and attacked? Or that no relative of said sub-ruler may see the opportunity to gain that rank and title by staying loyal if only as a front to take power?

And the original Mongol Empire started falling into pieces before Kublai's stopped breathing. Even if any given part - the Ilkhanate, say - lasted longer, the idea of a united Mongol Empire didn't.
The Ilkhanate has its name because it was an independent, but subordinate, khanate within the Mongol Empire, recognizing the Emperor of the Yuan Dynasty as its leader. This was lip service that was entirely unnecessary, yet it still occurred decades after Kublai was dead. It was lip service and they would have far more incentive to just go their own way and ignore it than any sub-governmental leader.

And independent from such a state for much longer. Mongol influences are going to be at best one part of their culture and heritage, even assuming they're all influenced the same way or to the same extent.
What makes you say that? The Crimean Tartars and most of Central Asia continued to claim that they were Mongols and their leaders received legitimacy through Genghis Khan and the Mongol Hordes up until Russia conquered them, and this continued after that as well. It was more than one part of their culture and heritage, to many of the fragment states it was their culture and heritage and most of the Khans would kill someone who told them otherwise.

All Khans were from the Giray clan which traced its origins to Genghis Khan and asserted its right to rule on this basis. According to the tradition of the steppes, the ruler was legitimate only if he was of Genghisid royal descent (i.e. "ak süyek"). Even the Muscovite Tsar claimed Genghisid descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Khanate

Making this influence stronger doesn't end with the result being weaker.

I think democracy101 addressed this in regards to Chinese assimilation of the areas it assimilated - or at least that should indicate how different this is, more along the lines of Germany assimilating Poland (as an example of two distinct cultures with different histories, ambitions, etc.) taken up to eleven.
That's why there is an acting bridge between the two cultures, Mongol culture and that the influence from that helps bridge the two together. I understand that this is very different from the normal Chinese assimilation process of external territories, that is also why I wanted to make this state into a Northern Dynasty, especially as it attempts to supplant the *Yuan.

Not only will it fragment, there is very little if anything making the different subregions - any of them, really - think in terms of "restoring the empire" over building their own polities developing in ways like and unlike the OTL polities of those regions. This would be like an English king trying to resurrect Canute's "empire" in that regard, but more so.
Only if that English King is Harold Harefoot and there is an opportunity to do so. A number of individuals attempted to restore the Mongol Empire or believed that they were the Mongol Empire in its most legitimate form. Even the Qing Dynasty claimed to be the rightful rulers of the Mongol Empire and all of the Qing Emperors were descended from Genghis Khan matrilineally. They actively pursued this objective with its campaigns in Xinjiang and Mongolia. Those that didn't need to justify themselves felt the need to present themselves as it anyways, such as with the OTL Russian Empire.

So why would they do it? Because they already have done it. There's more incentive to do it now as the influence was stronger going in and was actually partially restored again with this state once again strengthening economic and cultural exchanges between the empire.
 

scholar

Banned
I want to try to consolidate the argument and identify what the main issues are. Lets see if I can summarize the main problems:

1. Any attempt to localize power in the hands of a sub-regional government to deal with rebellions will cause the empire to fall. If not instantly, then in a short while.
2. There is no possible incentive for a subordinate governing power to remain part of the empire when the opportunity to just break away is available.
3. That it will fall apart too quickly for it to have any significant lasting effect on the consciousness of the noble classes.
4. That there can be no truly effective drive to reunite the empire after it falls apart because they will be content ruling their own independent state.
5. That because a state is consolidated with its own written language Chinese influence will not cause any significant impact on the state that conquers it.
6. That the diversity of the empire will make it impossible to effectively govern, even when decentralized.
7. The state would be Orthodox Christian even when Orthodox Christianity is in the minority.
8. Christianity has no Dimmi like system in order to allow for some measure of peaceful rule over Muslims.
9. Mongolian culture does not provide a bridge effective enough to blend, even on a superficial level, the three main parts of the empire.
10. The state, no matter how much time is given or how absurdly lucky it is will never be able to consolidate itself even if its unified a dozen times.
11. It will ultimately not set out to do what I wanted it to.

Some of these have answers, some of them don't and they are real concerns. The last three, for instance, are the most damaging to the scenario. Others are also hard to overcome and ultimately this just doesn't work as a One World Empire. That said, I would still like to explore whether or not this has the potential to become a Hegemonic power for more than a century.
 
I want to try to consolidate the argument and identify what the main issues are. Lets see if I can summarize the main problems:

1. Any attempt to localize power in the hands of a sub-regional government to deal with rebellions will cause the empire to fall. If not instantly, then in a short while.

Yes, because the empire is far too large for the khagan-tsar to keep an eye on them at all effectively. As stated, Kublai had trouble with the Golden Horde and Kaidu - and that at the point the Mongols were mostly successful.

The Khagan-tsar's approval or disapproval has virtually no ability to impact their power bases. That's the problem.

Within France (for example) the polity is not impossibly oversized in terms of the ability to ride herd on the subleaders. For something like this, "subleaders" rule entire kingdoms if not "empires" in all but name of their own. Maybe a few individuals are loyal for personal reasons, maybe a few pay lip service but act as independent rulers in all but name, but most are just going to not care. The Khagan-tsar is very far away and the mountains are all but impassable.

2. There is no possible incentive for a subordinate governing power to remain part of the empire when the opportunity to just break away is available.
None that would outweigh the huge incentive to break away, no. There might be a few individuals, but not enough to hold anything to the khagan-tsar outside the area he can put down pretenders, rebels, etc.

3. That it will fall apart too quickly for it to have any significant lasting effect on the consciousness of the noble classes.
Yes, because the noble classes have been influenced by a long, long period outside this polity. The amount it would matter that they were ruled by the Khagan-tsar pales by comparison.

4. That there can be no truly effective drive to reunite the empire after it falls apart because they will be content ruling their own independent state.
Yes, because there is no reason for the polities that emerge to care about the whole. China might care about Mongolia, but not Iran, and certainly not Russia for example.

5. That because a state is consolidated with its own written language Chinese influence will not cause any significant impact on the state that conquers it.
Not outside the area of China itself, no. Again, very long, extended, independent histories.

6. That the diversity of the empire will make it impossible to effectively govern, even when decentralized.
Yes. Because there is no reason for the subcomponents to be loyal to "I control this area because I have a bigger army" conquerers. You might get a dynasty maintaining the Mandate of Heaven as specifically Emperor of China, but someone ruling from Samarkand being treated the same way? Not likely.

7. The state would be Orthodox Christian even when Orthodox Christianity is in the minority.
If the khagan-tsars are coming from Russia, they're going to either a) be Orthodox Christians, or b) lose support within Russia if they convert.

8. Christianity has no Dimmi like system in order to allow for some measure of peaceful rule over Muslims.
Not even close to having one.

9. Mongolian culture does not provide a bridge effective enough to blend, even on a superficial level, the three main parts of the empire.
Also not even close.

10. The state, no matter how much time is given or how absurdly lucky it is will never be able to consolidate itself even if its unified a dozen times.
There's only a very small chance of it being unified once. Giving it "more time" and "more luck" brings us into the realm of deliberately trying to ignore the problems addressed above tearing it apart faster than it can consolidate.

11. It will ultimately not set out to do what I wanted it to.

Some of these have answers, some of them don't and they are real concerns. The last three, for instance, are the most damaging to the scenario. Others are also hard to overcome and ultimately this just doesn't work as a One World Empire. That said, I would still like to explore whether or not this has the potential to become a Hegemonic power for more than a century.
No more than the Mongol Empire as a polity covering all the khanates which already starts cracking after less than half of one.
 
Last edited:
Not sure If I'm actually responding to your points, but then again I'm not really sure you understand mine as at the moment this debate seems scattered over many different points.

I don't think that it's possible for me to directly respond to most of your points, as doing so would require me to go through several pages of this thread.

Only one comes to mind as I had believed that the two river boundaries which largely form the modern border had been around the limit of direct Korean control since Unified Silla. Which was wrong. There are probably others though.

You also stated earlier that the Han somehow controlled most of what is now North Korea under four commanderies, which might have been true around 107-82 BC, but certainly not true afterward, as Chinese records state that two were abandoned after that time period, and another one was moved to the northwest. The cultural influence certainly remained, but China did not exercise political control over most of the northern part of the peninsula for long. In addition, you stated in an even earlier thread that Joseon virtually had no trading contacts with its neighbors, and did not have access to cash crops. However, I explained later that trade with China, Japan, and the Ryukyus continued to occur, and provided a list of certain crops that had been imported around 1600-1700, which eventually caused significant population growth.

However, these points are technically not relevant to the topics discussed on this thread, and I understand that Korea as a whole is certainly an obscure topic for virtually everyone on this website, especially considering that most of the available sources are in Korean. That said, however, it wouldn't have taken much effort to briefly research the three points concerning Korea, as I actually consulted the English Wikipedia first before moving on to other detailed sources. In other words, I'm just saying that double-checking before posting would have saved both of us a lot of time beforehand, and only convinced me that you had the tendency to make several incorrect assumptions.

The assimilation I am referring to is the consistent and reliable kind that occurs within a Chinese Dynasty with people that are directly linked to it, politically, socially, and economically. For instance no state has every conquered a large portion of the contemporary era of China without presenting itself as China somewhere along the way. All Northern Dynasties did this, there are no exceptions to my knowledge. This Russo-Mongol state taking over northern China would do the same, or its fragment inside of China would do it after it was falling apart because of the Yuan Dynasty. The sinification process occurred to just about every group that established itself in the state.

The Northern Dynasties example only further confirms my hypotheses. Because none of them had a written language before migrating south and establishing settlements, it makes sense that they were culturally assimilated within a few generations. However, applying the reverse, namely imposing the Chinese mindset on other established states with writing systems, will not work very well. People will be generally more inclined to learn an alphabet than a system with thousands of characters, mostly because the latter cannot be molded to fit other disparate languages. In other words, the "Chinese" model is mostly limited to China Proper.

By the way, Manchuria was a consolidated state with its own written language before going into China. Chinese cultural diffusion also occurred in areas that were consolidated states, Korea was at its most dominated by Chinese culture long after it was consolidated.

Yes, but the Manchus were inspired by the Mongolian and Chinese writing systems to create one of their own in order to create records. This attempt did not succeed in the long run, however, as the large amount of Chinese records meant that it made more sense to continue using a much older system that had been consistently in use. In addition, while the Korean states became more influenced by Chinese culture as time went on, they remained politically independent as a whole, suggesting that sharing a similar culture does not necessarily translate into a unified political system, similar to what also eventually occurred in Japan and Vietnam.

And yet this will be smaller, at least, by half. There will be no holdings in Southern China, where resistance was most stiff. Levant, most of India, Southeast Asia, and other problematic areas are not part of the borders of this state. The frontiers are not as far away and not as problematic to deal with if one uses OTL as a measuring stick. With this in mind would it still fall apart in the same time table?

It's going to take much more than a century to assimilate the local populations, which will be necessary for a loose form of political cohesion to occur. If the hypothetical empire stretches from Eastern Europe to East Asia, you still have disparate regions, namely Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia, and potentially the Middle East as well. Each region will have entrenched political/cultural systems, and although one ruler might claim to retain a loose "cultural identity" that binds them all together, the similarities will be mostly superficial. In other words, it will require only a small misstep for the entire endeavor to collapse within a decade or so, which isn't exactly ideal.


It looks like these are most of the issues that both Elfwine and I brought up. Anyway, each of these points represent significant issues on their own, and while some of them could be theoretically resolved somehow, all of them put together are very devastating to the state as a whole. Each region developed very extensive histories separate from one another, which translates into very different political and cultural ideologies that generally cannot be lumped together. In addition, if an entire region decides to break away, then the other regions will have to invest an enormous amount of resources in order to put the "revolt" down, greatly destabilizing the state.
 

scholar

Banned
I suppose I was "asking" for this first part. Its also late so my mind is kind of numb right now, so some of this might not make any sense. Its been a long day.

You also stated earlier that the Han somehow controlled most of what is now North Korea under four commanderies, which might have been true around 107-82 BC, but certainly not true afterward, as Chinese records state that two were abandoned after that time period, and another one was moved to the northwest. The cultural influence certainly remained, but China did not exercise political control over most of the northern part of the peninsula for long.
I think I was referring to the Gongsun Family, which started with the Later Han and which established a realm of control and influence that would last until the fall of the Jin, after the Gongsun Family was defeated.

Gongsun also defeated Yiyimo, king of Goguryeo, at his capital and forced him to move the capital. He separated the southern half of Lelang Commandery and established Daifang Commandery in 204 to make administration more efficient. He also attacked the southern natives and forced them to submit to the Han Dynasty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gongsun_Kang
http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Gongsun_Kang

It did not seem like a stretch. This map also seemed to suggest that as well since Gongsun Kang was noted to have expanded the frontier of China in Korea significantly.

Balgi, older brother to Sansang, led a rebel force attacking the capital. Sansang had his younger brother Gyesu repel the attack, and Balgi committed suicide. Sansang's Goguryeo was later attacked by Han Dynasty China and forced to submit to the Han Dynasty. In 209, the capital was moved to Jian by warlord Gongsun Kang of the Han Dynasty. In 217, he granted refuge to a thousand families from the Liaodong region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sansang_of_Goguryeo

Given that the King of Goguryeo also submitted to the Han Dynasty, that also seemed to vindicate that idea. At least according to wikipedia.

In addition, you stated in an even earlier thread that Joseon virtually had no trading contacts with its neighbors, and did not have access to cash crops. However, I explained later that trade with China, Japan, and the Ryukyus continued to occur, and provided a list of certain crops that had been imported around 1600-1700, which eventually caused significant population growth.
Not having cash crops? Sure I remember that now. Me saying that Joseon virtually eliminated its trade with China I do not. If the topic you are referring to was the AHC: Korean population explosion, then I did not say that then. Instead the topic revolved around Korea being conquered by the Qing Dynasty and that should cash crops been allowed to take root in Korea it could experience a population explosion similar to what happened in China in response to you stating that the population was stable until the late 18th century.

However, these points are technically not relevant to the topics discussed on this thread, and I understand that Korea as a whole is certainly an obscure topic for virtually everyone on this website, especially considering that most of the available sources are in Korean. That said, however, it wouldn't have taken much effort to briefly research the three points concerning Korea, as I actually consulted the English Wikipedia first before moving on to other detailed sources. In other words, I'm just saying that double-checking before posting would have saved both of us a lot of time beforehand, and only convinced me that you had the tendency to make several incorrect assumptions.
Not sure how to take this since one is seemingly corroborated by Wikipedia and the other topic had both of us being wrong, which you later admitted in your response to me in that very topic.

------------------------------------------------

The Northern Dynasties example only further confirms my hypotheses. Because none of them had a written language before migrating south and establishing settlements, it makes sense that they were culturally assimilated within a few generations. However, applying the reverse, namely imposing the Chinese mindset on other established states with writing systems, will not work very well. People will be generally more inclined to learn an alphabet than a system with thousands of characters, mostly because the latter cannot be molded to fit other disparate languages. In other words, the "Chinese" model is mostly limited to China Proper.
This doesn't work as well as you think because once again most people were illiterate and thus would have assimilated regardless of writing systems. While this might explain some of the upper classes it does not change the vast majority of everyone else. Furthermore the diffusion of Chinese cultural traits occurred on every border, and was at its strongest with already consolidated states which you had previously used as a marker to say that is where it couldn't happen. Other groups that assimilated into China may well have had an alphabet. The Xiongnu for instance may have had an alphabet. The Xianbei were said to have a "runic-like script." Little to nothing remains of what used to be the Northern Dynasties except that they became Chinese and abandoned near universally what they were before that. Very little that they wrote was preserved except through the Chinese and most of what we have now is the nth edition if it comes from that. We have fragments and scribbles and the cultures that made them are all largely part of China, having assimilated into it. Therefore we can't state that none of them had written languages when we know so little about what they were before they came to China.

In order to test a hypothesis you must find an example of a state conquering a large part of mainland china with an alphabet and have it not be even partially assimilated into chinese culture, and this example has to hold true with other examples of countries with an alphabet or at the very least a far more simpler script to learn as you are directly relating the transition of culture between peoples and the process of sinification to the difficulty of learning the chinese characters.

Yes, but the Manchus were inspired by the Mongolian and Chinese writing systems to create one of their own in order to create records. This attempt did not succeed in the long run, however, as the large amount of Chinese records meant that it made more sense to continue using a much older system that had been consistently in use. In addition, while the Korean states became more influenced by Chinese culture as time went on, they remained politically independent as a whole, suggesting that sharing a similar culture does not necessarily translate into a unified political system, similar to what also eventually occurred in Japan and Vietnam.
The reason why it failed was because people stopped speaking the language, not because of a lack of translated material. The Manchurian government practically begged for the language to continue to live on as it died slowly in spite of their attempts. The Manchurian government maintained copies in the Manchurian script for wide available use up until the Qing was supplanted by the ROC. It didn't happen because of anything sensible, it occurred because a smaller population was assimilated by a larger one. This idea also seems to undervalue the significance and the appeal of Chinese culture and ideology especially when it seems to espouses such wealth and power. The Manchu's were already partially assimilated before they conquered China because they were already presenting themselves as a Chinese Dynasty, long before any adoption of the Chinese language.

Korea was part of the Chinese tributary system and thus paid lip service to the Emperor of China as their Emperor while they claimed a lesser title of King. They may have been defacto independent, but...

It's going to take much more than a century to assimilate the local populations, which will be necessary for a loose form of political cohesion to occur. If the hypothetical empire stretches from Eastern Europe to East Asia, you still have disparate regions, namely Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia, and potentially the Middle East as well. Each region will have entrenched political/cultural systems, and although one ruler might claim to retain a loose "cultural identity" that binds them all together, the similarities will be mostly superficial. In other words, it will require only a small misstep for the entire endeavor to collapse within a decade or so, which isn't exactly ideal.
The local populations in Central Asia don't need to be changed all that much, the nobility is what needs to experience the cultural changes and those changes should start immediately and the longer the empire holds the more changed the nobility gets. If the nobility is changed enough to buy into the idea of a "unified" *Mongol 'Empire' as something to be desired and preferred as opposed to the desire to be independent from that then there is a possibility that when the empire fragments that there will be a drive to restore it again. As stated before OTL is filled with examples like this, and in this loose scenario the influences are stronger and the consequences of it actually being achieved twice can significantly alter the expansionist policies of the fragment states.

It looks like these are most of the issues that both Elfwine and I brought up. Anyway, each of these points represent significant issues on their own, and while some of them could be theoretically resolved somehow, all of them put together are very devastating to the state as a whole. Each region developed very extensive histories separate from one another, which translates into very different political and cultural ideologies that generally cannot be lumped together. In addition, if an entire region decides to break away, then the other regions will have to invest an enormous amount of resources in order to put the "revolt" down, greatly destabilizing the state.
Of course, and I recognize that. I will attempt to answer them tomorrow, but all together it does seem insurmountable. I'll have to take some time to think about solutions to them, if they can be found. If ultimately they cannot be found or seem too unlikely to occur then ultimately this idea proves unfeasible.
 
I suppose I was "asking" for this first part. Its also late so my mind is kind of numb right now, so some of this might not make any sense. Its been a long day.

That's fine.

I think I was referring to the Gongsun Family, which started with the Later Han and which established a realm of control and influence that would last until the fall of the Jin, after the Gongsun Family was defeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gongsun_Kang
http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Gongsun_Kang

It did not seem like a stretch. This map also seemed to suggest that as well since Gongsun Kang was noted to have expanded the frontier of China in Korea significantly.

Again, all of the topics concerning Korea are technically irrelevant to the thread, but I'll respond.

Gongsun Kang might have expanded territory around Liaodong and Lelang (Pyongyang) somewhat, but his control did not extend much further east. The map you provided also has nothing to do with Gongsun Kang, as the first details territory in 2 AD, while the latter took power in 202 AD. In addition, while that map does have a small stretch of territory to the east of the peninsula, which I'm not sure is true or not, it still depicts the Han as controlling significantly less than half of what is now North Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sansang_of_Goguryeo

Given that the King of Goguryeo also submitted to the Han Dynasty, that also seemed to vindicate that idea. At least according to wikipedia.

And yet Goguryeo allied with the Cao Wei and destroyed the Gongsun clan's possessions in 238, only three decades or so after Goguryeo had initially "submitted." Goguryeo had a tradition of moving capitals and/or temporarily setting up bases in remote regions several times after devastating invasions, so while it might have shown the pretenses of submission for a while, it regained the offensive as soon as it managed to recover. This link details the later war, and the map on that page also seems to suggest that control within the peninsula was limited to the western coast, significantly less than half of the northern region. Yes, control might have been slightly further east, but after the invasions, Sansang relocated the capital to Wina/Hwando, in what is now Ji'an, Jilin, while Dongcheon fled further east into the peninsula. In either case, Goguryeo continued to remain independent mostly because the Chinese had no interest and generally left the eastern regions alone, although minor explorations took place.

In addition, this map, although it depicts the situation in 204, marks Wina/Hwando's location, also illustrates that there were several regions in the east for the court to flee to, which are recorded in the Samguk Sagi. Most of the specific details of the conflicts recorded in the Korean text from around 244-300 are most likely incorrect, but other descriptions highlight the fact that Goguryeo still remained as a separate political entity, albeit an extremely minor one. In any case, the two remaining commanderies were eventually subjugated by 314, which would not have been possible if Goguryeo had completely ceased to exist as a consolidated entity from 204 onward.

Not having cash crops? Sure I remember that now. Me saying that Joseon virtually eliminated its trade with China I do not. If the topic you are referring to was the AHC: Korean population explosion, then I did not say that then. Instead the topic revolved around Korea being conquered by the Qing Dynasty and that should cash crops been allowed to take root in Korea it could experience a population explosion similar to what happened in China in response to you stating that the population was stable until the late 18th century.

I'm not really sure what you were trying to argue there, as you stated that Korea was "closed off" to the outside world with the exception of China, although it maintained extensive contacts with Japan and the Ryukyus as well. In either case, if trade, which is necessary for any region, was maintained on some level through China or other states, cash crops can also be easily introduced as well, although you didn't seem to connect the dots. Anyway, I initially stated a few assumptions, then backtracked and edited my claims after a few layers of research, while you didn't seem to significantly change your viewpoints throughout the thread, which was what I was trying to say.

Not sure how to take this since one is seemingly corroborated by Wikipedia and the other topic had both of us being wrong, which you later admitted in your response to me in that very topic.

The Chinese incursion into Goguryeo only backs up my claim that borders were extremely fluid from 108 BC-314 AD, and that while the former extended its control somewhat in some periods, the expansions were only temporary as raids/invasions eventually forced them to retreat later on. In terms of the population increase, it also supports my argument that I usually try to double-check my sources, which usually begin with, but are certainly not limited to, Wikipedia, and that I edit my viewpoints/hypotheses if the sources thoroughly state otherwise, while you usually remain firm in your assertions until someone else disproves your statements.

This doesn't work as well as you think because once again most people were illiterate and thus would have assimilated regardless of writing systems. While this might explain some of the upper classes it does not change the vast majority of everyone else. Furthermore the diffusion of Chinese cultural traits occurred on every border, and was at its strongest with already consolidated states which you had previously used as a marker to say that is where it couldn't happen. Other groups that assimilated into China may well have had an alphabet. The Xiongnu for instance may have had an alphabet. The Xianbei were said to have a "runic-like script." Little to nothing remains of what used to be the Northern Dynasties except that they became Chinese and abandoned near universally what they were before that. Very little that they wrote was preserved except through the Chinese and most of what we have now is the nth edition if it comes from that. We have fragments and scribbles and the cultures that made them are all largely part of China, having assimilated into it. Therefore we can't state that none of them had written languages when we know so little about what they were before they came to China.

In order to test a hypothesis you must find an example of a state conquering a large part of mainland china with an alphabet and have it not be even partially assimilated into chinese culture, and this example has to hold true with other examples of countries with an alphabet or at the very least a far more simpler script to learn as you are directly relating the transition of culture between peoples and the process of sinification to the difficulty of learning the chinese characters.

I was talking about the upper class when I was discussing writing systems, as they are generally necessary to preserve records for posterity. In terms of the possible writing systems used by the Xiongnu and Xianbei, I could just as well state that there is no conclusive evidence in order to state that they used writing systems, and that while extremely limited rock inscriptions remain, which are technically not solid evidence, it is uncertain whether the systems were used widely among the noble class. There is certainly evidence of oral tradition, and minor fragments of some words, but not the grammar of the languages, are recorded in Chinese sources, and do not prove that there was evidence of a significant writing tradition. In addition, the invasions during the Sixteen Kingdoms period were extremely disruptive because numerous clans vied for control, so if the writing systems had not already been entrenched within the Xianbei/Xiongnu, then they were most likely lost due to the chaos.

The reason why it failed was because people stopped speaking the language, not because of a lack of translated material. The Manchurian government practically begged for the language to continue to live on as it died slowly in spite of their attempts. The Manchurian government maintained copies in the Manchurian script for wide available use up until the Qing was supplanted by the ROC. It didn't happen because of anything sensible, it occurred because a smaller population was assimilated by a larger one. This idea also seems to undervalue the significance and the appeal of Chinese culture and ideology especially when it seems to espouses such wealth and power. The Manchu's were already partially assimilated before they conquered China because they were already presenting themselves as a Chinese Dynasty, long before any adoption of the Chinese language.

Korea was part of the Chinese tributary system and thus paid lip service to the Emperor of China as their Emperor while they claimed a lesser title of King. They may have been defacto independent, but...

Again, the writing systems are only one key component of determining whether people will eventually be assimilated in the long term or not. I was stating that the nature of characters was closely tied to its cultural norms, and by extension, a unified political system across regions as well, which generally cannot be stated for alphabets. In other words, the characters themselves do not provide the tipping point on their own, but rather provide a stable basis for the culture as a whole. In addition, there was an extensive literary tradition that had already been available within China for at least 2000 years, so even if the Manchus attempted to replicate a tradition of their own, it would have been much easier to adopt the Chinese system. The population imbalance was also certainly a major factor, as I stated previously in other threads, but similar conditions will not occur if another consolidated state attempts to take control of China, as the Manchus were outnumbered by more than 50:1 as time went on.

Although various Korean states were certainly a part of the Chinese tributary system, and adopted numerous cultural values over centuries, especially after 1400, it also continued to maintain and expand upon an independent tradition of its own. Also, it's telling that the state remained independent, and that neither the Ming nor the Qing attempted to incorporate Joseon as a part of China. In other words, the relationship only proves that a much larger state was perfectly content with leaving a tributary alone as long as it remained loyal, and that the political systems will remain separate. However, this situation also only applies within a generally limited area, and will certainly not hold if a state rapidly expands across most of Eurasia, as various states will attempt to hold onto their cultures and attempt to resist a foreign entity's assimilation attempts.

The local populations in Central Asia don't need to be changed all that much, the nobility is what needs to experience the cultural changes and those changes should start immediately and the longer the empire holds the more changed the nobility gets. If the nobility is changed enough to buy into the idea of a "unified" *Mongol 'Empire' as something to be desired and preferred as opposed to the desire to be independent from that then there is a possibility that when the empire fragments that there will be a drive to restore it again. As stated before OTL is filled with examples like this, and in this loose scenario the influences are stronger and the consequences of it actually being achieved twice can significantly alter the expansionist policies of the fragment states.

Again, the "united" cultural identity needs to occur much before any significant military defeats or revolts can potentially occur. This scenario will be extremely difficult if there are numerous incentives to break away before at least three generations of cohesion, are accomplished to a degree on a generally "global" level. Each region has developed centuries of distinct political and cultural identities by the time that the hypothetical empire will form, so any distinctions, especially in the more remote regions, will have to be essentially weeded out for a blob to form, leading to widespread resistance and revolts within regions before the political structure eventually falls apart.

Of course, and I recognize that. I will attempt to answer them tomorrow, but all together it does seem insurmountable. I'll have to take some time to think about solutions to them, if they can be found. If ultimately they cannot be found or seem too unlikely to occur then ultimately this idea proves unfeasible.

Take your time, although I'm going to attempt to tackle the various issues as a whole instead of doing so one by one, due to the volume.
 
Last edited:

scholar

Banned
This Tangent became rather large. Anyways summarization:

Your experiences with me give off the impression that I do not check my sources and stubbornly cling to loose assertions and never change my own views independently of others are based on this:


  • My claim that the Gongsun Family controlled and influenced significant amounts of North Korea, over half I believe was the direct number, is wrong in your view. To support this you used this map and pointed out a flaw in my use of the 2 CE map.
  • You believe I stated that China did not trade with Japan and was closed off to its neighbors.
  • I stated that Korea could have experienced a population explosion if it had imported cash crops similar to what occurred in China, incorrectly believing that they did not have them.
  • It appeared as though my opinions did not change while yours did throughout the topic.
  • and the Silla border.
Well, first off I never stated Japan did not trade with Japan. I said it only really liked trading with China and to the west was more closed off than the Tokugawa shogunate, which is actually true. Given that the relationship between Japan and Korea was bad enough that Japan had to invade the country to open it up to trade with japan on a more formal and open setting (if exclusive to others) supports this.

Secondly, I never made a response in that topic after you began to backtrack on the population growth. You could not possibly know whether or not I did not revise my beliefs or stuck stubbornly to them after making my last post. All you do know is that as soon as you brought it up I admitted that I was mistaken then.

While I was ignorant of Korea's importation and utilization of cash crops, my theorized result was more or less what happened in Korea. It had a population explosion that mirrored China's, which should say something. Since that it was OTL, the possibility of it entering into a situation like Japan did not occur, but then again neither did the foundation of the proposed scenario.

As for the Gongsun family, I actually have revised my opinion surrounding them considerably. However, I have not changed from the viewpoint that the Gongsuns controlled more territory than your 1/8th or 1/6th of North Korea theory is severely flawed. I have also considerably revised my opinion of what happened after them, having originally believed that Chinese presence in Korea largely faded with them being taken out which turns out to be completely wrong. Anyways, the map you provide appears to be based off of a map utilized by the eminent historian of the period in China, Professor Rafe, which shows the situation in 190 under Gongsun Du, and not after the expansion of territories by Kang. Also the representation of Daifang is similarly because Daifang was originally projected to be around where Seoul was, though no archeological evidence has yet been found. Then again, that is not surprising in the slightest as there is very little archeological evidence of the time period in general in mainland China, let alone the remnants of a distant commandery. Several books corroborate this, I don't need wikipedia for it. However this division was only necessary because Lelang Commandery became too large and needed to be divided to efficiently govern the region and coordinate relations with the southern natives.

The Wei did much more in the region, going beyond what Gongsun Kang accomplished and brought about the economic and political devastation of the Goguryeo state, which then reformatted itself and eventually took back its lands from a Jin falling apart, actually not having received much if any land from the Gongsuns as Wei more or less inherited it from the campaign that you cited. This information can be found in the Wikipedia page where I believe you got your map, which goes against your conclusion statement where you said that incursion into the region was fluid and didn't last long. In this case it lasted from the Later Han with Gongsun Kang, expanded after the Gongsun family was defeated [though the raids went much further], and remained largely stable as Korean hegemon until the Jin started falling apart. Roughly a hundred years in total. That said, I'm not sure where you got the notion that if a state submitted it would cease to exist, especially since its mentioning being forced to move its capital as part of that submission. That was a little strange.

The border of Korea I don't have any excuse for though, that was just me being an idiot working on faulty assumptions, something I admitted as soon as I was confronted with evidence supporting this and I subsequently spent the next few hours trying to get over how I could possibly have believed that assumption.

I was talking about the upper class when I was discussing writing systems, as they are generally necessary to preserve records for posterity. In terms of the possible writing systems used by the Xiongnu and Xianbei, I could just as well state that there is no conclusive evidence in order to state that they used writing systems, and that while extremely limited rock inscriptions remain, which are technically not solid evidence, it is uncertain whether the systems were used widely among the noble class. There is certainly evidence of oral tradition, and minor fragments of some words, but not the grammar of the languages, are recorded in Chinese sources, and do not prove that there was evidence of a significant writing tradition. In addition, the invasions during the Sixteen Kingdoms period were extremely disruptive because numerous clans vied for control, so if the writing systems had not already been entrenched within the Xianbei/Xiongnu, then they were most likely lost due to the chaos.
Then you should note that it wouldn't explain the assimilation of peoples into China, only the elites as I had the impression that you were trying to suggest language was one of the only reasons for sinification, and that the difficulty of learning all the characters would make it so that no people with an alphabet or similar writing script would be influenced by it.

Anyways, if we agree that we do not know whether or not the Xiongnu or Xianbei had a sophisticated or entrenched writing system as most of what they had were lost in the Northern and Southern Dynastic period that the period neither supports nor goes against your hypothesis as too little is known about them or their language and little if anything contemporary to the period and part of their culture survives today? We know every foreign dynasty from the Khitan states onward had established scripts, even the Mongols and Jurchens. Khitan and Jurchen were based off of Chinese script (Jurchen off of Khitan), but they saw wide use throughout their dynasties. They simply promptly died their respective dynastic hosts. Mongolian and Manchurian were both based off of Uyghur though and again largely died out in China after their dynasties ended or at least fell from prominence. Assimilation, however, occurred.

Again, the writing systems are only one key component of determining whether people will eventually be assimilated in the long term or not. I was stating that the nature of characters was closely tied to its cultural norms, and by extension, a unified political system across regions as well, which generally cannot be stated for alphabets. In other words, the characters themselves do not provide the tipping point on their own, but rather provide a stable basis for the culture as a whole. In addition, there was an extensive literary tradition that had already been available within China for at least 2000 years, so even if the Manchus attempted to replicate a tradition of their own, it would have been much easier to adopt the Chinese system. The population imbalance was also certainly a major factor, as I stated previously in other threads, but similar conditions will not occur if another consolidated state attempts to take control of China, as the Manchus were outnumbered by more than 50:1 as time went on.
It seemed like you tried to make it out so that chinese culture only really diffused into populations that were not consolidated or did not have an alphabet, meaning that either one or the other would make it so that it didn't happen, which confused me a bit to say the least. It is worth mentioning that the Manchurians didn't just try, they succeeded.

I will say that the cultures need to be somewhat in line with one another for diffusion to occur easily, but Chinese civilization rubbed off on very diverse groups, including a group that was diametrically opposed to its own. They just had to be close enough to it to feel the effects. The Manchu's were outnumbered 50:1, well in this scenario the vast majority of the population will still be centered around China, which would have similar implications for groups going in. Groups coming out would also have been partially assimilated into Chinese culture. Chinese people going out would bring the culture with them and in turn would influence the regions they go to. While this process isn't unique to just Chinese migrants, it is certainly relevant to the scenario.

Although various Korean states were certainly a part of the Chinese tributary system, and adopted numerous cultural values over centuries, especially after 1400, it also continued to maintain and expand upon an independent tradition of its own. Also, it's telling that the state remained independent, and that neither the Ming nor the Qing attempted to incorporate Joseon as a part of China. In other words, the relationship only proves that a much larger state was perfectly content with leaving a tributary alone as long as it remained loyal, and that the political systems will remain separate. However, this situation also only applies within a generally limited area, and will certainly not hold if a state rapidly expands across most of Eurasia, as various states will attempt to hold onto their cultures and attempt to resist a foreign entity's assimilation attempts.
Both the Ming and the Qing regarded Korea as part of China already, taking it over wasn't necessary when the people voluntarily submitted themselves to them and the court in exchange gave their monarchs "official authority" to rule there. Its mostly all words, but there's something to be said about words when this debate has consistently said that there's no reason why a subordinate ruler would wish to remain a subordinate ruler on a significant enough level for them to do so.

The state won't try to force assimilation, though they would give incentives to do so. Orthodox Christianity is the only direct attempt to assimilate people that I believe has been brought up.

Again, the "united" cultural identity needs to occur much before any significant military defeats or revolts can potentially occur. This scenario will be extremely difficult if there are numerous incentives to break away before at least three generations of cohesion, are accomplished to a degree on a generally "global" level. Each region has developed centuries of distinct political and cultural identities by the time that the hypothetical empire will form, so any distinctions, especially in the more remote regions, will have to be essentially weeded out for a blob to form, leading to widespread resistance and revolts within regions before the political structure eventually falls apart.
Its not so much united as the idea of being united, and the building blocks for that were in place before the Russo-Mongol state started going east. The main idea is whether or not it can be reinforced enough so that the idea is more than just a loose one, but one that is a shared aspiration. It doesn't have to be a united cultural identity with an evenly distributed flow of traits. In fact, that occurring is prety much ASB until the invention of the Railroad or the use of forced population transfers which has some precedent, but not enough and certainly not even approaching a single percentage of what is necessary without stalinistic measures which also reaks of ASB. So, not until the railroad.

That said, it will not be as distinct as you seem to believe. The Russo-Mongol State, Central Asia, and Northern China have all been ruled over by Mongol successor states. The *Yuan and *Russia were the two main ones and Russia moved in as it was collapsing whereas central asia was the focal point of the main division and aspect of ATL's Mongol Civil War. I am hoping that this state can be kept together long enough by its large amounts of similarities and now very recent and very old histories in relation to one another with a few civil wars and conflicts necessary to root out the aspects that are not as willing to be kept together. I still need to find out whether or not its possible.

Take your time, although I'm going to attempt to tackle the various issues as a whole instead of doing so one by one, due to the volume.
Fair enough, but there seems to be a couple delays! :eek:

Edit: This is also one of the best distractions I've gotten to keep me away from my grief, so I'm happy to be debating this.
 
Last edited:
You believe I stated that China did not trade with Japan and was closed off to its neighbors.

Korea, not China, although this is a nitpick.

Well, first off I never stated Japan did not trade with Japan. I said it only really liked trading with China and to the west was more closed off than the Tokugawa shogunate, which is actually true. Given that the relationship between Japan and Korea was bad enough that Japan had to invade the country to open it up to trade with japan on a more formal and open setting (if exclusive to others) supports this.

This is probably a typo, but Japan . . . certainly traded with Japan. Anyway, the Joseon Tongsinsa, consisting of diplomats who established formal relations, was dispatched numerous times to Japan both before and after the war, in which both political and economic relations were discussed, so that assumption is not technically true. On the other hand, neither Japan nor Korea was willing to open up to the West until they were forced to, but that wasn't what you stated.

Secondly, I never made a response in that topic after you began to backtrack on the population growth. You could not possibly know whether or not I did not revise my beliefs or stuck stubbornly to them after making my last post. All you do know is that as soon as you brought it up I admitted that I was mistaken then.

That's fine. I just needed the clarification.

While I was ignorant of Korea's importation and utilization of cash crops, my theorized result was more or less what happened in Korea. It had a population explosion that mirrored China's, which should say something. Since that it was OTL, the possibility of it entering into a situation like Japan did not occur, but then again neither did the foundation of the proposed scenario.

Well, as long as you can go over your assumptions after revising the details, I don't have a problem with the points that you have presented.

As for the Gongsun family, I actually have revised my opinion surrounding them considerably. However, I have not changed from the viewpoint that the Gongsuns controlled more territory than your 1/8th or 1/6th of North Korea theory is severely flawed. I have also considerably revised my opinion of what happened after them, having originally believed that Chinese presence in Korea largely faded with them being taken out which turns out to be completely wrong. Anyways, the map you provide appears to be based off of a map utilized by the eminent historian of the period in China, Professor Rafe, which shows the situation in 190 under Gongsun Du, and not after the expansion of territories by Kang. Also the representation of Daifang is similarly because Daifang was originally projected to be around where Seoul was, though no archeological evidence has yet been found. Then again, that is not surprising in the slightest as there is very little archeological evidence of the time period in general in mainland China, let alone the remnants of a distant commandery. Several books corroborate this, I don't need wikipedia for it. However this division was only necessary because Lelang Commandery became too large and needed to be divided to efficiently govern the region and coordinate relations with the southern natives.

The Wei did much more in the region, going beyond what Gongsun Kang accomplished and brought about the economic and political devastation of the Goguryeo state, which then reformatted itself and eventually took back its lands from a Jin falling apart, actually not having received much if any land from the Gongsuns as Wei more or less inherited it from the campaign that you cited. This information can be found in the Wikipedia page where I believe you got your map, which goes against your conclusion statement where you said that incursion into the region was fluid and didn't last long. In this case it lasted from the Later Han with Gongsun Kang, expanded after the Gongsun family was defeated [though the raids went much further], and remained largely stable as Korean hegemon until the Jin started falling apart. Roughly a hundred years in total. That said, I'm not sure where you got the notion that if a state submitted it would cease to exist, especially since its mentioning being forced to move its capital as part of that submission. That was a little strange.

Again, my point was that Goguryeo remained as an independent political identity in the eastern portion of the peninsula, although I agree that it might have been something resembling a tributary relationship from around 204-314, with a few minor exceptions. That's all. Daifang later split off from Lelang, but archeological and written evidence suggests that Wirye (Seoul) continued to be the capital of Baekje for about five centuries until 475, so the commandary was located significantly north of the region. I also specifically stated 1/4-1/8 for a very rough range, and I certainly admitted that borders fluctuated over time, although I left out the Cao Wei in my predictions, which will adjust my range closer to 1/3 as another rough estimate. The fact that the Goguryeo capital was located in what is now Ji'an, Jilin, until 244 or so, and that the state also had its own tributaries, suggests that any control by the fall of the Han was very limited, and while the Cao Wei extended its control, it was more content with an indirect approach.

The border of Korea I don't have any excuse for though, that was just me being an idiot working on faulty assumptions, something I admitted as soon as I was confronted with evidence supporting this and I subsequently spent the next few hours trying to get over how I could possibly have believed that assumption.

Again, clarifying is perfectly fine.

Then you should note that it wouldn't explain the assimilation of peoples into China, only the elites as I had the impression that you were trying to suggest language was one of the only reasons for sinification, and that the difficulty of learning all the characters would make it so that no people with an alphabet or similar writing script would be influenced by it.

Anyways, if we agree that we do not know whether or not the Xiongnu or Xianbei had a sophisticated or entrenched writing system as most of what they had were lost in the Northern and Southern Dynastic period that the period neither supports nor goes against your hypothesis as too little is known about them or their language and little if anything contemporary to the period and part of their culture survives today? We know every foreign dynasty from the Khitan states onward had established scripts, even the Mongols and Jurchens. Khitan and Jurchen were based off of Chinese script (Jurchen off of Khitan), but they saw wide use throughout their dynasties. They simply promptly died their respective dynastic hosts. Mongolian and Manchurian were both based off of Uyghur though and again largely died out in China after their dynasties ended or at least fell from prominence. Assimilation, however, occurred.

While each individual situation is certainly unique, all of them as a whole ultimately don't seem to lead to a solid conclusion due to the lack of evidence. That being said, however, all of the nomads were vastly outnumbered when they invaded and seized a significant amount of territory. Although the same will occur for other groups potentially invading China, some, including Russia, will have stable populated bases outside of Central Asia as well, so the situations are not technically analogous.

It seemed like you tried to make it out so that chinese culture only really diffused into populations that were not consolidated or did not have an alphabet, meaning that either one or the other would make it so that it didn't happen, which confused me a bit to say the least. It is worth mentioning that the Manchurians didn't just try, they succeeded.

I will say that the cultures need to be somewhat in line with one another for diffusion to occur easily, but Chinese civilization rubbed off on very diverse groups, including a group that was diametrically opposed to its own. They just had to be close enough to it to feel the effects. The Manchu's were outnumbered 50:1, well in this scenario the vast majority of the population will still be centered around China, which would have similar implications for groups going in. Groups coming out would also have been partially assimilated into Chinese culture. Chinese people going out would bring the culture with them and in turn would influence the regions they go to. While this process isn't unique to just Chinese migrants, it is certainly relevant to the scenario.

Again, I will admit that there is not enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion, and that China's population as a whole could potentially be significantly less due to instability. In addition, invading groups would theoretically be more inclined to retreat closer to their home bases if they encountered stiff resistance from states within China Proper.

Both the Ming and the Qing regarded Korea as part of China already, taking it over wasn't necessary when the people voluntarily submitted themselves to them and the court in exchange gave their monarchs "official authority" to rule there. Its mostly all words, but there's something to be said about words when this debate has consistently said that there's no reason why a subordinate ruler would wish to remain a subordinate ruler on a significant enough level for them to do so.

The state won't try to force assimilation, though they would give incentives to do so. Orthodox Christianity is the only direct attempt to assimilate people that I believe has been brought up.

Again, Joseon's population was drastically outnumbered by the Chinese one, and although substantial conflicts could have potentially occurred, as it occurred numerous times in the past, neither side would have been willing to invest an enormous amount of resources and take a huge number of casualties. My point was that even though the differences between Korea and China in terms of population and area were extremely disparate, the latter never thought about political incorporation. In other words, this situation will probably not hold if a state such as Russia attempted to head into East Asia, as it will have significantly larger statistics than that of Korea.

Its not so much united as the idea of being united, and the building blocks for that were in place before the Russo-Mongol state started going east. The main idea is whether or not it can be reinforced enough so that the idea is more than just a loose one, but one that is a shared aspiration. It doesn't have to be a united cultural identity with an evenly distributed flow of traits. In fact, that occurring is prety much ASB until the invention of the Railroad or the use of forced population transfers which has some precedent, but not enough and certainly not even approaching a single percentage of what is necessary without stalinistic measures which also reaks of ASB. So, not until the railroad.

That said, it will not be as distinct as you seem to believe. The Russo-Mongol State, Central Asia, and Northern China have all been ruled over by Mongol successor states. The *Yuan and *Russia were the two main ones and Russia moved in as it was collapsing whereas central asia was the focal point of the main division and aspect of ATL's Mongol Civil War. I am hoping that this state can be kept together long enough by its large amounts of similarities and now very recent and very old histories in relation to one another with a few civil wars and conflicts necessary to root out the aspects that are not as willing to be kept together. I still need to find out whether or not its possible.

Well, we're still working on general points here, and I think that you'll need to provide a more coherent and detailed picture for any substantial discussion to occur.

Fair enough, but there seems to be a couple delays! :eek:

I might not be able to respond in detail then, due to other commitments.

Edit: This is also one of the best distractions I've gotten to keep me away from my grief, so I'm happy to be debating this.

Starting next week, I'm going to attempt to spend most my time on this website making updates and posts in my timeline for at least several months or so, due to other pressing issues not related to this website. As a result, my responses will probably be very sporadic. Hope you feel better soon though.
 
And get kicked in the balls.

Google the 'Panay War'.

Long Story short - a scarier (but not too scary) US means that Stalin and Hitler stay united against America. Doesn't matter - US wins in the end, maintains a global empire through orbital weapons and a willingness to use them...

Mike Turcotte
 

scholar

Banned
Korea, not China, although this is a nitpick.
My nouns have always been jumbled, which probably causes more confusion in the long run than anything else when discussing things with me on an internet medium.

This is probably a typo, but Japan . . . certainly traded with Japan. Anyway, the Joseon Tongsinsa, consisting of diplomats who established formal relations, was dispatched numerous times to Japan both before and after the war, in which both political and economic relations were discussed, so that assumption is not technically true. On the other hand, neither Japan nor Korea was willing to open up to the West until they were forced to, but that wasn't what you stated.
Actually, it was exactly what I said. Korea was more closed off than the Shogunate to the West and only really liked trading through China. I didn't say anything about Japan, only the west and china. The reference to the war was merely to show that it wasn't exactly keen on open trade with Japan, though trade between the two most certainly occurred.

According to Westerners, Korea was more closed off and internalized to the outside world than the Shogunate or the most central of Asian Khanates. It only liked being accessed through China, as was not a pleasant state to deal with.

And if that was not what I said, it was what I meant.

Again, my point was that Goguryeo remained as an independent political identity in the eastern portion of the peninsula, although I agree that it might have been something resembling a tributary relationship from around 204-314, with a few minor exceptions. That's all.
That was something I didn't contest, only that it was forced to submit twice and every time it went to war before the Jin was already crumbling it was beaten.

So this was an area where we were simply not arguing on the same level.

That said...
The fact that the Goguryeo capital was located in what is now Ji'an, Jilin, until 244 or so, and that the state also had its own tributaries, suggests that any control by the fall of the Han was very limited, and while the Cao Wei extended its control, it was more content with an indirect approach.
The page shows that it was restored to being influenced by Lelang and Daifang. Why restore something to an institution that did not have influence over them [Daifang, in particular, was a recent invention]? The express purpose of Daifang was to more closely regulate the southern regions and to establish closer ties with the southern Koreans, such as Ye. Goguryeo may have had a tributary system of its own, but Gongsun Kang severely damaged that and while it may have restored it after the Gongsuns were wiped out, this in turn was broken harder when Goguryeo thought that it could take areas under direct chinese control.

While each individual situation is certainly unique, all of them as a whole ultimately don't seem to lead to a solid conclusion due to the lack of evidence. That being said, however, all of the nomads were vastly outnumbered when they invaded and seized a significant amount of territory. Although the same will occur for other groups potentially invading China, some, including Russia, will have stable populated bases outside of Central Asia as well, so the situations are not technically analogous.
While in regards to China as a whole this is correct, but its not as clear as one might think. The primary instigation of the Wu Hu rebellions was because the Three Kingdoms era caused the population of the Han to lose something along the lines of 3/4ths of its population. The records showed population being in around 16 million after it had already recovered a lot with the unification of the Jin when it was at one point pushing 60 million as a somewhat conservative estimate, and at the height of the conflicts between the three 'Kingdoms' it may have dropped into the single digits. While it had recovered somewhat nearing unification the war of the 8 princes once again devastated an already shattered population. Many of the main tribes, in particular the Xiongnu, became majority populations in regions within what was China. This is largely superfluous info, but these peoples continued sinification in spite of this and strengthened as time went on. The fact that Eastern Jin persisted plays a huge part, but the population of China as a whole has never been that weak, nor that conquered even under the worst of the Yuan and Qing dynasties.

Anyways, I think we will find that there are no areas of technically analogous situations that would match this one. The Yuan, perhaps, as this draws both inspiration from them and will claim to be moving in to restore/supplant them and will result in the claiming of their own dynastic name as a natural way to justify control there. Because of that we need to find loose analogies and take a look at other cultures that were sinified.

Again, I will admit that there is not enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion, and that China's population as a whole could potentially be significantly less due to instability. In addition, invading groups would theoretically be more inclined to retreat closer to their home bases if they encountered stiff resistance from states within China Proper.
Well, we know that China and outside forces constantly fought one another so they had to return back to their home bases if they could not establish a firm foothold. Some, however, like the [southern] Xiongnu had their home bases within China. Even after that they also had the potential to flee elsewhere, the last remnants of the Han-Zhao state fled to the area around Ordos and founded a new dynasty there that would later be conquered by a different northern dynasty.

Then again, the Mongol response to stiff resistance was simply starve them and sack the city. Do this long enough or to a major enough city and people tend not to resist strongly anymore.

Again, Joseon's population was drastically outnumbered by the Chinese one, and although substantial conflicts could have potentially occurred, as it occurred numerous times in the past, neither side would have been willing to invest an enormous amount of resources and take a huge number of casualties. My point was that even though the differences between Korea and China in terms of population and area were extremely disparate, the latter never thought about political incorporation. In other words, this situation will probably not hold if a state such as Russia attempted to head into East Asia, as it will have significantly larger statistics than that of Korea.
Why conquer a state that takes pride in being Little China or the Lesser Flower and is following the guidelines of surrendering sovereignty to the letter? One of the codes of the Chinese way of dealing with the outside world that goes part and parcel with other aspects of governmental doctrine and confucian thought is that the world is divided along the principles of Tianxia (which in turn is connected to the Mandate of Heaven) and there was simply no reason to every conquer Korea.

If China wanted to conquer Korea, China would attempt to conquer Korea. It wouldn't have taken much, just a cancellation of the tributary system and declaring themselves equal to China in every respect while a wayward prince flees to china proper and gives a formal request to put down the "rebellion against China." Whether or not it succeeds is another matter.

Well, we're still working on general points here, and I think that you'll need to provide a more coherent and detailed picture for any substantial discussion to occur.
I know, hopefully I will have something substantial for you to take a look at before next week.
 
Last edited:
Google the 'Panay War'.

Long Story short - a scarier (but not too scary) US means that Stalin and Hitler stay united against America. Doesn't matter - US wins in the end, maintains a global empire through orbital weapons and a willingness to use them...

Mike Turcotte

Long story short, I don't find that plausible.
 
My nouns have always been jumbled, which probably causes more confusion in the long run than anything else when discussing things with me on an internet medium.

I'll keep that in mind.

Actually, it was exactly what I said. Korea was more closed off than the Shogunate to the West and only really liked trading through China. I didn't say anything about Japan, only the west and china. The reference to the war was merely to show that it wasn't exactly keen on open trade with Japan, though trade between the two most certainly occurred.

According to Westerners, Korea was more closed off and internalized to the outside world than the Shogunate or the most central of Asian Khanates. It only liked being accessed through China, as was not a pleasant state to deal with.

And if that was not what I said, it was what I meant.

That was something I didn't contest, only that it was forced to submit twice and every time it went to war before the Jin was already crumbling it was beaten.

So this was an area where we were simply not arguing on the same level.

That said...
The page shows that it was restored to being influenced by Lelang and Daifang. Why restore something to an institution that did not have influence over them [Daifang, in particular, was a recent invention]? The express purpose of Daifang was to more closely regulate the southern regions and to establish closer ties with the southern Koreans, such as Ye. Goguryeo may have had a tributary system of its own, but Gongsun Kang severely damaged that and while it may have restored it after the Gongsuns were wiped out, this in turn was broken harder when Goguryeo thought that it could take areas under direct chinese control.

I broadly agree with these viewpoints, and although we might have different ways of approaching the same issue, I won't go further here.

While in regards to China as a whole this is correct, but its not as clear as one might think. The primary instigation of the Wu Hu rebellions was because the Three Kingdoms era caused the population of the Han to lose something along the lines of 3/4ths of its population. The records showed population being in around 16 million after it had already recovered a lot with the unification of the Jin when it was at one point pushing 60 million as a somewhat conservative estimate, and at the height of the conflicts between the three 'Kingdoms' it may have dropped into the single digits. While it had recovered somewhat nearing unification the war of the 8 princes once again devastated an already shattered population. Many of the main tribes, in particular the Xiongnu, became majority populations in regions within what was China. This is largely superfluous info, but these peoples continued sinification in spite of this and strengthened as time went on. The fact that Eastern Jin persisted plays a huge part, but the population of China as a whole has never been that weak, nor that conquered even under the worst of the Yuan and Qing dynasties.

Anyways, I think we will find that there are no areas of technically analogous situations that would match this one. The Yuan, perhaps, as this draws both inspiration from them and will claim to be moving in to restore/supplant them and will result in the claiming of their own dynastic name as a natural way to justify control there. Because of that we need to find loose analogies and take a look at other cultures that were sinified.

Although I don't know the exact specifics, I would guess that the population dropped to 15-20 million during the Three Kingdoms Period, and although it probably recovered to around 25-30 million by 300 or so, it decreased again to 20-25 million by the Sixteen Kingdoms Period, and gradually increased afterward. I'm basing this on contemporary censuses which suggest that the Han had around 60 million at its height, while the Jin had over 20 million. However, the latter estimate is probably much less accurate because the chaos caused massive disruptions for almost a century, meaning that many were dispersed and not counted. In addition, assuming that the total population of China dropped to less than 10 million suggests that up to 9 out of 10 people were killed, which seems to be a stretch. As a result, while millions of individuals probably migrated from Central Asia, and established states with significant foreign populations, they probably did not consist of the majority.

Well, we know that China and outside forces constantly fought one another so they had to return back to their home bases if they could not establish a firm foothold. Some, however, like the [southern] Xiongnu had their home bases within China. Even after that they also had the potential to flee elsewhere, the last remnants of the Han-Zhao state fled to the area around Ordos and founded a new dynasty there that would later be conquered by a different northern dynasty.

Then again, the Mongol response to stiff resistance was simply starve them and sack the city. Do this long enough or to a major enough city and people tend not to resist strongly anymore.

Again, any potential invader in the hypothetical scenario will most likely have a larger total population and a remote base. In other words, even though the invasions will be sustained for a while, there is also a possibility that the invaders will have access to dwindling resources as the campaigns are extended over time.

Why conquer a state that takes pride in being Little China or the Lesser Flower and is following the guidelines of surrendering sovereignty to the letter? One of the codes of the Chinese way of dealing with the outside world that goes part and parcel with other aspects of governmental doctrine and confucian thought is that the world is divided along the principles of Tianxia (which in turn is connected to the Mandate of Heaven) and there was simply no reason to every conquer Korea.

If China wanted to conquer Korea, China would attempt to conquer Korea. It wouldn't have taken much, just a cancellation of the tributary system and declaring themselves equal to China in every respect while a wayward prince flees to china proper and gives a formal request to put down the "rebellion against China." Whether or not it succeeds is another matter.

My point was precisely that China had no reason to impose direct political control over Korea, and its ideology was certainly one of the main reasons for taking this approach. Korea would never attempt to completely cut off ties with China after 1400 due to the geopolitics within the region, as the decision would be essentially suicidal, not to mention exhausting both states' resources. While Korean states in general were able to actively defend their territories for various reasons, none of them would even think about attempting to fully support and supply a royal Chinese family member who had been exiled/expelled, regardless of the scenario, and certainly not after the Imjin War.

I know, hopefully I will have something substantial for you to take a look at before next week.

All right. I can't guarantee that I'll be able to respond in detail, though.
 

scholar

Banned
Although I don't know the exact specifics, I would guess that the population dropped to 15-20 million during the Three Kingdoms Period, and although it probably recovered to around 25-30 million by 300 or so, it decreased again to 20-25 million by the Sixteen Kingdoms Period, and gradually increased afterward. I'm basing this on contemporary censuses which suggest that the Han had around 60 million at its height, while the Jin had over 20 million. However, the latter estimate is probably much less accurate because the chaos caused massive disruptions for almost a century, meaning that many were dispersed and not counted. In addition, assuming that the total population of China dropped to less than 10 million suggests that up to 9 out of 10 people were killed, which seems to be a stretch. As a result, while millions of individuals probably migrated from Central Asia, and established states with significant foreign populations, they probably did not consist of the majority.
Well, here's what I based that number off of:

The Three Kingdoms period was one of the bloodiest in Chinese history. A population census during the late Eastern Han Dynasty reported a population of approximately 50 million, while a population census during the early Western Jin Dynasty reported a population of approximately 16 million.[13] However, the Jin Dynasty's census was far less complete than the Han census, so these figures are in question.
The initial drop off has to do with the Yellow Turban rebellion and many of the wars that occurred, however the Early Western Jin Dynasty ruled over a country that had been largely peaceful and stagnant for decades by then, meaning it had already begun to recover. Later, at the Jin's height before the 8 princes it was in the low 20s of millions.

That said, there are some more ridiculously low markers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms#Population

1,082,000 (Shu) + 2,535,000 (Wu) + 4,432,881 (Wei) = about 8 million.

But then again , we know that its probably higher. I just don't think it was so much higher that it would double to reach the low end of your estimate.

---

Not a majority of the population within China, no. However there were many prefectures and some provinces where they did establish a slight majority. Bingzhou, in particular, comes to mind. You and Liang were similar on some levels. Liang for instance had already been largely depopulated by the Shu-Wei conflicts to the point where the Wei and Jin governments used Qiang and sinicized nomads to populate the region to make it governable and defensible.

Again, any potential invader in the hypothetical scenario will most likely have a larger total population and a remote base. In other words, even though the invasions will be sustained for a while, there is also a possibility that the invaders will have access to dwindling resources as the campaigns are extended over time.
Of course.

My point was precisely that China had no reason to impose direct political control over Korea, and its ideology was certainly one of the main reasons for taking this approach. Korea would never attempt to completely cut off ties with China after 1400 due to the geopolitics within the region, as the decision would be essentially suicidal, not to mention exhausting both states' resources. While Korean states in general were able to actively defend their territories for various reasons, none of them would even think about attempting to fully support and supply a royal Chinese family member who had been exiled/expelled, regardless of the scenario, and certainly not after the Imjin War.
Why make the point when you know that its own that I've made myself a couple of times? :p

The relationship was mutually beneficial to maintain on a number of social, political, economical, and ideological levels, especially when it gave the Chinese everything they wanted while doing the exact same things for the Koreans near the end as they had particularly enjoyed being the next best thing after China.

All right. I can't guarantee that I'll be able to respond in detail, though.
Just do your best, as I try to do my best.
 

Hnau

Banned
I'm just going to echo some of the first responses to this thread. The problem is technology. I don't believe a world state is possible without at the very least telegraphs, if not radio. Atomic weapons and computers could also be requirements, though I don't want to go so far as to say they are. Communications are the most important thing here.
 
I'm just going to echo some of the first responses to this thread. The problem is technology. I don't believe a world state is possible without at the very least telegraphs, if not radio. Atomic weapons and computers could also be requirements, though I don't want to go so far as to say they are. Communications are the most important thing here.

I know, really.
 
Top