The Scramble for China

With a POD no earlier than 1800, is it feasible for the Europeans to look to China for their next primary colonization rather than Africa? What nations might we see arise in Africa, Who would take what in China, and how might developed nations like Japan react?
 
A Scramble for China definitely seems possible, but taking the place of Africa entirely seems impossible. Christopher Nuttall once wrote an interesting short TL on a largely British China, which I still find interesting:

The British fought the first and second opium wars on a half-hearted basis. Part of that was moral repulsion on the parts of a minority of British politicians. Part of it was the irresolution of the British commanding officer, Lord Elgin, who thought the whole war immoral. The British basically fought when they finally got tired of Chinese delaying actions and measures that basically painted the British as barbarians. The British found the Chinese sense of superiority infuriating, particularly given the massive gap between the two nations in military firepower, China was back in the medieval age while the British had the most formidable weapons in the world.

Let’s suppose that the British sent another commander instead of Elgin. Someone like Clive or Rhodes, who will see the opportunity presented by the war for British expansion and the courage to defy the government. The Chinese viceroy makes his provocations as in OTL and our commander swings into action. There is no question that the British could have taken Canton with the forces available. The Chinese people hated their viceroy and wanted to return to business as usual. The Chinese army was demoralised, particularly after the first clashes. The British effectively destroy the Chinese forces in the area and occupy Canton. The commander annexes the city and the surrounding regions to Britain.

The Chinese emperor appears to have never been told how bad the defeats were in OTL until the British/French force reached Peking in the second war. The odds are that the Chinese government will continue its arrogant actions, which will convince the British (as was considered in OTL) that the government needs changing.

The British proceed slowly, as they did in India, raising some native forces and using them as scouts. The British also destroy the restrictive land rules that made the lives of the peasants a misery. This makes them more popular and pro-British peasant revolts break out across china. This movement co-opts the semi-Christian tai-ping rebellion that took place after the first war and transforms it into a pro-British movement. Our Commander takes advantage of this to start seizing the other coastal cities, before marching on Peking.

The Chinese will probably have grasped the disaster by now. They’ll try to negocaite, but the British will have run out of patience with Chinese evocatism and will demand a complete surrender. The British will probably follow the Indian precedent and offer to allow the Chinese emperor and his court exile somewhere luxusious in exchange for a peaceful transfer of power. The British formally announce their annexation of China and start running the place, starting with the coastal cities.

Assuming the British follow the Indian precedent again, they’ll probably offer the mandarins of western China limited independence, provided they toe the British line and pay homage to queen Victoria. The areas of china that are directly ruled by the British will probably improve quickly, the British won’t exploit the peasants as ruthlessly as the Manchu’s did and they can introduce new techniques. The Chinese would also have lost the deadening hand of the imperial broughcraticy.

The Japanese would be taken far less seriously if they have nowhere to conquer. The British or Americans might take over there as well, while the French and Germans might put more effort into colonising Africa. Russia and Britain will have a long cold war if they have a longer land border and the British would probably react by introducing weapon factories, training and then deploy a few million Chinese troops to the borders. The Russians would probably annex Manchuria as the rest of China fell.
 

Maoistic

Banned

Maoistic

Banned
As for the thread at hand, Africa wouldn't have over 50 countries (a number surpassing even Asia), that's for sure. However, I don't really see the Europeans conquering China. The Europeans could do it easily if China was closer, but that's not the case here, and fighting for China risks inter-European wars. Heck, the fight over America and India just in the 18th and 19th centuries (see the Seven Years War, the American and French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars) devastated Europe. India was only conquered in these conditions because it was closer, a direct, relatively short trip from the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa to the Indian coast, unlike the trip to China which was longer and required either circumnavigating Indonesia or going through the nightmare that was the Strait of Malacca.

It could be possible if the Europeans rescind control over their Indian/South Asian colonies and concentrated their resources on China alone. But that's really the only way I see it happening, because otherwise having to keep control over colonies in India, European infighting and the far geography of China make it impossible for Europeans to effectively colonise it.
 
As for the thread at hand, Africa wouldn't have over 50 countries (a number surpassing even Asia), that's for sure. However, I don't really see the Europeans conquering China. The Europeans could do it easily if China was closer, but that's not the case here, and fighting for China risks inter-European wars. Heck, the fight over America and India just in the 18th and 19th centuries (see the Seven Years War, the American and French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars) devastated Europe. India was only conquered in these conditions because it was closer, a direct, relatively short trip from the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa to the Indian coast, unlike the trip to China which was longer and required either circumnavigating Indonesia or going through the nightmare that was the Strait of Malacca.

It could be possible if the Europeans rescind control over their Indian/South Asian colonies and concentrated their resources on China alone. But that's really the only way I see it happening, because otherwise having to keep control over colonies in India, European infighting and the far geography of China make it impossible for Europeans to effectively colonise it.
By the 19th century,the Europeans clearly have sufficient technology to project and maintain large forces in the Far East—so I don’t think invading and controlling China is a problem.The problem as you have mentioned is for them to agree how to divide China.
 
Last edited:

Maoistic

Banned
By the 19th century,the Europeans clearly have sufficient technology to project and maintain large forces in the Far East—so I don’t think invading and controlling China is a problem.The problem as you have mentined is for them to agree how to divide China.
I only partially agree. They would have to surrender their Indian colonies (most of them at very least) in order to project power over those vast distances. The Europeans can easily defeat anything the Chinese throw at them, no doubt, but the problem is, aside from the other ones I mentioned, that they can't properly invade China.
 

RousseauX

Donor
With a POD no earlier than 1800, is it feasible for the Europeans to look to China for their next primary colonization rather than Africa? What nations might we see arise in Africa, Who would take what in China, and how might developed nations like Japan react?
just have the qing government collapse in the mid-late 1800s

the thing that kept the Europeans from formally partitioning China was because 1) they can't agree on how to do it and 2) the existence of a central government meant that they can sign unequal treaties with said government to secure their sphere of influence in lieu of a partiion

if the Qing collapses you could see European countries being forced to come up with an agreement to prevent a free-for-all
 
just have the qing government collapse in the mid-late 1800s

the thing that kept the Europeans from formally partitioning China was because 1) they can't agree on how to do it and 2) the existence of a central government meant that they can sign unequal treaties with said government to secure their sphere of influence in lieu of a partiion

if the Qing collapses you could see European countries being forced to come up with an agreement to prevent a free-for-all
Most of the European powers' existing colonies in East Asia yielded a net profit for the European powers.Most of their armies in East Asia were recruited from such colonies.It is from such colonies that these powers were able to base and project their forces into China.If they were to rescind control over their East Asian colonies,they won't have a chance at taking any Chinese land at all.
 
As for the thread at hand, Africa wouldn't have over 50 countries (a number surpassing even Asia), that's for sure. However, I don't really see the Europeans conquering China. The Europeans could do it easily if China was closer, but that's not the case here, and fighting for China risks inter-European wars. Heck, the fight over America and India just in the 18th and 19th centuries (see the Seven Years War, the American and French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars) devastated Europe. India was only conquered in these conditions because it was closer, a direct, relatively short trip from the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa to the Indian coast, unlike the trip to China which was longer and required either circumnavigating Indonesia or going through the nightmare that was the Strait of Malacca.

It could be possible if the Europeans rescind control over their Indian/South Asian colonies and concentrated their resources on China alone. But that's really the only way I see it happening, because otherwise having to keep control over colonies in India, European infighting and the far geography of China make it impossible for Europeans to effectively colonise it.

The Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars were not wars caused by "fights over India and the Americas". The American Revolutionary War did not devastate Europe.
 
By the 19th century,the Europeans clearly have sufficient technology to project and maintain large forces in the Far East—so I don’t think invading and controlling China is a problem.The problem as you have mentined is for them to agree how to divide China.

The main reason encroachment was restricted in our timeline was the Americans intervened to enforce an open trade policy, eliminating the benefit from colonisation (a captive market) for the European powers. If you keep America part of the British Empire, the American merchants would instead be pushing the British into faster encroachment.

However the article linked above seems highly fanciful. Whatever the conditions of the peasantry, I have never seen an uprising in support of foreign occupiers. More likely is the reaction of the Russian peasantry to Napoleon's invasion. If the British were clever about things, they would seek to kick out the Qing and restore the ethnic Chinese Ming as puppet rulers. Still even that con is only likely to last 50 years before nationalist antagonism gets out of hand. The biggest problem the colonisers have is that the Chinese have a well established united identity that did not exist in India or Africa. Sooner or later, Chinese national sentiment will be the lion that roars.
 
Wow, that ATL mentioned at the top is some serious imperialist apologia. In what world are the Opium Wars portrayed as anything but naked British greed?

What about something like OTL but on steroids though? Instead of just Treaty Ports, entire coastal regions of the Empire of China effectively become satrapys of colonial empires; sort of a series of 'condominiums' with the Empire and the colonial powers?
 
Wow, that ATL mentioned at the top is some serious imperialist apologia. In what world are the Opium Wars portrayed as anything but naked British greed?

What about something like OTL but on steroids though? Instead of just Treaty Ports, entire coastal regions of the Empire of China effectively become satrapys of colonial empires; sort of a series of 'condominiums' with the Empire and the colonial powers?

That seems like the most realistic answer
 
The main reason encroachment was restricted in our timeline was the Americans intervened to enforce an open trade policy, eliminating the benefit from colonisation (a captive market) for the European powers. If you keep America part of the British Empire, the American merchants would instead be pushing the British into faster encroachment.

However the article linked above seems highly fanciful. Whatever the conditions of the peasantry, I have never seen an uprising in support of foreign occupiers. More likely is the reaction of the Russian peasantry to Napoleon's invasion. If the British were clever about things, they would seek to kick out the Qing and restore the ethnic Chinese Ming as puppet rulers. Still even that con is only likely to last 50 years before nationalist antagonism gets out of hand. The biggest problem the colonisers have is that the Chinese have a well established united identity that did not exist in India or Africa. Sooner or later, Chinese national sentiment will be the lion that roars.
The Chinese peasantry would never rise up in support the foreigner,but neither would they be as difficult to manage as westerners predicted.Movements like the Boxers’ rebellion are quite easy to crush.Once enough people are killed,most Chinese will probably kowtow to their new masters—just as they threw out the Ming and the Shun in and kowtowed to the Manchu foreigners.Appointing the viceroys and governors as vassal kings will probably work quite well as the article explained.In otl during the Boxer’s rebellion,the viceroys and governors basically made an agreement with the foreigners whereby they remain neutral as long as their territories are not attacked.
 

Maoistic

Banned
"Kowtow". Sure, let's portray the Chinese as particularly submissive. In any case, the idea of a "unique" identity being a reason why the Europeans can't rule China is one that needs to die. Unique identities are irrelevant when any and all possible uprisings can still be crushed for a good amount of time, since "unique identities" don't bridge the gap of technological disparity, and when the colonisers can invent or take advantage of different identities that exist in China - for instance, take advantage of the historical sectarian conflict between Daoists and Buddhists just like the British took advantage of the divide between Muslims and Hindus in India.

But like I said, in order to colonise China, the Europeans would need to give up India because they don't have the capacity to retain two geographically distant enormous colonies at the same time.
 
"Kowtow". Sure, let's portray the Chinese as particularly submissive. In any case, the idea of a "unique" identity being a reason why the Europeans can't rule China is one that needs to die. Unique identities are irrelevant when any and all possible uprisings can still be crushed for a good amount of time, since "unique identities" don't bridge the gap of technological disparity, and when the colonisers can invent or take advantage of different identities that exist in China - for instance, take advantage of the historical sectarian conflict between Daoists and Buddhists just like the British took advantage of the divide between Muslims and Hindus in India.

But like I said, in order to colonise China, the Europeans would need to give up India because they don't have the capacity to retain two geographically distant enormous colonies at the same time.
Fact:With enough violence and incentive,most people can be brought into submission.Most people in China at the time simply did not care about who rules as long as there’s food on their table.Look at the amount of foreign regimes in China.They happily sold their freedom,traditions and identity to the Manchus,what difference does it make if the new overlords have white skin and blue eyes?

In case you are asking—no,I am not Caucasian,I’m Chinese.

And why does not Britain have the capacity to rule India and China at the same time?
 
Last edited:
"Kowtow". Sure, let's portray the Chinese as particularly submissive. In any case, the idea of a "unique" identity being a reason why the Europeans can't rule China is one that needs to die. Unique identities are irrelevant when any and all possible uprisings can still be crushed for a good amount of time, since "unique identities" don't bridge the gap of technological disparity, and when the colonisers can invent or take advantage of different identities that exist in China - for instance, take advantage of the historical sectarian conflict between Daoists and Buddhists just like the British took advantage of the divide between Muslims and Hindus in India.

But like I said, in order to colonise China, the Europeans would need to give up India because they don't have the capacity to retain two geographically distant enormous colonies at the same time.

This is nonsense. Technological superiority does not ensure domination once you get to the age of cheap small arms. Look at the Americans in Vietnam or the Russians in Afghanistan or the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. I once read a credible study suggesting you a guerilla movement needs 3% of the population actively involved and 13% giving support for a territory to become ungovernable. That will happen much sooner in China than elsewhere. And the British tended to be wiser than other colonial powers in withdrawing once the writing is on the wall.
 
Fact:With enough violence and incentive,most people can be brought into submission.Most people in China at the time simply did not care about who rules as long as there’s food on their table.Look at the amount of foreign regimes in China.They happily sold their freedom,traditions and identity to the Manchus,what difference does it make if the new overlords have white skin and blue eyes?

In case you are asking—no,I am not Caucasian,I’m Chinese.

And why don’t does not Britain have the capacity to rule India and China at the same time?

I would point out there was a nationalist uprising against the Manchu for them being subservient to Western powers once you got to the media access and small arms of the 20th century. In this timeline it will be more explicit.

Completely agree on India not being a drawback. The resources ro rule India in both troops and cash were extracted from India itself.
 
Aren't we missing the bigger problem, though, of why would the colonial powers even want a 'Scramble for Africa'-style colonial project in China? Africa had raw resources to be extracted for the Second Industrial Revolution; I thought stuff with China was less about law resources and more about bilking their consumer/merchant market for gold specie. If anything starting a resource intensive colonial project would run counter to their OTL goals with China.
 
Top