Which would have been most interesting? Ming, Manichean China, maritime China, Mongol China? (Poll)

Which would have been the most interesting China?

  • OTL Ming dynasty

    Votes: 9 6.2%
  • Continued Mongol rule

    Votes: 9 6.2%
  • Manichean China (Xia dynasty of Ming Yuzhen)

    Votes: 46 31.7%
  • Civil and commercial China (Wu dynasty of Zhang Shicheng)

    Votes: 48 33.1%
  • China fragmented into regional regimes

    Votes: 33 22.8%

  • Total voters
    145
I vote Manichaeism mostly because I have a fascination with obscure religions and I think it would be hilarious when Christian missionaries discover that one of the most powerful kingdoms in the world just converted to a religion that they would have regarded as a long-dead heresy.
 
Why do people like a Manichean China? Why is it that people want China to adopt the culture of foreigners? It's already enough that Buddhism caught on in China, and that Sinologists believe China is historically as Islamic as Arabia, and people want China to adopt yet another foreign religion? Is Daoism this hated? I can understand Confucianism and its boring dullness, but Confucianism is not China and you have a wealth of literature, painting, architecture, etc., in Daoism alone.

Also, here's why Ming China was always going to be more interesting:
-It kicked Mongol Buddhist hegemony in the face and proved indigenous Chinese Daoist culture was capable of transcending and enduring.
-Did the impossible by killing Timur.
-Some of the best Chinese literature appeared in this time, such as Journey to the West. That's right, without the Ming dynasty, you wouldn't have Dragon Ball.
-Killed Timur.
-The Ming did a much better job at keeping Europeans out of East Asian soil than the prior Yuan and subsequent Qing did.
-They reunified China and paved the way for it to become one of the only true counterweights to complete European imperialist domination of the world.
-Also, did I already mention that they killed Timur?

1. I would not suggest that keeping Europeans out of whatever land they exist, is a strength in and of itself. European powers existing in a region can be a massive boon or a negative, it depends entirely upon how the state and or people in question handle the situation.

2. Ming dynastic armies did not kill nor defeat Timur. The Ming would have great worries and ills had Timur not died en route without facing opposition. Existing Mongol sympathies, Muslim sympathy and nomadic warriors to the north could be rallied upon his arrival. Once done, the Ming will need to rapidly mobilize a massive force to combat the near peerless experience and discipline of Timur’s force.

Further, Timur’s arrival could have had a greater affect in Islamization of Eastern nomadic confederations; this could prove far more dangerous for the Ming and China as a whole than anything that came from the steppe prior.

3. I do agree on the idea of Chinese Daoism and other ideologies. It is perhaps more my preference to see a very indigenously driven Chinese religion and state, than the trend on this site of having China be the pool with which the world’s religions all pour.
 
I vote Manichaeism mostly because I have a fascination with obscure religions and I think it would be hilarious when Christian missionaries discover that one of the most powerful kingdoms in the world just converted to a religion that they would have regarded as a long-dead heresy.

Well, unless the Ottoman ascension occurs as otl, plays off the Manichaen views, would still exist across the Balkans.
 

Kaze

Banned
OTL Ming has already done. It is rather cliche.
Continued Mongol rule has already done.
Manichean would be interesting. I would read it.
Wu dynasty would be interesting. I would read it.
Fragmented China has already done in real life (see the Three Kingdoms Period, Western Jin / Eastern Jin / Sixteen Kingdoms, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period)
 

Maoistic

Banned
But you wouldn't have had Journey to the West without foreign Buddhist Hegemony.
The plot of Journey to the West may be about Buddhist pilgrimage, but has attacks towards Buddhism even if not overt, and can't exist without the Daoist influence that the Mongols were slowly but decisively stamping out.

1. I would not suggest that keeping Europeans out of whatever land they exist, is a strength in and of itself. European powers existing in a region can be a massive boon or a negative, it depends entirely upon how the state and or people in question handle the situation.

2. Ming dynastic armies did not kill nor defeat Timur. The Ming would have great worries and ills had Timur not died en route without facing opposition. Existing Mongol sympathies, Muslim sympathy and nomadic warriors to the north could be rallied upon his arrival. Once done, the Ming will need to rapidly mobilize a massive force to combat the near peerless experience and discipline of Timur’s force.

Further, Timur’s arrival could have had a greater affect in Islamization of Eastern nomadic confederations; this could prove far more dangerous for the Ming and China as a whole than anything that came from the steppe prior.

3. I do agree on the idea of Chinese Daoism and other ideologies. It is perhaps more my preference to see a very indigenously driven Chinese religion and state, than the trend on this site of having China be the pool with which the world’s religions all pour.

1) You require to ignore European colonialism in order to say that having European allies can be a possible boon. You can already see the making of European expansionism in Marco Polo's writings.

2) Yeah, I thought that the Ming defeated Timur in battle. Still, if Timur were to engage the Ming, I don't see him winning. The Ming were anti-Mongol steamrollers, and then there's the fact that Timur's army had to travel 3,000 miles (if I'm correct) to attack the Ming, so he would have a weakened army facing almost fanatical Ming loyalists who were giving the Mongols the Dio Brando treatment.
 
The more Chinas you have, the more opportunities for crazy stuff. You could have any combination of native regimes, foreign conquest dynasties, commercial trade focused powers, and religious oddities all at once. You could go for a series of unification wars or fringe realms expanding into the neighbors to the north, south, east, and west, or both. Probably avoids the Sea Ban and places more emphasis on military matters over bureaucracy, which is a pretty big shift from OTL. Put that in concurrence with the decline of the Ashikaga's authority and you get a complete reordering of East Asia's dynamics.

So that's my vote.
 
1) You require to ignore European colonialism in order to say that having European allies can be a possible boon. You can already see the making of European expansionism in Marco Polo's writings.

I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate the idea that 'European Expansionism' was in Marco Polos writings. It seems peculiar, and certainly an interesting assertion that I've never heard before.

As to the idea that European Colonialism has to be ignored - no it doesn't. For the time that you're an ally, and buying guns, trading and making quite a bit of money from the relationship - it is a boon. See the Iroquois Confederacy pre-Seven Years war. You have to also ignore the willing trade relationships that took place. A short term boon, if near-sighted, is still that - a boon. John7755 is right in what he said.

Also, seriously, why is it that whenever something is suggested that involves outside influence you seem to want to make the target the victim. Nobody expressed a hatred for Daoism. It is an alternate history site. i.e. What If Something Different Happened. It is called curiosity. If the question is "What is more interesting?", different is interesting, whereas your posts read as if we're talking about what is better or worse, or that it is in any way under attack.
 
I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate the idea that 'European Expansionism' was in Marco Polos writings. It seems peculiar, and certainly an interesting assertion that I've never heard before.

As to the idea that European Colonialism has to be ignored - no it doesn't. For the time that you're an ally, and buying guns, trading and making quite a bit of money from the relationship - it is a boon. See the Iroquois Confederacy pre-Seven Years war. You have to also ignore the willing trade relationships that took place. A short term boon, if near-sighted, is still that - a boon. John7755 is right in what he said.

Also, seriously, why is it that whenever something is suggested that involves outside influence you seem to want to make the target the victim. Nobody expressed a hatred for Daoism. It is an alternate history site. i.e. What If Something Different Happened. It is called curiosity. If the question is "What is more interesting?", different is interesting, whereas your posts read as if we're talking about what is better or worse, or that it is in any way under attack.
I don't know.... I rarely ever see any timelines where Britain isn't a major power and often it seems that most timelines just involve making it stronger or increasing the size of it's Empire. The opposite of any of those would certainly be different, but i hardly see any. Meanwhile, China screws are super common from what I see.
 
While Manichaeism is always very fascinating, I would like the idea of a Zhang Shicheng-ruled merchant empire China. It would lead to a closer interaction with the West and lead to China not falling behind Europe. In addition, they could claim the Far East and I may be so bold as to say as to head east to the west half of the Americas.
 
The plot of Journey to the West may be about Buddhist pilgrimage, but has attacks towards Buddhism even if not overt, and can't exist without the Daoist influence that the Mongols were slowly but decisively stamping out.



1) You require to ignore European colonialism in order to say that having European allies can be a possible boon. You can already see the making of European expansionism in Marco Polo's writings.

2) Yeah, I thought that the Ming defeated Timur in battle. Still, if Timur were to engage the Ming, I don't see him winning. The Ming were anti-Mongol steamrollers, and then there's the fact that Timur's army had to travel 3,000 miles (if I'm correct) to attack the Ming, so he would have a weakened army facing almost fanatical Ming loyalists who were giving the Mongols the Dio Brando treatment.

This is somewhat off topic, however, I do not see the Ming defeating Timur in a pitched battle without many previous losses and thus winning a war in depth. Timur was far and away the superior to the Mongols whom the Ming had defeated prior and the Timurid forces have experiences and skill beyond even the most crack Ming soldiery.

I do not know miles in terms of distance measurement, thus I cannot gauge if this is a correct distance.

The Ming would be unwise to engage the Timurids in a pitched battle frankly, the Timurid army already reached massive sizes and would be forged with thousands of nomadic allies from the steppe and likely even thousands of Chinese who object to Ming rule. Timur is a politician, general and mastermind who is a equal to any great warlord in history and has no match in the world at the time. It would be my opinion to trust his skills in a pitched battle against the Ming.

The distance is not too terribly far frankly for Timur’s army. Timurid forces, like the Mongols of Subotai, could travel great distances without much disturbance and could likely reach Ming territories as fast or faster than the Ming can travel across their own borders. Further, Timurid realms bordered the Ming Chinese boundaries for the time, through the tight corridors that formerly occupied the boundary between the Yuan Dynasty and the Chagatayid Khaganate (this state is synonymous with the Timurid state). Timur and his armies were already in Samarqand, it is not as if he is traveling from Antioch to China, but from Kwarezm to the exteriors of Ming borders. This would be far enough for him to ravage the border region and send a rallying call for Mongols to the north to come to his position and coordinate a Yuan coup and reconquest.

This is completely plausible for Timur’s plans, I do not see the Ming easily facing such a threat and victory will be bloody and will be contingent upon killing Timur.
 
Fragmented China has already done in real life (see the Three Kingdoms Period, Western Jin / Eastern Jin / Sixteen Kingdoms, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period)

But fractured China is always fun. And if it's a fractured China during the modern period, there's more of a possibility of some regions converting to Catholicism. Which is also interesting. :p
 
I can understand Confucianism and its boring dullness
Confucianism is "boring dullness"? U wot m8?

-The Ming did a much better job at keeping Europeans out of East Asian soil than the prior Yuan and subsequent Qing did.
Umm... I'm not sure why exactly the Ming were supposed to keep Europeans out of East Asian soil?

They reunified China
The Mongols reunified China, actually, not the Ming.
 
I don't know.... I rarely ever see any timelines where Britain isn't a major power and often it seems that most timelines just involve making it stronger or increasing the size of it's Empire. The opposite of any of those would certainly be different, but i hardly see any. Meanwhile, China screws are super common from what I see.

While I also don't understand the obsession with the British Empire, I can say that most of us see China a some sort of "eternal major power" even if that is incorrect, so screwing China because we want to be "different" seems rational
 
Also, seems to me this "Manicheism" is no Manicheism at all, but a divergent Daoist or Buddhist sect that completely abandoned whatever actually Manichaean elements it had. Daoist and Buddhist deities are not Manichean figures at all, and the prophet Mani seems to have been as unknown as Jesus and Zoroaster throughout all of Chinese history, including the Chinese peasants who, however, probably revolted under a general religious impetus rather than a specific Manichean one.

It seems to me that Sinologists and Western historians in general are just trying to find whatever European influences they can in China and magnify them to the extreme. Apparently, it's not enough that Chinese Buddhism has to be the "Greco-Buddhism" adopted by Alexander's successors, that Greeks influenced or even built Qin's Terracotta Army, that the Islam carrying Greco-Roman civilisation with it had a massive influence in China, that Christians have been proselytising the Chinese since around the 7th century at least. They also have to add further European influence by saying Manicheism, a mixture of Christianity with Zoroastrianism (itself Europeanised thanks to Hellenism or, baring that, by being "Indo-European") played a crucial role in Chinese history.

If I cite from credible, trained academic sources to prove you wrong, are you just going to say that I'm fallaciously arguing from authority again? Because you never actually acknowledged that I wasn't the first time you accused me of that and I explained how I wasn't multiple times. There's really not much point in anyone arguing with you if you still think your original ideas are equivalent to a trained scholars research.

Do you think all Christianity is European? How is Manichaeism at all Hellenised? And now "Indo-European" counts as European? Do you think things from India are European now?
 
Also, seems to me this "Manicheism" is no Manicheism at all, but a divergent Daoist or Buddhist sect that completely abandoned whatever actually Manichaean elements it had. Daoist and Buddhist deities are not Manichean figures at all, and the prophet Mani seems to have been as unknown as Jesus and Zoroaster throughout all of Chinese history, including the Chinese peasants who, however, probably revolted under a general religious impetus rather than a specific Manichean one.

It seems to me that Sinologists and Western historians in general are just trying to find whatever European influences they can in China and magnify them to the extreme. Apparently, it's not enough that Chinese Buddhism has to be the "Greco-Buddhism" adopted by Alexander's successors, that Greeks influenced or even built Qin's Terracotta Army, that the Islam carrying Greco-Roman civilisation with it had a massive influence in China, that Christians have been proselytising the Chinese since around the 7th century at least. They also have to add further European influence by saying Manicheism, a mixture of Christianity with Zoroastrianism (itself Europeanised thanks to Hellenism or, baring that, by being "Indo-European") played a crucial role in Chinese history.

Can I point out that Christianity, Islam, and Manicheanism all started in the Middle East?

Christianity comes off as European due to how successful the Christian faith was there, BUT Persia, which is NOT European had the Church of the East, a very large Nestorian sect of Christianity that thrived until the coming of Islam and the Mongols.
 
Can I point out that Christianity, Islam, and Manicheanism all started in the Middle East?

Christianity comes off as European due to how successful the Christian faith was there, BUT Persia, which is NOT European had the Church of the East, a very large Nestorian sect of Christianity that thrived until the coming of Islam and the Mongols.

Actually the Church of the East wasn't Nestorian-that was a slur that stuck. The rest of your point holds of course.
 
Top