WI: French never colonize Indochina
- Thread starter Alligator
- Start date
@ Alligator, your chronology is mixed up WRT Lan Xang and Vietnam. For Vietnam, this is more of a quibble, but by the French invasion Vietnam was called Dai Nam, not Dai Viet. As for the former, well, by 1858 it had been defunct for 151 years.
Lan Xang's last effective king was Souligna Vongsa, who reigned from 1637 to 1694. Following his death, there was great chaos (four kings between 1694 and 1698). Finally in 1698 the Trinh lords of northern Vietnam sent 9,000 troops and installed his nephew Chao Sai Ong Hue on the throne of Vientiane, capital of Lan Xang. But most Lao lords detested the Vietnamese and their proxy, Sai Ong Hue. In 1706 his cousin, Chao Kingkitsarat, gained an army from the king of the Sipsong Panna and seized the northern city of Luang Prabang. Then in 1707, either through the intervention of a Thai army or through voluntary agreement (the latter is more likely IMO, and is the account given by the Luang Prabang Annals), Kingkitsarat was given the north and Sai Ong Hue was given the south. This ended the unified Kingdom of Lan Xang and created two separate kingdoms, the kingdom of Luang Prabang under Kingkitsarat and the kingdom of Vientiane under Sai Ong Hue. In 1713 the latter split into two again, with a kingdom of Vientiane and a kingdom of Champasak. So by 1715, Lan Xang was gone and three Lao kingdoms were in its place. And all three kingdoms were increasingly falling under Thai hegemony.
In fact, by the time of French conquest there were no independent Lao states. After 1767 (when Thailand became much more powerful following the political turmoil of the Burman invasion in the 1760s) Lao princes west of the Mekong were forced to abandon their ties to Vientiane and Champasak and be absorbed by Thailand, and millenarian uprisings among the Lao from 1791 to 1817 were brutally suppressed. In 1827, Anuvong, king of Vientiane, revolted and brought his army to a three days' distance from Bangkok, but his rising was crushed, Anuvong was tortured to death, and Vientiane sacked. By the time the French arrived, the only independent states in mainland Southeast Asia ("Indochina," a term most historians are using less and less because it implies that Southeast Asia is just a mix of India and China instead of its own region with its own specific historical processes) were Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam, and the Lao kingdoms were reduced to dependencies of Bangkok, either as tributaries or more directly integrated into Bangkok's empire. The only real exception was the Xiangkhoang Plateau, which was Vietnamese. Without the French, Laos would be Thai.
So, well, without the French or any other foreigners taking direct control of the area (which would require a lot of PODs in itself) the dual division of the central and western mainland into the Thai and Vietnamese empires would continue. The majority of Cambodia and Laos would be just as Thai as Chiang Mai is today, at least for some time - European pressure would force Bangkok to eliminate vassal lords and install an unprecedentely centralized system, just as it did OTL.
Lan Xang's last effective king was Souligna Vongsa, who reigned from 1637 to 1694. Following his death, there was great chaos (four kings between 1694 and 1698). Finally in 1698 the Trinh lords of northern Vietnam sent 9,000 troops and installed his nephew Chao Sai Ong Hue on the throne of Vientiane, capital of Lan Xang. But most Lao lords detested the Vietnamese and their proxy, Sai Ong Hue. In 1706 his cousin, Chao Kingkitsarat, gained an army from the king of the Sipsong Panna and seized the northern city of Luang Prabang. Then in 1707, either through the intervention of a Thai army or through voluntary agreement (the latter is more likely IMO, and is the account given by the Luang Prabang Annals), Kingkitsarat was given the north and Sai Ong Hue was given the south. This ended the unified Kingdom of Lan Xang and created two separate kingdoms, the kingdom of Luang Prabang under Kingkitsarat and the kingdom of Vientiane under Sai Ong Hue. In 1713 the latter split into two again, with a kingdom of Vientiane and a kingdom of Champasak. So by 1715, Lan Xang was gone and three Lao kingdoms were in its place. And all three kingdoms were increasingly falling under Thai hegemony.
In fact, by the time of French conquest there were no independent Lao states. After 1767 (when Thailand became much more powerful following the political turmoil of the Burman invasion in the 1760s) Lao princes west of the Mekong were forced to abandon their ties to Vientiane and Champasak and be absorbed by Thailand, and millenarian uprisings among the Lao from 1791 to 1817 were brutally suppressed. In 1827, Anuvong, king of Vientiane, revolted and brought his army to a three days' distance from Bangkok, but his rising was crushed, Anuvong was tortured to death, and Vientiane sacked. By the time the French arrived, the only independent states in mainland Southeast Asia ("Indochina," a term most historians are using less and less because it implies that Southeast Asia is just a mix of India and China instead of its own region with its own specific historical processes) were Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam, and the Lao kingdoms were reduced to dependencies of Bangkok, either as tributaries or more directly integrated into Bangkok's empire. The only real exception was the Xiangkhoang Plateau, which was Vietnamese. Without the French, Laos would be Thai.
So, well, without the French or any other foreigners taking direct control of the area (which would require a lot of PODs in itself) the dual division of the central and western mainland into the Thai and Vietnamese empires would continue. The majority of Cambodia and Laos would be just as Thai as Chiang Mai is today, at least for some time - European pressure would force Bangkok to eliminate vassal lords and install an unprecedentely centralized system, just as it did OTL.
This would leave Vietnam relatively marginal, on the fringes of mainland Southeast Asia in the literal and metaphorical senses. Can it escape colonization altogether?
Yep, Vietnam was much more susceptible to colonization than Thailand and geography is part of the reason why. By that time Vietnam had more-or-less its current shape (modern Vietnam is just a little smaller, in fact) and was, as one of the most elongated countries in the world, very susceptible to maritime invasion. It would have been better if the country was dominated by a single core some distance from the sea, but Vietnam had multiple centers along the littoral plain. And, of course, the single greatest technological advantage of the Europeans was their dominance at sea. Vietnam was much more susceptible to European imperialism simply by geography - Thailand's core, the Chao Phraya Basin, is much more inland. Burma would theoretically be just as well situated to resist Europeans as Thailand, if not more (its capital was far to the inland, unlike Bangkok which is a port) but it suffered from being immediately east of Bengal, the center of British power in India.
Wow, did somebody actually make that thread? And it wasn't me in my sleep? Amazing.
So, the Germans probably wouldn't have moved in much, they had closer ties with Thailand. Vietnam is rich, yes, and was actually bringing profits when it was a colony but there are a few things against it.
A) it's not the easiest place to colonise, the air is basically poison for the Europeans due to malaria and yellow fever.
B) The country is organised and does have a (more or less) working army. Case in point: the first invasion in 1859 by the Franco-Spanish was almost a disaster. It just worked out because the French were at war with China until recently and were able to bring truly massive forces. In term of power, it's basically like China, without the numbers but with a centralised power
C) The Germans are only capable of and interested in colonisation after 1880, give or take. If you're in that region and willing to carve something for yourself, you want China. IOTL, the colonisation of Tonkin was because of access to Southern Chinese markets. Since they already had Cochinchina, it seemed like the easiest way to go.
But the Germans won't have Cochinchine, and by the 1880's, it's just as easy to go straight to China and carve something up there.
IOTL, even the Tourane expedition of 1859 was because Napoleon was styling himself protector of the Catholic Faith and was reacting to persecutions. Vietnam is very much a backwater in term of trade, it has a few precious things but not that much and, while it's on the path to China, you don't need to stop there to do it.
The big riches of Vietnam was opium and rubber but I doubt those would have bee developed without European intervention.
Regarding what would happen there without the French: Cambodia would probably become a German of English protectorate. They were desperate for someone, ANYONE, to protect them from the Thai-Viet gangbang. There you have an angle for a German colony, as it's begging for it. It would require no military effort to colonise the place.#
The Brits would obviously be interested too, to do their own sandwiching of the Thai, but they might not have the resources.
The French will still want a base over there, maybe Korea? There was an expedition there in 1866 after all, and it's a wonderful springboard to northern Chinese markets
So, the Germans probably wouldn't have moved in much, they had closer ties with Thailand. Vietnam is rich, yes, and was actually bringing profits when it was a colony but there are a few things against it.
A) it's not the easiest place to colonise, the air is basically poison for the Europeans due to malaria and yellow fever.
B) The country is organised and does have a (more or less) working army. Case in point: the first invasion in 1859 by the Franco-Spanish was almost a disaster. It just worked out because the French were at war with China until recently and were able to bring truly massive forces. In term of power, it's basically like China, without the numbers but with a centralised power
C) The Germans are only capable of and interested in colonisation after 1880, give or take. If you're in that region and willing to carve something for yourself, you want China. IOTL, the colonisation of Tonkin was because of access to Southern Chinese markets. Since they already had Cochinchina, it seemed like the easiest way to go.
But the Germans won't have Cochinchine, and by the 1880's, it's just as easy to go straight to China and carve something up there.
IOTL, even the Tourane expedition of 1859 was because Napoleon was styling himself protector of the Catholic Faith and was reacting to persecutions. Vietnam is very much a backwater in term of trade, it has a few precious things but not that much and, while it's on the path to China, you don't need to stop there to do it.
The big riches of Vietnam was opium and rubber but I doubt those would have bee developed without European intervention.
Regarding what would happen there without the French: Cambodia would probably become a German of English protectorate. They were desperate for someone, ANYONE, to protect them from the Thai-Viet gangbang. There you have an angle for a German colony, as it's begging for it. It would require no military effort to colonise the place.#
The Brits would obviously be interested too, to do their own sandwiching of the Thai, but they might not have the resources.
The French will still want a base over there, maybe Korea? There was an expedition there in 1866 after all, and it's a wonderful springboard to northern Chinese markets
Perhaps the French could be distracted in Latin America, if Maximilian won the intervention and became the Emperor of Mexico.
That has much wider impacts. If France is not humiliated in Mexico, it is unlikely to declare war in 1870 (and even if it does, there is a big likehood it does better than OTL).
But I agree, if France does not loose A-L in 1871, it is much less likely to push into colonialism as much as OTL.
True, but let's remember that Indochina's fate was less tied to the 1871 war than the African colonies, since the French were already there..
If the French don't spend resources in Indochina, they might try to get another access in China. That said, when we say they don't clonise it, do we mean they don't go there at all (PoD 1858 with Tourane/Danang) or don't get the whole thing (PoD 1884) ?