WI Ming had its capital in Nanjing

So a defence in depth strategy against the Mongols/Manchu rather than situating the capital right at the border. I assume by late Ming the threat posed by powerful family members was no longer a factor and that most generals would be loyal to the Ming emperor against foreign barbarians, this was the case OTL even when the Ming emperors were terrible and incompetent. So does Ming better manage to survive?
 
Ming emperor would not have learned the breach of great wall until it was too late. It would be similar to Northern Song, when Jin breached the Song's northern fortress and crossed yellow river.

Chongzhen Emperor should have moved to Ming's southern capital, Nanjing, when there was still time. With him moving to south, rebel and Manchu would have to face each other. Once they exhausted, he could move back to north and finish both at same time.

His advisers provided three options in dying days: first option was raising a new militia using emperor's personal fund (which he declined) due to the empire treasury was running low.; second option was moving his family and him or his sons only to southern capital (which he also declined); third option was to accept the rebel's demand (which he declined).
 
Pros:
Greater emphasis on foreign trade
Less resources needs to be sent to supply the court in the north
Greater control over the wealth of the south
Possible explorations and colonization overseas

Cons:
The Ming Dynasty has less control over the north,possibly losing it to a rebelling general or foreign barbarians. Note that prior to the establishment of the Ming Dynasty,the North was under continuous barbarian rule for over two centuries.Vital areas like Beijing were out of Chinese control for around 400 years.The chance of losing control of the north is quite real without a capital in the north. Another thing is that without a capital in Beijing,this will require the Ming Dynasty to delegate authority to a general around the Beijing area. IOTL,they general(Zhu Di) they delegated power to rebelled successfully.
 
Cons: The Ming Dynasty has less control over the north,possibly losing it to a rebelling general or foreign barbarians. Note that prior to the establishment of the Ming Dynasty,the North was under continuous barbarian rule for over two centuries.Vital areas like Beijing were out of Chinese control for around 400 years.The chance of losing control of the north is quite real without a capital in the north. Another thing is that without a capital in Beijing,this will require the Ming Dynasty to delegate authority to a general around the Beijing area. IOTL,they general(Zhu Di) they delegated power to rebelled successfully.

The emperor had to delegate anyway to Yuan Chonghuan during the Chongzhen's reign. It didn't make him any less paranoid, he still executed him for supposed treason even though he was close by in Liaodong. Also I don't see a problem in terms of demographics in terms of loyalty, Northern China is solidly Han. As for losing the north to the Manchus and enduring in the south like the Song, that might be better for Ming than the OTL alternative.
 
The emperor had to delegate anyway to Yuan Chonghuan during the Chongzhen's reign. It didn't make him any less paranoid, he still executed him for supposed treason even though he was close by in Liaodong. Also I don't see a problem in terms of demographics in terms of loyalty, Northern China is solidly Han. As for losing the north to the Manchus and enduring in the south like the Song, that might be better for Ming than the OTL alternative.


Yuan Chonghuan only commanded a fraction of troops in the Beijing area,and the emperor didn’t kill him out of pure paranoia either.Yuan Chonghuan legitimately broke the law by killing Mao Wenlong,who was of the same rank as he was, without any authorisation,and in doing so allowed the Manchus to get close to Beijing.

If the emperor wasn’t actually in Beijing itself,all forces in the region would have come under the command of a single person.

To say that Northern China’s solidly Han is a simplification of the picture.Northern China was ruled by foreigners for centuries.In many places,it had a strong tradition of Hans living next to non-Hans.Culturally,it was also vastly different to that of southern China.The literary tradition of the north for example has strongly regressed,with the Ming Dynasty needing to set up quotas for northern bureaucrats because the northern literary tradition was so bad that most northerners couldn’t pass the exams. For a lot of the northerners,it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a Han regime that’s ruling them or a barbarian one,as long as it could offer them security.
 
Yuan Chonghuan only commanded a fraction of troops in the Beijing area,and the emperor didn’t kill him out of pure paranoia either.Yuan Chonghuan legitimately broke the law by killing Mao Wenlong,who was of the same rank as he was, without any authorisation,and in doing so allowed the Manchus to get close to Beijing.

If the emperor wasn’t actually in Beijing itself,all forces in the region would have come under the command of a single person.

To say that Northern China’s solidly Han is a simplification of the picture.Northern China was ruled by foreigners for centuries.In many places,it had a strong tradition of Hans living next to non-Hans.Culturally,it was also vastly different to that of southern China.The literary tradition of the north for example has strongly regressed,with the Ming Dynasty needing to set up quotas for northern bureaucrats because the northern literary tradition was so bad that most northerners couldn’t pass the exams. For a lot of the northerners,it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a Han regime that’s ruling them or a barbarian one,as long as it could offer them security.

Let's have two capitals then, with the emperor spending 6 months (summer months) in Beijing, and 6 months (winter months) in Nanjing. Does that solve the usurpation problem while at the same time giving Ming more defence in depth options?
 
Let's have two capitals then, with the emperor spending 6 months (summer months) in Beijing, and 6 months (winter months) in Nanjing. Does that solve the usurpation problem while at the same time giving Ming more defence in depth options?
Prior to Zhu Di,the plan was actually to eventually move the capital to either Chang’an,Luoyang or Kaifeng.At one point in time,Zhu Yuanzhang actually designated Kaifeng as a capital but then called it off for unknown reasons. Later on in his reign,he actually ordered his crown prince to survey the three aforementioned sites as potential capitals,but the plan went awry when the crown prince died not long after the survey was conducted.

As for the two capital plan,I suspect that would be too much of a hassle. There’s a massive distance between Beijing and Nanjing. Back in the Tang Dynasty,the emperor eventually got too lazy to move from Chang’an to Luoyang,so I suspect that the emperor would settle back to one permanent capital eventually.It will probably cost a lot of money moving personnel back and forth. Back in those days,emperors can’t travel cheap(unlike the ones in Europe).Whenever they travel,they have to travel with tens of thousands of personnel with ceremonial processions.
 
Last edited:
Prior to Zhu Di,the plan was actually to eventually move the capital to either Chang’an,Luoyang or Kaifeng.At one point in time,Zhu Yuanzhang actually designated Kaifeng as a capital but then called it off for unknown reasons. Later on in his reign,he actually ordered his crown prince to survey the three aforementioned sites as potential capitals,but the plan went awry when the crown prince died not long after the survey was conducted.

As for the two capital plan,I suspect that would be too much of a hassle. There’s a massive distance between Beijing and Nanjing. Back in the Tang Dynasty,the emperor eventually got to lazy to move from Chang’an to Luoyang,so I suspect that the emperor would settle back to one permanent capital eventually.It will probably cost a lot of money moving personnel back and forth. Back in those days,emperors can’t travel cheap(unlike the ones in Europe).Whenever they travel,they have to travel with tens of thousands of personnel with ceremonial processions.

There is the grand canal though? Fine I suppose Kaifeng also works for the same purposes. How would a Kaifeng capital change things?
 
There is the grand canal though? Fine I suppose Kaifeng also works for the same purposes. How would a Kaifeng capital change things?
Defense in depth(though if the Beijing area falls and they are not in a position to retake it,Kaifeng would be quite indefensible),they will most likely have greater control over taxes(though not as much as Nanjing of course).

Kaifeng will also be easier to supply than Beijing(that is if the Ming Dynasty didn't supply Beijing from the sea). The Ming Dynasty will probably have to rebuild the canal connecting the Yangtze to Kaifeng. IOTL,the Ming Dynasty abandoned that in favor of the Mongol one which does not go pass Kaifeng.

The Ming Dynasty will still need to delegate power to a general in order to defend the Beijing area though.In all honesty,this may or may not be a good thing,considering the fact that while it stopped rebellions,the Imperial Court may prove to be a nuisance to different commanders by virtue of not having any sound tactical knowledge while being in a position to meddle more actively in the way by which the war's conducted.
 
Last edited:
Top