WI: Shun instead of Qing

What if the Shun dynasty succeeded the Ming dynasty instead of the Qing? What are the conditions for this to happen?

What will happen to China under the Shun?
 
Like I mentioned in the other thread,the rebels under Li Zicheng were like ISIS but without the religious fanaticism.They were basically bandits who took over territory and imposed their rule over them.From what I've read,it's thought that one of the reasons why they lost so quickly was because they've lost popular support after they conquered Beijing.Essentially,they've alienated the very people they claimed to have protected by sacking and pillaging them.There were some serious discipline issues with Li Zicheng's army which Li Zicheng himself made no effort to correct but instead indulged in some of the excesses himself.With the exception of Li Yan and a few others,the Shun leadership thoroughly discredited themselves in the eyes of the people,who from what I've read,now thought Manchu rule to be preferable to Li Zicheng and his thugs.For the Shun to be successful,they will seriously need to be more restrained.If anything,Li Zicheng proved himself not to be a Zhu Yuanzhang.Then of course,Li Zicheng screwed up his relations with Wu Sangui.Accounts really differ on how he screwed up.IIRC,there's also the problem of Li Zicheng receiving the surrender of many corrupt Ming officials instead of purging them.Apparently,with the exception of purging the ones in Beijing,a lot of the corrupt former Ming commanders and officials remained in place,and when signs were showing that Li Zicheng might be defeated by the Manchus,they quickly defected to a new master.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Evidence suggest that Li Zicheng was a busted flush--he had just enough skill to take Beijing, but not enough to set up a state afterwards

Astonishingly, infamous rival warlord Zhang Xianzhong appears to be the one who actually knew how to delegate and was probably a better long-term bet for producing a stable dynasty. So, if you want to keep the Qing out, switching their fortunes early on might be a good idea.
 
Zhang Xianzhong? Wasn't he the guy who was supposedly disappointed if a day passed without him killing someone?

Seven kill stele guy, yep.

The problem being most of the "Zhang Xianzhong was a total lunatic" stuff comes from the Qing, and seems to be based on a very urgent need to explain why so many people in Sichuan died. While avoiding an explanation that ran "We killed them. Sorry 'bout that."

For example, they actually found the seven kill stele. And it didn't actually end with seven kills.

Which isn't to say he wasn't a vicious bastard, but he appears to be a vicious bastard with skills. You know, sort of like Ming Taizu.
 
I've heard about the Qing propaganda theory, but I've also read recent works that reject it and call Zhang Xianzhong unprecedentedly genocidal, so I'm not really sure how much the Qing embellished.
 
I've heard about the Qing propaganda theory, but I've also read recent works that reject it and call Zhang Xianzhong unprecedentedly genocidal, so I'm not really sure how much the Qing embellished.

To be fair, the local Jesuits didn't like him very much and paint a very unpleasant picture, but it's hard to deny that the Qing went out of their way to paint him as incredibly bad, up to giving him an impossible death toll. So saying 'not as bad as popular painted" strikes me as a safe position, if it's taken with the caveat of "probably pretty bad".

Which again, wouldn't prevent him from being a political success in the right situation.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
To be fair, the local Jesuits didn't like him very much and paint a very unpleasant picture, but it's hard to deny that the Qing went out of their way to paint him as incredibly bad, up to giving him an impossible death toll. So saying 'not as bad as popular painted" strikes me as a safe position, if it's taken with the caveat of "probably pretty bad".

Which again, wouldn't prevent him from being a political success in the right situation.

Every great dynastic founder was a vicious bastard with a keen mind. Qin Shihuangdi, Wen of Sui, Tang Gaozu, Song Taizu, and Ming Taizu come to mind. That they all have a lot in common is far more than coincidence. Just as there are similarities between Jin Taizu, Kublai Khan and Nurhaci among the barbarian emperors.
 
Every great dynastic founder was a vicious bastard with a keen mind. Qin Shihuangdi, Wen of Sui, Tang Gaozu, Song Taizu, and Ming Taizu come to mind. That they all have a lot in common is far more than coincidence. Just as there are similarities between Jin Taizu, Kublai Khan and Nurhaci among the barbarian emperors.
Yes, while Li Zicheng and Zhang Xianzhong were vicious bastards without keen minds.

Zhang almost certainly exterminated majority of Sichuan population.
Supposedly something or someone else killed them... and nobody noticed?
China was literate, bureaucratic society, and yet there is zero evidence of someone or something else killing all those people, and plenty of evidence that he or his subordinates did it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, while Li Zicheng and Zhang Xianzhong were vicious bastards without keen minds.

I think that's a bit too easily dismissive--you don't survive as an outlaw without a certain reserve of ability and cunning. All we can say for certain is that Li Zicheng ultimately didn't have the skill necessary to take the top spot, given that he had it virtually fall in his lap, and failed dismally.

Zhang almost certainly exterminated majority of Sichuan population.
Supposedly something or someone else killed them... and nobody noticed?
China was literate, bureaucratic society, and yet there is zero evidence of someone or something else killing all those people, and plenty of evidence that he or his subordinates did it.

You mean aside from the Qing soldiers who did similar actions elsewhere?
 
While I usually caution against thinking of Chinese history purely in terms of dynasties (and really, against using dynasty as a singular noun), I do think the Qing conquest presents a radical point of departure.

The bloody ethnic strife that characterized the empire after 1644 had a key role in shaping policy, especially with regard to trade. IIRC, the growth of international trade was a key source of anxiety for the Manchu, since it threatened to enrich the more commercial subject Han over their Manchu overlords.

While it's definitely possible a Shun or Xi dynasty would uphold the traditional Confucian disdain for merchants, they wouldn't be under the same pressures as the Qing, and better connections with the outside world would almost certainly make for faster modernization.
 
I think that's a bit too easily dismissive--you don't survive as an outlaw without a certain reserve of ability and cunning. All we can say for certain is that Li Zicheng ultimately didn't have the skill necessary to take the top spot, given that he had it virtually fall in his lap, and failed dismally.
Yeah, keen enough to run a band of brigands, but just not keen enough to start a new dynasty ;)

You mean aside from the Qing soldiers who did similar actions elsewhere?
No other province was so thoroughly depopulated. I am sure Qing soldiers, being soldiers who like to loot and rape, did plenty of killing everywhere, but Sichuan obviously did not benefit from avoiding Qing conquest for so long.
 
Top