The Taiping revolution could be easily avoided by the simple fact that without Hong Xiuquan there is no rebellion, so let's say that he passed in the imperial examination, or he wasn't even born at all, what this would change in the history of the Qing dynasty and asia at all?
No Taiping rebellion
- Thread starter Gukpard
- Start date
It's not that simple. Hong Xiuquan didn't possess some mass hypnosis device that broadcast hatred of the Qing to everyone in South China; there was already massive pent up resentment of the Qing, and their declining legitimacy in the face of humiliation at the hands of Western powers presented an opportunity for local elites to build up power centers around themselves. Once the war reaches Jiangnan, anti-Manchu nationalism is a much stronger pull for the Taiping than their weird religious stuff ever was, and resistance to the Manchu had a long history before Hong Xiuquan ever put brush to paper. I remember hearing one professor explain that the opening of new treaty ports gutted the porter trade, where young men would transport goods to the markets in Guangdong, and left many young men unemployed.
There is no taiping revolt without Hong Xiuquan, this doesn't means that other rebellions would happen, without the Taiping rebellion problably the Qing royality won't notice the declining quality of the Banner forces and the Green Standard army and this could led to a even worse defeat in the Sino-japanese army and a earlier overthrown of the Qing dynasty, or other revolts that didn't happened in OTL would erupt, who knows?
The point is that without Hong the Taiping revolt, the whole concept on a revolt led by a guy who believed to be the brother of Jesus Christ would not have happened
So you are trying to ask for what would happen if another man,possibly a more sane one lead the rebellion?
No, I'm want to know what would have happened if there was no taiping rebellion, what would be the possible effects, I'm no expert in Chinese history, so I want to know your opnions
A massive rebellion by South China and Jiangnan is likely, with or without Hong, and the Banners' lack of military skills will make itself felt. It's probably to the peasant rebels' advantage not to be led by a man claiming the mantle of Jesus; the British would be much more open to supporting them against the Qing if the element of blasphemy was excised from the rebels' ideology. Nationalism was the name of the game in the 19th century, and Han rebellion against the Manchu fit nicely into the European paradigm of nationalist revolution, and the British already hated the Qing for restrictions on trade with the West.
So we could we see a new dynasty rise to power in the 1850s/1860s, depending on the exact date and things like that. I wonder if that would be enough to butterfly the second Opium war? And, more importantly would a change in dynasty be enough to allow China to reform and strengthen itself?
Another thought but could the situation turn into something not dissimilar to the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran? By that I mean an army officer leading the rebellion and becoming the new Emperor? Or is it more likely to be a peasant?
Another thought but could the situation turn into something not dissimilar to the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran? By that I mean an army officer leading the rebellion and becoming the new Emperor? Or is it more likely to be a peasant?
I think the crucial difference will not be British support, but that local power brokers won't fear the rebellion's success. The Taiping were a threat to the literati and Han gentry; ITTL a southern rebellion will not see able Han generals like Zeng Guofan and Li Hongzhang rally the Confucian power structure in defence of the hated Manchu.
I imagine the Qing fall, though they possibly survive as Russian puppet state in Manchuria. China has a long way to go to modernise, but a clean sweep of the existing sinecures following the dynasty's fall would cereal you help reforms.
So yeah- no Taiping, but very much still a rebellion.
I imagine the Qing fall, though they possibly survive as Russian puppet state in Manchuria. China has a long way to go to modernise, but a clean sweep of the existing sinecures following the dynasty's fall would cereal you help reforms.
So yeah- no Taiping, but very much still a rebellion.
It does depend. Removing Hong Xiuquan doesn't remove the sources of discontent in 1850s Qing China, but it does remove a charismatic leader who OTL managed to gather together all these disparate groups - discontented Miao, bandits, religious millennials, anti-Qing groups and disaffected soldiers - into a grand revolt against the Qing.
Without his leadership we might see a more disorganized revolt movement that never coalesces into a stronger force, which means the Qing might be spared the mortal threat that was the Taiping Kingdom. That itself might already butterfly away/delay the other major revolts of the period, i.e. the Hui/Dungan and Nien Revolts (certainly it butterflies away the proximate cause of those two revolts); that means that the Qing might have put up a longer fight against British, French and Russian encroachments, meaning even worse defeats in the long-run.
Without his leadership we might see a more disorganized revolt movement that never coalesces into a stronger force, which means the Qing might be spared the mortal threat that was the Taiping Kingdom. That itself might already butterfly away/delay the other major revolts of the period, i.e. the Hui/Dungan and Nien Revolts (certainly it butterflies away the proximate cause of those two revolts); that means that the Qing might have put up a longer fight against British, French and Russian encroachments, meaning even worse defeats in the long-run.
Last edited:
Agreed. Barring a truly tremendous crisis in Europe, by the time the first British fleet arrived off of Guangdong with hostile intent, the Qing not facing a severe challenge of some sort had become improbable.
I think it's very likely that this is bad for states throughout Asia, actually. In a scenario with a weaker Qing even Japan is unlikely to be in a position to take advantage "in time," and a stronger Qing is liable to either suffer worse from the Europeans or (on rolling a hard six) be much too strong for Japan post-getting-its-act-together.
southern China was in a mood for revolution, I doubt that changes with only Hong gone. maybe means unorganised revolution, maybe means another charismatic leader takes place. I usually lean towards the latter.
Dorozhand
Banned
Removing Hong means another rebel leader will most likely take his place, and he will probably be a much more conventional rebel seeking to establish a new dynasty. This will draw much more of the Han gentry to his side, whomever he is, peasant or not. Think the Red Turban Rebellion.
During the time of the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864) there were other rebellions in China as well.
Nian Rebellion (1851-1868) in north China
Red Turban Rebellion (1854-1856) in Guangdong
Miao Rebellion (1854-1873) in Guizhou
Panthay Rebellion (1856-1873) in Yunnan
Dungan Revolt (1862-1877) along the western bank of the Yellow River
These rebellions fed off one another. If the Manchu move troops out of region to fight in another, it made that first region more likely to rebel. Likewise, they increased taxes to pay for the troops to fight the rebels, causing that area to become more prone to rebel.
China in this time was in a rebellious mood. Leadership is important, but even without Hong Xiuquan there are other leaders willing to step forward. Hong Xiuquan was the most successful of the rebel leaders, but he was not able to unify all the rebels fighting the Qing at this time.
Without Hong Xiuquan, the period of mass rebellions might be put off for a decade or so. However, that is just keeping the lid on the pot longer, building up steam.
There will be a mass rebellions against the Qing. However, with butterflies we don't know if it will be less or more successful than the Taiping. The Qing could very well survive as in our timeline, or they may end up falling if more of the elite defect to the rebels and drive out the Manchu and establish a new dynasty like the Ming did (although they will have many of the same problems the Qing had). Or it could lead to something like the warlord era where different parts of China had their own governments).
Nian Rebellion (1851-1868) in north China
Red Turban Rebellion (1854-1856) in Guangdong
Miao Rebellion (1854-1873) in Guizhou
Panthay Rebellion (1856-1873) in Yunnan
Dungan Revolt (1862-1877) along the western bank of the Yellow River
These rebellions fed off one another. If the Manchu move troops out of region to fight in another, it made that first region more likely to rebel. Likewise, they increased taxes to pay for the troops to fight the rebels, causing that area to become more prone to rebel.
China in this time was in a rebellious mood. Leadership is important, but even without Hong Xiuquan there are other leaders willing to step forward. Hong Xiuquan was the most successful of the rebel leaders, but he was not able to unify all the rebels fighting the Qing at this time.
Without Hong Xiuquan, the period of mass rebellions might be put off for a decade or so. However, that is just keeping the lid on the pot longer, building up steam.
There will be a mass rebellions against the Qing. However, with butterflies we don't know if it will be less or more successful than the Taiping. The Qing could very well survive as in our timeline, or they may end up falling if more of the elite defect to the rebels and drive out the Manchu and establish a new dynasty like the Ming did (although they will have many of the same problems the Qing had). Or it could lead to something like the warlord era where different parts of China had their own governments).
Thought:
If Hong Xiuquan doesn't stick his foot in, whither Christianity in China? Might proselytization do better without his weird heresy spoiling things?
If Hong Xiuquan doesn't stick his foot in, whither Christianity in China? Might proselytization do better without his weird heresy spoiling things?
Probably not. I'd say Taiping Christianity was relatively more appealing than the foreign missionary religion, if only because it was couched in Chinese culture and language. It's probably your best/only opportunity to bring a form of Christianity to China post 1800.
Europeans at the time also tended to view Hong as bringing Christianity to China. The heretical bits of his faith they tended to be ignorant of or seemingly ignore - for this reason Hong Xiuquan actually had a good bit of support among the European populace, although eventually Europe did turn against him.
Without Hong Xiuquan, as everyone else has said, you'd see a more authentically Chinese rebellion and it would probably have a lot more support in a much larger segment of the population who would otherwise never have sided with the Qing Empire.
Europeans at the time also tended to view Hong as bringing Christianity to China. The heretical bits of his faith they tended to be ignorant of or seemingly ignore - for this reason Hong Xiuquan actually had a good bit of support among the European populace, although eventually Europe did turn against him.
Without Hong Xiuquan, as everyone else has said, you'd see a more authentically Chinese rebellion and it would probably have a lot more support in a much larger segment of the population who would otherwise never have sided with the Qing Empire.
scholar
Banned
No it wasn't. Taiping Christianity was considered radical and dangerous by Chinese culture. It sought to tear down the boundaries between men and women, create communal living communities, destroy the class gentry, ban trade, create a utopia on earth, and possibly bring about the end times with the reincarnation of Jesus.
Just because someone is native to China, does not mean it is more appealing to Chinese. Taiping Christianity was helped out considerably because it had gained the initial support of many missionaries inside of the country and european traders, which increased the resources available to Hong and his movement. The more clear this sect's teachings became, the more his early base turned on him and went back to the Qing. Missionaries defected, community leaders balked, and eventually Taiping Christianity was suffering some very hard times even before the Qing army made its way south.
The existence of Taiping Christianity led to a stronger revival of Confucian precepts, and a larger rejection of Christianity as a whole as Hong's move was regarded as madness. The bloody and expensive nature of the Taiping movement resulted in Europeans scaling back some of their more aggressive policies towards China, and made a solid move to support the Qing government's survival - even if it was only a front to control their sphere of influences, whereas before the rebellion the idea of carving up China like a cake was seen as a plausible outcome.