AH challenge: no China

No China, no state controlled completely chinese, at least 7 states must be in the area. Chinese is not viewed as an ethnicity or a national group. Different Chinese dialiects are viewed as different languages. Ancient China is viewed bassically as a myth.

Any POD works, but bonus if its after Marco Polo (making even more Europeans believe he made it up because it isn' there)
 
In the means of combating 'the Yellow Peril' the Great Powers hold a conference in which it is decided that the Chinese populate will be eradicated. The borders of China are forcibly closed by the combined might of the armies and navies of the world. Small pox, the plague and other diseases are spread by various means throughout the country. Various diseases are introduced to destroy agriculture.

A few years are allowed to pass, tho the situation in the country is carefully monitored. Chinese attempting to flee are killed. Once the population has been eliminated great armies carefully march in to properly bury bodies and kill any survivors. When the land is completely decontaminated the Great Powers divide the former Chinese lands among themselves.

A synopsis of The Unparalleled Invasion by Jack London
 
I think it would take an unprecedented disaster to do it. Something which so completely wracks the region that the ethnic groups which traditionally make up the Middle Kingdom's population are irreversibly shattered, leaving it open to immigration by Turkic, Mongolian, Indian, and Japanese peoples in such large numbers that the immigrants adopt no trace whatsoever of the previous civilization.
 
There is a (slightly obscure, but not impossible) theory that the biblical flood actually happened and was caused by meteorites. This would also be handy in explaining why fertile ground in northern and western Europe and Northamerika was not very densely populated, even 10000 years after the ice age.

What if such a meteorite impact had not happened in the atlantic, but in the pacific or even a sea close to China?The Land would probably quickly be reoccupied by Japanese, Koreans, Mongols, Turks, Tibetans, Vietnamese or the likes. If a lot of fertile soil had been swept away in the process, no new emergence of any China in this territory for a long time.

Another TL: One of the reason for the existence of a united Chinese territory is the building of the great channel connecting north and south China and watering the area in between. Without it, we'd probably have two distinct much smaller countries instead, which also might not have been able to keep so much territory in the west.

A later timeline would probably leave more than a myth of China, as Rome is still more than just a myth.
 

Hendryk

Banned
reformer said:
Any POD works, but bonus if its after Marco Polo (making even more Europeans believe he made it up because it isn' there)
Frankly, I don't think it's possible to have a unified China become a mere myth if the POD is after Marco Polo. I don't even think it's possible if it's any time after the Han dynasty. Consider Europe: the Western Roman empire fell in the fifth century, but its legacy lived on in the guise of the HRE until 1807.
The latest possible POD, IMHO, is an early death of Ying Zheng, the king of Qin, before he had a chance to annex the six other kingdoms and set himself as First Emperor. That would also preempt the unification of the written language, and enable the various regional dialects to become languages in their own right, complete with mutually unintelligible character systems. But even then, the Confucian clerical class would maintain a de facto transnational network, much like the Church in medieval Christendom, with Zhou-era literary Mandarin being used as the lingua franca.
 
1912 - Shortly after declaring the Chinese Republic, Sun Yet-San is shot by a Manchu loyalist and the project is stillborn.

1912-1925 - Warlordism starts earlier and without the legitimacy of the Republic. Tibet, Siking, Mongolia, and Manchuria are defacto independent and recognised by a couple of major powers. The rest of China is split between the Communist Party of China, the Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek, and smaller factions funded by the British, French, and Japanese. (The British and French get involved before 1918 and thus are committed once the Republic collapses.)

1925 - The Treaty of Manila recognises the Kingdoms of Tibet, Siking, Mongolia, and Manchuria, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of China (the KMT), and the increased UK, French, and Japanese claims. Manchuria is very much a Japanese client, and the KMT has significant US support.

Q.E.D.

Simon ;)
 
I would say probably the best PoDs would either be a failure of the Qin to unite China, perhaps by having the Jing Ke's assassnation attempt against Ying Zheng succeed. By then he's already destroyed Zhao, but since as I recall he didn't have a clear heir at the time I imagine Qin could break up in a succession struggle.

Alternately, we could have the Han be even more heavily influenced by the Confucians then they were in OTL, resulting in the total dissassembly of the centralised structure set up by the Qin and a full return to feudalism. I'd have to agree that after the Han it's pretty well impossible for China to not at least have a drive towards unification. Certainly though it is possible that China could either never be unified after one of it's collapses, or alternately be unified in name only, with power cliques, warlords, and regional intersts leaving the central government powerless.
 
Hendryk said:
Frankly, I don't think it's possible to have a unified China become a mere myth if the POD is after Marco Polo. I don't even think it's possible if it's any time after the Han dynasty. Consider Europe: the Western Roman empire fell in the fifth century, but its legacy lived on in the guise of the HRE until 1807.
The latest possible POD, IMHO, is an early death of Ying Zheng, the king of Qin, before he had a chance to annex the six other kingdoms and set himself as First Emperor. That would also preempt the unification of the written language, and enable the various regional dialects to become languages in their own right, complete with mutually unintelligible character systems. But even then, the Confucian clerical class would maintain a de facto transnational network, much like the Church in medieval Christendom, with Zhou-era literary Mandarin being used as the lingua franca.
Sure it is... After Marco Polo leaves seris of metorites hit the earth all in China killing off every single female of chiness desent....the males die of shock. :D
 
16 kingdoms era lasts longer then otl?
Some nations were lost causes but you should be able to get around half a dozen.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
reformer said:
No China, no state controlled completely chinese, at least 7 states must be in the area. Chinese is not viewed as an ethnicity or a national group. Different Chinese dialiects are viewed as different languages. Ancient China is viewed bassically as a myth.

Any POD works, but bonus if its after Marco Polo (making even more Europeans believe he made it up because it isn' there)

No Nerchinsk, the Russians get involved in a major war with the Manchu just as they are taking over China. Upshot many decades down the line is a Russian cadet line in Peking, and independent Southern states in China, with a Ming survival in Taiwan

Or see my 'Plethora of Princes' thread for ideas of the 1850s-1870s, an Imperial and a Taiping China, independent Kashgaria, Tibet, Korea and Southern lands under their own rulers

Grey Wolf
 

Faeelin

Banned
I'm not so sure China's unification is so ineveitable. If you look at China prior to the Tang, and after the Han, you have:

a) The Three Kingdoms 220-280

b) The Jin, from 265-420

c) Period of Sixteen Kingdoms 304-439

Then you have a period of disunity and wars between the North and South, until the Jui arrive.

The Jui last between 581 and 618. And then China again falls into civil war, until the Tang.

So it seems to me that the unification of China isn't guaranteed at all.
 

Hendryk

Banned
David S Poepoe said:
A synopsis of The Unparalleled Invasion by Jack London
I just checked that short story. Disturbing to say the least. So a mainstream writer could, at the turn of the twentieth century, quietly speculate on the genocide of a quarter of mankind, and nobody would raise an eyebrow.
What made the average Westerner in the early twentieth century both so nihilistically arrogant and so violence-prone that popular fiction could accommodate such works? And, more crucially, what does it say about Western civilization at its apex? Should one be surprised that within ten years, mankind would become acquainted with poison gaz, and within forty, with extermination camps?
Read for yourselves:

Had the reader again been in Peking, six weeks later, he would have looked in vain for the eleven million inhabitants. Some few of them he would have found, a few hundred thousand, perhaps, their carcasses festering in the houses and in the deserted streets, and piled high on the abandoned death-waggons. But for the rest he would have had to seek along the highways and byways of the Empire. And not all would he have found fleeing from plague-stricken Peking, for behind them, by hundreds of thousands of unburied corpses by the wayside, he could have marked their flight. And as it was with Peking, so it was with all the cities, towns, and villages of the Empire. The plague smote them all. Nor was it one plague, nor two plagues; it was a score of plagues. Every virulent form of infectious death stalked through the land. Too late the Chinese government apprehended the meaning of the colossal preparations, the marshalling of the world-hosts, the flights of the tin airships, and the rain of the tubes of glass. The proclamations of the government were vain. They could not stop the eleven million plague-stricken wretches, fleeing from the one city of Peking to spread disease through all the land. The physicians and health officers died at their posts; and death, the all- conqueror, rode over the decrees of the Emperor and Li Tang Fwung. It rode over them as well, for Li Tang Fwung died in the second week, and the Emperor, hidden away in the Summer Palace, died in the fourth week.

Had there been one plague, China might have coped with it. But from a score of plagues no creature was immune. The man who escaped smallpox went down before scarlet fever. The man who was immune to yellow fever was carried away by cholera; and if he were immune to that, too, the Black Death, which was the bubonic plague, swept him away. For it was these bacteria, and germs, and microbes, and bacilli, cultured in the laboratories of the West, that had come down upon China in the rain of glass.

All organization vanished. The government crumbled away. Decrees and proclamations were useless when the men who made them and signed them one moment were dead the next. Nor could the maddened millions, spurred on to flight by death, pause to heed anything. They fled from the cities to infect the country, and wherever they fled they carried the plagues with them. The hot summer was on - Jacobus Laningdale had selected the time shrewdly - and the plague festered everywhere. Much is conjectured of what occurred, and much has been learned from the stories of the few survivors. The wretched creatures stormed across the Empire in many-millioned flight. The vast armies China had collected on her frontiers melted away. The farms were ravaged for food, and no more crops were planted, while the crops already in were left unattended and never came to harvest. The most remarkable thing, perhaps, was the flights. Many millions engaged in them, charging to the bounds of the Empire to be met and turned back by the gigantic armies of the West. The slaughter of the mad hosts on the boundaries was stupendous. Time and again the guarding line was drawn back twenty or thirty miles to escape the contagion of the multitudinous dead.

Once the plague broke through and seized upon the German and Austrian soldiers who were guarding the borders of Turkestan. Preparations had been made for such a happening, and though sixty thousand soldiers of Europe were carried off, the international corps of physicians isolated the contagion and dammed it back. It was during this struggle that it was suggested that a new plague- germ had originated, that in some way or other a sort of hybridization between plague-germs had taken place, producing a new and frightfully virulent germ. First suspected by Vomberg, who became infected with it and died, it was later isolated and studied by Stevens, Hazenfelt, Norman, and Landers.

Such was the unparalleled invasion of China. For that billion of people there was no hope. Pent in their vast and festering charnel-house, all organization and cohesion lost, they could do naught but die. They could not escape. As they were flung back from their land frontiers, so were they flung back from the sea. Seventy-five thousand vessels patrolled the coasts. By day their smoking funnels dimmed the sea-rim, and by night their flashing searchlights ploughed the dark and harrowed it for the tiniest escaping junk. The attempts of the immense fleets of junks were pitiful. Not one ever got by the guarding sea-hounds. Modern war- machinery held back the disorganized mass of China, while the plagues did the work.

But old War was made a thing of laughter. Naught remained to him but patrol duty. China had laughed at war, and war she was getting, but it was ultra-modern war, twentieth century war, the war of the scientist and the laboratory, the war of Jacobus Laningdale. Hundred-ton guns were toys compared with the micro- organic projectiles hurled from the laboratories, the messengers of death, the destroying angels that stalked through the empire of a billion souls.

During all the summer and fall of 1976 China was an inferno. There was no eluding the microscopic projectiles that sought out the remotest hiding-places. The hundreds of millions of dead remained unburied and the germs multiplied themselves, and, toward the last, millions died daily of starvation. Besides, starvation weakened the victims and destroyed their natural defences against the plagues. Cannibalism, murder, and madness reigned. And so perished China.

Not until the following February, in the coldest weather, were the first expeditions made. These expeditions were small, composed of scientists and bodies of troops; but they entered China from every side. In spite of the most elaborate precautions against infection, numbers of soldiers and a few of the physicians were stricken. But the exploration went bravely on. They found China devastated, a howling wilderness through which wandered bands of wild dogs and desperate bandits who had survived. All survivors were put to death wherever found.
 
Faeelin said:
I'm not so sure China's unification is so ineveitable. If you look at China prior to the Tang, and after the Han, you have:

a) The Three Kingdoms 220-280

b) The Jin, from 265-420

c) Period of Sixteen Kingdoms 304-439

Then you have a period of disunity and wars between the North and South, until the Jui arrive.

The Jui last between 581 and 618. And then China again falls into civil war, until the Tang.

So it seems to me that the unification of China isn't guaranteed at all.

And yet in the end China was unified. It keeps breaking up and then coming together again. Even when it was not unified, the major component parts, as I understand it, wanted to unify, and claimed to have the mandate to rule all of China, that's the way China seems to work.
 
Just to disturb you a little bit more: A few hundred years earlier, the Catholic Church discussed seriously (on behalf of slave traders and *colony-founders*), whether Amerindians were humans or "something" below human. One of the few times where the catholic church arrived at an acceptable conclusion.
 

Hendryk

Banned
NFR said:
And yet in the end China was unified. It keeps breaking up and then coming together again.
Exactly. Chinese history goes through a cyclical dynamic of unification/division. It has indeed been divided as often as not, but every time the gravitational pull of a common culture, a sense of shared destiny, and the inherent centralizing tendencies of bureaucratic rule has brought it together again. In order for that cycle to break down permanently would require serious historical alterations, and thus an early POD.
Incidentally, it's an open question as to whether the Taiwanese issue might turn out to be an exception to the rule. It would seem that Taiwan, once seen as just a bit of China awaiting reabsorption, is turning into a viable offshoot of the Chinese civilization, with its own national identity. But while cultural self-assertion is pushing it away, economics is pulling it back into the Chinese orbit; which trend will prevail in the long run is anybody's guess.
 

Faeelin

Banned
NFR said:
And yet in the end China was unified. It keeps breaking up and then coming together again. Even when it was not unified, the major component parts, as I understand it, wanted to unify, and claimed to have the mandate to rule all of China, that's the way China seems to work.

Really? Let's consider Rome.

Let's take the date of 100 BC as marking the beginning of European domination. This lasts until, oh, 476 AD.

But in the East, the Roman Empire survives (analogous to the north/south split in China, perhaps? Hmm.) It reconquers, in the early sixth century, Italy, Africa, and Southern Spain.

Okay, so everything muddles along for a while. The Arabs come, and take the southern half of the Mediterranean; and only a few bad breaks prevent them from taking all of it.

Then Charlemagne, and his son Louis the Pious, unite Germany, France, Italy, and northern Spain. In the beginning of the 11th century, Otto's Holy Roman Empire becomes dominant over much of Europe; even Henry II acknowledged that he owed Frederick Barbarossa homage.

After Frederick II, we have a period in which the Papacy seems to be dominant across Europe, until the Avignon Captivity. It's not a centralized state (although, beauracracy, imposing punishments on kings?) but it might be moving in that direction.

Then the Hapsburgs try to dominate Europe. And Napoleon manages to pretty much do so, until he foolishly invades Russia.

So clearly China isn't the only bloc to go through periods of unificationa nd division.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Faeelin said:
So clearly China isn't the only bloc to go through periods of unificationa nd division.
It is indeed interesting to compare how the two major civilizations at either end of the Eurasian landmass have handled their centrifugal and centripetal forces over the millennia. The fact that China has generally been more successful at it can't obscure the fact that Europe, too, has its own unification/division cycle. And I wish people would learn to appreciate the (currently stalled) process of European integration for what it is, the first time in the long history of Europe that its political unification might be achieved peacefully and democratically.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Hendryk said:
It is indeed interesting to compare how the two major civilizations at either end of the Eurasian landmass have handled their centrifugal and centripetal forces over the millennia. The fact that China has generally been more successful at it can't obscure the fact that Europe, too, has its own unification/division cycle. And I wish people would learn to appreciate the (currently stalled) process of European integration for what it is, the first time in the long history of Europe that its political unification might be achieved peacefully and democratically.

Mhm.

The other thing to consider is that perhaps Europe, or at least the Mediterranean world, is naturally easier to unite than China. After all, it's easier to move goods and ships by sea....
 
I don't think that's historically borne out; the HRE never held a significant amount of northern Africa or the Near East, Alexander never got west of the Balkans, Napoleon stopped at the Straits of Gibraltar, and so forth. While maintaining a trans-Mediterranean empire is fairly easy, establishing one is more difficult than dominating the mass of land in China.
 
Top