More Expansionist Ming

RousseauX

Donor
Siberia has gold, you know that? One discovery can lead to a gold rush. And plus, if Mongolia is barren how are the Mongols able to find good horse pasture? The region can be like American cowboys raising cattle- there just needs to be settlers.
Works in the American West in the 19th century because the Indians were not an actual great military threat.

But if this was the 15th century or w/e ranching supports a pretty low population density which means it gets pretty much impossible to actually defend against a nomadic threat.
 
If Manchuria is good then would China go there? And then to Siberia?

China never managed to directly seize and retain Manchuria (the southern region generally remained "Korean" for over two millennia until the 10th century AD), mostly because they had been continuously settled by nomads for millennia. Specifically, they only came under China's direct "control" before the 20th century during the Yuan and Qing, both of which were founded by nomadic foreigners, while the Tang only managed to hold the southern portions for 30 years. In addition, widespread settlements by Han Chinese did not occur until the 18-19th centuries, although most of the dynasties managed to retain control over Liaodong. Not only would it have been virtually impossible for the Chinese to completely adopt the nomadic way of life for various reasons, attempting to widely utilize gunpowder would also not have made a significant difference in the long run, as the Jurchens, Mongols, and Manchus all adopted them IOTL when confronting China militarily after either learning techniques from the Chinese, or capturing them directly in battle.

In terms of the climate, "Manchuria" north of the Songhua River would have been virtually indistinguishable from the rest of Siberia, and the Chinese most likely would not have viewed either as particularly profitable, mostly due to their relatively sparse resources and populations. In any case, any Chinese dynasty would first have to overrun either Central Asia or Northeast Asia (specifically Manchuria) before attempting to expand into Siberia, which would be difficult as long as nomads continued to exist in both regions.
 
Does anyone know some good maps for a bigger China?

If you go on Chinese wikipedia for the Tang dynasty, Yuan dynasty, Han dynasty etc. (just go to the English wikipedia entry and then change the language in the sidebar for 中文), some of the maps there show a pretty... expansive realm for these dynasties.

It's kind of ridiculous. A map for the Qing Dynasty shows the Empire in control of Afghanistan and parts of Persia.
 
If you go on Chinese wikipedia for the Tang dynasty, Yuan dynasty, Han dynasty etc. (just go to the English wikipedia entry and then change the language in the sidebar for 中文), some of the maps there show a pretty... expansive realm for these dynasties.

It's kind of ridiculous. A map for the Qing Dynasty shows the Empire in control of Afghanistan and parts of Persia.

Those maps are the ones that are used in China, and as usual there are those who are unwilling to admit the reality and say that those maps are exaggerated.

Have you seen the map of Tang dynasty in the English section of Wikipedia ?

It's really ridiculous how small the map is compared to the actual map of Tang dynasty where some parts are colored deep orange which is directly under Tang and others are vassals or important states such as Tubo (colored in pink).

Even the Japanese version of the map is better compared to the English version.

Tang's total area at its peak is not that much smaller compared to the Qing's era.
 
Last edited:
If you go on Chinese wikipedia for the Tang dynasty, Yuan dynasty, Han dynasty etc. (just go to the English wikipedia entry and then change the language in the sidebar for 中文), some of the maps there show a pretty... expansive realm for these dynasties.

It's kind of ridiculous. A map for the Qing Dynasty shows the Empire in control of Afghanistan and parts of Persia.

I meant Alternate History ones.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Not only would it have been virtually impossible for the Chinese to completely adopt the nomadic way of life for various reasons, attempting to widely utilize gunpowder would also not have made a significant difference in the long run, as the Jurchens, Mongols, and Manchus all adopted them IOTL when confronting China militarily after either learning techniques from the Chinese, or capturing them directly in battle.

On the other hand, the Russians were able to adopt to fight nomads. I'm not sure why it would be impossible for a Chinese dynasty, although I agree it would be tougher for the Ming. And gunpowder isn't something you can just pick up; even if nomads adopt it and use it(as they did in OTL) they will be less effective with it (as they were OTL).
 
Last edited:

Faeelin

Banned
If you can make the Ming use gunpowder, and have the Mongolian tribes actually be integrated into Ming governance, I'd argue that Ming expansion will be towards the Tarim Basin like their Han/Tang predecessors. Siberia is just so much empty land from the Ming point of view, and expansion in Southeast Asia is too much pain for too little reward.

The Ming did use gunpowder. The problem was that carrying cannons into Mongolia is not a panacea that makes your armies invincible, and in fact they can slow down your advance and bog down supply lines.
 
On the other hand, the Russians were able to adopt to fight nomads. I'm not sure why it would be impossible for a Chiense dynasty, although I agree it would be tougher for the Ming. And gunpowder isn't something you can just pick up; even if nomads adopt it and use it(as they did in OTL) they will be less effective with it (as they were OTL).

Exactly, after all the Chinese was the one who invented it in the first place.

Yuan ChongHuan from the Ming dynasty kicked Nurhaci and Hong Taiji's asses hard.

Taken from wikipedia :

"It is noted that Yuan was said to have studied every aspect of the cannon for it to fire accurately at the position he wanted, and this is given as the reason why the Manchu ruler Nurhaci, although well-protected by his elite guards in a safe position, was wounded by cannon fire."

It was the idiocy of ChongZhen emperor believing Yuan ChongHuan "betrayal" which was propagated by Hong Taiji and had him executed, sealed the fate of Ming dynasty.

Taken from wikipedia :

"Huang Taiji publicly stated that he would never be able to beat Yuan in a fair game, thus having the Chongzhen Emperor kill him was the only method to get rid of him. ..."
 
Those maps are the ones that are used in China, and as usual there are those who are unwilling to admit the reality and say that those maps are exaggerated.

. . .

Tang's total area at its peak is not that much smaller compared to the Qing's era.

Yes, but regarding the English Wikipedia, the Qing directly ruled most of the area depicted for over two centuries, while the Tang only managed to hold most of Central Asia (~50 years) and Manchuria (~30 years) for several decades, including the fact that its control over the Eastern Göktürks often included granting local rulers various degrees of autonomy. The Tang was also severely weakened by several major rebellions, while the Göktürks and Tibetans took advantage of the chaos to invade China Proper. Even in the Chinese Wikipedia, the first map outlines Tibet and most of Manchuria (although Liaodong might not have remained under direct control for long), indicating that they continued to remain as tributaries, while significant areas of Central Asia are shaded in a lighter orange, and former Goguryeo possessions (which were larger than depicted) are striped, indicating that they did not remain under direct control for long. In addition, dates are provided for each frontier region, suggesting that rule over them was generally tenuous.

As a result, while the Tang's greatest extent might have approached that of the Qing, the two dynasties represent very different scenarios.

On the other hand, the Russians were able to adopt to fight nomads. I'm not sure why it would be impossible for a Chinese dynasty, although I agree it would be tougher for the Ming. And gunpowder isn't something you can just pick up; even if nomads adopt it and use it(as they did in OTL) they will be less effective with it (as they were OTL).

The Ming did use gunpowder. The problem was that carrying cannons into Mongolia is not a panacea that makes your armies invincible, and in fact they can slow down your advance and bog down supply lines.

I think we're in agreement here, then. I didn't say that it would have been impossible for China to temporarily occupy nomadic possessions after consolidating their technological advantages, but attempting to invest expenditures into a significant amount of gunpowder weapons would have eventually drained the treasury in the short term. In addition, attempting to take most of Central Asia and/or Manchuria would have eventually led to significant logistical issues over the long run, as neither area (apart from Liaodong) would have been particularly conducive to widespread settlement at the time, while nomads operating from remote regions would have also continued to strain Chinese resources.

While Russia did manage to rapidly expand to the Pacific Ocean within 50 years or so, the Siberian tribes were also relatively isolated, leaving them with little battle experience. It was also not until the late 19th-early 20th century that Russian control over what became the current -stans was firmly consolidated. In other words, China would have faced similar issues if it had attempted to expand further north under a native dynasty, which would have become worse once natural disasters begin to take their toll on the populace.

Exactly, after all the Chinese was the one who invented it in the first place.

Yuan ChongHuan from the Ming dynasty kicked Nurhaci and Hong Taiji's asses hard.

-Wikipedia quotes-

Yes, but historically, internal division within the Chinese court was often severe, and nomads often used the temporary indecision to regain the offensive. During the Song's war against the Jin, Yue Fei was also arrested (and possibly executed) for similar reasons, suggesting that Yuan Chonghuan's sudden demise was not necessarily an isolated scenario.

While Chinese infighting was not necessarily inevitable in similar scenarios, they would have continued to be major factors, given that the nomads often took advantage of internal Chinese weaknesses to assert their influence, and the collective problems would have been exacerbated as logistical issues gradually became more severe over time.
 
Does anyone know any alternate history maps of a bigger China? I am still waiting for those.

Also, would China be able to conquer Tibet since the region isn't so populated?

Google 'Alternate History China' in google images and there are more than enough maps of a massive China, with different borders and all that, for you.

I'm sure some people will disagree, but if by 'conquer Tibet' you mean like a systematic reduction of every single Tibetan fortress, then the cost/logistics involved would be too much to bother with. Much better to just send an expeditionary force to Lhasa for the Lamas to 'acknowledge' Chinese sovereignty and have that be the end of it.

Ultimately, as many people have pointed out here, the major limiting factor in Chinese expansion is the massive costs that doing such things entails, and this feeds into opposition from the Chinese bureaucracy. It's not about how many people live there... it's more like 'what's the point?'
 
I'm sure some people will disagree, but if by 'conquer Tibet' you mean like a systematic reduction of every single Tibetan fortress, then the cost/logistics involved would be too much to bother with. Much better to just send an expeditionary force to Lhasa for the Lamas to 'acknowledge' Chinese sovereignty and have that be the end of it.

Basically this. The Tang ultimately settled with retaining Tibet as a tributary, although that didn't exactly prevent the latter from sacking Chang'an (the Tang capital) in 765 in conjunction with Uyghur forces. In addition, the Yuan, Ming, and Qing were all content with sending troops in order to enforce their influence over the region, then withdrawing as soon as a Chinese-oriented political faction came to power, instead of attempting to consolidate direct control over Tibet, as logistics would have been strained in rugged terrain.

It's also worth noting that Tibetans currently compose over 90% of the populace within Tibet, despite the fact that the region was directly incorporated into China since 1950.

Regarding to Manchuria, I checked at 1500 AD map, and there were barely any major nomadic tribes existing there, so China could probably slip in and take those. I also found in that map so small, Southeast Asian countries bordering China that the country can take.

The map is here: http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_1500ad.jpg

That map isn't very accurate. This one shows the diversity of Mongol tribes within Central Asia and Western Manchuria (neither was clearly defined at the time) from the 14th to 17th centuries, while Southern and Eastern Manchuria was also composed of various disparate groups, such as the Jurchen (later Manchu), Xibe (who were relocated to Xinjiang around 1700), Daur, and Evenks. While none of them in isolation would have been able to hold out for long against the Chinese, they frequently formed loose federations when China attempted to confront them directly, and all could retreat further into the steppes in order to frequently raid China if the latter attempted to expand significantly northward.

EDIT: The Ming only managed to retain Vietnam for 20 years before they were driven out, so attempting to take the rest of Southeast Asia would have essentially destroyed China both logistically and financially. The Qing also didn't fare any better in the region, and both dynasties ultimately failed due to stiff resistance and hostile terrain (jungles).
 
Last edited:
But what if the Ming Dynasty decided to use gunpowder more? And what if the Ming Dynasty had an expansionist policy? Also, what if the Ming forced the Mongol tribes to rely on them through trade? Something the Romans did.

The ming did use firearms without any trouble.

Regarding to Manchuria, I checked at 1500 AD map, and there were barely any major nomadic tribes existing there, so China could probably slip in and take those. I also found in that map so small, Southeast Asian countries bordering China that the country can take.

The map is here: http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_1500ad.jpg

You realize thats the area that produced the group that would go on to conquer China not long after 1500? Regardless of the accuracy of a series of maps produced by one guy with some time on his hands, even the best of maps are not the land.

Warfare is not a process of just painting the map, regardless of how many strategy games present it as such.
 
In Tibet, there are some regions lower than the Tibet plateau, so those might be taken.

Also, I am now considering a scenario for a Chinese colonial empire. What areas would China most likely colonized assuming the focus is around the Old World? Maybe some trade ports around East Africa, South Africa, the Middle East, and India? Settlements in Philippines, East Indies?
 
Yes, but regarding the English Wikipedia, the Qing directly ruled most of the area depicted for over two centuries, while the Tang only managed to hold most of Central Asia (~50 years) and Manchuria (~30 years) for several decades, including the fact that its control over the Eastern Göktürks often included granting local rulers various degrees of autonomy. The Tang was also severely weakened by several major rebellions, while the Göktürks and Tibetans took advantage of the chaos to invade China Proper. Even in the Chinese Wikipedia, the first map outlines Tibet and most of Manchuria (although Liaodong might not have remained under direct control for long), indicating that they continued to remain as tributaries, while significant areas of Central Asia are shaded in a lighter orange, and former Goguryeo possessions (which were larger than depicted) are striped, indicating that they did not remain under direct control for long. In addition, dates are provided for each frontier region, suggesting that rule over them was generally tenuous.

As a result, while the Tang's greatest extent might have approached that of the Qing, the two dynasties represent very different scenarios.

So what is your point here ?

There is no way to know the exact borders of the reach of any countries, especially in premodern era and how "thoroughly" ruled an area supposedly under a dynasty.

I can also argue that Mongol empire's map is exaggerated with the same excuse that you use.

What different scenarios ? You're not making any sense here.

The reality is that the founders of Qing dynasty got kicked in their asses by a Ming general and it was due to the idiocy of the Ming emperor at that time incapable of making use of the general and even executed him.

It's a classical example of an incompetent ruler incapable of making use of his/her subordinates properly - as what a competent ruler should be able to do.



I think we're in agreement here, then. I didn't say that it would have been impossible for China to temporarily occupy nomadic possessions after consolidating their technological advantages, but attempting to invest expenditures into a significant amount of gunpowder weapons would have eventually drained the treasury in the short term. In addition, attempting to take most of Central Asia and/or Manchuria would have eventually led to significant logistical issues over the long run, as neither area (apart from Liaodong) would have been particularly conducive to widespread settlement at the time, while nomads operating from remote regions would have also continued to strain Chinese resources.

While Russia did manage to rapidly expand to the Pacific Ocean within 50 years or so, the Siberian tribes were also relatively isolated, leaving them with little battle experience. It was also not until the late 19th-early 20th century that Russian control over what became the current -stans was firmly consolidated. In other words, China would have faced similar issues if it had attempted to expand further north under a native dynasty, which would have become worse once natural disasters begin to take their toll on the populace.

Nonsense.

If Russia can do it then there is no reason why China cannot do the same. It's a matter of whether the ruler is a competent one or not.


Yes, but historically, internal division within the Chinese court was often severe, and nomads often used the temporary indecision to regain the offensive. During the Song's war against the Jin, Yue Fei was also arrested (and possibly executed) for similar reasons, suggesting that Yuan Chonghuan's sudden demise was not necessarily an isolated scenario.

While Chinese infighting was not necessarily inevitable in similar scenarios, they would have continued to be major factors, given that the nomads often took advantage of internal Chinese weaknesses to assert their influence, and the collective problems would have been exacerbated as logistical issues gradually became more severe over time.

Nonsense.

You're talking as if internal division is a thing that must happen only with the Chinese.

History has proven that nomads got lots of internal division - various Chinese dynasties has make use of their division.

I don't see any point in continuing further discussion with you. You may not be blatantly anti-China but when it comes to China, you will use any excuses to justify saying China cannot do this or cannot do that.
 
Top