Let us assume that for whatever reason, the East Asian nations be it Japan, a Chinese state, Korea, Vietnam, etc. end up reaching outward to spread their influence and defend mercentile interests. And let us assume this "East Asian Age of Discovery" begins sometime between 1200 and 1600. I'm not so much interested in a discussion of "why" here (could be a more open dynasty in China be it Yuan or a state founded by a merchant like Zhang Shicheng, or successful Kenmu restoration in Japan mostly averting the Sengoku era or a trade-focused Japan like the Nobunaga's Ambition TL), I'm more interested in what happens to the myriad of Pacific islands. Anyway, it is clear that the Pacific Islands are going to be, at best, a secondary route to the New World by any East Asian power--the distance is simply too long and they'd need to know there's something on the other side. But it would be a route, if they discovered the Manila galleon route, which would lead to wealthy indigenous civilisations (or whatever Europeans conquer them). The other route to North America leads to much poorer tribes in Alaska and the PNW, so the lengthy Pacific route has some appeal.
A look at a map shows that the Izu Islands of Japan (part of the Imperial Japanese state since its inception) are immediately north of the Bonin Islands (settled by Japanese in the Edo Period, likely inhabited by Micronesians several centuries prior) which are themselves immediately north of the Marianas and Guam. These islands are about as far from Japan as they are from China, with the nearest large landmass being the Philippines. IOTL Guam and the Marianas were important stops for Spain's Manila galleons--their native people were decimated from these encounters with the Spanish to the point only a few hundred survived and even their language (modern Chamorro) is incredibly infused with Spanish. In the modern age as the Marianas came under Japanese rule, nearly 90% of the population was Japanese at the eve of WW2.
That statistic from Japan's South Seas Mandate (of which in total 3/5 of the population were Japanese, 2/5 indigenous Micronesians/Polynesian outliers) leads me to wonder if these areas would inevitably have been swamped by East Asian settlers if there had been a serious interest on the part of those states. Japan and especially China had no problem exporting surplus population. Their populations were relatively small, often dependent on fragile trade networks (which as they collapsed would lead to permanent abandonment as OTL), and vulnerable to introduced disease. East Asian states bring institutions like Confucianism and Buddhism and the concept of "civilising barbarians" as was practiced on a myriad of groups in China and on the Emishi in Japan. So would they end up completely assimilated within a few centuries?
On the other hand, the mid-2nd millennium was somewhat of a golden age in the Pacific. The Polynesians hit their peak expansion as they settled New Zealand and likely reached South America. Civilisations like Nan Madol and Lelu thrived in Micronesia, and elsewhere states like the Tu'i Tonga Empire commanded wide influence. Many islands abandoned when Europeans found them in the 18th-19th centuries OTL were still inhabited. Considering that East Asian states were more interested in mercentile ventures (i.e. early Chinese settlement on Taiwan or Japanese settlement on Hokkaido), it seems possible these small islands could approach the East Asians on their own terms. Beside a few important islands (i.e. the Marianas/Guam), they be encountering castaways and unimportant merchants rather than well-connected figures. These states could use East Asians to revitalise their wealth and might and assert themselves, and perhaps play off the East Asian states against each other, or against European states who by the 17th century may be exploring in this era.
Thoughts? Is the demography certain to lead to the Pacific being a mere extension of East Asia, or would East Asian presence be no more prevelant than European presence in the Pacific is today (i.e. mostly political outside of a few islands like Hawaii)?
A look at a map shows that the Izu Islands of Japan (part of the Imperial Japanese state since its inception) are immediately north of the Bonin Islands (settled by Japanese in the Edo Period, likely inhabited by Micronesians several centuries prior) which are themselves immediately north of the Marianas and Guam. These islands are about as far from Japan as they are from China, with the nearest large landmass being the Philippines. IOTL Guam and the Marianas were important stops for Spain's Manila galleons--their native people were decimated from these encounters with the Spanish to the point only a few hundred survived and even their language (modern Chamorro) is incredibly infused with Spanish. In the modern age as the Marianas came under Japanese rule, nearly 90% of the population was Japanese at the eve of WW2.
That statistic from Japan's South Seas Mandate (of which in total 3/5 of the population were Japanese, 2/5 indigenous Micronesians/Polynesian outliers) leads me to wonder if these areas would inevitably have been swamped by East Asian settlers if there had been a serious interest on the part of those states. Japan and especially China had no problem exporting surplus population. Their populations were relatively small, often dependent on fragile trade networks (which as they collapsed would lead to permanent abandonment as OTL), and vulnerable to introduced disease. East Asian states bring institutions like Confucianism and Buddhism and the concept of "civilising barbarians" as was practiced on a myriad of groups in China and on the Emishi in Japan. So would they end up completely assimilated within a few centuries?
On the other hand, the mid-2nd millennium was somewhat of a golden age in the Pacific. The Polynesians hit their peak expansion as they settled New Zealand and likely reached South America. Civilisations like Nan Madol and Lelu thrived in Micronesia, and elsewhere states like the Tu'i Tonga Empire commanded wide influence. Many islands abandoned when Europeans found them in the 18th-19th centuries OTL were still inhabited. Considering that East Asian states were more interested in mercentile ventures (i.e. early Chinese settlement on Taiwan or Japanese settlement on Hokkaido), it seems possible these small islands could approach the East Asians on their own terms. Beside a few important islands (i.e. the Marianas/Guam), they be encountering castaways and unimportant merchants rather than well-connected figures. These states could use East Asians to revitalise their wealth and might and assert themselves, and perhaps play off the East Asian states against each other, or against European states who by the 17th century may be exploring in this era.
Thoughts? Is the demography certain to lead to the Pacific being a mere extension of East Asia, or would East Asian presence be no more prevelant than European presence in the Pacific is today (i.e. mostly political outside of a few islands like Hawaii)?
