Could China balkanize?

[Rakhasa]

A common assumption I have seen in this forum is than the sucession of Chinese dinasties was inevitable -dinasty conquers, dinasty corrupts, dinasty falls, chaos, new dinasty conquers.

But I honestly do not see why is was so inevitable, specially on the first milleniun or so (afterwards probably the idea of the Middle Kingdom was simply too entrenched). Most of the things than made an united China across the centuries possibe were found in Rome (a road network, a common bureacracy, a common language). Even after Rome fell, for one thousand years latin was the spoken and writen language of the literate class, even after the Romance languages became mutually unintelligible. This also happens even today in China, where quite a few versions of "chinese" are spoken.

In fact, Rome had something than China lacked: a common, centralized religion.

So my challenge is, with a POD after the collapse on whichever chinese dinasty you prefer, turn china into a continent of indepentent nations like Europe.

 

[iori]

I don't know enough about Chinese history before 1850 to do a far back one so I'll go with what I know.

The Qing Dynasty begins to fall apart in the late 19th century, with an initial Republic being declared in say 1890 and subsequently the country falls int the chaos of the equivalent of the warlord era, however this itself goes on differently, rather than the ROC managing to unite the country it only manages to united the Eastern half of South China while the rest of the country eventually becomes formal countries and, after a decade or two of the factions who actually want to conquer the other still trying they come to realize that the effort is fruitless and will only end in their own defeat and loss of territory,e specially as several factions who are content with their current territories would be receiving European backing.

 

[Typo]

China proper had the sort of geography that Rome lacked for long-term unification.

 

[Dante]

China did balkanize early in its history, it's called the warring states period. The dukes of the last Zhou King started calling themselves kings and their little dukedoms became independent kingdoms, eventually they were all conqured by the Kingdom of Qin who had risen to be a regional power. What if we have another two kingdoms have a similar rise to power, then we have three powerfull states who will be counter balances to eachother, two states won't want to fight if the third is sitting just waiting to take advantage, and i doubt that two states would team up to take out the third. If you want an example of this look at the book 1984. My eastern history is kinda shaky, but i think that if these three states can remain seperate entities for long enough it may destroy the idea of a Middle Kingdom and open China up to even more balkanazation.

 

[Nugax]

China has a geographic and ethnic unity that Rome lacked, so I think a long term disunity is unlikely. What is quite plausible is abrading off the various peripheral regions that have geographic defenses and didn't have a Han supermajority till relatively recently - Tibet, Turkestan, Greater Mongolia, Manchuria, Taiwan, something out of Yunnan, something out of Guangxi, and maybe something in the mountain west if politics allow. But you'd still have a China in the centre, and it'd still be big, and very hard to divide into subunits without some guy converting a momentary advantage into Emperorship.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

Okay, I know it's generally accepted (thanks to Jared Diamond) that China has "geographical unity", but frankly even a quick study of Chinese geography reveals a LOT of rivers and very steep mountains and highlands over much of the geographical whole. With the exception of the Yellow and Yangste river deltas basin (Hebei, Shadong, Jiangsu, Henan, etc.) the rest is pretty geographically unforgiving.

I guess the "wealth" of this lowland zone is a good springboard for expansion, but even if we assume the lowland region is guaranteed to be unified what about Hunan? Sechuan? Guangxi? Mongolia? Xinjiang?

IMO independent "highland" kingdoms are perfectly reasonable geographically, culturally, and historically.

But to answer the OP, yea, it happened OTL in various "warring states" periods. And baring the "inevitable geographically-preordained" reunification, is reasonable to expect periods, even extended ones, of "Balkanization".

 

[Malta]

I think China has balkanized and could easily Balkanize in a number of points in its history.
Oneof theproblems to permanent balkanization though is with the role of the Son of Heaven, a goal that would have any would be warlord to push for complete conquering of 'China'.

 

[Nugax]

Okay, I know it's generally accepted (thanks to Jared Diamond) that China has "geographical unity", but frankly even a quick study of Chinese geography reveals a LOT of rivers and very steep mountains and highlands over much of the geographical whole. With the exception of the Yellow and Yangste river deltas basin (Hebei, Shadong, Jiangsu, Henan, etc.) the rest is pretty geographically unforgiving.

I guess the "wealth" of this lowland zone is a good springboard for expansion, but even if we assume the lowland region is guaranteed to be unified what about Hunan? Sechuan? Guangxi? Mongolia? Xinjiang?

IMO independent "highland" kingdoms are perfectly reasonable geographically, culturally, and historically.

But to answer the OP, yea, it happened OTL in various "warring states" periods. And baring the "inevitable geographically-preordained" reunification, is reasonable to expect periods, even extended ones, of "Balkanization".

Rivers generally make piss-poor boundaries between states (though they make good demarkers for internal boundaries), as as soon as you have boats (especially on the wide slow rivers of china) they become means of access and sources of irrigation, not exclusion. In Europe look at how power built around the Danube, the Rhine, the Seine etc.

As to the mountains, unlike Europe which is cut into units by seas and mountains that run right up to the coast, China has one huge coastal plains unit covering nearly a million square kilometers that commands and cuts off the mountain regions from the sea. I'm not saying that china isn't geographically divided, but that the primary geo-economic node is so much larger and better positioned than the others that it will inevitably dominate. Also that this polity would effectively be China with over 60%+ of the total population and a greater fraction of the wealth, even France at its height had less than a quarter of Europe's population.

 

[J.D.Ward]

Oneof theproblems to permanent balkanization though is with the role of the Son of Heaven, a goal that would have any would be warlord to push for complete conquering of 'China'.

I don't see a problem here. Think of the Holy Roman Empire - one Emperor, many independent states.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

Rivers generally make piss-poor boundaries between states (though they make good demarkers for internal boundaries), as as soon as you have boats (especially on the wide slow rivers of china) they become means of access and sources of irrigation, not exclusion. In Europe look at how power built around the Danube, the Rhine, the Seine etc.

As to the mountains, unlike Europe which is cut into units by seas and mountains that run right up to the coast, China has one huge coastal plains unit covering nearly a million square kilometers that commands and cuts off the mountain regions from the sea. I'm not saying that china isn't geographically divided, but that the primary geo-economic node is so much larger and better positioned than the others that it will inevitably dominate. Also that this polity would effectively be China with over 60%+ of the total population and a greater fraction of the wealth, even France at its height had less than a quarter of Europe's population.

That makes sense, actually, and helps explain a lot OTL; however, I still don't think this automatically foreordains semipermanent political and cultural unity, just makes it much more likely.

Also, considering the natural transportation and communication links provided by the Mediterranean, isn't a semipermanent political and cultural Rome ala the OTL "Middle Kingdom" possible?

 

[Doraemon]

That makes sense, actually, and helps explain a lot OTL; however, I still don't think this automatically foreordains semipermanent political and cultural unity, just makes it much more likely.

Also, considering the natural transportation and communication links provided by the Mediterranean, isn't a semipermanent political and cultural Rome ala the OTL "Middle Kingdom" possible?

I'm not exactly sure what happened to the north of the Mediterranean that didn't lead to the semipermanent political and cultural country, but it did happen south of it. Think the Byzantines, then the Umayyad Caliphate, then the Abbasid Caliphate, Fatimid Caliphate, then Almohad dynasty, then the Ottomans, etc, which all controlled a large portion of North Africa almost continuously since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I think the problem with Europe was the the population had depth. In Africa and China, much of the population was concentrated on the coasts, with nearly nothing in the interior. In Europe however, there were also huge population centers along the North Sea and Atlantic Coasts. So, if a power controlled a strip of land on one side of Europe, the south or north would simply capture it. So, it might have naturally led to countries that stretch from North to South.

 

[Dante]

I never thought of it like that. Interesting

 

[Solomaxwell6]

I don't know enough about Chinese history before 1850 to do a far back one so I'll go with what I know.

The Qing Dynasty begins to fall apart in the late 19th century, with an initial Republic being declared in say 1890 and subsequently the country falls int the chaos of the equivalent of the warlord era, however this itself goes on differently, rather than the ROC managing to unite the country it only manages to united the Eastern half of South China while the rest of the country eventually becomes formal countries and, after a decade or two of the factions who actually want to conquer the other still trying they come to realize that the effort is fruitless and will only end in their own defeat and loss of territory,e specially as several factions who are content with their current territories would be receiving European backing.

To add to this, could we see European nations use China as an extension of Africa, and divide it up and colonize? They already had their spheres of influence, and with China falling apart, they might formally snap up the countries that fall in their own areas. So we see a divided China between 1890 and the 50s or 60s or so at the earliest (assuming de-colonization begins at roughly the same time period). 60-70 years is enough to give each of them a unique identity, especially since they'd be partially infused with the culture of their respective colonizing nations.

China did balkanize early in its history, it's called the warring states period. The dukes of the last Zhou King started calling themselves kings and their little dukedoms became independent kingdoms, eventually they were all conqured by the Kingdom of Qin who had risen to be a regional power. What if we have another two kingdoms have a similar rise to power, then we have three powerfull states who will be counter balances to eachother, two states won't want to fight if the third is sitting just waiting to take advantage, and i doubt that two states would team up to take out the third. If you want an example of this look at the book 1984. My eastern history is kinda shaky, but i think that if these three states can remain seperate entities for long enough it may destroy the idea of a Middle Kingdom and open China up to even more balkanazation.

True, true, but that might still not be enough. China was historically split into three powerful pieces for a while (the Three Kingdoms Era, from the end of the Han to the beginning of the Jin). It still ended up together. You definitely might be on to something; I was actually thinking of the Warring States period myself upon entering the thread, but if you can find an additional way to split them culturally/ethnically/religiously, it might be a bit better.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I think the overall cohesion of Chinese culture is important as well. China transited from a feudal state to unified empire since the 250s B.C. The concept of one China is very very ancient.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

I'm not exactly sure what happened to the north of the Mediterranean that didn't lead to the semipermanent political and cultural country, but it did happen south of it. Think the Byzantines, then the Umayyad Caliphate, then the Abbasid Caliphate, Fatimid Caliphate, then Almohad dynasty, then the Ottomans, etc, which all controlled a large portion of North Africa almost continuously since the fall of the Roman Empire.

I think the problem with Europe was the the population had depth. In Africa and China, much of the population was concentrated on the coasts, with nearly nothing in the interior. In Europe however, there were also huge population centers along the North Sea and Atlantic Coasts. So, if a power controlled a strip of land on one side of Europe, the south or north would simply capture it. So, it might have naturally led to countries that stretch from North to South.

Good stuff, Emperor! Thanks!

 

[tallwingedgoat]

China did balkanize after the Han dynasty. It was the closest thing to the fall of Rome. Then there was the Three Kingdoms, the turbulent Jin dynasty, Sixteen Kingdoms, North and South dynasties, before the Sui dynasty finally put Humpty Dumpty back together again. That was three and a half centuries of balkanization.

However unlike Rome, China did reunite. I think the reason is two fold. One is technological, as in the invention of paper which created a common literary culture with deep penetration plus an entrenched dual purpose bureaucratic/clerical class. Second is Confucianism, the religion of the aforementioned class, which taught that there can be only one civilized China and one true ruler.

Most people don't think of the Chinese as religious, but actually on matters of land, people, history, Confucianism is quite dogmatic. Imagine if the Christian Bible required a unified Christiandom as its central premise. For the same reason, even today China place unification with Taiwan very high on its priorities. Deep down the concept of unification is an internalized religious requirement, just like the concept of recovering Jerusalem to Abrahamic religions.

 

[Hashasheen]

Okay, I know it's generally accepted (thanks to Jared Diamond) that China has "geographical unity", but frankly even a quick study of Chinese geography reveals a LOT of rivers and very steep mountains and highlands over much of the geographical whole. With the exception of the Yellow and Yangste river deltas basin (Hebei, Shadong, Jiangsu, Henan, etc.) the rest is pretty geographically unforgiving.

I guess the "wealth" of this lowland zone is a good springboard for expansion, but even if we assume the lowland region is guaranteed to be unified what about Hunan? Sechuan? Guangxi? Mongolia? Xinjiang?

IMO independent "highland" kingdoms are perfectly reasonable geographically, culturally, and historically.

This post made me think of a Warcraft-esque China.

 

[Tyr]

The trouble with a unified lowlands and kingdoms surrounding that is that is what Chinese history has been at many points.
The trouble is though the lowlands are so rich, they will be far more powerful than the highlanders- however the presence of the outer regions makes these rich ones feel insecure so they have to create a buffer and thus conquer them.

 

[Mostlyharmless]

Most people don't think of the Chinese as religious, but actually on matters of land, people, history, Confucianism is quite dogmatic. Imagine if the Christian Bible required a unified Christiandom as its central premise.

Confucianism may only have became dominant during the Han period. During the Warring States period, there were other views such as Mohism that were much less likely to help with unification (i.e. belief in the morality of defensive rather than offensive wars).

The unification by Qin might not have occured if Ba and Shu had united and been able to resist Qin behind mountainous frontiers (perhaps with support from Chu). A strong non-Sinicized state could not have unified China itself and might have tended to oppose any other state aiming at unification.

 

[rcduggan]

China did balkanize after the Han dynasty. It was the closest thing to the fall of Rome. Then there was the Three Kingdoms, the turbulent Jin dynasty, Sixteen Kingdoms, North and South dynasties, before the Sui dynasty finally put Humpty Dumpty back together again. That was three and a half centuries of balkanization.

Only to see it fall apart again after the Tang dynasty collapsed. What followed was a half-century of civil war known as the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period.

One could argue China was at least somewhat Balkanized until the thirteenth century. There were three dynasties at the time - Song, Liao, and Western Xia. IIRC, the Ming Dynasty began to balkanize near the end as well. But it's more of a historiographical convention to disregard the rebellions and warlords and treat the succession to Qing as a near-unbroken one.

Perhaps a good POD for the balkanization of China would be for the Jurchen / Manchu to be defeated in their invasion of China. The Ming Dynasty is in terminal decline at this point, to the country could conceivably collapse (alliteration FTW!) into a new warlord period.