It seems odd to say this, but I would be quite fine with a Great China if it was a proper Confucian empire, not a communist bureaucracy staled-out past its prime. At the very least, the Chinese are an interesting people; the Communists are not. For the same reason, I’d rather deal with mighty Russian, German and Japanese Empires instead of their soulless successors.
As a Chinese, I can tell you that you made some mistake on how the Chinese thinking at that time, ancient Chinese believe that the land they living in is the centre of the entire world, and it is the land of heaven, there was no point for the majority of Chinese people willing to expend oversea, if there no direct interest or threat. And the importance fact is, after looking at the fallen dynasty in Chinese history, China was much more afraid of internal problem, more than external, thats why ancient China was not that interest in expending, they would rather more focus on dealing with internal problem. In fact, the fall of Ming Empire is actually because of rebellion but not Qing Empire. The number of solider dead in civil war is much more than the war against Qing, when the rebels break into Beijing, Qing army is still Beyond the great wall
I think this guy do not know much about actual Chinese history. Also during the Golden Horde era, the Mongols did not fight the Chinese until Genghis Khan's Grandson forced the surrender of the Song, in fact the Song had supported Genghis Khan in his war against the Jurchens, because they were actually the modern day Manchus who had occupied Northern China after the breakup of the Tang Dynasty.
@@chananat Jurchen and Qing Dynasty Manchu bears no blood relations. The Manchu were called Jurchen by the Ming Dynasty because they occupied the same area which the previous Jurchen people had occupied way back in the early Northern Song Dynasty. In reality, the Jurchen had completely assimilated with the Han Chinese by the end of Yuan Dynasty. Even the Qing Emperor, Huang Taiji, denied any blood relations with the Jurchen Jin.
I think the European nations benefited from their small size. With empires usually the larger they become the more resources they need to maintain themselves. Eventually they will reach their maximum size and will grow no further or at least not much further. The European nations were small enough to still expand but they were up against immovable borders so they looked to their colonies.
@@MrMarinus18 the important part is, colonies are always oversea and far away from the mother land, the impact of a rebellion to colonize Empire is much less than a big continue land Empire. For a big Empire like those Chinese Empire, rebellion is usually aimed to overthrow the current central government of the country, but for a colonize Empire, even a rebellion happen, the worst scenario is only losing control of the colony, but the direct impact to the central Government rules over the country is limited.
Very good. I've talked on this myself, and you have some more detail than I have used. There are a few things I would add. You touched on their highly defensible borders, but what's important to me is that within them when there was chaos the systems for supporting their large population broke down and millions starved. The lesson of history is clear in China - chaos is death. That explains their natural bias towards stability and order, and why the bureaucrats had so much sway. China as a colonial empire is very hard to imagine as a result. But you did a great job of it, and of course this century is quite a bit different.
Chinese Ming Navy did invaded 3 countries during the voyage, 2 in Java, 1 in Sri Lanka. but they didnt stay and colonize, the war was fought because of the local regime were trying to rob Ming's Navy.
@@benice6908 nuh uh, the invasion of Palembang in Java was because some Chinese pirate took the city from the local kingdom, who pleaded for assistance from the treasure fleet.
@@rupertgarcia What the hell does it have to do with being Indo Aryan??? U are saying as if Polish and French were happily whinning around for being captured by Nazi Germany!!
@@shubh.bapi_9423 Many were in fact down with Nazi rule at least in France. That's what "Vichy France" was afterall of course many also resisted. I wouldnt imagine it being all that different in Poland. There were near certainly various collaborating groups whole other resisted.
@Xander Smith no the joke is that in an alternate timeline, China would have been a colonial superpower, and then an alt-hist youtuber would make a video titled "What if Europe was a colonial superpower?"
@@derederekat9051 so technically we can say China has enough land so they focused on improving quality of life and food unlike Europeans who focused on weapons and industry to conquer more lands. Therefore China came out weaker
China could have Industrialized during the Spring and Autumn period as it was becoming more divided and competition was high Once Industrialized and Unified Ancient China would have conquered much of Eurasia!
Actually Zheng He's navy did mount naval cannons on board with a maximum range of 800-900 feet. In your timeline of a more expansionist China, its safe to assume its navy would have made a lot more naval technological advancements from Zheng He's day so by the time they come into contact with Europeans, European ships would not only have been outsized, but outgunned.
Very unlikely. The Chinese would not be more advanced because before the europeans arrived, there was no need for new inventions, because there were no wars. China was the undisputed hegemon in the region that nobody would challege anyways, so why invent new technologies for war, if there were no wars. The europeans meanwhile had constant wars ongoing and therefor there was a large need for new technologies that would give them an advantage ober their enemies.
@@whtfl I don't think so. Two big nations competing don't compare to dozens of small nations with equal power that are in war with each other all 5 minutes. China and Japan would not constantly be in war with each other, they would likely make peace for some decades, then fight again, then make peace again. This would slow their technical progress. In europe on the other hand, if two nations made peace, there was always an other nation for a new war, and also, the europeans had much more reasons to fight, because of many small but densely populated territories over wich a conflict could break out. So, the europeans would still have made far more progress in the development of new weapons than China and Japan, because they were constantly in actual war, and not in a long term rivalry, and actual war leads to technical progress much faster than long term rivalries. Also a reason why the europeans were technically superior are the very short distances between different culutres and realatively large population centers, wich means that new inventions spread across the continent in only a few decades, and were immediately further developed and improved by other cultures and nations who got their hands on these inventions. While in East Asia, the distances between the nations were very long, and new inventions would often need hundreds of years to fall in the hands of other nations and culutres that would improve them. Also, you talk about the large populations of China and Japan at this time. First: The population of East Asia in the 1500's was not much larger thanbthe population of europe, especially Japan had only a little bit more inhibitants than France at the time (France was the fourth most populated nation from 1500 to 1800). Second: A large population doesn't necessarily mean technical progress. Nations with a large population will most of the time rely on outnumbering the enemy instead of defeating the enemy with more advanced weapons. This means that nations with a large population most of the time don't develop new weapons because they simply don't need new weapons if they can just overrun everything. A great example for this is Russia during WW1. They felt strong because their army was the biggest in the world, but their sodiers were poorly equipt and trained. They invaded Eastern Prussia with two million men thinking they would defeat the germans with sheer numbers. But the age of big army=victory was over, and the two million russians were EASILY defeated by 300k germans that were better trained and equipt. The russians tought they wouldn't need modern weapons and well trained soldiers because they outnumberd everyone, but we all know how that ended. I hope I could give you a small excourse on why Europe will always be ahead of everyone else in nearly every timeline.
@@whtfl In my comment, I talked about the technical progress of weapons, not about the overall technical progress. Sure, Zheng He had pretty advanced ships, but pretty bad weapons. Also you said that in your opinion, large countries mean technical progress instead of stagnation, and I agree with you...kinda. Large countries with large populations can take both ways: They could advance very fast because their are more people who could possibly improve new inventions, but they could also stagnate in technical progress. It dependends on many outside and inside factors if a large population nations advance slow or fast. China for example didn't development much, because it always had conservative governments that were less likely to adopt new technologies, also they had a very conservative culutre that didn't change much over the centuries, and also in our timeline, they had no real enemies before 1800. It was by the way the same with the Roman Empire. The romans didn't invent much because of the same reason. But I still don't agree with you that China could makes as much progress as europe in your "war with Japan" scenario. As I said, only one enemy is just not enough, and it us unlikely that Chinas or Japans conservative culutres abd governments would change and adopt new technologies.
nobody in these comments, nor the video maker himself understands anything about history 3:21 "China only wanted tribute--there was no plan to place Chinese settlers in these areas like with New England/New Spain" No duh, because China could never settle Sundaland or India. Europeans couldn't settle it either, that's why Laos isn't full of whites. The only thing Europeans could settle were already-sparsely-populated stone-age forager lands, like the Americas and Australia. The videomaker makes this out to be some "characteristic" of Chinese attitudes rather than just a material reality which China (and even colonial Europe) had to deal with.
"The Chinese would not be more advanced because before euros arrived there was no need for new inventions" -- This one is from some brainiac above me in this comment thread Meanwhile back in reality, 80% of Europe's population only exists because a Chinese guy invented the heavy plough, and every single weapon used by them for the last 900 years traces its origin to a Chinese formula. Regarding conflict between nations: the goal of every nation is to expand. Siberia is a hellhole, so China didn't care about expanding there. Europe also didn't care about Siberia until the 1600s, when improved tech enabled Russia to do so easily, and the rich powerful west prevented them from expanding westward into Europe.
The Chinese did use European cannon technology in our timeline. It was called the Folangi cannon, adopted from the Portuguese then adapted to their own needs.
+John Doe: To bad the Nomads such as the Mongols and Manchurians. Neglected and ban China's science, technology, military and etc. Not to mention! Both? The Mongols and Manchurians prevented China to enter the Industrial Age.
I started a Civ 6 game as China on a true start Earth map a few days before watching this video and I basically followed the path of this video in colonizing. I even settled near LA, but the Aztec already occupied most of the region and I wasn't aiming for a military end-game.
I think you should instead look into the history of Song dynasty, which was arguably at the brink of industrialization in the 11th centuries. Now that would be OP af.
the song had millions of people so industrialization wasnt needed. their iron production was so great that it would take few centuries for any nation to catch up which europe did during the industrial revolution
Interesting parallel you made here; between the Chinese reactions against invasion/humiliation; either going inwards and becoming isiolonist or going outward and becoming a super power.
With China and Japan competing intensely for the same areas of land - western Canada and USA, southeast Asia, and eastern Russia - I think it is very likely that there would be a protracted war (or a series of smaller wars) between China and Japan in this timeline - rather like Britain and France in ours.
yeah, the expansions into Southern China, the tarim Basin, sometimes into Korea, into the Red river Valley, Tibet, and Central Asia + Mongolia didnt happen because Chinese people have no ambition and only think about their farming. They're just a weak people and only goods as servants to greater races like the Koreans, Japanese or Mongols. Thats what I'm getting from your comment, feel free to debunk
This video is very well put together. I thank you for your hard work and effort in educating the world on Chinese history. -- From a Chinese living in the US. BTW, it is hard to hear you in the video so please consider turning up the volume next time.
Prior to Qing dynasty, Manchu was a vassal state to Ming, that recognized Ming as the sovereign, that was why they were able to get a lot of support when conquering China - there was a coup in late Ming, where the Ming Emperor was disposed of, Manchurians charged in with a slogan of expelling the usurper and this made them gain many allies in the beginning stages that gave the driving force to them conquering all of China.
Could we get a scenario where what would happen with Japan if they did not become isolationist? Since in this scenario we got to see Japan not be isolationist after uniting under of the Tokugawa shogunate. I could see the samurai class being very in favor of colonial expansion as it would give them something to do instead of being bureaucrats. A lot of young Samurai would want to conquer set up their own fiefs abroad especially those who didn't like the Tokugawa government.
Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you one that. Peace is not possible if everyone who wanted peace got it the world would be completely peaceful but yet.... here we are
I did that play through in EU4. By the end of it I had colonized the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Alaska the west coast of North America, Madagascar as well as some parts of Somalia and east Africa. I aslo managed to merge all the countries in southeast Asia into my empire through royal marriages and I addition to all of this I got In a drawn out conflict with Russia which was really tough in the beginning but with the help of Norway and Sweden and the Ottomans I ended up conquering first Siberia then the Ural area and went all the way into Russia proper, even occupying Moscow itself at the end of the war. I also managed to subdue the central Asian area, that was no effort so my empire ended up spreading from the baltic and the Caspian in the West to the Pacific in the East, From the Himalaya in the South to the Arctic in the North, including all of Oceania and Having Australia and The north American Pacific coast as colonies. I was also eying the west coast of south America but the French of all people beat me to it.
Good video. You actually tried to see the world through Chinese eyes rather than force a western lens on Chinese actions. That is very very rare for a westerner, let alone an American. Kudos to you. Your civilisation needs many more people like you!
I think this video has seriously overestimated the ability of Japan prior to its industrialisation, and underestimated the difficulty of controlling the Indonesian islands. Japan has always been near the periphery of east asian civilisation, if China is as capable as in this timeline, I see no reason why China will find Japan more difficult to handle than, say, Java. Japan is already small compared to China, and even then it is politically divided into different warlords. Even the Tokugawa didn't truly destroy all the other warlords and wasn't able to build a centralised government similar to the Chinese one. It is also closer to China than the Indonesian islands to the South. On the other hand, the terrain and climate of Indonesia makes it much harder for the Chinese from the north to expand on land. The western powers were also unable to control much of Indonesian until the advent of modern technology. At best China would be able to control the major islands on the trade routes. So either China is strong enough to control both Japan and Java, or not strong enough to control either. It is unimaginable that under the immense pressure of a centralised China, Japan is still capable of building colonies over the Pacific. Imagine a Britain divided into a few dozen warlords facing the pressure of a united continental Europe, the imminent threat will leave it with very little energy and resource to focus on any overseas colonies (which is also why Britain always interfere in the wars on the continent - to prevent the formation of a united continental power). It also seems the OP here took the Japanese pirates' raid along Chinese coasts as evidence for Japan's naval power. This is quite a misconception, the Japanese navy was quite decisively destroyed during the Wan Li war to protect Korea. The reason the pirates became a problem was the lack of centralised effort from the Chinese government as a result of its inward looking nature, and the collusion of some Chinese pirates and bandits with the Japanese pirates. If, as the OP conjectured here, China became more outward looking and focused more on its naval expansion, these problems were really quite insignificant, or at least not any more problematic in the east china sea than the south china sea. Such overestimation of Japan is really a modern bias, which shows the cultural influence of Japan today as well as its rather recent success rather than based on reasonable understanding of history. Before Japan was able to seize the opportunity of industrialisation, it's position in East Asia is really not much different from java, vietnam or thailand, especially compared with China. The OP here also missed out completely on the impact on Chinese history of the Dzungar people who controlled modern Tibet and Xinjiang . As the last group of nomads that threatened China in our timeline, conflict between China and the Dzungar Khanate was impossible to avoid. The result of this conflict would mean either China destroys Dzungar and controls Tibet and Xinjiang as in our timeline, or some other kind of compromise between China and the encroaching Russians.
@@mitonaarea5856 But the initial wave of Japanese pirates died out within the first 20-30 years of the Ming's existence, and as for the Jiajing pirate raids, the vast majority of these "Japanese pirates" were actually Chinese merchants who were forced into piracy by the Ming Dynasty's policies who simply happened to base themselves in Japan.
2:40 wow, I had no idea that Russia was the first country China recognized as independent. Could you give me your source on this? (Im not saying you’re wrong I just want to look more into it since doing a google search wasn’t helpful)
I just realized that in this timeline, many west coast native americans would either convert or be converted to Buddhism and or Shinto since they're both axial age. I especially could see Shintoism really resonating with the Native Americans as it's much more of an animist religion which is similar to the traditions and mythology of the northern tribes. I could see much like Christianity some of those myths being moved into a new North American version of Shintoism. For instance the trickster coyote could be seen as a form of the trickster God Susano-o. Also I got them under the influence on the United States when they finally established the border between Neo Japan and New China. How the presence of large number of Buddhists and shintoists in a bordering nation Change North American religious outlooks and even influence Christian denominations of North America..
I believe that using the Song Dynasty would make a better alternative history as it is said that the Song Dynasty is economically advanced and socially advanced of their time. This dynasty is considered to be the Renaissance of China, which after the invasion of the Mongols became isolationist. It would make much more sense for the Song Dynasty to start the Colonial Expansion of China once they sort out their military structures and reconquer former northern lands. I would like to see this being made as a variant of this alternative history if possible.
Correction: the Brits bought the New York region (previously New Amsterdam) from the Dutch, so that could be said to have been initiated by the government if not so much picked up by trade companies afterwards.
I really love your Videos but could you make yourself just a bit louder please. Besides that you deserve way more subs that you currently have have a good Day (Btw sorry my english is rather Bad)
@Parker Fu Look at 5,000 years of world history Evil Mafias always run all governments Right now, the most Powerful Evil Mafia Controls the Flow of All the Money No ? If they cut of they Flow to China China will collapse in less than 30 days They will do a Depression Collapse So they can Own Big Assets in China But they will Not do a Total Collapse Because it would cause an Apocalypse Zionist Bank Mafia Is more Powerful than the China Mafia (CCP Billionaires) Right now The Zionist Mafia Is fucking the Russia Mafia 5,000 years of world history is evidence All governments are controlled by Evil Mafias Facts alone tell the True Story Facts of History Facts of current events World is Gangland Evil Mafias play what they call the Great Game
If we really are.... That would be no more western countries. And you will not even exist. During Ming dynasty, China enough power to conquer the world. U should lucky that our culture are to be peace and respect.
I'm curious: In this timeline, what would China's colonies in North America look/act like? Would they have been like the British, where they had regional autonomy and eventual independence, or more like Spain with an Encomienda-style system? Maybe they would be more like France's in our timeline, where they gain independence but China acts like a Hellicopter parent and shares a currency with them? Also, how would WWI play out in this timeline?
Great vid, but I have 1 question: if China really controlled the East Indian islands and the east side of the Indian Ocean, why would they have stayed away from the Indo-China area like the map you mad in the video? It's not that logical to not try to integrate such a vast landmass under their own sphere of influence with no major power dominating it.
@Metsarebuff 22 Well, if China continued its old path, it's never gonna go colonize surrounding areas, thus it's hard to imagine China still want tributary states. Plus, the East Indies does not really have less jungle than the Indo-China peninsula, thus I don't really see why China in this timeline would just leave the Indo-China there.
@@Ero_Hentai Because you need mercantilism to be a colonial power. China was an agrarian society with sufficient resources that never relied on international trade.
@@Ero_Hentai Why didn't they take over Korea? They're already on the Chinese side. Plus the vast majority of Chinese military power was used up fighting against the northern Steppe tribes- thus, it wouldn't ever be taken over until late in the TL. It's better to have a friendly nation outside your borders than a hostile one inside it. The mindset of China being #1 hegemon does not change in this TL, and tributaries would be an acceptable compromise.
Vietnam has been able to fight off 27 Chinese invasions over the last 1,000 years. Vietnam is an incredibly tough cookie to crack. All of the states involved were already Chinese tributaries and the power disparity was so massive that there was no way they could be threats to China. Thus, China just leaves them alone.
A lot of good research but one major thing you missed is that ancient Chinese realized that colonialism is not the most efficient system and can often cost more than benefit if you care about your image as a good ruler. Instead, they created a system a little similar to a UN. China was the permanent member, while every countries around it need to pay hefty recurring membership fee to China. If a member country gets in trouble, they ask China to send help. But unlike colonialism, China wouldn't have to send help, because if that member country falls and get replaced by a new leader, that new leader still has to bow to China and pay tribute to China. So in this system, China may get less profit compared to having a slave-colony, but they also don't get the responsibilities. Only time China need to send real help (and not superficial small gesture) is the rare occurrence where a regime is actually dangerous. Note that in Chinese culture, honor, frame, history and morality is extremely important. So turning a blind eye to your colony would harm your legacy, which is often the biggest point of consideration to the emperors who already have everything else they want. It's not like European who are totally fine with colonies suffering because they didn't even view other races as the same species, and peasant sufferance is readily accepted as matter-of-fact.
If China became a colonial power from the 16th century then she'd probably colonized the entire Asia (except the Middle East), Siberia, the western coast of the American continent and East Africa. Mandarin would become the dominant language in the world and Confucianism, Daoism and Zen Buddhism would become the most populated religion in the world thanks to Chinese colonialism however there'll be a great colonial wars between China and other European colonial powers like Spain, Portugal, France and England much worst than the Opium Wars and the two World Wars! Yes it'll had a good side on Chinese colonialism in the Age of Colonialism and Discovery however there'll be a huge consequence on it and that is a bloody and costly colonial wars all over the world when it happens. Probably World War I would had started somewhere in the 17th century instead of 1914. And yes it is safe to say that Chinese colonialism didn't happened and she just want to be a gentle giant.
I think it's worth noting that Zheng He, during his expeditions, fought a dispute against the Sinhalese Kotte kingdom, where Kotte managed to separate Admiral Zheng He from his fleet, with only 2000 men. Zheng He responded by taking said 2000 men, and outright invading their capital to end the war. Not only did the Ming dynasty NOT overtake the land, they IMPROVED trade with the new rule in the land. The Ming dynasty, more powerful than any of its neighbours, did not conquer any because of that same reason, China benefited from trading with them more than conquering them, much of the time, saw foreigner lands as "inferior". China itself was big enough on its own, with many administration problems, to the point where the first emperor listed fifteen countries to specifically not invade. With how rich and big they already were, it made very little sense to take anything else. The only reason for the Ming's taking of Taiwan from the Dutch was because the dynasty FELL, and the loylists under Koxinga needed more land to base their fight off of.
Chinese probably knew about Australia in our timeline, with some serious changes as described in the video, they could colonize even parts of the Latin America. But who knows, the history is pretty complex and some serious simulation (with a use of the neural networks and reliable model) could show all kinds of results as the end result nowadays. For example the adaptation of advanced firearms. In Europe firearms started to pick by the end of the 14th century which means cannons and early rifles. For example John Žižka was known to use cannons during his Baltic campaign, long before he became the general of the Hussite army which used proto-rifle flutes to shoot Crusaders. Meanwhile I'd expect Chinese to not only have both types of the weapons (as was the case in the world we know), but also to improve them if they were more militaristic. Same goes to the naval conflicts in the India of the alternative timeline.
chinese? before chinese able set in ocean.. Austronesian people as know as "Ancient Seafarers" have been occupied islands in southeast asia region to madagascar and pacific region.
that reminds me, the french were actually the ones who took the most from china as they were the ones who took viet nam from them ,as well as some cities
China doesn't think the same way. They are only interested in land that is majority Han Chinese and Chinese culture. The max they would do is to occupy the sinosphere, and no further
Perhaps though that psychology likely has a lot to do with the overwhelming historical dominance of China relative to its neighbours. I could perhaps see this version of history happening though not the way this scenario suggests, rather it would require a more fragmented history in the region one that was characterised by long periods where a balance of power between multiple powers of rough parity existed. I believe that it was the fact that Europe has a history of being a punctuated equilibrium between various balance of power situations which created the mindset for colonisation as it was always an environment where one constantly had to actively seek to maintain power or lose everything being passive was death to European powers as an opportunity you pass up your rivals would soon exploit and become dominant, so is it any wonder they became capitalist forged in such an environment? Europe was a constant fight for survival while China was largely able to simply demand anything it wanted from its neighbours as it was so superior they could never negotiate meaningfully let alone be a constant potential threat like the neighbours of the European powers.
@@seraphina985 Exactly. The Qing Dynasty dismissed the European powers as mere barbarian kingdoms from the Far West and refused to modernize partly because so
That's a myth and propaganda frequently fed to many Chinese children in schools. China was originally just limited by the 2 rivers in northern China. It was only by mass migrations and displacement of native non-Chinese populations, colonization and conquest were they able to expand into southern 'China' and western 'China' and north of northern China. Even Chinese history proudly recorded how they conquered various kingdoms in the south like Bai Yue, Min Yue and Yunnan after state directed mass migrations and colonization.
I saw a documentary in which the ailing FDR's progressive vice-president was sidelined-stabbed in the back- in favour or the more conservative Truman. Had the other guy become president, history would have been different. I don't think Eisenhower was regarded as a bad president, but someone more persuasive would have to have turned up in the Republican primaries.
The Chinese explores did reach northern Australia, all they found where Swamps, Deserts and Semi-Arid planes inhabited by a non Asian people with limited technology, no obvious advanced social structure and no Trade/Tribute Goods, so they tuned the boats around and promptly forgot about the place.
I just got an add for Google on here. And it was basically “Seri” based and the man in the video said “Google play me something that has funk.” And then Google played it and the man was like “Oh yeah.” And I was cringing so hard but then this video started again and I was in relief. In the past this add played on my phone and when the guy said that my parents both stormed into my room! ;)
Quite possibly one of your most fascinating videos of all. I do, however think that you are underestimating Spain. I highly doubt the Spanish would idly stand by and allow the Chinese and the Japanese to just have their way with the continent. I think that the threat of these two rivals from Asia would keep them on their toes and prevent the decadence of the 17th and 18th centuries that led to the downfall of that empire. It also would not be stretched so thinly because it wouldn’t have to be worrying about managing the Philippines. All of those forces and resources would be concentrated in North America. (you do know Mexico is in North America, right?)
