Talk:Easternized World

Ultra-China! That doesn't seem too likely, though.--Sikulu 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know... Have you checked this out? ?  The Mongol Empire was possibly more extensive than even mine, and it was built in far less than 100 years.  Also, the Mongols had only a tiny fraction of the population that China had, and was barbaric.  Imagine the Chinese taking the best of steppe warfare and combining it with their technological knowhow and great numbers...  Anyway, thanks for the comment. --Riction 01:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion point though. The very reason the Mongols were so successful is because they were barbaric. They were nomads and carried their homes, women and children with their armies, essentially putting their entire population through the rigours of military life. It ensured the children grew up understanding the martial lifestyle and gave the Mongol armies the great mobility which enabled them to cover the expanses they did. The fact that they were 'barbarians' and came from the harshness of the steppes means they had nothing to lose and everything to gain by conquering civilised peoples. On the other hand, what motivation do the Chinese have for leaving the lifestyle available in perhaps the most advanced civilisation in the world to venture out into Central Asia to fight and die? There was rarely need in OTL for the Chinese government to do that as when peoples in what we now call western China went into decline (as they inevitably did) they tended to accept Chinese suzerainty without the Chinese having to send one soldier.121.44.11.86 10:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read "The Years of Rice and Salt"? It deals with a super china, and might help respond to the questions regarding it.  I know that China views itself as "The Middle Kingdom", the kingdom that doesn't necessarily need to grow, because other peoples come to it.  I'm impressed with this timeline and would love to see it more fleshed out.  Louisiannan 14:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The expansion could have started with the intent of getting rid of the barbarian's threat once and for all by bringing them into Chinese civilisation.--Marcpasquin 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, Louisiannan and Marcpasquin. I haven't read "The Years of Rice and Salt" but I just checked its Wikipedia article out, and it sounds pretty cool.  As for what the guy above (121.44.11.86) said, that the Mongols were so successful because they were barbaric, well, I don't quite buy that completely, although he certainly has a point.  Sure, that's one reason, but it doesn't mean that civilized empires can't do the same.  Russia wasn't barbaric in the 1500s and 1600s, yet managed to conquer all of Siberia, from the Urals to the Pacific, in 60 years (1580-1640).  China, it is true, was known as a nation that thought highly of itself and didn't really care about the rest of the barbaric world (until the barbaric world got more civilized and started trying to take China over).  But opinions change over time, and I think that a new emperor or government can change opinions throughout the country.  (And besides, xenophobic sentiment was strongest during the Ming and Qing Dynasties, which do not show up in my timeline.)  Back in 1860 (and even up to 1900), one could hardly imagine that Japan, a nation that had for so long kept to itself, would be able (or desiring) to take over much of coastal east Asia.  Yet in a six-month period (December 1941 - May 1942), the Japanese took over nearly all of Southeast Asia, including Burma, Malaya, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines (and made Thailand an ally).  These places would probably have stayed under Japanese control for decades if the West had stayed away after their initial defeats.  So yeah, I think that it is possible for civilized nations to expand in a very short period of time (even against other civilized and numerous foes).  Marcpasquin, like you say, the original idea of expansion came because the Chinese wanted to finally put an end to the Mongolian menace, and then kept going west because the Silk Road was becoming a very wealthy land.  To Louisiannan, thanks for your nice comment, and I'll try to continue with this timeline until, hopefully, it is brought up to the present day.  This might take some time, but hang in there! --Riction 08:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese calender would be more common and widespread then. What are the years in their system? Also, is the word Yodderick Chinese or Japanese for 'New World'?--TEAKAY 13:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * About the Chinese calendar, I had to look that up, myself. It turns out that in China, there was never a single agreed upon year numbering system as in the West with BC/AD.  Instead, the calendar would restart with each new emperor, and it was simply called the such-and-such year of such-and-such emperor's rule.  This system is still used in Japan, and 2008 is known also as "Heisei 20".  A continuous numbering system was rarely used by the Chinese themselves, and was only of interest to Westerners who felt that they needed a continuous system like in the west.  In that system, 2008 would be 4705.  Partly because it was never used very much, and partly because I'm just too lazy to compute all of the past years, I'm sticking to the Western system.


 * As for Yodderick, I came up with that name from the characters 洋大陸 ("Yoh Tai Riku" in Japanese, "Yang Da Lu" in modern Mandarin, and "Iang Dhai Liuk" in Tang Court Chinese, with other variants to be found in other Chinese dialects and presumably other Asian languages). 洋 means "beyond the ocean" or "foreign" (these days, in Japan, at least, it often means "Western (that is, European/American)"), and 大陸 means "continent".  I didn't really choose a single one to base "Yodderick" on, although it's most like the Japanese pronunciation, and highly Anglicized.  Anyway, thanks for showing interest in my althist! --Riction 02:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Neat.--TEAKAY 11:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What motivated the Chinese and Japanese to be less malevolent to the aboriginals? Also, did they give the native populations a name or did they just call them natives/native yodderickese (or even foreigners! ;) ). The maps are really good.--TEAKAY 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't really gone in depth about the happenings in Yodderick. About the names for the people of the continent, I haven't really thought about it, but I guess that the aboriginals were mostly grouped into Yodderickese ("You (Tai Riku) Jin" in Japanese and "Yang (Da Lu) Ren" in Chinese).  I suppose that different sub-groups would be known by some other names.  I suppose that the "Sioux" and others would be around in this timeline, but I'm not sure if I'll mention them, and if I do, I'm not sure if I'll change the spelling of their name from the OTL French-like one to a simple "Su" or something that they would probably be known as to the Asians.


 * As for the Asians being less malevolent than the Europeans, although the Japanese and Chinese probably weren't quite as malevolent to the aboriginals, they also weren't too kindly. However, in many cases, the conquering of Yodderick was similar to the conquering of areas in the Old World - they subjugated the people but tried to educate them in their culture instead of eradicating them.  The fact that the great plague occurred after the discovery of the New World (it's the opposite in OTL) both scared off the intruders a bit, and also gave the aboriginals some breathing room and a chance to grow their numbers between major outbreaks.  Still, the population plummetted.  In the year 1600 in my world, the Aztecs have been thoroughly defeated by the Chinese (and Chinese immigration to Mexico is high), while the Incas are more of a tribute state and have suffered less (although many Mexicans are indeed suffering less under the Chinese than they did under the sacrifice-loving Aztecs).  The Japanese have thoroughly defeated and subjugated the tribes in OTL California and most of the Pacific Northwest.  Another reason for less of an impact than the Europeans brought to the New World is the fact that the lack of a zealous drive to convert or kill their way to a monotheistic New World meant that the natives didn't appear as alien and savage to the Asians as to the Europeans in OTL.  Finally, it's also true that the East Asians are unable to get far into the interior, and most of the land they've found isn't so suitable for farming - especially rice farming.  Conquering from west to east is more difficult, because you immediately hit the Cascade Mountains, Death Valley and the Sonora Desert, the Andes, and the Atacama Desert (the driest place in the world).  It's not as easy as starting in the moist and temperate east.  However, the Asian colonial powers are finally starting to get there, and things might get messy as some European powers (and maybe even some native peoples) also vie for a piece.  Stay tuned.  Oh yeah, and thanks for the compliment about my maps! --Riction 15:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of page
Should I break up this article into smaller pieces? Please comment if you think so. (My browser has no problems with this length of a page) --Riction


 * Personnaly I think you should keep on this page only a summary of the timeline and break the sections into their own pages to help make it easier to read.--Marcpasquin 16:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to do that sometime during the next few days. --Riction 07:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You could go wikipedish and have summaries of the subsections and a link to the full text... Louisiannan 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruling Dynasties
So...after the Tang's fall, was it the Hongs, Sungs, Fangs or the McSweeneys that took over? Louisiannan 15:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't understand what you're getting at... --Riction 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)