Why wasn't Northern Vietnam Sinicized?

WeisSaul

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,836
New Amsterdam
#1
North Vietnam (Red River Valley and Delta especially) had been under Chinese rule for centuries but managed to avoid Sinicization.

How did this happen?
 
Jan 2015
955
EARTH
#2
North Vietnam (Red River Valley and Delta especially) had been under Chinese rule for centuries but managed to avoid Sinicization.

How did this happen?
The original population was never displaced. That's the magic.
If you're talking culturally, then it was Sinicized however.
 
Feb 2015
149
alpen
#4
Actually I believe the real north vietnam was located in southern China and was sinicized completely (obviously), the "north Vietnam" (Red River Valley and Delta) was actually the southern part of viet region when they were pushed from the north by the chinese +sinicization, all of real north was already under the chinese (reaching close to overextension of influence all the way from central plain and new population centers in southern china) it wasnt until the conquest of furthern south (like cham region) when the region became effectively north vietnam.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,397
China
#5
Actually I believe the real north vietnam was located in southern China and was sinicized completely (obviously), the "north Vietnam" (Red River Valley and Delta) was actually the southern part of viet region when they were pushed from the north by the chinese +sinicization, all of real north was already under the chinese (reaching close to overextension of influence all the way from central plain and new population centers in southern china) it wasnt until the conquest of furthern south (like cham region) when the region became effectively north vietnam.
infact viet nam rised as one rebellion district of those remained from tang china. its first border is neither determined by ethnic nor by natural barriers but based on tang administration structures. it had been kind of southern than its current northern limit.
the early leaders can hardly be determined as ethinic viet nam or say tonkin people. nevertheless, they adapted to join the tonkin ethnic group and tried to cutt off the tire to the north.
as the china was not always peaceful, the viet nam took every opportunity to push the border northern than the old one they got from tang, that forms almost the current border, then french made some further demands
 
Jul 2015
925
Salfordshire
#6
I know next to nothing of the history, but in linguistic terms, the part of China bordering northern Vietnam is the least Chinese part of the whole state. There are scores if not hundreds of small peoples in Yunnan, Guangxi and Guizhou, speaking languages belonging to at least five major families. Is it fair to compare the Northern Vietnamese who came under the Tang Dynasty with the (Thai-speaking) Zhuang people who remain in modern China's boundaries, in this respect? The Zhuang are a major group, comparable in size with many European nations. Were the Zhuang just a little less lucky than the Vietnamese? Until very recent times, the level of sinicisation was probably quite comparable, apart from the obvious distinction of political control.

Given that we have a few connoisseurs here, can I also ask about something that has long puzzled me about Vietnam? The core ethnolinguistic group seems based in the north around the river delta there, but then stretches in a remarkably long and thin line around the coast of the Indochinese Peninsula. Is this a result of colonisation from the north? When did this take place and how?

I assume the Cham were once dominant south of My Son, but who lived in most southernmost part of the modern state?

Am I completely wrong, and did the Vietnamese spread from the south to north? I see the Cambodians are their closer linguistic relatives, and that the Thai speakers pushed down from the north, separating these peoples from their other cousins, the Mon and even more distant linguistic kin in India.
 
Feb 2011
1,018
#7
Southern China itself was never fully sinicized; that is why there are minorities living there to this day. Having said that, the Vietnamese of today need to be distinguished from the Zhuang. Vietnamese today speak a Mon-Khmer language, while the Zhuang speak a Tai-Kradai language. These are two different families. While that does not indicate Vietic languages were never spoken in southern China, it does indicate that we ought to be careful about Vietnamese history and the movement of Vietic speakers. The Baiyue were not a single group, and the Vietnamese are not a simple left over of the Baiyue.
 
Dec 2010
183
#8
First independent rulers of what is known today as Vietnam exclusively claimed themselves as emigrants from 'China,' or descendents of Chinese mandarins sent to the region. At least until the 15th century. Later on, they discarded that part from the court-sanctioned history.
As China was always in chaos, again and again, every thirty years or so, the central authority lost control over North Vietnam from time to time. Suddenly those exiles found themselves in a remote corner, without any support from the Capital, surrounded by barbarians. Some of them self-claimed Kings afterwards.
The Chinese court had to reconquer the land again and again from fellow 'Chinese,' until about the 10th century when the population(Chinese and tribal) was dense enough to repel Chinese 'invasions.'
The Southern part of Vietnam have witnessed that same phenomenon for several hundred years. Last time it was the Vietnam War.
 
Dec 2010
183
#9
I know next to nothing of the history, but in linguistic terms, the part of China bordering northern Vietnam is the least Chinese part of the whole state. There are scores if not hundreds of small peoples in Yunnan, Guangxi and Guizhou, speaking languages belonging to at least five major families. Is it fair to compare the Northern Vietnamese who came under the Tang Dynasty with the (Thai-speaking) Zhuang people who remain in modern China's boundaries, in this respect? The Zhuang are a major group, comparable in size with many European nations. Were the Zhuang just a little less lucky than the Vietnamese? Until very recent times, the level of sinicisation was probably quite comparable, apart from the obvious distinction of political control.

Given that we have a few connoisseurs here, can I also ask about something that has long puzzled me about Vietnam? The core ethnolinguistic group seems based in the north around the river delta there, but then stretches in a remarkably long and thin line around the coast of the Indochinese Peninsula. Is this a result of colonisation from the north? When did this take place and how?

I assume the Cham were once dominant south of My Son, but who lived in most southernmost part of the modern state?

Am I completely wrong, and did the Vietnamese spread from the south to north? I see the Cambodians are their closer linguistic relatives, and that the Thai speakers pushed down from the north, separating these peoples from their other cousins, the Mon and even more distant linguistic kin in India.
The southernmost part of the modern state of Vietnam was inhabitated by various Austronesian groups, and a contested territory between the Chams and the Khmer Kingdom. At that time the Khmers couldn't boast an 'empire' anymore.
The Cham was a commerce/ pirate people, as their soil was not as fertile as the Red River Delta, they call the River 'Red' for a reason. Since agricultural cultures always had bigger population, Viet often founded small hamlets inside 'enemy territory.' The Champa entity was more of a collection of city-states than a poweful Confucian state.
Afer the pop was big enough, they clashed with the locals, dominated them and vietnamized that piece of land. Sometimes the court organized large scale invasion. But being agricultural folks, they didn't go far from the coastal plains.
Cham's(Austronesian) landmarks are pretty prevalent in Vietnam both North and South. People just don't notice it.

TL; DR: 'Viet' colonized the South the same way 'Chinese' colonized the North.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
#10
The Baiyue were not a single group
How do we know the Baiyue were not a single group?

The ancient Chinese, in my view, rarely took these kinds of shortcuts like labeling a bunch of different groups under a single umbrella category.

Either they had a strongly binding characteristic or they were a single tribe or a nation of people.

So where are we getting the information that they were not a single group?
 
Last edited: