26 replies to this topic

[light]

Han Wudi waged war against the xiongnus which caused the country to be almost bankrupt and causing alot of people to die in the war.

Was there a better way other than war that he could have used to deal with the xiongnus?

The marriage of Han Princess to the Xiongnus was definetly not a good way as it will only make the xiongnus more greedy and demand for more as they will think that the Hans are afraid of them and it is also an insult to the Han dynasty for them to send their Princess to marry the xiongnus to please them

[Zorigo]

marriage of Han Princess to the Xiongnus was like inviting strangers into your bedroom.

Better way was to avoid direct contact with Xiongnus by creating a pro-han buffer state between Xiongnus and Han. And Han Wudi support the struggle of the buffer state against Xiongnus. Plus developing a trading relationship with Xiongnus by supplying foods, fabrics, other luxury items in exchange of more horses, other animal produces. Trade posts should be located in buffer state and traders can be highly skilled agents who provide accurate information about Xiongnu internal economy, politics and its intentions.

Edited by Zorigo, 01 March 2009 - 07:59 AM.

[light]

marriage of Han Princess to the Xiongnus was like inviting strangers into your bedroom.

Better way was to avoid direct contact with Xiongnus by creating a pro-han buffer state between Xiongnus and Han. And Han Wudi support the struggle of the buffer state against Xiongnus. Plus developing a trading relationship with Xiongnus by supplying foods, fabrics, other luxury items in exchange of more horses, other animal produces. Trade posts should be located in buffer state and traders can be highly skilled agents who provide accurate information about Xiongnu internal economy, politics and its intentions.

Xiongnus are barbarians who don't know how to trade. I think if they need goods they will rather just attack the Han dynasty, take the goods, kill the people etc rather than trading with them espically since the xiongnus always think that their military is superior to the Han dynasty

[Mei Houwang]

^I wouldn't say that, the XiongNu was recorded to have traded with the Han dynasty along the borders. Keeping the XiongNu seperated while maintaining trade ccontacts and military support to weaker tribes seemed to have the best strategy. In fact, this is similar to what the Chinese tend to do when they were powerful while the nomads were weak/seperated, and this is also what the nomads did to the Chinese when the Chinese were weak/seperated and the nomads powerful. At least the study of history gives me this impression. Whenever one side unifies under one ruler, the other side better watch out.

Edited by Mei Houwang, 03 March 2009 - 10:32 AM.

[Yun]

Xiongnus are barbarians who don't know how to trade. I think if they need goods they will rather just attack the Han dynasty, take the goods, kill the people etc rather than trading with them espically since the xiongnus always think that their military is superior to the Han dynasty

That is simplistic and false. Here is a passage in Yu Ying-shih's Trade and Expansion in Han China (1967), a classic work on Han foreign and economic relations:

"As has been noted, economic insufficiency made it necessary for the Xiongnu to trade with others to increase their income. The Xiongnu had developed such a strong interest in trade that even their women are reported to have occasionally taken an active part in it. ... Official trade between China and the Xiongnu began with the establishment of border markets under Emperor Wen. A similar policy of allowing the Xiongnu to trade on the border was followed by Emperor Jing, and it proved very effective in keeping them quiet. As Sima Qian says: "... Thus throughout Emperor Jing's reign, although the Xiongnu from time to time made small plundering raids across the border, they did not carry out any major invasions." This seems sufficient proof that the Xiongnu invasion was primarily motivated by their greed for Chinese goods, and war probably could have been avoided if such goods were obtainable through peaceful channels, that is, trade." (pp. 99-100)

[light]

"As has been noted, economic insufficiency made it necessary for the Xiongnu to trade with others to increase their income. The Xiongnu had developed such a strong interest in trade that even their women are reported to have occasionally taken an active part in it. ... Official trade between China and the Xiongnu began with the establishment of border markets under Emperor Wen. A similar policy of allowing the Xiongnu to trade on the border was followed by Emperor Jing, and it proved very effective in keeping them quiet. As Sima Qian says: "... Thus throughout Emperor Jing's reign, although the Xiongnu from time to time made small plundering raids across the border, they did not carry out any major invasions." This seems sufficient proof that the Xiongnu invasion was primarily motivated by their greed for Chinese goods, and war probably could have been avoided if such goods were obtainable through peaceful channels, that is, trade." (pp. 99-100)

In that case, since the Han dynasty under Emperor Jing and Wen was willing to trade with them and the xiongnus were also interested in trading, why didn't they just send an ambassador to the Han dynasty to request for more trading to be carried out.

Than there is no need for them to plunder the borders of the Han dynasty and face the risk of Han dynasty rising an army to attack them

[oldbreadstinks]

In that case, since the Han dynasty under Emperor Jing and Wen was willing to trade with them and the xiongnus were also interested in trading, why didn't they just send an ambassador to the Han dynasty to request for more trading to be carried out.

Than there is no need for them to plunder the borders of the Han dynasty and face the risk of Han dynasty rising an army to attack them

Emperor Jing and Wen seem more interested to avoid war then the xiongnus were, maybe the xiongnus didn't really care if the Han came after them? my impression of sentiments during that period was xiongnu had an advantage in war due to their calvary in the northern regions something the han couldn't match?

judging by how much money spent by wudi for his wars despite victory, paying the xiongnu off and tolerating small scale raids might not seem so bad in hindsight. the raids themselves were not damaging to the rest of china.

i've read in the song thread paying off the liao/jin worked out in song's favour as trade between the 2 countries ended with song benefiting from the peace periods. was it like this as well during Emperor Jing and Wen's reigns?

Edited by oldbreadstinks, 04 March 2009 - 12:50 PM.

[mariusj]

Than there is no need for them to plunder the borders of the Han dynasty and face the risk of Han dynasty rising an army to attack them

This is like saying America face the risk of Iran attacking America, from the American's perspective.

Why would Xiongnu worry about the weaker nation to attack them, in their perspective?

Also, trade was limited, and while one can say Xiongnu export raw materials and natural resources, Han export finished goods, therefore eventually the one who export natural resources are getting the shorter stick.

marriage of Han Princess to the Xiongnus was like inviting strangers into your bedroom.

Better way was to avoid direct contact with Xiongnus by creating a pro-han buffer state between Xiongnus and Han. And Han Wudi support the struggle of the buffer state against Xiongnus. Plus developing a trading relationship with Xiongnus by supplying foods, fabrics, other luxury items in exchange of more horses, other animal produces. Trade posts should be located in buffer state and traders can be highly skilled agents who provide accurate information about Xiongnu internal economy, politics and its intentions.

When choosing b/w a fight and perhaps been killed in that fight against a stranger, or invite that stranger into your bedroom KNOWING if you do so you will not be killed, it is perhaps a wiser choice to invite that stranger into your bedroom.

Then, what would enforce the buffer would stay pro-Han? In other words, Han must of stationed enough military presence in or near the buffer to ensure that no Xiongnu military could sway the buffer to turn pro-Xiongnu, and since we know even Han itself was constantly raided, that is, the amount of defense Han stationed in her own border was not enough, why would it be a better idea to make a buffer, station military presence in order to keep buffer, when you could just do it directly?

Then, what other things that Han trade with Xiongnu aside from food, fabrics, and other luxury items in exchange of animals? I can't think of anything else. Such trade are already in common day practice.

[mariusj]

Xiongnus are barbarians

Why would they be barbarians? Do they not have laws that they enforce? Do they not have history or culture or language art?

It is one thing to think the Han Empire was cultured and refined, and another to think that Han Culture and Civilization is the only standard for refined.

[Marie]

Women have always been used as "trade goods" in deals between warring states. What an ordeal for the Han Princess. In fact, she was a civilizing influence on the Zongnu and is highly respected in Mongol history. As for trade, historically it was furs and minerals and labor, as it is now I think.

[longlong]

Han Wudi waged war against the xiongnus which caused the country to be almost bankrupt and causing alot of people to die in the war.

Was there a better way other than war that he could have used to deal with the xiongnus?

The marriage of Han Princess to the Xiongnus was definetly not a good way as it will only make the xiongnus more greedy and demand for more as they will think that the Hans are afraid of them and it is also an insult to the Han dynasty for them to send their Princess to marry the xiongnus to please them

Han Wudi waged war against the xiongnus which caused the country to be almost bankrupt and causing alot of people to die in the war.

Was there a better way other than war that he could have used to deal with the xiongnus?

The marriage of Han Princess to the Xiongnus was definetly not a good way as it will only make the xiongnus more greedy and demand for more as they will think that the Hans are afraid of them and it is also an insult to the Han dynasty for them to send their Princess to marry the xiongnus to please them

Try reading up Wars with the Xiongnu - a translation from Zizhi Tongjian, you might find some answer there.

[cavszabo]

Try reading up Wars with the Xiongnu - a translation from Zizhi Tongjian, you might find some answer there.

Let's go back to the beginning. If the Xiongnu had been left in peace, there likely would have been no reason for all the fighting. It was General Meng Tian who attacked the Xiongnu in the Ordos c. 220 B.C., which was their ancestral home (see Ordos Bronzes). He was the one who built the first Long Walls (Great Wall). Naturally they would want their homeland back. This is an important consideration in understanding their raids in my opinion. The idea that nomads are greedy so-and-sos who only want to rob and steal has not been shown to be correct. Prof. C. Beckwith, for instance, has made this point repeatedly, as have other scholars.

[mariusj]

Let's go back to the beginning. If the Xiongnu had been left in peace, there likely would have been no reason for all the fighting. It was General Meng Tian who attacked the Xiongnu in the Ordos c. 220 B.C., which was their ancestral home (see Ordos Bronzes). He was the one who built the first Long Walls (Great Wall). Naturally they would want their homeland back. This is an important consideration in understanding their raids in my opinion. The idea that nomads are greedy so-and-sos who only want to rob and steal has not been shown to be correct. Prof. C. Beckwith, for instance, has made this point repeatedly, as have other scholars.

Are you sure you want to say who hit who first? The struggle b/w the hordes and the central plain is so much longer than that., and the pointing finger is just such a third grade thing to do, and I am pretty sure if you were to ask any Xiongnu they would be furious that you would even suggest that they are peaceful people who would not of attack the central plan had not for Meng Tian.
In fact, your history teacher would be pretty furious that you suggest Xiongnu and their struggle with the central plan began during Qin at all. Even during the time of Zhou, there were fighting between these two.

So, its pretty silly to resort to something like this.

Anyway, there is a difference between raiding and stealing, one is through the legitimate force of war and the other banditry. Whether or not someone is greedy or not is a personal opinion, for example, robber barons and captains of industry are used to describe the same kind of person, so why try to change other people's opinion? Also, whether or not someone is stealing should not suggest whether or not they are greedy, these are two separate things.

[cavszabo]

Are you sure you want to say who hit who first? The struggle b/w the hordes and the central plain is so much longer than that., and the pointing finger is just such a third grade thing to do, and I am pretty sure if you were to ask any Xiongnu they would be furious that you would even suggest that they are peaceful people who would not of attack the central plan had not for Meng Tian.
In fact, your history teacher would be pretty furious that you suggest Xiongnu and their struggle with the central plan began during Qin at all. Even during the time of Zhou, there were fighting between these two.

So, its pretty silly to resort to something like this.

Anyway, there is a difference between raiding and stealing, one is through the legitimate force of war and the other banditry. Whether or not someone is greedy or not is a personal opinion, for example, robber barons and captains of industry are used to describe the same kind of person, so why try to change other people's opinion? Also, whether or not someone is stealing should not suggest whether or not they are greedy, these are two separate things.

I have been studying the steppe people for between 30 and 40 years and can say quite honestly that in many cases the initial impetus for war was on the side of the various empires that are normally seen as "settled". If you look at this case, I have no doubt that there were raids and counter-raids and of course the people who fought Zhao were likely to have been early Xiongnu ("Hu"). But here we are talking of throwing a people off land they consider to be their own. If you read the Shi Ji, it's clear that the later Xiongnu Danhu Moadun believed land to be very important, and used it as a reason to attack the Xianbei in the east when they demanded Xiongnu land.
One of the reasons I made the post was to counter the prevailing view that those who start wars are always the nomads. The other was to counter the idea -- so often expressed on CHF as well as elsewhere-- that nomads lived off plunder. These concepts are now outdtated and it is time to move on.
There are parallels here between the US and the American Indians. They were portrayed for a very long time as nothing but "savages" who attacked peaceful settlers. It's only later we heard that they were fighting to get their lands back.

Cheers,
Chris

[mariusj]

I have been studying the steppe people for between 30 and 40 years and can say quite honestly that in many cases the initial impetus for war was on the side of the various empires that are normally seen as "settled".

Example b/w the central plains and the steppe please.

If you look at this case, I have no doubt that there were raids and counter-raids and of course the people who fought Zhao were likely to have been early Xiongnu ("Hu"). But here we are talking of throwing a people off land they consider to be their own.

Also example. What do you mean people were thrown off their land? Which land were theirs?

If you read the Shi Ji, it's clear that the later Xiongnu Danhu Moadun believed land to be very important, and used it as a reason to attack the Xianbei in the east when they demanded Xiongnu land.

But how does that relate to the claim that Xiongnu were thrown off their land? It might of suggest Danyu's determination, courage, etc etc, but how does this relate to this discussion? Remember, whether or not you think land is important have NOTHING to do with whether or not these land are yours! Land is important to EVERYONE. I thought that is just common sense, and it shows that Danyu was a sensible man, especially for nomads when they do depend on grazing land and the size of land needed to sustain the same population as agrarian is far greater.

One of the reasons I made the post was to counter the prevailing view that those who start wars are always the nomads. The other was to counter the idea -- so often expressed on CHF as well as elsewhere-- that nomads lived off plunder. These concepts are now outdtated and it is time to move on.

Who here believes that they actually live off ONLY on plunder?
Are you also suggesting that they DO NOT live off on plunder?
Even Rome live off on plunder. What is wrong with living off on plunder? Why do soldiers in pre classic and classic eras fought for if not for plunder?

There are parallels here between the US and the American Indians. They were portrayed for a very long time as nothing but "savages" who attacked peaceful settlers. It's only later we heard that they were fighting to get their lands back.

No there isn't any parallels at all. Xiongnu is a powerful and vast government with a central authority that rules over vast territories with an army that at its prime have more than 300,000 soldiers!
There is NO comparison b/w the US / Native Americans and Han / Xiongnu. The resources that were used b/w the Han/Xiongnu wars were astronomical. The Native Americans didn't stand much of a chance due to technological difference, logistic ability, and human resources. On the other hand, Xiongnu and Han were often on equal footings.

Again, I must stress again that there is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' in ancient wars. There were atrocities done on both side, but the one with a more mobile force is likely the one to take advantage of mistakes made by her opponent.