[jiangweibaoye]

General_Zhaoyun, on Aug 5 2005, 12:19 PM, said:

I've yet to discover a good english book on Han Wudi, but there seem to be a new english book on him called "Han Wu Di and Ancient China (Rulers and Their Times)" by Miriam Greenblatt . You might want to check it out.

Zhaoyun,

Thanks for the info.

That is a great username you have. I have to state that Zhao Yun (ZeeLung) & Kongming were always my favorite characters in The Three Kingdoms.

Jiangweibaoye

[Whsie]

jiangweibaoye, on Aug 4 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

To All,

Han WuDi always fascinated me. I compared him with Tang Taizong & Yongle.

Can anybody refer me to a book concerning Han WuDi in English? Thanks.

Also, I don't think he is overrated. If you think he is overrated, you should say the same for QianLong. For me, it is not enough that a particular emperor accomplished something, but also accomplish it under great adversity. Hence, I included Yongle.

Well, I don't think Han Wudi is overrated. I do think Qianlong is overrated. Qianlong made more expedition than needed. the Han dynasty on the other hand were constantly getting sacked by Xiongnu, therefore Xiongnu were a enemy that definitely needed to be eliminated. It's true that both emperors left the country in decline and bankrupt, but Wudi has major siginificance in chinese history. If you look at Qianlong, he made expeditions, and had a prosperous reign for his first 40 years. Wudi is different. Most importantly, he opened and started the Silk Road. He created monopolies. Qianlong had none of these. Wudi created better weapons and increased the technology. Qianlong on the otherhand just stood the same. Confuscism also became the main basis which is also very important. All these reasons is why I rate Wudi in the top 5 chinese emperors of all time. Though he had bad parts of his reign, but his importance in chinese history probably surpasses any other emperor.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

A better comparison with Qian Long should be Han Xuan Di and Tang Xuan Zong, not Han Wu Di or Tang Tai Zong(who should be compared to Kang Xi instead). Since all three represents the respective heights of their dynasty economically and in stabilization.

This post has been edited by warhead: 04 May 2006 - 01:13 PM

[Whsie]

warhead, on May 4 2006, 01:13 PM, said:

A better comparison with Qian Long should be Han Xuan Di and Tang Xuan Zong, not Han Wu Di or Tang Tai Zong(who should be compared to Kang Xi instead). Since all three represents the respective heights of their dynasty economically and in stabilization.

Indeed you are correct. In matter of fact, I rate Tang Taizong, Kangxi, Han Wudi as the top 3 emperors in chinese history. I personally thought Taizong was the best. Don't forget, Buddhism was also introduced, so his period was also highly significant.

Qianlong should be rated with that 2nd class of emperors(who are still strong, but not great. Khublai Khan is another example). Out of Han Xuan Di, Xuan Zong, and Qianlong, Xuan di was probably the best. Xuan zong and Qianlong are like parralels. Both had huge success at first, but later caused the dynasties to start their decline. Qianlong is probably better than Xuanzong. Military wise, Qianlong was better. Xuanzong on the other hand lost a few during late in his reign. Xuanzong defeated the Tibets and Khitans, but lost to the Arabs later. Culture wise, I would say Xuanzong may have ruled the best period. He had both Du Fu and Li Bai poets. Economically, Qianlong's earlier 40 years was better.

[Sephodwyrm]

But apparently, the Qing court historians have decided that Qianlong was more of a Gaozong than a Xuanzong. That title I think was reserved for Daoguang.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Tang Xuan Zong also differs from the other two in that the begining of the collapse of Tang started right during his reign. Neither Han Xuan Di nor Qian Long faced decline in their reigns. In fact in Xuan Di's case, there was no decline even afterwards.

In the area of bilateral international relationship, the Tang also stands out in contrast with the Han and Qing and more in line with dynasties like the Ming in that the political power of the Tang was greater, exerting its maximum range in its early phase rather than its middle phase.

The reign of Tang Xuan Zong, as economically powerful as it was, was not the period of the height of Tang political power. This has largely to do with Tang's neibour developments. We see an international world order forged by the Tang in its early phase in what can be considered a unipolar structure. This changed to a multipolar international system with the rise of Tubo and the recreation of the Tujue empire during Wu Ze Tian's reign. Then during Xuan Zong's reign, it reverted back again to a Tang dominated system of a much more restricted unipolarity.

Xuan Zong's reign marked the Tang as a power of "first among equal" rather than the position as a power without equal which it held during Tai Zong and Gao Zong's reign.

This is similar to the Ming dynasty in which the early period under Yong Le was more powerful in its bilateral relationship with the Mongols and Central Asians. But it was during Ming Sheng Zong's time that Ming saw its greatest prosperity and economic power.

This might have to do with the similarity between the FuBing and the Wei Suo system of military establishment, in fact we see an astounding parity in the political development in the early-middle period of the Ming and the Tang.

The Western Han military system is very different from those of the later periods in that the army was conscription based, rendering the military efficiency of the army largely equal throughout its reign. Unlike the Fu Bing, the mercenaries, the Wei Suo, or the Bannerman, the Han miltitary system does not see as much a decline of its military quality from long periods of peace in which the professional armies rot away from inexperience.

[Whsie]

warhead, on May 7 2006, 09:32 PM, said:

Tang Xuan Zong also differs from the other two in that the begining of the collapse of Tang started right during his reign. Neither Han Xuan Di nor Qian Long faced decline in their reigns. In fact in Xuan Di's case, there was no decline even afterwards.

In the area of bilateral international relationship, the Tang also stands out in contrast with the Han and Qing and more in line with dynasties like the Ming in that the political power of the Tang was greater, exerting its maximum range in its early phase rather than its middle phase.

The reign of Tang Xuan Zong, as economically powerful as it was, was not the period of the height of Tang political power. This has largely to do with Tang's neibour developments. We see an international world order forged by the Tang in its early phase in what can be considered a unipolar structure. This changed to a multipolar international system with the rise of Tubo and the recreation of the Tujue empire during Wu Ze Tian's reign. Then during Xuan Zong's reign, it reverted back again to a Tang dominated system of a much more restricted unipolarity.

Xuan Zong's reign marked the Tang as a power of "first among equal" rather than the position as a power without equal which it held during Tai Zong and Gao Zong's reign.

This is similar to the Ming dynasty in which the early period under Yong Le was more powerful in its bilateral relationship with the Mongols and Central Asians. But it was during Ming Sheng Zong's time that Ming saw its greatest prosperity and economic power.

This might have to do with the similarity between the FuBing and the Wei Suo system of military establishment, in fact we see an astounding parity in the political development in the early-middle period of the Ming and the Tang.

The Western Han military system is very different from those of the later periods in that the army was conscription based, rendering the military efficiency of the army largely equal throughout its reign. Unlike the Fu Bing, the mercenaries, the Wei Suo, or the Bannerman, the Han miltitary system does not see as much a decline of its military quality from long periods of peace in which the professional armies rot away from inexperience.

Tang during Taizong was indeed an unmatched superpower. None of the Europeans or the Byzantium could match up to the economic and military success of Zhenguan. Military wise, only the Arabs (at that time under the 3rd or 4th capliphate) could rival it; however Tang should have been stronger.
By Xuan Zong, there were a lot of rivals. However, tang should have still been the best overall. Economically and culturally, it can't be matched. Military wise, tons of rivals. Xuan Zong defeated Khitans and Tibet. In the 720s, Eastern Turks were reborn and defeated Tang. Luckily for them, Eastern Turk destroyed itself. However, in teh 751, the Abbasid Caliphate defeated the Tang.

Ming had high points in economic and prosperity under Wanli not because of Wanli. Wanli himself is known as a lazy emperor. The only reason because Ming had a high point was because Zhang JuZheng as prime minister was controlling everything for the first 10 years.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

The western powers does not belong to the same international system with China, so there would be very limited political interaction involved, power in this case, becomes purely statistical.

The Islamic standing army is actually very small, there are only around 5,000 arab troops in foreign territory, the rest are tribal army which the central power in Syria had very little control over.

The second most powerful military in the world(at least standing army wise), even during Tai Zong's time is Tubo, it has a military establishment of 400,000 soldier by the 8th century A.D.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

By Xuan Zong, there were a lot of rivals. However, tang should have still been the best overall. Economically and culturally, it can't be matched. Military wise, tons of rivals. Xuan Zong defeated Khitans and Tibet. In the 720s, Eastern Turks were reborn and defeated Tang. Luckily for them, Eastern Turk destroyed itself. However, in teh 751, the Abbasid Caliphate defeated the Tang.

We must realize that local rivalry is not the equivalent of international rivalry. Greater powers can exert their influence in a much wider sphere, Tubo might have been a local rival to Great Tang in places such as Si Chuan, QinHai, and the Pamirs, but it is not Great Tang's rival in Manchuria, Sungaria, West Turkestan, or Mongolia.
Strategic wise, Tubo has been encircled by Tang diplomacy in a series of alliances that extend from the Kashmirian northern Tian Zu kingdom in the South, Wakhan, Bulkh, and Bo Le in the west, as well as Nan Zhao in the southeast. In the Tang world order during late Kai Yuan, Tubo and Tujue were merely regional powers, the Tang was the conflict dampening superpower.

This post has been edited by warhead: 09 May 2006 - 10:18 PM

[Xyston]

This is what the Cambridge History of China says about the person of Han Wu Di:

"Wu-to was in his sixteenth year when his father died in 141bc. Nine years earlier he had been nominated heir apparent, after intrigues within the palace and the displacement of Ching-ti's first choice of succesor. The new emperor was destined to preside over the fortunes of China for no less than fifty-four years, one of the longest reigns in chinese imperial history. Many writers have ascribed to him personal qualities of vigor and initiative and held these to be responsible for the achievments of the reign, but on closer inspection direct evidence to support such claims is far from clear-cut. Much of the initiative which was taken in these decades may be traced to the proposal of his statesmen, some of whom were related to the emperor's consorts; but Wu-ti himself took no personal part in the direction of the military campaigns for which his reign is famous. We read of him taking the leading role in religious ceremonies, supervising the final moments of repairs to the dikes of the Yellow River, or inspecting a victory parade. In addition, he is reported as seeking means to achieve immortality or listening to the persuasive talk of magicians and intermidiaries. When trouble broke out between his consorts and their families (91bc), the sixty-year-old emperor apparently could not quell the disturbances bu force of character. Although there is no way of telling wether he enjoyed personal popularity, or could inspire devotion, the policies that became associated with his name soon encountered sharp criticism on the gounds of extravagance and injustified sacrifice of life."