[Yun]

Shadowfax, there are two issues here: firstly, the "barbarians" were generally better because they were trained from their youth to be fighters, whereas the brightest Han Chinese during the Song dynasty were trained from their youth to be scholars and only the second-rate were expected to go into the military. But that was not always the case - until the Tang dynasty, aristocrats were often trained in the military arts and expected to lead armies for the emperor.

Secondly, it's a misconception that only the "barbarians" killed lots of people on their campaigns. The Han Chinese conducted many massacres too, and it's not as if the Mongols only massacred Chinese cities. (read my account of the fall of the Xi Xia capital). The Mongols used massacres strategically as a way to intimidate their enemies into surrendering rather than having to resort to a long siege. Any city that surrendered unconditionally would be spared, any city that resisted to the last would be massacred. If a city surrendered and then rebelled again when the Mongols left, the Mongols would return and massacre it too. It was a cruel but necessary measure to enforce control over conquered territory with only a relatively small number of warriors - the Mongols were always a tiny minority among the people they ruled.

[Shadowfax]

Thanks for the reply, Yun! Yeah, I just remember some of the Chinese warlords such as xiang yu ordered massacres of the populations too. I think it's still bad, even though they have do so in order to install their rule. :ph43r:

[jiangji]

Yes, there is no doubt they are military weak but economically stronger.

[MichaelCHang]

Song is a dynasty that lasted for 320 years. Why so long in spite of weakness in military?

I think it's not because Song was lucky.

Why he can be still for 40 years under the great invasion of Mongolians while other kingdoms were easily conquered by them?

I just explain it by one word.That is "morale".

Song gained morale from the day it was found.

Song Taizu(Zhao Kuangyin) sweared that ministers,officers and those who expostulates with emperor should not be killed, and if any of emperor did,he will be condemned by God.

They administrate their nation by mercy, and that gained moral.

[General_Zhaoyun]

I think it's what's called "Song has got the mandate of heaven", i.e. the right to rule China given by the heaven. Anyone who wants his dynasty to last for a longer period of time has to rule with benevolence and morality, otherwise he will lose the mandate

[MengTzu]

MichaelCHang, on Dec 21 2004, 06:13 AM, said:

Song is a dynasty that lasted for 320 years. Why so long in spite of weakness in military?

I think it's not because Song was lucky.

Why he can be still for 40 years under the great invasion of Mongolians while other kingdoms were easily conquered by them?

I just explain it by one word.That is "morale".

Song gained morale from the day it was found.

Song Taizu(Zhao Kuangyin) sweared that ministers,officers and those who expostulates with emperor should not be killed, and if any of emperor did,he will be condemned by God.

They administrate their nation by mercy, and that gained moral.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is one of the reasons that Song is one of my favorite dynasties. I admire Han for its classical culture, Tang for its diverse culture, but something about Song really captivates me. It appears to be very enlightened (though at the same time it was form Song that a lot of conservatism about social behavior began, which resulted in the introverted way that Chinese and to some extent East Asians still act, and which also resulted in sexism. I'm frustrated that Chinese culture is often singled out for its sexism, though sexism isn't unique to Chinese culture, but we can't congratulate ourselves just because other people made similar mistakes.) Song Dynasty, along with its cultural achievements along the line of Neo-Confucianism, Religious Taoism, Ch'an Buddhism, and others, was the age of enlightenment of China, similar to that of Europe that took place at a later time. Like the Age of Enlightenment of Europe, there was a lot of new, fascinating perspectives, as well as a new sense of ideal morality (Neo-Confucianism instilled a sense of heroism to the scholars-officials, as evidenced by figures such as Wen Tian Chang,) but also brought about some radical and hair-splitting ideas. By the same token, the Age of Enlightenment Europe brought about a lot of new theories about humanity as well as a new sense of moral behavior, but it was also very fundamental in forming prejudicial theories such as race theories.

[General_Zhaoyun]

Song dynasty, although militarily is weak, was strong in chinese literature, philosophy and technology development. It was an age of enlightenment for chinese civilization.

[MichaelCHang]

That's what I thought....

[Yue Fei]

Yun, on Jul 30 2004, 02:55 PM, said:

One thing that I've always wondered about is how much Zhao Kuangyin feared his own senior generals, because they were the ones who had made him emperor in a coup and could well do it again. Unlike other founding emperors like Liu Bang and Zhu Yuanzhang, who slowly killed off their powerful generals over a period of time, Zhao got his senior generals to all retire at the same time.

In one account (from one book I read), the writer blamed that move for laying down the foundation for a weak military and government.

Kuangyin would pay everyone in the court while centralising his power. As a result, most officials were simply contented with their simple existence and the palace life of luxury ... ... much like overpaid and underworked civil servants. There was no incentive to contribute to the advancement of the empire, things would remain status quo or deteriorate.

It could be such situation that led to the rise of literary appreciation and flourish, since the officials did not have to work too hard to secure themselves nor to prove themselves, what else could they indulge on?

This period was also known for its crafts, mainly pottery.

[vp98]

There was a over centralisation of military power in the central government. The central government's army was the best equipped, best trained and best paid. While the provinces' army were 2nd class.

This results from mainly 2 things - 1 lessons learn from Tang.
2 - personal experience of Zhao Kwang Yin. He was proclaimed by his army in the Yellow bridge revolt. He also has similar fear that this will happen again.

[shurite7]

From Imperial China; The Art of the Horse in Chinese History

Song Qi a famous scholar & for a time superintendent of government pasters wrote this:

The reason why our enemies to the north & west are able to withstand China is precisely because they have many horses & their men are adept at riding; this is their strength. China has few horses, & it's men are not accustomed to riding; this is China's weakness...the court constantly tries, with our weakness, to appose our enemies strength, so that we lose every battle...those who propose remedies for this situation merely wish to increase our armed forces in order to overwhelm the enemy. They do not realize that without horses, we can never create an effective military force.

Other info from the book

"while China had a large number of cavalrymen, only 1 or 2 out of ten had a horse to ride."

There were attempts to procure horses in the lower Yellow River valley area. However, this attempt failed due to public pressure to use the land for more traditional farming.

Another way the Song tried to obtain horses was via the "Tea for Horses" market along the border. It seems the Chinese tried to inflate the price of tea but the quality of the horses were not that great.

Cheers

[Chinese Paladin]

My teacher once told me the reason why Song is miltary weak is coz many of its soldiers actually convicts lol And that only the homeless becomes soldiers @_@ Tat prolly explains the bad morale even if the Song have better technology.

Anyway back to Yue fei, he was sentenced to die becoz he was too successful. They just cook something that he was plotting against the Court to kill him . The reason being , should Yue fei wins, and recover Northern Song, the present emperor will lose his throne coz the Jurchens holds 2 song emperors pow. To retain his authority, the Song Emperor killed Yue Fei:S

The Song are actually very cunning. They break treaties and have barbarians fight against barbarians just to reap benefits.

[tadamson]

Actually a large part of the explanation is that Song, esp Southern Song, wasn't militaraly weak. There were lots of soldiers, fortifications, ships, armour, weapons etc... Plus many of the soldiers themselves were good, tough troops. They lost wars primaraly because the profession of soldiering had become relativly low status and anyone with talent or ambition went a different route. As a result many senior military posts were seen as a short inconvienience in a career. This appears to be a direct consiquence of the sucessful reestablishment of the scholar bureacreacy and the importance of confucian ideals (the same things that made the dynasty excell in other areas).

You just have to look at the massive effort that the Yuan had to invoke to conquer the Song to appreciate this (particuarly if you compare it to the earlier campaigns of the Northern Song to reunite China).

[vp98]

In the Southern Song era, the people of Song has enjoyed the fair weather of the South and the riches brought in by the trade. They are a softened people. When people are rich, they tend to be more hesitant to rush into fighting.

The wealth and contact through trade also brought about higher level of innovation.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I believe the weakness of Song's overall military is not due to the poor quality of the individual soldiers(from the Song military records, we even have the evidence to suppose that they were better than the soldiers of previous dynasties espiecally in crossbow professionalism), but rather the incoherency in the central coordination. The Song had the habbit of shifting generals between different armies constantly to prevent regionalism. This creates a lack of coordination between the general and his soldiers. This isn't just what occured in China, but in 14th century Europe as well. Then there is also the suspicion at court and court intrigues. Lots of times, the Song army were pulling off successes on the field, but had to withdraw, because of rivalry between opposing generals, leading to their lack of cooperation, and slanders at court. This is supplemented by the suspicion of the emperor, which forces a withdraw even when the battle is undecided or even achieving a possible victory.

This post has been edited by warhead: 07 September 2006 - 01:39 PM