[General_Zhaoyun]

What do you think? Was she an iron-lady and as capable as Wu Zetian?

I say, she is an ultra-conservative and incapable of ruling the Qing..that's why Qing got bullied by the western power so easily.

[Koolasuchus]

General_Zhaoyun, on Sep 6 2004, 11:25 PM, said:

What do you think? Was she an iron-lady and as capable as Wu Zetian?

I say, she is an ultra-conservative and incapable of ruling the Qing..that's why Qing got bullied by the western power so easily.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She was too petty to be a ruler of a failing dynasty. She cannot see beyond the palace walls, thus she wasted her considerble wit in court intrigues and left the actual governing of the country to rott. Her underlings are charged with all the tasks of running a central government yet they have none of the authority to make any important decision without the Empress Dowager's explicit approval. It is this strangule hold on power that accelerated Qing dynasty's inevitable demise.

[RollingWave]

She was capable.... but it takes a lot more than a capable leader to save a failing dynasty.... the fact that she was able to hold it together for so long was already a pretty convincing point that she was at least capable.

ALL of the Qing's modernization attempts were started under her rule. and when she acturally had her minds set to do it (in her very late years after the boxers) it went through much better than most ppl had expected. (the new rule) but when she dies the modernization collasped immediately as the royals fight for power in the new consitution making it into a joke.

She takes a lot more blame than she deserves IMHO mostly cause she was a women. she certainly made some very bad decisions (like boxers...) but would anyone else in her place done better? so easy to criticize with hind sight no? if you compare her rule with that of her husband... was it worse? or better?

Under her rule...
1.The Taiping rebellion ended.
2.The Qing reestablished control over XinJian and much of southern China.
3.They regained control of the capital Beijing which was in the hands of the British and French when her husband died. (in inner mongolia)
4.All moderization attempts came during her reign... all but the failed 100 day new policy was supported by her.

obviously her wrong doing is a lot longer than this list, but taking what other people said for granted is easy... (and often misleading) can you think in her shoes? in what she was and what she could do and couldn't do? would the Bei Yang fleet not perish if she had not used some of it's fund? would the boxer rebellion not happen if it werne't for her decision? would anyone else make a better call if they were in her place? hard to say.

[snowybeagle]

RollingWave, on Jan 19 2005, 11:41 PM, said:

She was capable.... but it takes a lot more than a capable leader to save a failing dynasty.... the fact that she was able to hold it together for so long was already a pretty convincing point that she was at least capable.

Sorry but I don't agree.
The main reason for the Qing dynasty's ability to persist into the 20th century has more to do with the Westerners propping it against internal revolts rather than the real capabilities of CiXi.

RollingWave, on Jan 19 2005, 11:41 PM, said:

ALL of the Qing's modernization attempts were started under her rule. and when she acturally had her minds set to do it (in her very late years after the boxers)

Right, after she suffered personal humiliation.

RollingWave, on Jan 19 2005, 11:41 PM, said:

She takes a lot more blame than she deserves IMHO mostly cause she was a women. she certainly made some very bad decisions (like boxers...) but would anyone else in her place done better? so easy to criticize with hind sight no? if you compare her rule with that of her husband... was it worse? or better?

I agree that traditional Chinese chauvinism held her responsible for mistakes which men probably would be blamed less.

But I don't agree that it is only hindsight that enabled us to criticise her.
If that's the case, we really shouldn't criticise any historical figure, including Hitler and Stalin.

I'd say on hindsight, some of us might think Dr. Sun Yat Sen lacked what it takes to be a leader to successfully revolutionise China into what he envisioned, but the difference between him and CiXi is that CiXi's avarice was well known, and what she did was out of self interest rather than the interest of the nation.

RollingWave, on Jan 19 2005, 11:41 PM, said:

   Under her rule...
   1.The Taiping rebellion ended.

Thanks to foreign intervention ...

RollingWave, on Jan 19 2005, 11:41 PM, said:

   2.The Qing reestablished control over XinJian and much of southern China.

Zuo ZongTang and company deserved the credit for that. It was their proposal and hardwork. Amazing what can happen when she did not interfere.

RollingWave, on Jan 19 2005, 11:41 PM, said:

   3.They regained control of the capital Beijing which was in the hands of the British and French when her husband died. (in inner mongolia)

She hadn't any control over the Court affairs at the time yet.

RollingWave, on Jan 19 2005, 11:41 PM, said:

   4.All moderization attempts came during her reign... all but the failed 100 day new policy was supported by her.

IIRC, it's primarily military-related.
I don't recall anything concerning the welfare of the populace and really advancing the country. The 100 days reform were ambitious, but they addressed most of the root causes of the weakness of China at the time.

RollingWave, on Jan 19 2005, 11:41 PM, said:

can you think in her shoes? in what she was and what she could do and couldn't do? would the Bei Yang fleet not perish if she had not used some of it's fund? would the boxer rebellion not happen if it werne't for her decision? would anyone else make a better call if they were in her place? hard to say.

Agreed it would be hard to say if one had been living such a "sheltered" life where the first aim is to survive the intrigues of the Inner Palace and the second is to stay at the top of the heap, and one's education does not give a realistic picture of the situation of the world.

But isn't that just an apologist excuse?

It was not just the embezzlement of funds that led to the destruction of the BeiYang Fleet, it was an entire mismanagement of the military - appointing incompetent favourites or lackeys to crucial positions, condoning the corruption of officers responsible for military ordnance, failure to punish and dismiss those unable to do their duties. With her authority, wasn't she ultimately responsible for the above? Instead, she made worse the practice of corruption, those who wish promotion bribed her favourite courtiers and eunuchs.

The boxer rebellion arose because the Western missionaries were getting away with a lot of things which they shouldn't have. Even though CiXi was not responsible for the treaties which allowed such discriminatory treatment, she was more intent on protecting her position rather than finding ways to elevate the position of the Chinese citizens so that they would not be looked down upon by the foreignors.

This post has been edited by snowybeagle: 19 January 2005 - 12:24 PM

[astralis]

Quote

4.All moderization attempts came during her reign... all but the failed 100 day new policy was supported by her.

would like to point out, most of these efforts were helped along by such reformers as li hungchang, liang qichao et al...when they succeeded it was only because cixi decided not to interfere, as li was a good lackey of hers

[Six_and_Up]

She was capable enough to hold power for a long period of time. Perhaps if she wasnt in power when the dynasty was near-collapse she would have faired better.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

She was average, just what any old school royalty would have done, so I don't blame her too much, but still to an amount, it would be much more fortunate for the Qing if another Kang Xi or Yong Zheng appeared at that time especially Yong Zheng, for his hard work and ambition is absolutely suitable for a powerful empire. There was a Qing admiral who once said, had Ci Xi spent the amount of money she wasted on luxury, all the waters will be navigated by the fleets of the Bei Yang and carrying the Qing banners to all the oceans of the world.





"I'd say on hindsight, some of us might think Dr. Sun Yat Sen lacked what it takes to be a leader to successfully revolutionise China into what he envisioned, but the difference between him and CiXi is that CiXi's avarice was well known, and what she did was out of self interest rather than the interest of the nation."

And counterbalanced by the fact that Sun is an utmost racist.




"Thanks to foreign intervention ...
"

Zeng Guo Fang would have done it with or without Foreign intervention.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Think hypothetically, China's initial potential is enourmous. If Qing was under someone with the broad site of Kang Xi and the hard working spirit of Yong Zheng at this time, and start sending out scholars to learn the western science, fighting the Japanese in the Sino Japanese war to at least a draw(and knowing that this is not enough and start full modernization) dividing Korea with Japan, then start to gain the ability to produce its own battle ships, create the beiyang army with much more in number, create railways and centralization under the complete power of the emperor, support the peasant so the scholar class of anti Manchus would be crushed. Then with the vast resource and manpower of China, it defeats Russia instead like Japan would of done. Then during world war 1, It retakes the Ussuri, and Lake Balkash alone with French Indochina. With its vast population and manpower, its economic growth would be phenomenal surpassing Britain after World War one, signing the treaty of 1922 on equal terms with Britain and U.S. making all equal in battle ships, then when the great depression and world war 2 comes, it would take the rest of Korea and Ryukyu from Japan, take Burma and rest of IndoChina from the French and takes Thailand, Nepal and then Malasia and singapore from the British. All with the claim that these were orignizally Chinese vassals. Unlike Japan, it has the great natural resource that are not vulnerable to threats of American stop of trade. Then it would invade the Soviet Union's Central Asia and British India, take some territory but use the slogan of overthrowing th foreign imperialist under the Celestial dynasty's aid. It doesn't need to attack the U.S. so would not go to war with it. After world war 2 ends, Soviet Union would be more exhausted then it was and the superpowers would be Qing and the U.S. The powerful weapon of Qing would be assimilation of the native population into the larger mass which the European and Japan could not do.

[HaSY]

that's a good hypothetical thinking........
China will get its deserved place as a world superpower but with a powerful monarch ruling.....

this is during the Hundred Days Reform

Main Contests of Emperor Guangxu's New Policy

Politics: To dissolve idle organisations,clarify official rule and promote a clean and
honest government.To set up a bureaus of systems,to carry out reforms
in old organisations and to promote submission of petitions to the
Emperor.To cancel bannermen's privilege by which they depend on the
state on state for maintenance,and to allow them to seek their own
livelihood.

Economy: To set up agricultural,industrial and commercial bureaus,and to promote
establishment of industries,To set up railway and mining bureaus and
post offices.To carry out financial reform,to work out budgets and final
accounts and to publish a balance sheet.

Military: To dissolve old armies and use foreign-trained elite army and navy.To
implement the Baojia System.To set up factories for the manufacture of
arnaments and munitions.

Culture
and
Education: To abolish the ''bagu''(8-part essay) examination,promote western
studies and change academics of classical learning into schools.
To estasblish a university in Beijing.To establish high,middle and
primary schools in various places.To send students overseas for further
studies.To set up translation bureaus and to encourage establishment of
presses.To permit students to form their ''own xuehui''
(academic sociey).To encourage and reward technological inventions.

pls go to http://www.thecorner...na/lqreform.htm
for more info about Late Manchu Reform(causes,background,aims and its failure.

[Wu Zetian]

General_Zhaoyun, on Sep 7 2004, 04:25 PM, said:

What do you think? Was she an iron-lady and as capable as Wu Zetian?

Cixi is not qualified to be compared to Wu Zetian!!

Cixi ran the country thinking firstly of her own benefit before the needs of the country. For example, spending the army's money on renovating the summer palace (Yi-He Yuan) and Yuan Ming Yuan when China is in danger of being attacked from foreign forces is definitely wrong! She is famous for squandering money, even when the country is in dire need of it - the money she spent on Emperor Guangxu's wedding was more than any Qing emperor ever spent on their wedding. Cixi is one of the main (though not only) contributors to the Qing dynasty's fall

Whereas Wu Zetian is definitely a capable ruler, and helped build the Tang dynasty into one of the greatest Dynasties ever. Imagine what would have happened without Wu Zetian - when Taizong died, Gaozong was not strong or capable enough to be an effective ruler, and could very possibly have been overthrown (e.g. Gaozong's sister and her husband tried to start a rebellion). Zhongzong and Ruizong were pretty incompetent, and if it weren't for Wu Zetian, the Tang may have even been finished before Li Longji (Tang Ming Huang) became emperor. Under Wu Zetian's rule, the economy was good, and when there was famine, she was careful not to squander the country's needed money. She also revolutionised the examinations procedures, thereby making it possible for people without connections to get an official post if they are talented enough. Also, Wu Zetian managed to become the first and only FEMALE EMPEROR, where Cixi was just an empress dowager. There have been heaps of powerful empress dowagers in chinese history, but only one female emperor. It is sad that historians often talk biasedly about Wu Zetian because she is a woman and because she "usurped" the throne.

[bhchao]

Empress Dowager Cixi was no doubt a selfish ruler. Because of her, China suffered humiliation at the hands of the Western powers. She spent money allocated for modernizing China's navy to build her Summer Palace instead. And when so many people wanted reform, like Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao wanted, she obstructed the reforms and killed many of the reformists' followers.

She impeded China's progress more than any of the preceding Qing rulers. If there was a capable Qing ruler in her place who was open to foreign technologies and new ideas, and eager in implementing change, I doubt China would have lost so badly to Japan in 1895.

On the other hand, Wu Zetian was definitely a capable ruler. She increased social mobility by perfecting the civil service exams, and ensured that the exams will be open to anyone with talent. The economic prosperity of Wu Zetian's reign allowed the cultural blossoming of Tang Ming Huang's reign to happen.

[adoo]

warhead, on Feb 21 2005, 06:45 AM, said:

...And counterbalanced by the fact that Sun Yat Sen is an utmost racist.....

care to elaborate ?

[astralis]

Quote

She impeded China's progress more than any of the preceding Qing rulers. If there was a capable Qing ruler in her place who was open to foreign technologies and new ideas, and eager in implementing change, I doubt China would have lost so badly to Japan in 1895.

not really. she was no more capable and no less capable than most emperors in the past; however, the reason why she is seen in such a bad light is because to really save the qing a very, very capable ruler was needed- and she wasn't it.

china lost so badly to japan in 1895 not really because of her command- it was because of problems with tactical command, poor officership.

[ahbian]

she could have done alot better.

[highlander]

warhead, on Feb 21 2005, 02:45 PM, said:

And counterbalanced by the fact that Sun is an utmost racist.

Me too, would like you to elaborate further on this statement. For a man like Sun Yat Sen whom was exposed to so many cultures during his exiles in so many countries and had so many friends from almost every major continent on this globe during his time, not to mention he studied in Hawaii when he was young! No offence, but i think your statement is totally baseless and unfounded.