I want to ask many forumer in here especially the expert in china history, my known about chinese history is not deep.

I know the China Dynasties who the biggest in teritorial is Qing Dinasty and Yuan Dinasty.

I ve saw their map of teritorial in their conquer, The ironism is this dinasty is not chinese dynasty because one is Manchu (Qing Dinasty) And One is Mongol (Dinasty Yuan).

Why Chinese/Han can be conquer by this minorities etnich. They re only small population but can conquer the very big population/han etnich ?

Is This the indication that Han Etnich is not unity, so very easy to conquer by other small etnich ?

Conquest? I thought it was unification.

The Ming dynasty fell from a combination of the three things, that brought down all Chinese dynasties: invasion, rebellion, and corruption. Of those three, the last one was the worst. So internally the were already weakend. And on top of that the Chinese general Wu Sangui collaborated with the Manchu in the hope that the would drive the rebels out and then go away.

this may be an interesting Topic about the decline of the Ming dynasty and why the fell.
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3068

and this about Song
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=776

You seem to assume at the time all Chinese were unified behind the emporer.

Some times I think Chinese would work with the the invaders for various reasons:

1) Get rid of evil emporer
2) Increase their own status but getting on the side of the next leader early


Historically elite fighting forces that are well armed and well trained can easily control of a population much smaller.


The Germnic tribes pretty easily took over Celto-Roman Britian, and even fought among themselves, but the Celts never regained the land from the Germanic peoples.

Roman's often took over territories where they were a minority.

THe Greeks under Alexander controlled (losely so) a large land empire with relatively few of their own people.

Very few Japanese (relatively speaking) control about half of China, all of SOutheast Asia, and a good deal of the Pacific.

AMerica at one time, with less than 300,000 soldiers took control of all of Iraq, a nation of over 30 million.

So if the Chinese are fractured, the army demobilized or weak it would not be hard for a unified, elite, trained, funded force to take over China.

If the Japanese did not get their oil supplies cut off, forcing them to take over Southeast Asia and also fight the Americans, I have little doubt they could have taken over all of China within 2 or 3 years.

The Manchu invasion in many cases could even be compared to William the Orange's invasion of England. And Puyi seem to insinuate that was the case in the criminal trial of Japan after World War 2. When unquestioned by a Japanese interlocutor about his ancestor's atrocities compared to the Japanese ones, Puyi indicated that his ancestor's invasion was legal, because they were invited to take China by Wu San Gui, while the Japanese invasion was purely an atrocious invasion.

Someone forgot the Tang dynasty and the Han dynasty.

It's easy to only focus on low points and compare them to other high points, if you really want a self-confirming hypothesis of Han inability.

According to your logic, British should not be able to conquer India

You mean, almost the world.

Dragonball,

In both the Song and Ming dynasties, which were conquered by invading Mongols and Manchus, respectively, one must take into account economic breakdown, social dissension, official corruption, crop failure, natural catastrophes, widespread disease, open rebellion, and the military strategy of both opponents.

I'm having trouble understanding if you are truly being serious with your question, or are here simply as a disruptive troll by calling Han Chinese people "stupid" for being conquered by powerful northern cavalry-based armies (perfect for conquering land on flat plains, such as the North China Plain) that employed siege machinery which was every bit as sophisticated as Chinese siege craft.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to explain yourself. If you give an unsatisfactory answer, I'll petition amongst the CHF staff to close this thread down, as I see its potential for becoming disruptive and insulting.

Eric (En Rui)

The 13th-century Mongols were able to conquer just about everyone they tried to conquer, except for the Japanese and Javanese (due to the high difficulty of mounting amphibious invasions), the Egyptians (due to disunity and rivalry among the Mongol khans), and the Viet (due to a major naval defeat). They built the largest empire the world had yet seen, and Yuan China was only one component of this empire. So I don't think we need to take the remarkable success of the Mongol conquests as a reason to denigrate the 'Han' Chinese specifically.

As for the Manchu conquest, there is some sense to arguing that the Ming Empire was already falling apart before the Manchus invaded in 1644. The various internal rebellions had destroyed it, essentially clearing the way for the Manchus. But any idea that the rebellions should be blamed on disunity within the ethnic group that the Manchus called Nikan (in their own Jurchen language) or 'Han' seems to me to be missing the point. The population of the Ming Empire numbered over a hundred million around 1600, and expecting such a large population to share a common ethnic or even 'national' identity in the pre-industrial age is completely unrealistic. Furthermore, the ability of the Qing empire to conquer the Tarim Basin (Xinjiang) and dominate Tibet and Mongolia should be seen in terms of the personal strengths of the first few Qing emperors and their capacity for understanding and relating to Tibetan and Mongol culture (especially Lamaist Buddhism), rather than used for another reductionist comparison between ethnic groups.

One of the biggest mistakes of anachronism that modern historians tend to commit is to associate the achievements of a pre-modern empire with a single ethnic group (usually determined by the ethnicity of the emperor), ignoring the fact that such empires had armies and ruling elites that were solidly multi-ethnic. Indeed, the ethnic identities of the Mongols and Manchus were new creations at the time of their respective conquests, and it was participation in the conquests themselves that gave formerly disparate tribes a new sense of ethnic unity, rather than a pre-existing sense of ethnic unity making the conquests possible.

i think you need to understand more about chinese culture, other han ruling dynasty, always involve corruption and some of emperor love peom, painting, they don't care about politics ,although they are in the position, some of them convert to monks, i guess, mogolian have strong army, especially the rider,骑兵，chinese can hardly defeat them, even they are in minority number, Montesquieu said, the culture the custom of certain population is greatly affect by the climate and geography, take mogolian as an example, they living in a cold zone, so they tend to be brave, strong, fearless, on the contrast, Han living in warm and fruitful land, so they become good tempered, easy conquered.

That kind of environmental determinism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism ) is no longer accepted by most scholars today. In fact, the earliest large empires in history were founded by people who lived in warm and fertile lands, because they were able to channel more resources into military expansion.

If the Mongols were military invincible just because they lived in a very cold and infertile place, then shouldn't the Inuit have become the greatest military power in the world? It is true that nomadic cultures tended to esteem brave warriors and glorify warfare, but that is a result of the importance of raiding as a supplement to herding in these cultures, and not just a product of climate.

Yes, i am saying it's part of the reason, not the whole, take me as an example i live in north east of china, the royal land of Manchus, so people here tend to be more brave, 豪爽，in fact most of them are immigrant from shandong, but now they seems to be assimilated by the manchus culture, or the native resident of this land. As i said, mogolian 骑兵，is almost invincible to Han chinese. even they are in small number, i think most of people living in same climate condition, result almost same charateristics, like north europe, they are also aggressive,
Another reason for Han chinese being conquered, i think it's because they never bond together, even in the same province, they have different dialect, they cannot understand each other, like in JIangsu province, north jiangsu and south jiangsu, are always incompitable, they look down upon each other, because of the difference, north jiangsu, like northerner, south jiangsu like southerner, they have different accent,when speaking madarin,

One could also argue that people in warmer climates developed the first empires and land armies because they were less effected by the last ice age and lived in better farm land, which allowed for some base of support for food, so they could differentiate skilled tasks and specialize.

People further north, on their boundary tended to have less abundant land and focused on mobile raiding and warfare because they had no choice. They had less resources available to them to form large empires that could differentiate task.

If you notice, after a certain point in history, about 200BC or so, all over the world (well Eurasia) the major invasions in history were lateral (people invading their neighbors or in the same general climate zone) or people invading from North to South. Very few invasions were South to North but very early in history. Even in China, China didn't build many great walls to protect them from Southeast Asians. Rome didn't worry to much about SubSahara Africans or Arabians way to the South, etc. Indians rarely invaded North out of the Indian Subcontinent, but people often invaded South into India and they were always more warlike...but not just mindless savages, but highly organized and efficient.

Obviously as you get to an Artic zone or a dense jungle I don't believe you would be able to use horses for fast raids, you could not support as large of groups (very limit food or a lot of disease) as you get more to extremes you have problems developing large civilizations and maintaining them, let alone being able to compete. All major early human civilzation occured between 15 degrees North and 43 degrees north. If they did not they were by sea lanes that has extensive contact with people to their North. I don't think at all that is coincidence.

One can argue at the extremes, near the article and especially in the tropical regions they were last to develop strong empires (unless they were by a seaway) largely due to the environment they were put in.

That environmental determinism is still excepted by a lot of people...I'm not sure where you are getting it is not, one of the biggest books on that in the last 10 years was Jared Diamond's Pulitzer Prize-winning "Guns, Germs, and Steel"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

There is no agreement in the literature on this yet, there is definately still a school who promotes this theory and carries respect.


I personally would not go as far as Diamond and attribute every variation in different regions of the world to environment, but I think environment is a powerful variable as to how people decide to structure cultures and societies. For example, I don't think Arabs would have the same culture if people in Arabia in ancient times had the same envrionment as Ireland.

Very true indeed. Also the process of recruiting and incorporating foreign troops already existed back to the dates of Rome and Han Empire, or even well before. Military composition of the Mongol showed this phenomenon even in a sharper way.


Warhead, can you explain "unification" in this case?

Both the Mongols and the Manchus were able to conquered or take over China because as what have been mention, mainly of high corruption within the Chinese Imperial Palace that resulted in low moral for the military. Plus the defection and betrayals of Chinese generals that help the Mongols and the Manchus.

In the end, it would not be China that will be conquered by the Mongols or by the Manchus in fact China will conquered them as both Mongol and Manchu would become part of China.

The Mongols and Manchus would be Sinocized and integrated to become part of Imperial China.

Since the concept of national sovereignty did not exist at the time, we could just as accurately call it unification instead of conquest. After all, Dorgon did compare the Manchu contention with Li Zi Cheng to the rivalry between Liu Bang and Xiang Yu, and like all other contenders, the Manchus tolerated no other sovereign who had the title of emperor.

They are not brave b/c they are born to be, but they are brave due to they have far less to lose. A soldier with a full loot cannot fight well as Li ZiCheng army shown. The necessity of life can change a man to whatever you wish it to be.

Nevertheless, Mongolian cavalry isn't almost invincible to Han. Ming China after repelling the Mongols, went far into their territory and pretty much wipe out the Golden Tent.

Han Chinese do bond together, if you put a barbarian in the mist of them. So you can't say well even though in JiangSu Province northern part and southern part don't see eye to eye, they will if there is a rambling barbarian who can't speak any Chinese. SiChuan province made the Mongols pay hell before they were captured. Only b/c SiCuan without support from the court cannot fight anther 40 years when the Mongols expanded so large.

That only seemed to be the case for the south. Northern China gave little resistance to the Manchus. Questions such as how come so many Chinese failed to stop so small a horde is an anachronistic observation. Popular nationalism is necessary for a state to mass mobilize its population effectively, or for the locals to provide their own resistance independent of the government. Yet popular nationalism did not exist in ancient China. This people's war concept really only started during the ROC and developed fully by Mao's time. Its unfortuante for the Chinese that it only became a full fledged doctrine during the nuclear age. If it was utilized any earlier, it would be extremely difficult for any foreign powers to defeat China on her own soil.
A slight foretaste of what popular opposition can do can be seen in Yelu De Guan's failure to occupy north China; his policies incited massive rebellion, forcing him to retreat out of the newly conquered central plains all together. This first massive invasion of China by a foreign power(Khitans), was a complete failure(all previous "barbarian" occupations were either small, or not really foreign, none of the AOF states that were established were due to foreign invasions).

Well I really didn't have popular nationalism in mind, since I don't think there are much nationalism when you don't have a sense of nation.
For part on why so many times were small horde of barbarians successfully invade China, I must say, though they are small compare to the whole of China, they aren't small compare to a part of China. While Chinese movements are generally restricted by numbers of horses and troops though might appear large aren't there all together to fight pitch battles due to the large border and the necessity to defend any and all of them, nomadic armies can generally pick and choose who and where they wish to fight if fight at all, and then use their combine force which then on the tactical scale larger then the Chinese forces and over take them. Rarely have a professional Chinese army suffer frontal defeat till the 19th century to an enemy forces. Thus when we ask the question why were the Chinese defeated, we must look at several factors such as supply and movements and most importantly communications. In one sense you could almost say the nomads are like David and China the Goliath, while one is a fist clench and know its whole movement the other is a giant hand outstretched and often wonder what the hell everyone else is doing.
I mean, how do you beat light cavalry except with guns and light cavalry?

The concept of nation as in a group of people unified by a culture did exist and nationalism itself is quite prevalent among the literati of China. Its the concept of nation state that did not exist.

I fully agree with you on these arguments. But they are very different from the crudely simplistic, even Social Darwinist approach that I felt Rookie expressed, in which people living in inhospitable climates would naturally be tough and brave, and people living in hospitable climates would naturally be soft, weak, and decadent. In reality, environment is (as you said) an important variable, but it is certainly not a determinant, so I would not call your point of view environmental determinism.

As for Jared Diamond, even he would not call himself an environmental determinist, as seen from his answer in this interview about his second book Collapse:



http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/collapse.html

I think that's too rosy a picture.

The Mongols became part of the Qing empire only because the Manchus were able to conquer them. Most of them broke away soon after 1911 and refused to join the Republic of China; obviously they had not come to see themselves as part of China.

The Manchus certainly came to see themselves as part of China - after all, they were its rulers! - but in the late 19th and early 20th centuries there was no lack of people who condemned them as foreigners and wanted to drive them out. Only after the end of 'Imperial China' did Sun Yat-sen and the other revolutionaries realize that it was strategically unwise to give up the 'non-Han' parts of the Qing empire (i.e., Manchuria, Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet), and so they decided to make the ROC a 'republic of five races' rather than a purely Han nation-state.

discerning point

In fact you can not say they are brave, because they have nothing to loss, maybe some of them are poor, but they have family or child, and i believe some of them are well educated, otherwise, they cannot form a solid and invincible force. They must also well known the war strategy.
Ming is different with song, zhu yuan zhang, is a poor people and fearless. The structure of Zhu yuan zhang's force is different with song, zhu yuan zhang are rebellions, because they cannot survive anymore, so there are only two choice for him, die or win the war, and he is smart.
Han chinese is complicated, like mongolian attack them, they will think let other army of the country to confront them, so that they can keep them own, it's all about politics, sometimes if the officers don't get along well with each other, they are happy to see their colleage killed when confronting Mogolian, but i think at the beginning Song never thought they would be take over, So people are still keen in their politics fighting of their own,.
And another reason i think because the emperor of Nan song, are weak, they like literature, art, but not military.So when confronting the cavalry of mogolian, they suddenly realise they are so strong, and Zhu yuan zhang, succed because he already know the secret to defeat them, someone said that the best weapon to confront Cavalry is Long lance长枪。And Mogolian officer is also corrupted, then they failed.

i remember Kongzi have talked about the northern strength and southern strenth,南方之强与北方之强，孰强，北方之强，强者之强。金戈铁马，蹈死不悔，南方之强，君子之强，宽柔以教，不报无道。maybe you can see the secret why Mogolian and Manchus can conquer the han. I think from this you can know why Ming do not include Tibet as their territory, they are good by themself. Then Manchus or Mogol, they want as much large territory as possible, to glorify their existence. And why when Manchus ruling, ordinary people have a great time, because the manchu emperor is good at solving the inter ethnic problem, and call for a solution, on the contrast of Han emperor, always treat other ethnicities as bararian

Spell check is a wonderful tool and thank God for Microsoft. Use it. Its good for your health.


So I think I am at a lost at your English. Are you saying that I should say they are brave because they have nothing to lose? Well I think I should. In all human society, the rich does not invade the poor unless its for some I need a bigger penis reason. So yes, people have less to loose thus have more to gain through war, thus its the general underlying reason, or one of the, in my opinion; so what I am saying is not that they are not brave, but instead of a natural gift of courage instead think of it as a symptom of wealth or the lack of. Have you seen any Vikings recently? There is a good reason why there were Vikings and now there aren't.
As for the war strategy, certainly I agree with you. But that is like saying a Samurai should know how to fight; well they should, because that is all they do [fine, but they are expected to fight unless they are exceptionally brilliant in other fields] So I am missing your point about them knowing strategy or they are educated.


Hum. Ming is not Han? I brought up Ming b/c someone said hum Han Chinese are quite worthless and they can't stand up to the Mongols.
I rest my point.


Again I am at lost.
Every nation is like this, even the Mongols. You simply can't expect a draft army to want to fight till death for almost nothing. However, since Song had a professional army, and since the scholar gentries are the one who control the military, I really don't think we should say things like whatever you just said.

And, who the hell from the beginning would expect them to be taken over by their enemies? Or if they did so what? I am really not sure what you are trying to say, but what the heck could the Poles possibly do when Germany and Russia decide to split them. I mean, hum, a rock and a hard place.
Certainly there are no excuse for Song since they are more advance in almost every field, but raw strength often does not represent real strength. Oda Nobunaga with very few man defeated a vastly powerful Imagawa Yoshimoto, Oda clan's raw strength is like a fly compare to the Imagawa clan, but as we know, Imagawa was promptly defeated.

Sometimes we simply can't ignore great man who demand the world to note their presence. If you watch the Matrix, think of them as the Unbalancer of the equation, Napoleon defeated great armies of Europe, Gengiskhan conquered the world, Alexander the Great conquered the known world, I mean, you really can't just ignore these factors and say well Mongols are strong and Han are weak.


OK. As much as you put down Han Chinese's military greatness, I am really fine with that, since really we only got Han and Tang to be proud of due to TVs [we should be proud of Ming and Qing but I won't say it b/c people might throw rotten eggs at me... generally I am fine with the eggs, but rotten? Not so good]
Anyways. You think Song didn't have Long Spear [I think Lance is generally use for the thing used mounted.] or pikes? If Ming used pikes they would be as dead as Song. I think you don't understand what beats Han military. Its not the awesome power of these cavalry charges, but rather the inability to catch up to your enemies. Mongols don't charge at you close enough for you to stick them with spears. If they do, you think they could pass all these troops massed by the Song court even in your disdained Southern Song? Hundred of thousands were killed not because a cavalry charge broke them but a constant and continuous and never ceasing harassment of arrows days and nights.

I mean you really have to be an idiot if you been hit with heavy cavalry and CANNOT come up with something like 'I think a long stick would stop them first' and so if Song didn't think of that great secret, then really I can't imagine they proceed with their culture economy or any other advancement when they fail to see a long stick would stop cavalry.

Anyways. You forgot there is a reason why Song extremely wanted to distant themselves from military. The very fact that Song came after the longest period [or maybe one of the longest] of fragmentation and chaos where military commander held much power and everyone suffered. I personally believed that is the very reason why Song Emperors and scholars held a complete distrust towards military man, they learn from Tang. Though they certainly could have improvements, I simply don't see we should blame them for fear of making another mistake again.

I really, really can't believe I am hearing this.

Before I go on ranting about what I can't believe I am hearing, I personally gave more credit to the Mongols for actually conquering China with undeniable success where they utterly, unquestionably, conquered China; whereas the Manchus there are plenty of lee ways for people [hum.... maybe like me] to say well really someone open the Great Wall for them, but at the moment of Manchus actually enter China, there are few ways out for the Han to turn the Manchus away and once Li ZiCheng was defeated I can't imagine how that would happen so yes, in one sense, Manchus did conquer China. But the reason is not b/c whatever you posted. I mean, Confucius is comparing, from that given context, Wang and Ba, and in his case from a purely Confucian point of view, Wang is better then Ba but that certainly does not mean Ba will beat Wang, which if you take the case up to any Confucian scholars, they will tell you Wang beats Ba.


Anyways.

when Manchus ruling, ordinary people have a great time, because the manchu emperor is good at solving the inter ethnic problem, and call for a solution, on the contrast of Han emperor, always treat other ethnicities as bararian

You jest.
I am speechless.

You should go up to a Jew and tell them, you know what, I think the Babylonians did the Jews a great service, I mean under Babylonian laws and rulers, average people enjoy a great life and is good at solving ethnic problems and call for solutions.

Yes, they solve the ethnic problem by making everyone wear pigtail or die, which I suppose in some sick sense a great solution. They simply kill hundreds of thousands if not millions for PERHAPS writing something improper, noted keywords, PERHAPS, and WRITING. No, not killing fighting man, not killing rebellious man, but some idiot editors or printers or shop owners who happen to have the misfortune of knowing someone who knows of someone who heard of someone who perhaps, may have, wrote something improper.
Yes, I like your solutions. And I believe this will be my last post to you unless you really, really explain why we shouldn't treat you like a troll.

Sorry for interrupting you again, But my original thought is that the Chinese saw their emperor as "Son of Heaven", therefore Chinese society displayed a non-egalitarian model, which other states supposed to recognise its sovereignty. So, could you go for more details on the absence of the concept of national sovereignty? Do you mean patriotism or some forms of loyalty?

Thank in advance



Not quite so, Tang foreign policy usually treated countries that shared similar Chinese civilisation as "civilised" people such as Korean and Japan. Usually, it was my observation that Chinese emperors became quite generous to weak states whose rulers recognised Chinese sovereignty (by entertaining their emissaries at royal courts, assigned them to some official positions. This did not necessarily indicated that China gave way to traditional Confucian ideology and the conception of "Barbarian". There are constantly many pragmatic solutions where Chinese rulers sought peace through different political means, including making peace when their power were weakened by internal struggles. During Tang times, it was already shown that minor ethnic groups in some cases were headed by jimifuzhou, enjoyed a large degree of freedom and were exempted from population reports.

Eventually in politics, pragmatism was constantly practiced based upon what situation and the tendency of policy makers.

Some of my south Korean friend said they also hate China, i think although we chinese think we chinese are friendly and kind people, but i believe, the emperor of ancient china do practise something bully the minority ethnicities, and hurt their feeling,

mind your manner, don't inherit the habit of critisizing people posess different opinion,

The fact is that it is impossible to totally eliminate the conflicts between different Peoples. Chinese and Koreans were unlikely to live in peace together, and with such an non-egalitarian Confucian ideology, the Chinese could be viewed by Koreans, Tibetans or even Vietnamese as being quite arrogant and spiteful. Especially when Chinese possessed one of the most influential civilisations, they might also feel proud of this. However, personal feelings such as hatred was nothing to do with academic discussion, and should be removed or neutralised to preserve the accuracy of every judgment or conclusion.

I think we are straying away from the subject matter.



The Mongols have been trying to conquered China many times several raids or battles were fought between Mongol forces and Chinese army and in many occasion Chinese armies have been successful. The only thing that China did not do was to follow through with their victories or taking advantage of their military superiority over the Mongols by launching a full scale invasion on Mongol lands instead China adopted a limited form of engagement and continues to concentrate to build the great wall to keep the Mongols and other barbarians out.



In the end China would not be conquered by military means but by psychological warfare and intricate diplomacy that targeted Chinese Generals to defect and fight on the side of the Mongols. After decades of constant and persistent attempt by he Mongols they would finally succeed to win some of the Chinese Generals over and that happened not because those Chinese Generals were disloyal but they did it believing that they were saving China from the declining moral and political responsibility of the Imperial court especially with the rise of out of control corruption. It was a coup de tat.



It was a choice between the two lesser evil and during the declining years of Imperial China both the Mongols and Manchu were consider probably by the defecting Chinese generals and maybe by the general population of China as the lesser evil especially since China was experiencing hardship and sufferings from their rulers.



Notice though, that at the pick of Imperial China’s power, China’s military were very capable of defending its borders.



Years later both the Mongols and the Qing would share the same fate and both made the same mistakes as Imperial China did and that is they all failed to maintain a responsible government. Without a responsible government expect all kinds of civil, moral, social and political decline a recipe for a collapse of a nation and open its borders for foreign invasion or takeover.



The lesson that present day China must learn is to always maintain a responsible government and a capable military that can defend China’s national interest especially against foreign military invasion.

I'm sure it has virtually nothing to do with ancient China and everything to do with modern nationalistic revisionism. East Asians really needs to grow out of these us versus them mentality, its often detrimental to their international relation. But then its the government that is really to blame for all these indoctrinations. In fact, despite textbook revisionism, I see Japan having the most objective perspective in terms of history not just in Asia, but in the world.

The point of academic discussion is to critique each other's thoughts and ideas and correct the mistakes. Why don't you explain what you mean when many have ask you to explain yourself? For example, your comments about the Qing Emperors been benevolent rulers, or others such as Song aren't that bright b/c they couldn't think of long spears to fight cavalry man.

You made several statements that are completely false and when I point out, you say this. Interesting.

And if your S. Korean truly hates Chinese and China, and you claim to be Chinese, that itself is an paradox; how does someone who truly hates one group of people befriend with one among such group they claim to hate? So they really aren't your friend, or you really aren't Chinese, or they thought they hate the concept of China but really they are just express some Napoleonic complex.


And really, do spell check. I thought this forum has this tool come equipped.


I don't believe it at all. How could anyone claim to save China after they see what the Mongols did in China? There are thousands leagues of land without a soul for all have perished, and they claim to save China. I suppose if they intend to do some population control then certainly they did save China.

No. I don't intend to discredit any Mongolian or Manchurian force's mights, but to make them better then what they are are really pointless. To make those who switch sides and claim they are in fact patriots is even more pointless. I suppose when you switch sides b/c political prosecution, its somewhat understandable. But for a man who draws his check from the Imperial Coffer, hold important defense position, seen Mongolian atrocities, and open their gates to the enemy that their people were dying to fight for benefit of their own, and then they return and hunt down their former comrades, that is TREASON, not the kind of The Rock General Hammond treason that I suppose one could say if he really wants patriotism but are the Judas type. I won't accept any claim that these generals were trying to save China unless you have really good solid proof.

Notice that the Mongols were able to expand their territories after conquering China. The Mongols were able to gain the resources especially in technology & man power to expand their conquest to Russia and eastern Europe.

AT that time China was plague with disunity, hardship that was largely blame on the imperial court the people were fed up and were more than willing to see an end to the Ching dynasty. At the same time other parts of China especially in the North the population and once allied Generals have switch to the Mongol side. The Mongols maybe we can say were seen as liberators.

When it comes to atrocities & terror both the Mongols and Imperial China have no exception.

But as I have pointed out, the Mongols will also commit the same mistakes as the Ching did and that is they too will become corrupt, disunited again and become politically irresponsible couple with their continued use of terror against the population.

The Mongols who were once disunited were unable to conquered China it would only after the Mongols united under the leadership of Ghenghis Khan and at the same time China became disunited that the Mongols would succeed in conquering China.

For those generals who have defected maybe a good example will be the present day Iraq war: before the USA invaded the USA have been applying psychological warfare calling for Iraqi generals to order their troops not to oppossed the invasion because Saddam was an evil man that is not worth dying for, that the USA are comning to liberate them from Saddam, that if they don't resist they will be treated well. Same concept in ancient times. When you have a very corrupt imperial court, honestly, I would not want my soldiers to die for them.

I highly doubt that. Given what most people feel about ways of life in ancient China, people won't see Mongols as liberators. As for northern population, Song was disappointed when they attack Jin they did not receive support as liberators, but since they weren't under Song rule for several hundred years, that is understandable.
And I always thought the invasion into Russia was 20,000 Mongols. There were no Chinese technology or manpower to support that expedition. The real technological gap was the invasion into the Middle East.


We are not communicating.
I brought up atrocities b/c you said the Generals wish to save China, and I said what kind of saving is that if you see your 'savior' commit such atrocities. This doesn't mean Mongols are the only one capable of such atrocities, as atrocities of wars are commit by every and any Empire worth its salt.
However, just to clarify, I assumed when you say atrocities done by Imperial China, you speak of atrocities done to other people other then the Chinese right? Or are you saying atrocities done to the Chinese by the Court?


I don't know. I personally won't put massive famine on the Mongols, as I don't think divine retribution is in this case here.

At the same time, for such small population to rule such large population, what could they do except in forms of terror? The legitimacy of governance is the legal use of violent force, call them tyranny if you wish, but that is the only way to rule for the Mongols.


My steppe history is really messy, but lets just say that there weren't Mongols prior to Ghenghis Khan.

And when you say China became disunited, what do you mean?




No, the Iraqi generals did not join the hunt for Saddam.

And please name a few examples of those who actually took their man and joined the Mongols.

We went through this already. Its one thing to surrender, like Iraqis did, its another to betray your country. And also, the culture norm of that time was you fight till death. We can't take today's standard and say well if it was I I wouldn't want my troops to die. Back then, the military law is extremely harsh. Most Chinese commanders upon failure, slit their throat immediately to avoid capture. And they are EXPECTED to do such, as it would bring glory to their family name and surrendering brings such shame that their families would suffer b/c of it. Just remember the social pressure place on military man that they are expected to die when fail.

Besides, the court really isn't corrupt in the sense that oh the world's most corrupt nations etc etc. You can say there are political infightings, but which Empire doesn't?

Personally and from most articles or history I read, most people don't use the word corrupt as in corrupt today, but more in the sense of inept.


And why did you use Ching?

Sorry, when i read such text involved a critique sentiment, i can hardly read your post, i guess, discussion and debate should be carry out in the peaceful manner, anyway, if you think it's wrong, i may not be wrong subjectively, the critique can only bring the discussion to an end. Ok, some of my statement, is just some opnion flow, maybe right may be wrong, but my concern is not to conclude something, but contribute more to the discussion.

i will keep that in mind. But i didn't find any spell checking tool in this forum, maybe you can show me.

As i said, the Han chinese often got the superority attitude, they already think their land scale is enough, so they don't want the land of Mogol and manchus. The land large enough, i think it's the reason, why china seldom invade other country till today. And i as a northerner, i feel that somehow, the southerner are different from the northerner. I think north is mostly dominated by confucius teaching, and south is mainly dominated by Taoism teaching, maybe when you ask a chinese, he may not know what's the Confucius and Taoism, but i think the quality is embedded in their blood. As a philosopher said 人伦日用而不知，maybe the Wang ken from Taizhou. In Taoism, people don't want to communicate to each other, even they reside in a nearby village, i guess this characteristics, was posessed by many Han chinese, especially in Song dynasty, so they don't want the land with fierce climate, in mogol.

You seem to brought up the superiority attitude a lot. And I wish to address that before your other comments.

Since there are no real way explaining it, I suppose it would be better if I put it in forms of question:
So given the high level of Chinese culture and advances compare most if not all the surrounding culture, why shouldn't they feel superior? What should they be feeling? And is such feelings possible even in today's standards, let alone standards in the specific period we are talking about.

Then.



Very well.
Then tell me what you mean by the Manchu emperors have nice ethnic policies, for example, name them and why. That wasn't just an opinion, its an opinion on a historical fact. When you express an opinion about a popular subject, you bound to defend your thoughts, and if you can't defend them why bother saying them? So for example, if today is a good day but I say, hum what a crappy day, people will ask me why the heck you say that. To which I would justify the reason why I say this good weather is a crappy weather, maybe b/c its relative, maybe b/c I am in a bad mood. If I don't explain my opinion then people would just think I am an a**.
So when you say Manchu Emperors are generous man with great ethnic policies, its an opinion that is CONTRARY to popular perspective and people are bond to ask you to explain yourself. Like my weather example, either you explain or people take you for an a**.

And remember, when you don't explain your reasonings, thus people don't understand you, you are not contributing to anything.




When you are posting, do you see these red lines under your words such as 'chinese' without the C or 'superority' for superiority? You right click that word and change it.



Really.
There is a reason why Koreans didn't like us. And its not because we never invade them. There is also a reason why the Vietnamese didn't like us. Its also not because we never invade them. There is a reason why people who think Han are bad asses think such way, not because they are idiots, but b/c apparently someone said something about whoever hurt Han, no matter the distance, will be punished.
And then, the 'seldom invade other country till today.' Excuse me, who did we invade?


You are correct. South are under Han control far longer then the north.


I must ask you to again, explain your reasonings why is north more dominated by Confucius teachings, since south has been ruled by Confucius doctrine government far longer then the north. And if a Chinese doesn't know what Confucianism or Taoism is, I personally gave props to that man.


OK. I am really not sure where you get your facts to form these opinions.

Several things. Land in Mongol isn't good for agriculture, since China is mainly agriculture based till recently, they don't want land that are inefficient. Life isn't extreme sports, you need to feed your family and pay your taxes. You need land that are close to the water, and can be defended. That has nothing to do with Taoism ideas.
Then in Song dynasty, economic activities reached a new height, new technology, banking concepts and such all pop out. I simply cannot imagine where the 'in Song people don't want to communicate to each other' come from.

I think its isn't helping at all. I brought up several points I wish you would address.
Here they are.
Manchu ethnic policies.
Ming's winning secret of having long spears to beat out Mongols.
And your comments today. What makes you think Northern China is more Confucian and Southern China is more Taoist so strongly that you think its embedded in their blood [I hope this was a literately usage, since we can't even know if philosophical teachings could be pass down genetically or not.]
And finally, what makes you think in Song China people do not want to communicate with each other.

So your question is does the superiority attitude exist, and what's wrong about it.
Ok, the superiority does exist, but i don't know how to specify, maybe it's just a feeling, like shanghaiese, often like to categorize people from other province as country man, i don't know whether it's right, but it does not make people feel good, like my friend who from Wu Han, when he visit Zejiang, he went to a restaurant, he felt that the waitress treat him bad, she didn't serve him in a good manner, 不理不睬的，maybe it happens everywhere, but worse in Zejiang, shanghaiese is considered most selfish people in the whole country, if you want me to provide evidence on that, i don't have, because i cannot provide evidence for everything, most of them are money oriented, although some people in my hometown is also like that, but not so much, i am not criticize anyone, since you asked me to elaborate, i think hospitality is not often seen in shanghai, when my friend visit shanghai, he took bus, then he give his seat to an elder people, but he don't feel got a thanks in return, but a strange look, seems she is telling you are so stupid. And many other incident like this. Maybe every people feel superiority, some of them due to richness, some of them due to good look, but i feel ideally everyone should feel proud of himself, that's the reason he live in the world. But not superiority, because, this means others are inferior, Mengzi teach us to 尚友， make friend with all over the world, Kongzi teach us 有朋自远方来不亦乐乎，you know what, Mengzi said 吾养吾浩然之正气，i think zhengqi is one unique virtue in Confucius teaching, you cannot found that in Taoism or Buddhism, that's what i feel i belong to. But i am not criticize Yin qi, but i feel in general, Yin and Yang, that's where the difference of south and north come from, in Chinese culture, we all have yin and yang element in our body, but someone have all yang, some all yin, some Yang exceeding yin, some Yin exceeding Yang, all my argument come on the base of that.
I never feel that the superiority attitude exist in any china's philosopher, because they know the in nature, people have nothing different, the difference, is someone is enlightened early than someone else, but you cannot criticize or discriminate others for this, i like the Chinese culture, because Chinese philosopher is open minded, and have a broad vision, in Chinese is 胸怀，i never feel any belonging to the Shanghais i referred.
And 南怀瑾 have said that, if you practice taoism wrongly, you become selfish, that's reason i believe why most shanghaiese become selfish.
but the brave of north and smart of south, all together, form the uniqueness of china, i believe, that's both necessary. But when the world is globalized and china also same, there are also a lot conflict between south and north, that's the fact, and i would not like to see that, maybe that's the reason for china's premier to strengthen on harmony, i think it's very important, and every country else got this inter ethnic conflict, like Russia is dissolved, Israel conflict, if they don't propose a solution, the future china will be the Russia today.


that's what i saw from a TV show, Kangxi and Qianlong deliberately handle the ethnic policies, they treat every other ethnicities equally, and to handle the Mongol relations, he built a summer palace in Chengde which is outside the great wall, and he build 蒙古包，in the palace so that, when he treat the Mongolian officer, they could feel like home.


I think every Chinese scholar accept qianglong and Kangxi are brilliant emperor, it's quite commonly saw in china's TV show.
I think some of the Chinese criticize Manchus, and even Qianglong and Kangxi, is just because the narrow mind attitude.Yes, we have been conquered, but they should face that, they are conquered, is because their own problem, corruption or lousy military force, the Han people are keen to engage in their own politics, that's my understanding from all the experience when i living in china, you cannot blame someone else.It's your own fault. And Manchus ruling time have gone through three hundred years, if you are not happy, you can start a rebellion, but no one dare, because if they failed, they suffer, if they succeed, everyone else enjoy. Now Manchus is part of china, and i hate someone deny that. 成王拜寇，is the rule.
And i seriously doubt the concept of Han, in fact, that's the three kingdom time, the north is Wei, south west is Shu, the south is Wu, and below that is Yue, there is no Han, and the war between Xiangyu and Liubang, is name 楚汉之争，only Liubang represent Han, in fact chu is chu, wu is Wu, yue is yue, there is no han, han is just a name for the unification good. Not all the people belong to same han even within the Han group, so let's assume that it's because they posses same culture and value, but Manchus also posses same culture, they sinocized, Man and Han is just name, it's no good to judge by the name only, but we need evaluation. Not because someone is han, he is good, he is Man, then he is evil.
I remember that some scholar said, chinese have been fighting in his own group, after the France and England invade china, chinese realize they are the foreigner, the people we fight before, are within the same group.
I feel ,when we reading, it should enlarge our vision, 文人相轻，is a bad habit of Chinese scholars.



before china unified, Qin did invade every other country,who didnot obey them, the reason, china didn't invade Korea, i don't know why, seems that every territory close to the central china have been integrated in china's territory,


i don't know which group you belong to, but this claim definitely ridiculous, first under Han control long ,does not imply more Han or superiority, second for the ethnic harmony purpose, i think no need to argue who under Han control longer,
And about the north is more dominated by Confucius teaching, maybe you could refer to 傅斯年's 夷夏东西论，his main argument is that, Kongzi absorb the ren yi from Dongyi.And as i have said, use one line to conclude the beauty of confucius teaching, is 吾养吾浩然之正气，in geography, north belong to Yang, south belong to yin, and north people are more hospitable.
The south i don't not know much, different region got different personality.But in general is Yin.

You seems quite over estimate chinese, most chinese locals of course know a little bit about ru and Dao, but the knowing is not the knowing i mean, most of people seldom read Dialects or Daodeching. But the teaching is embedded in their think, such as loyalty,and filial

the rest i think maybe answer you next time,

How did they treat Han Chinese?
I speak specifically of 文字狱。


Cough. Its true of your latter part, that TV shows does show QianLong and Kangxi [and personally I would add Yongzheng]. It might even true for EVERY scholars to accept QianLong and KangXi as great Emperors. But every is a word I dislike to use.

However, brilliance implies nothing of generosity. They are both excellent at destroying Han culture. Certainly on the Manchu's point of view that is how they must rule, but you can't tell a Han Chinese that they should calmly sit like lambs and wait for slaughter.


I am uncertain if its their narrow mind attitudes that cause this. More like sheep been herd.
But certainly Manchus did some pretty annoying things [and I am not talking about losing war to Japan and been weak] e.g. pig tail, wenzi yu, multiple of them. So lets just say its enough for me to say Manchus are not without flaws, thus I criticize them for their flaws, and since I accept Manchus have the mandate of heaven, I criticize them for their flaws as Emperors of China.


You see your words here: cannot, its an excellent word, it implies physically unable to or such feat is impossible to perform. So the phrase you cannot blame someone else should be you should not blame someone else. Anyways.
If you are conquered, do you retaliate or do you just sit there and take it like a man? If someone come at you with a knife, do you take it like a man or do the more sensible things, to run? If someone beat the hell out of you, kill whoever does not conform, you complain when their backs are turned.
As for the statement Han people are keen to engage in their own politics, who doesn't?


Its really easy for you to say 'why the hell didn't you guys just rise and fight' but to physically began an rebellion from scratch at the zenith of an empire is extremely difficult. I mean, its not a video game where you could brilliantly out maneuver massive enemies and defeat them and regain your freedom. You need a massive uprising, kind of like the yellow scarf.
So this is a pretty point less comment, kind of like 'why don't they just eat cake.'


OK. I think you are trying too hard to translate. Just type in Chinese.
Anyways, I don't plan to go into an argument of whether we are Han or not, if you really want, we can go with Xia, Hua, or whatever.


I personally agree with you that Hua is culture and not a racial thing. However, I must also stress that if you do not conform to the Hua culture, you are a barbarian, I don't care what you are, that is what separates HuaXia and Yi. Also, Confucian values do conform to the concept that someone is born within HuaXia is always good and those of Yi are bad. For example during Spring And Autumn the Duchy Jin of HuaXia wage war against Duchy of Chu which was then though of as ManYi, the scholars praised Chu and criticize Jin.

Then I must also raise the point that when Manchus commit certain atrocities in China, they did not follow Hua, thus they were barbarian; doesn't matter if their decedents became part of Hua, it does not trace back. Prior to Liao became an established kingdom, that is prior to them calling themselves TianChao, they recognized they were barbarian, they were Yi, but after they establish their throne, they are now the true authority.
And so please don't assume when someone say Manchus did some naughty things its b/c they are Manchus and we are Han. I mean that is one silly way of thinking, the we vs them are only if you can actually tell the difference; I mean if its aliens vs marines, certainly we vs them logic works but if I can't tell a Manchus from a Han, that is pretty dumb.


Are you talking about the Boxers? I am not sure what you are trying to say, but Boxers began as the group of people who rebel against Qing, and then they decided they dislike the foreigners even more. I don't think it has much validation in their nationalist love but rather xenophobic hate.


OK, OK. Reread what I say. I said they hate us not because we never invade them implies we did invade them. So yes, China did invade Korea. The notable ones are Han, Sui, Tang.
And Qin invade not b/c people did not obey them. Seriously.


I have no idea which group I belong but if I must say I suppose I am Han.

Then, where did you see in my post were Han superior? Let me refresh your memory, you said Northern China have more Confucian values then Southern China, to which I reply how did you come up with that, Southern China has been under Han rule for longer, with the not so subtle inference to the Han are Confucian and other people are not Confucian.
So yes, those land under Han control are more Confucius if not the same due to the logic of which land is more influenced.
I don't gave a rat's a** about ethnic harmony, if you care for political correctness then you should stop. I dislike avoiding problems if it makes people comfortable, and I dislike it even more when people cover up problems so everyone could feel harmonious. Bullock.


I don't think this satisfied me. So b/c in general southern China is perhaps represented by Yin [which I doubt] its less Confucian? I mean.... did that actually make sense to you? So are Russians more Confucian? Perhaps the Mongols and the Manchurians and all the other Steppe?
And how the hell does been more hospitable today implies anything back then? Or are you suggesting that southern Chinese are somehow less hospitable during period prior to the Republic?



So. I suppose the language barrier. When you say do you know what Christianity is? Most people will tell you 'oh sure, its the religion center around God the Almighty Holy father, the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Son.'
Anyways, so yes I suppose most people are not master of either. But I assure you most people in the world are master of their own philosophy or religion. In the sense that its embedded in their thinking, why don't we just attribute them to the culture that has been greatly influenced by Confucianism.

--------------------

I am really getting sick of people saying things about how Southerners especially Shanghainese are money grabbing aholes. This is straight up racists. How many people from Shanghai do you know? How many homes from Shanghai have you visited? Statistically any sample group numbered below 25 are utterly worthless, and for such a large population in Shanghai, 25 is even quite worthless but I will let this mathematical argument slip. Have you met more then 25 Shanghainese man and woman for you to make that decision that MY PEOPLE are inhospitable? When my friends visit me I gave up my bed and sleep on my sofa, when my father's friend come visit, we took out our best wine and best dish, how many of you people who thinks Shanghainese man are worthless who can stand up to their woman actually seen how household decisions are made. How many people who thinks Shanghainese woman are winy abrasive whatever the hell you say actually met a Shanghainese girl and not some girl from other regions and profess to be Shanghainese? Shanghainese are the most ******* lay back people in the whole China. Its like you go to New York, and say Hell this whole freaking place is cold blooded, man rest of America must also be like this. Same thing for Shanghai, you go a freaking international city and decide that all people in Shanghai are Shanghainese. ***. You go to Dubai and think everyone in Dubai is from Dubai? You go to NY and think everyone there is from NY? You go to Washington D.C and think everyone is from D.C? Yet you come to Shanghai and think everyone in Shanghai is actually from Shanghai, and for every injury or insult you receive, [if you receive more then 0.005% of Shanghai population insults, then I personally, as Shanghainese, apologizes for the lack of manner of my people but if you didn't even receive 25 which then I can't even perform a P-test then please, wait for the number to actually reach 25 then complain.] you say ah d**** those money grabbing aholes. I been to plenty of places in Shanghai and I was ignored plenty of times by both people who are from Shanghai [I can tell from their language] and plenty of times where I was shown kindness but if you expect some rural hospitality, don't come to a metropolitan. Wrong place for hospitality. During my visit to several areas in northern China I was ignored as often as I did in Shanghai, perhaps because I was in a white t-shirt and shorts in my typical American sandals, or perhaps in most big cities people are simply busy with their lives. If you walk on the streets of L.A you will meet as many rude people as those with manners, and when someone decided that one group of people are somehow foreign to them, you are the one who made them foreign to you. So keep on thinking Shanghainese as somehow different from the rest of China and we would probably return the favor.
You don't judge a man from the rumor of his hometown, its even more dire then you don't judge a man from his appearance.

Before Ghenghis khan, the Mongols pose no serious threat to China their divided armies were no match against China. It would only after Ghenghis succeeded to unite all the Mongol tribes and applying psychological warfare did Ghenghis army were able to conquered China.

The Mongol army under Ghenghis Khan have been known to always been outnumbered by their enemies and yet Ghenghis army were always victorious. Ghenghis empire expanded and so does his army which started to grow from integration from conquered armies.

Ghenghis was not only a military genuis but he was also a very genius political leader he took in well known scholars and advisers to help him govern his empire.

He was able to gain the loyalty of Chinese Generals, officials and their armies as well as acceptance from the population.

Ghenghis can expanded his empire beyond China because he has the allegiance of none Mongol Generals that would help him safe guard his empire while he is away or while his army are busy conquering Russia and Eastern Europe.

The wealth and prosperity that Ghenghis brought to China was acceptable enough for many Chinese officials to accept him as the Emperor of China. In the end, the Mongol Empire would be associated as the Chinese Empire. It would only be after the death of Ghenghis and his son Kublai that the Mongol rule over China would start to crumble and it was because the succeeding Mongol rulers were divided and they coul dnot sustain the empire hardship and prosperity to China was happening again.

THis resulted with a call to overthrow the Mongols or Yuan dynasty, the Mongols would be defeated and replace by the Ming dynasty, the once mighty Mongol army will no longer be a threat and will disappear for a long long time.

China has always been the price, the Mongols, Manchus they knew they need to conquered China first before they could expand to other territories because China can provide them with the resources in term of civil materials, war meterials and most of all man power. Japan in 1930s saw this as well the only difference between the three is that: the Mongols early in their dynasty years were able to gain the loyalty and allegiance of China the Mongols learn and absorb the many new technology and expanded them and use them to their advantage.

Manchus after conquering China they got caught up with the glory of it and stop expanding in fact they started to close up their empire from continuing to learn and expand especially from western technology.

Japan on the hand failed to gain the respect and allegiance of China resistance was all out against Japan.

Disappear? What? They did not simply disappear after their expulsion and the rise of the Ming. The Yongle Emperor actively campaigned against the Mongols during his reign. At Tumu Fortress in 1449, Emperor Zhengtong himself was taken hostage in battle by Esen Khan's forces. In 1461, when Cao Qin led a failed rebellion within Beijing itself, he used largely Mongol-based troops. In fact there were many prominent Mongol commanders within the Ming military structure, who the Ming used to fight other invading Mongols or to put down local tribal rebellions in the south. During the 16th century, the Mongol leader Altan Khan raided as far as Beijing, made peace with the Ming Dynasty, and established an alliance with the Yellow Hat sect of Tibet. After Ming influence in Tibet had waned, Gushi Khan eventually conquered all of it by 1637.

Therefore, your statement about the disappearance of the Mongols confounds me. The rest of your post was sound, though.

Eric (En Rui)

Rookie, if China never conquered, where did all of the Baiyue go? The kingdom of Minyue? How did China expand all the way south to Guangdong? How did Tang build up its huge colonial empire? It wasn't by being nice or weak, that's for sure!

Yes I knew that word "disappeared" would catch attention, disappeared not in a literal sense but disappeared as the dreaded Ghenghis Khan mongol army hordes, disappeared as in not posing a serious threat to China, Russia, or Europe not disappeared as extinct.

dude, let's calm down, i didn't expect you are shanghainese, i just mean china is so large, different region got different culture, so this may not comfort people from other region,

Yes that's true, but what are you trying to point out. Someone criticize Manchus, because their ancestor do bad to Han, but history is history, what they done in history does affect what they done now. So let's