Did chinese art of war decline after the three kingdoms ? Han and Qin armies had control over the xiongnu ,but later chinese armies like song and ming had difficulty beating them even though technology was better

Aren't you forgetting the Tang?

I wouldn't say the Chinese got much worse. Rather, their steppe enemies got better at incorporating new technology. Possibly the professionalization of the army and its control by civil bureaucrats (rather than military aristocrats) during the Song and Ming also had an adverse effect on its efficiency.

i wanted to say Tang but the age of fragmentation the nomads had superiority, i havent actually researched this time period but looking foward too it?
What i mean is the Ancient strategies and tactics of warring states are the pinnacle of warfare because of constant fighting i thought the soldiers of china were battle hardened warriors unlike later chinese who were mostly lived in peace .

The Ming--at least in it's early stages, was rather succesful militarily against nomads.

It's much more complicated. The 'nomads' (e.g. Xiongnu, Jie and Xianbei) who established states and dynasties during the Age of Fragmentation had already switched from nomadism to a sedentary mixed herding-agricultural lifestyle, and many were no longer living on the steppe. Other groups like the Qiang and Di had never been nomads. Militarily, the source of their superiority over Western Jin armies was not nomad cavalry per se, but rather a fusion of Han iron armour technology with steppe cavalry tactics - the cataphract heavy cavalryman, first used by Wuhuan and Xianbei armies in alliance with Chinese armies. This served as both an archery platform and shock cavalry, in a style similar to late Sassanian cataphracts.

The Tang adopted these tactics, although horse armour declined in importance in the field.

okay what about the infantry tactics

Song dynasty's crossbow infantries are feared by the nomad cavalry...

hmmm what makes you think the army of the three kingdoms were especially good?

i always saw that era as an akward transition period from the Han era light cavalry-horse archer/infantry armies to the nomad centric armies of the Nanbei Chao era

other than rival Chinese kingdoms, Chinese during three kingdoms era faced relatively little threat from nomads (the real test of military might) since so many nomads were hired by Wei as mercenaries (which would ironically help in the fragmentation of the empire since so many of them were settled within China's borders)

and as far as ethnically Han Chinese dynasties, Han and Tang were the most militarily strong

despite the fact that Song/Ming is known for military weakness, the military technological innovations went on to influence the whole world

Actually we only know that Zeng Gongliang said they were feared by the Khitan Liao cavalry. The Jurchen Jin super-heavy cavalry didn't seem to fear them, except for the extra-powerful shenbi (divine arm) crossbow that was probably never widespread in Song armies.



Cao Cao did defeat the Wuhuan allies of the Yuan family decisively at Mountain Bailang, despite having only light cavalry most of which was not even armoured. Earlier he had also defeated Yuan Shao despite Yuan's advantage in having 300 armoured horses. So I would infer that Cao Cao passed the test because of superior tactical skill, before he was able to employ many Wuhuan and Xiongnu as auxiliaries or mercenaries.

I would say Northern Song

Meaning the Khitan and Jurchen were even stronger?

Not really, one can argue that the nothern song was defeated from within.

People's Liberation Army ftw. You launch one division of the PLA vs the entire Ming/Qing/Song/Tang/Yuan army, and the PLA wins. =)

So you have to talk about the relative strength of the Chinese military vis-a-vis other military powers or the skill of the Chinese military leadership.

There was a lot of capable generals in both the Song and Ming Dynasty such as Yue Fei and technology wise these two dynasty are more technological advance then the nomads such as fire arms.

I think the real problem is the control of the army by civil bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are Confucianism scholar who know nothing of war, not to mention Confucius himself was anti-war so I would assume that his disciple are the same.

The Ming could always follow the Han or Qing dynasty example and annex Mongolia, the Song Dynasty executed Yue Fei just because he was going the conquer the Jin dynasty.

These Dynasty did not got weak, because of the Nomad's armies got better, they got weak because of some policy. They could just appoint someone who knows about military tactics, but for some reason always appoint Confucianism official.

i never doubted Cao Cao or any individuals from the era had military skills but as a whole the era was not some zenith of Chinese military might

This I would agree with. Only the Zhuge Liang-worshippers or Guan Yu fans tend to think so. On the other hand, it would be incorrect to see the nomadic ascendancy as starting from the Three Kingdoms. Cao Cao was indeed strong enough to detain the last Southern Xiongnu chanyu in Ye and resettle his men in Shanxi. It was this that sowed the seeds for the later Xiongnu rebellion against the Western Jin, not any military weakness in the Three Kingdoms per se.

Didn't cao cao intergrate the xiongnu into his army making it the strongest army among three kingdom?

Yes he did. These Xiongnu rebelled against the Sima Jin dynasty in 304, and because they had been setttled in Shanxi by Cao Cao, within striking distance of Luoyang, they captured Luoyang in 311 and all of north China by 317. Ironically, the Jin Xiongnu general who started this rebellion, Liu Yuan, claimed to be restoring the Han dynasty. He even recognized Liu Bei and Liu Shan as legitimate Han emperors - in other words, he argued that the Cao and the Sima were no more than rebels.

I would have to say that the song and ming dynasty suffered more humiliating defeats with the exception of Yongle and Yue fei.

Perhaps you think this because Yongle and Yue Fei are the ones receiving the most attention?

There are many MANY more capable generals than that. But maybe their name just isn't as widely recognized as those twos.
But they're not hard to find. Look at Qi Jiguang and Yuan Chonghuan of the Ming.

Seriously, why isn't the PLA considered the height of Chinese military strength?

Because it's not as powerful in comparison to the rest of the world as e.g the Han and Tang.

Almost all the dynasty have a military strenght that are far powerful to the rest of the world. PLA on other hand are no match to western countries and USA army.

So, your criteria is not the height of Chinese military strength, but rather the height of Chinese military strength vis-a-vis rest of world.

Then Tang is an obvious selection. Song was militarily weak. During the Tang dynasty, Europe was a military nonentity, tons of small feudal states fighting among themselves. The Islamic Jihad had only gotten started, although they had the advantage of momentum.

Song was military weak, so, we have the Ming dynasty, Europe was progressing rapidly. Centralized states were appearing in Europe, although the Islamic world could be said to be stagnating.

Yes Qi Jiguang is an exception like yue fei was ,but song couldnt even conquer Xi Xia ,and the battle of the Tumu fortress has to be one of chinese historys worse ever,nothing like that would have happened in the Han dynasty

Wouldn't Liu Bang being besieged by Modu Chanyu's Xiongnu forces at Baideng come pretty close?

PLA is still mainly an defensive forces with most of its army equiped with obsolete weapons. I wouldn't call it at its heaight of military strenght.

I think the song military is not bad. I think it is mainly because of the corrupted court . Just look at Yue fei many victorious battle. This clearly show that Song military is not as weak as many expected. I think song military is much more mordern and stronger than most nations at that time.

On the military strengths and weaknesses of the Northern Song, see: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=518

The Song military's greatest weakness, I feel, was in cavalry. It had too few horses and trained cavalrymen. Even though it had a huge army, advanced crossbows and early gunpowder weapons, as well as lots of siege artillery, that is like a modern army having lots of soldiers, and many machine guns and howitzers, but no tanks. This deprives it of a mobile offensive arm, and also makes it vulnerable to enemies with high mobility.

This could be the main reason why the Song court always had to rely on allying with another power with strong cavalry to defeat its enemies, first the Jurchen and then the Mongols, despite the danger of doing so. The Xi Xia may not have been as strong militarily as the Khitan, Jurchen, or Mongols, but by repelling all Northern Song attacks and thus preventing the Song from gaining both the horse-breeding lands of the Ordos steppe and the access to Central Asian horses through the Silk Road, they played a big role in weakening the Song military. Note that in the Western Han war with the Xiongnu, Han Wudi first concentrated on conquering the Ordos and then launched a campaign to capture the horses of Ferghana. Horses were a crucial asset.

jiangji, but like I've said before, if you put a division of PLA against a Ming army, the real question is "how long does it take before the PLA runs out of ammo"?

Of course, arrows might be able to cause casualties, but what if the division is mechanized? Hell, it doesn't even have to use its machine guns. It can just run over the Ming troops.

But you're right, vis-a-vis rest of the world, the PLA fails it.

Would you say that the military exploits of the Tang were greater than that of the Han dynasty,i always thought the warring states was the pinnacle of chinese warfare cos of the militarized population,and ruthless warfare where many tactics and strategys were invented and probaly martial arts developed alot

Anyway, Chinese military stength was greatest in the following periods...

1. Han
2. Tang
3. Early Ming
4. Early Qing

I've been reading about the exploits of early Ming armies, particularly under Yongle and Hongwu. It's quite obvious that they were highly efficient.

How do you evaluate on their military strength?

Various ways...

1. Performance in battle
2. Technological level
3. Tactics
4. Leadership
5. Skill in combat

etc etc...

ok....
What makes Han is the best of all?

I should have explained, my list isn't in any particular order.

Ok...Sorry for that...
Does the type of military organization affect the strength of an army?

I would really like to see the Song compilation 百将传 or "Biographies of a Hundred Generals" translated into English by Yun and published..... I would really like to see every Chinese male on planet Earth know and understand their military legacy and heritage.... starting with a minimum knowledge of Sun Tzu and the six other martial classics etc... We have an awesome military inheritance...

AMEN, TC.

Second.

Definitely, Chinese military history (and Chinese history in general) is incredible. That's why I'm here!

It's ordered according to time period.



The first is already achieved. Heck, even most non-Chinese have minimum knowledge of SunTzu by now. Hurrah!

In qualitative comparison, I'll go with age of Fragmentation armies. Such as the Wei and Qin, they had full armoured cataphracts with full adaptation of stirrups when such tactics has not been seen elsewhere outside of east Asia.

TC

Q: Who should we ask to do this?

But won't you say that those times seem to go against Chinese military philosophy of mobility and speed ?



On a completely different note, probably because I hold everyone on the standard of Yue Fei, but the Bajiangzhuan seem to include alot of people who really don't deserve to be immortalized like that.

I mean, Li Guang never achieved anything extraordinary for the Empire. What he does seem to be really small compared to Han Xin, Zhou Yafu and Wei Qing. The later half of his life seem to be like a failure to me. Does he really deserve to be ranked with all those great jiangs ?

Why does Li Guang was feared than Wei Qing and Huo Qubing by the Xiongnu although both of them are better commanders?

I was thinking of giving a lecture on the history of Chinese swords, followed afterwards by a short lecture on Sun Tzu, maybe sometime next month... But the "Biographies of a Hundred Generals" is a must-read document to be translated into English. I was hoping Ralph Sawyer or Yun could spare the time to translate it.... And also, there are two or three sequels to this book compiled in the Ming or Qing... These should not be left out either....

I have been collecting books for several years on Chinese arms and armour, military history, structure, strategies, military geography, civil-military relations, military theory, biographies etc... virtually all aspects of China's military development..... Already, I am saturated with too much info and data I am overwhelmed... But one matter is a sure thing... The more I read and find out about Chinese military science, the more confident and self-assured I am... It is true, Chinese armies throughout the various dynasties have their ups and downs.... But so have all the major powers of the world, like Egypt, Rome, Byzantium, Japan, Ottoman Turks, Arabs, Persia, the Eastern European armies that were destroyed by the Mongols, and even the Mongols themselves in the early Ming when they were so weak, Xu Da, one of Zhu Yuanzhang's best generals, had led an army into Mongolia and attacked Karakoram, the Mongol capital...


The current economic resurgence and military modernization of China is a joy for me to watch.... I look forward to China possibly surpassing the United States, E.U., Russia and Japan in the military arena within the next hundred years.... We Chinese will stand tall in the world arena...

Wow....I hope so......But that ought to take sometime...
Ancient chinese military should get its deserved place in the world military history...

The study of Chinese military history still has a long way to go in the west. The Majority of books on Asian warfare focus primarily on Japan.

The problem is that the only Chinese war that matters in the west is the Opium War, and the Mongolian invasion(maybe the sino-Japanese war). Other wars never affected the west directly much. This gives a bad stereotype in Western society.

I think you are giving China a bit too much credit my friend. As far as economics are concerned, yes, 100 should be enough for China to surpass US. But as far as the military is concerned, I get the feeling that it would take at least 200-300.

You know, at the risk of sounding unpatriot, I am not too sure if China is ready to reclaim its position as top dog. The past 300 years of cultural degradation has led to a serious amount of ignorance to the outside world among the Chinese. Couple that with a general nationalistic population, the Chinese people of today lacks the kind of 包容 and that the ancients had of different people.
If the rise of China as a nation is not coupled with the a change in world view among the population, then China would become nothing more than another overpowered bully of the world, most likely even worse that when the US is today.