I did some further digging and indeed the 150,000 number is the amount of stallion during Xuan De, however, The Yong Le era still doesn't have that much more stallions.

The whole Ming empire has 4 major horse breeding industry, they are in Shang Xi, Gang Su, Liao Dong and Bei Jing.

Here is a graph of the horses within the different Ming prefectures, The first is Yong Le（1403～1424） the second is Wang Li（1573～1620）

明代各镇马额数表[24] 单位：匹

镇名|永乐（1403～1424年）年间原额|万历（1573～1620年）初年现额
蓟镇：蓟州|10，700| 6，399
蓟镇：密云| 2，032| 13，120
蓟镇：永平| 6，083| 15，080
蓟镇：昌平| 3，015| 5，625
辽东|77，001| 41，830
保定| 1，199| 4，791
宣府|55，274| 33，147
大同|51，654| 35，870
山西| 6，551| 24，764
延绥|45，940| 32，133
宁夏|22，182| 14，657
固原|32，254| 33，842
甘肃|29，318| 21，660
The source is from (明）《万历会典》卷129～131《镇戍》4～6《各镇分例》1～3（参阅吴晗：《读史劄记·明代的军兵》第94～105页）。

Thus during Yong Le times, there is 343，202 stallions. And 282，918 stallions during Wang Li.
Interestingly, the northwest has the biggest portion of the industry with
129，694 stallions or 38% of the entire empire during Yong Le while 102,292 stallions, or 36% during the period of Wang Li.

So in conclusion, at their height, the Qin has 50,000 stallions, Han has 450,000 stallions, the Tang has 706,000 stallions, the Ming has 343,200 stallions, and the Qing has 226,500 stallions.
However the Ming horse quality is not as good as the other dynasties(except maybe Qin) whil the Qing era is much less cavalry based than the others so horse is not an accurate measurement of its military strength.

Warhead, I think your figures are just the amount of horses from the government breeding program. My figures include horses gained from trade and the private breeding program (the latter produced low quality horses, but the quality of the former two was usually quite high.)

Peter C perdue in his "China marches west" stated that the army possess 310,615 horses in 1415 and increases to 1.2 million by 1422. So, both of your figure do sound realistic. It is just that the figure is taken from different years. The quality of the horses in the early Ming are pretty high due to special breeding program and hiring retired mongol officials to train the people.

Where did he get 1.2 million from? Thats unrealistic, there is no way that Ming could quanrdiple its horse supply in just 6 years.

Not totally unrealistic since they can get the supply from the mongols and private traders using tea as exchanges. From 1393-1449, the "gold tablet system" works pretty well. The Early exchange is 30-40 Jin per horse and then rises 50-120 Jin. Peter C perdue says Yongle desperate need for horses is willing to pay high prices for it. For example, he pay the private traders 80,000 Jin for just 70 horses. A Chinese offical says the nomads "need tea survive. If they cannot get tea, they will become ill and die".

According to Albert Chan, an order was issued in 1412 for the inspection soldiers in charge of horses. If they can bred horses to standard number, every hundred soldiers were given a reward of five ting silver. However, If they failed to improve their former method s, they will be punished. Before 1416, the ponies raised under the supervision of Court of the Imperial stud numberd 197,484.

Not really unrealistic. Don't forget that the Ming had three ways of getting horse. Trade with the Tibetans and Mongols, the government breeding program, and the private breeding program whereby families were registered as horse breeding households, and would be required to mantain a herd of horses. The finest horses of the Ming were from the government breeding program.

With that ammount of horses surely the army should have matched the mobility of the mongols,but battles like Tumu show that the mongols can outmanovre the ming with more horses

The Ming army defeat at the Battle of tumu was bad deployment, Supply problem, and ambush which have little to do with more horses. Many generals and Ming officals had already warn the incoming disaster but the Stupid Emperor listen to Wang Zhen, the chief Eunuchs.

Wait, how did Qing conquer Mongolia while Ming did not if the former had less stallions than the later?

Ming never wanted to conquer Mongolia. Their early strategy was to "divide and rule" which is to break the concentration power of mongolia and ensuring that they remain divided. Hong Wu establish many military posts outside of Great Wall as to monitor and prevent Mongol aggressive. However, the military posts was then abandon by his descendants leaving the northern China vulnerable for Mongol raid.

Is it because Ming cannot control Mongolia that they never wanted to conquer it or is it that they really don't want to annex Mongolia?

The Early Ming under Hong Wu, Yongle and Xuande has the ability to conquer mongolia but they are not interested since it bring no benefit to them to conquer a wasteland. Their strategy to keep the northern frontier save is to sending expedition to prevent them from united under one leaders and Hong Wu set up military posts many miles outside of great wall to monitor the mongol. During 1368-1449, 16 expedition was launched against the mongol. However, this strategy was abandon by later Emperor and refuse to support the mongol allies that sideed with China when they were attacked by Esen. Finally, China left with no allies and finally lead to the disaster defeat at tumu.

Before I see the first hand source, I would have to take it as fabrication, or mistranslation. Because none of the first hand documents I've seen show this.





Raising the number of imperial stallions by four folds in just a few years has never happened in ancient history, its logistically improbable. The entire Mongolian steppe can only feed around 3 million stallions. Altan khagan in the 16th century only has 400,000 stallions under government control. No Chinese dynasty ever had 1.2 million horse breeding industry under the imperial control, the Ming horse industry is neither as developed as the Tang nor Han, its pasture fields and breed selection is vastly inferior.

The later has a larger army. Qing conquered Mongolia by more than just cavalry, they used firepower(indeed it was superior firepower that gave Qing the final victory when the cavalries of the two sides still haven't faught to a conclusive battle), something the Ming at its height did not match. Finally, politics is also a large part of the reason behind Qing's success.

No they didn't. Early Ming wasn't even able to force the submission of the remainder of the Yuan imperial line, the only major dadan tribal leader they received submission from was Alutai. The Wala is a different case. Yet neither was incorporated, nor did the Ming possess the means to do so. The vast steppe allowed Alutai to avoid military confrontation with the Ming army 3 times in a role. The only reason Qing was able to subdue Mongolia was partly due to the participation of Mongols themselves. Russian encroachment is another factor. Last of all, the introduction of Buddhism has indeed weakened Mongol warlike spirit which is noted in a number of sources. Then there is the powerful cannons which puts steppe warfare at a disadvantage.

Hong Wu and Yongle didn't really force submission of all mongols. They just want to ensure that the mongols remain fragmented. Each time one ruler grew stronger, Ming supported the other, thus preventing the unity of mongols. About the Conquest campaign, you are right since Conquering the mongolia would be difficult without the support of mongols.



I think Cannon is given too much credit here. The Cannon is difficult to carry especially in the steppe and had limited value in the steppe wafare. Kang Xi victory over Zunghar is exagerated and is only a temporary success. For example: the battle in 1690, the Qing did not achieve overwhelming victory with Commander Tong Guogong and Kang Xi Uncle was killed. Qing artillery fails to ensure victoryde as mongols were protected by both camels and trees.

Qing army continue to suffer defeat during battle aginst Zunghar. Only When internal struggles for leadership destroy the unity of Zunghar and give Qiang Long a huge oppourtunity to destroy them once and for all.

I think this discussion loses some perspective in examining ancient armies - the question is not which Chinese army was the most effective; by simple comparison the People's Army today would annihilate without combat losses the forces of any Chinese dynastic army. The question is rather, when did China's military strength compare most favourably to that of its contemporary neighbours and, indeed, all empires around the world.

I would say that the Tang dynasty succeeded more in this than the Ming or the Yuan or the Qiang ever did. Consider that the Tang emerged shortly after the Western Roman Empire collapsed and plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. For most leaders of the time, to field a force of ten thousand would be a staggering number. Even Charlemagne, greatest of the Dark Age generals, could not raise and march a force of more than a few tens of thousands.

As rivals, the Tang had only the Byzantine and the Persian that could field comparable forces, even at their most potent, under the armies of its great emperor Justinian and the two most formidable generals of the Byzantine Empire, Belisarius and Narses the Eunuch - the Byzantine empire could not hold its gains against the barbarians that surrounded it. Nor could the Persians make any gains against their old rivals, the Byzantines. Both Empires had reached the extent of their powers, and when the rise of Islam appeared, both collapsed under its weight in short order.

The Tang, conversely, engaged in an unprecedented campaign of expansion, conquering and subjugating most of the surrounding barbarian tribes. It probably reached its peak during the mid-life of Wu Zhao declining towards the end. In 660, after destroying the Western Turks, China's borders stretched all the way to Persia's borders, the largest it has ever been. Around this same time, the Tang finally succeeded, albeit briefly in conquering Korea. Within a few years most of these gains would be lost, but this largely showed that the effectiveness of the Chinese military at the time surpassed the empire's logical abilities to support it. Before Wu Zhao's death, Chinese military strength seemed to be in decline.

This, I would say, is when militarily China was the most powerful amidst their contemporaries as they have ever been. Its hard to gauge exactly how China's military stacks up against either of these nations. Although conflict did occasionally emerge between China and the Persian empire and its sucessors - the Chinese were always operating at the extreme edge of their logistical ability to support themselves whereas the Persians and their successor empires were always operating much closer to home. Still, China's contemporaries would not get easier to contend with as time went on. The emergence of Islam certainly shifted the military balance, and the Tang went into decline. The emergent Tibet and the barbarian tribes would again test the borders of China leading eventually to the Tang's demise (along with numerous other internal factors of course, many of them arguably more significant than the military situation).

The rise of the Sung would follow(which was never particularly dominant militarily) and its conquest by the Mongol Empire(I suppose you could argue that the Yuan were very dominant militarily, but they did have other Mongol empirettes to contend with). The Ming conversely, had to compete with Rennaissance Europe, including the not insignificant Holy Roman Empire, a strong Ottoman Empire, a fractious but powerful group of Italian City-States, a newly established and militarily strong Spain and a Mamluk Sultanate at the height of its power - many of whom were capable of matching the Chinese man-for-man, were almost if not as disciplined(particularly in the Islamic states), and were beginning to field cannons in great numbers(most of China's technological advantages were nullified following the Mongol conquests - which ultimately sold most of them to Europe after they decided trade was more profitable than war).

From the Tang on, China would lose ground militarily to the barbarian tribes surrounding it. From the Mongols on, Europe would begin its sky-rocket ascent from technological inferiority to technological supremecy. Prior to that the empires of Assyria, Egypt, Persia, Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire was always at least a match for anything China could field.

It might be so during early Ming, but not Qing, cannons are a major factor in the Qing defeat of Galdan.

Do you major in statistics?

No, my field is political history. A combination of political science and history. Strategic studies and political ruses of ancient China are included. Statistics of war industries is required when analyzing dynastic foreign policies.

The main reason for the Central Asian nomadic peoples getting more and more into the military defensive was without a shade of a doubt the ever more increasing firepower on the battlefield. With the arrival of field artillery cavalry was on its way out of military history and with it the once mighty Nomads got politically nullified in the space of only 200-300 years (1500-1800).

Thus, the Qing could conquer their colonial empire at the expense of the nomads in a way unconceivable at earlier times.

When would you say the general population of china were most militaristic, i always though warring states was unparralled militarily as all population were military orientated and thus is why we have generals like sun tzu

No, neither the matchlock nor the early cannon represented a quantum leap in applied technology: each produced a refinement in tactics rather than a revolution in strategy. The musket may be a magnificent weapon, but it did not transform the fundamentals of archery warfare, and while the Qing adoption of traditional artillery was significant, the limited firing projectile cannon was not the secret of their military success; its bark was worse than its bite. Cavalry is still more important to the Qing army, just not to the degree of the Ming, not to mention, in addition to its 230,000 steed, Mongolia was a vassal and ready to provide further cavalry assistance when required.

I think the time period before the end of the three kingdoms was the most succesful as the chinese never were take over by foreign invaders,
perhaps the general population was more miltaristic than later chinese who were more commercial

erghh, three kingdom era was definitely not the most successful. Xiongnus were all over nothern china even threatening Luoyang. although Caocao kicked their arses.

In my opinion...

China was most militaristic from the Shang to the end of the warring states, and most civil during the southern Sung, late Ming and late Qing. Han, Tang, northern Sung and early Ming+ early Qing were somewhat intermediate.

Qin and Early Han are both equally militaristic as the warring states. It was the only time where universal conscription on a regular scale takes place.

Han is nowere near is as militataristic as the incessent non stop fighting of warring states

With the exception of the Wen Jin period(even then there is the seven king's rebellion), Han is far from peaceful.

From the declaration of Han by Gao Zu, there was rebellion of the different feudal kings, all the way til 192 b.c. when Huai Nan Wang Yin Bu's rebellion(which spread to the area of Wu and Chu) is finally crushed. Externally there was the Xiongnu which never stopped there large scale raiding.
Then in WuDi's time,

According to Zi Zhi Tong Jian
First year of Tai Chu（104b.c.）pests in guan Dong destroy crops
First year of Tian Han（100 b.c.）great draught in summer.
Third year of Tian Han（98 b.c.）Gerat draught in the 4th month.
Third year of Tai Shi（96 b.c.）Large Autumn draught.
Fourth year of Tai Shi（93 b.c.）Large Summer draught
Third year of Zheng He（90 b.c.）summer pests

According to Shi Ji, Ping Huai Shu：“是时山东被河灾，及岁数不登，人或相食，方一二千里。” In the east of the (Huai) mountain, the river flood caused people to eat each other for 1,000-2,000 Li.

Furthermore, Wudi was using arms in all directions against the barbarians and been extravagant internally causing death of many and rebellions. “穷奢极歛，繁刑重欲，内侈宫室，外事四夷，信惑神怪，巡遊无度，使百姓废敝，起为盗贼。" Records even mention the Hu Kou(registration) declined by as much as half.

According to Tong Jian, in the second year of Tian Han(99B.C.)，"The numerous prefectures of the east took arms in rebellion， the large ones number several thousand, attaching cities and military supplies, freeing criminals, killing officials, blocking paths." In the end it was crushed by Fang Kun and Zhang De and killing over 10,000 of them.

Then during Xuan Di we got another series of natural disasters “四月，诏曰：迺者，关东连遭災害，饥寒疾役。夭不终命"

While in Hai Nan, there were countless rebellions, "今海南省，数叛乱，连年费用多，死人众"

Yuan Di personally ridiculued Confucians in their peaceful approach, claiming that the "Han is different from Zhou, it has a code of conquest" showing that western Han is still not a pacififist regime like later times.

Huang Ray in his "taxation of 16th century of Ming China" stated that the official record indicate that the Ming government in 1424 possess 1,736,618 horses and that number of horses still expanding at the compound rate of 10-15% annually. Peter C perdue states that the army possess 1.2 million horses in 1422.

I don't think he is just refering to military horses in this case. The source I have shows a detailed distribution of the military stallions accompanying the Wei Suo in different provinces. I think its much more detailed and reliable.



Whats his primary source?

In his Work cited, he states that the rate is calculated from the data in MSL, Tai tsung Shih lu and the errors have been corrected on the basis of Chiao kan Chi.

Huang Ray mention that the figure is grossly exagerated but the large number horses was soon become too large for Ming government to maintained and had to farmed out to the civilian household. For each year, these household is required to delivered a horse fit for military service to Beijing.

Huang Ray want to show that these horses is clearly for Military purpose. Horses was bought from Northern frontier, Korea, Kokonor and even samarkand. Matteo Ricci noted that chinese horses were "pratically useless in battle". Personally, I agree with him since why the Ming want such large numbers of horses for if it was not for military purpose especially during Yongle Military expedition.




He doesn't seem to provide any sources on the figures. However, he could have get it from Huang Ray "military expeditures".

I think he is refering to horse reserves, not the actual number of military stallions in service.

There is actually another historical period during which China's military power might have been the greatest in the world. This was around 1000 BC, at the start of the Western Zhou Dynasty. At this time most Western Eurasian civilisations were in the "dark ages" caused by the invasions of the Sea Peoples. Mycenaean Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia were all in great decline. The Harappan civilisation of the Indus Valley had collapsed centuries earlier and the Hindu civilisation of the Indo-Aryans had yet to emerge fully. The Olmecs in Mesoamerica were quite primitive by Eurasian standards, having neither bronze nor chariots. The most powerful kingdom at this time other than Zhou China was actually the kingdom of Israel under King David.

During the golden age of the Western Zhou Dynasty in the 10th century BC, China's population was probably already around 10 million, twice the size of Ancient Egypt at its height. The domain of the Zhou Dynasty spread from modern day Beijing region in the north to the mid-Yangtze valley in the south, from modern-day Gansu province in the west to the eastern sea coast. The Zhou could probably mobilise an army of 100,000 men if the situation demanded it. China at this time had elaborate chariots drawn by four horses, the most advanced bronze technology, and the most powerful recurve composite bow in the ancient world at this time.

If Zhou China was situation next to the Western Eurasian powers, it could have conquered the entire civilised world during this time, due to the dramatic decline of the other civilisations.

Western Zhou Dynasty warrior:

The problem with this speculation is that if Zhou China was really situated next to the Western Eurasian powers, it'd have definitely have been drawn in into interacting with them and be involved in wars with them - which meant it might not be possible for Zhou China to develop the way it did in history.

Zhou China's development was also owing much to its relative isolation from other major contemporary powers, i.e., it did not have the kind of competition posed by the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Assyrians/Babylonians/Persians to each other.

In other words, Zhou China was *sheltered* by its remoteness to these Western Eurasian powers.
If Zhou China was situated next to them, it'd have no such shelter.
It'd be a very BIG QUESTION how that'd affected the development of Zhou China.

Of course it is just pure speculation. All I'm saying is that if Zhou China had exactly the same strength as it did and it was located next to the Western Eurasian powers it could have conquered the entire civilised world.

It is interesting that you bring up the isolation of Zhou China. Actually isolation tends to lead to technological stagnation. For example, the Native American civilisations, completely isolated from the Eurasian powers, had always lagged behind in technological development. Yet even though China was relatively isolated from the other Eurasian powers, during the Western Zhou Dynasty it still had the most advanced overall military technology.

They lagged in others but were ahead in some - it all depended on the

E.g., the Incas had mortarless constructions process for putting stones together to build temples that'd withstand earthquakes.

The Mayans had better calendar than the Julian calendar used in Europe.

Isolation does lead to stagnation when the impetus of change is weak.

Zhou China was isolated from the powers in Europe and Near/Middle-East, but it was not quite alone in the Central Plains.

When the Zhou took on the Shang, Shang was supposed to be more advanced, and hence there was the impetus for Zhou to advance to deal with Shang, and also those they called the barbarians of Rong, Di, Yi, and Man etc.

Nonetheless, despite their supposedly superior military technology etc., the Zhou kings could not pacify many of the "barbarians".

Even the much vaunted King Mu of Zhou was not able to bring the State of Chu to its heel.
I won't be so sure about the performance of the Western Zhou against the other contemporary major powers.

But they did not have the really important things: Writing, bronze and later iron/steel, horses or even the wheel. This is why when the Europeans arrived they all fell like a house of cards.

Zhou was a part of the Shang domain. But the Zhou state did have one key military advantage over the Shang: the Zhou had chariots drawn by four horses, whereas the Shang only had chariots drawn by two.



The state of Chu did accept Zhou authority. Zhou power clearly extended into the mid-Yantze valley.

The 10th century BC was a period of expansion for the Zhou Dynasty. This is affirmed by famous historians such as Jacques Gernet.

The thing is, in the 10th century BC there was virtually no other major powers. Virtually all of the Western Eurasian civilisations fell into the dark ages. The only advanced state society other than China at the time was the Kingdom of Israel under King David.

Debatable, the Indian kingdom of Kuru is probably more populous than the Isralites. The Egyptians and Assyrians are also both powerful, even if they went into a brief period of decline.



Yes, however, to say that China is isolated from the world is quite an Eurocentric term, China's population probably surpassed the entire Western Eurasian world combined. So you can actually say that it was the western Eurasian world thats "isolated" from the central plain. There are a bunch of states such as Ba and Shu, the Chu, and the Jie barbarians which border the Zhou.
To say that Zhou politics would have changed due to these states is less likely than these states been changed by the Zhou world concept, as the kingdom around the central plain such as Chu and the later kingdoms of Wu, Yue, Ba, and Shu did. Since the central plains contains a greater amount of population.

Conquest is not likely, even to other states, Zhou maintained a method of feudalism.

And the others in the Middle East and Greece had by then iron weapons.

Nope, iron did not come into any great use until the 8th century B.C. the Assyrians were the first to use iron in any great quantity. The reason been that the ability to work iron into useful shapes is confined to a small number of craftsmen, far too small to produce iron weapons in the scale required by an army. Even then the temperature of the day does not ensure superiority of iron over the best bronzes. The first king to institutionize a large quantity iron weapon army was Sargon II(721-705 b.c.) There are no evidence that the early Hitties used iron weapons on the battlefield, there were texts of iron daggers, but they are only gifts to other kings rather than a common instrument of war. No storehouse of iron weapons was ever found prior to the Assyrian empire or mentioned in any earlier texts.

Not nope, but yup.

Nope, and still nope, I would use something more reliable than the amateur wikipedia for my information. In The Great armies of Antiquity by Gabriel, specifically mention that the first armies to use iron in any extent were the Assyrians under Sargon II. "No storehouse of iron weapons was ever found prior to the Assyrian empire" Archeology doesn't lie.

I think you are confusing iron tools with iron weapons. While iron tools have been commonly used by 1,000 b.c. Iron weapons have not. Furthermore, the Chinese bronze, due to higher temperature and treatment by the Zhou isn't inferior to early iron. This is especially the case during the spring and autumn period.

Being isolated or sheltered is a relative term.
What would be true is that any interaction between the civilizations would have effect on all participants from the time they encounter each other.

Size is hardly the issue here - social structure and dynamics would be more significant.

Russia from the time of Peter the Great probably had greater population and territories than its European neighbours, but I'd say there's more impact into Russia than the other way round. Even then, the structure of the Russian empire is such that significant changes were only felt in a small section of Russia.

The Holy Roman Empire dwarfed its neighbours, but there were much more dynamic changes spreading out from fragmented Italy into the HRE rather than the other way around.

No, Russia did NOT have greater population. The man wave Russian stories only date to the 19th century. Western Europe's population is several times that of the East.



The Holy Roman Empire was not as populous as France.

I do not have population figures for earlier Russian population, nor HRE nor France with me.

But what is the sense in comparing Russia's population against the entire Western Europe rather than country by country?
You were talking the Zhou China having greater population, but is that against individual states or the entire EuroAsia excluding China?

As for HRE being less populous than France, I was contrasting the HRE with Italy.

During the Renaissance, Italy's dynamism was contagious, affecting the larger neighbours, I daresay, including France.

Hence, the point is that population size is *not* the deterministic factor in the outcome of which country/civilization influenced/get influenced more when they interact.

Russian population in the 16th century is little more than that of France which is a little over 20 million.
France has always been the most populous country in Europe having 16 million in the high medieval time.




Its against the whole of Southwestern Asia + Egypt, where the political activity occur.



We only hear influence of higher culture to lower ones due to bias. The fact is, population affects each other naturally. Only when there is a political hand behind cultural influx, the usual proportion is the larger population affecting the small. This can even be seen in British India even when there is a systematic attempt to model India after the west, Britain was affected in return.



No, it is certainly a deterministic factor, just not the sole factor. Two civilization of rough equivalence in civilization will usually be affected by the one that is more populous, this is a natural fact, just like how most invaders of China are repeatedly assimilated.

And in what ways are West Asian, North African and East Mediterranean cultures "higher" and more "dynamic" than Zhou China during the 10th century?