This is another great military article from AE

Gunpowder-based Military during Ming China

by Huaxiaren

Ask a westerner to conjure up images of military forces in ancient China, and 9 times out of 10 he would base his imagination on a very stereotypical picture: Massive hordes of badly organised and badly equiped peasants rushing towards the enemy en masse. Indeed, such a stereotype of ancient China is a part of the overall stereotype some have on ancient Asian peoples in general as disorganised militarily. However, from the point of view of factual history, is such an image correct? Certainly not.

I do not want to dwell on the military organisation in ancient China's more distant epochs. Certainly from the archeological evidence of the terracotta warriors any un_biased person could easily see that during this distant era, Chinese infantry were well_armoured and arranged into organised formations and were not just "a horde of peasants en masse". I would like to instead discuss the equipment and the military forces during China's Ming Dynasty, which lasted from the 14th to the 17th centuries. This was of course the period during which gunpowder_based weapons became popular in Europe. As we will see, a similar military revolution also occurred in Ming China, such that until the end of the Ming, the military technology of China was more or less on par with that of Europe.

Gunpowder was invented in China and the first gunpowder_based weapons were in use as early as the Song Dynasty (960 _ 1279 AD). However, the use of firearms during the Song had been rather rare. The Ming Dynasty, on the other hand, was when the usage of gunpowder_based military technology first became fully fledged.

There were three major types of military troops which existed during the Ming but not during earlier dynasties. The Ming was the first Chinese dynasty to widely employ gunners into its infantry. Similarly, cannons were also added onto massive ships in the Ming navy. When Admiral Zheng He explored the oceans of the world in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, most of his ships were fitted with cannons. The third major change in military was the re_introduction of the chariot as a part of land warfare. The chariot was used in the Chinese military from the Shang (1766 _ 1122 BC) to the Han (206 BC _ 220 AD) Dynasties, and it was especially popular during the Warring States Era (481 _ 221 BC). However, as the much more mobile cavalry gained greater popularity, especially after the invention of the stirrup, the chariot gradually disappeared from actual warfare. Yet with the introduction of firearms into the Ming infantry, chariots made a re_appearance as guns were now fitted onto them.

According to historical sources at the time, roughly 10% of all Ming infantry in the late 14th century were gunners. By the mid_16th century, the standard infantry of Ming China was almost entirely gunpowder_based. Every Chinese Legion at the time had 5000 soldiers, of these, 1000 were cavalrymen, still equiped with swords. 3600 were gunners who had individual firearms as well as more traditional weapons such as pikes and swords., and 400 were cannoneers, who were in charge of 160 heavy cannons and 200 Dalianzhu cannons. (Which was an earlier version of the rocket launcher)

Like all Han Chinese dynasties prior to it, Ming China faced great threats from nomadic peoples of the north. However, unlike all previous Han Chinese dynasties, the Ming Dynasty employed the firearm_fitted chariot as a major defense against the horsemen of the nomads, instead of the more traditional "cavalry vs. cavalry" strategy used by earlier dynasties. The famous military tactician, General Qi Jiguang, remarked that "the power of the chariot is totally dependant on the use of firearms. Without firearms, the chariots would surely lose all their defensive capability." Another famous general Yu Daqiu, similarly said, "With the help of firearms the chariots can defeat the barbarians, and with the help of chariots firearms could be effectively used against horsemen. Hence the two should be employed together." This was indeed a mainstream strategy throughout the Ming era.

From the perspective of military science, we could see that such an alliance of chariots and firearms was certainly logical. By using chariots as a transportation device for firearm_based troops, gunners and cannoneers were made much more mobile. In addition, chariots could also serve as a defensive measure for the troops and their firearms against arrows from the enemy and against charging horsemen. Therefore, with the chariots acting as an effective defensive barrier, the power of the guns and cannons could be employed to their full extent as an offensive weapon against the enemy. A similar tactic was used by the American colonists against the native Indians as the wagons were used as a defensive barrier against the Indian horsemen.

From the tactics used by General Qi Jiguang we could see that such a strategy based on firearm_fitted chariot regiments verses horsemen was very effective. As the nomadic horsemen charged at the Chinese army, the gunners and the cannoneers, which were placed on the chariots, would repeatedly fire at the enemy. The chariots at this time would be linked together and arranged in a square formation with empty space in the middle where additional troops, such as cavalrymen and infantry without firearms, would be located. If the enemy continues to charge and does not retreat, the rocket lauchers (Dalianzhu cannons) fitted on some of the chariots would fire at once towards the enemy. (The Dalianzhu cannons had a smaller range compared with the standard cannons and muskets) Usually, the enemy horsemen would retreat at this stage as the loud noise from the rocket lauchers would greatly startle the horses. However, in a few occasions the nomadic horsemen would be uncommonly fierce and would refuse to retreat even at this stage. Then more traditional weapons would be employed by the Chinese infantry against the enemy. Infantry troops would come out from the chariot formation in an organised way, soldiers with large shields would be on the front row, the next few rows would consist of soldiers that held long pikes, which could effectively stop the charging horsemen. As the nomads eventually make contact with the Chinese infantry, more soldiers, holding swords, would come out from the chariot formation. These men would attack the enemy directly from the two sides while the pikemen attack from the front. If the enemy retreats at this stage (keep in mind that by now the enemy would most certainly have already suffered great causalties), the fresh cavalrymen, which is also a part of the chariot regiment, would come out of the chariot formation and charge at the enemy horsemen who are most certainly already very tired. (This is in keeping with a general principle of ancient Chinese military science, which is to attack a tired enemy with fresh troops. The use of chariots in this case has made such an arrangement possible) Also, the Chinese chariots themselves would be of very sturdy construction, fitted with massive shields and sharp pikes, so that even if the enemy cavalry reached the chariot formation, they could not easily tear it apart. The use of firearms has also transformed the military tactics of naval warfare. By the mid_Ming period, massive, firearm_fitted warships were very common in the Chinese navy. As a military tactician of the time remarked: "The essence of naval warfare is to outfight smaller ships with larger ships, and to outfight ships fitted with smaller cannons using ships fitted with larger cannons." From this we can see the central role cannons played in the Ming navy, and the fact that in some ways, the naval tactics of Ming China were almost modern.

By the mid_16th century, 70% of all warships in the Chinese navy were heavily based on firearms. Cannons were fitted onto the ships and naval troops widely made use of guns. The general naval tactic of the time, as recorded on primary historical sources, is: within 80 Chinese feet of enemy vessels, guns and cannons would be used. Within 60 Chinese feet of enemy vessels, rockets would be employed. Within 40 Chinese feet of the enemy, large_scaled rocket launchers would be utilised (similar to the Dalianzhu cannons mentioned earlier), and when the enemy is within 20 Chinese feet, more traditional weapons such as the crossbow and javelins would be employed. Such a military tactic was effective in the sense that no soldiers could easily stand on the decks of enemy vessels for long, and therefore the enemy vessel was effectively paralysed (if not destroyed). Historically such a tactic was quite effective against the Japanese pirate ships that were common at the time.

During the early period of the Ming Dynasty, Chinese firearm technology was superior to that of the West. However, as Imperial China did not have any significant military opponent for much of the time during the Ming, there was no pressure for the Chinese to further develop their firearm technology. This contrasted with Europe, where multiple states were competing with each other in the field of military technology. Therefore by the mid_Ming period, Western military technology had already surpassed that of China. There was, however, a brief revival of ancient Chinese firearm technology during the late Ming era, as at this time China faced multiple threats from the Manchus and the Mongols of the north, the Japanese pirates, and the growing pressure from European powers (Mainly Spain and Portugal) on the South Seas. As the famous Chinese scientist of the time, Xu Guangqi remarked: "To have strong troops without advanced technology is to have them in vain". So during the late Ming, the Chinese assimilated many advanced military technologies from the West. At the same time, traditional Chinese firearms themselves have developed further during this time. As a result, the Chinese empire during the late Ming was one of the most advanced countries in terms of military technology and potentially China had the world's most powerful military, both in terms of quality and quantity. The state_controlled military factories during late Ming China could produce nearly 300 different types of gunpowder_based weapons, roughly divided into 3 large categories: Combustion_based weapons, Explosion_based weapons and Projectile weapons. The chemical technologies related to gunpowder production were also greated improved throughout the Ming era.

But then, corruptions and rebellions took into account among with other internal struggles. Thus, dooming the once great Ming dynasty from the interior first, then from the exterior.

The chariots do indeed seem useful... almost like tanks in an aspect.

But what happened if the enemies had cannons and shot at the chariots? I think the whole formation would be nullified by the break of one chariot unit...

And what if the armies were not fighting on flatlands? How would the chariots be placed to carry out such a tactic?

I get the feeling that the chariot strategy is almost entirely defensive... with offensive uses only in open battlefields (desert, plains, rolling hills, etc.)

My favourite picture of a Ming Gunner!

Jieming
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DragonSeedLegacy

That weapon is actually the multi-firing gun. One can shoot many rounds before reloading. And usually there'll be a rank of men who specialize in reloading or something (according to the continuous firing formation at least).

Ya, that was the Ming dynasty 5 barrel gun.

Here's another one. It's a breech-loading rifle with tripod.



Jieming
DragonSeedLegacy

Ming dynasty was corrupt, very corrupt. The high Admiral of the navy wanted to build a priavte garden for himself, so he persuaded the Emperor to melt most of the cannons of the Ming warships and took a significant portion of that money for himself. This act effectively dismembered the Ming's navy.

True but must remember that a dynasty like the Ming, Qing, Tang etc spans centuries. Lots of evidence of both grossly corrupt and highly virtueous officials in the same dynasty. So you could say the Ming dynasty was corrupt, but it would be equally accurate to say the Ming dynasty was very honest too. Just depends on which period or emperor's reign you mean. :-)

Jieming

True. I would say that the Ming was the dynasty that really began China's stagnation (letting the West exeed them). Not so much corrupt as a 'nuts, those guys could've done a better job' feeling

Actually, Ming is the most "systematically corrupt" dynasty in China's history. After the collapse of Han, no dynasty's emperors made it a practice to sell imperial offices for garden building funds, at least openly. Ming emperors made it part of their governing system, so corruption spread wide and far.

Ming dynasty also inherited Song dynasty's distrust of military leaders, so you have Enuchs act as imperial supvisors during military campigns and interfering in affairs they have no business of interfering, usually to disaterous consequences.

Just a query regarding artillery figures. This indicates that there were some 360 pieces of artillery in each legion, but with only 400 gunners to operate them Were there just 400 canoneers (equivalent to officers and NCOs) with others drafted in to do the laborious tasks such as loading, moving, transporting, etc?

the person brandishing a gun looks llike he's using a machine gun today.

On Ming firearms, the Sun Laichen paper available from http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/pub/wps2003.htm might be useful - "Chinese Military Technology and Dai Viet: c. 1390-1497".

nice link thanks duncan,any idea as to how the vietnamese defeated the ming releif armies

Superb article.

Actually, I'm told the modern ROC military calls their Tanks chariots.

cars are 'chariots' too

and guns are 'spears'




"During the early period of the Ming Dynasty, Chinese firearm technology was superior to that of the West. "

I'd like to know the specifics of how a Chinese gun was better than a European one, and if any examples survive? Pictures?

Chariot is the standard translation, in modern English 'vehicle' would be a beter translation, especialy for old military terminology.

Incidentaly, the British army call their tanks, AFVs etc 'waggons'.

3,600 with guns? If there was this many, then how is it that so few were used in the Imjin conflict?

Brian

Who says that? Actually I have read the opposite. Block plugging for cannon was introduced in Europe in the 1360s, and corned gunpowder, unknown to Arabs and Chinese, was invented in the early 1400s, each invention greatly enhancing the power of European cannon. Also, corning allowed mass manufacturing with water-powered black powder mills. In 1409, for example, the Teutonic Order could produce already 50 tons black powder in several weeks when it went to war with Poland.

European armies also pioneered the use of potassium nitrates from manure, while Chinese armies still relied on natural salpetre deposit.



Who says that? Have you studied Spanish and Ottoman warfare? Did late Ming have a navy? Did they have polygonal fortifications? Did they have plate armour or mechanical crossbows? Did they have wheellock muskets for their cavalry and flintlock muskets for their infantry in great number?

And why were Ming emperors forcing Jesuit missionaries to run their cannon factory? Why did Chinese forces look so ordinary against Japanese during the seven-year-war? And how could a comparatively small nomadic tribe, really a force of the past, overrun so easily "the world's most powerful military, both in terms of quality and quantity"?

"Did late Ming have a navy? "
Probably, but a crappy one at that since they burned their 15th cent treasure fleet. :/

"Did they have polygonal fortifications?"
What are the uses of polygonal fortifications when you face no significant enemies? And those types of fortifications only became popular MUCH much later, when gunpowder & cannon technology improved vastly.

" Did they have plate armour or mechanical crossbows? "
Wow, dumb question. They had repeating crossbows since 200 BCE, and plate armor since the Han or even Qin-Zhou dynasty. Plate armor were simply not popular in East Asia...lamellar & scales were prefered. Just because it wasn't common doesn't mean they didn't the technology to produce plate armor. They had "blast furnaces" since at least 300 BCE. (blast furnaces being the technology that helped Europeans create the full body plate armor in the 14th century)

"And why were Ming emperors forcing Jesuit missionaries to run their cannon factory? "

Jesuits only started coming in the 16th-17thth century. By this time, Ming power, technology, wealth, etc had declined significantly.

"Why did Chinese forces look so ordinary against Japanese during the seven-year-war? "
Ordinary? What are you talking about? Ming & Korean forces had various armors such as brass cross-sectional & brigiandine
that were capable of stopping bullets from Japanese muskets. The Japanese forces had realtively similar armor...samurai having iron plates, lamellar, scale, etc...

"And how could a comparatively small nomadic tribe, really a force of the past, overrun so easily "the world's most powerful military, both in terms of quality and quantity"?"

During & after the Imjin war, the Ming was in a long period of decline. They were fighing rebellions, Mongol incursions, Manchus, and funneling money/troops/supplies to Korea to help fight the Japanese. It's a suprise the Ming weren't conquered sooner, considering the multi-front war they had been fighting for decades. It's basically the same thing that happened to the Roman empire...being attacked from multiple fronts and eventually falling in 476 CE.

I'm assuming Tibet Libre meant star forts. Polygonal forts came much later, After the Ming dynasty.



The Imjin War is nothing compared to the uprisings of LiZiCheng. The Imjin war is a war in a foreign land, where the Ming only sent 100,000 soldiers at most. Li ZiCheng's Shun dynasty rebellion within the Ming dynasty itself drained much of Ming power, and it was he who destroyed the major Ming bloodline as well as captured the Ming captial, a double blow to Ming dominance which left the latter dynasty scattered and helpless. This caused WuSanGui and his iron cavalry(who previously was under Ming control) to defect to the Qing. Thus, it was the combined force of WuSanGui and the Qing who took over China. The Shun just made it easier.


And Tibet Libre, I would appreciate if you would just drop this trend... Saying China sucked at this/that is ok every now and then, but when we went over smth that needed correction, it would be nice if you take it in as well. Repeating things isn't fun.

They did? How come the reports talk about masses of Chinese and Korean dead at the hands of arquebusiers. The destruction of Sin Rip's army at Chungju was solely by the arquebus, and they played very important roles at the Battles of the Imjin, Pyokje and Chiksan as well as being the key factors in the defenses of Pyong-yang (1st relief attempt) and Ulsan.

Yes, I know many do not like Turnbull on this forum, but I've seen most of the same documents as he and they all elude to this (though many are Japanese sources). The arquebus was such a favored weapon that many Japanese lords told their retainers to do away with spears and to come with guns. By my calcualtions, nearly 1/3 of all foot troops had guns, with some lords having as high as 40%.

Recently there have been tests in Japan using old arquebuses and firing against steel plate of 1mm and 2mm. Armor in the Sengoku was about .8mm thick, and this was pierced easily at ranges up to 180 meters. The 1mm plate was pierced at 50 meters and the 2mm plate at 30 meters. Brass isn't as durable as steel so I can't understand how this would make the armor bulletproof. What is the thickness armor on the brass armor you are referring to?

Brian

Before talking about anothers dumb questions I would ask your to consider what actually is 'plate armour' since there never was such a thing in China. It is not about 'popularity' or 'they could have it if they wanted' since the evolution of armour was different. Plate armour was not worn in the Han or Qin/Zhou or anytime later. You seem to have confused the terminology. Lamellar (armour made of small plates) is something quite different again.
Also the blast furnaces in 300BC did not produce steel in quality or quantity to really end the bronze age untill 200 years had passed. The military impact of this earliest 'steel' is put into perspective when it is considered that Qin defeated all the rest with their bronze weapons.


Whether Tibet Libre grows increasingly tiresome with the talking up Europe over the East I do find it equally tiring seeing China being talked up over the West as is just as much a passtime here for some.
I wish everyone would give it a rest and stop making comparisons between each. Better to compare between moments in their own histories to see where progress occured since to phrase comparisons in a context of 'superior' {hypothetically} is always inflammatory and seldom productive.
This is the biggest annoyance for me in reading CHF threads. Why is it even nessecary? Psychology rather than history?
I can discuss weapons at length and give credit where it is due but I never need to push someone down to raise the other up.

Wrong on the Navy. The Chinese navy played a role in Korea for sure, and were cannon armed, even possessing an equivalent of the turtle ship known as a "Falcon Ship".

Also, the lamellar and brigandines worn by China =/= plate.

As Kenneth said, different evolutionary paths for armour in China did not favor plate. However, I don't really think that this was a lack of technical skill that caused this.

^It was the fact that the Japanese lacked cannons that caused the Ming/Korean navy to have the advantage. In the Imjin War, Japan excelled at the arquebus, while the Ming/Korea excelled at the cannon. Unfortunately for Japan, the arquebuse don't seem to be as important as the cannon when it's a ship-to-ship battle.

Exactly, China had none, so how do you know "late Ming China" had "the world's most powerful military, both in terms of quality and quantity", when it was never tested by serious enemies?

Obviously the term "most powerful" nowadays means powerful, give ZhaoYun a break.

And obviously nothing was soaked in. Ming never fought a serious enemy? Countries like that won't take so much money on their military then.

Yes, I know, I said that Chinese armies prefered more flexible armors over plates, and that they HAD the technology to create plate armor & full body plate armors. Refering to the navy, I was just saying compared to the earlier Ming fleets, the later Ming fleets were crap.



"You seem to have confused the terminology. Lamellar (armour made of small plates) is something quite different again. "

I know lamellar is not plate. I was just saying lamellar was more popular. I'm sure they had "some" variations of plate curiass armor used by the commanders/generals.

I never said the "late" Ming had the world's most powerful millitary. I'm gonna say they did have a powerful
millitary - considering troops numbers, resources, wealth, and technology that was on par with the most advanced nations of Europe.

Also, the polygonal fortification was used hundreds of years after the Ming dynasty collapsed.

Check your sources. The Ming made widespread use of firearms during the Imjin conflict. Including arquebus and cannon. Peter Lorge writes that the Japanese were shocked by the intensity of Ming cannon fire, later resorting to hit-and-run tactics rather than facing the Ming artillery directly.

I agree on the point that the Ming used cannon in wide variety, but disagree that they made widespread use of the arquebus (firelance perhaps). I can cite several examples from Japanese sources and a few Korean, though I admit, I do not have the Chinese sources that you might have.

Brian

Care to show a source for this ?

In an improved form, yes. But the beginnings of star shaped fortifications can be traced back to the late 15th century, to the days of di Giorgio Martini (d. 1502) who built one for the duke of Orbino and Albrecht Duerer (d. 1528) who wrote a treatise on the subject (beside many Italian engineer-artists).

Check this out, I think the west is starting to recognize the many contribution that China has offered the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bpOzW7gihw

It wasn't too bad.

I remember they did some of the history homework on China wrong, but it was passable.

I found their claim that the "M16 and Tomahawk Missile originated in China" a bit outrageous and sensational. To say that the Chinese had equivalents and that these weapons were descended from Chinese weapons fine, but it still made me squirm to hear it, a little bit.

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

This occured in 1499. This is the 1st naval battle which 1st used cannons on ships and ever recorded in naval history. When did Ming China start using canons on their ships?

Hmm, I distinctly seem to recall that the forces fighting for control of China during the civil war years after the Yuan dynasty mounted cannons on their ships. Chen Youliang was supposed to have plenty of good quality cannon aboard his, and the battle of Boyang Lake was fought with many chong.

Zheng He's ships mounted cannons, and he had been noted to bombard the walls of an African city state.

All of these events predate Zonchio.

erm, since that's the case, Mr Yang, how come history recognises Zonchio as the 1st battle where canons were 1st used or recorded in written history? Since China had also written or recorded history?

That link proves that some people on wikipedia believe that Zonchio was the first battle where cannons were used in a naval setting. It doesn't prove that cannons were first used in battle then (being recorded earlier even in European history, to say nothing of Asian history), or even in naval combat.

Perhaps they had an outdated or rather Eurocentric sourcing. Historians have already noted Chinese use of cannons on their ships, ie Zheng He shelling Mogadishu (See When China Ruled the Seas, by Louise Levathes).

Also see the threads on the battle of lake Boyang (1363 CE).

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=8150

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...topic=8247&

Wikipedia... well... pinnacle of historical accuracy there.

Forget wikipedia, even history books are full of such errors. I had a similar argument on the History Channel forum only a week or two back. Someone argued that since he's never learnt about certain Chinese discoveries, it can't be all that important or even existed. Really, flawed logic there. Like I pointed out to him, just because he's never read about it or that it's not taught in schools doesn't mean it's not true. Take the example of catapults. Until today, you'll still get people screaming 399 B.C. syracuse as the very first date in history when catapults were invented despite Chinese textual evidence that they've had catapults predating 399 B.C. (not to mention circumstantial evidence of even older Indian catapults)... and this isn't just from run-of-the-mill internet forummers... just recently, two books on Catapults, one published 2006, and yet another just this year still propagate 399 B.C. and these book were written by History professors no less.

So my point, don't always believe what you read.

You must have been in a real good mood to humour ... I mean, entertain ... I mean, educate ... him.

Unless he's like totally fresh, his drawback is usually not ignorance.

Edited: I found that thread ... his problem is not ignorance ...

It's people like that that make the world so unpleasant. They refuse to even admit that there is another side to a story, let alone try and see/understand the balanced view.

Can some one provide some insight into how the Manchus managed to conquer China in the face of Chinese superiority in advanced weaponry ?

In the face of Ming's superiority, you mean.

The Manchus made use of captured craftsmen to create their own cannons.

The Chinese wiki source cited that in AD 1631, Liu Han (刘汉), a captive of the Manchu, manufactured some cannons for the Later Jin in their capital, Shenyang, their version being an improvement over the Ming's through lost-wax process, annealing and quenching.

By AD 1639, they had 60 cannons and used them to win Battle of SongJin (松锦之战), where they captured the Ming general Hong ChengChou.

Very interesting weapons. A lot of them remind me of something out of anime. What you say is true generally of Westerners, but quite often the images we have are based from movies and its not just Chinese culture that suffers from this. 9 out of 10 people also couldn't tell the difference between a historic based Roman kit and a tin-can extra from Gladiator. The same goes for Viking stereotypes and most of the time you're lucky if the person knows horns on helms are not accurate. That goes for Medieval European movies and a score of other cultures and time periods. Honestly, quite a few people get their image of Chinese people from foreign television and movies. So basically it comes down to people in the movie industry who often care little and seem to purposely endeavor at times to make things as stereotypical and inaccurate as possible to help make changes. The American movie industry even continually rejects attempts by living history groups to assist them with knowledge, people, and even equipment. With the money they spend on inaccurate junk they could easily make accurate goods. I've seen some good foreign movies that seem to endeavor for accuracy, but from a foreign point of view sometimes that can only make it more confusing.
Lets face it, most people are just looking for entertainment and are not going to get a history degree just to watch Once Upon a Time in China. The bad thing is that are just out for a bit of fun, what they don't know better on people take in and believe it to a certain degree of logical sense and even beyond sometimes.

BTW: Sorry about changing the subject, but while I'm still following this interesting discussion, as a Westerner I felt obligated to comment not so much in defense but maybe to provide a bit of understanding.

A non-han power defeating hans, as history shows, only happens when one key combination of factors apply.

(1) Corruption
(2) Political infighting
(3) Military's loss of support due to the above reasons.

'China' also had one more major problem to attend to which was being gutted by southern rebellions.
Remember that Qing did not defeat the Ming. Shun took down Ming. And Shun at that time was only in its fledgling state. No mature political or beaucratic infrustructure was in place which means China's resources had no coordination. Most of the southern lands were relatively authonomous and there was just no time for organize any decent defence against them. This is due to the fact that the rebel army had no more fight left in them because their mission was to topple Ming and they did that already. They were so psyched to just stretch out and relax after their 10 bloody years of war. The new gov's only hope was the border garrision on the great wall and we all know what happened there. Sadly, that also was not the whole story. Even if Qing did not have Wu Sangui's help, they would still have entered the central plains via the north-western route, although that would have been much more difficuit.

Seems rather tautological ...

The same combination of factors would apply to a Han/Hua power defeating the non-Han/Hua power in history, as well as a Han power conquering another Han power during various ages of fragmentation.

As far as I could recall, the only ethnic Han power that lost its sovereignity without internal corruption or infighting was the WuYue Kingdom - faced with the prospect of overwhelming might of Song, they chose to surrender, even before any war was declared.

This thread needs to be revived :lol