Chinese Military Conduct Against Steppe Armies

The youngest son would inherit family property doesnt mean he would also inherit the crown of "great khan", Chingis wasnt the youngest for taking the crown, "Great khan" must be elected by the khuriltai, they are two different conceptions.
Besides, Ogedei was elected as the "Great khan" by the khuriltai in 1229,but Tolui died in 1232,which was after Ogedei became the "great khan".

Chingiskhan did actually prepare to lead the army himself against Jochi on the rumor and suspicion of his possible betrayal when Jochi didnt attend the meeting with Chingis in 1223.
Its also known Jochi and Chagatai disliked each other for a long time.

When Mongke was alive, Kaidu didnt revolt,but after Mongke's death,civil war broke out between the Mongols, not only between the descendants of Ogedei and Tolui because of their old differences on succession, but also between the Toluis for the right of new succession.

Chagatai khanate was in support of Arigboka first but then switched to Kubilai's side, for this reason Arigboka attacked Chagatai khanate but he was eventually defeated by Chagatais.

Hence, the conquest of Southern was rather like "regional conquest" by the Yuan dynasty rather than "world conquest" by the Mongol empire, since there was no longer an unified empire anymore ever since the death of Mongke.

And even if they did manage to do so, the defeat of a Mongol general is nothing compared to the death of Great khan of the Mongol empire.The worst Mongol defeat is the siege of Diaoyucheng and it triggered the succession crisis among the Mongol nobility resulting in the weakening of Mongols as an uniting force, the leadership of "Great Khan" once uniting the Mongol horseman as one force in their conquest of the world is no longer there, although the Mongols would still continue to play their role in history, but the days of "the Mongol empire" was already over.

From Western Han period relics depicting its contemporary army and its cavalry,based on these relics as well history records, the reconstructive drawing, 3D reconstructive images (not from computer games) of Western Han cavalry force in support of dream208's point that "Western Han military engagement with Xiongnu were conducted by Chinese army" and its distinctively own version of cavalry, for instance the use of crossbow instead of composite bow on horseback which was inherited from previous Qin dynasty as its discovered from excavation of terracotta army of Qinshihuangdi that Qin cavalry were armed with crossbows, an invention by the Chinese.etc
And those "beautiful pictures from Chinese soap operas" are from John Woo's new film "battle of the red cliff", the army outfits resembles Han period as the director promised to base his film on real history of "three kingdoms" rather than base it on the novel "Romance of three kingdoms".
And i wished to share these with dream208.
 

Wait a moment, when i said ""Korean nationalist", "steppe culture chauvinist", "anti-sinocentrist" all love to make big fuss about the blood of Tang household as i have obeserved it. funny thing is, they dont even seem to know where that "piece of history" really came from" as response to the issue regarding blood of Tang household in "why buddhism is successful in China" thread. Have my "beautiful soap operas pictures" in this thread got anything to do with it?
 

indeed, moderator losing control of himself and acting more like a child is funny.

此碑为唐光业寺的建筑之一。唐高宗（李治）总章年间（668～670年），唐宗室为保护高祖（李渊）第四代祖宣皇帝李熙和第三代祖光皇帝李天赐之陵（即建初陵、启运陵，二陵共茔，全称�大唐帝陵�），在陵墓正东修建了光业寺。唐玄宗（李隆基）开元十二年（724年）又扩建整修，并增建了大佛堂，竣工后立此碑以示纪念。

大唐帝陵，位于河北省隆尧县城南6公里的魏庄乡王尹村北200米处，系唐高祖李渊第四代祖宣皇帝李熙和第三代祖光皇帝李天赐的陵墓�建初陵和启运陵的合茔。

光业寺，在唐陵正东偏南500米处，当时的光业寺金碧辉煌，一派皇家威严气象。随着唐王朝的兴衰，光业寺也几经兴废，现在寺已荡然无存，唯有此碑尚存。所以光业寺碑是研究唐代历史和唐代建筑的宝贵资料。

关于此碑，《京畿金石考》录有碑文，《畿辅通志》和《隆平县志》也有摘录。历代传拓者也甚多。据传清代光绪年间，当地官员曾将此碑朱砂拓片作为寿礼贡献给慈禧太后。

光业寺碑是大唐陵附属建筑光业寺之遗物。刻于唐开元十三年（725年），文化大革命时期被农民赵孟村将石碑砸成数块运回村内，垒在学校墙下。1980年，隆尧县文物保管所将残碑12块（现在仍缺少一块，不能复原）运回文物保管所（县文体局）保存。该碑属河北省重点文物保护单位。

唐高宗（李治）总章年间（668～670年），唐宗室为保护高祖（李渊）第四代祖宣皇帝李熙和第三代祖光皇帝李天赐之陵（即建初陵、启运陵，二陵共茔，全称�大唐帝陵�），在陵墓正东修建光业寺。唐玄宗（李隆基）开元十三年（725年）又扩建整修，并增建大佛堂，竣工后立此碑以示纪念。关于此碑，《畿辅通志》之拓文为�皇祖瀛州剌史宣简公谨追上尊号，谥宣皇帝。皇祖妣夫人张氏谨追上尊号，谥宣庆皇后。皇祖懿王谨追上尊号，谥光皇帝。皇祖妣妃贾氏谨追上尊号，谥光懿皇后�从残存的碑文可以直接得到的文字为 �维王桑梓，本际城池�无疑提供出李唐源出赵郡的铁证。近年来，从陵区南侧出土的唐王后胤墓志铭，更进一步证明，其为陇西李渊宗室旧域陵寝所在，再者，李熙、李天锡的茔墓，都是按照汉人旧制，而这些陵寝之造，都是在李唐建政之前，李熙及妻张氏皆汉人，其子李天赐及妻贾氏亦皆汉人，其子李虎及妻梁氏亦皆汉姓。
    我的观点:

其一，以上实物仅能说明李渊的高祖与曾祖因种种原因葬在隆尧,那么李熙之上的先茔何在?如果在赵郡,那么应一并建七代陵庙才对.所以仅凭两陵不足以令人信服.况此二陵在唐至今,千余年学人尽知,并非出土之新证,但无人提出李唐出赵郡之说。

再者：从残存的碑文可以直接得到的文字为 �维王桑梓，本际城池�无疑提供出李唐源出赵郡的铁证。仅此�桑梓�二字就为铁证乎？碑文多有文学性修饰，不能等同于史料，只能相互参照。如唐张彧撰《忠武先庙碑记》中有李晟在祭祖之时�惨凄改容，欷歔流泪，若见祖考，如闻话言，神魂仿佛兮皆故乡之游���李晟的父亲李钦本在长安后因宫廷之变而谪贬陇西又葬于临洮，李晟在临潭成长，那么不能据李钦葬地和李晟曾经生活的地方来推测其为临洮人，尽管先庙碑记里也视临洮为故乡。但在《新唐书宰相世系》中李晟还是定为陇西徙京兆房，因为其先祖李重耳早就迁关内了，传至其曾祖李嵩又迁至长安京兆。二者同理。李渊不能因高祖与曾祖葬在隆尧就成为是那里人氏的铁证。论据不充分。

其二,陈先生提出李唐先世是否有李重耳其人.在据史书上只有恒农太守李初古拔曾为薛安都所俘,其子李买得战死这一史料的基础上提出李重耳此人可疑,� 李熙父子俱葬于广阿，计其生时亦约当南朝宋齐之世，故以地域邻接及时代先后二者之关系综合推论，颇疑李唐先世本为赵郡李氏柏仁一支之子孙，或者虽不舆赵郡李氏之居柏仁者同族，但以同姓一姓同居一地之故，遂因缘攀附，自托于赵郡之高门，衡以南北朝庶姓冒称士族之惯例，殊为可能之事。总而言之，据可信之材料，依常识之判断，李唐先世若非赵郡李氏之�破落户�即是赵郡李氏之�假冒牌�。至于有唐一代之官书，其纪述皇室渊源间亦保存原来真实之事迹，但其大部尽属后人讳饰夸诞之语，治史者自不应漫无辨别，遽尔全部信从也。又《魏书》玖玖《私署凉王李暠传》本不载重耳南奔始末，传世之《十六国春秋纂录》陆《西凉录》亦无其事。而汤球之《十六国春秋辑补》转取唐修《晋书》之《凉武昭王传》添此一段蛇足（见汤书叙例），殊为无议。今敦煌本之《十六国春秋》残卷惜未得见，不知与此有关否?至于伪本《十六国春秋》载重耳事采自唐修《晋书》更不足辨论矣�。但我更认同李重耳即是李初古拔,二人为一人.据年龄来分析较为相符.西凉李歆国灭之时为西元420年,其父李暠卒于417年,时年67岁.其向晋室称臣,李歆遭沮渠蒙逊灭国后其子李重耳奔宋可能性极大.重耳时年应有二十余岁.而薛安都自魏奔宋在446年, 据史料记载在西元423年至450年之间,汝南一带宋魏反复易手,李重耳极有可能在此阶段降魏,太平真君十一年450年薛安都攻入弘农，执太守李拔南遁,及世祖临江,拔乃得还. 重耳时年应在五十岁左右.而降魏的原因恐还有其堂弟李宝于442年自新疆伊吾率族众及汉人二千入据敦煌，向魏称藩，为敦煌公，与沮渠蒙逊对峙。据年龄来分析，李重耳与李拔应为同龄人，且生平履历惊人一致。为何？李唐附宗之说关健点就在于此一人，即李重耳是否等于李拔。如果是一人，则李唐即陇西之李。则附宗之论为无稽之谈。从历史环境来分析李歆之子国灭奔宋后又降魏是符合历史与其家族史的。其后裔在北魏兴盛也是客观存在的，李宝，李冲父子祖孙数代在魏名人辈出，使得陇西李氏门阀光大。也为李虎等诸李在后周为柱国打下了基础。在当时历史条件下寒门庶族如此腾达概率是非常小的。所以没有充分的证据来支持自已的观点，是难以令人信服的。

李暠之孙李宝又于444年入朝，率族人定居洛阳，随行的还有族人李文度是李宝的族叔，西凉安定太守，是丹杨房李雍的六世孙，看来也是李宝封的，李文度的后裔便是李药师，李靖，李昭德一支，按辈份李渊与李靖应同辈，皆为李雍十二世孙。而史载李暠生有十子，李歆生八子，李重耳以国亡奔宋，为汝南太守，后魏克豫州，以地归之，恒农太守，复为宋将薛安都所陷，后魏安南将军，豫州刺史，生献祖宣皇帝熙，字孟良，后魏金门镇将。生天赐，天赐生虎，字文彬，后周柱国大将军，唐国公，生八子。可见自李暠建西凉国以来，家族人丁迅速繁衍，到唐初时已有十多房支出现了。这也是与其政治经济地位分不开的。

其三，李重耳奔宋时应不止孤身一人，应该和李宝一样率兄弟子侄举族而南逃。李重耳应不止一子，除李买得战死，应有李熙，李抚诸子。据唐书载，为彰显李晟再造大唐的功绩，德宗将李晟的容像，列于凌烟阁。李晟去世之日，德宗手诏，�誓以存保世嗣，申告柩前�。�宪宗元和中，诏其家与属籍，以晟配飨德宗庙廷�。�以睦宗亲�。后天下动荡，僖宗逃避蜀地，命令�袁皓采晟功烈，为《兴元圣功录》，遍赐诸将，表励之�。希望他们都以李晟为榜样，无私无畏，效忠大唐。那么就是说宪宗承认与陇西李晟的同宗关系。才能附属籍，入宗正寺。况李晟已逝，就算其有再造唐室之功，宪宗也大可不必此举。看来目的还是睦宗亲。

又李晟奉旨立五庙，当是时，�一门荷宠于圣朝。四代追荣于幽穸�。庙成之日，正议大夫行尚书工部侍郎赐紫金鱼袋张彧撰《忠武先庙碑记》，李彝篆额：
   附录如下：
    ��彧尝闻之：四时旋干，日月以之照临。五行秀发，人伦以之降格。故有父子焉，有昭穆焉。裂土而封，则九州不击。本支以序，则百代相因。��唐元臣太尉兼中书令西平郡王李公名晟字良器，秉寅亮之直道，建恢复之成功，乃能光荣其亲，上及累世，弓裘不坠，燕翼相承，邈在圣明之朝，咸当庙食之，贵其为积善以储祉，宏教以轨物。实惟先大保府君之有焉，夫源深者水洁而流长，液厚者胤钟而庆远，��以为非大贤垂裕，则不产异代之英猷，非元勋立诚，则不扬先君之令范。起予者子毋乃是乎。始公之远祖出自颛顼，至咎繇为理官赐姓理，殷末有理徵以抗直获罪于纣，其子利贞逃难伊侯之墟，食李而免，改李氏。周有伯阳，为柱下史，秦有信为将军，汉有广为前将军，广十六代孙是凉为武昭王暠，暠生歆，歆生重耳，苦沮渠蒙逊，奔江南仕宋，为汝南守。归魏，为弘农守。生抚，以大名之后，因为武川守而终于位焉。公即武川之系孙，今为陇西狄道人也。��
    ��建中中属，巨猾僭忒，连衡跋扈，兑攵襄攵我禁苑，窟宅我仙都，国无完人，天未悔祸，大驾已迁于巴汗。元凶复炽于咸秦；公以羸师五千，骞骑八百，脱河间九地之险，救阙下重围之急。一鼓作气，再鼓作力，钅舌刀划铲，缭垣卒崩，所以破豺狼之群，放貔虎之队。自丑至卯，风驱席卷，蹙缩    ，信军威之骇人，骑步腾骞，觉胜势之如竹。王师不犯于秋毫，寇贼莫逃于天网。衣冠翕习，睹西汉之旧仪，文物昭张，荷维周之新命。士庶欢欣，趋驰拜迎。上乃整金舆，步玉辇，万骑夹熊罴之仗，六龙还翡翠之宫。端拱听朝，下诏罪已��
     ��贞元五年二月丁亥，先庙成，尚书工部兼大常博士葳荐修我公衤付祭之仪撰。我公器备之用，即以公之大王父皇左翊府中郎将讳芝，赠陇州刺史，为庙之昭也。妣张氏，赠清河群夫人配焉。曾王父皇同陇右节度副使左卫大将军讳嵩，赠泽州刺史，为祖之穆也。配刘氏赠彭城群夫人配焉。大父皇洮州剌史冀门军使讳思恭，赠幽州大都督，为孙之昭也，妣高氏赠齐国夫人配焉，考皇左金吾卫大将军讳钦赠太子太保，为亲之穆也。妣王氏赠代国夫人配焉。以公先夫人张氏赠萧国夫人付祖姑而配焉。公肇自大王父阐之，曾王父演之，大父修之，烈考府君田之，而太尉公周之。一门荷宠于圣朝。四代追荣于幽穸。翌日既馈。晕膻既腥，礼容在堂，圭祖在庭，有翼有严，以妥以侑，洁我彝尊，丰我笾豆。奠牲牢于庑下，陈   于坐隅，公精神永慕，响像空对，靡尽饰终之敬，  增罔极之思，惨凄改容，欷歔流泪，若见祖考，如闻话言，神魂仿佛兮皆故乡之游，袷馨香兮即歆庙之荐。其来也，恍惚乘风雨而可知，其去也，寂寞混杳冥而莫测，君子谓公之献享具美存焉。����
     从此文献中可以分析，李重耳还有一子名抚，是李晟一支的先祖。李晟是西元727年出生的，其父李钦是左金吾卫大将军，官三品。与玄宗的大哥同为十八卫大将军。隆基诛太平公主党羽时李钦仅降为从三品发配边陲任陇右节度副使，后与吐蕃拒战时受伤而亡，李晟正是在临潭军营里出生成长的。李钦距李抚不过二三百年，当时的人还是很重视门第的，对家族世系应是非常清楚的。特别是李虎李渊。另从出土的唐皇室墓志铭来看，无一不称其�陇西狄道人�。李熙和天赐父子同葬一穴于隆尧，完全事因偶然，因战乱草草安葬，或未可之。因为在隆尧并未见其族葬。

其四：陈先生开篇即引朱子之语为援，�《朱子语类》壹壹陆《历代类》叁云：唐源流出于夷狄，故闺门失礼之事不以为异。朱子之语颇为简略，其意未能详知�。朱子为何言唐源流出于夷狄，其落脚点还是唐朝闺门失礼之事。即李治娶了先父的小妾武媚娘，李隆基纳了儿媳杨玉环，这可真是个礼教的反面教材。此诚理学大家朱子深恶痛绝之事也，故一语李唐出于夷狄而不守汉家礼仪常伦，其实也是为了宣扬其理学的道义罢了。这句话理解为朱子无可奈何下一句骂人泄愤的话亦可，夷狄就是畜性嘛。但如果说朱子经过严谨的考证而得出的结论，却是有些曲解了。
  
史记《匈奴传》���利则进，不利则退，不羞遁走。苟利所在，不知礼义。自君王以下咸食畜肉，衣其皮革，被旃裘。壮者食肥美，老者饮食其余。贵壮健，贱老弱。父死，妻其后母；兄弟死，皆取其妻妻之。�
     �父兄死，则妻其妻，恶种姓之失也。故匈奴虽乱，必立宗种�。为什么有如此风俗，是因为其恶劣的生存环境与文明程度低造成的。父兄死，妻其妻。这是一种保持基本生存和种族纯正的需要，更是一项被动的义务。而李治与李隆基之爱武杨，是基于内心真切的情感，是情欲战胜了理智，是一种主动的对爱的追求。况更有甚者，齐桓公曰：�寡人有污行，不幸而好色，而姑姊妹有不嫁者，�语见《管子》。齐桓公对长辈和平辈都污染了而导致嫁不出去，其行乱伦，难道能据此而言他是夷狄？不是汉人？
   
其实说李唐是夷狄的人总引用朱子的这句话和笔记小说中单雄信骂元吉为胡儿作为论据，这是非常不周密的。
  
还有一种观念，认为汉人都是文明礼仪之族种，生性好文，不喜武力。勇健善斗的都是胡人。�此可以代表河北社会通常情态，其尚攻战而不崇文教。质言之，即渐染胡化深而汉化浅也�。�要而言之，家世或本身曾留居河朔及长于骑射二事则大抵相类，斯实河朔地域之胡化演变所致者也�。此说甚为谬矣。西北自秦汉就有尚武之风，民风彪悍，至今还遗存先秦士风。汉人在秦汉至唐不乏勇猛血性的品格，只是在宋降今，武功日衰，斯文日盛，加之几次异族入侵，汉人之血性屠宰殆尽，以至于沉沦于东亚病夫之恶名。此才是诚可耻复可叹之痛史也。
  
如果说是遗传，李唐宗室倒是继承了陇西李氏一族勇猛尚武，精于骑射和不畏强敌的基因，且尤为彰显。

陇西李氏从李崇，李信，李仲翔，李广，李敢，李陵，李禹，及李暠之上的高曾祖考，历代均为西北边关守将，在西北汉人与异族激烈冲突的环境中，世代习武，精于骑射，生性粗犷豪放。在西北汉族大家中享有非常高的声誉。代表了陇右汉家风尚。

史料中记载：

李信：秦将李信者，年少壮勇，尝以兵数千逐燕太子丹至於衍水中，卒破得丹，始皇以为贤勇。於是始皇问李信：�吾欲攻取荆，於将军度用几何人而足？�李信曰：�不过用二十万人。�始皇问王翦，王翦曰：�非六十万人不可。�始皇曰：�王将军老矣，何怯也！李将军果势壮勇，其言是也。�遂使李信及蒙恬将二十万南伐荆。

李仲翔：广曾祖仲翔,汉初为将军,讨叛羌于素昌,素昌即狄道也,众寡不敌, 临阵殒命，仲翔子伯考奔丧,因葬于狄道之东川,遂家焉。《史记李将军传》所云其先自槐里徙居成纪，实始此也。

李广：李广，陇西成纪人也。其先曰李信，秦时为将，逐得燕太子丹者也。广世世受射。孝文十四年，匈奴大入萧关，而广以良家子从军击胡，用善射，杀首虏多，为郎，骑常侍。数从射猎，格杀猛兽，文帝曰：�惜广不逢时，令当高祖世，万户侯岂足道哉！���广所居郡闻有虎，常自射之。及居右北平射虎，虎腾伤广，广亦射杀之。

李敢：行数百里，匈奴左贤王将四万骑围广，广军士皆恐，广乃使其子敢往驰之。敢从数十骑直贯胡骑，出其左右而还，报广曰：�胡虏易与耳。�军士乃安。��敢以校尉从票骑将军击胡左贤王，力战，夺左贤王旗鼓，斩首多，赐爵关内侯，食邑二百户，代广为郎中令。顷之，怨大将军青之恨其父，乃击伤大将军，大将军匿讳之。

李陵：��陵对：�无所事骑，臣愿以少击众，步兵五千人涉单于庭。�及李陵浚稽山兵败，��群臣皆罪陵，上以问太史令司马迁，迁盛言：�陵事亲孝，与士信，常奋不顾身以殉国家之急。其素所畜积也，有国士之风。今举事一不幸，全躯保妻子之臣随而媒其短，诚可痛也！且陵提步卒不满五千，深輮戎马之地，抑数万之师，虏救死扶伤不暇，悉举引弓之民共攻围之。转斗千里，矢尽道穷，士张空拳，冒白刃，北首争死敌，得人之死力，虽古名将不过也。身虽陷败，然其所摧败亦足暴于天下。彼之不死，宜欲得当以报汉也。�
  

李禹：敢男禹有宠于太子，亦有勇。尝与侍中贵人饮，侵陵之，莫敢应。后诉之上，上召禹，使刺虎，悬下圈中，未至地，有诏引出之。禹从落中以剑斫绝累，欲刺虎。上壮之，遂救止焉。

李暠：武昭王讳暠，字玄盛，小字长生，陇西成纪人，姓李氏，汉前将军广之十六世孙也。广曾祖仲翔，汉初为将军，讨叛羌于素昌，素昌即狄道也，众寡不敌，死之。仲翔子伯考奔丧，因葬于狄道之东川，遂家焉，世为西州右姓。高祖雍，曾祖柔，仕晋并历位郡守。祖弇，仕张轨为武卫将军、安世亭侯。父昶，幼有令名，早卒，遗腹生玄盛。少而好学，性沈敏宽和，美器度，通涉经史，尤善文义。及长，颇习武艺，诵孙吴兵法。

李歆即位西凉后主，大破匈奴余孽沮渠蒙逊于解支涧，获七千余级。歆闻蒙逊南伐乞伏，乃起兵攻张掖。其母尹氏谓歆曰：�汝新造之国，地狭民希，蒙逊骁武，汝非其敌���。歆不从，遂率步骑三万东伐，次于都渎涧。蒙逊自浩拒歆，战于怀城，为蒙逊所败，左右劝歆还酒泉，歆曰：�吾违太后明敕，远取败震，不杀此胡，复何面目见吾母也！�勒众复战，败于蓼泉，为蒙逊所杀。歆与沮渠蒙逊战于蓼泉，军败失马，辛渊以所乘马援歆，而身死于难，以义烈见称西土。

比如李虎，当时称李虎为猛兽，源于李虎擒豹之事，李虎经常在北山阅军，常常有人在这里被豹子吃掉，从来没有人敢于上前抢救，一次又有豹子伤人，被李虎碰上，他拿着大棍子赶过去，把豹子杀掉，除了一害。

至李建成李世民李元吉兄弟亦是骁勇善战，披坚执锐，每阵先登，以为常事。李元霸也被小说家塑造成隋唐第一好汉。

李道玄，是李世民同一曾祖的从弟。不幸早逝。《唐书》载��从太宗击宋金刚于介州，先登陷阵，时年十五，太宗壮之，赏物千段。又从太宗转战于汜水，麾戈陷阵，直出贼后，众披靡，复冲突而归。太宗大悦，命副乘以给道玄。又从太宗赴贼，再入再出，飞矢乱下，箭如蝟毛，猛气益厉，射人无不应弦而倒。五年，刘黑闼引突厥寇河北，复授山东道行军总管。师次下博，与贼军遇，道玄帅骑先登，命副将史万宝督军继进。万宝与之不协，及道玄深入，而拥兵不进，谓所亲曰：�吾奉手诏，言淮阳小儿虽名为将，而军之进止皆委于吾。今其轻脱，越泞交战，大军若动，必陷泥溺，莫如结阵以待之，虽不利于王，而利于国。�道玄遂为贼所擒，全军尽没，惟万宝逃归。道玄遇害，年十九。太宗追悼久之，尝从容谓侍臣曰：�道玄终始从朕，见朕深入贼阵，所向必克，意尝企慕，所以每阵先登，盖学朕也。惜其年少，不遂远图。�因为之流涕。赠左骁卫大将军，谥曰壮。

李道宗，也是世民的从弟。《唐书》载��大军讨高丽，令道宗与李靖为前锋，济辽水，克盖牟城。逢贼兵大至，军中佥欲深沟保险，待太宗至徐进，道宗曰：�不可。贼赴急远来，兵实疲顿，恃众轻我，一战必摧。昔耿弇不以贼遗君父，我既职在前军，当须清道以待舆驾。�李靖然之。乃与壮士数十骑直冲贼阵，左右出入，靖因合击，大破之。太宗至，深加赏劳，赐奴婢四十人。

河间王孝恭，是李世民的堂叔。《唐书》载��七年，孝恭自荆州趣九江，时李靖、李积、黄君汉、张镇州、卢祖尚并受孝恭节度。将发，与诸将宴集，命取水，忽变为血，在座者皆失色。孝恭举止自若，徐谕之曰：�祸福无门，唯人所召。自顾无负于物，诸公何见忧之深！公祏恶积祸盈，今承庙算以致讨，碗中之血，乃公祏授首之后征。�遂尽饮而罢。时人服其识度而能安众。公祏遣其伪将冯惠亮、陈当时领水军屯于博望山，陈正通、徐绍宗率步骑军于青林山。孝恭至，坚壁不与斗，使奇兵断其粮道。贼渐饣委，夜薄我营，孝恭安卧不动。明日，纵羸兵以攻贼垒，使卢祖尚率精骑列阵以待之。俄而攻垒者败走，贼出追奔数里，遇祖尚军，与战，大败之。��江南悉平。��江淮及岭南皆统摄之。自大业末，群雄竞起，皆为太宗所平，谋臣猛将并在麾下，罕有别立勋庸者，唯孝恭著方面之功，声名甚盛。十四年，暴薨，年五十。太宗素服举哀，哭之甚恸，赠司空、扬州都督，陪葬献陵，谥曰元，配享高祖庙庭。
  
纵观陇西李氏英豪代出，其脉络如线穿珠，忠勇以力战，重义轻生死，面临强  暴，皆能冲锋陷阵，极富个人魅力。究其原因，一是西北尚武之影响，二是李氏遗传之基因，现代医学之谓Ｙ染色体也。而置其一脉而相承者于不顾，辩之以夷蛮，不亦谬乎！
  
李暠西元400年称帝，李渊西元618年称帝，其间仅二百年，历李歆----李重耳----李熙-----李天赐-----李虎----李昺六代而已，李渊焉能不详？若非曲误之深，太宗岂会大怒竖目：�广引形似之言。备陈不逊之喻。擢发数罪，比此犹轻。��爬毁朕之祖祢。谤黩朕之先人�。如此又何容我等千年后从一断碑残铭只言片语中去妄自推测其先祖而辨陇西耶赵郡耶！汉人耶胡人耶！

The debate on which town Li family originated is associated with the question of whether Li family was derived from Chinese or Xianbei clan, as the question of which town Li family originated was used by the Buddhist monk Falin to connect Li family to Toba clan of Xianbei despite Lishimin furiously dismissed Falin's claim.
either you didnt thoroughly read the article or you are downplaying and deliberately ignoring the contents of this article which is written by the descendant of Lishimin. Here let me remind you

"帝因亲降问曰。朕本系老聃。东周隐德。末叶承嗣。起自陇西......琳闻。拓拔达阇唐言李氏。陛下之李。斯即其苗。非柱下陇西之流也。......帝时大怒竖目。又问法师曰。朕闻。周之宗盟异姓为后。尊祖重亲寔由先古。何为追逐其短禽鼠两端。广引形似之言。备陈不逊之喻。擢发数罪比此犹轻。尽竹书愆方斯未拟。爬毁朕之祖祢。谤黩朕之先人"

speaking of "simple root question", arent you aware of that Chinese family names are patrilineal that they are passed from father to children?

Chinese family names are patrilineal,like every Chinese clan, Lishimin and Li family never traced their lineage by maternal side,even if one disregard the patrilineal nature of Chinese family names instead of utilizing maternal side to explain ethnicity, then maternal side of Xianbei origin only occured in few generations in family history of Li clan while the vast majority of their maternal side still come from Chinese rather than Xianbei people.
Can you then claim the Li family are Xianbei rather than Chinese? then since Lishimin regarded famous Chinese historical figures like Laozi, general Li Guang of Han dynasty, general Li Xin of Qin dynasty as the ancestors of Li family, would one also claim them as Xianbei rather than Chinese?
and since Laozi was the founder of Daoism and his descendants somehow are regarded as Xianbei, can one also claim "Xianbei" actually invented Daoism as well? If one would also attribute the rise and success of Sui and Tang dynasties somehow to their Xianbei maternal side of few generations?

As if this would be regarded as somekind of "biological" explanation for the flourishing of Tang dynasty?

If a Chinese married his daughter to a Xianbei man, would the marriage changes his offspring, as well the clan he belongs to Chinese instead of its original Xianbei one? if the answer is yes, then many of the Xianbei around the Sui-Tang period should already be regarded as "Chinese" instead of "Xianbei" since you trace ones ancestry and attribute their ethnicity by maternal side instead of patrilineal. Then one could also claim Xiongnu and Tubo etc as "Chinese" since Chinese princesses were married to them by Han and Tang dynasty.Ofcourse, since Li family are "Xianbei", then Tang princesses marriage to the Tibetan Tubo kingdom would also make them "Xianbei" people.
If the answer is no, then you need to explain why you would apply double standard on such issue.

The answer to the claim of their family as "Xianbei" or "Tabgach" by the Li family is No. And indeed there shouldnt be any debate about their blood anymore, since they are the ultimate ones rather than you have the right of how to regard their own family and its history.

And this article by descendants of Li family have resolutely dismissed any claims disregarding their family's Chinese heritage just like Lishimin would and did furiously dismissed similar claims by the buddhist monk Falin

p.s. you can always use simple questions but get no simple answers
And it would be especially true if you would take this history perspective of yours to question the Li family themselves.
And they have already answered you in such article as the one i cited, but you are bold enough to downplay it.
You cant neglect their voice at the same actually paying attention to them and their family history. dont you think?

Besides, attributing the rise and success of Tang dynasty to its Xianbei blood which is poorly represented by few examples of maternal side lineage is not only weak but also "racist".

above all, Chinese family names are patrilineal which are passed from father to Children.

Not to mention the possibility of Xianbei may also had "Chinese" blood. As modern genetic studies has found out that another nomadic people who like the Xianbei once resided to the north east, Daur people(which is said to be the descendants of Khitan) have combined more than 40% of haplogroup O3 and O2 in their Y-chromosome genetic makeup,which means the northern population(haplogroup O3, typical of Han Chinese and other Sino-Tibetan group) and southern population(haplogroup O2, typical of southern ethnic minorities, as well among Han population) of China migrated sometime prior to known history and had considerable genetic impact on the population of north east region. There is a chance that proto-Xianbei population was also affected by such unknown migration.

"Tolui, also rendered Toluy or Tolui Khan (Mongolian: Толуй; Chinese: 拖雷; pinyin: Tuōl�i; c. 1190 � 1232), "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolui
"He was elected supreme khan in 1229, according to the kurultai held after Genghis' death, although this was never really in doubt as it was Genghis' clear wish that he be succeeded by �gedei"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogedei

It is clear that Tolui died in 1232, while Ogedei was elected as the Great khan by the Kurultai in 1229. So Tolui died after after Ogedei became the Great khan.
also, the election of "Great khan" by the kurultai ever since Chingis became something dictated by the descendants of Chingis thus indeed he was "the first of his kind". Still it doesnt mean the Youngest son would inherit the crown of "Great khan" other than inheritance of family properties.We know Chingis favored his third son Ogedei to be the "great khan".

and a small note on the ShoM(secret history of the Mongols),
"According to the Secret History of the Mongols, Tolui sacrificed himself in order to cure �g�dei from a very severe illness during a campaign in China. The shamans had determined that the root of �g�dei's illness were China's spirits of the earth and the water, who were upset that their subjects had been driven away and their land devastated. Offering land, animals and people had only lead to an aggravation of �g�deis illness, but when they offered to sacrifice a family member, �g�dei got better immediately. Tolui volunteered and died directly after consuming a cursed drink"

writings like this is really confusing and doubtful, it simply doesnt make any sense when the Mongol would sacrifice the life of its own prince to calm the angry Chinese spirit ignited by the Mongol plunders and vandalization rather than change this kind of behaviours? besides if this is something canbe taken as creditable then we should witness more Mongol leaders mysteriously fell ill as we know the Mongol conquests werent confined to Ogedei's reign or confined only to the domain of China.
Instead, this really sounds like a piece of Shamanistic chant than a piece of reliable history record.
The Mongols were still superstitious of the Shamans, whether this circumstance was used to cover the truth behind Tolui's death or was used to force Tolui to commit suicide, it is an indication of a conspiracy against Tolui. Only that the literal meaning of ShoM is less convincing.

"Though the histories are unclear, there is evidence that Jochi conspired against Genghis, and that Genghis in return pondered a pre-emptive strike. When Genghis Khan returned home he sent for Jochi. When the latter refused to obey Genghis Khan sent Chagatai and �gedei against him. But before it came to open hostilities, news came that Jochi had died in February 1227."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jochi

It is said on one such occasion Chagatai despised Jochi as bastard son. If thats not "relevant".

Regarding Kaidu's revolt,whats important is he saw the infighting between Toluis as the opportunity to reclaim Ogedeis right as "great khan", and for this goal 30 long years of war were waged against Kubilai's empire.But when Mongke was alive were still united, when they were united, potential rival like Kaidu was still passive force.

Alghu supported Arigh Boke initially, but Arigh Boke attacked the Chagatai khanate, whether it was due to Chagatais switch side or for the purpose of gaining foothold in Chagatai khanate for prolonged resistance against Kubilai's assaults Arigh Boke's attack on Alghu still had him pushed further towards Kubilai.