I think I've went over this. When one is strong the other is weak. This has been repeated over and over in steppe/Chinese history. They cannot both be powerful at the same time merely because the powerful one always uses its resources to fracture the other one. When steppe armies are strong, Chinese states are weak and thus can be overran. When Chinese states are strong, steppe armies are weak and can thus be overran. There is no one-sided contest, but a tug of war that have only stopped recently. There is no quality over quantity argument, as steppe warfare emphasize speed. Speed, not population size, means the ability to have numerical superiority at places that matter. This is why northern Chinese armies were always crazy for horses, and why dynasties who let their horse population dwindle could only hold onto the South were steppe warfare would be unsuitable to the terrain. This isn't something I pulled out of thin air, this is said by Han dynasty bureaucrats themselves. Speed is the key to numerical superiority when in the plains. When the horse supply on both sides are great, generally the one who attacks would have numerical superiority. Rarely would a sane general attack when he knows he is outnumbered(there are exceptions such as Huo Qubing, Ban Chao or Esen Tayisi, but I'm not sure Huo Qubing was sane given the circumstances. But no matter, his thinking worked). The wise choose their battles.

I've also went through the error in using modern concepts to force into past history. There is no concept of "Chinese" by blood. There is only a concept of being civilized by culture. For what we modern people labeled as the ancient Chinese, they saw it as a conflict between civilization against barbarians, not a conflict between nationalities. The fact that so-and-so dynasty was of non-Han blood is moot to them. Even today Chinese people don't equate Han with being Chinese. There was no concept of "foreign dominance", only barbarians having control of the empire (the barbarians might as well be Han as well as any other ethnic group). Just because one is of half-Xianbei blood doesn't mean the people see themselves as "foreign dominated". Whatever blood type the rulers are is completely irrelevant except perhaps in the unconscious ethnic/racial discrimination that everyone has. Nationalism by ethnicity is only a recent concept brought about by Europeans. In fact, Nationalism itself was largely a foreign concept brought about by Europeans. Even today, only Han chauvanists believe that only Han are Chinese. And in China that's equivalent to saying African Americans can't be Americans because they're black. Bringing up this subject would obviously bring resentment amongst present day Chinese due to racism on the one hand and national unity on the other (considering that China is a big multiethnic country and such a splittist philosophy would suggest disunification amongst any big multiehnic countries).

Also I would like to mention the idea that military culture in Chinese history was stifled by Confucianism. First I would like to say that this definitely wasn't true for the Han dynasty and previous. One of the most popular quotes of the Han dynasty was "drop the writing brush and join the military", as opposed to the later neo-Confucian ideology of "good men do not become soldiers". However, I must say that one should consider that history is written by Confucian bureaucrats and not the common people. Ever since China had a bureaucracy, the civil and military officials had disliked each other more often than not. Considering that it was the civil officials who wrote the history, what could one expect? However, anyone with a mere insight to Chinese post-Han fictional stories(which can only last to this day if it had popular appeal) could realize that it was usually the civil officials who were the villains, and the military generals were the heroes (Water Margin had Gao Qiu, Three Kingdoms had Cao Cao, Yang JiaJiang never had a main villain, but you can bet the most damaging of them hurt the Yang generals the most). This is not to say that civil officials can't be the heroes, but if there's a villain it's probably a civil official. So was the military really looked down by the masses? I don't think so. True, maybe they didn't want their sons to go to war, but that doesn't mean they looked down on soldiers. It's the same with today. Everybody in the US says "Support our troops", but the military is still short on men. Even in the historic records written by the civil officials are clues that the military branch was not treated with contempt. This is shown by portraying an "enlightened" emperor who treated any useful subjects with compassion. Generals, more often than not, was that emperor's target of compassion.

I would like to end with what the source(Chao Cuo of the Han dynasty) I gave earlier which sums up warfare between Chinese and nomad armies pretty well.

"Both the topography and the martial skills of the XiongNu are different from those of the Chinese. For going up and down mountains and hills or in and out of streams, the horses of China cannot match [those of the XiongNu]. For going through narrow and twisting paths or shooting and riding at the same time, the horsemen of China cannot match [the Xiong Nu]. For facing wind, rain, fatigue, hunger, and thirst and not succumbing, the men of China cannot match them. These are the chief strengths of the Xiongnu. As for flat plains and easy terrain [suitable for] chariots and shock cavalry, there the hordes of the Xiongnu are easily scattered. As for powerful crossbows and long lances shot or cast from afar, the Xiongnu's bows cannot match them. With solid armour and sharp blades, long and short weapons complementing each other, mobile crossbows moving about, when such forces advance together the Xiongnu's troops cannot face them. When the arrows of the infantry are fired, each shaft striking home, then the Xiongnu's leather helmets and wooden shields cannot block them. If they dismount and fight on the ground, with swords and halberds clashing together, where if one pulls back the other presses in, then the Xiongnu's legs cannot keep up. These are the major strengths of the Han."

As stated before, this quote is not me trying to say the nomads are somehow inferior. The quote itself says the advantage/disadvantage of both. Thus I say it's pretty neutral (at least to this point. The bureaucrat later talks of how the XiongNu have only 3 advantages while the Han armies have 5). Considering that the one who wrote it was someone who lived during the time period, I would lend it credence as well.


Edited by Omnipotence - 04-Jun-2009 at 08:45

Omnipotence: the Han Dynasty is widely considered to be one of the most effective, if not the most effective, Chinese dynasties when facing off against steppe armies. The Han Empire contended with the Xiongnu for dominion over North China and Inner Mongolia and we know how that story ended. The Great Wall of the Qin and Han shows that Chinese control of the North was substantive - significant regions of Inner Mongolia  lay behind the Great Wall, as did Liaoning and parts of North Korea. But these were early eras, when the Chinese state was still in flux, and it still possessed a sizable military aristocracy. This was before the real beginning of the imperial examination system for selecting officials and the solidification of Chinese society along Confucian (and, later, Neo-Confucian) lines.

Thus, while I acknowledge the adaptivity of the Han Dynasty with regards to military matters, the same should not be transposed to all subsequent dynasties of China and Chinese civilization as a whole. Generally, the main trajectory of Chinese history has been towards increasing degrees of native military failure vis-a-vis the nomads, such that compared to the earlier dynasties, later dynasties had to depend more and more on nomadic allies and vassals (which became problematic when these "allies and vassals" rebelled). Yet, even here we can see that the Han officials acknowledged distinctions between their own military strengths and that of their foes', which we recognize today to have been due to the different natures of the two peoples (nomadic vs. sedentary). Consequently, we see them encouraging the use of "non-Chinese" forces (Manyi, Yiju) for contending with the Xiongnu - the early stages of "using barbarians to fight barbarians." Clearly, the Han bureaucrats were wise enough to understand their own limitations and to make up for them through other means. But part of their success was also due to the fact that, at this stage, the Xiongnu were relatively unsophisticated in their own military matters - lacking, for example, the superior armaments of the Han and the ability to mobilize strong infantry components, which were instrumental to the success of later nomadic/semi-nomadic victories over Chinese dynasties.

I would also not agree that early peoples had no notions of race or ethnicity until the Europeans arrived. True, the Chinese had the ideological dichotomy between barbaric and civilized, but they also named specific peoples and associated characteristics with them (ie Rong, Khitan, etc.) The Mongols and Manchus, in turn, had their ethnic-based caste systems, which alluded to perceptions of ethnic difference even in these early times.

Originally posted by Omnipotence I must disagree and say that the relation in power between the steppes and sedentary states had been a tug of war, not a general decline from an advantageous situation to a disadvantageous one. Post-Han dynasties such as the Tang, Jin, Ming, and Qing did very well in keeping the nomads apart when the dynasties were in their early states.

Originally posted by Omnipotence Tang was a dynasty established by a ruler with Nomadic rules that enjoyed a direct support of Turks was even called a "kagan" by them. This is exactly why I said the Tang was initially successful against nomads. The Chinese called Kublai Khan the Mandate of Heaven. It's what happens when you conquer a people. You become their king.

Yes, with all due respect, but I hardly can imagine that Han Wudi or even some high rank Chinese officials who were responsible for the relations with Nomades like for example Ban Chao or Zhang Qian would treat their Nomadic allies in the same fashion. What I want to stress out that Taizong treated Nomades according to Nomadic customs and traditions; while the rest of the Chinese emperors hardly ever attempted this kind of policy and as a rule reqired Barbarians totally submit to the rules and rituals of the only one "civilized" Middle Kingdom.

From the little Chinese history that I read (and learned from this forum), Li Yuan, the founder of the Tang, was of Sinicised Xianbei stock.

You have to remember that the Sui and Tang dynasties were born directly after the age of barbarian invasions and great fragmentation (somewhat comparable to what happened in the same period in Europe); and during that time the Han Chinese were heavily mixed with Xianbei (proto-Mongol), Xiongnu (Hun), Tocharian, and Xiang (Tibetan) peoples; and ethnic boundaries might not have been clear.
Many so-called "Han Chinese" might have lived under heavy steppe influence, and other people of barbarian descent could have lived under heavy Han influence.

Therefore, putting nationalists sentiments aside, praising a "mestizo" Chinese emperor for his accomplishments against steppe nations isn't necesarrily belittling the Chinese nation.

In the same way, by attributing Catherine the Great's German background in her imperial conquests isn't necessarily stating that Russians are inferior to Germans.

Originally posted by Sarmat Originally posted by Brainsucker   Sarmat, I won't disagree (as long as there is no document or something that proof otherwise) that Li Shemin has a foreign mother. But you should reconsider your line here   "I don't think these are good examples. Tang was a dynasty established by a ruler with Nomadic roots that enjoyed a direct support of Turks was even called a "kagan" by them."   Because you just claim that Tang is a Turk Dinasty and not Chinese; in other word you just claim that Han people was conquered by Foreign country that day.   You know, it doesn't matter if we share the Tang to a Turk; but saying that the one who rules the Tang was a Turk is not acceptable. Because what? Yes, maybe Li Shemin has a Turk blood, but his father - Li Yuan still a Han Native (or not?)   and plus, your statement above just sound like a weak chinese who infused with a superior Turk Blood had become a superman and able to conquer Korea and other countries. Is it true that it is your intention??? or just want to humiliated some people here?   I prefer if Li Shemin enjoy the Steppe people support because they saw his mother who was a Turk Princess. <--- because it respected both Turk and Chinese people.   It is not my intention Brainsucker and I don't want to humliate anyone here. I expressed my view about Taizong earlier in this thread. I believe he was Han, but belonged to a special, now extinct ethnic subgroup of Han, called by some historians "Tabgach." Tabgaches were a result of melting of Han and Nomadic traditions. They had Han self-consciosness with very strong Nomadic element and perfectly understood the culture and traditions of the Steppe. If you know about the history of Russian Cossacks who lived on the Russian Southern borders with the Steppe and were very influenced by the Steppe, they would be a good analogy to describe Tabgaches. So, Tabgaches in a sense were "Chinese Cossacks."   What I meant is that because of this Taizong was able to attract willing support of Turks who saw him as a person of "their own." Unfortunately for Tang dynasty later emperors lost that direct link to the hearts of the Nomades, which was one of the reason of the decline and fall of the dynasty.

Edited by Brainsucker - 08-Jun-2009 at 20:23

@Omnipotence : thank you to correct me. Your post is indeed give me more insight about China History

It's also obvious from the Gok-Turks inscriptions that Taizong was viewed as being in a totally separate category compare to later Tang emperors and I believe only he enjoyed the title of "kagan"

I've been reading up on old posts and I can't help but be nitpicky about this. I would like to mention that later Tang emperors were also called the "heavenly khagan", BUT it is true that this position gradually lost power over the generation of emperors, until the title was just something that sounded good to the ear but had no real power.

In fact, Tang Taizong wasn't even the first Chinese emperor to be labeled as "khagan". Both Sui Wendi and Sui Yangdi received the title of "khagan" from the Gokturks and Western Turks respectively, although I don't believe these titles contained as much power as Tang Taizong's "heavenly khagan".


Edited by Omnipotence - 18-Jun-2009 at 09:04

The best example is the campaign of the Ming against the Northern Yuan