Chinese Military Conduct Against Steppe Armies
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: East Asia
Forum Discription: The Far East: China, Korea, Japan and other nearby civilizations
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23666
Printed Date: 16-Apr-2024 at 06:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Chinese Military Conduct Against Steppe Armies
Posted By: kurt
Subject: Chinese Military Conduct Against Steppe Armies
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 13:29
|
Of all the civilizations which had to deal with steppe armies, the Chinese produced the most effective resistance. Only Persia and Russia had to deal with steppe armies as long and as frequently as China had, yet China was only subjugated to steppe warriors once, in two successive conquests, the first of which was conducted by Genghis Khan against the northen dynasties and the second by Kublai Khan against the southern dynasties.
So I'm wondering, why were the Chinese so effective against what are generally regarded as some of the fiercest warriors of their time? Persian and Russian history was almost cyclic with nomadic subjugation, and the Indians were conquered a fair few times, yet the Chinese fell only once, and almost nobody had to deal with the steppe warriors for as long as they did.
Although I'm aware diplomatic and other measures were a pretty big part, I'd particularly like to learn about how they fought them militarily. ------------- Karadenizli |
Replies:
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 15:18
|
Kurt the boundaries of those nations mentioned were always in flux in the past. Which also means that various dynasties within China have been raided by and taken over by the steppers, and vica versa. Xiong nu, Hsienpi, Toba-Wei, etc., all have successfully invaded parts of China prior to the Kublai's reign.
Why were the Chinese successful in counter attacks and actual defeat of the Steppe armies? Time tested methods. A great Chinese leader would make an agrressive foreign policy and take the battle to the heartland. Passive Emperors were replaced by real warriors. This policiy was evident with T'ai-tsung that halted Eastern Gokturuk expansion. The problem with the Chinese were that they eventually rested on their laurels and got soft. That was appealing enought to where a new Steppe invader with lofty goals of conquest grew ambitious. Resources and manpower was another bonus that the Chinese had in great supply. ------------- |
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 18:59
| There were times when China wasn't successful against steppe armies, and there were times when they were successful. Generally, when at the height of their power, dynasties would have enough resources to launch periodic raids against steppe armies, and to forge alliances in order to keep nomads from uniting under one banner. Thus any strong tribe with the potential of turning the plains into a formidable fighting force would be elimitated by either the Chinese frontier armies or rivaling steppe alliances against these stronger tribes. However, when the times get tough, usually due to internal corruption, not only would the frontier armies degrade, but the steppe armies would be united into a powerful military machine, as in the case of Genghis Khan. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 20:54
|
overall i would actually say the Russians were more sucessfull than Chinese against Steppe armies.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 01:46
|
Weird, the Manchu army which invaded China in 1644 was nothing less than a "steppe army." In fact, Chinese army was dealing very ineffective against the Steppans. China was able to conquer other steppe people only with the hands of other steppe people. That was during the Tang conquest of the west, that was also during the Manchu Qing dinasty expansion to the west. China was conquered by the steppe people many times before Mongols and Seko already mentioned Toba Wei and Jin dynasties actually there were also others. ------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 04:56
In fact for at least 400 out of the last 1000 years China has been ruled by invaders from the Steppe, so I don't know what effectiveness you are referring to.
I would consider that the Russians are invaders from the Steppe. Especially from the Chinese perspective. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 05:10
|
Well, if you count together Qing, Yuan, Jin and Liao dynasties it's actually 600 years of direct rule out of the last millenium by the steppe invaders.
For comparacent the "Tatar yoke" in Russia lasted a little longer than 200 years. Moreover, it wasn't a direct rule of the Golden Horde but only tributary vassal relations. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 12:58
Yes, this is the first thing that struck me too; the premise for this discussion is faulty, since although the Chinese were periodically successful against steppe armies, this can't be said to have been a general trend in Chinese history.
Russia on the other hand, if we can use that term to denote the principalities of the Rus that were established in the in the 9th century, was overrun only once, and a century later the tide slowly turned and it was the Russians who in the end subjugated the Mongols. Prior to the Mongol invasion the Russian principalities repelled and/or conquered several steppe peoples such as the Khazaks and the Pechenegs ------------- |
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 15:30
| Actually the Manchus were semi-steppe at best. They had their own cities, their own infrastructure, and their own industrial focus points. It's just that they had a larger part of their economy dedicated to herding/grazing. In fact the Manchus were able to copy Portuguese-based weapons from the Ming. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 15:40
|
Tatars in Russia also had cities. And their capital Sarai was a magnificent city. However the bulk of Manzhu army always was mounted nomadic cavalry, mounted archers, the same thing was with Tatars. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 17:15
| ^which is why we couldn't call Russia's army "nothing less than a steppe army", yes? Same with the Manchus. Especially when they created a whole Han Banner, and backed up by the Ming iron cavalry when WuSanGui switched sides. Which also brings up another point. It was stated that China always used steppe armies to conquer steppe tribes, but the same is true the other way around. Even during the Mongolian invasion, the Mongols used many Chinese armies/generals that switched sides, since it was believed that they had the Mandate of Heaven instead of the Jin or the Song. Truth is, it takes a sedentary styled army to take well-fortified cities, and a steppe styled army to be successful in the open plains. All successful generals on both sides realized that. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 17:33
|
I would say the Russian army before the reforms of Peter the Great was essentially the combination of the Steppe and European warfare.
But regarding this topic, I thought we were talking about the alleged advantages of Chinese army tactics while fighting the Steppe armies on the open field.
Unfortunalely, I have to say that as a rule these kind of battles mostly were unsuccesful for the Chinese, despite usual numerical superiority. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:25
|
Wouldn't the Battle of Talas also fit under this category? I know that Arab's aren't steppe people in the usual sense but they most certainly used a similar type of warfare (horse/camel and bow/arrow). ------------- |
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:25
Actually the Chinese had the tactical advantage while steppe armies had the strategic advantage(the ability to chose which battle to fight), which means the Chinese did not have the "usual numerical superiority"(I thought we were talking about general military conflict, not just in the open plains). The armies of sedentary China just can't get enough time to get organized to have enough of a numerical superiority. If they did, the steppe armies, more likely than not, would have retreated and out of reach. At the steppes the Chinese tended to have steppe based armies of their own, a natural process because steppe armies are the most successful in open plains warfare. This can be seen by the northern campaigns of WeiQing or TangTaiZong.
The memoirs of the Western Han dynasty stated this when comparing XiongNu(the main steppe power of the time) and Chinese military conflict.
In fact I have it here.
"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 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.
Thus we can see that the steppe armies advantages are mainly strategic, having to do with the movement of armies and logistics. While the armies of sedentary China are mainly tactical, having to do with combined arms/formation fighting and equipment.
Usually the steppe armies are at the height of their power when sedentary China is at its lowest point and vice versa. It's an interesting concept. TangTaiZong defeated the turks when the latter was suffering from a famine due to a devastating drought, and Genghis Khan defeated the Jin, which was suffering from internal rebellions due to that the yellow river went off course, causing famine. Neither could completely defeat the other when the enemy was internally stable.
|
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:30
I wouldn't say so when it comes to the Arabs. Although the Arabs used similar warfare, so did the Tang, in which its cavalry is extremely proportionaly high compared to other sedentary armies. However, we should still say that the Tang is a sedentary army, just like the Caliphs. However, what's interesting is that the battle became decisive when the steppe Qarluq mercenaries of the Tang switched sides. So we could say that the battle would fit into steppe vs sedentary warfare.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:49
|
Taizong defeated the Turks by using other Turks. His lifestyle essentially was Turkic and his favorite generals were Turks.
That what I meant when I was talking about the Western Tang conquests. All of them were done by the allied to Tang Turkic armies. However, as soon as the Turks left Tang, the decline of the dynasty began.
Also the comparacent with Xiongnu would not work with other steppans. Turks, Mongols and Manzhu were able to produce advance weapons and had heavily armed iron clad cavalry.
Chinese had numerical advantage almost all the time. But the Chinese army mainly consisted of peasant simply couldn't match "professional" nomadic army, neither it could survive in the steppe for a long time.
That's why almost all the expeditions which were conducted to the Steppe by Chinese without support of some local Steppan renegates were disastrous.
The classical example of that is the battle ot Tumu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumu_Crisis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumu_Crisis
BTW, Chinese lost the battle of Talas mainly bacause they were bertrayed by the Nomadic allies. In fact, there army during the battle mainly consisted of Turks and other nomades. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 22:40
|
Although there is at best peripheral evidence that Li ShiMing(or even some of his generals) is partly Turkish, but LiShiMin living as a Turk? Definitely not true, even impossible in his environment. Even a 100% Turk couldn't live like a Turk when in Li ShiMin's palace. Anyway, I think that by now we are civilized enough to see through ethnicity or race. The Tang didn't care back then, so why are we even putting it into the equation. It doesn't matter what their background is, the fact is that they controlled Central Plains armies under the full command of the Tang dynasty, against a steppe army. THAT is the topic of the discussion, not some racial pride flingabout. Race doesn't determine the outcome of a battle(unless racism was involved in military diplomacy beforehand or the like), combat styles do. And I for one will like to see some sources. I have given mine, and it clearly states that the Chinese armies were very well trained and disciplined, proving the idea of "peasant hordes" is really nothing but a stereotype. Here it clearly states the advantages and disadvantages of both sides, by a bureaucrat that was living at the time. Steppe armies doesn't have to be professional either. Professional means they are paid, that's it, but some just live off of plunder. But being non-professional doesn't mean they aren't disciplined or trained. Song "professionals" were much less effective than Han/Tang conscript armies. The stereotypical "peasant hordes" wouldn't make much of an enemy, sending troops into battle with no training is basically telling them to commit suicide. Which would be why Han crossbowmen were required to draw a heavy crossbow 100 times without letup, or how a Tang horse archer had to be able to fully use a 90 pound on a running horse.
And as for Tumu, it is true that the outnumbered Oriats defeated a numerically superior Ming army, but then again the now numerically superior Oriats were repelled at the gates of Bejing. As said before, the Chinese didn't tend to have the numerical advantage. It's a give and take. Sometimes they were outnumbered, sometimes it's the other way around. One example surely isn't enough. Otherwise look at the battle of Mohei, where 70,000 cavalry had a confirmed kill of 70,000 enemies, not to mention the number captured. Or how HuoQuBing could lead 800 light cavalry in and out in of a steppe army of thousands in order to capture XiongNu princes. The examples on both sides are numerous.
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 12:10
|
How many war horses did Han and Tang dynasties possess when they engaged with their steppe enemies?
How many did the Song possess? (Northern Song lost to Jurchen Jin and then Southern Song to Mongol Yuan).
And would that difference make any difference in the "effectiveness" of Chinese military conduct against enemies who possess most of the horses which are essential to warfare against steppe armies?
|
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 15:34
| An interesting point, and the amount of horses do make a huge difference. The Han dynasty had 450,000 horses during the time of Wudi, which is a huge amount. I forget the exact number for the Tang, but it was also in the hundreds of thousands. The Song, on the other hand, used most of their pastureland for farming, and lacked horses, which could very well explain their early failures. Which may explain how the previous two dynasties did so much better militarily than the latter. |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 16:59
The Tang had 700,000 horses, the Song had no such luxury.
by comparison the Mongol empire under Genghiskhan had 1-2 million horses. P.S. also when the defense mechanism of the Great wall is intact, nomads were unable to penetrate into China. The only times nomads managed to overrun China the defense mechanism of the Great wall was already scrapped. "The five barbarians incursion into China" which ended the Western Jin dynasty was sparked by the "rebellion of eight princes", a Chinese civil war between the Jin ruling household which left Chinese society devastated. Like the Xiongnu leader Liu Yuan who overthrew the Western Jin, many of these nomads have already settled inside or along the borders, and like Liu Yuan, many served as subjects to Western Jin government. Taking the opportunity of the weakness of Jin court that the "rebellion of eight princes" had left for China, many nomadic factions actually is more like declared "independence" within the Chinese empire rather than invaded the Chinese empire, the defense mechanism of the Great wall did not function this time as it did with the Xiongnu of Qin and Han period.
The establishment of Jurchen Jin dynasty again witnessed a period when non-Chinese nomadic factions were able to penetrate deep into China. Southern Song had no Great wall since most of Northern China was already ruled by Jin dynasty, Yangtze river was utilized by the Song to set up three defense zones against first the Jurchen Jin and then the Mongol invaders. The Jurchen were unable to break Southern Song's defense line for the rest of its existence.
This defense mechanism along the Yangtze river halted the advancement of the Mongol forces for decades. Early Mongol forces were unable to break the Chinese stronghold of Xiangfan, its the gateway to Southern China as the saying goes "if Xiangfan is bypassed, southern China will be an easy target" .
Cavalry is also of little use on the Southern terrain, The Jurchen Jin commander responsible for the overrun of much of China Jin Wushu exclaimed "the advantage of using ships in the south is just like the advantage of using horses in the north" , not to mention Song infantry found methods to counter the advantage of Jurchen Heavy cavalry.Despite initial momentum of their military incursion which they penetrated as far into Southern China(which is largely due to inheritance of former Liao assets, meaning the Great wall defense mechanism was not really functional,with a still fleeing central government, southern defense mechanism wasnt really functional as well)Jurchen army were unable to make any further advancement into southern China to achieve its objective of destroying Song regime or the conquest of whole of China, ever since the Southern defense mechanism is ensured, Song armies under able generals like Wu brothers were effectively countering Jurchen in north China, upon defeating Jurchens repeatedly Yuefei managed to recapture much of north China, Jurchen commander Jin wushu exclaimed "his army could topple the mountains but could not topple Yuefei's army",later one of Jin emperor wanted to launch another invasion on the Southern Song, when he asked his Jurchen generals in the court who would lead such campaign no one dared to take the job, because as previous similiar attempts were all ended in failures no one wanted to take that risk,the emperor helpless said i will take the responsibility myself.No wonder when the Jurchen signed a "peace agreement" with the corrupt Chinese court, the first precondition by the Jurchen demand was the elimination of general Yuefei, what the nomadic Jurchen horseman couldnt achieve on the battlefield, they achieved it by political manipulation.If Yuefei was the defense minister or the Chinese court fully back up his strategy against the Jurchen Jin, history would be different because the Jurchen by then had no effective means of stopping the advancement of the Chinese armies led by able generals like Yuefei if they dont act soon they will certainly be drove out of north China, hence the failure the Song couldnt regain northern territory was more of a politial inefficiency rather than military inefficiency. But ultimately its the strategy of "Great detour" suggested by the Chinese advisors serving under the Mongol dynasty dealt a blow to the Southern Song defense.
Rather than making repeated but unsuccessful direct assaults on the frontal Southern Song defense line, Mongols redeployed and concentrated their efforts on the westernmost of Yangtze defense mechanism, the "region of Shu" or the Sichuan province. With Shu been taken, Mongol armies could sail the Yangtze river eastwards and reach the Southern Song capital of Lin An. History has proven this strategy effective, even with "great detour" Mongol forces were unable to break the defense of a tiny Shu city called Diaoyucheng for 36 years (1243-1279AD) during which the stronghold withstood more than 200 battles against the invading Mongol armies, the Mongol commander and one of the Mongol empire's most successful military ruler after Genghis khan, Mengge Khan(Mongke) himself was killed by Song artillery during the siege of Diaoyucheng, the Mongols commited their main military forces to the siege of this tiny Southern Song stronghold for decades and the fact the siege had to be commanded by the Great Khan of the Mongol empire Mengge himself is enough to demonstrate its military significance, yet the Mongol army couldnt breach Diaoyucheng's defense no matter how many times and how hard they try, ultimately like the defense of another Southern Song's stronghold Xiangfan city, the defending Chinese commander of Diaoyucheng eventually surrendered to Mongol court as the inefficient and corrupt Southern Song court could no longer maintain their necessary supplies and logistics for any prolonged resistence for them.
The Mongols especially hate those who can produce fierce resistence to their military might, hence Mengge Khan gave the order that when the city of Diaoyucheng is conquered the Mongol army would massacre its populace, except the Mongols never really conquered Diaoyucheng militarily.
The Yangtze defense mechanism has served to protect Southern regimes previously, during the "three kingdoms" period, when the Northern Chinese lord Caocao just managed to unify northern China and made a direct frontal assault on the Southern regime of Wu, but his forces was utterly destroyed by the Wu at the battle of Red cliff (btw a film depicting this great battle by director John Woo will soon be available http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cliff_%28film - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cliff_(film )) on the Yangtze river, later Caocao's Wei regime was replaced by the Western Jin regime, the Jin only managed to conquer the Wu after the Shu regime was conquered first. Learning from the history of "three kingdoms" and Western Jin's strategy against Wu and Shu, Chinese advisors serving under the Mongol banner also applied same strategy known as "great detour".
Just like the Chinese would employ nomads against nomads, the successful nomadic regimes also used Chinese against Chinese, as matter of fact, Kubilai once said "Mongol army is formidable on the grassland, but laying sieges to cities is of a job more suitable for Chinese army rather than ours".
Kubilai is a successful political leader in the sense that he managed to incorporate Chinese factions into his forces which proved to be essential in his conquest of Southern Song, the "great detour" strategy which ultimately break down the Song defense mechanism, and the final battle of Yashan on the seas of Canton wasnt possibly conducted by cavalry of steppe army rather than the naval forces of Chinese army serving under the Yuan banner.
To be able to incorporate Chinese into their ranks also proved essential for later success of the Qing dynasty. When the second Manchu emperor Huangtaiji captured former Ming defense minister Hongchengchou and managed his surrender, Huangtaiji hailed him as "the light in the darkness" in his endeavor of conquering Ming dynasty. Another former Ming general Wu sangui who was in charge of the defense of Shanhai pass(which halted Manchu advancement in previous times)not only let Manchu armies enter "China" without a fight, he was also responsible for conquering southern China and capturing the last Ming emperor in Burma.By comparison, the Xiongnu leader Muodu got no response from renegade Chinese warlords, without the Chinese guide any further adventure into China could result in disaster.
Not only if the defense mechanism of the Great wall is intact northern nomads were unable to penetrate(Xiongnu of Han and Turks of Tang period couldnt manage a breakthrough despite they were both at the height of its power), even nomadic regimes entered "China" without effective and running Great wall defense mechanism in their way,the completion of conquest of whole of China could not be achieved without employing "Chinese mercenaries". Just as Confucius commented "if the Chinese would not turn on each other, the "barbarians" would not able to cause a problem to China", this is certainly consistent with what happened in the cases of "five barbarians incursion into China", and incursion of Jurchen Jin and loss of north China by the Song regime, also the demise of the Ming dynasty, those are the only times nomadic forces managed to overrun China.
(This is the real time tested measure for dealing with Chinese, thats why the 1989 "Tiananmen square crackdown" was a failed "attempt of democracy in China" and "brutal crackdown" by Chinese regime as portraited by the dominant and influential Western media but also it was a failed "orange revolution" orchestrated by the "enemies of China" , as was the recent "monk uprising" in Burma, guess whos behind it? By utilizing internal division of ones adversary,the Jin(partial conquest), Yuan and Qing are the successful examples, the modern enemy of China are merely following the practice, so in the future they may not necessarily need direct assault to manage the subjugation of China. Just as Sun tzu's "art of war" promotes "to defeat ones enemy without a fight is the greatest of all military art".) The northern defense mechanism which is defined by the Great wall was already diminished prior to the establishment of Northern Song, especially the key strategical front of Youzhou(presentday Beijing) region was already lost to the rising Khitan Liao dynasty. The period before the Northern Song is called "five dynasties and 10 kingdoms", one of the "five dynasties", Later Jin dynasty ceded Youzhou to the Khitan, as consequence a fatal gap is created along the defense mechanism of the Great wall, this bear the major responsibility for the overrun of much of northern China by the later Jurchens. The loss of this strategical region was during the period of "five dynasties", but the cause for the divide can be further traced back to social unrest during the Tang dynasty.
Manchu again were able to establish a Chinese-style Qing dynasty. Nevertheless Ming dynasty's capital Beijing was not conquered by Manchu military, rather it was conquered by the Chinese peasant rebels who established a regime called "great Shun" dynasty. But the Ming commander of Shanhai pass which is considered the gateway to China by the Manchus outside of the Great wall defense mechanism surrendered to the Manchu, Manchu forces entered China without a fight, and they entered the city of Beijing without a fight as well because they portraited themselves as the restorer of orders in the name of legitimate Ming government as they drove the peasant rebels out of Beijing. rather than military effort, its a successful political manipulation. Again the defense mechanism of the Great wall is breached. Both Han and Tang dynasties launched counter offensives into the steppe with decisive results, while the Qin and Ming also launched counter offensives but without decisive results though they were enough to keep steppe enemies at bay for sometime. With the case of the battle of Tumu, although Ming sufferred heavy defeat at the hands of the Wala Mongols(Oirats) it is not simply explained by military capability, but corrupt officials in charge of the army, meaning men know nothing about warfare as the one giving military orders which leads to inevitable military defeats, hardly a case to reflect the actual capability of the Chinese military even for Ming period, for after this incident Ming also managed to defeat the formidable Japanese army in Korea peninsula. Not to mention despite their victory at the battle of Tumu Mongols were unable to capture Beijing at the hands of more able Chinese commanders. To be able to launch successful counter offensives into steppe, as its nature is "counter", one need to halt the advancement of the steppe enemy first, the defense mechanism of the Great wall proved to be influential factor, when its intact steppe enemy were often halted, when its defense mechanism is scrapped or diminished(often due to non military causes) "steppe enemy" were often able to penetrate deep into China. An unified China with strong central government needs to be ensured, only then the necessary material supplies of war horses for the Chinese cavalry can be accumulated, also since the warring state kingdom Zhao set an example of learning tactics from nomads in order to fight a steppe warfare, later Han, Tang, Ming regimes all learned from their steppe opponents, the Xiongnu, Turks, Mongols were also employed by those regimes as the instructor of steppe warfare to Chinese cavalry. One cant fight western gunboats with "boxer's fist" or the Germans wouldnt be able to manage "blitzkrieg" without their tanks, and one needs tanks to counter tanks, the "West" dominated the world with their gunboats and rifles, the battle of Baliqiao bear a witness to the disastrous defeat of an elite Mongol cavalry army of Qing dynasty at the hands of Western cannons and guns, if this was during the 13th century, the result would be very different.
The Chinese military development has experienced several "military epochs", from the "chariot epoch" of Shang dynasty to the "infantry epoch" , whether there are abundant material supplies for steppe warfare(war horses) available or not will determine the outcome of military performance, thus before enter the modern "gun battle epoch", Chinese military had both successful and unsuccessful experience of military performance against the steppe nomads, rolling back and forth between "infantry epoch" and "cavalry epoch", before cavalry was outdated by modern rifles, the "barbarians" from the steppe were able to defeat much more advanced and populous sedentary civilizations including China is just like "gunboats" would defeat "Boxer's fist", the times China managed successful counter offensives against the steppe nomads was when its military could manage "upgrade" to the equal military epoch with their opponent, and given there is a stable and strong central government rather than inefficient and corrupt ones. some photos of Diaoyucheng stronghold http://images13.51.com/42/a/af/0e/thecharioteer/1204821951_23931600.jpg">
 http://images13.51.com/112/a/af/0e/thecharioteer/1204822086_99666600.jpg">
 http://images13.51.com/105/a/af/0e/thecharioteer/1204821815_07110200.jpg">
 http://images13.51.com/49/a/af/0e/thecharioteer/1204821897_19037300.jpg">
       |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 12:39
|
http://attachments.motorfans.com.cn/day_070319/NzXKr7WvX7X31fu089Ch_fSYSInH6OYy2.jpg">
   http://attachments.motorfans.com.cn/day_070319/NDC++LHa0KG1wF+199X7tPPQoQ==_wTDK7xDhgEsK.jpg">
 http://attachments.motorfans.com.cn/day_070319/Nji19tPjs8fJs8XMzbxftffV+7Q=_5C4QgfA7SkXE.jpg">
     |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 19:33
|
well, how about some comments and sources for the pics?
------------- |
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 21:42
| The first couple are accurate and something I could depend on, but the last couple are from dramas and not something I would rely on. However, the first picture is a trebuchet, and as far as I can recall it was not used on steppe warfare. It's useful in sieges, for both the attacker and the defender, but on the steppe ballistas were the preferred siege machines instead. Where were the pictures taken? In a museum I'm guessing? |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 03:09
What are you talking about? Tang were succesful in their conquests only due to the fact that their armies consisted mainly of Turk cavalry. Even Han's western expeditions were mainly conducted by the use of the local tribes, mainly Nomadic.
Turks conducted the warefare in their own way, not Chinese. Also when I meant professional soldiers I meant "expert soldiers." Sorry for the confusion it caused. The life of Nomades was much harder than the life of an average Chinese, that's why Nomades usually were more tough. Also every Nomad was much more expert in riding a horse and shooting a bow than any Chinese soldier. Also Nomadic horses were much more fit for the warfare in the steppe than any Chinese horses. Let's don't forget that already during Han Chinese were trying to get "Heaven's horses" from Central Asia in order to counter Nomadic horses.
You also continue to emphasize the inferioriy of Xiongnu, while I'm saying that you also should consider that later Nomades including Turks, Uighurs, Zhurzhen etc did have advances weapons and heavy cavalry.
Also we know that the Chinese and Korean bows are simply the copies of Nomadic bows not vice versa, which meant that Nomadic warfare had more advanced technology at least in this regard.
Chinese armies were usually more numerous. Simply because China as a developed sedentary civilization was able to feed many people. The life in the Steppe on the contrary was very harsh and the number of Nomades was always very small. A lot of people simply couldn't survive in the steppe. For this very reason Chinese always mobilized more numerous armies than the nomades could ever afford. However, paradoxically few Chinese expeditions against the nomades which were succesful were conducted by relatively small "special forces" groups which usually if succesful remove or steal the herds of the nomadic tribe which was under attack which already meant victory because nomades couldn't survive in the steppe without their horses and cattle.
Nevertheless, for some reasons Chinese, mostly conducted large scale scale expedition to the North which most of the times were unsuccesful as a rule. For the simple reason inability to supply the large number of people in the steppe.
Perhaps it was indeed too far fetched that Taizong was living "complitely" nomadic life style, but he was extremely familiar with the nomadic culture and was extremely popular among Turks that's what I meant. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Dream208
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 18:55
|
Sarmat12: Just points out two things: 1. Most of major engagements Han conducted against XiongNu were conducted by the central plain forces, and the number between both sides were usually even numbered. 2. Since Han, Chinese army rarely use bow against Steppe Army, cross-bow were used instead. |
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 20:01
|
Samart, I think you are mixing ethnicity with nationhood. Just because one is Turkic doesn't mean he isn't a Tang subject(and I would like some first hand sources that these are Turkic, as stated before). Just because somone is "familiar" with Turkic lifestyle doesn't make him a non-Tang subject. Just because someone is well liked by Turks doesn't mean he belonged in a Turkic tribe. How bout some examples and sources that the Tang mainly used these Turkic armies? Though in the end it really doesn't matter, beyond ethnicity. Thus the difference would be negligent. As I have stated, Chinese frontier armies in the north usually attempts to resemble any other steppe army. The geography demands it so.
You need to calm down and get less emotional here. I had NEVER emphasized any inferiority on either side. I merely stated that facts. The sources I gave listed XiongNu strengths and weaknesses in comparison to Han armies. Yes, strengths AND weaknesses, with "and" being the key word(don't blame me if I trust primary sources over forummer opinions). Something I would appreciate if you would do the same in your own writings, something I have yet to see. Yet all I see is the emphasis on Chinese outnumbering the nomads, which I have already went over. More population does not equate with larger armies in steppe warfare. Large armies, due to its speed, won't even MEET a steppe army unless the latter wills it so, which is incredibly rare. The same Han source I had given had stated this. It's simply inefficient. As I've stated, when it comes to numbers it's a give and take scenario. Sometimes they outnumbered the opponent, and sometimes vice versa. In fact give me an example in which the steppe armies were outnumbered in a battle against the Chinese and I'll gladly give you a counterexample.( Although, of course, from what I read you would consider the Qing/Jin/etc... minority dynasties to be steppe while I do not. But that's all and good. Just note that if you do give examples of those dynasties than I would also give counterexamples of Song/Ming/etc... dynasties fighting them. In fact it would be to my advantage due to general YueFei, who fought over dozens of outnumbered battles and won each one)
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 20:17
|
I don't understand why you get back to Han/Xiongnu again and again? Why can't we discuss the later period as well? Also let's not forget that Xiongnu were crushed due to the involvenment of Xianbi, another Nomadic tribe. Please specify what sources do you exactly need and I'll gladly provide them. I also don't mean that the Turks who fought in Tang army were not Tang subjects. Of course they were Tang subjects. However, the topic is about alleged efficiency of "Chinese battle tactics" against the Steppans. What I mean is that the success of the Tang armies was mainly due to the use of the "Steppe battle tactice" by the Steppans against other Steppans. That' what I mean.
Also some examples of the behavoir of Taizong clearly are out of "Chinese standards." At one occassion he, for example, sucked the blood out of the wound of his Turkic general. I don't remember any other Chinese emperor who did the similar stuff. There is only one famous story with the same kind of behavoir, but it's about Gengghizkhan and Zhelme. Again, by saying that I don't mean that Taizong was a Turk himself. Just his attitude towards Turks was very natural and very repsectful with regard to the culture of the Nomades that's why he enjoyed such a high level of popularity among Turks, unlike, for example, later Tang emperors, who didn't care much about their nomadic subjects, but viewed them mainly as another "uncivilized" barbaric tribe of the North.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 20:38
I don't know, maybe it's because you were talking about it? Everything on my last post that has to do with Han/XiongNu is a response to your accustation that I am emphasizing Xiong Nu inferiority, which I was not.
Just like how sedentary Chinese dynasties were also crushed due to the involvement of reviling/turncoating sendentary armies. And with that question, I thought you wanted to talk about something else besides Han/XiongNu? So am I assuming I can still talk about this time period?
Then we are in agreement. However, it should be noted that Chinese armies almost always used steppe tactics against steppe armies, because they are fighting "on the steppe". Just like how steppe armies would use Chinese tactics when sieging a Chinese city. Bringing battering rams onto the open plains or cavalry charges right into a 5 meter high earthen wall is not something a smart guy would do.
Yes, most emperors that are praised in history books would have moments like these(I believe the Turk who Tang Taizong helped was named Asma, he also administered the wounds of many other soldiers as well. It's a good way to inspire loyalty and fervor to the dynasty). But also note that in Chinese culture it's not about whether the subject is nomadic or not, it's about whether the subject admits the Mandate of Heaven. The latter is pretty much the Be All and Is All. Tang Tai Zong treated the revolting Mogher tribes pretty badly(he took no prisoners), but because Asma and the like admits the Mandate of Heaven(thus a subject), Taizong cared for him. Emperors who don't give a damn to nomadic subjects who admits the Mandate of Heaven probably wouldn't give a damn about sedentary subjects either. |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 03:59
                                       The conscription system of the Western Han dynasty was inherited from the previous Qin dynasty, that all males of the right age has to serve in the army for at least one year during his lifetime, those serving in the capital Chang an will have the honor to be welcomed and rewarded by the emperor himself.
The Qin dynasty's military system of promotion based on ones military exploits was also inherited by the Western Han dynasty.
As a result, despite early Western Han dynasty enjoyed decades of relatively peaceful environment, the martial spirit that this military system bestowed upon soldiers of Qin hasnt waned during the Western Han period.
Furthermore, in preparation for future conflicts with the nomadic Xiongnu, Western Han government set up regulations to encourage the breeding of horses by its citizens, as a result of the measure, by decades of preparation, Western Han could accumulate 450,000 horses by the time of Wudi.
Hence, the Western Han military system ensured the quality of its military which laid firm foundation for future successful counter offensives against the Xiongnu on the steppe, and subsequently the military expansion of the Han empire.
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 15:31
Diaoyucheng stronghold and some exhibits in commemoration of that historic chapter from its museum.
The last three are the screenshots from TV drama reflecting that part of history. And as one can see from the first screenshot it was filmed in Diaoyucheng, depicting Southern Song soldiers defending against invading Mongol army, in second screenshot are Southern Song generals for the defense of Diaoyucheng, the third screenshot depicts Mongke, the Great Khan of the Mongol empire.
In military history of the Mongol empire, no other battlescene for the conquering Mongol army witnessed such prolonged and fierce resistance as in the case of Diaoyucheng, its 100,000 military and civilian personnels withstood more than 200 battles against the invading Mongol horde for 36 years, despite the repeated assaults of main military forces of the Mongol empire and the numerical advantage of the invader, and despite the Great Mongke Khan (under whos reign the Mongol empire reached its greatest martial zenith as an uniting force Chingiskhan's empire covered much less territory compared to Mongke period, Kubilai's success in establishing the Yuan dynasty and conquering South Song and beyond doesnt prevent the actual split of the empire ever since the death of Mongke at Diaoyucheng which sparked internal rivalries among the Mongol nobility) personally commited to the siege, Mongols never managed to conquer the Southern Song stronghold by military means. And Mongke is the only Great Khan in the history of the Mongol empire fallen during its military conquest, he was killed by artillery of Southern Song defenders of Diaoyucheng stronghold, the Mongol commander of that siege was also killed during the siege.
Imagine if it was "the West" who was defending against the main forces of the Mongol empire, and it was some "western" stronghold managed to achieve such feat, modern world would see numerous works to propagate such history, Discovery Channel, PBS, BBC, National Geographic, Hollywood films, Western literatures etc.
Instead, Diaoyucheng is "nonexist" in reality, the myth like "peasant horde" or "human wave" regarding Chinese military history is prevailing and popular instead.
Which reminds the saying "history is just like a whore, everyone who got the money can have a go with her".
|
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 23:11
Yes, the siege of Diaoyucheng(Fishing town) is very neglected in history. The death of Mongke caused the Mongol heirs to bicker amongst themselves on who becomes the next Khan, culmultating into the event which the Mongolian Empire was split into many fractions. If Mongke lived, the Mongolian empire might have been the largest empire in history, instead of the British Empire, for then they would have the entirety of Southern China inside their boundaries. Funny though, how the Mongolian empire were able to take huge Song (and others, of course)metropilitans and fortified castles, but can't effectively siege one tiny town. Of course, Fisihing Town is located at a geographically defensible place, with a good leader to boot.
Shoot! That's a very vivid quote! |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 00:29
|
This is just a speculation. Moreover, it's simly incorrect since the sons of Genghis Khan started to bicker already when he still was alive. Perhaps, the most important factors for the stop of the Mongolian expansion to the West was the death of Ogedei, not Mongke.
Moreover, it's nothing unusual that Mongols were defeated at Diaoyucheng. It happened many times before at other places. Mongols were repelled at Krakow in Poland for example. Or there was a small wooden town in Russia called Kozelsk which holded the entire army of Batu-khan for 7 weeks. Eventually, Mongols took over, but their casualties were so heavy that they called Kozelsk "evil town." Mongol army once even was defeated by the inferior force of Volga Bulgars in the open field even though at that time it was headed by the best Mongolian general Subudai. I don't think a lot of people know much about the episodes above either. Mongolian failure at Diaoyucheng was essentially strategically meaningles, except that the great khan was killed in battle, which indeed was unusual, but didn't change the outcome of the war, since Song was eventually conquered.
Also, Mongolian royal princes were killed in battle before, the youngest son of Genghis khan, Kulkan was killed at Kolomna in Russia for example.
And also the last thing is that AFAIK Mongol empire is considered the largest empire ever existed in history by the seize of the territory controlled and for this purpoes it includes Southern Song as well. The empire officially desingetgated only after the death of Kublai khan.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 03:23
| ^The siege of DiaoyuCheng was "strategically meaningless" for the Song? Kind of, it helped stall the invasion but ultimately the Song was destroyed. But "strategically meaningless" overall? No, because due to the siege many troops in Egypt and Syria was called instead to attack the Song. That is the point. Mongols were defeated many times, that is true(Mongolians winning every battle being a stereotype), which happened in Asia as well as Europe, sometimes with only an army of several hundreds(as can be seen by the Jin dynasty, which scored victories at Fengxiang, Changan, Gui'de, etc...). But what's important was that Mongke died in this campaign. The death of Ogedai might have stopped the invasion of Europe and shown some Mongolian instability, but Mongke's rule soldified the Mongolian empire, which is still under one central figure. Although Kublai the successor still ruled a unified empire, fractions already arose and he couldn't prevent civil war, not from his conquered subjects, but from Mongolian fractions themselves. Khanates as far west as the Golden Horde refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Kublai Khan. If the Mongol Empire was unified on anything, it was unified on paper, if even that. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 04:57
|
It was strategically meaningless because Song was conquered at the end. It was tactically beneficial for Song because it delayed its final fall for some time but not more than that. And also fractions arose very early. Genghis khan could hardly pacify the deep conflicts between his children. It's also believed that he ordered the assisanation of Jochi, his own son. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 06:53
Sounds like the typical "history is written by the victor"
sure, and the Yuan only delayed the rise of Ming dynasty. and when China managed to fight with America on Korean peninsula, the Nomadic conquest of China in history only delayed the rise of modern China. "history" is no more than victor's bitch.
True, fractions arose early even when Chingiskhan was still around, yet Mongke consolidated the Mongol empire as an uniting force, Batu, ruler of the "Golden horde khanate" was strong supporter of Mongke's succession as the Great Khan, Hulagu, ruler of the "Il Khanate" was the brother of Mongke, although the descendants of Ogedei were Disgruntled that the descendants of Tolui have robbed the throne of Great khan from them, but with political and military authority of the Mongol empire in their hands, the empire was still an uniting force, and if it wasnt for Mongke's death at the siege of Diaoyucheng, Hulagu who has already conquered Bagdad and Damascus was well on his way of assaulting the Ayyubid dynasty, but the death of Mongke redirected Hulagu as well other Mongol nobility's attention because of succession problem, as result, the advancement of the Mongol in the Islamic territory was halted.
Civil war broke out for the first time, Kubilai fought his brother Arigh Boke for the throne of Great khan, the internal rivalries among the Mongol nobility never escalated during the reign of Chingis or Mongke.
Despite Kubilai emerged as the Great khan and he was successful in conquering the Southern Song in his domain of China, and he also suppressed those who opposed his throne as the Great khan,he could no longer able to command the Mongols as an uniting force. The khanates of the Mongol empire began their own journey of development, the "world conquest" by the Mongol army then reduced to "Regional conquest".
Which would be in consistency with the story that Chingiskhan doubted whether or not Jochi was his son. Jochi and Chagatai had quarrel with each other over their rights of former Khwarzimian territory. If the assassination of prince is ordered by Chingiskhan himself in order to prevent future internal conflict within the Mongol empire, then the choosing of Jochi instead of Chagatai may reflect the antecedent about Jochi.
Ironically then, it was the descendants of his own sons, Ogedei and Tolui, triggered such internal conflict that Chingiskhan tried to prevent.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 07:22
|
The conflict was there many years ago before Mongke's death. Also, Ghenghiz khan's children pretty much relied on their own from the very beginning. Batu's conquest of the West was done mainly by his Turkic subjects. Also one can't say for sure which delay was more significant Batu's delay of conquest of Europe or Hulagu's conquest of Egypt. From what we know now, it seems that the conquest of Europe would have had more significance. In fact, Hulagu's conquest of Bagdad and the murder of Khalif was already the most serious blow to the Islamic world. It's hard to say whether the subsequent conquest of Egypt would make a huge difference. "The job" was already done. Finally, if you think that history is just a "victor's bitch" than what is the point of discussing the stuff at all? The point is that what the tactical Song's success at Diaoyucheng meant? Did it mean the victory in the war? No. It was a brilliant, yet, temporary success, before the final collapse. Simply as that. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 08:26
|
Without the leader wolf,the potential of the wolf pack is reduced.Its like that.
right, "from what we know NOW", simply because the modern "West" is more dominant and influential than "East"? but that can not be said the same for contemporary Middle east with the 13th century Mongol empire. And thats precisely why history shouldnt be treated as "the victor's bitch"
Sure, Chingiskhan didnt anticipate either the war with Khwarzim or the war with the Russian principalities, as his initial and lifelong ambition was the destruction of Jurchen Jin dynasty who once subjugated the Mongols, yet the victories over Khwarzim made it possible for further conflict with the Islamic world, and Subudai's accidental incursion into the Russian territory and the defeat of Russian army triggered future expansion of the Mongol and the establishment of the "golden horde khanate". When Chingiskhan began his revenge on the Jurchen Jin, he didnt anticipate future conquest of Southern Song, when his successor Ogedei was following his last wish of complete destruction of the Jin, Mongols were allies with Southern Song, the Song not only let the Mongol army pass their territory, they coordinate joint offensives on the Jurchens, which made it finally collapsed under the pressure.If Southern Song knew that oneday the Mongols would assault their dynasty too would they agree to forge such alliance? Because the primary objective for Chingiskhan and his heir Ogedei Khan was the conquest of Jurchen Jin, only that with experience of their military triumphs, grows more ambition.For Chingiskhan he didnt instruct the heirs of Mongol empire the conquest of Southern Song, his last wish emphasized on the Jurchen Jin, so when Ogedei finally fulfilled Chingiskhan's wish of destroying the Jin, can one also say the "job" is already done?
right, it was "i think history is just a "victor's bitch""...
The point is history is still "the victor's bitch". |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 14:43
|
Good information on this thread guys. Keep it up. One correction though. History seems to be the "Victor's bragging rights and loser's bitch". ------------- |
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 16:51
Hmmm, I thought the delaying of an invasion would be strategic instead of tactical, since strategem has to do with the movement of armies on the whole, while tactics has to do with the movement of armies on the battlefield.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 20:11
|
whoah, hold on guys, there are some serious misconceptions going on here. first, about the family tree and sucession: the youngest son (Tolui) was the heir all along. i never figured out where this Jochi vs Chagatai myth came from but the youngest son gets the spoil, this is Tolui. Tolui died early so the second youngest (gdai) became great khan. Jochi wa snot at all disliked by Chinggis qaan and we can already read this in the ShoM. if Chinggis had a dislike of Jochi because of his supposed bastard origin, he had not accepted and perhaps killed him instantly, there really was no logical reason at all to wait for this until much later. now about Mngke & sucession struggle. now for the first time, the crown of Qaan was again with the Toluids, this was of course disputed by Qaidu. anyways, after Mngkes death, Arigh Bke was elected but defeated by Kubilai and his Chinese vassals. this, and his establishing of the Yuan dynasty was enough for the Chaghatay khanate and ulus Jochi to not recognize him as legal. his brother hlg of the Ilkhanate however recognized him. so Kubilai was never ruler of a unified mongol empire. about the mongol defeats, it is not known if the Volga Bulgars defeated Jebe at all, this is claimed by the Volga Bulgars but far from certain. we know Jebe made it back to Kwarazm with the expedition force and it seems unlikely he was defeated or at least not badly beaten at all. ------------- |
Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 01:25
|
[QUOTE=Omnipotence] Although there is at best peripheral evidence that Li ShiMing(or even some of his generals) is partly Turkish, but LiShiMin living as a Turk? YES, LiShiMin is not partly Turkish, he is partly Xianbei. It is evident that Lishimin's grandmother is a 100% Xianbei blooded. |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 04:44
|
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.
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.
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.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 05:04
Why should we believe you? As you say history is just a "victor's bitch" for sure the whole battle at Diaoyucheng is just a myth invented by the Chinese victors. It most likely never happened at all except in the Chinese soap opera.  ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 05:23
for once and for last, i advised that "history shouldnt be treated as the victor's bitch" not the other way around.
and when you say "why should "WE" believe you", im not taking this as a sign that you are representing others as well other than representing yourself.
but i will take this as a sign that you are losing control of yourself.
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 05:51
I really dont think this thread is the place to talk about the "blood"
but since this issue is raised again,
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 06:14
|
I observe only that you contradict yourself and try to prove your point by posting beautiful pictures from Chinese soap operas and computer games. You also make big fuss of those and claim that everything which not fit in your beautiful soap operas pictures is some "alien cultural chauvinism."
It's a very funny thing indeed. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 07:22
|
Charioteer, 1. It's historical fact that Tangtaizong carries Xianbei blood. This is not a fiction. Please check recognizable history books or sources. Acutally, I would say, without Xianbei's assimilation existence, there might not have histories of Sui and Tang in China. 2. Assimilation of all Chinese ethinity groups never cease, it has been kept going and going.
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 07:31
|
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
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. |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 07:49
|
can one also claim without the history of "five barbarians incursion into China", China wouldnt able to flourish during later times either? or rather it caused more than 300 hundred years of wars and disunity, which delayed the flourish.
Whether its "fiction" or not, the descendants of Li family have the ultimate right to say, rather by you or me. But the Li family have published their own studies regarding their family history in which they dismiss such connection with the Xianbei. If you can read Chinese then ask me for the source.
Since you want to talk about the blood of Tang household and "the Chinese ethnicity", do it in the right place http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23073 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23073
if you raise this issue in the right thread, we can discuss these issues further over there |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 13:01
This is indeed a known fact. Some historians actually say that Toba-wei ruling class was a distict ethnicity or at least a special ethnic group of Chinese called Tabgach which was formed as a result of intermixing between Chinese, Xianbi and other nomades. This perfectly explains the popularity of Taizong among Turks. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 14:53
Whether its "fiction" or not, the descendants of Li family have the ultimate right to say, rather by you or me. But the Li family have published their own studies regarding their family history in which they dismiss such connection with the Xianbei. If you can read Chinese then ask me for the source.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charioteer,
Unfortunately, I can read Chinese, pls quote me the source material.
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 15:03
Its known fact that for more than 1000 years Li family have always been regarded as Chinese, and their family history in north China can trace back to pre-Qin period.
its only during recent years revisionist "historians" started to make such claims about the Li family's blood wthout consent of the descendants of Li family and without a single one member of the Li family's support.
No one disagrees that Toba is from the Xianbei tribe, but one can not claim the same for Li family.
The blood of Toba-wei perfectly explains the popularity of Taizong among Turks?
besides, I have already told you the rumor of Li family descended from Toba clan was fabricated by a Tang buddhist Monk named Falin.
The rumor of Li family have Toba root is also not supported by modern genetic studies on Han population, Li clan has more than 90 million members today, the genetic impact of Li family of Tang dynasty on the Han population is comparable to the genetic impact of Chingiskhan on central Asia, if Li family was indeed originated from Toba of nomadic Xianbei clan, there should be detectable evidence in the Y-chromosome genetic makeup of modern Han population, but that is not the case.
Such claim was never prevailed in history, never accepted and supported by the descendants of Li family themsleves, and it is not validated by modern genetic studies.
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 15:13
李风华：驳陈寅恪《李唐氏族之推测》
关于李唐氏族问题，陈先生曾在1931、1933年和1935年写了三篇文章与朱希祖、金井之忠氏反复讨论辩难，尔后又在《唐代政治史述论稿》中全面论述，说：隋唐两朝继承宇文氏之遗业，仍旧施行关中本位政策，其统治阶级自不改其歧视山东人之观念。故隋唐皇室亦依旧自称弘农杨震、陇西李暠之嫡裔，伪冒相传，迄于今日，治史者竟无一不为其所欺，诚可叹也。其坚持李唐出自赵郡李氏，判断称家于武川是附会伪托这两点，难得通解。 其意见是：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（《李唐氏族之推测后记》，《史语所集刊》3本4分册，引自同上书，299页。）。
所论似有几点可以商榷。认定李唐为赵郡李的依据，主要是《唐光业寺碑》，碑文为开元十三年宣义郎前行象城县尉杨晋所撰。县尉是从九品下的最低级品官，他的撰文中维王桑梓一句，是否能作为其家世居住之地，绝无疑义（《李唐氏族之推测后记》，《史语所集刊》3本4分册，引自同上书，297页。）的证据，似尚不宜遽断。 这建初、启运二陵，虽是李唐开国时设定，起先偶有祭祀，以后李唐皇室诸帝并不怎么把此二陵当一回事，唐玄宗时也只有杨晋这样小到不能再小的官员来一下；且建初陵的主人李熙，即李渊的高祖，李世民的五世祖，是死在武川，终于位上的（《册府元龟》卷1《帝王部帝系门》，中华书局影印本，1960年，13页。），并不死在昭庆。 推测应是在六镇起兵失败后，李虎也被安置往冀、定、瀛州时，将父、祖迁葬附近的赵州昭庆，或仅是设衣冠冢以祭祀，因此二陵所在之地，并不能肯定便是世居的桑梓之地。此其一。 接着的问题是陈寅恪也有疑问的：李唐岂真出于赵郡李氏耶？若果为赵郡李氏，是亦华夏名家也，又何必自称出于陇西耶？（《李唐氏族之推测后记》，《金明馆丛稿二编》，297页。） 其回答，一是：李唐先世并非赵郡李氏大户，而是破落户或假冒牌；二是：盖贺拔岳宇文泰初入关之时，其徒党姓望犹系山东旧郡之名，迨其后东西分立之局既成，内外轻重之见转甚，遂使昔日之远附山东旧望者，皆一变而改称关右名家矣。此李唐所以先称赵郡，后改陇西之故也。（《李唐氏族之推测后记》，《金明馆丛稿二编》，300-301页。） 这两点固不失为一种解释，然而却无法解释唐太宗为何一贯敌视山东士人，为何太宗尝言及山东、关中人，意有同异（《旧唐书张行成传》，中华书局标点本，1975年，2703页。）？为何要敕撰专为摧抑中原甲姓之工具的《氏族志》？为何要讲我与山东崔、卢、李、郑，旧既无嫌（《旧唐书高士廉传》，中华书局标点本，1975年，2443页。）这样很生分的话？而且用定为禁婚家的办法，惩治包括晋赵郡李楷在内的最高门七姓十家。如果李唐果真出自赵郡李氏，唐太宗敌视山东人的情绪和下诏限制打击禁婚家，岂非和自己过不去。这是李唐出自赵郡说不可解之重点。此其二。 上述两点得不到完满解释，李唐出自赵郡说恐卒难成立。 李唐只能出自武川，更早的情况说不清楚，李初古拔与李唐即或有渊源关系，但至少从李渊高祖李熙就职武川开始，遂家焉。《册府元龟帝王部帝系门》和两唐书《高祖本纪》等正史上明确记载的这李唐先世出自武川的定论，没有直接有力的证据是不能推翻的。 李虎在西魏时能踞八柱国之高位，为子孙占据关陇军事贵族集团中最高门的显赫位置，奠下日后争夺帝位的资本，和他来自武川，在关陇集团中有身价最尊贵的武川系军人背景有关。与李渊境况十分相像的杨坚，也是仗其父亲杨忠有十二大将军之一的身份才发迹的。杨隋先世家于武川，史有明文。《周书杨忠传》并有北周武帝保定三年（563年）杨忠由北道攻北齐晋阳时，出武川，过故宅，祭先人，飨将士的记载。清清楚楚，居家和祖茔都在武川。李唐先世在武川的境况与杨隋相似，是很自然的。愚以为，关于李氏武川镇人，即李唐先世疑出边荒杂类，必非华夏世家一事，陈先生三论的第一篇《李唐氏族之推测》一文中本来是那样清楚地说对了的，可参见《金明馆丛稿二编》第287、291页之原文。但在尔后的后记和论李唐氏族的后两篇论文中，或许是失之深刻，反而改错了。 还有一个迷惑李唐宗室来历的是<唐护法沙门法琳别傅>中记载的法琳与唐太宗的争辨一事,其始末如下: 帝因亲降问曰。朕本系老聃。东周隐德。末叶承嗣。起自陇西。阐大道为道元。随迎不测。谈上德为德母。视听莫知。苞四象以运行。括二仪而亭育。既无得而称矣。信日用而不知。朕所以尊乎祖风。高出一乘之上。敦乎本化。超踰百氏之先。何为诡刺师资。妄陈先后。无言即死。有说即生。 法师对曰。琳闻师经对文侯云。尧舜之君唯恐无言。桀纣之君唯恐有言。又东方朔答武帝云。臣生亦言死亦言。琳今属尧舜之君。何得无言者哉。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。谨案。老聃之李。牧母所生。若据陇西。乃皆仆裔。何者炖煌宝录云。桓王三十九年。幸闲预庭与群臣经夜论古今。王曰。老聃父为何如人也。天水大守橐绥对曰。老聃父姓韩。名虔。字符卑。癃跛下践。胎即无耳。一目不明。孤单乞贷。年七十二无妻。遂与邻人益寿氏宅上老婢字曰精敷。野合怀胎而生老子。又王俭百家谱云。李姓者。始祖皋繇之后。为舜理官。因遂氏焉。乃称李姓。李氏之兴起于聃也。以李树下生乃称李姓。至汉成帝时。有李隐抗烈毁上被诛。徙其族于张掖。在路暴死。其奴隶等将其印绶冒凉得仕。所谓陇西之李自此兴焉。又老子云。吾不敢为天下先。故述五千之训。又言。不与物竞。处众人之所恶。既处物不竞。又不为先。恕己推人。守雌保弱。老子西升经又云。干竺有古皇先生者。是吾师也。绵绵常存吾今逝矣。又符子云。老氏之师号释迦文。尹喜内传云。老子曰。王欲出家。吾师号佛。觉一切人也。今受天帝请食。还当为王及群臣等一时受戒。窃以拓拔元魏。北代神君达阇达系阴山。贵种经云。以金易□石。以绢易缕褐。如舍宝女与婢交通。 陛下即其人也。弃北代而认陇西。陛下即其事也。又老生姬季之末。释诞隆周之初。世隔一十余王。年经二百余祀。此即师资验矣。先后显然。勘卷分明。在文指的。伏惟陛下。好生恶杀赖及虫鱼。拯溺救焚化沾荇苇。等三皇之世。教而不诛。同五帝之时。师而不阵。 陛下若奋赫斯之怒。则百万不足情。陛下若敛秋霜之威。则一言容有可录。轻忤御览营魄飞扬。尘黩威严心魂失守。 陛下。道含弘而光大。恩被八埏。德普覆而平均。网开三面。纳忠言若弗及。悬五听以干干。从善谏其如流坐。九重而翼翼。 陛下今纵雷霆之怒。琳甘纷骨灰躯。傥垂雨露之恩。庶全骸骨。自后辩对。传有二百余条。询访莫知。阙而不录。至二十日又降。 敕云。汝所著辩正论信毁交报篇言。念观音者临刀不伤。既有斯灵。朕今赦汝七日之内。尔其念哉。俟及刑科能无断不。法师既羁缧绁复迫刑期。冰炭交怀控告无所。至第六日夜。盘桓怅快徙倚沈吟。步朗月以惘然。慨浮生之如寄。不觉潜涕。因言志云。草命如悬露。轻生类转蓬。所嗟明夜月。难与古人同。法师因挥涕昌言。仰天而叹曰。昔邹衍拘齐狱。燕丹质秦邦。尚感夏景零霜乌头变白。岂可独于琳也。偏无征应者哉。言讫俄有神人身长丈余。素服衣冠踰垣戾止。而谓法师曰。既能亡形殉道。再纽颓网。冥卫寔繁。幸无劳虑。语讫而失。法师因乃恭虔五体默念三尊。遂得思逸胸怀释然无惧。至七日旦。 法师对曰。琳闻。观音圣鉴垂形六道。上天下地皆为师范。然我皇文思聪明光宅海内。九夷奉职八表刑清。君圣臣贤不为枉滥。今陛下子育群品。如经即是观音。既其灵应相符。所以唯念陛下。但琳所著辩正。爰与书史符同。一句参差甘从斧钺。 陛下若顺忠顺正。琳则不损一毛。陛下若刑滥无辜。琳有伏尸之痛。威等录状奏。 帝。帝悦。因召法师而问曰。朕比览师文。佥隳老教。发言佛理。感叹良哉。而释劣道优。朕今未晓。佛大道小。非不昧斯。宜悉尔心较言优劣。伫闻嘉唱沃朕烦怀。法师面奏曰。伏承。 观其文可知法琳所言甚为荒谬,为了争佛大道小,不惜性命,胡言乱语，就象泼妇骂街，宗教的狂热使其失去了理智，对李唐之宗极尽污蔑之辞。太宗被激怒后，大怒竖目，恨不得立马将其剁了，斥之为：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。法琳必须为此付出代价。太宗最后巧妙地说汝所著《辩正论信毁交报篇》言：念观音者临刀不伤。既有斯灵，朕今赦汝七日之内，尔其念哉！俟及刑科能无断否？而法琳又乞尾求生，称太宗即观音,且琳于七日已来。唯念陛下。其为人可知矣!其言又奚可信哉? 其实,陈寅恪先生提出的李唐出自赵郡李氏的推断，其主要论据是是《唐光业寺碑》。然此碑到底能说明什么? 《大唐帝陵光业寺大佛堂之碑》原位于河北省隆尧县城正南6公里魏庄乡王尹村北光业寺遗址内。现已移入隆尧县文物保管所碑刻馆内。 碑刻于唐玄宗（李隆基）开元十三年（725年）。宣义郎象城县尉杨晋撰文。无书丹者姓名。碑通高5.5米（现失座残高4.63米），宽 1.40米，厚0.42米。碑为青石质。原为龟趺，现已失。碑额呈半圆形，四龙盘顶，龙头下垂两侧外方，龙分雌雄，雌龙双角凤目，雄龙独角圆目。碑身上部中央行书大唐帝陵光业寺大佛堂之碑，3行，行4字，凡12字。碑文行书间有草书40行，行80字，书法潇洒秀丽，风格在苏灵芝、李邕之间。碑阴、碑额佛龛未完成，碑身刻文39行。右侧及两削角共12行；左侧及两削角共13行。 |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 15:15
|
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。 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： 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。 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。 |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 15:50
|
Perhaps, you indeed can say something by posting this long article (which BTW I already can see is very biased) to Xianpei and me.
But how about showing some respect to the other participants of the thread who don't read Chinese? ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 16:11
|
I have also read through the article, but it is about the debate on Where Lishimin's ancestor home town was.
Charioteer, just pls answer the following simple root question:- 1. Is Lishimin's grandmother is a Xianbei people? 2. Is Lishimin's wife (out of a no. of wives) a Xianbei people? yes, the empress whose son later became the heir to Tangtaizong? If the answer is yes (Acutally the fact is recogniszed), then it needs not to debate on this topic (the Xianbei blood carried by Tangtaizong.) |
Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 16:52
can one also claim without the history of "five barbarians incursion into China", China wouldnt able to flourish during later times either? or rather it caused more than 300 hundred years of wars and disunity, which delayed the flourish.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Charioteer,
The answer to your point : no, one cannot. But for my sentence, it would be right. (as I envisage that it is with different reasoning from your one). The History of Sui significantly relates to the orgins of North Wei, and later transited into East Wei and North Qi, and then with subsequent development of history to Sui and then Tang dynasties.
The Sui and early Tang histories considerably interrelates the Han-civilization-process of nomadic tribe Xianbei. Without the new blood element, one may not say Tang's ruling elites had the same magnitude of open mindedness to use a lot of non-han officers or generals.
Also, it might not happen that Tangtaixong depolyed his strategies so successfully and flexibly in dealing with Turks, Toba (Tibetian at that time), and GuLi (nowadays, Korea) (of course, also thanks to his mighty army, of which quite a lot of them are non-Han-Tribes)
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 19:29
|
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. "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. 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.
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 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. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 19:47
source?
this is indeed well known and it is also well known that Chinggis was impartial with his sons so this is not relevant to anything
Qaidu didn't revolted earlier because he didn't yet had a large enough support and power. and after Mngkes detah there was no civil war, only after Kubilai challenged Arigh Bkes election as Qa'an there was a war between theb two, but only in the Ulus Tolui, not the whole Mongol empire.
Chaghataids were at war with Hlg, who supported Kubilai so it is not exactly true that Chaghatayids supported Kubilai. ------------- |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 22:20
|
"Tolui, also rendered Toluy or Tolui Khan (Mongolian: Толуй; Chinese: 拖雷; pinyin: Tuōli; c. 1190 1232), " 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. and a small note on the ShoM(secret history of the Mongols), 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.
"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."
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.
"Mngke died during his campaign against Song China. Kublai (Qubilai) succeeded him as Great Khan in 1260, but faced a succession crisis. His younger brother, Arigboka (Arigboqa), claimed the great khanate. Kublai brought him to heel with the help of Alghu, the Chagatai Khan. However, Alghu began to act independently of Kublai."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagatai_Khanate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagatai_Khanate 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. |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 22:49
Right, the descendant of Li family believe in their ancestry and ethnicity or the accusation of their such action as "biased", i dont know which one is more "biased".
arent we surprised that those "historians" who are feverishly propagating faulty history like blood of Li family being Xianbei (or "Tabgach") which was fabricated by the buddhist monk Falin in English forums can actually read Chinese.
|
Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 03:44
|
1. You seemed to be very over-sensitive to the statement that "Tangtaixong carries Xianbei blood". This is a very simple question and statement. I do not know why it was manipulated in a far distracting way. And during the discussion, it seemed we were at the time of Chinese Cultural Revolution! We were just as if being arbitrarily and unreasoningly set up by "putting hats" on our heads.
2. Nobody is downpalying your questionable article. Sorry to say that I just felt, rather, you poised to make simple thing very complicated and took the forum ground to sell your prejudiced concepts by distorting other people's orginal view to your preset scenario
. 3. My simple statement is easily rationalized, as if Lishimin's grandmother is a Xianbei lady, then Lishimin is a hybrid at least with one-fourth Xianbei blood. That is! I have never argued with you on Lishimin's nationality (of course, he is still a Chinese) or father or grand grand father race origins. I have also never argued with you the criterion(ria) on determining which race or nationality Lishimin should be. I am not discussing with you the patrilineal naming system of Chinese .... These seems to be generated by yourself.
4. But now I need to ask a question on the writter of this article you posted: Who is this Li Feng Hua? Any verification on his /her geniune role of being decensdant of Lishimin family?
As in China and overseas , there are many many people with surname Li or Lee.
Can you have any quoted link so that we can understand Li Feng Hua more?
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 19:40
@charioteer: wikipedia is no source....
------------- |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 07:31
IMHO, only the part regarding Jochi's alleged betrayal and Chingiskhan's alleged action against him is fairly questionable, although Wiki's introduction on this is rather consistent with what Chinese encyclopedia or information source says that i've checked.
like the mystery surrounding Jochi's antecedent, this still is worth of investigation, lets not brush it aside simply due to Wiki's supposed "discredit"
but that can not be argued the same for other points in our conversation,
especially regarding the conceptions on succession,
from your point of view regarding it
seems you are saying the youngest son would become the great khan, and thats how Ogedei became great Khan because with the death of previous youngest son Tolui, Ogedei would be the youngest therefore would become the great khan.
but the problem is that Tolui died after Ogedei became great khan, which demonstrate a fact that great khan is not inherited by the youngest son.
even using your claim that Tolui died before Ogedei became great khan, this still can not prove your point that youngest son would be great khan because as i mentioned before Chingis and also Mongke was not the youngest when they become great khan.
The succession of great khan is not really determined by whether the candidate is or not the youngest son of previous ruler.
wherever you get this information from seems conflicting with history.
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 10:06
|
People should be sensitive of the potential implication behind this racially oriented notion, especially for Chinese forumers. For WW2 Japanese were also "over-sensitive" about "Taizong carries Xianbei blood" that they utilized such to justify their invasion of China, or those ultra-nationalistic Korean claims of Tang dynasty was "Han Chinese under foreign rule" as we all have witness before on AE.
"We", "our heads", by coincidence, both you and Samart could actually read Chinese and both you tend to speak on behalf of others other than youselves.
"I have also read through the article, but it is about the debate on Where Lishimin's ancestor home town was." The article isnt simply about "where Lishimin's ancestor's hometown was" as its closely associated with the question surrounding Li family's ethnic origin.You know that but somehow you failed to acknowledge this, hence "downplaying".
"Perhaps, you indeed can say something by posting this long article (which BTW I already can see is very biased) to Xianpei and me. " you do realize i was not simply answering your few simple questions
Ever since Northern Wei started its policy of "sinicization", intermarriage between the Xianbei and Han nobility was practiced in order to consolidate Xianbei rule, intermarriages werent just confined to oneway practice of Han nobility taking Xianbei wifes but also Xianbei nobility taking the daughters of Han nobility. Family names are patrilineal, just like Y-chromosomes which are passed from male ancestor to male descendants without change over time. Hence the claim of "one-fourth Xianbei blood" is not really "rationalized", rather its a weak yet simple characterization.
The Chinese family names including Li family were "generated" long before i was born.
as matter of fact i do,you can contact Li family for confirmation and further assistance on this issue |
Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 11:15
|
Charioteer, Come on, be open minded! I believe the Chinese people are constantly assimilating every day. Chinese is a respectful and one of the great human races. But one cannot be as too nervous as you have been when finding a historical simple fact that Lishimin carries Xianbei blood. Does this hurt the self image of being a Chinese? I really do not think so. This is nothing ashamed to accepting this. No need to deny it. Again, I feel confused by your distracting way of discussion. It would be tough for me to dig out your main points... and somehow, I found you misunderstand my view (yes, deliberately), and set me up again. I believe Timujin asks you about why there is nothing can be found about Li Feng Hua in the wikipedia; and I also believe you just acted to misunderstand what Timujin's above question. Don't be panic, if I unveiled your tricks. (why, if you were as logic and reason as you behaved, you should not have answered in that way.) I can give you thousands of Li and Lee 's telephone names and village address in China... but what is for? I have also asked some of my friends who are all Lee's and Li's. Nobody knows and hears about Li Feng Hua nor the names and telephones you cited here. If Li FengHua's article is so recognizable and important (especially for you!!), how comes there is no public sources or news or recognizable journal records....? If this "Li-family" speakers were serious about this propaganda, why there is no official web site....? You sound to be the defender and one of propaganda of this Lishimin family, you should provide the "recognised verified source", insteads , you just asked me to go to contact some telephones and names you provided....? I do not think it is the right approach for you, who seemed to be "veteran" in this field, to do so. |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 13:55
|
these are vague and irrelevant responses to my point-to-point arguments.
its quite obvious Temujin didnt ask me about "why there is nothing can be found about Li Feng Hua" when he said "@Charioteer, wikipedia is no source".
I recall you said you can read Chinese right?
i have already provided you a way to find out whether its genuine or not.if you are "serious" about this "propaganda", why lack the interest and sincerity to investigate? http://www.0932lt.com/difang/lswh/200712/620.html - http://www.0932lt.com/difang/lswh/200712/620.html official website of Lintao(ancestral hometown of Li family) the "contact infor "of "Li family research association" on the webpage is same to the contact infor i've given 陇西李氏祖籍临洮联谊研究会 so make a contact for confirmation |
Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 14:31
|
Charioteer, First, I found it is difficult for me to respond to some point to point discussion, as I mentioned that somehow, it was tough for me to really grasp your centre point idea. partly due to my original views are distorted. So, I may and will respond to yours overally. OK, I now just focus on Li Feng Hua, the author of that article, again, any publicly RECOGNIZABLE and VERIFIED background information on this gentleman or Lady? Also, I want to tell you that in my location, there are thousand of this kind of Ethinity Associations, Lee (Li), Chan (Chen), Wong (Huang), Wang, Ho (He).............., and somhow it is not just by family names, but by original locations as well... . I believe there are also many in overseas like the USA, European countries, South East Asian countries, where there are quite a lot of Chinese living there. Can someone just write an article claiming that they are who whowho's descendant, but without REAL evidence that have been verified and recognized by public authorized parties or institutions...? And then he or she just say I am representing this association or family club, you should listen to what I wrote. Now, I give you my association manager names and telephone, you phone to him to verify it. Although we are (at least I am) amateur forum members, I do not think some important argument making use of an questionable article should be manipulated in a childish way and then the argument is said to be verified?!  |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 16:20
| according to all of you, the Chinese country has been invaded many times. How come then that today China is not a bunch of different countries, and one unified super-giant? |
Posted By: Dream208
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 18:16
|
Dear de Leon: Because the conccept "China" is not built on the narrow-concept of national state, which is unfortunately to see today's Chinese government (and Chinese around the globe as well) put so much effort on boosting Nationalism but not in cultural preservation. It is an irony that from some perspectives, both Korea and Japan resemble more of cultural China in its zenith than today's China triangle area. China, first and foremost, is (or was...) a cultural empire. You are Chinese, not because you are born with Chinese blood (if there was even such a thing), but because you behave like one (dress, language, living style, etc.) So it did not matter where the dynasty rise from, as long as it accepted Chinese cultural norms (which arguably only Mongol Yuan did not fully do so, and they got overthrown quickly), it would be considered legitimate 'Chinese" dynasty that possessed the mandate of Heaven. In my humble opinion, it is inappropriate to use the Western nation state mindset to evaluate Chinese political, cultural and identity structure. The overheated "Chinese Nationalism" today had a lot do you May Fourth scholars vehement (or blindly) preaching of Nationalism and Western value while knowing so little about Chinese history (in our standard today). And their extremely rhetorics were used by both ROC and PRC government in order to mobilize the masses (for better, for worse, depend on your priority). But I would say one thing, the May Fourth legacy and the past 100 years' struggle had somewhat let Chinese redefined (or forgot, again depend on your perspective) what is being Chinese mean. And I think the glorious forefathers that Chinese nationalists boosting about would have very different way of defining "Chinese identity" than their rather shallow-minded modern decedents. PS: Thank you for the pictures Charioteer. However, I do recommend you to rethink about what do our identity for being Chinese mean? Does Chinese identity had to be defined by the modern nation-state concept? Does it really only about bloodline? Does it even matter that Tang dynasty's royal family got Xianpei blood in them or not? Does our history continue merely by the preservation of so-called "pure Han blood", or is it continued by the preservation of Hua civilization which was opened and freely accessed by all for the past 4 or 3 thousands years? |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 18:44
the only fact, as i can see here, is that Jochi didn't supported Jebes raid into the Rus as he was supposed to, everything else is mere speculation.
i'm only conflicting with history if the SHoM was written by a lunatic. actually, as i remember now, Tolui stepped back to gdai so you're right he became Qa'an before Tolui died but it is evident he was the first choice. and whats Chinggis Qaan got to do with it? he was in no line of sucession, so him becoming ruler of Mongols was not due to him being son of anyone but him beign a ruler personality. ------------- |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 22:00
I once came across an article by a Chinese author attributing the achievement of "longest continuous civilization" to the preservation of ancestor worship, "pure Han blood" is only the result of it.
P.S.
i'd like to note that stressing the tradition of respecting ones ancestor is not the same as claiming "racial purity". as Chinese family names also include historically sinicized factions.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 22:14
|
so do you believe the Han are racially pure or what?
------------- |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 22:39
Y-Chromosome haplogroup like Q is typical of north America indian, this genetic group originated somewhere near Siberia, it seems sometime a group of Q migrated to China, its found in modern northern and southern Han population.
i think "demic diffusion" best describes the spread of Han culture and forming of Han population
"Demic diffusion is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological - archaeological term that refers to population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion - diffusion into and across an area previously http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uninhabitable&action=edit&redlink=1 - uninhabited by that group, possibly displacing, replacing, or intermixing with a pre-existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population - population (e.g. as has been suggested for the spread of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture - agriculture across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic - Neolithic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe - Europe , and what occurred with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_colonization - European colonization of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas - Americas )."
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 22:42
whos first choice? i thought Chingis favored Ogedei to be his successor.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 01:09
I see that there is only one person that is propagating faulty theories in this thread; but it's about the "Han racial purity" ; and yes, he seems to be able to read Chinese. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 01:20
Good question. Actually Chinese history always goes in cycles from the unification to the division and again and again. The unified super giant as it's now was effectively recreated only in 1949 when the communists took over. Gomindang government which had ruled the country before never effectively controlled all the country, large parts of which were controlled by local warlords. But even now China is not complitely unified. I mean Taiwan.
The best way to comment on this, I suppose, would be to give the famous quote from the first chapter of the great Chinese Classics i.e. the Novel of Three Kingdoms.
"The world under heaven (China), after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide. This has been so since antiquity." ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 07:03
you skip what i say
i suppose your knowledge on genetics is just as shallow, when i ackowledge things like haplotye 02 are part of Han population's Y-chromosome genetic makeup, and when i say
"vice versa" is referring to the influence of migration from north on China, such as Xianbei's assimilation into China.
so, making blatant accusations arent going to earn any credit for you as a moderator.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 14:45
I didn't want to comment on the nonsense. Those historians don't participate in this thread and, besides, most of them know Chinese, ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 02:06
| He's not even talking about ethnic purity, but that China cannot be defined through ethnicity. If blacks in America can be counted as American, why can't non-Hans be counted as Chinese? Han is only the major ethnicity, not THE ethnicity. The accusations is a bit unfair. You'r e accusing him for things he didn't say. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 15:14
|
i disagree, thats a different situation.
------------- |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 10:14
Thank you for pointing this out,
because one would under the impression that its only due to the inability to read Chinese sources, that lack of access to such sources contributed to the making of such propositions like "Tang being "Tabgach"" , etc, as demonstrated by your behaviours.
which is still excusable,
but since those who propose such things actually have good access to Chinese sources, in which many are not in favor of their propositions, then questions should be raised why would these people downplay and distort history.
and speaking of the notion of "history", in my dictionary its about " if one can not sense what is going on before ones very eyes and under ones very nose then one can not possibly comprehend something that happened long time ago known as history"
for that matter, you have been very helpful in providing some insight into it. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 20:22
|
he never claimed that the Tang were Tabgach, he said Li Shimin was descendand of Turks.
------------- |
Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 23:04
Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 03:19
|
Siege Tower, Yes, I totally agree to you  . And I had also indicated that to Charioteer in earlier frustrating communication and also would like him or her to be open minded to see this fact..... however, Charioteer seemed to treat other people as his/her "enemy", if oneself does not buy Charioteer's idea.... |
Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 00:38
|
It is a bit more complicated than that. More like 20-45%. Li's of Longxi were among the eight elite Han families that intermarried with the Xianbei nobility. The eight Han families took Xianbei wives, and in turn, married their womenfolk into Xianbei ruling classes. So what does this really mean? Well.............by the late Sixth Century, none of the important figures of Beizhou or Sui dynasties were pure Han or Xianbei. Emperor Wudi of Beizhou was probably 40-45% Han from his maternal side (Wudi's . Li Shimin's mother, a fabulous woman, came from a formerly Xianbei clan, but she was not more or less Han (or Xianbei) than Li Yuan, Shimin's father. Her mother came from a Han clan, while Li Yuan's mother came from a Xianbei clan that was X% Han in blood. Thus, it is impossible to determine just really what percentage of Li Shimin's blood is Xianbei and what percentage Han. ------------- AAAAAAAAAA "The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 01:07
|
Regardless of the exact percentage of Xianabei blood in Taizong, the main point is that he was quite familiar with teh Steppe culture and mentality due to his Xianbei ancestry. This in turn granted his enormous popularity among Turks, which few if any other Chinese emperors ever enjoyed. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 16:58
|
Is that the reason why you wouldnt dare to contact "Li family research association" and consult with the descendants of Li clan regarding the "ethnic controversy" around Lishimin and Tang ruling household, because they do not buy my idea that the Li clan has always been Chinese? Do not tell me Lishimin and his family regarded themselves as descendants of the founder of Daoism Laozi was also buying my idea. Just like do not tell me when you assumed things like
was also making valid assessment on me or my arguments. perhaps instead of point to point argument the only thing you could ever able to come back in our conversation is indeed "putting hats". |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 17:03
|
exactly, when revisionist historians play ethnic card on Lishimin and Li clan, one may witness interesting claims like "Li shimin was descendant of Turks" as consequence. speaking of the introduction and propagation of "Tabgach",
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22221&PN=2 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22221&PN=2
propagators of such seem to have completely forgotten the existence of the descendants of Li family today, and they need to explain why they can claim things on behalf of the Li family instead of the Li family themselves.
i have provided source from Li clan themselves on this issue regarding their family history, perhaps its time those who are feverishly spreading history perspectives like "Tang(Li family) were "Tabgachs" also provide any evidence that the Li family have ever regarded themselves as such so? |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 17:49
|
My assertion about Tabgach stays valid.
You prove nothing by your alleged "Li family descendants." Can your Li Fanghua say for Li Shimin? Can she say what he really thought of himself and how he regarded himself, and how he saw his relations with nomades?
She can't say anything about this. Besides, firstly you can't give 100% evidence that she (Li Fenghua) is indeed the descendant of Li Shimin, all her "evidence" could be forged. Secondly, she is Chinese and she can say for herself, but she'll be never able to say for her very remote (more than 1000 years defore) ancestor (if he in fact was the one) what he thought of his ethnicity.
You may disagree with the hypo that Tabgachs were a distinct ethnicity, but it's, in fact, obvious that their cultural experience and mentality was very influenced by the steppe culture and mentality. At least one can say that they were a unique subgroup of Han which is nothing unusual. Big "Han" ethicity is very diverse and cultures of Kejia, Hui, some Dongbei people etc. are very distinct from each other.
Also the phenomenon of formation of special subethnic group in the border regions of empires is very common. The same people as Tabgach lived in the eastern borders of Buzantinne empire and were called Akrits. The similar phenomenon also developed in Russia and those "border people" are Cossacks, who are extremely influenced by nomadic culture.
That's all I wanted to say. Thank you ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 18:17
playing "racial card" again and attributing it as the factor to Taizong's popularity among Turks?
Why Taizong's father Li Yuan did not enjoy similar level of "popularity" when he too was "familiar with steppe culture", he too had "Xianbei blood".
which could be argued the same for other Tang emperors since they too were (in your claim and according to your "non-sinocentrist" history perspective)
and by "coincidence", Lishimin was the one defeated the Turks, the examples of Lishimin's treatment to his Turk generals or Turks regarded him as "Heavenly khan" by "coincidence" all happened after Lishimin defeated the Turks.
If the reason for Lishimin's popularity among Turks is due to his "Xianbei blood", why such "popularity" wasnt there before the defeat of Turks by Taizong Lishimin?
in fact Tang dynasty and Turks were enemies that when the Turks approached the vicinity of Tang capital with 200,000 men and posed threat to Tang dynasty in 627AD when Lishimin just enthroned as the new emperor. Lishimin had to compromise with the Turks which he regarded it as unforgetable shame,such incident only made him more determined to eliminate the threat of Turks. And only 3 years later, Tang army launched counter-offensive into steppe and subjugated the Turks.
without the defeat of Turks as precondition, Lishimin's policy towards wouldnt be occur as consequence, without the precondition Turks posed threat to China and regarded by Lishimin as enemy, Tang's military action against Turks wouldnt be occur as consequence, these are interrelated matters.
I wonder what role the "Xianbei blood" of Li family played in Tang dynasty's relation with the Turks as whole? its definitely not explainable by "the popularity among Turks"(which is attributed to his and his family's "Xianbei blood") prior to the defeat of Turks by Lishimin's Tang dynasty.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 18:39
|
You definetely are not familiar with how he conquered Turks. In fact, he attracted the part of the Turks in order to conquer another part. The fact that he sucked the blood out of the wound of the Turk general, clearly sets him apart from the other Chinese emperors.
You also continue to repeat you "racial abrakadarba." He was popular because he treated Turks fairly, he attracted them, rather then exterminated them, he respected their culture and didn't emphasize Chinese cultural superiority, this is the reason behind his success. The reason of his familiarity with the Steppe culture was his Xianbei origins. However, if we would ignore his blood and would be raised complitely in the environment of Chinese superiority over the northern barbarians, his blood wouldn't matter at all. Later Tang emperors were like this, which eventually let to the Turkic revolt and desintegration of the empire. Taizong's attitude and policies were different. That's why Turks liked him, but not simply were afraid of him. They joined Tang army voluntary and fought voluntary. Everything changed during the later Tang years.
You fail to realize that Taizong was extraordinary person who was able to attract different subjects of his new empire not just by the cruel subjugation and power, but mainly by flexibility and respect.
For you it's very straight forward Taizong is 100% Han Chinese who just severly crushed the Turks for which they suddently started to respect him. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 18:55
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 19:03
perhaps its valid only to you,
fortunately and inevitably, the descendants of Li family themselves wont really accept what you assert, and without their consent, what you assert matters only to yourself.
The descendants of Li family can not say for their own family history?
besides what makes think you can?
i have already provided the way to contact Li family for confirmation, but somehow those ask for such are not really interested in checking it out?
and again if the offspring of a Chinese family can not say for themselves, what makes you think you can say for Lishimin?
I incline this as really "racist" behind such mentality .
not to mention, Li shimin dismissed Buddhist monk Falin's claim of Li family's connection to Toba(which i have already told you before), and emphasized that his ancestor is Laozi, i dont know if this is related at all to Lishimin's attitude regarding himself and his family?
and when you are accusing others which disagree with your history perspective as "forgery", you need to establish that you are on the genuine side which is not really guaranteed by what you are on this forum.
or rather, its your steppe culture mentality that is pulling the string, perhaps thats why what you say regarding Li family is actually without their consent and is not consistent with how Lishimin regarded him and his family.
sure, so everything must be explain in this way and by this mentality.
sounds abit like "white pride worldwide"
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 19:34
|
Your posts are full of logical flaws.
First of all tell me how the descendants of Li family can decide what Li Shimin thought of himself? It's simply impossible. Imagine that you grandchildren go to to Brazil and after several generations they are complitely Brazilian. And then they give concent on how their ancestors should be called?
What this kind of consent had actually to do with the real views of Li Shimin? They can never verify what he thought 1000 years ago. I'm not saying that he definetely thought like I view it. But you are obsessed with that Li family and their consent is the only valid 100% evidence and absolute proof that you're right.
Don't u understand again that they simply might be not Li family - 1 and they don't know anything about the views of the distant ancestor Li Shimin - 2. You want me to verify their claims? How do you suppose me to do it? To go there perform a genetic research on them etc? Or what should I send a fax to them with the question please confirm that you are indeed descendant of Li Shimin? All these are unrealistic.
I also can claim that I'm descendant of Li Shimin and I consider myself a Turk, I'll give you my fax and telephone number and it's up to you to prove that I'm wrong. Go ahead!
All you extremely weak and logically flawed argumentation goes around this "mythical Li family consent."
In other words, you proved nothing by posting in this thread.
Though I must thank you for the beautiful images from new Chinese movies the views were great! Many thanks. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 20:07
Yes, definetely, he served at the border and new all the intrcasies of the steppe.
However, how can you be sure what was the actual level of sinicization of Xianbi? Judging from the last imperial Qing dinasty we can see that even though Manzhu were very sincized they kept their distict identiry from Chinese, and Manzhu was even still an official language of the country. Why do you think xianbei would behave differently in China? It's more than likely that that they still kept a noticeble degree of defferences from "natural" Chinese. Besides beizhou was a much smaller kingdom compare to Qing China and percentage of actual Xiani ethnic element there was much higher than those of Manzhu's in Qing China.
I don't say that the mixed Xianbi/Chinese population was more Nomadic. I'm simply saying that most likely they viewed themselves differently from Chinese and also from the Nomades, this sets them apart. And yes, this is also one of the reasons of their better familiarity with the steppe culture compare to "ordinary" Chinese. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 22:23
Sincization is a process that takes time. Except for isolated communities in the Northeast, most of present day Manchus are indistinguishable from the Han, or even consider themselves Han. Many ethnic Manchus adopted sinicized names during the Republican era, even the Asingoro clan adopted a siniczed surname 'Jin', meaning Gold (Asin = gold in Manchu).
The time from Manchu invasions to 20th Century (1644- 1900) is approximately the same as the time duration from Xianbei invasions to Li Shimin's Tang Dynasty (early 400s - 600s). A lot of things happen in 200 + years. During the latter Northern Wei, the Xianbei initiated organized sinicization efforts: Xianbei garb was systematically abandoned in favor Han traditional clothing. The imperial Tuoba clan changed their surname to "Yuan". Unlike Manchus, cultural integration of the Xianbei went hand in hand with intermarriages. At the time of Yuwen Tai, founder of Beizhou, one would not easily find a pure blooded Xianbei. By early Tang, all of the Xianbei that did not remain in the steppe have been melted into the Han for several generations.
Similiar 'melting' processes were illustrated centuries later, during the Yuan Dynasty, when Khitans, Jurchens, and some Tanguts living in China Proper melted into the Han (the Mongol rulers also classified any person living north of the Yangtse as Han)
BTW, the term "Chinese" is a relatively modern construct. ------------- AAAAAAAAAA "The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells |
Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 22:39
Sarmat, there are historians who debate that the Tang Dynasty was relatively open to foreign cultures because the Tang royalty was of mixed blood and therefore less xenophobic. So you are not alone. 
------------- AAAAAAAAAA "The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 00:08
According to Sarmat, Tang taizong favored buddhism was somehow attributed to his "Xianbei blood".
But in reality Taizong favored Daoism over Buddhism, rather it was the empress Wu zetian who actually favored Buddhism more than Taizong ever did.
I really dont think Wu zetian favored Buddhism for the reason Sarmat argued for Taizong's favor of Buddhism, that Buddhism is more acceptable to both Chinese and nomadic subjects than Confucianism, so Buddhism served as ideological basis for Tang dynasty(half-Chinese and half nomadic), in short the propagation of Buddhism by Tang dynasty was associated with the incorporation of defeated Turks.
Wu zetian was no less open to Buddhism and foreign culture, and in the case of Buddhism, she was even more "open" than Taizong, how can her behaviour be attributed to the "blood" factor?
There were Xianbei emperor who would also favor native Chinese Daoism over foreign Buddhism, can one then attribute their "Chinese blood" as the factor?
since the Xianbei ruling household Toba clan also claimed they are descended from "the Yellow emperor", whom the Chinese regard as ancestor.
Play the "racial card" is flawed.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 00:19
|
Poirot, your observations of course are valid. But also note that the complete sinicization of Manzhus happened only after Qing dynasty was overthroned. Likewise, it's natural that we can expect Northern Wei and Beizhou retain significant "xianbei traces" in their societies at least as long the dynastes existed. Also, they directly bordered other nomades and intensively interacted with them. As we know in Qing it was quite different since after Mongol and Manzhu lands were effectively incorporated in the empire "Steppe factor" lost its importance and Dongbei was in fact relatively fast overwhelmed with Chinese colonists. On the contrary, during Northern Way and earlier Tang, Nomadic realm was an important center of power which not only was influenced by China, but also in turn influenced China. That's why I think we can logically assume that Xianbi/Nomadic element in Beizhou was much more obvious than for example Manzhu element in Qing and at least the inhabitants of the kingdom did had some specific features which made them distinct from the rest of China which was outside of Nomadic influences. As about the historians you referred to, of course, I know about them and I do support them. Only those obsessed with racism and false claims of ethnic superiority can deny the mixed ethnic origins of Tang emperors and their cosmopolitism. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|