Did dynastic China invade and expand?

[Ian_Lee]

Holyman:

Judged by the fact that Shamanism is still very prevalent in Korea, most likely Koreans belong to one of the tribes that had wandered around in Siberia (where shamanism is popular among all nomadic tribes) before they went south to settle down in the Korean pesinsula.

But of course history is not static. Population influx into the peninsula from China had been frequent. As I previously stated, Koreans' ancestors might have strong Shang blood since both Shang and Koreans liked white clothes.

Moreover, the first kingdom on the peninsula was set up by Wi Mun, a Yin refugee of the warring states period who set up the kingdom of Choson on the peninsula. And the wars first fought with China was between Han and Choson -- a Chinese kingdom and another Chinese kingdom set up on the peninsula by Chinese refugees.

Afterwards, when Korean tribes were sinicized enough to know to set up their first kingdom -- Koguryo -- then it was Koguryo which invaded Han rather than the other way around.

Moreover, throughout the history of China (with Han-dominated regime) and Korea, their borders were only contagious for 4 times -- Han, Sui/Tang, Ming and PRC.

During Han period, the invasion were both ways. During Sui/Tang, Korea was first invaded but later Silla invited Tang to help her unify the peninsua. But in Ming period, Korea could keep its independence from Japan solely on Ming's assistance.

The other invasions you referred to were all staged from the nomadic kingdoms set up in Northern China by Hsiung Nu, Xianbe, Mongol, Jurchen, Manchu,....etc.

But you all included in China's account.

[Ian_Lee]

Holyman:

Moreover, the analogy between Native Americans and Koreans is basically wrong.

Native Americans has been diminished to a small percentage of their original population and are confined to certain desolate land.

But Korean population amounts to about 60-70 million (north + south) nowadays and they rule their own land. Even during the period under direct Chinese rule, i.e. the 4 counties period during Han era, no historical records even those written by Koreans have ever indicated that their native population has ever diminished.

[Ian_Lee]

Regarding General Tso, I don't doubt that he was brutal judged from his previous encounter with the Taipings.

However, I seriously doubt the 1 million figure you quoted since there could hardly be any scientific survey in that remote area during that period.

But may I ask you which war waged in the 19th century was not brutal?

The casualty of American civil war in 1860s was 650,000 - 700,000 which was more than any war US has ever fought. So do you mean President Lincoln was brutal?

Decades after the war, the southerners still harbored resentment towards the Yankees too.

But the resentment you mention nowadays is probably more due to the cultural and religious insensitivity Hans behave in Xinjiang nowadays.

[Guest cctang]

Agree with Ian. The native American population in the United States is estimated to have lost 97% of its population by the start of the 1900s. That's a number beyond belief.

In contrast, the worst allegations of "genocide" that have been aimed at the Chinese in the case of Xinjiang is simply that the racial balance in the territory is no longer what it used to be. The Uyghur population has grown far faster than the Han population over the past 5 decades. I believe that the Turks (from which the Uyghurs claim their heritage) didn't originate in Xinjiang either, but are actually invaders/migrants from what is today northeastern Mongolia who settled in the area in the 9th century.

[holyman]

Regarding General Tso' date=' I don't doubt that he was brutal judged from his previous encounter with the Taipings.

However, I seriously doubt the 1 million figure you quoted since there could hardly be any scientific survey in that remote area during that period.

But may I ask you which war waged in the 19th century was not brutal?

The casualty of American civil war in 1860s was 650,000 - 700,000 which was more than any war US has ever fought. So do you mean President Lincoln was brutal?

Decades after the war, the southerners still harbored resentment towards the Yankees too.

But the resentment you mention nowadays is probably more due to the cultural and religious insensitivity Hans behave in Xinjiang nowadays.[/quote']

ah ha, when it comes to the darker side ppl try to reject. u can check the war records, war diaries from both sides and reports to the qing emperor by tso or other generals on those wars. i would say a million is the base number. but of course, the real thing is, probably not all killed are rebels or muslims. commoners, non involving parties were also killed to gain recognition from the court. but in official records those killed were all 'rebels'.

the question here is not who is the bad guy, the westerners or americans are worst or whatever. it is whether the chinese, or ppl of the central plains, did or didnt actively expand and conquer surrounding areas thruout history. i think the answer is a yes. regarding how bad it was done, as u said, no scientific method at that time so we never knew, and since chinese history is so long, the real story probably didnt live long enough for present people to read about. but sometimes, we can still catch glimses of them if we read the history books carefully.

maybe my analogy using the native americans is not very relevant. but the question remains: who lived in the korean peninsular? chinese or koreans? same thing, who originally lived in vietnam, canton, yunnan, xinjiang, fujian or sichuan? maybe these natives didnt have a national identity at that time(well some did have) but that doesnt mean that the people of the central plains didnt conquer, expand or invade, or these actions can be counted as non-existance. in fact, people of the central plains were also once tribal people like these minorities, huns or mongols. its just that they decided to stick together and form a new state, then they go on to brand the rest around them as barbarians and attacking these barbarians becomes legitimate, like the 'minister of beiyang' mentioned.

[holyman]

But of course history is not static. Population influx into the peninsula from China had been frequent. As I previously stated, Koreans' ancestors might have strong Shang blood since both Shang and Koreans liked white clothes.

hahaha, what makes u think koreans ancestors have shang blood and not the other way round? like shang ancestors have korean blood since they also preferred white clothings? there are no official conclusion on that so far, so i think its not fair to say such things. the koreans admitted they are the descendants of dongyi, a collective name for some tribes living along the coast from zhejiang to the korean peninsular, using phoenix as their totem. and we knew that houyi, the husband of the legendary chang e( the fairy in the moon), is one dongyi leader. he took over the throne of xia dynasty but was eventually defeated. so who's related to who is still an unanswered question.

[Ian_Lee]

Holyman:

I am afraid your hypothesis that the Chinese (I guess you refer to the ethnic Han) has a tendancy to expand and conquer surrouding areas throughout history is unsubstantiated.

Just look back at history.

Only in four dynasties did China's territory expand far beyond the China Proper -- the 18 provinces basically populated by the Han population:

(1) Han -- Han expanded into the current day Xinjiang area. No doubt about it. But historical records indicated clearly that from the first day of its empire, the fierce northern tribe -- Xiong Xu -- had been attacking Chinese territory. The first emperor -- Liu Bang -- was besieged by Xiong Nu and could barely escape with a few of his close aides. Afterwards, the subsequent Han emperors kept sending princesses to appease the tribal cheiftains of Xiong Nu. Only until the reign of the 4th Han emperor did he try to unbridle the hurdle posed by Xiong Nu.

(2) During the subsequent 1,000 years, Han-based regimes did not expand. Only in Tang dynasty that was set up in the 7th Century did Tang expand westward again. But the tide was turned back after the decisive battle of Tata in 751 A.D., where Tang army was defeated by the Arab/Uygur joint army.

(3) In Yuan Dynasty of the 12th Century, China did expand again in all directions. No doubt.

(4) In Qing Dynasty, the empire expanded again in the 17th Century and 18th Century. No doubt.

So did Chinese have a tendancy to expand and conquer the surrouding area? Let's count.

Han's expansion was a response to invasion. The expansion of Tang, Yuan and Qing were valid. But the Yuan Royal Family were Mongols while the Manchu Royal Family were Manchus (and even the Tang Royal Family had Turkic blood).

So basically China had not expanded at all. Of course, if you count the Mongols and Manchus as Chinese at the time they set up their empires, then your allegation may be right.

On the other hand, many parts of the China Proper had been fallen under governance under the surrounding nomadic tribes like Xiong Nu, Xianbe, Khitan, Jurchen, Tibetans, Mongols, Manchus for millenium.

[Ian_Lee]

Holyman:

Can you cite some credible sources on the casualty of General Tso's military campaign in the 1880s?

Since I am not as well-read as you are, so far I haven't browsed any war diaries or Qing court reports that quoted 1 million casualty figure as you mentioned.

Regarding Koreans may be Shang's ancestors, there might be such probability.

Hmmm.....such probability looks like bigger than Tangun was really the son of a bear.

[Guest gng]

So basically China had not expanded at all. Of course, if you count the Mongols and Manchus as Chinese at the time they set up their empires, then your allegation may be right.

I'm not so sure about this. I know one period of aggression by China that you left out were the military expeditions into Mongolia and Vietnam to annex land by the Ming emperors Hongwu and Yongle (including an infamous campaign Yongle himself led against the Mongols, in which he razed the city of Ulaanbaatar, killing all inhabitants including women and children in retribution for the years of Mongol occupation). And I'm sure you're leaving out the numerous times throughout history China has conquered parts of or all of Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, and the northwest. Our people are not entirely free from guilt when it comes to oppression and injustice.

[holyman]

Hmmm.....such probability looks like bigger than Tangun was really the son of a bear.

do not forget that the totem for the 'supposedly' first emperor of china, huangdi, or yellow emperor, is the bear. the clan which the yellow emperor came from is called 有熊氏(you'xiong shi). maybe they did came from the same clan?

Can you cite some credible sources on the casualty of General Tso's military campaign in the 1880s?

Since I am not as well-read as you are, so far I haven't browsed any war diaries or Qing court reports that quoted 1 million casualty figure as you mentioned.

hmm... that would be a little difficult cos i came across those like 9 years back while i was in some old liu'li chang bookshop. thats the first time tso's name registered into my head cos i only briefly learned about him when i studied the opium war in high school. all those on qing expansion campaigns, like '平定大小金川攻略' plus some others on xinjiang, tibet areas etc, about 9 or 10 altogether. cant remember the names properly. u wouldnt expect me to buy those books would u? that place had change a lot now but i think i'll inform u if i get my hands on any one of those.

[holyman]

Holyman:

I am afraid your hypothesis that the Chinese (I guess you refer to the ethnic Han) has a tendancy to expand and conquer surrouding areas throughout history is unsubstantiated.

Just look back at history.

Only in four dynasties did China's territory expand far beyond the China Proper -- the 18 provinces basically populated by the Han population:

........

So did Chinese have a tendancy to expand and conquer the surrouding area? Let's count.

Han's expansion was a response to invasion. The expansion of Tang' date=' Yuan and Qing were valid. But the Yuan Royal Family were Mongols while the Manchu Royal Family were Manchus (and even the Tang Royal Family had Turkic blood).

So basically China had not expanded at all. Of course, if you count the Mongols and Manchus as Chinese at the time they set up their empires, then your allegation may be right.

On the other hand, many parts of the China Proper had been fallen under governance under the surrounding nomadic tribes like Xiong Nu, Xianbe, Khitan, Jurchen, Tibetans, Mongols, Manchus for millenium.[/quote']

lets say we count the history of china as a unified nation from qin dynasty(think most ppl can agree on this, right?), some 22 centuries ago, here are some simple questions, was canton part of china? not before that. qin invaded canton, guangxi and northern vietnam, subdued the locals and set up 3 prefectures, hai'nan, gui'lin and xiang'jun i think. present panyu in canton, present hanoi in vietnam were where the qin governors' offices situated(i forgot where the gui'lin one was). tell me what is this? then in han dynasty, becos of the huns in the middle of the silk route, the han emperors sent scouts and envoys to find a new road to trade with the west and enroute the huns from behind. one of the scouts/envoys came to yunnan and found products of sichuan sold there, and he indeed found a new route. the leader of the strongest state in yunnan was the king of ye'lang. he never heard of the han emperor so he curiously asked the envoy: how big is the land of han empire? is it bigger than the land i rule? the idiom 'ye'lang thinks greatly of himself'(夜郎自大), meaning 'someone who thinks too highly of himself', came from this story. then when did ye'lang or the rest of yunnan became part of china?

then the 3 kingdoms, the queen of yamato was given a seal from cao'cao to recognise her legitimacy, great, now chinese influence spread to japan. during the north and south dynasties, the minorities attacked and conquered northern china for 3 centuries. then in sui dynasty, china was again in the hands of the people of the central plains. the second emperor of sui, sui yangdi, attacked the korean peninsular to change the focus of the commoners from domestic problems to war. tang taizong, the second emperor of tang also attacked the korean peninsular. too bad both were defeated. song dynasty was pretty weak so not much was done. then in yuan dynasty, the mongols attacked vietnam, japan, yunnan, tibet, qinghai, some are successful, others are not. if u considered yuan or qing rulers not part of china, then do u mean chinese line of dynasties were actually broken twice, in contrary to what the common chinese history books always claimed, the chinese civilisation were the only one not conquered by others? during ming dynasty, the mongols fled toward the north and broke into 2 or 3 clans. what ming chengzu(or emperor yong'le) did was already illustrated above. the reason why he chose beijing as the capital was becos he had the idea of conquering mongolia and beijing is nearer to the front(of course the other reason was that beijing was his fief before he became emperor. he had no connections in the original capital of nanking). later on vietnam try to gain independence but ming dynasty sent a 700 000 army(dunno how accurate, but according to history books) to crush them. the ming army was defeat and vietnam got freed.

if u check the geographical notes(地理志) on all history records and compare them dynasty to dynasty, u will find those surrounding countries/states, like those mentioned in sima qian's 'historical records', were basically gone in ming dynasty. they got lesser and lesser as time goes by. where did they go? how their land end up in the hands of the chinese? or they surrendered willingly?

[Quest]

Was the Vietnam defeat a naval defeat? The Vietnamese set up blades under water around their coasts, and the blades sank the invading Chinese fleets.

[holyman]

i heard some said so. me wasnt specifically well-informed on that part.

[holyman]

maybe Ian should think why the great wall was there. how come its now located in the middle of the present china?

[Guest Emerald Eye]

holyman are you anti-Chinese or something? Ask yourself if the white-man was so "holy", just look at the graves of the 50 million natives killed in North and South-America.

[holyman]

holyman are you anti-Chinese or something? Ask yourself if the white-man was so "holy", just look at the graves of the 50 million natives killed in North and South-America.

u should read before u post, and read well. did i mention anything about westerners being 'holy'? ur forum ethics was that of some typical mainland chinese, picking on the nicks of other forumers, making personal attacks when u cant debate or discuss, and i have seen enough of ur type in many chinese forums. werent the part in chinese history i mentioned facts? arent they written down in black and white in chinese history books? can u deny those events i mentioned, and say that they never ever happened? if so, please answer the questions:

how did ye'lang disappeared and how yunnan came under chinese rule?

how did canton, vietnam and guangxi came under chinese rule?

did the queen of yamato recieved a bronze seal bearing '倭奴王印'?

did vietnam fought for its independence from ming china?

where are all the minor states which once surrounded the central plains?

did sui yangdi or tang taizong attacked the korean peninsular?

did ming chengzu attacked the mongols?

did the qing empire conquered outer mongolia and xinjiang?

why is the greatwall situated in the middle of present china?

isnt the greatwall suppose to be the boundaries of the central plain and the barbarians?

if the chinese/people of the central plains didnt want to or didnt really conquer extra lands, arent they suppose to be bounded within the greatwall?

if picking out certain facts from chinese history books can be called 'anti-chinese', i wonder if u should learn ur chinese history from western authors.

[yan]

I'm not so sure about this. I know one period of aggression by China that you left out were the military expeditions into Mongolia and Vietnam to annex land by the Ming emperors Hongwu and Yongle (including an infamous campaign Yongle himself led against the Mongols, in which he razed the city of Ulaanbaatar, killing all inhabitants including women and children in retribution for the years of Mongol occupation).

I think you don't mean Ulaanbaatar, but Kharkhorin, which was the ancient capital of Mongolia. I think Ulaanbaatar was only founded in the 17th or 18th century (and was named Ulaanbaatar only after 1921)

Holyman:

did the qing empire conquered outer mongolia and xinjiang?

I think the story with Outer Mongolia was that there were conflicts between Western Mongols (who have almost disappeared today, save for the Kalmyks on the Caspian Sea) and Eastern Mongols (who are now the dominant people in Outer Mongolia). The Eastern Mongols were on the verge of defeat, and their only choice was to be defeated and driven off their lands, or submit to the Mandzhu and receive help from them. They chose the latter.

[holyman]

Holyman:

Can you cite some credible sources on the casualty of General Tso's military campaign in the 1880s?

ok, i think u can check the book "hui'min qi'yi"(回民起义, muslim uprisings) by present chinese historian bai shouyi(白寿彝. i think he was the chief editor for mutiple volume 中国通史). he calculated the death toll for muslim uprisings was 5mil in yunnan, probably includes non muslim casualties and non cambatant casualties. as for the uprisings in shann'xi and gan'su(where muslims were most concentrated) which led to tso's campaign into xinjiang, the muslims rebels were under tso's attacks for 12 bloody years. the casualties are said to be even higher. more than 1000 muslim mosques in these 2 provinces were elminated after tso's suppression and muslims survivers are said to be 1 out of 10 of the original population. 100 000 or so muslims escaped and migrated into asia minor and eastern europe. so, higher than 5 mil, say maybe 5.01 mil, is much higher than i quoted, isnt it? this is probably the offical record the present chinese govt agreed to, thou not mentioned in most books.

[holyman]

I think the story with Outer Mongolia was that there were conflicts between Western Mongols (who have almost disappeared today' date=' save for the Kalmyks on the Caspian Sea) and Eastern Mongols (who are now the dominant people in Outer Mongolia). The Eastern Mongols were on the verge of defeat, and their only choice was to be defeated and driven off their lands, or submit to the Mandzhu and receive help from them. They chose the latter.[/quote']

u mean the conflicts btw the oirad mongols and khalkha mongols. the khalkha mongols got help from manchurian govt and crushed the oirad mongols.

[Ian_Lee]

Holyman:

I think before furthering our discussion, we have to define what the term "invasion" means.

How I define "invasion" is that one well-defined society (i.e. country or nation) capture/conquer the other well-defined society by force and subject their people to secondary treatment.

But the way you define "invasion" is that whenever a group of people ventures out and inhabits another area, then that is invasion.

Per your definition, then probably none of the world's 200+ countries has not committed any kind of "invasion".

Also per your definition, then all Chinese should probably stay within the 50-miles radius of the Wei River valley at Yellow Emperor's Time.

Take the example that you cite about Qin Dynasty establishing county in present-day Guangdong. That could hardly be called as "invasion" since basically by that time (2,200 years ago), Guangdong was "No-Man's Land" with the exception of some aborgines living in Stone age style living. The expansion of Qin into this area might most likely result in the "crowding out" effect which forced those aborgines to less arable land or into the mountains.

But that was not "invasion".

Regarding the conquests of Mongol and Manchu Dynasties, I agree with what you said that those were "invasions". But Han Chinese, especially the southerner, were ranked the 4th among all people during Yuan's time. They were also victims as the other conquered people were under Mongols' brutal rule. So why did you blame the victims on the sufferings of other people?

For Qing dynasty, the same kind of conquest was staged by a non-Han group. In fact, before 1870, ethnic Han were forbidden to enter all other areas under the Qing Empire -- Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet, Northern and Southern Routes of Tien Shan. Trespassers might risk the fate of beheading.

So why did you blame what Manchu did on Han's account?