Why didn't late Qing produce any good generals?

stardave said:

Here is something I don't understand, China had heretical rulers for much of it is time, just like in the West, but how it is possible when you are look at Chinese history compare to the West, China often have much more successful society compare to the west. In the West when the ruler screw up, which they often do, the nation/empire breaks up and never gets back together, then it often goes into dark ages, or endless city state feudalism.

But despite the screw up of the Chinese emperors, why is the nation being governed well (by ancient standards), that China didn't face a lot of the bad consequence that the West faced.

Click to expand...

Excellent question! It's difficult to fish out a single cause. It could a combination of multiple factors. First of those would be culture. The Chinese originated in the Yellow river area in the northern China. As they radiated outward, they conquered everything in their path. The first time they had an unified identify was in the Zhou dynasty. Although Chinese legend says there were two more dynasties ahead of Zhou, no physical artifact showing the formation of a unified dynasty has been found before Zhou. Once unified, the Zhou emperor gave lands to the generals who contributed the most in the war. Then he drilled this "emperor being the son of heaven and having the ultimate power" thing into everyone's head. So even in late stages of the Zhou dynasty with all the warlords being almost completely independent, the warlords still saw the powerless and clueless emperor as someone they want to be. All of them dreamed of becoming this ultimate ruler. And this kind of thinking is so strong that all later ambitious people throughout the Chinese history sought e same thing, I.e. the ultimate power to rule everything there was to rule. In this case, that would be the entire China since, to ancient people, China occupied the entire known world. Just like Solarz mentioned, no one was ever satisfied with having only part of it. Even none of had enough strength to destroy e others, they would not stop trying until one of them succeed. Hat is why you get this famous saying:"things wil split when being unified for too long; and things will be unified when being split for too long.". This sense of unity has been drilled into Chinese people's mind so deep that they can't help but try their best to have a unified China. This is not a passive duty thing, but every ambitious Chinese see the unification of China as the ultimate personal glory. Who can resist to be all you can be?

I think this sense of unity trumps any other kinds of factors, such as languages. Each state in the Zhou dynasty had their own language, measurements, currency, etc. yet, they, including the heads of the states thought themselves as the subjects of the Zhou emperor. And each one of them tried tirelessly to become just like the Zhou emperor, instead of being satisfied with simply having an independent state. Many people feel that the Zhou dynasty China was a lot like Europe. I believe this is not true. European nations never had and does not have this overwhelming sense of unity.

---------- Post added at 10:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

In fact if you don't have russia and america, is it really that unfeasible that Hitler may be able to unify all of subcontinent europe, and deal with GB at its leasure?[/QUOTE]

I think Hitler can do it. For all his evilness, he was a very good speaker and motivator. He speaks to the supposedly working class of Germany and Europe. I think most of Eastern and Southern Europe would have follow Hitler to a more Socialist government in one form or another. Great Britain still has a powerful navy and was still a threat to the new rising power that was growing in Europe during the Bolshevik Revolution that gave a voice for the working class.

Equation said:

In fact if you don't have russia and america, is it really that unfeasible that Hitler may be able to unify all of subcontinent europe, and deal with GB at its leasure?

I think Hitler can do it. For all his evilness, he was a very good speaker and motivator. He speaks to the supposedly working class of Germany and Europe. I think most of Eastern and Southern Europe would have follow Hitler to a more Socialist government in one form or another. Great Britain still has a powerful navy and was still a threat to the new rising power that was growing in Europe during the Bolshevik Revolution that gave a voice for the working class.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know. First of all, Europe does not have the kind of unifying culture that China has. The individual identity is simply too strong. Even if Hitler had the kind of military strength to pull Europe into one, it wouldn't be long before they would be split up again. Just look at the former Soviet Union. Many small Eastern European nations were annexed into the union. However, they immediately split up once the central power became too weak to hold them together. A similar thing would happen in Europe even if Hitler could manage to unite Europe. The individual identity of each European nation is too strong to mesh into one. They might not be able to do it while Hitler was alive assuming Hitler would become someone like Stalin. They will attempt to go back their original states when he is dead and a weaker leader took over. And let's face it, having a weak leader on the throne immediately after a dictator is most likely the norm.

Secondly, you got to carry an overly righteous and universal message with you if you want to unify a land. Like the Soviets, they wanted to give the land to the people and to make everyone equal. Let's not discuss how true the message was, you have to admit the message was very attempting to the working class and the poors. This kind of universal message has to apply to various people with all kinds of different cultures in order for it to work. Hitler, however, had a message of giving Germany its glory back and the advancement of the Aryan people. It's a message that only applies to certain people and made people in other nations nervous. It's not universal. That's why hardly anyone followed him and he became the public enemy #1.

Another factor is the abolishing of hereditary feudal positions after the unification of China by Qin empire under Qin Shi Huang. From then on only the position of emperor is hereditary and all local officials were designated by the central government. From then on the only kings and dukes you have are the emperors relatives or very prominent generals, and the title for the later is also non-hereditary.


This means that even if Johnny is selected as a powerful local governor there is little incentive for him to accumulate power because he cannot pass on what he has to his Children after he retires from his post, another unrelated person will be selected to take his position. Whereas in the Zhou dynasty era the Zhou emperor frequently make people who made major contributions to the empires lords and allow them to govern a local area and pass title down to their descendants. Overtime they started to accumulate more and more power for themselves while the centre weakens.

The abolishing of hereditary titles for all but the emperor position also means that when the previous empire is crumbling, the new upstarts either aims to be the new emperor themselves or settle for being one of the underling generals, which will not be hereditary. One cannot hope to be a king or lord of a local area and pass the title down anymore because that option simply isn't there. You either submit and maybe keep your title but unable to pass that on or you get removed, or you try to climb your way to the very top.

The Qin dynasty was short-lived, so when it ended the idea of government appointed bureaucrats was still not firm in people's minds. The first emperor of Han once mulled about returning to appointing feudal lords to help rule his empire, but his wise adviser make his cancel that idea. Even then you still see some of the famous generals who fought with him being given title of kings, though most of them were eventually disposed off by the emperor who feels threatened. And then during the next 400 odd years that Han dynasty exists the idea is drilled into everyone's head that there should only be one ruler under heaven + Confucius ideas. You can even see that a lot of famous generals under Han Wu di are somewhat related to the imperial family in a effect to not have too much military power concentrated in the hand of 'outsiders'.

no_name said:

The Qin dynasty was short-lived, so when it ended the idea of government appointed bureaucrats was still not firm in people's minds. The first emperor of Han once mulled about returning to appointing feudal lords to help rule his empire, but his wise adviser make his cancel that idea. Even then you still see some of the famous generals who fought with him being given title of kings, though most of them were eventually disposed off by the emperor who feels threatened

Click to expand...

Yep. Even with that, he gave too many titles and lordship to his brothers and cousin. It took his great grandson (Jing Emperor) and great great grandson (The Martial Emperor) a long time and so much trouble to eliminate their uncles and cousins who were simply given too much power. Thus the infamous seven King rebellion and the eight-King rebellion. It almost caused the Martial Emperor his throne.

no_name said:

And then during the next 400 odd years that Han dynasty exists the idea is drilled into everyone's head that there should only be one ruler under heaven + Confucius ideas. You can even see that a lot of famous generals under Han Wu di are somewhat related to the imperial family in a effect to not have too much military power concentrated in the hand of 'outsiders'.

Click to expand...

That's why Li Guang, who was not related to the Martial Emperor in any way, could never get the proper titles that he deserved. He was the main reason that Xiong Nu was kept at bay for the most part until Wei Qing and Huo Qubing took over. Yet, many of his subordinates obtained titles and became his superior.