The much maligned Qing Dynasty

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,487
Yes, the quote from Yuan Shi was only for Samarqand's submission of households registry and Yuan Dynasty's sending off tax collectors.

Most of the info in my post was translated from "陳高華說元朝" (Chen Kao Hua talks about the Yuan Dynasty) published in 2009. He is a retired professor of history who centred his research mainly on Yuan Dynasty and became one of the experts in that field. He was a member of an editorial board of U.N. for "The Civilization History of Central Asia". He was also used to be the president of the Chinese research society for Yuan dynasty history.中國元史硏究會

Ok, I see it. "命雪尼台铁木察使薛迷思干部。己未,升中政院秩从一品。辛酉,遣人使诸王察八儿、宽阇所。壬戌,太尉脱脱奏:“泉州大商合只铁即剌进异木沉檀可构宫室者。”敕江浙行省驿致之。癸亥,万户也列门合散来自薛迷思干等城,进呈太祖时所造户口青册,赐银钞币帛有差。"

"ordered Xuenitai tiemucha to be an envoy to Samarkand. ...in the year of Guihai, the head of the tumen, yeliemenhesan came from Samarqand, and presented the registry made during the time of Taizu (Chinggis)."

“薛迷思干、塔剌思、塔失玄等城,三年民赋以输县官。今因薛尼台铁木察往彼,宜令以二年之赋与宽阇,给与元输之人,以一年者上进。”

"Samarqand, Talas, Tashkend etc pays tax to the county officials every three years. Now, because Xuenitai tiemucha went there, they ordered Konchek (Khan of Chagatai, son of Duwa) to keep two years of that and give it to the collectors, and one year of that to present up (to the court at Beijing)."


The Yuan seem to have regained the ability to tax cities in the Chagatai Khanate such as Samarqand since Duwa's submission in 1304, albeit only a third of it, whereas Chagatai khans could also collect their tax in their fiefs in northern China.
 
Last edited:

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,745
Florania
Ok, I see it. "命雪尼台铁木察使薛迷思干部。己未,升中政院秩从一品。辛酉,遣人使诸王察八儿、宽阇所。壬戌,太尉脱脱奏:“泉州大商合只铁即剌进异木沉檀可构宫室者。”敕江浙行省驿致之。癸亥,万户也列门合散来自薛迷思干等城,进呈太祖时所造户口青册,赐银钞币帛有差。"

"ordered Xuenitai tiemucha to be an envoy to Samarkand. ...in the year of Guihai, the head of the tumen, yeliemenhesan came from Samarqand, and presented the registry made during the time of Taizu (Chinggis)."

“薛迷思干、塔剌思、塔失玄等城,三年民赋以输县官。今因薛尼台铁木察往彼,宜令以二年之赋与宽阇,给与元输之人,以一年者上进。”

"Samarqand, Talas, Tashkend etc pays tax to the county officials every three years. Now, because Xuenitai tiemucha went there, they ordered Konchek (Khan of Chagatai, son of Duwa) to keep two years of that and give it to the collectors, and one year of that to present up (to the court at Beijing)."


The Yuan seem to have regained the ability to tax cities in the Chagatai Khanate such as Samarqand since Duwa's submission in 1304, albeit only a third of it, whereas Chagatai khans could also collect their tax in their fiefs in northern China.
Consequently, the power of Yuan covered even the Khanates?
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,487
Only nominally, and the ritual observation of paying tax and collecting tax from fiefs remained. The Yuan had no ability to call uon soldiers from these khanates, which were constantly at war with each other, and also with the Yuan even after submission.
 
Aug 2016
45
Byzantine Empire
The Qing Dynasty had merits. One of the most important was the fact that it placed Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria firmly under Chinese control, so when the Qing fell the RoC inherited those areas. I doubt that without Qing modern China would be able to have control over those areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: songtsen

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,745
Florania
The Qing Dynasty had merits. One of the most important was the fact that it placed Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria firmly under Chinese control, so when the Qing fell the RoC inherited those areas. I doubt that without Qing modern China would be able to have control over those areas.
Most have given credits for the much extended territory of China by the Qing Dynasty; on the other hand, many have bashed the Qing Dynasty for restricting technological and industrial developments in China.
We have discussed extensively over the status of Tibet, but the consent is that Tibet was largely a fragmented area with local authorities from 1911 to 1960s.I
I hope this is not against the rule, but politics has impacted the writing of history, and we usually cannot see "the way it really was".
 
Jul 2014
1,646
world
Most have given credits for the much extended territory of China by the Qing Dynasty; on the other hand, many have bashed the Qing Dynasty for restricting technological and industrial developments in China.
We have discussed extensively over the status of Tibet, but the consent is that Tibet was largely a fragmented area with local authorities from 1911 to 1960s.I
I hope this is not against the rule, but politics has impacted the writing of history, and we usually cannot see "the way it really was".
Tibet was largely fragmented since the fall of phagmogdru and it got worse after oirat/zhungar invasions. It was three hundred years of constant civil wars with regular invasions from oirat, zhungars, Qing, Ladakh and Nepal. Even the Sikhs invaded. :cool: the period from 1911 to late 1950s was actually the most peaceful era in many centuries with very few mass murders and wars. The period 1959-1976 was again a violent one with many entities fighting. The period after 1976 can be called the golden era and I mean it without sarcasm.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,745
Florania
Even the connection between Manchus and Jurchens is debatable.
Some argue that Jurchens were culturally defunct by the end of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty; Manchus as a group is a hunter-gatherer Tungusic people.
The "myth" is to get the cultural identity of the Manchus....
Even the name Nurhaci has two interpretations:
The most popular one is "wild boar hide"; the other one is "Holy Offspring of the Light" (which sounds Zoroastrianism to me.)
"The wild boar hide" interpretation is by far more popular.
Some may compare unfavourably between Emperor Kangxi and Catherine II; then, these were two very different countries!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RidiculousName
Sep 2016
611
天下
Even the connection between Manchus and Jurchens is debatable.
Some argue that Jurchens were culturally defunct by the end of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty; Manchus as a group is a hunter-gatherer Tungusic people.
The "myth" is to get the cultural identity of the Manchus....
Who's arguing that?
And who are the Manchus according to you? Because Manchu as an ethnic name doesn't appear unil 16th century. Before that they are called either Jurchens or tribal name is used. Also, that they were not hunter-gatherers, but practiced agriculture is confirmed by the accounts from the period.
In early years of Ming era translators at the court were knowledgable in Jurchen small script and all communication between Jurchen tribes and Ming court was done in it (though ironically without indigenous state apparatus promoting the script, Jurchens soon lost the ability to write and understand it). In Ming era among the tribes of Jianzhou there was present also tribe Wanggiya (完颜), which was the tribe of Aguda, the founder of Jin.

Likewise the link between Jurchen and Manchu languages is quite obvious, both languages being quite set apart from other Tungusic languages. Although possibly Manchu evolved not precisely from the main dialect of Jin Jurchens (dialectal differences are visible also in the extant materials of Ming Bureaus of Translators and Interpretators).
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,509
Tibet was largely fragmented since the fall of phagmogdru and it got worse after oirat/zhungar invasions. It was three hundred years of constant civil wars with regular invasions from oirat, zhungars, Qing, Ladakh and Nepal. Even the Sikhs invaded. :cool: the period from 1911 to late 1950s was actually the most peaceful era in many centuries with very few mass murders and wars. The period 1959-1976 was again a violent one with many entities fighting. The period after 1976 can be called the golden era and I mean it without sarcasm.
Was 1911-1958 peaceful? What about the Japanese invasion and civil war? 1927-1950 seems more like a warring states period.
 
Jul 2014
1,646
world
Was 1911-1958 peaceful? What about the Japanese invasion and civil war? 1927-1950 seems more like a warring states period.
You are correct.I should have said Tibet was relatively more peaceful than the 19th century.

In 1911-1950 Tibet/Sichuan/Qinghai wars, Golok rebellion, khampa rebellion and lastly PLA were the major challenged Lhasa government had to face.

Still Relatively more peaceful than the era preceding it.