Do you think Wu Sangui is a traitor for Han Chinese?

Originally Posted by rhino123

From your rationing, almost all of the emperor who actually started a new dynasty is a traitor. Even the first emperor of Tang dynasty, Zhou Dynasty, etc. All of them are subjects to the previous dynasty, but they overthrow their previous dynasty to become the emperor themselves (all except for the Yuan Emperor).

Plus when Li Zhicheng took over the capital, Ming Dynasty had failed to exist. it is officially gone. So Wu Sangui was no longer a Ming General.

Like I said before, normal rebellion is a domestic issue, Chinese vs. Chinese. So there should not be a talk of traitors in this case. However, in Wu's case, he defected to a foreign power and helped the foreign power kill his own countrymen. THAT is treason. No doubt about that!

If it was a civilian who did this, well, we have to be careful about how to define this person because civilians never formally swear loyalty to the nation, at least not in ancient times. So if civilians do this, we usually cut them some slack. But Wu was a general, which means he swore that he would defend his country against its enemy at all cost. Many have indeed paid the price and died while defending their country. Why in the world should Wu be excused for surrendering to his enemy for fear of death? A soldier is prepared to die for his country. This is a common knowledge. Of course, many do surrender in difficult situations, and we can't blame them. However, joining your enemy and helping the foreign power kill his own countrymen for his own ambition and glory? This is NOT acceptable in any country, at any time, under any circumstances. This, for a military personnel, is treason at the highest order.

Originally Posted by rhino123

Okay. You might be right in saying Wu Sangui is a traitor... but definitely not to the Han Chinese, rather he is a traitor to the Ming Dynasty, although the question still remains that the Ming Dynasty had already fallen to Li Zhicheng and so Ming is actually not existing. Although one may argue that there are still a number of would be king for the Ming, but are they real princes?

Huh? I think you got it backward. He's not a traitor to the Ming dynasty since Ming was gone at the time. But he's a traitor to China since Manchu at the time was considered a foreign country. Manchurian also considered themselves as an independent entity. They officially declared the formation of Late Jin empire. before invading China. That made them a foreign country. So it was Manchu vs. China. He defected to Manchu and helped them attack China. That made him a traitor to China and Chinese people, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by rhino123

If you look at late Ming era, you would see that the corruption and decays are so great that actually it is better for the dynasty to just fade off. Early Qing and their rulers are more benevolent and the people are better off. So in this sense you couldn't say that Wu Sangui is a traitor to the Han-chinese.

Just because he defected to a good foreign power, it does not mean he did not defect! He still betrayed China and allowed China to fall into foreign hand, albeit a better hand than Ming. That does not change the fact that Wu defected to a foreign country and helped them kill his own countrymen.

Also, Let's not forget the ten days of massacre in Yangzhou and the 3 slaughtering in Jiading.

Also because Manchurian feared Chinese rebellion so much that theyd ecied to bann all forms of manufacturing and invention that was military and weapon related. That was one of the main causes for China's set-back in technological advancement.

Originally Posted by rhino123

Please also note that even Sun Zhongshan also engaged foreign help in some point of his life to battle and overthrow the Qing Dynasty in the early 19th centuries.

Sun might've got help from other countries, but he never allowed any foreign troops to enter Chinese territory. There is a BIG difference between the two cases. Also, the help from foreign power that Sun got was minimal. He mainly depended on Yuan Shikai who kicked Sun out once Qing was destroyed and declared to become an emperor.

Only the eight nation coalition forces managed to do that in 1900.. Forcing CiXi to flee from the capital.

Wasn't Beijing sacked during the 2nd Opium War (Arrow War) in 1860 by a French-British force as well?

Huh, I could've sworn I read that the Taiping rebellion took Beijing for a short time. Maybe I'm mixing it up with another peasant rebellion? I'm sure there was one that breached the forbidden city.

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

Wasn't Beijing sacked during the 2nd Opium War (Arrow War) in 1860 by a French-British force as well?

yes, you are right. 1860, French-British first time took Beijing,Emperor Xianfeng咸丰 fled to Rehe province, British and French troops burned down the Yuanmingyuan.圆明园
the second time,in 1900, Eight-power nations took Beijing, the Empress Dowager Cixi and Emperor Kuang Hsu fled to Xi'an.

Huh, I could've sworn I read that the Taiping rebellion took Beijing for a short time. Maybe I'm mixing it up with another peasant rebellion? I'm sure there was one that breached the forbidden city.

Taiping rebels never occupied any north area of the Yangtze River in China, they have been fighting in the north of the Yangtze River, but they quickly defeated.they only took Nanjing.
in Ming dynasty LeeZicheng rebel did take Beijing,Led Wu Sangui Cited Qing army into Shanhaiguan.

Originally Posted by solarz

Huh, I could've sworn I read that the Taiping rebellion took Beijing for a short time. Maybe I'm mixing it up with another peasant rebellion? I'm sure there was one that breached the forbidden city.

I think in early Qing dynasty, a mini peasant rebellion attacked and got into the Forbidden city while the emperor was away. I don't remember which emperor it was, possibly Yongyan, the son of Qianlong.

Originally Posted by vesicles

I think in early Qing dynasty, a mini peasant rebellion attacked and got into the Forbidden city while the emperor was away. I don't remember which emperor it was, possibly Yongyan, the son of Qianlong.

Isn't the son of Qianlong, Jiajing?

Originally Posted by solarz

Isn't the son of Qianlong, Jiajing?

Yep, that might be it. JiaQing is his title while Yongyan is his actual name. Like Qianlong is the title and his actual name is Hongli.

I have to agree with everyone statements about him being a traitor to Ming and Han Chinese. What Wu Sangui intended did not change the facts of what happened because of his actions. After the Qing took over the educated and elites were killed and Han Chinese lorded by Manchu 'barbarians' and Han were forced to submit or die. Making the Han Chinese to wear ridiculous queue (chinese pigtails) as a sign of submission to the Manchu ruler.

However you cannot say he's a traitor to China. Had he failed to overthrow the Ming he would indeed be a traitor to China, however he didn't instead China became Qing and no longer Han ruled. As China persisted as a nation and I would argue that any Manchu is just as a much Chinese as any Han, ultimately he's not a traitor say for maybe ethnic feelings.

Originally Posted by In4ser

However you cannot say he's a traitor to China. Had he failed to overthrow the Ming he would indeed be a traitor to China, however he didn't instead China became Qing and no longer Han ruled. As China persisted as a nation and I would argue that any Manchu is just as a much Chinese as any Han, ultimately he's not a traitor say for maybe ethnic feelings.

What kind of logic is this? the Matter is NOT who ruled China. There had been many minority rulers in China. Li shimin of Tang dynasty was NOT Han Chinese. Even the first emperor of China, Shi Huang Di, was not "Han" in the pure sense of the word. His ancestor was actually a barbarian tribe in the northwest. What is the key here is the national sovereignty.

AT THE TIME, Manchu and China were two separate countries!!! They were separated by the Shanhai Pass. Everyone who had fought them had been called national heroes in China. If you believe that Wu defected to Manchu, which WAS called Late Jin empire at the time, then he was a traitor to China. Yes, Manchurians are part of China NOW, but at the time when Wu made the decision to align with the Manchus, he was defecting to a separate nation. I don't think anyone at the time actually thought Manchu was part of China BEFORE THE INVASION, including Manchurians themselves. Actually, they might think it was an insult.

The fact that China persisted was not because Manchurian occupation was a domestic issue, but it came out of pragmatism. Manchurian, many fo whom wanted to kill off all Chinese and establish a pure Manchurian nation, found out that it was impossible to do it. And they didn't want to be the second Mongolian empire that was kicked out after only 100 years. So they decided to learn the Chinese way. So in a sense, Manchurians were been assimilated. So China survived NOT because Manchurians and Chinese were one, but because Manchurians decided to become Chinese, in a way. They COULD do what normal occupation forces do, force the local Chinese to learn the Manchurian language, Manchurian customs and culture and have Manchurian names and all. If they did these, Chinese culture would be seriously damaged. They simply didn't do that. But this does not change the fact that they COULD do it and that it was a foreign invasion, not matter what of the outcome is.

We cannot judge the motive of someone's action by looking at what's happened 300 years after the fact. Yes, China includes Manchurians and Han and many others NOW, but that should not change the fact that they were separate nations before. I am going to say this one more time. Manchu, or the Late Jin Empire, was a separate nation from China, which was in domestic conflict at the time. Yes,China at the time did not have an official govn't, but that does not mean that China has also lost its sovereignty. China was still a sovereign and independent nation albeit in domestic conflict. The Manchus wisely took advantage of the domestic conflict and successfully occupied China. After that, they decided to learn the Chinese way and sort of give up their own culture. Eventually, all become Chinese. If you agree with me on this chain of events, then Wu who helped the Manchurians in their conquest of China was a traitor to China.

I agree with everything you say except for the last statement that he was traitor to China. During the time the Manchus invaded they were indeed outsiders invading the sovereign country of China. However that ceased to be the case as the Machus became the rulers of the sovereignty. History is written by the victors, so for Qing dynasty which came to power because of Wu Sangui's actions did not make him a traitor. As the Qing dynasty is offically recognized a Chinese dynasty it could not make him a traitor, just an agent for one dynasty against the other even if that was unintentional.

Its history because it happened in the past, not the present. You would be right if it happened a different way but not that it could have. So therefore It does not matter what the motive or the intention but how rather it effected the present is what is important.

Originally Posted by In4ser

I agree with everything you say except for the last statement that he was traitor to China. During the time the Manchus invaded they were indeed outsiders invading the sovereign country of China. However that ceased to be the case as the Machus became the rulers of the sovereignty. History is written by the victors, so for Qing dynasty which came to power because of Wu Sangui's actions did not make him a traitor. As the Qing dynasty is offically recognized a Chinese dynasty it could not make him a traitor, just an agent for one dynasty against the other even if that was unintentional.

Its history because it happened in the past, not the present. You would be right if it happened a different way but not that it could have. So therefore It does not matter what the motive or the intention but how rather it effected the present is what is important.

Ahhhh... first off, if you agree that Manchu invaded China, then Wu was a traitor to China as he defected to China's enemy. Although Manchu became part of China after that, that did not change the fact that Manchu and China were enemies WHEN Wu defected to the Manchu. And again, Wu defected to an army that was attacking China. What happened after is irrelevant because it not the cause of the event, but effect. In fact, if Wu did not defect, Manchu might not even have anything to do with China. There wouldn't even be a Qing dynasty.

Also the result does NOT justify the means. Many people feel that simply because Manchu eventually became part of China, what they did to get there does not matter any more. This is insane. An analogy would be a mobster does all the bad things to become rich and begins to make donations to charities. Would we think that all the bad things he did to become wealthy can be jusitfied? We all have ambitions. How we get there tells people who we are.

Again, Wu was not a traitor to Ming dynasty because Ming was gone, nor was he a traitor to Han people because China at the time already had many minorities. He was a traitor to China as a sovereign nation because he defected to another empire that was attacking China and helped them conquer China. That makes him a traitor. The eventual unification of China with Manchu was the result of the conquest and invasion. And what happened after that MAY be good for all China, but that does not justify the betrayal by Wu. This is especially the case when he's a military man.

Originally Posted by In4ser

Its history because it happened in the past, not the present. You would be right if it happened a different way but not that it could have. So therefore It does not matter what the motive or the intention but how rather it effected the present is what is important.

When we try to define what kind of a person one is, motive is absolutely important. One can run over somebody accidentally. That makes it an accident and the driver is still a good person. If he does it intentionally, he is a killer. SO motive is absolutely important when trying to define someone. And we are attempting to define who Wu Sangui was.

I get what you are trying to say, but I guess at the end of the day its due to how we interpret of viewing history. I view from future and how it was effected by the past and you view the past how it shaped to be the future. I don't really disagree with you except for the wording and thats really a trivial detail of opinion not facts so lets call it quits.

Originally Posted by In4ser

I get what you are trying to say, but I guess at the end of the day its due to how we interpret of viewing history. I view from future and how it was effected by the past and you view the past how it shaped to be the future. I don't really disagree with you except for the wording and thats really a trivial detail of opinion not facts so lets call it quits.

I guess we are coming from a different angle. You try to evaluate whether Wu's action was good and beneficial to China, while I am attempting to define what he did. My point is what he did MIGHT be good for China, but he was a traitor to China. It COULD be a good betrayal that eventually benefited China, but it is what it is, a betrayal.

Note that I capitalized "MIGHT" and "could" when talking about whether Wu's action benefited China. I personally don' tthink so, but that's not what this thread is about and I won't get into it.

One more thing. I don't think Wu had the best interest of China in mind when he defected. It was lucky for him that things worked out as it did. I don't think he should get any credit for that. Additionally, I don't think he should get away with what he did and what he wanted to do. Especially so when we look at those heroes like Yuan Chonghuan, Qi Jiguang, etc. It is entirely unfair to paint Wu only as a selfish person when these other generals gave their all to defend China against all enemies.