Hi Crobato
Thanks for more enlightenment, this foreign kwailo (myself) needs to learn more about china.
Looking at chinese history in a nutshell, let me present the following :
1. Qin dynasty - kicked xiongnu out of ordos, built the great wall
2. Han dynasty - Wudi did the same to xiongnu, but almost destroyed
Han economy because all resources went into this. Northern xiongnu went to
europe , southern xiongnu settled south of the wall, xianbei entered
mongolia from hulun buir grasslands. southern xiongnu rose up against
Han and destroyed Han.
Nonsense. The Han was destroyed by internal warlords splitting the country up and leading to the Three Kingdoms war.
3. Sui/Tang - had cordial relations with Turks (main power in Mongolia)
but Tang never conquered Tibet, in the end Tibetans burned changan and luoyang after the an lushan revolt.
The Tibetans only took advantage of the An Lushan revolt as the Tang was distracted. They were only able to hold Changan temporarily before being beaten back. The Tibetans were able to held themselves in the mountains but not in the plains where the Tang held supreme.
4. Song - at the mercy of Liao, Jin and later conquered by Mongols
The Song did indeed defeated the Jin. In fact Jin Emperor's defeat at the hands of Yu Fei later caused his assasination because of disgrace. After that the Jin settled into peace with the Song.
Genghiz Khan himself never managed to conquer the Song. It took 3 generations before the Song fell.
5. Ming - Tried to control mongolia but failed miserably, culminating
in the disastrous battle of Tumu in 1449. Manchus conquered Ming.
What do you mean miserably? The Ming decimated much of Mongol power and destroyed its cities. In Karakorum, as many as 70,000 Mongols were annihilated. The Mongols could never again march right to the middle and south of China like they did. Attempts of the Mongols to break through the Great Wall failed miserably, running cavalry charges against armies equipped with cannon.
The Mongols are only able to go as far as Beijing because Beijing is close to Mongolia, and in fact, Beijing was built by the Yuan to link both China and Mongolia together.
I don't know what kind of version of history you are reading but the Mongols were continually suing for talks with the Ming, which is more of an indication of weakness. The fact that the Ming could lose an incompetent emperor and still go on fighting shows how much reserve they have where as the Mongols seem to run out of steam.
Look closely at the dynasties above, none of them are equal to or greater
than the present boundaries of PRC, Tibet, Manchuria, Nei Monggol, Xinjiang, even Yunnan, Qinghai were not part of them. Most of them
stayed behind the wall. Looking at the above track record from a military point of view, anyone, with common sense will say that the above record is quite dismal and unsatisfactory .
Nonsense. The Han reached as far as Afghanistan and north of Korea. Ditto with the Tang, and both had garrisons in north of Korea. Yunnan and Qinghai were indeed part of previous dynasties, including the Qin and Song.
On the other hand
Yuan and Qing integrated ALL chinese peoples including ALL minorities
into one great nation of which PRC is the living legacy.
Wrong. It was the Qin who first did it.
Militarily
Mongols have an army that bested the best in the world during the 12 and 13th century, name me a han based army that went all the way to europe and conquered russia and eastern europe? The farthest the Han and Tang
went was east of the Caspian. The Tang were miserably beaten by the moslems in the Talas river,and they withdrew.
Excuse me? The Battle of Talas is now disputed by historians. it seemed to be only a minor border clash. The Tang continued to go on strong after that, the Tang-Islam trade and diplomatic relations had its best days ahead.
Mongols have an army that combined the best of talents:
a. cavalry - best in the world steppe based (mongols)
b. siege corsp - best in the world native Han based
c. navy - Han and korean based - could say also best inthe world
Mongols used cannon, gunpowder and smoke rockets in addition to the above.
2. Qing tried to emulate mongol army, but did not go as far, nevertheless
their army was far better than any of the han based armies.
3. Conclusion - Based on the data , I confirmed what the world thinks
about the mongol armies vs. the Han based armies, the mongols beat Hans
hands down here. This is not just my opinion, but the world's opinion.
Therefore, mongols have the best dynastic military.
note: the difference between the upper group of 5 vs. the lower group of 2 from a military standpoint is like night and day.
r's
Clive
Really? The Mongols lost to the Japanese, Vietnamese and other southern groups. In respect, the Qin, Han, Tang, and the Ming did better in Vietnam than the Yuan did. Once the Mongols are forced to fight on foot, they become increasingly less and less successful.
The Mongols only held China for like only three generations. They were defeated by peasant revolt, e.g. The White Lotus. Other dynasties lasted much longer.
The Mongols had to depend on the Han and the Koreans for infantry, armor, metal weapons, gunpowder and siege engines. Once they lost control of these two groups, the Mongols could no longer field a complete army. In fact, the Mongols are never able to break through the Great Wall or deal with fortifications, which are increasingly being equipped with guns and cannons. That means the Mongols are unable to break strategic barriers and hold strategic positions themselves. This was marked by the General Qi Jiquang, who thwarted every Mongol raid and incursion during his long career guarding the Great Wall.
Despite the Ming corruption, the Mongols were in fact being decimated in many of their battles with the Ming, including one major decisive battle in 1388 led by the Chinese Muslim general Lan Yu that destroyed Mongol's dreams of reconquering China. A large segment of the Mongol population was integrated with the Ming.
The invention and use of gunpowder, in use for cannons, rockets, mines and eventually guns brought an end to the cavalry armies not just in China but around the world.
The problem of cavalry army is that it is very dependent on logistical resources , mainly grass to feed on. The farther and farther away this army goes from the grasslands, the less its ability to feed the horses. So it becomes very terrain dependent once the terrain could not support what the horses eat. The cavalry army is also vulnerable against infantry armies using static positions and fortifications to their advantage.
People and historians often underestimate the Chinese peasant soldier, who is the core of Chinese armies. Remember dynasties---including the Yuan---have fallen because of peasant revolts. The peasant is his own logistics---he can grow food and is able to sustain armies and long marches. Because of a life of heavy manual labor, he is also physically strong compared to the person who lived on horseback. This makes the farm boy the perfect material for a soldier, to carry armor, weapons and march, while knowing how to grow food at the same time and exploit the environment where he goes. Then factor in their numerical and technological superiority.
The same cannot be said of the Mongols who lives on a meat eating diet feeding on herds. Once there is no grassland to feed the herds and the horses, their logistical train is non sustainable. All the invading army has to do is raze the ground and kill the herds, which is what the Ming did and others finished. This began the long road to the depopulation of the Plains horsemen. The grain eaters also have an advantage over the meat eaters is that they can convert food faster into energy, and thus can march and fight in longer conditions and is more battle ready anytime of the day compared to a meat eater.
