The establishment of the Ch’ing dynasty by the Manchus was about as seamless as it gets. The fraternal organization of military oligarchs replaced one with another and the peasantry barely knew the difference.
The Ming dynasty was overthrown by the Manchus from the northeast. Who were the Manchus? They like many before them had begun as Siberian forest dwellers. They migrated south into the steppes. They were related to the Jurchen before them, who had established the short-lived Chin dynasty in Northern China, which coexisted with the Sung dynasty in the south, who were both crushed by the Mongols under Genghis Khan. They were just one more of many tribal kingdoms in the early 1600’s. Due to the efforts of a father and his son, Murhachi (1559-1626) and Abahai (1592-1643)[i], they rose to dominate the nomadic tribes of the steppes and then to the conquer China in less than 50 years. By the middle of the century they had control of a larger Empire than the Ming had ever controlled, including Korea and Manchuria as well as China. By the end of the century they controlled more territory than the Chinese imperial government had ever controlled, including the Central Asian steppes of the Mongols. i.e. Chinese Turkestan, i.e. Sinkiang (Ch. New Domain), Tibet and Taiwan. Nepal, Vietnam & Burma all became tributary vassals.
How were the Manchus able to rise to power over the other nomadic tribes so quickly? Why was Genghis Khan able to rise so quickly? Why were any of these nomadic kingdoms able to rise to dominance so rapidly in succession, one after the other? The answer is the same. The nomadic tribes respected military power. If one tribe was able to establish undisputed dominance, the other tribes would align themselves behind this power. If no tribe could establish dominance then the nomadic tribes fought amongst themselves. Hence the nomadic empires would go through cycles of disintegration and consolidation depending upon the military strength of individuals and their tribes.
Why were these consolidated nomadic empires, the Jurchen, the Mongols, and Manchus to name just a few, able to dominate China so regularly? One factor was certainly the ferocity of the warriors of the steppes, who were weaned upon hunting and military encounters – just to survive. Further the nomadic empires were able to exploit the weakness due to civil war and peasant uprisings. These two factors have allowed these nomadic empires to militarily dominate China, especially northern China. But what has allowed them to maintain control?
The third factor, unusual from the Western standpoint, has manifested regularly in Chinese politics. It has to do with the soldiers themselves. In most of the dynastic changes and takeovers the soldiers are interchangeable. Just as the tribes consolidate behind the strongest tribe, so do the soldiers align behind the strongest military leader.[ii] The rise of the Ming and the Ch’ing were both based upon large-scale defections of entire armies from one side to the other. As we already mentioned the early military strength of the Ming was based upon hundreds of thousands of soldiers who had previously been part of the Mongol army. Similarly the success of the Manchus was based upon entire Chinese armies who had swung to their side and were welcomed with open arms.[iii]
To understand this phenomenon we must remember that the Chinese armies were made up of peasant conscripts or hereditary soldiers. As mentioned the peasantry had no loyalty to the aristocracy of any cultural persuasion. The main factors behind peasant loyalty were the potentials for social stability and tolerance, not cultural cohesion. While the French soldiers are fighting for France, the German soldiers fight for Germany, and the English are fighting for England, the Chinese soldiers are not fighting for China. They are fighting for the strongest general whomever that might be, whichever culture he may belong to. They are fighting for the general with the most potential, not with a common culture. Remember, as we mentioned before, the chasm between ruling class and peasantry was much greater than between the nomadic and Chinese ruling class. The perceived Chinese culture was a result of a common literacy amongst the ruling class, rather than the non-literate multi-varied cultural expressions of the peasantry. Hence fighting for China was more a concept of the ruling literati and warrior class than it was of the agricultural peasantry. Life went on the same for the peasantry regardless of ruling class, while the rise and fall of the literati are the stuff that history is made of. Thus the soldier class, made up many times of conscripted peasantry or the professional soldier class, had personal self interest at heart before Chinese cultural preservation, which meant only to him the preservation of the rights and privileges of the Chinese ruling class whomever that might be. The culture of the ruling class generally had little to do with the rights of the peasant class. Therefore whole armies would throw their weight behind whichever general that it deemed most likely to win, or whomever seemed to have the most potential.
This was indeed the case in the rise of the Manchus. The Chinese citizenry frustrated with more than a century of mismanagement were fed up. The Manchus portrayed themselves as liberators not as conquerors. Indeed they welcomed Chinese soldiers and officers into their ranks. The Manchu takeover of China could not have occurred without internal Chinese assistance. The Manchus, like the multitude of other nomadic cultures, had an immediate affinity for the Chinese imperial culture, perhaps because they derived ultimately from the same source. Because of this affinity they worked to preserve Chinese culture rather than to destroy it. Because of this effort towards preservation rather than destruction, the transition between the Ming and Ch’ing was the least problematic dynastic change for the Chinese people as a whole.
“The Manchus ruled as conquerors and maintained permanent garrisons in strategic centers throughout the country, but they adopted Chinese culture, perpetuated the time-honored administrative machinery and laws, associated Chinese with themselves in the highest boards at Peking and opened to them all the provincial offices. They guarded against revolt by forbidding a Chinese to hold office in his native province, by frequently shifting officials and by dividing the administrative responsibility for each province among several officers who could serve as checks on one another.” (EB, V5 523)
The first century and a half of the Ch’ing dynasty had to be considered another Golden Age for China. The Ch’ing dynasty expanded to control Tibet and the western steppes previously controlled by the Mongols, having the largest empire China had ever had. Internally the Manchu rulers were long-lived and ruled diligently. Sheng-tsu (r. 1661-1722), followed by his son, Shih-tsung (r. 1722-35) and then his grandson, Kao-tsung (r. 1735-96) ruled the Golden Age of the Ch’ing. Each of these Manchu emperors took an active role in the government of the Empire. They adopted all the preexisting institutions. They worked with the military to establish dominance of the surrounding areas. But equally as important, they worked to control internal corruption, recruiting the best people for administration amongst both Chinese and Manchu. The Chinese were not discriminated against like they were during the Mongol occupation but were instead encouraged to pursue traditional Chinese cultural interests. The early Ming emperors actively campaigned against corruption and generally attempted to be good rulers. Hence this period in China they were at the top of the world of the time. The Manchus did not oppress the Chinese. The Manchus administered the Chinese effectively and allowed them to grow culturally and economically.
The peak and the beginning of the end of the Manchu dynasty occurred during the reign of Kao-tsung. While an active ruler for the first decades of his reign, he lost interest towards the end. He began to withdraw from politics and give control to his favorites. His favorites began to encourage graft and corruption. The whole cycle of mismanagement that was beginning was accelerated by the influence of the Europeans. It must be stressed, however, that the early Manchu rule was so good that the European philosophers admired it and the Europeans aristocracy sought out its products. While at this early point the trade with the Western nations increased the general Chinese prosperity, in the 19th century this to have serious ramifications.
By the Ch'ing the Taoist organizations had crystallized. However they were not unified. There was still the liturgical organization of Heavenly Masters, which served the needs of the community – performing exorcisms, weddings, and the like, combined with regular services to impart the sacred into day-to-day life. Although not hostile the alchemical Taoists were a distinctly different branch. In their psychological and scientific pursuits, they sought clarity through precision. While explicit, it was still for the elite, as it required study as well as practice.
During the Ch'ing the alchemist Liu I Ming wrote a commentary upon Chang Po Tuan’s The Inner Teachings of Taoism. Just as Chang wanted to clear the air of all ambiguity that had arisen after the Triplex Unity was written, Liu attempts to elucidate Chang’s work. As Liu says:
“I have torn away the shell to expose the pit, broken open the bones to reveal the marrow. The jewels of this treasure chest are set out clearly in the open, in hopes that readers will understand at a glance and not be deceived by misleading interpretations.” (The Inner Teachings, p. xvi)
Although those who practiced Taoist alchemy used symbolic language, it was specific. In contrast the language of the Heavenly Masters was deliberately confusing – presumably to minimize the importance of word. In the tradition of Confucius, the Taoist initiate would read or write phrases over and over, without explication. The theory was that the words of the masters were enough to enable the student to come to an understanding on his own. This is akin to the koan tradition in Zen, which attempted to evoke a non-verbal experience.
There was another unnamed branch of Taoism, the martial. With its emphasis on spontaneity and freedom Taoism was still the philosophy of the secret societies. Now that the alien Manchus were in power, the secrecy of these organizations had to be maintained for safety. Additionally they did not want to align themselves with the more public groups for fear of retaliation. It was these secret societies that attempted to liberate the Chinese from the Manchus and the Europeans, just as they had liberated the Chinese from Mongols, six centuries before.
While adopting Chinese culture the Manchus also dominated it. Harking back to the Nature worshippers and Goddess cults Taoism is soft and feminine. In contrast the Manchus were a patriarchal, hierarchical society – hard and masculine. During the Ch’ing dynasty, as in the other dynasties, political dissent was not tolerated. Therefore the religious institutions were permitted to exist as long as they didn’t foment revolt. The patriarchal nature of Buddhism and Confucianism melded seamlessly with the Manchus. While institutional Taoism was tolerated, politically active Taoism was suppressed, as it was directed towards Chinese nationalism[iv].
There are multiple factors associated with the fall of the Ch’ing. We’ve mentioned the growth in corruption due to lack of attention to leadership by the Emperor. The imperial government from the Sung dynasty on to the Ch’ing had been based upon a strong emperor. Whenever the Emperor was actively involved in politics, things went relatively well. Whenever the Emperor retired from active involvement, the rule of the government degenerated due to the demands of competing factions, none of which could achieve ascendancy. Hence after the active involvement of the early Manchu Emperors, the later Emperors tended to pursue self-interest over the public good. Hence the lack of strong leadership was one factor in the fall of the Ch’ing, as it had been the Ming before them, and the Yuan before them. Although the fall of the Sung Dynasty was primarily due to the military prowess of the Mongols, the preceding dynasties – the T’ang, the Sui, and even the Han, Ch’in and Chou – had all fallen due to the lack of strong leadership.
In the line of dynastic thinking, we can now establish a few persistent patterns. Each dynasty begins with strong rulers, who are militarily strong as well as committed to leadership. This was true of the Chou, the Ch’in, the Han, the Sui, the T’ang, the Sung, the Ming and the Ch’ing. (The Mongol Yuan dynasty is the one exception. Although militarily strong, it would be hard to establish that they attempted to work for the good of the Empire.) The period of strong leadership normally lasts 100 to 200 years except in the case of the Ch’in and Sui dynasties. This was true of the Chou, the Han, the T’ang, the Sung, the Ming and the Ch’ing. This period of strong and committed leadership is followed by a decline in imperial interest with the resulting decline of the dynasty. This pattern held true in nearly all of the dynasties.
Sometimes there are factors beyond the control of individual emperors. While it is easy to see this pattern in retrospect, some of the cyclical rise and fall of the dynasties has to do with external events. The most prominent external event has to do with the military consolidation of its ‘barbarian’ enemies. This was certainly a factor in the fall of the Ming and Sung dynasties.
Many times the events have to with internal factors beyond the control of the emperor. Perhaps a good emperor is born into a period when the warlords have already assumed control due to a weak imperial government. Perhaps the vitality of the institutions has already played itself out. However the biggest internal factor is probably population itself.
With prosperity comes population growth. As the population grows to the capacity of the existing technology, it will inevitably shoot past the limits of that technology. Perhaps there will be some natural disasters or bad climatic conditions, but most likely there will just be too many people born to be accommodated with the existing social technology. Ironically Africa was better off ecologically before the Europeans came. Disease and internal warfare kept the population under control. With the European agricultural and medical techniques introduced into Africa during this same period of the 1800s, it allowed population to skyrocket creating eco-destruction in its wake. Africa, so recently entering the domain of modern medicine, continues to have large families, appropriate in times of high infant mortality, very inappropriate in 20th century Africa. Praise Malthus.
With the increasing Chinese prosperity their population increased from 300 million in 1750 to 400 million in 1850. As the population grew beyond the ability of the land to support it, there grew up a whole class of people without work or home. The government increasingly didn’t care, maybe because it was truly beyond their control or maybe because of pursuing their own agenda. Whatever the reason the rapid increase in population was a major factor destabilizing the society of the Ch’ing Dynasty.
The final major factor was the Europeans, specifically the British. During the last century of the Manchu dynasty the Europeans, notably the British, began to exert an incredible influence in China. One of their biggest contributions was the introduction of opium. Opium served two purposes. First it balanced British import-export books. Second it weakened Chinese will, which made them more susceptible to European influence. The British had been importing huge amounts of tea from China and needed to export something to China so that their wealth wouldn’t flow in a one way direction into China. Because the Chinese were not interested in European goods, the British introduced opium to balance their books. Opium had an incredibly negative effect upon Chinese society. Recognizing this the government attempted to ban it. Employing military force the British forced the Chinese to rescind their ban.
Inevitably by the turn of the century there were the Chinese rebellions against European influence. Simultaneously these rebellions attempted to throw the Manchus out. Self-determination – China ruled by Chinese became mantras.
Those that spearheaded the resistance to the Europeans and the Manchus were called Boxers by the British. This is why these rebellions are called the Boxer Rebellions. These Boxers were martial artists with the tenets of Taoism underlying their art.
Although these initial rebellions were unsuccessful they set the stage for the eventual overthrow of the Manchus and the reassertion of Chinese nationalism. Initially the Chinese looked to the West for assistance in creating a modern state. But when the Western governments only supported the exploitation of the masses, as they tend to do, the Chinese embraced the Communism of Mao Tse Tung.[v] But we are getting ahead of our story.
[i] China to 1850, p.145
[ii] This was also true in Greek and Rome after Alexander the Great. Armies would quickly change sides in order to be on the winning side.
[iii] This is a foreign experience in the west. In the last world wars of the 20th century there were many prisoners of war, there were massive surrenders, there were even double agents, but there were not examples of French, German, American, or Japanese armies switching from one side to the other. Basically the cultural differences were too great.
[iv] One sees the same break in Catholicism. The bishops are aligned with governments everywhere, while the priests fight for the rights of their parish.
[v] Similarly because American industrialists wanted to exploit the Vietnamese and their resources the United States continually thwarted Vietnam’s efforts to become a democracy in the later 20th century.
Home Tao of China 8. 2nd Millenium China Previous Next Comments