The elderly trusted that eating twin bananas while you are on your first months of being pregnant will create a Siamese twin infants. Clearly, there is no truth to this announcement.
The more youthful eras are substantially more taught realizing that Twin Pregnancy(Siamese twins) is all the more a hereditary issue however with due appreciation to the old convictions and the exceptionally surely understood admiration of the more youthful eras to their predecessors they think that its difficult to set aside this conviction in addition to the shame of having Siamese twins the pregnant lady would rather not eat a twin banana.
Since just about everybody in the restorative field trusts that eating twin bananas has nothing to do with having twin pregnancies. A few however conceives that eating twin bananas will create mischief to the infant since its a transformed banana. To illuminate this issue, the twin bananas (which I have tasted and eaten a few times) pose a flavor like your typical banana.
In as much as it is not unsafe to eat, a pregnant lady should likewise take additional consideration in eating such a great amount of banana as bananas contain a lot of potassium and a lot of potassium is destructive to the body it makes it troublesome for your kidneys to clear up potassium and it causes hyperkalemia.
So what amount is excessively much?One medium measured banana packs a potassium of no less than 450mg which is more than 20% of your essential day by day esteem. So one banana is sufficient for a pregnant lady's dietary stipend.
There is no scientific reason for this. No harm if we eat such joined fruits. It is a fun created by our elders saying that if we eat such conjoined fruits we would deliver twins. Warnings such as those may have been out of a fear that the bananas may be abnormal, damaged, poisonous or otherwise dangerous. Conjoined fruits are just as safe as normal fruits.
In the Philippines, the elderly believed that eating twin bananas while you are on your first months of being pregnant will produce a Siamese twin babies. Obviously, there is no truth to this statement.
The younger generations are much more educated knowing that Twin Pregnancy(Siamese twins) is more of a genetic issue but with due respect to the old beliefs and the very well known respect of the younger generations to their ancestors they find it hard to set aside this belief plus the stigma of having Siamese twins the pregnant woman would rather not eat a twin banana.
Twin Pregnancy (Fraternal Twins) occur when two eggs were fertilized by two sperms and (Identical Twins) are produced when a fertilized egg(zygote) splits to form two embryos. Siamese Twins( Conjoined Twins) is failure of the twins to separate at certain point in the gestation.
In the Borneo Post Online, a man believed that the banana tree in his backyard which produced 4 bunches of bananas is a blessing. We can say that having twin babies is also a blessing to the family.
Since almost everyone in the medical field believes that eating twin bananas has nothing to do with having twin pregnancies. Some however thinks that eating twin bananas will produce harm to the baby because its a mutated banana. To clarify this issue, the twin bananas (which I have tasted and eaten several times) taste like your usual banana.
In as much as it is not harmful to eat, a pregnant woman must also take extra care in eating so much banana as bananas contain too much potassium and too much potassium is harmful to the body it makes it difficult for your kidneys to clear up potassium and it causes hyperkalemia.
So how much is too much?One medium sized-banana packs a potassium of at least 450mg which is more than 20% of your necessary daily value. So one banana is enough for a pregnant woman's dietary allowance.
Some people might find them a bit creepy, or worry about eating mutated fruit. But for all we know, there might be twin bananas, in foods where they are chopped up or liquidized such as banofee pie or banana milkshake.
In certain part of the world, including India there's some skeptical belief among people that if a couple consumed a twin banana, the wife conceive a child like a Siamese twin! There's no valid evidence to prove this. It's an absolutely ridiculous assumption. No scientific validity in this claim.
https://www.quora.com/Why-shouldnt-we-eat-twin-bananas
...
Many good answers already. Obviously, if Qing was not doing something right, it couldn’t have ruled the country for 300 years. There were many reasons driving this, but the primary one, is this: the hardest working emperors China ever had.
Yes, there have been great emperors before. The often cited ones, and personally recognized by Mao, are: Qin Shihuang - The first emperor. While he committed a lot of atrocities, some of his policies and achievements forged the China we see today. He proved that all of China can be united under one government.
Without him, China might not have exited feudalism and may look more like Europe today. He unified the written language, coinage, and road tracks, which greatly facilitated the integration, communication, and commerce of different parts of China.
He built the Great Wall and provided a means of protection from the nomads of the Mongolian steppes to the agricultural communities of Han. He established a legal framework that was copied and proliferated by the Han dynasty, resulting in a system of governance that have been used ever since. Simply put, he was the first in many aspects.
Han Wudi - He was the emperor that solved the Huns problem once and for all and greatly expanded China’s territory and cultural influence. He presided over the institutionalization of Confucianism while further expanded the Legalist framework of governance. He is the reason why most Chinese today are Han Chinese.
Tang Taizong - The second emperor of Tang but commander-in-chief credited with reunification of the country. He led the country into the second golden age, dramatically changing a war torn land into a land of prosperity. Militarily and diplomatically, he subjugated the Turkic nomads then occupying the Mongolian steppes left void by the Huns.
...
He created a country that was open and accepting for all with many minorities holding critical government positions. He was hailed as Tenger Khan or God-like Emperor by the peoples of Greater Asia. Domestically, he further solidified the national examination system started during the Sui Dynasty and is still in use today. It provided equal opportunity for every citizen a means to dream. He is always in contention as the best emperor of all time in historian debates.
Song Taizu - The founding emperor of Song. Similar to Taizong of Tang, he re-unified the country. While oftentimes cited as the weakest of the long dynasties, the humane policies he put in place won over people for centuries, and was a main reason why people coalesced under the Song banner in south China for another 150 years after the government lost all of north China.
Domestically, his policies created a country flush with art, culture, and commerce. It was estimated that the Song dynasty GDP was over 50% of global GDP at the time.
So, why do I cite these emperors if the question is about Qing? Because Qing had some of the best emperors that can rival these four great ones. Kangxi, for example, is easily in contention for one of the top three emperors of all time.
Under his reign, Manchu integration with Han was initiated, internal rebellions largely subsided and reunification with Taiwan was accomplished. He solidified the country’s borders and signed a peace treaty with Russia to settle a long running border dispute. He ushered in the Kang-Qian Golden Age.
Between him and Qianlong, his grandson, each ruling for 60+ years, that’s over 120 years of prosperity! Qianlong, while considered by many to be over flamboyant, carried the mantle and continued the system of economic development and military expansion.
Even if Qianlong might not compare to the four great ones cited above, he easily rivaled Han Wendi and Han Jingdi, known for their combined reign over the Wen-Jing Golden Age, which set the foundation for Han Wudi’s military expansion.
Ok, so what about bad emperors? Did Qing have bad emperors? Cixi aside, it is actually really hard to find a bad emperor. The succession system Qing put in place ensured that emperors were selected based on merit. Every royal heirs were potential candidates. They had to study hard and were put to the test in actual governmental assignments, including as military commanders.
If you look at some of the Ming emperors, whom Qing replaced, you will see a different picture. Ming produced some of the worst emperors ever:
Zhengde - The traveling emperor. The dude would rather travel the countryside than attend his imperial duties. He reigned for 16 years.
Jiajing - The Taoist emperor. He was more interested in alchemy than governing. He reigned for 45 years.
Wanli - The emperor on strike. Yes, this emperor was officially on strike. He reigned for 48 years.
Tianqi - The master carpenter emperor. His woodwork was of remarkably exquisite quality. He reigned for 7 years.
Looking at these Ming emperors, it was not too hard for the general populace to see that the Qing emperors were much better. It was the dedication and hard work that these Qing emperors put in that won the hearts of Chinese people and ensured the longevity of the Qing dynasty.
This is a rather fascinating question and just so happens to be a recurring topic of our history discussion at the family dinner table. It is interesting that the Manchu, a "lesser" people in the sense of culture, history and population was able to successfully rule Han China for 300 years.
They could overpower Han China with their superior military force, but surely there would be rebellions, Han people surely would want their country back. While there were indeed scattered rebellions and underground organizations/cults fighting for the reinstatement of Han (Ming emperors), Han China had enjoyed much prosperity under the rule of Manchu emperors, and several of them have been praised as some of the best and wisest emperors in Chinese history.
So what's the secret ? and furthermore, can it be repeated? There're a few factors at play here, but the most important factor and probably the most successful policy carried out by Manchu leaders that ensure their 300 years rule is top down integration between Manchu and Han people on all level of society, respect Han culture and Confucius teaching, and heavily rely on Han officials in everyday administrations.
At the beginning of Manchu rule, there're some very famous massacres such as Yangzhou massacre, 嘉定三屠 (3 massacres in Jia Qing). They also crush down on anyone who dare to rebel against the costume changes (Manchu forced Han people to cut their hair.)
After all the killing, the Manchu emperor started to realize it is near impossible to rule entire China with their bannermen. Many were great warriors and generals, but they know nothing about how to rule a country as large as China.
As a resulte Manchu Emperors started to learn Chinese, appointed Han Chinese as their administrative assistance. Unlike Mongolian people's policy during Yuan Dynasty, Han people were not treated as slaves. They're treated like regular citizen, enjoy nearly equal opportunity in most aspect of society.
Literati and Confucius ethics were greatly respected and elevated. Most Manchu emperors could speak and write fluent Chinese, many were able to compose poems and verses (although not very good at it...)
After the initial crushing down, Manchu have given the regular people as much freedom as previous Dynasty (Han Emperors). Basically, Manchu emperors had borrowed Ming Dynasty's administration and government structure, and integrated their own bannermen system with it. As a result, things didn't feel all that different for regular citizens.
They still work in the fields, pay taxes, do business in the cities... Manchu emperor make sure regular citizens have relatively good life. So for a normal Han Chinese, why would they want to rebel? They have food, their children can go do school, law was pretty much the same as Ming dynasty, so they pay taxes to a Manchu, so they dress a bit differently, so what?
Life goes on pretty good for them. And the Manchu officials weren't that alien, they speak Chinese, they have Han Chinese assistants around.
In the end, I think most Han people just accept this as another dynasty change, instead of a foreign invasion. We have plenty of dynasty changes in history, nothing new here. It's really hard to see where Manchu people ends and where Han people started.
I'm not saying there's no differences between Manchu and Han people. For example, Manchu women didn't practice foot binding, and generally enjoyed more freedom than Han women. If there's a legal dispute between Han people and Manchu, Manchu people would get more favoritism with in limitation of the law.
Han official will always be "vice-" vice-director, vice-department head... However often times, the "vice" official held real power. But overall, the inequality wasn't bad enough to promote nationwide rebellion and uprising.
However, this policy was devastating for Manchu culture. Compared to Han culture, Manchu culture is weak and primitive. Eventually, Manchu had gradually lost their religion, culture, language and ethnic identity. Manchu culture is part of Han culture now. Our food, costume, folklore... are absorbed by Han Chinese.
So, come down to my second question: is this method repeatable? Yes. I think it is. If, in the most unlikely circumstances when China were again conquered by a foreign power with less ruling population (say Japanese or Russia). The only way to rule China efficiently is heavy integration between their culture and Chinese culture.
The common folks really don't care that much, put food on their table, provide education to their kids, don't have too much social inequalities, we really don't care who's sitting in that dragon throne. (Well, Beijing native like myself would cared, but mostly we just enjoy gossiping about it).
Actually, if there were a generally recognized Ming emperor, Manchus woud never be the owner of the land under heaven. I will give you two examples about why Han Chinese coud possibly defeat Manchus.
The general who were from Xi rebellion group and worked for Ming emperor after Manchus defeated Li Zicheng, Li Dingguo got "two manchu prince killed, thousands squre miles of lands recovered"(两蹶名王，复地千里).
If it wasn't traitors, and the emperor's cowardness and fear for him taking the thrown, he would have made more victoies. And it was because a traitor that his plan was known in Mopan Mountain battle, which may changeovered the war, even when he was almost forced out of China.
The famous Chinese pirate Zheng Iquan's son, Zheng Chenggong, who worked for another Ming prince, led his troops land at Nanjing, making manchus panic and thought about retreating back to north China.
He wrote a poem which said 试看天堑投鞭渡，不信中原不姓朱, you see that my troops throw horsewhips to Yangtze river and we are crossing the wide river without the help of ships, why question the family who rule the land under the heaven isn't Zhu. At that time, Zheng only controled a small part of Fujian province.
So you see, even when Ming empire had lost most of China because of Han Chinese rebellions. Manchus couldnt defeat resisters. And every time resisters got a victory, many pre-Ming generals and officials joined them. So Manchus were not easily winning the war if you just consider the war itself.
But the truth is, resisters don't want other resistance groups' emperor or king to win the game. So generally they didn't like coordinate with each other and they even fought each other.
Why didnt they agree to disagree and defeated the invaders first? Because Chinese didnt have modern nation idea. Manchus were invaders who invaded Ming empire instead of the land of heaven. Manchus are also people of land under heaven.
So when people thought Ming's royal family had decline and new Han emperors and kings (like Li Zicheng and Zhang Xianzhong) were not better than Manchu emperor, famous Han ethnic generals and officials like Wu Sangui and Hong Chengchou surrendered to Manchus.
And once Qing unified China, as others have mentioned, they made ordinary persons wont just jump out and trigger a strong enough rebellion that overthrows the huge empire.
But actually, people who resists Manchus always tried to overthrow Qing through the history of Qing empire. They form an orgnization called Hongmen(洪门), or Tiandihui(天地会), or Sanhehui(三合会). The organization is said to be built by Zheng Chenggong's official, Chen Jinnan. Their aim is overthrowing Qing and recovering Ming.
Who do you think that overthrew the Qing empire in Xinhai revolution? Sun Yat Sen and his revolution party? Yes, but Sun was a head of Tiandihui's branch organization called Zhigong Tang(致公堂). And those assassinations and uprising in Xinhai revolution, many participates are members of Tiandihui. By the way, nowadays Tiandihui still exists.
A branch of it become one of PRC's legal party(there are several legal political parties except for CCP in PRC), Zhigong Dang(Dang means party). Zhigong Dang dates from Zhigong Tang. And a branch named as Sanhehui in Hong Kong is famous because of Hong Kong's gangster movies.
Yes Sanhehui become a big gang in Hong Kong. And overseas Chinese still join Hongmen for buissness or other purposes. Some of its branches are legal organizations, and some of them are like Sanhehui in Hong Kong.
I wrote this answer because I saw another answer considering the main reason is that Chinese lost their courage facing nomadic invasion and because of confucian and buddism influence. I dont think so. A people who lost its courage shouldn't have people suicide instead of surrender(Shi Kefa史可法). And there shouldn't be a group of people fought three hundreds years to overthrow a huge empire.
And there shouldn't be people who would rather hide in mountains instead of surrender and became generals of new lords(ancesters of nowaday's Kokang people who live between Yunnan province and Burma. They followed the emperor of south Ming).
And it was confucianism that taught them to fight instead of surrender. There are lots of historical reasons, but cowardness and confucianism are not part of the reasons.
1. While much smaller in population, they had a much MUCH higher % of militarized personnel for that population : this is historically true everywhere with regards to tribal (especially nomadic ) people versus settled once, almost everyone was a solider, where as most farmers in settled civilizations had much lower capacity to fight without significantly training invested.
The Qing successfully allied themselves with the military class of Inner Mongolia (and ironically, to the Ming's own military caste as well.) to essentially hold a monopoly on the military system, which was strongly bound together by ethnic and economic interest.
This coupled with the fact that China, being a very centralized state, the general population was not armed (like most states today.) and certainly not organized militarily speaking.
And an effective control was continued effectively throughout most of the period (this is the part they differ from the Mongol Yuan dynasty, as the Mongol setup their dynasty more in a Persian fashion where far away regions acted with very significant autonomy, this lead to their downfall in much quicker time.)
This dominance began to break down as western influence grew not only because of the Qing's own decline, but also because now that rebels can get guns (partly thanks to the western traders) which at least to some extend even the scale a bit where large numbers of relatively untrained peasants can still sometimes defeat organized forces , but even then, at that point in history, the Qing and Mongol cavalry were still very often effective.
2. The Qing played a near perfect game of allying the interest of surrendering tribal ethnics while operating the Chinese interior in the traditional dynastic fashion that garnered the strong support of most of the bourgeoisie class .
This ties into all these Tibet / Mongolia / XinJian question of why they're part of China, the thing in during the Qing period they had it good , the Lamas of Tibet submitted nominally to the Qing and in turn was given a lot of gifts and the chance to spread their brand of buddhism. it made perfect economic sense, the same for the Mongols who were essentially co-rulers of the dynasty to much extend.
...
Meanwhile, the Qing essentially just ported over the Ming's administrative system to run the Chinese interior, keeping it's most important aspects while improving on some of the less ideal aspects.
In short, they ran a system where when there was trouble in the Chinese heartland, they had the support of most of the tribes around it and with superior military traditions can win out, and when there's trouble in the tribes, they had overwhelming resources and the help of other tribes to win out. it was a very well designed balance that could have lasted much longer if the world didn't change around them so dramatically.
Firstly, you should know the founder of Manchu and Qing is Nurhaci. Secondly, you need to know something about that man’s history. Nurhaci, once as Ming General Li Chengliang’s subordinate, worked for Ming’s rule on Jiangzhou guard for more than 20 years(from 1583 to 1616). In 1616 AD, Nurhaci, now a 58 years’ old man , decided to work no longer for Ming’s throne. He rebelled.
Nurhaci knew that better than anyone else. That’s why he needed to write a “seven grievances” to rebel Ming’s rule. That’s the biggest difference between Qing dynasty and the Mongol Yuan dynasty whose earliest founder—Genghis Khan was totally a foreigner to Song dynasty China. The assumption in the question was wrong.
Qing army consisted of not only Manchu but also a large number of Northern Han people as well as the former Ming’s soldiers. Ming was destroyed by Li Zicheng’s rebellion. It ended when Li’s rebellion army took over China’s capital—Beijing. Former Ming general-Wu Sangui made an alliance with Manchu and opened the Shanhai pass to let Qing army in.
Qing’s army attacked Li Zicheng in the name of former Ming. Simply speaking, in the final decades of Ming, rebellions happened everywhere. Some rebellions in Northern China were led by Han people.
Some rebellions in North-western China were led by Mongols. The Mongol general Bobai rebelled in Ningxia province in the year of 1592, which was finally suppressed. Some rebellions happened in the South-western China during the period of Wanli emperor’s rule.
AND Jurchens as well as some Han people rebelled in the Jianzhou(Southern Manchuria). Their leader is Nurhaci. He built an army called banners, consisting of Manchu, Han and some Mongols. Finally he was the only that made it among all rebellions.
The difference between Nurhaci and Li Zicheng is that Nurhaci is a non-Han person. So I guess if he were a Han, you wouldn’t be so confused, were you? Just imagine if the Turk An Lushan’s rebellion finally succeeded in Tang Dynasty, then his situation would be quite similar to Nurhaci. The key point is An Lushan failed but Nurhaci and his descendants succeeded.
Another very, very important factor is the number of soldiers of each power. According to the history records and historians’ evaluation: The rebellion armies had about 100,000–200,000 soldiers. Ming government at the last days had about 80,000–100,000 soldiers. (Actually the troops that Ming government that can really controll are very limited. That’s mainly because Ming government couldn’t afford army’s pay and provisions. Sad story..)
Qing army in 1640s had about 100,000—150,000 soldiers, including Manchu, Mongol, Han Bannermen. Han Green Standard Army defectors (after 1644). By 1648, Han Chinese Bannermen made up 75% of the Eight Banners while Manchus at only 16%…(From wikipedia).
Their numbers are at a same level. The peasants rebellion armies likely have more soldiers but Qing’s troops’ number descended Ming’s in 1640s. Thus, the Severe lack of soldiers due to the economic problem is the real direct deadly factor leading to the fall of Ming. Ming China had about 100 million people. Yet at their last time, Ming emperor even didn’t have 100, 000 soldiers to protect his empire!!
That’s the KEY reason why Chongzhen, the last emperor of Ming, only used his army to protect capital Beijing and its surrounding places, giving up vast lands of western China and Southern China to guard… The reason is sooo simple and ridiculous: He had no soldiers…
Chongzhen Emperor in the Hell roars: I Did Not Have ENOUGH Soldiers!… I had rebellions everywhere! You stupid people! I bet you couldn't do better than me if you were at my position!! Why not stop talking about me and give me some quiet days!
[2nd. EDIT] I guess some people would take some massacres like Jiangyin massacre, Yangzhou massacre as examples to illuminate the Manchu’s evil and the clash between Han and Manchu. Ok, if your examples really can support what I mention above, you have to prove one thing, that if the new dynasty is built by Han people, things like massacres won’t happen.
Ehhh, unfortunately, what I need to point out is such massacres happened almost every time when dynasty changed in China.(the same to other places in the ancient world). Famous warlord—Cao Cao destroyed one city after another in the end of Han dynasty. Ming dynasty’s founder—Zhu Yuanzhang slaughtered people in South-eastern China for supporting his opponents.
And watch THAT: From wikipedia. You notice what? The main murderer in the renowned Jiangyin Massacre is Han Bannermen! Their general—Zuo Liangyu - Wikipediais a Han Chinese! He conquered Jiangyin city and slaughtered people in the city.
That is a misery indeed but that is not the misery the way you think it is…It’s not the matter between two nations. IT is the matter between the cruel and undisciplined ancient soldiers and the innocent civilians.
Feifei Wang . Please correct me if something is wrong about the answer.Thanks! [3rdEDIT] A HongKong friend in my comment area said something like Chinese state ceased to exist when Manchu conquered Ming.
That saying surely is problematic. Ming ended when its capital was occupied by Li Zicheng’s rebellion army and Ming’s last emperor—Chongzhen suicided. Qing dynasty of China was established when Banners’ army uniting with former Ming army defeated Li Zicheng’s rebellion army and occupied Beijing. Logically, you can’t conquer someone who has already been killed, right?
As for his saying that Chinese state ceased to exist. Of course, that’s bullshit. Qing in any international occasion’s self-call is Middle Kingdom—China. According to his logic,
Persia ceased to exist when Mongols conquered Khwarezmia…England ceased to exist when it was conquered by Norman. German states ceased to exist when they were conquered by French. France ceased to exist when it was conquered by Nazi…I can list more…Thanks for reading!
The answer is simple: collusion, collaboration and complicity from Han generals and China regional rulers. The Manchurians were quick with their generosity towards regional rulers including tibetans, offered them status, wealth and inclusion into the upper echelon of manchu royal circles.
Many parts of china resisted for a long time, notably Fujian province and thereafter Taiwan. There were also frequent sporadic rebellions and anarchy, most devastating was the Taiping rebellion.
An often repeated fallacy is that the small Manchurian army defeated the Ming dynasty. in fact the Ming dynasty ceased to exist and china was in a state of civil war. A pretender to the throne in Beijing even proclaimed the Shun dynasty. A rival Han general allied with the Manchus and opened the ShanHai gates into China, he agreed to have a Manchurian as emperor and accepted a province as a reward.
Another common lack of perspective is that china was a feudal society, there was no sense of national identity, provinces were ruled by local generals. similar to medieval Europe, it was a case of land owning lords and gentry, then the trades and serfs etc.
China during Ming dynasty was a collection of different spoken languages, ethnicity and customs. the manchurians arrived, cut deals with Han strongmen along the way, disposed opposing Hans with cooperating Hans. the Hans didn't care as long as the deal was right for them.
China dynastic history is just a case of a gang of ruling thugs after another, the North east gang being Manchu. There are only 2 reasons for a population to not like its ruling class: They're bad at ruling and they're aliens.
The Manchus passed the first criteria, and the second wasn't relevant cause nationalism in China wasn't really a thing yet. Sure, the Han knew the Manchu were "different" and that they were being lorded over by an alien people. But for folks in the pre-modern age, that usually wasn't a big deal. Just think of the Normans in England, or the Mughals in India, or the Ostrogoths in Italy etc. etc.
The simple fact was, the Manchus were good rulers. The early Manchu Emperors were competent, hard working, and ambitious. They expanded the Chinese Empire far beyond its traditional borders, they respected Han Chinese culture (mostly) and, most importantly, they presided over a 2 century long economic boom in China.
During the Qing Dynasty, China's population doubled to 400 million. This was mostly due to more efficient management, infrastructural development and relative peace. A similar population explosion happened in Europe but that was mainly from technological advances in sanitation, and introduction of New World crops like potatoes and corn.
So... life was good under the Qing, no reason to complain. Chinese are simple people: keep us fed, keep us healthy, and let us make money.hus was just a detail, being close to the Beijing palace helped.
There is a very bad mistake here. First, there was no national concept in ancient china. China has the appellation of the Hans, without the Han nationality. The Han nationality is from western. The so-called Han people refer to the people of the central plains under the rule of the orthodox dynasty. They are not a concept.
In fact, "女真人” of the people of Manchuria. They also call themselves Han people. The history of the Mongols also called Jurchens, Dangxiang Han people. Xianbei and Khitan people proclaimed han. The famous Mulan is one of them.
What you call the Han people was put forward by Sun Zhongshan. Sun Zhongshan put forward the concept of Han and Manchu for the success of the revolution. Second, the Qing Dynasty has the privilege of the manchurian.
Banners include Manchus, as well as Han and Mongolian peoples. These people were the founding fathers of the military. The emperors of the Qing Dynasty and the imperial concubine can only be selected from them.
They are basically equivalent to the aristocracy of europe. Sun Zhongshan positioned them as manchus. Sun Zhongshan positioned the common man as the Han nationality. At that time, the vast majority of Chinese people were illiterate and had no education.
The revolution has no attraction for these Chinese people. But turning the revolution into a reversal of the decadent rule is attractive. The revolution became the movement of the lower Han people against the Manchu people.
Revolution became national independence. China has officially become a nation state. Third, the modern Han nation is not the original Han chinese. After the success of the revolution, Sun Zhongshan invented a new word - the Chinese nation.
The Chinese nation includes all the people in china.Therefore, the Chinese nation is the Han people. If you are an old Beijing man. You should know that a large number of Manchus became Han people.
Nowadays, many liars under the banner of Manchu are actually Han nation. Fourth, all ethnic groups in China are designated by the People's Republic of China. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, China began to study the Soviet Union's national policy.
From 1954 to 1979, China created 56 ethnic groups. Why was it created? Because never before. At that time, the more detailed the hope, the better, and as a result, many ethnic groups were created. Such as Hui nation.
It now appears that China's decision to divide the nation at that time was wrong. It created the conditions for China's future division. That's what you call manchu. As a matter of fact, he has nothing to do with the real manchu. Many people become Han nation.
So the Han nationality now make up ninety-eight percent of the population. Fifth, China is now officially using only the Chinese nation, not the Han nation.China is now aware of its mistakes. Now, efforts are being made to downplay the concept of ethnic groups and to emphasize the unity of the Chinese nation.
In summary。 In history, Manchus nation did not rule the Han nation. What really exists is that the nobles of Manchuria rule china. The living habits of the nobles in Manchuria are different from those of the Central Plains, but their systems and ideologies are the same. That's it. The ancient Chinese were uneducated, and there was no such thing as our concept. National conditions are not satisfied.
There use to be more Manchu, at least as a percentage of population. Before the introduction of new world crops(corn, tomatoes, peanuts, chili peppers) China’s population was much lower. Less than 200 million in 1650, around 200 million in 1700, which expanded to 400 million in 1900.
In 1650 there were also few Han Chinese in any of the NE provinces. Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang were predominantly Manchu and Mongol. Much lower populations but not majority Han. Towards the end of the Qing dynasty, a lot of Manchu died. In wars against the Burmese, Europeans, and Japanese. Whole lines of Manchu family linieage died as armies were wiped out.
At the end of the Qing dynasty yet more Manchu died in the rebellion against the Qing government. In the immediate aftermath, many Manchu hid their heritage. There was a definite anti-manchu fervor. There was no advantage of being a minority in the new state, only costs. Some individuals and families that could pass for Han did.
All this paints a picture of a far more numerous Manchu that led the conquest in 1644. Not 1% but more like 5%. Also in 1644 the Manchu had the help of the Mongols, who they incorporated into their army and early government.
Wang FeiFei's answer is the most "Chinese" answer here. The Confucian concept of the "mandate of heaven" authorizes and legitimizes anybody that can claim the throne.
Because the Chinese culture has always prioritized family well being over abstract concepts like freedom or justice, it has always been easy for every conquering force like the Mongol, Manchu, or Japanese to find Han people that will support and work with them.
The Bannerman were certainly a formidable fighting force, but the extinguishing of the continued Ming resistance was done with the Han army and Han local power structures helping. The Manchu were no different than the British in India. Yet the Indians don't seem to see the Raj as a brilliant continuance of Indian rule.
The Manchu's were expended by about 1760. At that point they could not deliver the primary task of any government - to protect the people. But, this weakness was attractive to the western countries, so they were kept in power by the westerners. Even after the Boxer rebellion the government was not changed by the western countries.
The comment of Aka xia is rather subjective. Since Han had the power of wining, then why did the reign of manchus last for nearly 300 years UNTIL the arrival of western troops and their culture?
The fact is that most han people are not good at using their strength and and intelligence to defeat their opponents on battlefield. Instead they tend to choose to be enslaved and wait for a chance to rebel, like when Manchus sacrificed lots of lives to defeat Mongols from Jungar and defend the country during the opium wars.
These battles greatly weakend the banner troops, so in fact most han people acted like a pack of shameful and cunning cowards. Sun yat sen actually tried to seek help from Japanese and Russians, who just wanted to occupy China, and he literally considered manchuria to be not a part of China.
Manchu soldiers, undeniably, did very well in defeating han. There were basically no royal princes died in the military campaigns, and words quoted like "two manchu prince killed, thousands squre miles of lands recovered" were likely to be the faked truth or exaggeration, as Han Chinese almost always try to modify the history when they can, just like how theyare addicted to forging research essays and getting them published. In fact Yongzheng emperor had claimed that 100 manchu bannermen could match 2000 han soldiers in green standard army.
In response to the question, Manchus can dominate China successfully for many reasons, and this is a rather complex issue. I personally suggest the books written by some western priests who worked for the royal family in Qing dynasty, as they got very detailed descriptions about the features of manchu and han. In brief, manchus are outstanding strategists, braver and smarter on the battlefield, mentally and physically stronger, and know han people well.
Also, despite that manchu's culture is a primitive one, that does not mean that manchu cannot absord the most valuable part of other cultures and develop their own, which is supposed to be even better.
Make no mistake, the Manchus were colonial overlords, and in that respect not so unique in ruling over a vast population with a tiny minority that had a different language and culture. To put it in perspective, the British ruled India with even lesser proportion of the population. In some ways, their rule was similar to that of the Manchus.
They kept virtually all the existing institutions, and simply placed themselves on the top of those institutions. They then use the strength of those institutions to continue to rule over the vast population. I think both sides found that this was the most efficient way to rule and collect taxes.
In the case of Qing, these institutions include the Qing-led Han army, known as the Green Standard Army, and the imperial examination system. Just as an ambitious Indian soldier would work thorough the ranks in the British-led army, an ambitious Han soldier would work through the ranks of the Qing army.
I think the reason is the economic collapses in north China. During the last several decades of the Ming dynasty, the weather in north China was cold and dry and there were crop failure year by year. The Ming government was not able to gather enough incoming to feed the army and provide disaster relief.
The south China was rich but due to the rules made by Zhuyuanzhang, the founder of the dynasty, the government are forbidden from tax much from the south China. (In Chinese history, breaking the rule made by an ancestor emperor will greatly weaken the legality of a successor emperor.) As a result, the government must raise the tax ratio and made the people angry.
After manchu defeat the army of ming, they didn't need to obey the rule of Zhuyuanzhang (of course) and generate enough incoming from the south China. So they are able to lower down the tax ratio in the north and so people soon accept the governing.
This question is anachronistic because it assumes there is an inherent conflict in Manchus controlling China. The British monarch has been German for centuries, and that only became a problem during World War I, when they changed their name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor.
Before the development of the modern nation-state, the prospect of someone from a different nation controlling the state wasn't as big of a deal. Indeed, there wasn't a modern conception of nations for there to be a conflict between.
The Qing Dynasty wasn't Chinese, it was Central (中国 Central Country). That is, the Emperor wasn't the ruler of a specific community of people, he mediated between heaven and earth standing in the center of a universal world order. Other groups of people were not thought of in modern terms of racial or national difference, but in cultural terms of civilization and lack thereof.
So, there's a white guy from Queens who is the most Chinese person I've ever met. He can quote Confucian, Daoist and Buddhist scriptures off the top of his head in flawless Mandarin, his apartment is set up with all classical Chinese furniture, etc.. We can describe him as "pretending to be Chinese". But in adopting Chinese culture, the Manchus weren't pretending to be Chinese, they were becoming civilized.
At the same time, like most pre-modern states, the Qing ruled through local power structures. People in most of the empire never encountered the Qing state - tax collection, dispute mediation, and other state functions were mostly handled by locals, not the central state.
The Qing directly controlled certain strategically or economically important areas, and had garrisons around the empire that would brutally suppress anything they deemed threatening. But overall, they just coordinated the activities of other power structures, such as clans.
So, concretely, they governed in exactly the same way as other dynasties, by co-opting local power structures to their own ends. This included the Emperor presenting himself as a Confucian scholar to Han aristocrats, and presenting himself as a Bodhisattva to Tibetan Buddhist leaders. And as Feifei Wang, wrote, they were pretty good at doing that. The population of China doubled over the course of the Qing Dynasty - so clearly people had enough to eat.
You couldn't do the same thing today because of the rise of nationalism. In a modern nation state, the leader of the state needs to be a member of the nation.
The war between Ming and Qing is a civil war. Why is so? Not only Manchu is a ethic group in China today, but also they were then. There are several minority groups undet Ming sovereignty then. Including some Mongolians called Duoyan Guards(朵颜三卫, 兀良哈三卫), also including Manchus, by then they were called Jianzhou Manchu(建州女真), there was a administration established known as Jianzhou Guard(建州卫).
How did Ming lose a war to Qing? Ming doesn't simply be defeted so easily. The Ming was corrupted and meet fiscal problems then. The Military system are also outdated and there are less soldiers than registered. While Qing warriors are previously hunters.
There are also revolutions from other parts of the country, one is known as Dashun(大顺) of Li Zicheng(李自成). By the two wars, Ming failed to drag itself to continue the rule over China. The fall of Ming could be explained many ways, that is a little off topic so I will skip it.
And why can Qing maintain its power over China? I think the most important reason is they adopted Han Culture and political system. Unlike Yuan, Chinese was used as the official language in Qing Dynasty, which contributed to the longevity of Qing. The Han Chinese are able to be officers through Keju as before, so less Han Chinese are devoted to the rebellion of Qing.
After the fall of Ming, there were two remnant governments. One escaped to Myanmar(Zhu Youlang, 朱由榔) and the other fleed to Taiwan(Zheng Chenggong, 郑成功). Later Zhu Youlang was sent to Qing by his subordinate and much later Zheng’s successor surrendered to Qing. This can be partly explained by that most of Han Chinese admitted the legitimacy of Qing. I think the adoption of Han Culture is why it lasts longer than Yuan.
Because Han Chinese carried the traditional teaching from Confucius that one must be patient to withstand suppression for the purpose of survival, they even obey to wear a long pigtail to avoid death penalty. Theses characters have led them to become cowards. Unlike Korean or hongkonger, they will fight to the death for principle.
That is why you can see all mainland Han Chinese now are being submissive to the communist dictatorship as long as the government build infrastructure and jacked up the house prices for their benefits. But communist failed to subdue hongkonger even though they build Bridges and jacked up HK property.
China was in a mess at the end of the Ming Dynasty which fell to a warlord. A former Ming general let the Manchu’s through the pass on the great wall. Many other han chinese joined the Manchu’s. The Ming had declined for a while and while the last emperor was in fact well meaning he sucked, sadly - rather than not actually caring. But i think it was too late even if he was capable.
The Manchu rulers were capable and i think over time we accepted them. I view them as foreigners since they were non-han. I notice chinese more readily accept them than the mongols who also ruled China. I suppose it might be because the Manchu’s treated us not as bad as the Mongols and were more sinicized.
If i was a peasant back then and you asked me if i wanted to gamble on a han chinese emperor or accept the succession of good Qing emperors i would be practical and take the Manchus. What use is a han emperor if they sucked… and many of them did!
Chinese seem to be generally content with their lot as long as they are not oppressed to the point of rebellion. I notice this reading about chinese immigrants in the past to the US and Canada etc. Or even in modern day… chinese being bullied daily and just sucking it up.
So i guess it was a combination of han chinese accepting it (mostly that is since there were movements and rebellions) and manchu competency for the most part. Eventually their inability to deal with problems in the face of western powers led to their collapse and han chinese gave up working within the established system - they did for a long time try to reform to strengthen China.
The 3 famous emperors of the Qing; Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong did not rule well, For instance, when foreign ambassadors and Jesuit missionaries visited China during the height of Kang Xi’s rule, they reported seeing a large amount of beggars and orphans lining up the streets of the port of Canton all begging, grabbing and pushing around, the regular people were uncultured and mostly just defecated on the streets.
Foreign Jesuits’ comments when they visited Ming was that it was beautiful and the people are well cultured and friendly. Just contrasting the difference to what a 盛世 means.
In addition, Kangxi rewrote 明史 twice, Yongzheng twice, and Qianlong 3 times. How do you rewrite history when you were born more than a hundred years after Ming ended? So in our imagination today the Ming dynasty seems more like an evil empire when in effect it was an economic powerhouse that defeated multiple powerful nations, and proceed towards science and elightenment nearing the end of Ming.
The reason Ming ended was mainly because of natural catastrophes, continuous defensive wars which bankrupted Ming, and the powerful billionaires that did not want their 3.3% flat tax raised.
The Taiping Rebellion, the Xinhai Revolution, the Revolt of the Three Feudatories, the Revive China Society, the Tongmenghui, the Panthay Rebellion, White Lotus Rebellion all happened because of the Han trying to overthrow Qing rule, even when the 8 armies invaded Beijing the local Han populace actually sided with the West.
The Manchu emperors actually spoke Manchu to their Manchu officials, and wrote Manchus when on official duty. They only spoke Mandarin to the Hans and Mandarin itself is not purely a Han language. The forbidden city in Beijing is riddled in the Manchu language alongside Han.
The reason it was so easy for them to rule was that they genocided the entire Han populace from a 100 million down to less than 10 million, then rule through with iron fists even though subsequently there were multiple uprisings throughout their reigns.
The Han were not treated as slaves, they were treated less than slaves, rid of all dignity. Newlywed couples have to let the wife have sex with the local Manchu officials of their town. Manchu top officials were allowed to address themselves as 奴才(slaves), however Han were not allowed to address themselves as slaves as their status is lower than the slaves.
The Qing turned a powerful advanced civilization that is progressing toward modernity, into an arrogant backward farmland for foreign countries to rape during the century of humiliation. Just because there was a good tv propaganda in the 1990s led by the Manchus to beautify themselves does not make the Qing a good, wise, beautiful and legitimate dynasty.
The Manchus had the strongest army. The Ming were actually overthrown by Chinese rebel Li Zicheng. Ming general Wu Sangui then let the Manchus cross the Great Wall. He probably hoped to found his own dynasty, but was never strong enough and eventually was crushed after a failed rebellion. Broadly, the Han lacked unity and had no single leader who could oppose the Manchu.
When Jin dynasty lost the north, a general by the name of Huan Wen led an army north in 354 AD against former Qin dynasy. He met the future prime minister of former Qin , an ethnic Han, Wang meng.
And asked why the mainlu han ethnicity lands of Qin have not turned to support his forces when former Qin was non Han dynasty. Wang meng pointed out everyone was being cautious and waiting to see what huan wen wants since he stalled and has not advanced despite being within striking distance.
Notice this is AD 354 ? The person named Wang meng would actually go on to help unify the north under former Qin as prime minister. A Han helping a non Han state who's inhabitants are ethnic Han. What the Qing did was not particularly special, maybe rare by Western standards but in china , it is easy to gain the “mandate of heaven “ by governing well.
A contributing factor, besides Peter and Faye's excellent answers, is that the very nature of the Chinese is to value stability above almost all else.
Since the Qing dynasty provided relative stability in the country and pretty much continued to rule the way the Ming did and mostly adopted the Chinese customs and Confucian philosophy, so there was no great motivation to throw the country into turmoil by trying to overthrow them.
Also, as far as Chinese emperors go, the first three Qing emperors had pretty long and successful rules that were generally beneficial for China, and the Chinese were better off than they had been at the end of the Ming dynasty.-
Well Manchuria wasn't the first one! Chinese got used to the invasion of barbarians in the past and many of the Chinese dynasties were founded by nomads. Why? There are many reasons but the main reason is because Chinese lost their courage under the influence of Buddhism and Confucianism. Chinese intellectuals can talk the talk but not walk the walk.
平时袖手谈心性，临危一死报君王。
"Talking about stuff high up in the air with clean hands usually, but choose death in case of crisis to prove his loyalty". That's how pathetic Chinese had been over the years. That's also why so many Chinese still worship Chairman Mao so much because at least he had balls although he was almost insane.
The Manchus had strong superiority mentality as opposed Chinese’ inferiority mentality. Their culture influenced China tremendously contrary to many people think. The Manchu hairstyle (queue) dominated in China for centuries and even today the Chinese still wear Manchu clothes (qipao) totally abandoning own clothes. The Manchu's control of China lasted remarkably long and ceased mainly because of colonial superpowers' such as British, Russian, Japanese influence.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Manchus-control-China-for-nearly-300-years-1644-1911-even-though-they-were-less-than-1-of-the-population-of-the-Han-Chinese
Atahualpa (also Atawallpa) was the last ruler of the Inca empire who reigned from 1532 CE until his capture and execution by the invading Spanish forces led by Pizarro in 1533 CE. The troubled Incas had suffered six years of damaging civil war and Atahualpa was only just enjoying his ascendancy to the throne when the Spanish arrived to turn the Inca world upside down.
Further weakened by European-introduced diseases which wiped out millions, the Incas could do nothing against the better-armed invaders who would stop at nothing to gain the fabulous riches of the Americas’ largest ever empire.
Atahualpa’s father Wayna Qhapaq died in 1528 CE of smallpox, the most distinguished victim of the epidemic of European diseases which had spread from central America even faster than the foreign invaders themselves could manage. This epidemic killed a staggering 65-90% of the native population.
When Wayna Qhapaq died without choosing a second heir (his first choice Ninan Cuyuchi also died of smallpox) Atahualpa battled for the throne with his half-brother Waskar (or Huascar) in a hugely damaging civil war which the Spanish would be only too glad to take advantage of when they arrived on Inca territory in 1532 CE.
Atahualpa was based in the northern capital at Quito while Waskar was at Cuzco. After diplomatic relations soured between the two brothers, open warfare broke out in the north. There followed a series of battles costly to both sides until, after six years of fighting, Atahualpa finally prevailed.
By the time Spanish arrived, Atahualpa had managed to capture Waskar but the factions which had deeply split the empire remained. Waskar was imprisoned and his kin-group was killed, as were those who had supported him.
Atahualpa even killed historians and destroyed the Inca quipu records. This was to be a total renewal, what the Incas called a pachakuti or ‘turning over of time and space’, an epoch-changing event which the Incas believed periodically occurred through the ages.
What Atahualpa did not know was that another pachakuti was less than a year away, and this time he would be its victim. Atahualpa’s reign may have been brief but, as the Sapa (‘Unique’) Inca, he lived a life of extreme luxury.
Atahualpa’s reign may have been brief but, as the Sapa (‘Unique’) Inca, he lived a life of extreme luxury. Drinking from gold cups, wearing silver-soled sandals and treated as a manifestation of the Sun god Inti on earth, Atahualpa was the head of the largest and richest empire the Americas had ever seen.
His taste for opulence was chronicled by the Spanish who said that he once ordered a cloak made only from bat skins. As the Inca king, he had the right to wear even more gold jewellery than the already over-laden nobility. His regalia included a feather headband (Ilauto), a golden mace (champi), and king-size golden ear-spools.
The monarch travelled on a gold and silver litter further embellished with parrot feathers. He was fed food by a servant, and anything the royal person touched was collected and burnt in an annual ceremony to ward off witchcraft. If ever there was a pampered ruler it was the Sapa Inca of ancient Peru.
Pizarro Arrives - On Friday, 15th of November, 1532 CE the 168-man force of Spaniards led by Francisco Pizarro approached the Inca town of Cajamarca in the highlands of Peru. Pizzaro sent word that he wished to meet the Inca king, there enjoying the local springs and basking in his recent victory over Waskar.
Atahualpa agreed to finally meet the much-rumoured bearded white men who were known to have been fighting their way from the coast for some time. Confidently surrounded by his 80,000 strong army Atahualpa seems not to have seen any threat from such a small enemy force and he made Pizarro wait until the next day. Then, seated on a low wooden throne and accompanied by all his wives and nobles, the Inca ruler finally came face to face with these curious visitors from another world.
The first formal meeting between Pizarro and Atahualpa involved a few speeches, a drink together while they watched some Spanish horsemanship and not much else. Both sides went away planning to capture or kill the other party at the first available opportunity.
The very next day Pizarro, using the conveniently labyrinth-like architecture of the Inca town to his advantage, set his men in ambush to await Atahualpa’s arrival in the main square. When the royal troop arrived Pizarro fired his small canons and then his men, wearing armour, attacked on horseback.
In the ensuing battle, where firearms were mismatched against spears, arrows, slings, and clubs, 7,000 Incas were killed against zero Spanish losses. Atahualpa was hit a blow on the head and captured alive.
Either held for ransom by Pizarro or even offering a ransom himself, Atahualpa’s safe return to his people would only happen if a room measuring 6.2 x 4.8 metres were filled with all the treasures the Incas could provide up to a height of 2.5 m. This was done and the chamber was piled high with gold objects from jewellery to idols. The room was then filled twice again with silver objects.
The whole task took eight months and the value today of the accumulated treasures would have been well over $50 million. Meanwhile, Atahualpa continued to run his empire from captivity and Pizarro sent exploratory expeditions to Cuzco and awaited reinforcements from Panama.
Then, having got his ransom, Pizarro summarily tried and executed Atahualpa anyway, on the 26th of July 1533 CE. The Inca king was originally sentenced to death by burning at the stake but, after the monarch agreed to be baptized, this was commuted to death by strangulation.
Some of Pizarro’s men thought this was the worst possible response but the wily Spanish leader had seen just how subservient the Incas were to their king, even when he was held captive by the enemy. As one Miguel de Estete described the king receiving visitors during his captivity,
One of the reasons the Inca empire collapsed so swiftly following Atahualpa’s death, perhaps in less than 40 years, was the fact that it was founded on, and maintained by, force, and the ruling Incas (only 40,000) were very often unpopular with their subjects (10,000,000 of them), especially in the northern territories.
This was not least because the Incas extracted heavy tribute from conquered peoples – both in kind and labour - and loyal Inca subjects were forced on these communities to better integrate them into the empire. The Inca Empire, in fact, had still not reached a stage of consolidated maturity – it had only just reached its greatest extent a few years before.
It was a combination of factors then, a veritable perfect storm of rebellion, disease, and invasion, which brought the downfall of Atahualpa and the mighty Inca Empire. In addition, the Inca mode of warfare was highly ritualized where such things as deceit, ambush, and subterfuge were unknown.
Inca warriors were highly dependent on their officers, and if these fell in battle, a whole army could quickly collapse in panicked retreat. These factors and the superior weaponry of the Europeans meant the Incas had very little chance of defending a huge empire already difficult to manage.
Pizarro received criticism from the Spanish king Carlos I for treating a foreign sovereign so shabbily, and his attempts to install a puppet ruler – Thupa Wallpa, the younger brother of Waskar - failed to restore any sort of political order.
The Spanish soon found out that the vast geographical spread of their new empire and its inherent difficulties in communication and control (even if their predecessors had built an excellent road system) meant that they faced the same management problems as the Incas.
Added to this was the massive population decline following epidemics and communities still resentful of outside rule. For those local tribes, a change in rulers, unfortunately, brought no respite from a rapacious overlord, once again, eager to steal their wealth and impose on them a foreign religion.
https://www.ancient.eu/amp/1-12512/
The House of Juglar hasn't existed since the 1840s, so when this champagne was discovered in a sunken ship those who found it knew it was seriously old. After spending so much time at the bottom of the sea, this 1820 Juglar Cuvee came out encrusted with barnacles.
There were 10,000 eunuchs in the palace by the end of the 15th century and 70,000 by 1644. This number was the result of an increasing number of men seeking work in the Forbidden City and undergoing voluntary emasculation. At the beginning of the Qing dynasty the number was reduced to 3,000, because the Manchus were concerned the eunuchs had too much influence in the royal court.
The simple fact was, the Manchus were good rulers. The early Manchu Emperors were competent, hard working, and ambitious. They expanded the Chinese Empire far beyond its traditional borders, they respected Han Chinese culture (mostly) and, most importantly, they presided over a 2 century long economic boom in China. During the Qing Dynasty, China's population doubled to 400 million.
This was mostly due to more efficient management, infrastructural development and relative peace. A similar population explosion happened in Europe but that was mainly from technological advances in sanitation, and introduction of New World crops like potatoes and corn.
During the last several decades of the Ming dynasty, the weather in north China was cold and dry and there were crop failure year by year. The Ming government was not able to gather enough incoming to feed the army and provide disaster relief.
The south China was rich but due to the rules made by Zhuyuanzhang, the founder of the dynasty, the government are forbidden from tax much from the south China. (In Chinese history, breaking the rule made by an ancestor emperor will greatly weaken the legality of a successor emperor.)
As a result, the government must raise the tax ratio and made the people angry. After manchu defeat the army of ming, they didn't need to obey the rule of Zhuyuanzhang (of course) and generate enough incoming from the south China. So they are able to lower down the tax ratio in the north and so people soon accept the governing.
And why can Qing maintain its power over China? I think the most important reason is they adopted Han Culture and political system. Unlike Yuan, Chinese was used as the official language in Qing Dynasty, which contributed to the longevity of Qing. The Han Chinese are able to be officers through Keju as before, so less Han Chinese are devoted to the rebellion of Qing.
China was in a mess at the end of the Ming Dynasty which fell to a warlord. A former Ming general let the Manchu’s through the pass on the great wall. Many other han chinese joined the Manchu’s. The Ming had declined for a while and while the last emperor was in fact well meaning he sucked, sadly - rather than not actually caring. But i think it was too late even if he was capable.
The Manchu rulers were capable and i think over time we accepted them. I view them as foreigners since they were non-han. I notice chinese more readily accept them than the mongols who also ruled China. I suppose it might be because the Manchu’s treated us not as bad as the Mongols and were more sinicized.
If i was a peasant back then and you asked me if i wanted to gamble on a han chinese emperor or accept the succession of good Qing emperors i would be practical and take the Manchus. What use is a han emperor if they sucked… and many of them did!
Many good answers already. Obviously, if Qing was not doing something right, it couldn’t have ruled the country for 300 years. There were many reasons driving this, but the primary one, is this: the hardest working emperors China ever had.
Yes, there have been great emperors before. The often cited ones, and personally recognized by Mao, are: Qin Shihuang - The first emperor. While he committed a lot of atrocities, some of his policies and achievements forged the China we see today. He proved that all of China can be united under one government.
Without him, China might not have exited feudalism and may look more like Europe today. He unified the written language, coinage, and road tracks, which greatly facilitated the integration, communication, and commerce of different parts of China.
He built the Great Wall and provided a means of protection from the nomads of the Mongolian steppes to the agricultural communities of Han. He established a legal framework that was copied and proliferated by the Han dynasty, resulting in a system of governance that have been used ever since. Simply put, he was the first in many aspects.
Han Wudi - He was the emperor that solved the Huns problem once and for all and greatly expanded China’s territory and cultural influence. He presided over the institutionalization of Confucianism while further expanded the Legalist framework of governance. He is the reason why most Chinese today are Han Chinese.
Tang Taizong - The second emperor of Tang but commander-in-chief credited with reunification of the country. He led the country into the second golden age, dramatically changing a war torn land into a land of prosperity. Militarily and diplomatically, he subjugated the Turkic nomads then occupying the Mongolian steppes left void by the Huns.
He created a country that was open and accepting for all with many minorities holding critical government positions. He was hailed as Tenger Khan or God-like Emperor by the peoples of Greater Asia.
Domestically, he further solidified the national examination system started during the Sui Dynasty and is still in use today. It provided equal opportunity for every citizen a means to dream. He is always in contention as the best emperor of all time in historian debates.
Song Taizu - The founding emperor of Song. Similar to Taizong of Tang, he re-unified the country. While oftentimes cited as the weakest of the long dynasties, the humane policies he put in place won over people for centuries, and was a main reason why people coalesced under the Song banner in south China for another 150 years after the government lost all of north China.
Domestically, his policies created a country flush with art, culture, and commerce. It was estimated that the Song dynasty GDP was over 50% of global GDP at the time.
So, why do I cite these emperors if the question is about Qing? Because Qing had some of the best emperors that can rival these four great ones. Kangxi, for example, is easily in contention for one of the top three emperors of all time.
Under his reign, Manchu integration with Han was initiated, internal rebellions largely subsided and reunification with Taiwan was accomplished. He solidified the country’s borders and signed a peace treaty with Russia to settle a long running border dispute.
He ushered in the Kang-Qian Golden Age. Between him and Qianlong, his grandson, each ruling for 60+ years, that’s over 120 years of prosperity! Qianlong, while considered by many to be over flamboyant, carried the mantle and continued the system of economic development and military expansion.
Even if Qianlong might not compare to the four great ones cited above, he easily rivaled Han Wendi and Han Jingdi, known for their combined reign over the Wen-Jing Golden Age, which set the foundation for Han Wudi’s military expansion.
Ok, so what about bad emperors ? Did Qing have bad emperors? Cixi aside, it is actually really hard to find a bad emperor. The succession system Qing put in place ensured that emperors were selected based on merit. Every royal heirs were potential candidates. They had to study hard and were put to the test in actual governmental assignments, including as military commanders.
If you look at some of the Ming emperors, whom Qing replaced, you will see a different picture. Ming produced some of the worst emperors ever:
Zhengde - The traveling emperor. The dude would rather travel the countryside than attend his imperial duties. He reigned for 16 years.
Jiajing - The Taoist emperor. He was more interested in alchemy than governing. He reigned for 45 years. Wanli - The emperor on strike. Yes, this emperor was officially on strike. He reigned for 48 years. Tianqi - The master carpenter emperor. His woodwork was of remarkably exquisite quality. He reigned for 7 years.
Looking at these Ming emperors, it was not too hard for the general populace to see that the Qing emperors were much better. It was the dedication and hard work that these Qing emperors put in that won the hearts of Chinese people and ensured the longevity of the Qing dynasty.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Manchus-control-China-for-nearly-300-years-1644-1911-even-though-they-were-less-than-1-of-the-population-of-the-Han-Chinese.
Vào thời giặc Minh đặt ách đô hộ ở nước Nam, chúng coi dân ta như cỏ rác, làm nhiều điều bạo ngược, thiên hạ căm giận chúng đến xương tủy. Bấy giờ ở vùng Lam Sơn, nghĩa quân nổi dậy chống lại chúng, nhưng trong buổi đầu thế lực còn non yếu nên nhiều lần nghĩa quân bị thua. Thấy vậy, đức Long Quân quyết định cho nghĩa quân mượn thanh gươm thần để họ giết giặc.
Hồi ấy, ở Thanh Hóa có một người làm nghề đánh cá tên là Lê Thận. Một đêm nọ, Thận thả lưới ở một bến vắng như thường lệ. Khi kéo lưới lên, chàng thấy nằng nặng, trong bụng mừng thầm, chắc là có cá to. Nhưng khi thò tay vào bắt cá, Thận chỉ thấy có một thanh sắt; chàng vứt luôn xuống nước, rồi lại thả lưới ở một chỗ khác.
Lần thứ hai cất lưới lên cũng thấy nặng tay; Thận không ngờ thanh sắt vừa rồi lại chui vào lưới mình. Chàng lại nhặt lên và ném xuống sông. Lần thứ ba, lại vẫn thanh sắt ấy mắc vào lưới. Lấy làm quái lạ, Thận đưa lại mồi lửa nhìn xem. Bỗng chàng reo lên: – Ha ha! Một lưỡi gươm!
Về sau Thận gia nhập đoàn quân khởi nghĩa Lam Sơn. Chàng hăng hái gan dạ không nề nguy hiểm. Một hôm chủ tướng Lê Lợi cùng mấy người tùy tòng đến nhà Thận. Trong túp lều tối om, thanh sắt hôm đó tự nhiên sáng rực lên ở xó nhà. Lấy làm lạ, Lê Lợi cầm lấy xem và thấy có hai chữ “Thuận Thiên” khắc sâu vào lưỡi gươm. Song tất cả mọi người vẫn không biết đó là báu vật.
Một hôm, bị giặc đuổi, Lê Lợi và các tướng chạy tháo thân mỗi người một ngả. Lúc đi qua một khu rừng, Lê Lợi bỗng thấy một ánh sáng lạ trên ngọn cây đa. Ông trèo lên mới biết đó là một cái chuôi gươm nạm ngọc. Nhớ đến lưỡi gươm ở nhà Lê Thận, Lê Lợi rút lấy chuôi giắt vào lưng.
Ba ngày sau, Lê Lợi gặp lại tất cả các bạn trong đó có Lê Thận. Lê Lợi mới đem chuyện bắt được chuôi gươm kể lại cho mọi người nghe. Khi đem tra gươm vào chuôi thì vừa như in. Lê Thận nâng gươm lên ngang đầu nói với Lê Lợi:
– Ðây là Trời có ý phó thác cho minh công làm việc lớn. Chúng tôi nguyện đem xương thịt của mình theo minh công, cùng với thanh gươm thần này để báo đền Tổ quốc!
Từ đó nhuệ khí của nghĩa quân ngày một tăng tiến. Trong tay Lê Lợi, thanh gươm thần tung hoành khắp các trận địa, làm cho quân Minh bạt vía. Uy thanh của nghĩa quân vang khắp nơi.
Họ không phải trốn tránh như trước mà xông xáo đi tìm giặc. Họ không phải ăn uống khổ cực như trước nữa, đã có những kho lương của giặc mới cướp được tiếp tế cho họ. Gươm thần đã mở đường cho họ đánh tràn ra mãi, cho đến lúc không còn bóng một tên giặc trên đất nước.
Một năm sau khi đuổi giặc Minh, một hôm Lê Lợi – bấy giờ đã làm vua – cưỡi thuyền rồng dạo quanh hồ Tả Vọng trước kinh thành. Nhân dịp đó, Long Quân sai rùa vàng lên đòi lại thanh gươm thần. Khi chiếc thuyền rồng tiến ra giữa hồ, tự nhiên có một con rùa lớn nhô đầu và mai lên khỏi mặt nước.
Theo lệnh vua, thuyền đi chậm lại. Ðứng ở mạn thuyền, vua thấy lưỡi gươm thần đeo bên người tự nhiên động đậy. Con rùa vàng không sợ người, nhô đầu lên cao nữa và tiến về phía thuyền vua. Nó đứng nổi trên mặt nước và nói: “Xin bệ hạ hoàn gươm lại cho Long Quân!”.
Vua rút gươm quẳng về phía rùa vàng. Nhanh như cắt, rùa há miệng đớp lấy thanh gươm và lặn xuống nước. Gươm và rùa đã chìm đáy nước, người ta vẫn còn thấy vật gì sáng le lói dưới mặt hồ xanh. Từ đó hồ Tả Vọng bắt đầu mang tên là hồ Gươm hay hồ Hoàn Kiếm.
https://truyencotich.vn/truyen-co-tich/co-tich-viet-nam/su-tich-ho-hoan-kiem.html
You don’t necessarily need a large population to conquer a bigger country. If your military is powerful, you can conquer a bigger country. Just like British with their superior weapons colonized India and defeated Qing China during the Opium Wars. Now in the case of Manchus, Ming Dynasty had a bigger population, a bigger economy, a bigger military, and relatively superior technology( bigger cannons, more muskets, powerful navy, etc.).
But Manchus were still able to overcome it. You have to explain this from a military and political perspective. You defeat the bigger opponent ( Ming)in a crucial battle/campaign or series of crucial battles/campaigns. Bigger opponent fails to recover afterwards and starts to disintegrate. Bigger opponent crumbles within, by internal rebellions ( Li Zicheng Rebellion) and massive defections to your side( Wu Sangui at Shanhaiguan among others).
You( Manchus) have a progressive policy, where you embrace Ming culture and government, as well as defecting elites, multiplying your strength and hastening the downfall of your opponent ( Ming ). Jurchens ( later Manchus under Hongtaici) defeated the Ming expeditionary force at the crucial Battle of Sarhu from 14 April to 18 April 1619, after which Ming never really recovered( meaning it could not send another sizeable force against Jurchens).
So how did smaller Jurchen army ( estimate around 60,000) defeat the bigger Ming army( estimate around 130,000 including Joson allied troops) sent to Sarhu? Several reasons.
1.Better commanders- Nurhaci and his commanders rose from a minor tribe in unifying the Jurchen( later Manchu under his son Hongtaici) tribes through a succession of wars. Ming army was led by Yang Hao, who had been defeated by Japanese in Korea and who lied about his defeat. Ming commanders under Yang Hao were not co-operating with other, but rushed to the battlefield independently, greedy for personal glory instead of the unified victory.
2.Better trained soldiers-Jurchen soldiers fought in continuous tribal wars. They led a semi-nomadic lifestyles where they grew up with horses, archery, and hunting. They were organized into the Eight Banner System under Nurhaci.
This was a military political system, where they could easily be mobilized for war at a moment’s notice. Also, they had an incentive system: they were awarded spoils of conquest, such as land, booty, slaves, and other things. They could become rich through war.
Jurchen cavalry, like this nineteenth century soldier here, many had grown up since childhood through their semi-nomadic lifestyles hunting with archery on horsebacks. Later swelled into the Eight Banner Army, which gradually incorporated defecting Mongols, Ming troops with musketeers, cannoneers, infantry, and navy after the Battle of Sarhu.
On the other hand, Ming soldiers were conscripts, who were paid a salary. Not all of them had battle field experiences. They were also recruits who were trained to be soldiers, unlike the Jurchens, who knew how to ride a horse and use archery since childhood.
3. Better tactics-Nurhaci decided to defeat the Ming in piecemeal, exploiting the lack of cohesion between Ming armies sent against him. In this way, Manchus had achieved a local superiority in numbers against each separate Ming army they had faced.
In addition, Jurchens faced Ming army in their home turf, where they were very familiar with the terrain. Ming army was unfamiliar with the terrain they were attacking. The Battle of Sarhu took place near Hetuala, the first capital of Nurhaci.
Du Song’s Western Route army of 32,000 arrived in Sarhu Lake on April 14th. That night, he camped at the mountain and led about 10,000 of the force against Jurchen fort at Jabiyan(界藩城). While deceiving Du Song’s detachment at Jabiyan, Nurhaci took most of his forces( 45,000) to concentrated attack on the main camp at Sarhu.
Sand storm was blowing against the Ming campsite and Ming army had to light up the camp with camp fires in the darkness, which allowed Jurchens to bombard with arrows the direction of fires, which resulted in Ming massacre.
Meanwhile, Du Song found out that Jabiyan was a ruse and it was only guarded by some 500 Jurchen troops. Du Song was ambushed by 15,000 Jurchen troops under Hongtaici. While struggling to fight off the Jurchens, they were attacked by Nurhaci’s victorious returning main army. Du Song was killed in the battle.
On 16th of April, Northern Route Army of 30,000 under Ma Lin marched and camped at Siyanggiyan, up north. Nurhaci’s forces surrounded the camp and made a surprise attack with rapid cavalry charges. A story says Ma Lin’s cannons and musketeers only fired a one round before Jurchen cavalry fell upon them. One of the co-commanders under Ma Lin, Fan Zhongyan, became scared and fled from the battlefield. Northern Route army was routed and Ma Lin escaped.
On 18 of April, Eastern Route army of 30,000 under Liu Ting, augmented by Joson forces under Gang Hongrip, marched directly against Hetuala. His armies still did not know that Du Song and Ma Lin’s forces had been defeated. They were ambushed by Jurchen forces at Abudali Pass and Liu Ting was killed. Gang Hongrip surrendered to Jurchen forces.
After hearing the defeats of three route armies, rest of Ming forces withdrew. Yang Hao, the supreme commander was blamed and executed for the defeat by the court.
4. Speed- This is very important in the execution of war. Jurchen army was mainly cavalry. While Ming was a mix of cavalry and infantry. Speed affords multiple advantages to the side, who is able to execute this. They can split and recombine their armies as it fits( although it takes a lot of coordination) and maneuver and attack side, rear, or wherever they want. Speedy charge also disaffects the opponent, who is much slower.
In a battle against thousands and tens of thousands troops, involving wide area of land, you can not possibly see everything and everyone, besides the weather ( sandstorm, night, fog), smog, and terrain obstructions. With superior tactics and speed, you can fool the opponent and flank and surprise them at vulnerable sides and even rear.
But speed should not be confused with haste. Ming armies were hasty, which made them exhausted, instead of speedy. Like Du Song’s Western Route Army rushed across the Hun River which had rapid currents, resulting in casualties and exhausting his men and horses before even reaching the battlefield.
Part of the reasons why Ming army had such poor generals probably had to do with their corrupt political system, which sold offices by bribery and forgave the incompetent liars like Yang Hao( earlier in Joson). The emperor Wanli left the administration under the control of eunuchs for nearly twenty years. Maybe because Wanli was fed up with greedy and corrupt officials.
But he was a mediocre emperor, who had shunned his imperial responsibility to be tough with corruption. Wanli’s succesors were young emperors who were controlled or swayed by eunuchs as well. The last emperor Chongzhen, partly retrieved the imperial power from the eunuchs. But he too was deceived by their plot and executed Yuan Chonghuan, the most capable Ming general at the time on the suspicion of treason.
As a result of the defeat at the Battle of Sarhu, it compounded the internal problems of corruption, famine, fiscal and social issues of the Ming. Large numbers of Ming officials and troops defected to Manchus, due to the pro-defection policies of Manchus( which began aggressively under Hongtaici, the second leader of Manchus and the first emperor of Qing).
Massive internal rebellion by the disaffected populace, the biggest being Li Zicheng, finally brought down the Ming Dynasty in 1644 ( Emperor Chongzhen’s suicide). It allowed Manchus to defeat Li Zicheng and fill the power vacuum.
After the capture of Beijing by the Manchu Qing Dynasty, it was only a matter of time the rest of country( including the Southern Ming resistance) to be unified under the new dynasty.
Actually, the Chinese Ming Empire was conquered by Li Zicheng, a former Ming government postman, together with Zhang Xianzhong, a former small chief in the Ming army. Talking about Going postal v0.1, Chinese version. They conquered Beijing and forced the last Ming emperor to commit suicide in April 1644.
A month later, he was defeated by another Chinese general working for the Manchu army. Wu Sangui Two month later, in June 1644, the Manchu army, which was about 80,000 Manchu, 20,000 Mongolian, 100,000 Chinese, conquered Beijing. From there, to sweeping through the whole Southern China, the “conquering” was mostly led by Chinese generals and the surrendered Chinese army. The excuse was that the Manchu emperor vowed to avenged the death of the last Ming emperor against the “bandits”.
From this series of historic events, one can already catch a glimpse of the answer to this question - Alienation. The vast majority of the Chinese people were alienated from their own country in the Ming Dynasty, financially, politically, and militarily. The Ming Dynasty was going down regardless, then between the options of Li Zicheng and Qing dynasty led by the Manchus, the Manchus was a better option.
The story of financial alienation should be familiar to all who learned about the French Revolution. In China it happens almost always on a ~ 300-year cycle. Basically, you can not collect tax from the extremely poor and the extremely rich, because the poor has no money and the rich has a million ways to avoid paying taxes.
So as the inequality increases, the tax base shrinks, and eventually the Central Government has no money to perform the required state functions such as defense and disaster relief. Then people will say, why do I need a state when it does nothing for me?
Sounds familiar? The Central Government of the preceding Song dynasty (960 - 1120 AD) collected ~ 100 million ounces of silver a year in taxes. The Central Government of Ming dynasty was able to collect only about 4 - 5 million ounces of silver a year.
The subsequent Manchu-led Qing dynasty collected 50 - 70 million ounces of silver a year. When Li Zicheng surrounded Beijing, and the last Ming emperor Chongzhen Emperor asked the rich in Beijing to contribute to the city’s defense, his own empress’ father, one of the rich government officials, extremely reluctantly donated 2000 ounces of silver for Beijing’s defense.
Everybody else went, ok, Lord Zhou’s daughter is the empress. His grandson is the Crown Prince, and he gave only 2000 ounces of silver. I benefit less from the State then he does, so of course I should donate even less! The total donation ended up being a trivial amount compared with what was needed for defense.
After Beijing fell, his daughter hanged herself, and his grandsons were killed, Lord Zhou’s house was confiscated by Li Zicheng, in which he found. “in cash”, over 700,000 ounces of silver. 周奎 (明朝) Within a month, and just among the rich government officials in Beijing, Li Zicheng confiscated 70 million ounces of silver, in cash!
Rich men just really hate paying out money, unless it’s profitable. Always. The richer they are, the more this whole “government”-thing appears to be just a burden to them.
Do you think this is only a Ming China issue? Ha! Florida is filled to the brim with rich people. No state income tax, you see. When it got hit by Hurricane Andrew, the Fed wrote a $11 billion dollar check for it. What is the highest amount an individual donated to the disaster relief?
How did private charity compared with public relief? You should check it out. Hint: the public taxpayers are like 5 times more charitable than your “private philanthropy”. The vast majority of private charities came not from the rich, but from middle-class households giving $50 each.
The Ming government paid 10 - 20% of total government expenditure a year as stipend to the emperor’s royal cousins, which had swelled from ~ 10 in the beginning of the dynasty to 40,000 - 50,000 by the end. None of them paid a dime for disaster relief or national defense. Well then, since nobody would pay to defend the country, the country was lost.
Politically the Ming Dynasty was the most famous Chinese dynasties that was wrecked by Party Politics, i.e., I don’t care what you say, I don’t care what you do. You belong to the Other Party. therefore you are evil and I want you dead, and I will ally with whatever liars/spies/foreign enemies to bring you down. The best brains and the most astute politicians from both sides dedicated their entire political careers and their lives to how to kill each other off. 東林黨爭
OK then, what if I don’t join any party and just try to do a good job? Well then you don’t have the protection of either party, and both will try to screw you over.
As with all party politics, that the higher the rhetoric soared, the further away from the practical solutions. You can see hints of that in the endless bickering between the Republicans and Democrats in the US, or the “veto all possibilities” British Parliament regarding Brexit.
Basically, if you take the current British Parliament, and toss it to the late Ming Dynasty, they would have said, you can’t raise taxes, can’t recruit more troops, can’t allow regional defense initiative, can’t fight, can’t flee, can’t…, which would be exactly, literally, what happened!
It’s unavoidable. The number one priority for everyone is to kill off each other. You get blamed for doing anything, so let’s all do nothing but jack up the volume of vocal grandstanding. On top of this, the last Ming emperor himself was a particularly unfortunate choice - someone who was hardworking and inept. So he was super busy doing the wrong things diligently the whole time. Such as changing the prime minister for like 50 times during his 17-year reign.
Party fights essentially meant that nothing got done, which would not be so disastrous if the country were not facing natural disasters, peasant rebellions, and foreign invasions all at the same time. The most direct result was that good people no longer participated in running the country. Politics was for “losers” and “assh*les”.
That sounds familiar too, doesn’t it? The vicious opportunists were the only ones left. In the end, most of the peasant army fought to the death. Many lowly court servants committed suicides. Most Ming officials surrendered, first to Li Zicheng, then the Manchu army. That’s what opportunists do. All that soaring rhetoric before the surrender, was like the funniest joke ever! 洪承疇 Infinitely accommodating to oneself, infinitely critical to everybody else, this is what Party Politics is.
The military alienation was probably the most direct cause for the loss of the Ming empire. The founding father of the Manchus, Nurhaci, actually started his career as a Chinese border guardsman and the adopted son of the top Chinese general at the border, Li Chengliang. He was essentially nurtured and trained to go deal with those other bothersome Jurchen tribes.
Talking about a truly epic blowback a hundred times worse than your average little Bin Laden! But it still wouldn’t be a big problem if he was by himself. The problem was how many other Chinese generals switched sides. I mentioned the composition of the “Manchu Army” which conquered Beijing before - the biggest component was the Chinese troops. This situation persisted throughout the entire “conquering China” process.
There were 4 or 5 times more Chinese troops surrendering to the Manchu Army than the total number of Manchus themselves. And this is where the Manchu leaders showed more maturity than Li Zicheng’s peasant army - the Manchus offered titles, money, and their own daughters to the surrendering Chinese officials. Li Zicheng’s peasant army killed them all and confiscated their property, what with the emperor’s own beloved brother cooked up in a hotpot dish, literally!
And while Wu Sanqui, the top Ming General who was defending the most important border against the Manchu’s, was on the front line, his concubine and the love of his life was raped by Li’s generals! So Wu promptly switched side. Given these facts, is it even remotely surprising that more Chinese switched sides to the Manchu army vs. Li Zicheng?
Thus the Manchus became the choice of surrendering. The direct result was that in most of the battles, you are talking about 30,000 Chinese troops representing the Ming Empire, facing off 100,000 Chinese troops representing the Manchus, plus 30,000 - 50,000 Manchus/Mongolians, also representing the Manchu empire.
Ming officers who defected to the Qing were allowed to retain their previous military rank. The Qing received the defection of Shen Zhixiang in 1638. Among the other Han officers who defected to the Qing were Ma Guangyuan, Wu Rujie, Zu Dashou, Quan Jie, Geng Zhongming, Zu Zehong, Zu Zepu, Zu Zerun, Deng Changchun, Wang Shixian, Hong Chengchou, Shang Kexi, Liu Wuyuan, Zu Kefa, Zhang Cunren, Meng Qiaofang, Kong Youde, Sun Dingliao.
Aristocratic and military ranks, silver, horses and official positions were given to Han Chinese defectors like Zhang Cunren, Sun Dingliao, Liu Wu, Liu Liangchen, Zu Zehong, Zu Zepu, Zu Kufa and Zu Zerun. Han Chinese defectors managed and organized a massive amount of the military strategy after 1631. So many Han defected to the Qing and swelled up the ranks of the Eight Banners that ethnic Manchus became a minority within the Banners, making up only 16% in 1648, with Han Bannermen dominating at 75% and Mongol Bannermen making up the rest.
So essentially, the Manchu government alienated less people than both the Ming government AND Li Zicheng’s peasant army, thus it got the “management right” to run China for about ~ 300 years. Nonetheless, this Alienation continued throughout the entire Qing Dynasty.
A hundred years prior to the Opium Wars, the British and the Americans were fighting the stone-age American Indians with hundreds of thousands of troops. During the Opium Wars, the British and the French essentially conquered China with a couple thousand Union Jacks. That was while the Qing Empire boasted 2 million standing army and 500 million in population. The Chinese didn’t really care who was running the country then. Same sh*t, different assh*les. Why should you care.
This alienation continued throughout WWII. During the Japanese invasion in WWII, there were more Chinese army surrendering to the Japanese army than the total number of Japanese troops invading China.
Then in 1949, the PRC was founded. In 1950 the Chinese army defeated the UN/US army at Battle of Chosin Reservoir. In 1971 the PRC became a member of the UN and the Security Council. In 2014 China became the world’s number one economy on PPP basis. In 2018 the Chinese government was more trusted than almost every other country on earth. 2018 Edelman TRUST BAROMETER You want to know why no politician in China will openly disparage Mao, regardless of all his faults? This is why.
More than anyone else, he pulled the Chinese people together again. You can not understand the Chinese polity unless you understand this piece of Chinese history, because a lot of the structural features of the current PRC government, are specifically designed to eliminate those alienating factors of the late Ming Dynasty.
Basically by using and glorifying and intensifying the Chinese bureaucratic system. And by having some really really good leaders. Here’s a good summary:
A few Chinese chose death rather than serve the Manchu, but other Chinese filled the Manchu government bureaucracy. The Manchu were never more than two percent of the population in China, but helping them rule was Confucianism's view of arbitrary authority being other than an imposition by violent conquest.
Manchu rule in China promoted the study of the classics and the veneration of ancestors, including the idea that a ruler rules by virtue of his goodness, connected with the heavens. Meanwhile, Manchu emperors kept military power out of the hands of Chinese and in the hands of their fellow Manchu. They guarded against their fellow Manchu being swallowed by the Chinese by forbidding Manchu from marrying Chinese. They forbade them from engaging in commerce or labor and obliged them to military service dedicated to maintaining Manchu power.
With the peace that the Manchu imposed upon China, prosperity and population growth returned, and trade with Europe increased. One Manchu emperor, Kangxi, ruled sixty-one years – from 1661 to 1722 – and would be considered one of China's great emperors. He won praise from Jesuits in China for his "noble heart," his intelligence, his excellent memory, his taste in reading and for his being an "absolute ruler over his passions." The Manchu rulers of China showed their cultural judgment by completely adopting Chinese culture in all ways - so much so that now speakers of Manchu are gone.
Manchu under Nurhachi and Hong Taiji managed to unify their tribes + some Mongolian tribes + some Han ethnics. That’s why they later changed their name into Manchu rather than calling themselves Jurchen.
At that time Ming Dynasty was so weak and poor. The state was lack of money to pay their soldiers, and the last Ming Emperor was such a paranoid that he executed a military general that was capable such as Yang Chonghuan. There were so many natural disasters happened at that time. Therefore so many uprising against Ming Dynasty as the people believed that Ming Dynasty had lost their mandate of heaven.
At first it was Li Zicheng one of a peasant rebel who managed to conquer Beijing. But Li Zicheng was only a peasant, he and his men didn’t know how to rule a nation. Therefore after looting and burning, and killing Beijing people, the people then turned their eyes towards the Manchu to help them to get rid of Li Zicheng.
When Manchu troops entered Beijing, the Beijing people welcomed them as deliverer from Li Zicheng. Qing Dynasty - employed many Confucian scholars and capable Han ethnic in their court. And unlike the Yuan Mongolian ruler who didn’t try to embrace Han Chinese culture, Manchurian was willing to embrace Han Chinese culture.
Qing Dynasty had at least 3 capable rulers : Kangxi, Yongzheng, Qianlong who ruled for 123 years out of their 267 years of Qing Dynasty ruling. The peasants even had several tax remission during Kangxi time. When the peasants’ stomachs are full, they would be happy, no matter who the ruler is.
The ability to rule diverse ethnic groups of people exists somehow uniquely among North East Asians. It requires to be able to see justice beyond your own ethnicity. It requires the ability to imagine to be in other ethnic group of people's shoes.
It is hard to imagine King Attila the Hun distributed his wealth that he aquired after hard fight against Rome to all his wives and children equally regardless of the origin of the ethnicity of the individuals either of his own or of foreign. He treated all of them equally.
He was probably hated by his own (ethnic) children for his indiscriminate equal treatment to all of them. He could have simply decided to collect all his gold(wealth) and form a little kingdom exclusively for his own people in some part of Europe like in Hungarian plain if he had the mental attitude of Jews, for example
His political philosophy and policy were ages ahead of his time. The truth for the answer to this question is in their ability to keep their promises even when the promise turns out to be disadvantageous to themselves.
This is a very important quality to be able to rule a large and diverse ethnic group of people. And somehow this happens uniquely and predominantly to North East Asian conquerors. It takes unprecedented discipline over petty desire to have more in terms of material wealth and to be more generous to your own immidiate kins. Phew I thought nobody would ask this question.
Nevertheless it is a genetically born quality that not everyone can just copy and exercise it. They exercised the same policy to China that they conquered and their dynasty ruled them for centuries. Of course they were not barbarians. Barbarians never conquered any civilized society.
I am going to wing-it answering this. Things were not going well in the Ming empire prior to the Manchu invasion. Corruption was rampant among the eunuchs that had the emperor’s ear, and they were siphoning away riches that the Mandarin class should have been using to run the empire. The peasants were starving, and one of them, Li Zicheng I think (one-eyed Li?), started a revolt.
Li Zicheng [sic] made it all the way to Beijing with his peasants, upon which the conniving eunuchs flung the gates open without the need of a siege or battle. The emperor hung himself from a tree on a hill around the back of the forbidden city. I think I have been there.
There was a general who defended the pass by the sea - the portion of the Great Wall to the east of the capital by the ocean. I don’t remember his name. He had successfully defended this pass against the Manchu hordes for a while, but this time he opened the gates to let the 8 banners in to recapture the capital.
They were about 80,000 horsemen strong (I think, which would be quite a sizable army of the horse), and they may have had a bastion of Portuguese cannon on their side. Li Zicheng had about 200,000 peasants. One-eyed Li turned and fled before the battle was over, didn’t even stop at the Capital, and headed back to whence he had come. The eight banners might have caught up to him, I forget.
So the Manchu were firmly in possession of Beijing, gained at a relatively small cost. They began dressing like the Han, even eating like them, and the eight banners lost their formidability. Though it took several hundred years until the Qing (the Manchu) was overthrown by revolutionaries under Sun Yat Sen among others. That is my simplified (and not sure how accurate) version of events.
I saw several answers focus on the “conquer” part(which lasted a few decades) and ignore the “rule” part, which lasted more than two centuries, so I’ll focus on that.
Confucianism was the official ideology for most of Imperial China, including Ming dynasty. Regardless of what Confucius actually said, Confucianism had become “slave morality”, to use the term made famous by Nietzsche. Intellectuals were taught to serve the master(emperor), whoever they were.
If the emperor was unjust, you were not supposed to lead a rebellion against him, but advise him strongly, even at the cost of your life. Though there is the concept of “Mandate of Heaven”, it was vague enough that it could be interpreted to mean the winning side of a power struggle, so it is not very useful as a moral compass. Manchu were smart enough to co-opt the civic exam system to attract the best intellectuals for work for it.
Nationalism was not a strong element in China until the 20th century. The Taiping Rebellion around 1850–1860s were led by Han Chinese and were expressly anti-Manchu, but it still failed. Why? Partly because enough Han Chinese decided to side with Manchu against it, including Confucian intellectuals such as Zeng Guofan and Li Hongzhang. Both passed the highest level of civic service exams before they became famous by turning into military leaders.
Another famous general against Taiping was Zuo Zongtang, who only passed the second highest level of civic service exams. BTW, the founder of Taiping Rebellion failed at the basic level of civic service exam, and that’s why he turned into Christianity and tried to revolt. Had he passed the civic service exam, there would be no Taiping Rebellion.
Commoners either take the lead from intellectuals, or acted based on their condition of living. After Manchu conquered China, despite initial brutalities, the first 100 years can be said to be good times for commoners. Populations increased, and tax revenue continued to rise. It was only when life for both intellectuals and commoners become bad, that Manchu rule was ended.
It was better employment for The Chinese in general compared to the ending times for Ming dynasty . Ming pay was stagnant in many cases inadequate, corruption was horrible. Defectors were treated well as you can see from the fact around 50% of the soldiers who crossed shanhaiguan when Wu Sangui opened the gates were Chinese Ming defectors .
Upon entering China they were quick to adapt and used Chinese soldiers to conquer the south when the banner armies were inadequate. (Cavalry don't do very well in southern climates ) When they finally took over , they support the political system Confucian ethics (especially the loyalty part ) , worked with local strongmen . (Just like how empires were formed in other parts of the world ) generally people were left to go about their lives as before other then the queue order .
The concept of invaders being evil foreign invaders is harder to understand for commoners when your invaders look like you . Most importantly ,(military) people get paid . When you get paid , have proper employment , there's less incentive to go against the government.
The Jurchens were not some small tribe and the Ming was already on a decline for a long time, beset by the resurgent Mongol threat, economic problems and natural disasters.
Actually, it was a peasant rebellion led by Li Zicheng - Wikipedia that brought down the Ming dynasty and not the Jurchens. A Ming General named Wu Sangui - Wikipedia opened the gate of the Great Wall and let the Jurchens in after the last Ming emperor committed suicide right before Li’s army stormed the capital city Beijing.
The Manchus managed to stay so long in power because they adopted the Chinese political model of governance and they also employed Han Chinese Confucian scholars as officials and gained legitimacy in the eyes of the gentry scholar class, the elite class in China’s society.
And they also had two very capable emperors that are certainly among the best emperors China ever had. Kangxi Emperor - Wikipedia and Qianlong Emperor - Wikipedia
“After the founding of Han Dynasty, Confuscism (combined with bureacracy inherited from Qin) came to epitomize Han Chinese civilization. The exam system ensured two thousand years of confuscism brainwashing of generations of Han intellectuals. Regardless what Confuscious actually said, the version adopted by the bureacratic promotion system essentially boils down to one sentence:"Big Brother Knows Best." Heck, the analygy for government wasn't even "big brother" but "father"; i.e. one step even more senior.
Being born to an age before significant use of currency (his own students paid tuitions in dried meats), Confuscious could not have known much about market intermediation and why trade is essential to economic efficiency because what he lived under was more or less a barter economy. That lacking in the Confuscist system of beliefs suited later bureacrats just fine because they fully intended to replace voluntary trade among individuals with government mandates under the "father" as the means for economic exchange.
The result was quite predictable: rampant corruption, abuse of power and general economic inefficiency. The version of Confuscism as embraced the Chinese bureacratic system was essentially soft-peddling of Fascistic Socialism. It was manifest as early as Wang Mong's New Dynasty in mid-Han (about the same time as Christ). By the time of Ming, the founder actively enforced policies of tying peasants to land . . . i.e. serfdom! Just as Western Europe was coming out it.
In the face of such economic depredation of the civilization core by centralized government and overbearing bureacracy, the "non-Han" tribes played the exact same role as "barbarians" to the Romans: they offered a chance for renewal and rejuvenation from under an empirial edifice that was rotten to the core. Eventually even the slowest peasants saw through the pathetic ethnocentric rhetorics, and realized that rule by "foreigners" who promised light tax was far more preferrable to the big brother taxing subjects to death in the name of defending them (ie. enserfing them).
In the case of Chinese, there's an additional advantage that unlike the "native" Confuscist regimes, many "babarian" tribes understood the advantage of commerce and trade.
When Dorgon entered Beijing in June 1644, the new Qing dynasty proclaimed a general amnesty, . . . , and abolished the Ming military surtaxes that people had been resisting. Areas where the Manchus campaigned had their taxes cut in half, and others who surrendered got one-third off theirs. This strategy won over most of Zhili and Shandong in northern China.
The Manchus were literally winning the hearts and minds with tax cuts! Later on, Kangxi reduced and froze tax (and relaxed tax enforcement), resulting in massive economic and population growth.” - brightness, Allempires.com
^ Pretty much sums up how the Manchus conquered China and also how they were able to rule it for centuries… because the Han Chinese people allowed it!
The Manchu were a big tribe led by the Jurchen that could field large effective armies. So once they took Beijing and defeated Li Zicheng they were able to construct even bigger armies with the assistance of Han collaborators that spent the next years wiping out Ming remnants. (Throughout their reign they were afraid of Nanjing because of the Ming loyalty there)
They kept the Han in a second class citizen status throughout their reign, remaining Manchu until the end, They used the HuaXia/Han government structure to govern, but as a ruling class they kept their own language, their own dress and style and their traditional functions between them selves. (It was very similar in many ways, to the British raj in India.)
But throughout their reign they could use Han collaborators to keep the population in line. Although there were hundreds of rebellions throughout their reign, particularly at the end, they were ruthless in suppressing them until the XinHai and then they failed.
First of all, Jurchen had been in North/East of China for a long time. Liao and Jin dynasty are just examples built by People like Jurchen. Second, once Qing dynasity took the power from Ming dynasty, they used very practical ways. They did not force large Han group to live like Jurchen. This is very different from Mongols.
And also they had built good relationships with other minority groups: Mongols, Tibet… basically, they did not force any of those groups to live like them. Instead, they tried to accept their culture and religions as part of Manchu culture and religion. Based on this, they managed to rule the empire for almost three handred years.
Because they were able to recruit non Manchu generals and soldiers. Even before they defeated the ming dynasty, they have a policy of offering bribes and favorable conditions to Ming generals who are willing to defect. Even captured or defeated officers were offered favorable terms to flip. In fact, the famed Ming general, Wu Sangui who defected to the Manchus were instrumental in sweeping across China defeating the remnants of the Ming army.
Many others provided historical references for reasons for how a small group of people can rule a large group of people for centuries. I will try to give you a simple answer: the Manchurians kept everybody not-Manchurian well fed, or at the very least, not hungry. That’s all there is to it.
Modern people always try to bring up the race card, saying that it was Han vs. Manchurian. That’s just what the Communist government uses to make sure its people hate all foreigners and are loyal to them. The fact of the matter is, the peasants don’t care — and cannot affect — who the ruling party is.
Han and Manchurians can do the same harm or the same good to them. It only depends on the emperor’s will. Race is irrelevant. Think about this: how do the 1% rule the 99%? That’s exactly the same reason how the Manchurians managed to rule over China for centuries.
The same reason as Mongol, a small tribe too, was able to conquer half the Europe and remained a nightmare until Industry age. The reason is, they don't need logistics and don't keep prisoners (Manchu is a bit different that they don't wipe out the whole city, well, usually). They are like the soldiers when you play a real-time tactic game that you don't need to feed them but just give them a target to attack. They will loot from locals to proceed until they succed or die.
Firstly, Manchu was a large union of all the Jurchen tribes not small Jurchen tribe. Secondly, China - or the Ming dynasty, to be more accurate - was in a state of chaos and were near collapse already. Thirdly, Manchu was an incredibly militaristic and warlike society whereas Chinese society was predominantly peaceful
The Ming Empire at the time was corrupt and weak, with its military rather split, plus the Ming occupation of Manchuria was rather oppressive toward the Manchus, giving the Manchus both the drive and capability to overtake China
https://www.quora.com/How-was-it-possible-that-Manchu-a-small-Jurchen-tribe-were-able-to-conquer-and-rule-for-centuries-the-big-Chinese-Empire
A very good question, however, it has two totally different outcomes. Add in the USAAC (US Army Air Corps) & the US Navy Pilots and something really interesting happens. So, lets take a brief look (I’ll focus on fighter pilots mostly here):
Japanese Navy Aviators (The Carrier Guys): Super rigorous training! So good that they were literally the best in the world up until May 1942 (Midway). Then heavy combat attrition began to turn the tide. replacements weren’t as rigorously trained (not enough time & fuel). Net result? The Great Mariannas Turkey Shoot & even the poorly trained replacements were obliterated.
US Navy Aviators (The Carrier Guys): Moderately good to OK, but with inferior equipment up until 1943. The better ones who survived the early carrier Battles (Coral Sea to Midway) were rotated back to the US on a regular basis for rest and Instructor Training assignments, then later returned to combat. Thus. on average, no US Carrier Pilot was as good as a Japanese Pilot, but the scales tipped over time. Then the Japanese became totally outmatched (hardware-wise) with the Hellcat & Helldiver aircraft.
The German Pilots were some of the best in the world. Many survived the war. Attrition and slow obsolescence of aircraft caused problems later in the war. (The development of advanced fighters was restricted by both bombing by the Allies & the loss of oil through advances from the East. (The bombing attack on Ploesti was the first sign of this developing problem.)
The American & British had some superior pilots, but, again, not a lot. The British suffered terrific losses during the Battle of Britain (The Germans, even more), but the aircraft (Spitfire) were the best. The US added superior aircraft to the ultimate mix (Thunderbolt & Mustang). So, as the Germans dropped through attrition, the Americans & British increased.
I’ll leave out the Russians, who were slaughtered at the beginning part of the war, but with pure dint of perseverance just soldiered on. Some great Russian aircraft were built later in the war, as well as a lot of good, but not great, American loan/gift aircraft (Aircobra). So, who had the best air force in WW2? My vote is with the Japanese, Germans, British & Americans at the beginning. By the end? The Americans, Germans, British, and Japanese.
Note: It turns out that pilots have a limited “continuous” combat life cycle. You have to pull them out for a break. You also can’t afford to lose the expertise, which must be passed on before they become an attrition statistic. The Japanese *never* did this. The British & Germans didn’t have the resources, or the system in place at the start. The Russians? They had to rebuild almost from scratch.
Note 2: Bomber wars. A small statistic that folks don’t realize: The 8th Air Force (The Mighty Eighth) in Europe lost more aircrew killed than the US Marine Corps lost killed in the Pacific during WW2. I hope that this helps a bit. Anyone else out there want to add/contest, please comment!
Germany. Top aces of all time. No other country has the 356 kills (352?) Of Hartmann nor the others who got 200s 100s so on. Both nations had fly till you die policies so its not like comparing the USAAF and Germany.
First jet fighter and bomber which made it into service. When Col Tibbets was on his nuclear bomb run they flew straight and level for 30 seconds. He remarked theyd have been dead over Germany doing that. Tibbets had a ETO combat tour - admittedly this was a Flak reference..
If you look at casualties inflicted on the enemy the Germans killed more people, destroyed more stuff amd shot down more planes. The Allies settled on a Germany 1st policy. Yes this wasnt just because the Luftwaffe but its relevant.
The Luftwaffe was bombing by radio beam signals in 1940. It had aerial radio guided glide bombs in 1943. It had radars on night fighters. The Japanese were formidable, but they simply didnt have the technology or history with aviation Germany had.
Remember Germany, France, and England were THE premiers of air combat. The Germans being the enemy of 2 of those on the list by default then were one side of the first aerial engagement of all time - thats a hell of a tradition. That said Germany never had to perform carrier operations. Still that isnt much compared otherwise.
https://www.quora.com/During-the-1940s-who-had-a-better-air-force-Germany-or-Japan
karakara kawaiteru mune no naka
futo tachidomari ki ga tsuita kara
daremo ga isoideru machi no naka
sukoshi yukkuri aruite mita
koe ni dasanai negai anata to nara kanaetai yo
tokidoki nakitaku naru to me wo tojite kou omou no TRY
dakedo anata ga iru ai wo motomete iru
donna toki mo kokoro ha aru yo soba ni
dakara watashi ga iru ai wo sagashite iru
futari nara yasashii namida ni kawaru
yume ha kitto kanau
I'm aching for something
Because I just realised it
In a town where everyone rushes about
I tried walking a little slower
The wish I can't tell, I want to make it with you
Sometimes when I want to cry, I close my eyes and think TRY
But you're here, and I wish for love
At any time, I want your heart to be by my side
That's why I'm here, I'm looking for love
If we're together, we'll change tears into kindness
The dream will surely come true
doko ni itatte nani wo shitetatte
anata no koto wo kangaete iru
kyou no kono aoi sora kiritotte
futari no kinenbi no iro ni shiyou
koe ni naranai inori kono mama itsumade mo itai to
fukaku ai suru hodo ni hito ha tsuyoku naru setsunaku naru WHY
koko ni anata ga iru ai wo motomete iru
towa ni tsuzuku futari dake no kiseki
soshite watashi ga iru ai wo sagashite iru
owaranai mirai wo issho ni futari
kore kara arukidasu
Where you were, what you were doing
I'm always thinking about you
I'm taking the blue sky of today
To make the colour of our commemoration
My voice won't say the prayer even though I want to be there
Even with broken hearts, people grow strong and oppressive WHY
You're here, and I wish for love
A miracle that will only go on for us
And I'm here, looking for love
From now on, together we start walking
To the endless future
zutto anata ga iru ai wo motomete iru
watashi dake no dareka ha anata nan da
soko ni watashi ga iru ai wo sagashite iru
arifureta isshun ga kirameku no ha
futari dakara koso
Forever, you'll be here wishing for love
The only one for me is you
I'm over there, looking for love
For an instant a depressing moment shines
Surely just for us.
https://www.animelyrics.com/jpop/horie/b4ub4mi.htm
You know what the manufacturers declare about full-spectrum lighting: It simulates natural outdoor light. It portrays true colors. It reduces glare, fatigue, and eye strain. It illuminates details and color. It makes work environments more productive. It brings the benefits and beauty of the outdoors to a building’s interior space.
But do you know if these statements are accurate? There are strong associations between full-spectrum lighting and daylight or “natural” light, and between full-spectrum lighting and health benefits - due in part to marketing efforts. In fact, in 2003, the Troy, NY-based Lighting Research Center’s National Lighting Product Information Program (NLPIP) surveyed 250 lighting specifiers, electrical contractors, and facilities managers to gauge views and opinions on full-spectrum lighting.
The respondents largely believed that full-spectrum lighting helped to improve mood, mental awareness, Seasonal Affective Disorder, and color perception. Some believed that full-spectrum lighting improved dental health, sleep quality, and vitamin D production as well. According to some claims, full-spectrum lighting should provide these benefits to the end-user. But do these lamps really perform as they’re marketed? Are they truly superior? On these pages, we report the full-spectrum facts. Find out what this type of lighting actually offers (and what it doesn’t).
There are many different definitions of full-spectrum lighting. When coupled with lighting, the term “full spectrum” implies that a light source offers even, uninterrupted spectral energy distribution (SED) (also called spectral power distribution [SPD]) without the peaks and valleys associated with most discharge light sources (such as fluorescents, metal halides, etc.).
The Lighting Research Center defines “full-spectrum” as an equal-energy lamp (a lamp that provides equal energy in all visible wavelengths), according to Peter Boyce, professor emeritus at the Lighting Research Center. He points out: “There is also an operational definition which says that a full-spectrum lamp has some energy in all visible wavelengths, has a correlated color temperature of at least 5,000K, and some UV emission.”
Some maintain that UV radiation is an essential part of full-spectrum lighting; but full-spectrum lamps that reduce radiation in a small part of the visible spectrum (in an effort to improve visibility) have emerged, and these products also have the “full-spectrum” label.
According to Brian Liebel, principal, AfterImage + Space (principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy in terms of spectrally enhanced lighting, and a research leader on increased brightness and visual-acuity benefits of higher color-temperature lighting), Emeryville, CA, the technically correct definition for full-spectrum lighting is “any light source that contains lighting energy throughout the visible spectrum.”
But he also shares a second definition that describes full-spectrum lighting as a term used by some manufacturers that claim their products provide a more even distribution of lighting throughout the visible spectrum, similar to the way light energy is distributed in daylight. “Technically, all white light sources are ‘full-spectrum’ sources, whereas the marketing behind full-spectrum lighting claims improvements beyond typical white light sources,” he explains.
It’s clear why facilities professionals are confused: It seems as if almost everyone has a different idea about what a full-spectrum lighting source is. Some manufacturers have been known to create their own definitions of full-spectrum lighting based upon their products; consequently, facilities professionals have assumed things that may not be true about full-spectrum lighting.
The problem here? There is no recognized definition of full-spectrum lighting. In many cases, lighting professionals indicate that the term is nothing more than a marketing tool being used to garner attention.
“The only real full-spectrum source is the sun,” says Stefan Graf, principal, Illuminart, Ypsilanti, MI. “There are some electric light sources that come pretty close - used in film and video - but nothing available for commercial use that is truly full-spectrum. It should be called ‘fuller-spectrum.’ ”
Still befuddled? Graf provides a helpful analogy: In the audio spectrum, there are bass ranges, treble ranges, mid-ranges, and all sorts of different frequencies in between. “A full-spectrum sound system would produce all of the frequencies - from very low to very high frequencies - evenly across the speaker system.
A full-spectrum lighting system, like the sun, would equally deliver all of the frequencies of light ... fluorescent light sources that attempt to do that still have peaks and valleys. There are certain frequencies that are missing and certain frequencies that are more prevalent.” (These frequencies are measured in nanometers; to be full-spectrum, a lamp would have to deliver all frequencies - from 380 nanometers up to 760 nanometers.)
You may be able to purchase full-spectrum lamps without the "full-spectrum" label.
In accordance with what a full-spectrum lighting system should deliver (all of the frequencies of light from 380 nanometers up to 760 nanometers), Graf says that lamp manufacturers should offer SED/SPD charts for their fluorescent light sources so that you can examine the frequencies they produce. With an SED/SPD chart, you’ll be able to see that lamps without the “full-spectrum” label may produce frequencies just as evenly as a lamp with the “full-spectrum” label.
“The other part of the full-spectrum equation (besides nanometers and SED/SPD charts) is the color Kelvin,” notes Graf. Color Kelvin (which is color temperature, noted in degrees Kelvin) indicates how warm or cool a light source is.
When talking fluorescent lamps, there are five basic color Kelvins common in commercial buildings, ranging from very warm to very cool. Warm light/warm Kelvin (3,000K) fluorescent looks similar to incandescent light. As color Kelvins get higher, they look bluer. “All of these different color Kelvins produce what you consider ‘white light.’
But it’s like different shades of white - it’s like picking paints for a wall. You can find 50 different shades of white paint for the wall, but once you paint the wall, it looks like white paint - it doesn’t look pink or purple or green or yellow,” explains Graf. Manufacturers should also be able to provide color Kelvin data so that you can compare and decide which is best for your application.
Within each color Kelvin, there are lamps with varying ranges in the color spectrum (indicated by the color rendering index [CRI], which ranges anywhere between 60 and 90). According to Graf, the high color-spectrum sources (80+) are considered full-spectrum by the lighting industry. “So, if you opt for a 5,000K lamp (that looks very blue/white) with a CRI of somewhere between 80 and 90, that’s typically what is used to simulate natural light. Whether or not it has the ‘full-spectrum’ label depends on the manufacturer,” he explains.
As Graf reveals, there are some manufacturers that sell only full-spectrum lamps (5,000K lamps). “Because that’s primarily all they do and it’s a specialized market, they can charge more money. But often you can find the same lamp with the same color Kelvin and same color spectrum for about a third of the cost if you do some research.”
Full-spectrum lamps are frequently priced somewhere between 4- to 12-times higher than comparable lamps without the “full-spectrum” label. The increase in price is typically due to claims being made about the lamps: better visibility, enhanced color perception, improved health, and greater productivity. “[These lamps are] much more expensive in first cost and slightly more expensive in operating cost,” explains Boyce.
So, to simplify: Full-spectrum lamps have a color temperature greater than 5,000K and a CRI of over 90. Whether or not they’re labeled as “full-spectrum” depends on the manufacturer.
Many of the claimed benefits regarding full-spectrum lighting may not be true.
Energy efficiency. Although some full-spectrum lamps do claim to be energy efficient, Liebel says that full-spectrum lamps are usually not as energy efficient as comparable lamps without the “full-spectrum” label. “[They’re] less energy efficient due to the heavier phosphors that are used,” he explains. (Full-spectrum fluorescent lamps are low-pressure, mercury-discharge lamps with a phosphor coating.)
In a report from the Ottawa, ON-based National Research Council of Canada’s Institute for Research in Construction, Jennifer Veitch indicates that full-spectrum lamps also produce less light per unit of electrical energy (which means more lamps are required to maintain the same level of illumination as a cool-white installation).
According to Veitch, maintenance costs don’t necessarily favor full-spectrum lights, either. Several reports imply that lamp life in some installations may be shorter for full-spectrum lamps than for other lamp types, although the reasons for this are unclear. And, depending on the lamp, facilities professionals must replace full-spectrum fluorescent lamps often enough to maintain the ultraviolet component, or use a special luminaire with separate UV lamps (which are replaced more often than the white-light lamps) to preserve the spectral composition.
Health improvements. Most professionals agree that full-spectrum lamps don’t provide any health benefits beyond what most other electric light sources do. About health and full-spectrum lighting, the Lighting Research Center’s NLPIP report explains that short wavelength (blue) light is predominantly effective at regulating the human body’s circadian system; long wavelength (red) light seems to be inconsequential to the circadian system.
So, to capitalize on affecting the circadian system and general health, a light source shouldn’t imitate a full spectrum, but should maximize short wavelengths. According to the report, even if a full-spectrum light source includes short wavelength light in its spectrum, it won’t ensure proper circadian regulation since the proper intensity, timing, and duration of light exposure are all equally important as well.
“The only reports that I have read with claims of health improvements were conducted or funded by the manufacturers of full-spectrum lighting, whereas there are numerous independent studies performed by reputable research institutions showing no health benefits,” says Liebel.
Lighting quality. “In any place where visual performance or worker satisfaction is important, it’s important to think about the quality of the light. With full-spectrum lighting, we’re just talking about color quality; there are a whole bunch of other lighting quality issues (like visual comfort, glare, uniformity, contrast ratios) that are also an important part of the lighting conversation. Just because [you] buy a full-spectrum lamp doesn’t mean it’s going to solve [all your] lighting problems,” explains Graf.
There are some instances where full-spectrum lamps outshine other fluorescent sources. Boyce indicates that the lamps provide very good color-rendering, an increase in brightness for the same luminance, and slightly better visual acuity for the same luminance.
But whether or not these benefits will actually affect your building’s occupants or tenants depends on the tasks they’re performing. If color identification is part of the job (such as in graphic arts, printing applications, or matching paints or textiles) full-spectrum lamps will ensure good color discrimination. But, as Veitch’s report discloses, any white lamp with a high CRI could be expected to facilitate color-matching just as well by definition.
Liebel agrees: “Most full-spectrum light sources have high color temperatures, which have been demonstrated to increase brightness perception and visual acuity. However, there are other ‘traditional’ fluorescent light sources that accomplish the same high color temperature without having the ‘full-spectrum’ label.”
According to Graf, “In research that’s been documented in the last 3 to 5 years, [it’s been discovered] that higher color Kelvin (like 5,000K) helps improve visual acuity and accuracy. So, in places where you’re doing color evaluation, or speed or accuracy of the workers is important, you may wish to consider a 5,000K source.”
Keep these four truths in mind when you consider full-spectrum lighting for your facilities; but, remember, it’s difficult to accurately describe a lighting technology on paper. “The only way you can really know is to experience it,” says Graf. “Go to a lighting showroom and ask to see a demonstration of 3,000K; 3,500K; 5,000K; etc., and lamps with low color-rendering and high color-rendering. You can make a better decision about which full-spectrum or fuller-spectrum light source you want to put in your building that way.”
The term full-spectrum lighting (explained in this article) and the term light and human health shouldn’t be confused. They are two different subjects (as explained below by Terry McGowan, executive director, Lighting Research Office, Cleveland):
This is a new area of medical research, which seeks to determine the effects of both electric (artificial) illumination and daylighting on human health. The research indicates, for example, that people (and many other living things) need bright days and dark nights to maintain healthy circadian rhythms and proper levels of certain hormones such as melatonin.
Researchers are looking at light intensity, duration, timing, body coverage, and color as some of the variables, and they are particularly interested in how electric lighting systems might be designed to provide healthier interior environments. (See Buildings magazine’s March 2004 issue for more info or access at [www.buildings.com/Articles/detail.asp?ArticleID=1781].)
Some years ago, the term “full-spectrum lighting” began to appear in lighting articles to describe certain proprietary fluorescent and incandescent lamps that had out-of-the-ordinary color characteristics.
While a definition of what “full-spectrum” actually is has never been settled upon by any of the standardizing or technical organizations in the lighting industry, the term continues to be used to suggest that there are certain benefits, perhaps even including better health, if lamps so designated are used.
Whether those benefits are worth the typically higher cost of the lamps, or go beyond simply changing the appearance of people and things seen under the light of “full-spectrum” lamps, is controversial. The bottom line: Check carefully any claims made by promoters of full-spectrum lighting. Be sure the claimed benefits are real.
https://www.buildings.com/article-details/articleid/2797/title/full-spectrum-lighting-nothing-but-the-truth
Some full-spectrum fluorescent lamps are promoted as producing ultraviolet (UV) radiation. This is peculiar, since in general, UV radiation should be avoided. UV radiation fades and deteriorates architectural materials and works of art.
Even though full-spectrum lamps might improve the color appearance of artwork, museums specifically require all radiation shorter than 400 nm to be filtered completely from light sources illuminating environmentally sensitive pieces, such as watercolor paintings, and historical artifacts (Rea, 2000). Except in certain unusual cases, it is also undesirable for people to expose the eye or the skin to UV radiation.
Adverse effects of excessive UV radiation include sunburn (erythema), cataracts, and skin cancer (Rea, 2000). Several organizations, including the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), have specified acceptable limits for occupational ultraviolet exposure (IESNA, 1996; ACGIH, 1991; NIOSH, 1972).
However, skin exposure to a fairly narrow band of UV radiation, UVB between 290 and 315 nm, can promote the synthesis of vitamin D, which is necessary for proper bone development and maintenance (Holick, 1985). Dietary sources of vitamin D, including dairy and fish products, provide sufficient vitamin D to have eliminated the incidence of bone-related problems such as rickets, in modern society (Jablonski and Chaplin, 2002.). These dietary supplements therefore minimize the importance of UVB radiation exposure for most people.
Full-spectrum fluorescent lamps that produce UV radiation use special phosphors with peak emissions in the UVA band (315 nm-400 nm), typically at 355 nm. Although the relative amount of UV radiation emitted by these lamps may be the same as a particular phase of daylight, the absolute amount of UV radiation they emit is quite small. For comparison, approximately 22 minutes of sunlight exposure near midday will produce 1.5 minimal erythema doses (MEDs) of UVB radiation exposure, enough to induce a pronounced temporary increase in vitamin D concentration (Holick, 1985).
One MED is the amount of exposure that produces noticeable skin redness, so the exposure needed to affect vitamin D levels is substantial. Based upon the published data from one manufacturer of fluorescent lamps emulating the UVB content of daylight, it would take at least 30 hours of constant exposure to these lamps when operated at ceiling height to provide 1.5 MEDs (see the CASE STUDY Case Study).
Based on UVB intensity data from another study (Ball, 2002), eight hours in an office or classroom under a claimed full-spectrum lamp will produce a smaller ultraviolet dose than one minute spent outdoors in bright sunlight.
Indoor environments such as offices and schools further reduce UV exposure because most lighting fixtures and architectural materials absorb UV radiation. UVB radiation that does not strike the skin directly is unlikely to reflect off objects, floors, and walls back to the skin. The resulting exposure level will be well below the threshold for measurable vitamin D production.
Therefore, fluorescent lamps claiming to emulate the relative UV content in daylight can be disregarded as a viable source of UVB radiation for humans. Since there are no known benefits to human health from UVA radiation, it can be further concluded that the modest amounts of UV radiation produced by these lamps have no beneficial impact on human health.
Ironically, even small but constant amounts of UV (UVA and UVB) radiation will eventually degrade a wide variety of architectural materials such as carpet and cloth, wood products, and printed matter.
One claim occasionally cited as a benefit of fluorescent light sources emulating the UV content of daylight is the enhanced brightness of paper and clothing treated with whitening agents. Fluorescent whitening agents are used to counteract the otherwise yellow appearance of paper and cloth, making them appear whiter and brighter.
To assess this claim, NLPIP compared the relative luminance of white paper and of white cloth illuminated alternately by two fluorescent lamps of identical correlated color temperature (CCT), one claiming to emulate the relative UV content of daylight and one without the UV phosphor.
By causing the whitening in the cloth or paper to fluoresce, the UV radiation from these lamps should produce higher luminance for the same given illuminance. Indeed, the measured luminance of a white paper sample and of a white cloth sample were 1.7% and 2.3% higher, respectively, when illuminated by the full-spectrum fluorescent lamp with more UV radiation.
These effects were also perceptible when alternatively viewed, but any assumed benefits of these relatively small brightness-enhancing effects have never been documented. It should also be noted that lamps emulating the UV content of daylight have about 30% to 40% lower lamp efficacy (lumens per watt) than conventional fluorescent lamps of the same CCT, partly because additional electric power is required to generate the invisible UV radiation.
In summary, there are no known health effects from the UV radiation generated from these lamps, but the UV radiation from these lamps can be harmful to many of the materials commonly found in architectural spaces. Further, although the UV radiation generated from these lamps can induce relatively higher luminance in white paper and clothing, the loss in lamp efficacy needed to produce the invisible UV radiation is substantially greater than the fluorescence-induced luminance resulting from UV radiation.
https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightinganswers/fullspectrum/production.asp
The Manchu people are a branch of the Tungusic people. The typical face of the Tungusic people is similar to those in the photos above. The ratio of the distance between the lips and the eyes is quite long on the length of the face. This is because they have large air cavities inside the cheekbones. It is presumed that these developed air cavities in their skull were originally intended to prevent the eyeballs and the pituitary from freezing in the Arctic region where they lived.
The air cavities serve as buffer spaces in heat transfer. Their well developed air cavities makes their voice are somewhat rich. Usual their voices are eary-listening. Many of K-pop's great singers have Tungusic people’s feature. And usually they have the biggest physique among the Asians. It is a result of evolution from the living in cold region.
By relief artifacts they made describing their faces in ancient times, we can see that they were well aware of the characteristic of their appearance. These are the remains of Gojoseon and Buyeo, the ancient states of Korean, respectively.
In emotional trait, they are sometimes short and explosively furious. After getting angry, they look for stability as if they were not angry. Though their women have the habit too, because of these intermittent and explosive habits of men, their women are obedient to men and their families are strongly patriarchal. In China, only they have this characteristic significantly.
Many are gentle and mild, but that does not mean they are not angered at all. They are people who often feel anger inside of themselves and want to control it through a lot of self-discipline. Once they get angry, they will surprise you more than people in any ethnic group. ‘Fiiercely’ is the words that are appropriate for describing their anger.
Especially for men. Especially Koreans do not feel a feeling of shrinking easily to any ethnic group or nation because they know their this own characteristics. This is why they are looked as very proud people.
They are not very cautious or patient, but they are very brave, and are very good solvers to any kind of short-term period problems because of their enormous intensive concentration habit and well developed working-memory. Those are because they hate sticking to a problem for a long time, so the Chinese call them as ‘Tigers’.
They were originally from the Arctic Circle, so they hate being hot or sticky. They like cool things. Conversely, they may have migrated to the Arctic Circle in ancient times because they had a psychological trait that they liked to be cool and simultaneously hated sticky(sweaty) something.
They often feel chills about cold and emerging of goose bumps on skin. (This allowed them to have a cold-sensitive detection system to keep them warm properly.) They tend to believe in the existence of ghosts through their physical features. This is a factor that leads to their, usually collectively, trance states. And it led their famous shaman tradition. Koreas, Mongolia, Sakha(Yakutia) and Buryatia are representative Tungus-related nations.
It is not light that their nickname is a tiger. Unlike a lion, a tiger lives alone. The Tungusic people are mainly united by family units and are not accustomed to cooperating in large units. Then something sticky happens. So they are very competent in one-to-one, but weak in the group. They are easily defeated by a strong southeast Asia originating groups(:South Chinese, South Japanese etc.) as a group.
But once they decide to match and unite their goals, they demonstrate amazing collective abilities through their trance status. This is the invasion of the Huns, the conquest of Mongolia, the conquest of China by Manchu, and the rapid economic growth of East Asian nations.
In modern times, their pursuit of coolness has shown very high residential mobility and mass migration to urban areas, or some conservative ones exist in engineering from their original hometowns. In the case of the mass migration to the city, the Chinese of the three northeastern provinces have been given freedom of relocation, and they are migrating to coastal areas where economic conditions are good.
In addition, the affected Korean-Chinese people immigrated to Korea massively. It is possible to say that the escape of the population is like ‘vacancy’ because the decreasing of population is so sudden. This makes the restoration of the Manchu identity more disadvantageous. They are scattered in urban areas.
Those who remain in their hometowns are primarily engaged in engineering because engineering requires short-term memory than other tasks, and its goal is usually very clean to perceive. The three provinces of Northeast China are the representative dedicated heavy-industry regions of China. Strategic weapons of China are developed and manufactured in these regions.
The high percentage of the engineer population in Korea can be considered as the influence of high Tungusic people’s population, and it is assumed that the same phenomenon will be seen in Mongolia as well.
The remarkable ability that Koreans show in many kinds of games, including Internet games, is from their Tungusic people gene. They have good working memories for short-term problems and try to solve the problems immediately and clearly. They gain great psychological rewards in their small successes(:getting of ‘cool’ items or ‘cool’ leveling-up) and continually pursue the rewards to their final destination. They are people who pursuing coolness. If you want to move them, invent some ‘cool’ thing and give them. This tendency is also seen in K-pop industry.
Their short-sighted individual character can harm to their navigating ability to go as a group. Because of the perception to this potential hazard, it is very important for them to have a good leader they can trust and follow.
So they demand very high standards for their leaders and they give severe punishment to their leaders if they do not meet those expectations. However, it is a great honor for them to lead the group, and the people who want to be leaders are always abundant. This phenomenon is produced from their short-sighted individual character too. (Joke)
Usually leader candidates for each sector receive harsh criticism during the verification process. This is also shown by the cases in that the owners of Korean large corporate group called chaebol, often become feel shameful and humble through criticism and punishments by their bad habit. This is, so to speak, their bottom-up fashioned education for their leaders.
I comprehend Knut Abka’s desire to glorify his ethnic group, although his opinions are incorrect. He says that Manchus are generally more good looking than Han. That’s interesting. I am touched by his strong national feeling.
As for the reasons he says, they are taller, stronger(male) and have paler skin. Also a typical Manchu's face has clearer, or technically sharper curves than Han. Generally speaking, the northern people are taller, stronger than the southern people in China, also, they have paler skin. That’s true, Manchus belong to northern people. But when compared with northern Han Chinese, there is no data that can prove his words.
And his words such as “clearer, sharper curves” and “three dimensional” used to describe Manchu facial features is inaccurate. Well, in fact, it is quite the opposite. The mouth says, then let us look at the facts.
We have the photos of several members of the royal family of the Qing Dynasty, and to some extent they are believed to have purer blood than many current Manchu people. Aisin Gioro Yixin, known as Prince Gong.
Aisin Gioro Zaifeng, known as Prince Chun - According to the images, their facial features are quite similar. Compared with Han people, they have slimmer eyes, more shallow sockets (of eyes), longer nose and longer face. And “sharper curves” are most unobvious.
As for me, I won’t clame that Manchus are better looking or uglier than Han, because my taste of beauty is subjective and insignificant. Besides, he says, It is not correct to say Manchus have been assimilated into Han. It is rather the truth that both Manchu and Han are both assimilated in modern civilisation. That is partially true, and then.
Most Han people nowadays can't read or write ancient Chinese, and forgot most of their traditions. Those who inherit most Han culture are probably those dwell in some villages in the rural area. I don’t know what all this has to do with ancient Chinese language. Most Machu people speak modern Mandarin Chinese i.e. the language of northern Han people, and write Chinese characters called Hanzi in China. Do these belong to other nations?
And, of course, Ancient Chinese is taught in primary school and secondary school. Moreover, Ancient Chines teaching is continously being strengtherned. My girlfriend is Manchu, obviously, she has nothing different from northern Han…Marriages between Manchu and Han are very very common. Manchu emperors brought nearly all of Manchu people from south Syberia to China hundreds of years ago. Thus we do not have culture shock, language barrier, religion difference or something else.
I have some Manchu Friends, too. They all lok like Han 100%. They do not look whiter or taller, and their nose are the same as northern Han… In fact, even Yakut people in Russia have similar looking as us, User: “Abka” is exaggerating something unreal.
In fact, north Asian group have longer but a little flatter and smaller nose than east asian(cause the freezing Syberian air is much more harsh than north Europe,imagine when it is -50℃ and your tall nose is freezing…）.Only in few groups such as Yi and Tibetan in east Asia plateaus, some of them have relatively taller nose， but far more flatter than any white nation……And for the bright sunlight in plateau their skin color is darker than Han…
And their skin color is also the same as northern Han. The climate is very unique in China, it is most cloudy along Yangtze River in middle south China… In Sichuan province , the sunshine hours can be as few as north Europe... Sichuan people even celebrate the sunny days in winter as holidays(people in other province hate sunshine cause Chinise tradition prefer pale skin color)…Sichuan girls are regarded to have most pale skin color…
This is the most popular Yi singer in China, 吉克隽逸, notice her nose and skin color… The only difference is the origin, their ancestors come from north Asia, their language is so different to Chinese that the difference is even much bigger than that of English and Hindi. But for most of Manchu live in urban ereas across China(emperors sent their people to big cities to keep their authority),they learn the local Chinese as their first language, few Manchu can speak it now…
Nowadays? Basically none. Even as much as 1000–2000 years ago there was little difference. Before I elaborate: Manchus are Chinese. Han are Chinese. They are both ethnic groups part of China. Always. I am sick of the westerners who say idiotic things like:
Manchu and Chinese were originally very different (this is like saying British and Europeans were originally very different—which sounds stupid) Manchus were foreign invaders of China (this is equivalent to saying Germans were foreign invaders of Europe—it does not make sense)
NO. These misconceptions result from a very narrow-minded view of what China is. It is not a nation state defined by a single ethnicity, but a civilization state home to dozens of different ethnic groups, currently 56 recognized, but in history thousands of many others, each with their own languages and cultures, but all part of China.
Many different people live in China, not just Han, including Koreans, Mongols, Turks, Manchus, Tibetans, Tajiks, Russians. Han is like that default term you use if you ever want to be part of the larger group. It is historically the term that all of China’s ethnic minorities have eventually joined because it just so happens to be the largest (94%). But that does not make the Han genetically homogenous. Quite the opposite in fact.
Having a Manchu as a Chinese emperor is no big deal. After all the USA had an African president, Barack Obama, as their leader. The fact that China had several emperors from Chinese ethnic minorities like Mongols and Manchu actually shows that China is much more tolerant of its 少数民族 than certain western countries are. For example, I triple dog dare the USA to appoint a Muslim, Jew, Indian, or Chinese American as its president. (Also China had multiple female emperors, but the USA has yet to have a single female president. Instead the USA still appoints male presidents who tend to sleep around…)
So just how different are Han and Manchu? 1. Genetics: Manchus are more than 50% haplogroup O. Han are also more than 50% haplogroup O. Other than that, both Han and Manchu share roughly the same amounts of hg C and N, the other significant hg’s of China. As you can see, Manchus and Han are nowadays genetically indistinguishable. Moreover modern Manchus basically descend from Han Chinese. I elaborate more in the rest of my response below.
Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of East and Southeast Asia - Hg C roughly corresponds to an ancient people living around North China. They may have been the original ancestors of the Manchu, like the Sushen 肃慎 also ancestors of the Mongols, Gogoryeo 高句丽, etc. Modern Koreans actually descend mostly from Silla, which was different from Gogoryeo and Baekje.
Japanese partly descend from Baekje, partly from ancient Jomon / Ainu. The Baekje and Silla themselves may have also descended from this ancient Sushen, Mohe tribe. The Xiongnu 匈奴 were a different tribe that kicked the Sushen to dongbei. It remains an unsolved question as to whether Xiongnu and Sushen share a common origin.
Maternal haplogroups (mtDNA) are much simpler. All Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Mongols, mainland Southeast Asians, even some Central Asians and Far East Russians share the same mothers. We must also thank the women for making East Asia East Asian.
Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup - map
2. Language: Manchus speak a Tungusic language, which seems more related to other Altaic’ languages like Mongolian, Turkic, and Korean; all of which probably originated around Northeast China anyways. So this counts as a ‘Chinese’ language because of its urheimat.
Han speak a Sino-Tibetan language, which likely originated around Gansu 7-8kya and then spread south and east. This roughly corresponds to hg O. But even the hg O who expanded north, south, east, and west; married with the local women, and their children would speak different languages.
Just see Korea, which is mostly hg O but speak a language from a different family. Or see any Austroasiatic or Austronesian speaker, who are mostly hg O but speak languages from a different family. You will hg O people speaking Persian, Turkic, Mongolian, Japanese, Russian, English too. And similarly many Manchurian have hg O.
Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in northern China in the Late Neolithic Linguistically Manchurian and Hanzi are from different language families and are written in different scripts. But nowadays, the Manchu language is completely loaded with Han Chinese loans, just like Korean or Japanese.
Han Chinese might have some Manchurian loans too, but to a lesser degree. Furthermore, Manchu and Mandarin Chinese are phonetically very similar, sharing all sorts of palatalizations and affricatives, perhaps through a kind of North Asian sprachbund (you also see these phonetic features in Russian too).
Whether there is some sort of ‘Sino-Altaic’ common origin is currently not even on the table. All we know is that Proto-Sino-Tibetan (PST) may have been agglutinative, just like Altaic languages and some modern Qiang and Tibetan languages. Over time Han Chinese became more analytic perhaps because of its logographic writing system. But without further evidence, we simply cannot find out more. Nowadays most Manchu have become Han and speak Han Chinese.
3. Lifestyle: Original Manchus were nomads and hunters, similar to Mongols, Turks, Tungusics, and other North Chinese and Siberian tribes. Han Chinese are almost always associated with a sedentary, farming, literary culture.
But nowadays, the steppe lifestyle has become almost obsolete—unless you are a Han who learned to ride a horse and live like a Mongol in a yurt for pure aesthetic. Nowadays, civilizations with writing, vast industries, resources, and a large agricultural base are those that hold sway.
4. Chinese dynasties: just by being the vast majority, Han Chinese have always ruled their own country, sometimes alongside Mongol or Manchu emperors, themselves largely descended from Han Chinese since the Han and Tang eras.
The Manchu under the Sushen were vassals of the Han dynasty, like the Xianbei (proto-Mongols). Max extent of Han according to the Japanese. Maybe the Japanese wanted to use this map to justify something? Regardless, Han, Xianbei, Sushen worked together to defeat the Xiongnu and conquer the steppe. There was inevitably some intermixing.
Once again the Manchus were part of the Tang dynasty (安北都护府) much like the Shiwei 室韦 (Mongols). Over this period of one thousand years, the Manchu and Mongols assimilated more with the Han Chinese, genetically, linguistically, and culturally.
The Manchu founded the Jin 金 dynasty as the Jurchen 女真 They defeated the Liao dynasty (Khitans, Mongol-Chinese) and ruled the land from Outer Manchuria (now Russia) to Central China. They created their own Jurchen script based off Hanzi, but were otherwise indistinguishable from Han. Many Han even ruled the Jin alongside the Jurchens.
This was a time when China was divided into several Chinese states: the Mongols, Khitai, Tibet, Xia, Jin, and Song (similar to how Europe is divided into many European nations). Khitai is the modern name of China in many Slavic and Altaic languages; the Khitai and 耶律大石 defeated the Seljuqs; just shows how even one of these Chinese states could be so powerful.
The Khitans, Jin, Song all wrote in Hanzi, practiced Han culture, and many were Buddhists or Daoists. The Song was arguably the richest and most advanced, having invented guns, but eventually fell due to internal fighting and external factors.Who would win this vast Chinese game of thrones? Genghis Khan and the Mongols of North China did it.
During the Yuan, the Mongols broadly lumped North Han, Manchus, and Koreans together as ‘Northern Han Chinese’. It makes sense. Even nowadays that’s exactly the ethnic composition of Northern Han Chinese in dongbei. So even at this point, people could not tell the difference between Manchus and Han.
During the Ming, the Manchus 后金 were part of the Ming empire, which stretched from Tibet to Outer Manchuria, a time when China’s navy, led by Zheng He, dominated the oceans.
The Manchus took a turn at leading the country alongside the Han by founding the Qing dynasty, taking advantage of a certain Han peasant who was kind enough to let them into Beijing. The Manchus did a pretty good job reunifying China. By certain measures, the Qing was not as large as the Yuan, Tang, or even Han—because Russia had taken North Asia. Before Russia, North Asia was basically one big Chinese backyard.
The Qing eventually got a bad name because it proved inept at defeating Europeans and Japanese. Eventually the Manchus lost the mandate of heaven entirely. This accelerated the assimilation of Manchus into Han to avoid persecutions for letting the country down.
5. Physical traits: If you ever look at any Qing dynasty emperor, you will find that they look more ‘stereotypically Chinese’ than Han Chinese themselves. Qipao and those pigtails found in old western propaganda posters of Chinese are also stereotypically Manchurian. They and other Tungusic people are also more likely to have monolids and epicanthic folds. Many Han Chinese have double eyelids and bigger eyes.
But by the Qing, the Manchus were already assimilated into the hg O genepool, just like Koreans long before. Otherwise, Manchus are basically indistinguishable from the Han.
6. Stereotypes: Manchus like other Northerners are stereotyped to be combative and tall. Some of the older Northern Chinese may have curly hair. Very ancient Northern Chinese may have had different colored eyes and hair as there was perhaps more diversity long before the expansion of major Chinese empires. But nowadays you hardly see this. Dark hair, dark eyes just became dominant in China.
If you wonder why some Koreans have a certain affinity to Manchus, it could be because: The Manchus founded the 金 Jin / Kim, which is a popular surname in Korea (and just happens to be the surname of a certain great leader…)
Several years ago, some East Asian researchers concluded that Koreans were a Tungusic people, like the Manchus. Later there was a huge controversy in Korea over this for some reason. But apparently to this day it seems a few Koreans believe in some kind of ‘pan-Tungusic nationalism’.
You can debunk this easily because Koreans 韩国人 are actually genetically closer to Han than to other Tungusic peoples. It’s that huge amount of hg O discussed above. Koreans are even called Han 韩 which is the name of an ancient state in China and several famous Chinese historical figures like 韩信。Even Korea’s first supposed king Jizi 箕子 from 1000 BC was Huaxia minzu, a refugee from the Shang dynasty.
The Yan state 燕国 ruled over 卫满朝鲜。Koreans were part of the Han, Tang, Yuan, some of the greatest empires in history, and at the very least were very good friends of the Ming and Qing, who gave them protection too. At least Koreans are not like Japanese, who half descend from ancient 倭。
Koreans do have their own history like the Manchus, but are part of the greater East Asian or Sinospheric civilization, a fact they cannot escape no matter how hard they try. Most of the world’s overseas Koreans live in China, and these Koreans consider themselves Chinese (in addition to Korean).
Koreans are always welcome to travel to China (just a skip away), marry the local Korean-Chinese women and men, and become Chinese themselves, if they were not already. But if they really want to feel more welcomed in China and participate more in a truly Asian century rather than one dominated by the USA, they might want to consider removing THAAD, or at least point it east rather than west.
It’s like how Brits, French, Spanish are all European while retaining their own 民族。Various East Asian countries are all East Asian. Various Chinese ethnicities are all Chinese. This is partly what it means to be a civilization state, home to many different peoples with their own tongues and minzu, but united by a single sense of civilization. (Another requirement is vast political unity, which China is and most of Europe has not been for most of history.)
It’s basically the same with Manchus. They’re related to the Han. We are all just Chinese. Manchu as a ruling class itself had brought many han and mongol on board by granting them Manchu identity, so were many Manchu, mongol and mongol's predecessors like Turks, Huns, xianbei granted han identity throughout the history.
Especially after the fall of qing dynasty, many Manchu in order to avoid revenge from han changed their names into han names and burnt their family records, stopped speaking Manchu language. Thus many of them became han.
The modern Manchu identity is tricky not only because it has merged many "honorable" Manchu i...If only compare to Northern Han,there is no diffrence. The term"Manchurians" describes people who lives in Manchuria,and many Han and Mongols lived/lives in Manchuria along with Manchus,too,and their population was/are even greater than Manchus.
Today's Manchus are marjority of descendants of the 8 banners,and 8 banners did not just consisted with Manchus but also Han and Mongols,their populations are greater.Also,between the 1970s and 1990s,many Han people in Liaoning province changed “Han”to “Manchu” because of China’s preferential policies towards ethnic minorities.This phenomenon also oc...
As you may know very well, Koreans called themselves Han race since the beginning of time. There were three Han (Korean) Kingdoms in ancient times from Manchu to the Korean Peninsula. Each of them were called Ma-Han, Jin-Jan, Byun-Han respectively.
They say Han China is a different race but that is seriously debatable.
Considering that the tribes in the north west of Han China called themselves Huns. It becomes obvious that there must have been some kind of correlations between Han Korea, Han China and the Huns.
In Korean language there is a word meaning large, very common word that sounds lik...
Their original culture, linguistic and ethnic background is very different.
The ancient Han Chinese spoke (and still speak) a Sino-Tibetan language, they settled alongside the great rivers of China and populated the fertile areas, cultivated land and pursued a sedentary lifestyle.
The Manchus were linguistically speaking a Tungusic people, but their original name was Jurchen, other ethnic groups merged with them to form a new nation that was given the name Manchu. Their ancestors originating from the vast areas of North East Asia, followed a semi-nomadic lifestyle and were skilled at warfare.
The Manchus gradually assimilated into the Chinese population, in a language shift they replaced their original Manchu language with Mandarin Chinese and absorbed Chinese culture, but even until the very late Qing era, they maintained a formal distinction based on their ethnicity, the Eight Banners system, which was a military-like framework of the Manchus and kept their distinct names, which showed to which clan they belonged. These changes occurred over several centuries, largely between the mid 17th and the very early 20th century.
Today, as the Manchus are assimilated, the differences are less significant, you cannot really tell Manchus from Hans, I think. Now all Manchus speak Chinese (except for a very few elderly, who still have some command of the language, and a few youth who are enthusiastic about keeping the language alive), they wear the same clothes, have Chinese names and seek the same goals as anyone else in China.
The government still records the ethnicity of the people in China, so Manchus have 满, while Han Chinese have 汉 printed on their ID cards. More than a century ago, there was some anti-Manchu sentiment among the Hans, blaming the Manchu Qing dynasty for the disastrous meltdown of China, but today you won't find much hostility against the Manchus in China.
I don’t know any Manchu in person. Based on media info, Manchus are proud of their heritage (e.g. being brave, strong, and conquerors in the past). Some claim they can tell whether a woman is of Manchu origin by the way she walks. Someone can elaborate on this? I live in US and I do feel I can guess at 80% accuracy if a person is Asian when looking at someone walking from behind (without seeing the face) at a distance.
I’m curious if a DNA test done in China lists the % of Manchu, Han, Hui, Korean, Tibet etc origin. US does not have that type of details within the groups of China. If it’s more detailed in China, how can I have a DNA test result from China? If there a way to do that through mail?
I am not an expert on this, but Han Chinese are from parts of eastern China and speak dialects of Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, etc.), which is a Sino-Tibetan language. Manchu people are from Manchuria in Northeastern China. They speak (or did speak, the language is mostly extinct) the Manchu language, which is a Tungusic language related to languages spoken in Siberia.
Both people have different origins, with the Han likely originating in Northeastern China and the Mancu people originating in Siberia, but they have shared a common history. The most famous example being the Qing dynasty, which ruled China from 1644 to 1912 and was the last dynasty before the founding of the Republic of China.
Interestingly, during the reign of the Qing, the Manchu people adopted a lot of the ways of the Han Chinese (which often happened when foreign dynasties took over China). This explains why the Manchu language has mostly disappeared.
There was difference between Han and Manchu, but there is not. Many people would say there are five major peoples in China, namely Han, Tibet, Uygur, Mongol,and Manchu. Unfortunately, the Manchu who has lost its language and culture which other ethnic groups still keep, are more like Han than themselves.
Providing meeting some guys claiming they are Manchus, you would probably find nothing other than their national identity cards labelled as Manchu still indicating their ethnicity, with other things ,like language or clothes, exactly the same as Han Chinese.
The Manchus are distantly related to Turks and Mongols : linguists classify their language as ‘Altaic’ a generic term for the superfamily of languages, that includes the three families Turkic, Mongolic and Manchu-Tungus.
I believe that this linguistic association indicates a link of kinship between Manchus and Tungus (now known as Evenki, a widespread Siberian people) and more distantly to Mongols and Turkic peoples - in other words very unconnected to the Chinese, though still of Asian phenotype (physical appearance). As Uralian languages (Finnic-Ugric-Samoyedic) are considered somewhat related to the Altaic, the Manchu language may have more in common with Finnish of Finland even than with Chinese.
For the history part the other answers are complete. This answer is about Manchu Chinese today. Actually, this nation has disappeared. The descendents of Manchu ppl read, speak, dress and live like Han Chinese. They are only Manchu on their ID card. As a minority they enjoy some privileges on, say, education.
Some people identified as Manchu are actually Han living in the Northeast China. In 1950s Chinese government identify 55 minor nations, in that process some Han were marked as Manchu. One of my roommate in the college became Manchu in that way.
Manchu, ans Han Chinese, is a quite mixed-blooded group from the very origin. You know when Manchu was founded, quite a part of them were Han ethnic in northern China, Manchu is more of a cultural notion. In fact we can not distinguish Han and Manchu ourselves.
Someone said Manchu are taller or better looking than Hans, you compare a Manchu movie star to a common Han people, definitely former is more good looking. If say taller, northeast and Shandong Chinese seem taller than people from other part, but check their ethnic, you will find most of them Han.
Manchus and Han are, maybe surprising for many, pretty different in many aspects. This fact may pain many Chinese Chauvinists though, since they tend to maliciously wish Manchu to be a dead concept buried in the past. Despite many claiming how similar the two are, this answer aims to provide some insights that are more spot on.
To start with, it is not correct to say Manchus have been assimilated into Han. It is rather the truth that both Manchu and Han are assimilated in modern civilisation, and before that their cultures influenced each other.
In terms of appearance Manchus are taller, stronger(male) and have paler skin. Also a typical Manchu's face has clearer, or technically sharper curves than Han. For instance, they tend to have straight and higher nose ridge(but not as big and tall as white), obvious cheek bone( but not as high as Cantonese).
A bigger misunderstanding is probably that Manchus have flat and round face. As I pointed out above, their faces are not flat, but contrarily, look more "three dimensional". That is a typical feature of Northern minorities lives on hunting and lives in or near Forest. They need bigger skull and forehead to support the visual system that can spot the animals when hunting when the light is blocked by trees, and higher nose to warm the cold air breathed in.
Big and flat faces are typical in Tungusic people, due to the freezing blizzard and sand storm on grass land perhaps. On the other hand, Manchus, in terms of appearance, are classified as nordsinid. Geographically Manchus and Tungusic people live close, but the “Tungusic” people that many quoted are actually classified as “North Tungusic”, and from my limited knowledge Manchus are a branch of ”South Tungusic” people.
The former originated from South Siberia and adapted to extremely cold environment, while the latter were from NorthEastern Asia, and more specifically somewhere next to the sea. This can be proven by the abundance of descrptions of the brith of the ocean in the Manchu folk stories about how the skymother created the world.(In a primitive culture, the story about the creation of world usualy reflects the memory of the ancient people). As for climate Manchuria has distinct seasons and even scorching summer, which is different from Siberia vastly.
Below is a screenshot from the book De Bello Tartarico Historia, which described the appearances of Manchus (in the text called “tartars”) when they conquered a chinese city in early 17th century, and it has an explicit comparison between Manchus and Han. By that time there were a large number of real Manchu people gathered together, so this makes a reliable sample. It was authored by a Spanish priest named Martin Martinius who was on a visit to China and initially stayed with the Chinese officials rather than Manchus.
Sorry for the small text. The books mentioned: Their faces are comely, and commonly broad as those of China also have; their colour is white, but their Nose is not so flat, nor their eyes so little, as the Chineses are; They speak little, and ride pensively. In the rest of their manners they resemble our Tartars of Europe, though they be nothing so barbarous.
Other than appearance, Manchus and Han nowadays are, maybe surprising for many people, pretty different in terms of their personality and the way of self-identifying. I am pretty sure that real Manchus, like me, are proud of their ethnic identity and hold very different opinions about some historical events with other Chinese. The reason is that the descendants of Manchus are told the story by their parents of their ancestors, who were mostly soldiers, commanders or officials.
Nevertheless nowadays Manchus give the public the impression that they are hardly different from Han for several reasons. A primary one is that most Manchus are Han themselves. This sounds ironic but is true, as a result of Chinese government's policy of supporting the minority by offering them some special rights. Lots of Han people just managed to let themselves be identified as "Manchu" on their ID card, and such people forms the majority of Manchu population currently.
In the Qing dynasty, I would like to clarify that Manchus didn't accept Han culture as expected by many Han people. In that age Manchus lived in a separate enclosure and tried to maintain their culture. And Manchus language was still prosperous to the near end of the dynasty, before the Xinhai rebellion. A good reference would be： A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology，written by Pamela Kyle Crossley.
Now here are some other differences between Manchu and Han that can be summarised briefly. In the past Manchus live on various production methods: hunting, fishing, raising livestock, and farming. While Han people relies predominantly on farming, the same as Mongolians lives on raising livestock.
Manchu (language) and Chinese belongs to different linguistic families. Manchu is more closely related to Mongolian, Korean and Japanese according to many modern linguistists. In the eyes of European visitors, Manchus language has very clear and full pronounciations and rigorous and logically concise grammar.
These features make them appear to be “closer to greek than other oriental languages”. Also Manchu language adopts a very beautiful writing script, differ greatly from Chinese scripts. Pictures of it should be easy to find online. Below is part from the same book quoted above, the "Travels in China"by John Barrow (page 182):
Their genes are different (hope I don't sound like a racist). Manchu, apparently, is a northern race(judged from the large proportion of N and C haplogroups exist in their Y-DNA.) while Han people's genes are more complex, and southern Chinese are genetically closer to south east Asians(O1 among Cantonese). Just refer to the wiki about this. Y-DNA haplogroups by populations of East and Southeast Asia.
The rest of differences lie in personality, cultures etc. In brief Manchus are more brave, proud and chivalry, while Han cares more about harmony and value the group, and are better at solving problems in an indirect way. But these things change over time and seem to be a combination of both external and internal factors.
Just to separately elaborate on above points since they are questioned by Thing Ti, and Min Hu, whose answer showed clear hypocrisy and the desire of distorting facts. Being well aware that a direct comment under someone’s answer is expected to start a discussion with that user in Quora, I decided to add the paragraphs here instead since they chose to start a separate answer rather than replying to this one.
A lot of Chinese commenters, in general today, seem to love to quote their limited personal experience to prove some points. Their obesity with this might be due to lack of reasoning ability, education, morality or probably a combination of them. However that would usually just distort the truth and create digressions.
In terms of statistics, a few people who claim themselves to be of certain ethnic backgrounds is far from a large and good enough sample, since the number is small and as I mentioned most Manchus by ID card today are Han themselves. In terms of logic, when asked about the difference of Manchus and Han the difference applies to the overall or average features, which cannot be reflected in a small bunch of people.
Those who claim to be unable to tell Manchus and Chinese apart are unlikely to tell Koreans and Japanese apart either, though they are vastly different. Such statements tend to be an irrational and misleading generalisation without evidence, usually comes from imaginations created by sick minds.
While they use pictures of some Manchu people to support claims about the their look compared to Han ppl, no pictures of Han people have been posted so it does not make a comparison. Also merely a few pirctures cannot possibly represent the facial features of a whole ethnic group, especially when the aristocrats in 19th century (when photos started to be taken) already got significant Han Chinese heritage from their maternal side.
Probably another skulduggery presented is to mention “According to the images, their facial features are quite similar. ” People closely related in blood almost always look similar.
There is plenty of data proving my point about the physical strenth and height of the two ethnic groups, and it is usually found in the corresponding official research on college students conducted by Chinese universities. As manchu students are likely to appear in Chinese universities everwhere (especially in the North), results of such reports would suggest that Manchus are taller and stronger compared to Chinese in anywhere. While questioning on the evidence I listed, Pamezdga based its own ideas on literally nothing by saying “no data can”.
Granted the manner of making the arguments is repulsive enough, Cheng Chi’s pictures accidently showed people with straight and clear nose ridge, obvious cheeck bone, relatively thin faces, and the bone of lower forhead “swelling up” slightly (which effectively makes the claim of “shallow orbit” invalid).
Also I don’t see refering to Manchus’ using of Chinese today being anywhere relevant. Probably just to mock me since manchus do use Chinese. However many people use goods made in China and that doesn’t mean as much as Chinese expected.
Despite the bidirectional assimilations back and forth, the Manchu’s halfshaved heads and traditional dress have been preserved over centuries and they are now, in my observation, seen by modern Chinese as their common tradition. As you can see on any printed Chinese new year visuals.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-Manchu-and-Han-people
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.