"1421: The Year China Discovered America" is the dumbest book ever. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

End of Roman society, feudalism, rise of religious power, beginnings of the nation-state, renaissance (476 - 1492 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14771890
Actually it was a series of alliances followed by war followed by peace and so on until the Mongols arrived.

The Song remained a nation until 1279 after the Jin had already fallen.

The Ming dynasty was of Mongol origin that united both the northern dynasties and southern dynasties for the first time.
Thats when China as a united empire that acted as the foundation of what modern China was born.
Thus as said, both northern and southern people whom are Jurchens and the hans are what we now know as Chinese people.

The removal of the Ming and establishment of the Qing sure was a bloody change, but it was internal, not external. Which is the point 'm arguing about. Saying as in the OP that the Jurchen conquered and enslaved Chinese people is simply a false statement.
Both the Jurchen and the Han are what we know now as Chinese.



"Manchuria" is a translation of the Japanese word Manshū, which dates from the 19th century. The name Manju (Manzhou) was invented and given to the Jurchen people by Hong Taiji in 1635 as a new name for their ethnic group; however, the name "Manchuria" was never used by the Manchus or the Qing dynasty itself to refer to their homeland. According to the Japanese scholar Junko Miyawaki-Okada, the Japanese geographer Takahashi Kageyasu was the first to use the term "満州" (Manshū) as a place name in 1809 in the Nippon Henkai Ryakuzu, and it was from that work that Westerners adopted the name.According to Mark C. Elliott, Katsuragawa Hoshū's 1794 work, the "Hokusa bunryaku", was where "満州" (Manshū) first appeared as a place name was in two maps included in the work, "Ashia zenzu" and "Chikyū hankyū sōzu" which were also created by Katsuragawa. "満州" (Manshū) then began to appear as a place names in more maps created by Japanese like Kondi Jūzō, Takahashi Kageyasu, Baba Sadayoshi and Yamada Ren, and these maps were brought to Europe by the Dutch Philipp von Siebold. According to Nakami Tatsuo, Philip Franz von Siebold was the one who brought the usage of the term Manchuria to Europeans after borrowing it from the Japanese, who were the first to use it in a geographic manner in the eighteenth century although neither the Manchu nor Chinese languages had a term in their own language equivalent to "Manchuria" as a geographic place name. The Manchu and Chinese languages had no such word as "Manchuria" and the word has imperialist connotations. According to Bill Sewell, it was Europeans who first started using the name Manchuria to refer to the location and it is "not a genuine geographic term". The historian Gavan McCormack agreed with Robert H. G. Lee's statement that "The term Manchuria or Man-chou is a modern creation used mainly by westerners and Japanese", with McCormack writing that the term Manchuria is imperialistic in nature and has no "precise meaning" since the Japanese deliberately promoted the use of "Manchuria" as a geographic name to promote its separation from China at the time they were setting up their puppet state of Manchukuo.The Japanese had their own motive for deliberately spreading the usage of the term Manchuria. The historian Norman Smith wrote that "The term 'Manchuria' is controversial".Professor Mariko Asano Tamanoi said that she "should use the term in quotation marks" when referring to Manchuria. In his 2012 dissertation on the Jurchen people to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy degree in History from the University of Washington, Professor Chad D. Garcia noted that usage of the term "Manchuria" is out of favor in "current scholarly practice" and that he had ceased using the term, instead using "the northeast" or referring to specific geographical features.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchuria ... _and_names

Ok, it seems that the name does indeed originate from that older name.



Not impressed ? Is impressing you a requirement ?
But since we're talking about research here. You might want to check the map of the Jin dynasty because this is how it was at the end
Image
They were united then by the mongols and thus China became a thing.
Last edited by anasawad on 04 Feb 2017 14:52, edited 1 time in total.
#14771892
anasawad wrote:The Ming dynasty was of Mongol origin that united both the northern dynasties and southern dynasties for the first time.
Thats when China as a united empire that acted as the foundation of what modern China was born.
Thus as said, both northern and southern people whom are Jurchens and the hans are what we now know as Chinese people.

The removal of the Ming and establishment of the Qing sure was a bloody change, but it was internal, not external. Which is the point 'm arguing about. Saying as in the OP that the Jurchen conquered and enslaved Chinese people is simply a false statement.
Both the Jurchen and the Han are what we know now as Chinese.


anasawad, this is nonsense. Do you realize that I now know that you have no idea what you are talking about?
#14771895
Dude. The Jin conquered norther Song not all of it.
The last map is after the end of the war.
The next event to come in place that first ended the Jin then the Song was the Mongols.
There was no united China before that.
I just gave the source for the page talking about the different names of it.
Chinese people are all of those nations together which were born under the Ming.
Not before that.


Sorry, only minor mix up between the Yuan and the Ming. First Yuan united all of the land which was Mongol and then the Ming took over.


And you even said it yourself. Civil war.
Here you, read how the Qing rose to power. Not foreign invasion, they were already part of the empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dyna ... the_Manchu
A peasant soldier named Li Zicheng mutinied with his fellow soldiers in western Shaanxi in the early 1630s after the Ming government failed to ship much-needed supplies there.[69] In 1634 he was captured by a Ming general and released only on the terms that he return to service.[76] The agreement soon broke down when a local magistrate had thirty-six of his fellow rebels executed; Li's troops retaliated by killing the officials and continued to lead a rebellion based in Rongyang, central Henan province by 1635.[77] By the 1640s, an ex-soldier and rival to Li – Zhang Xianzhong (1606–47) – had created a firm rebel base in Chengdu, Sichuan, while Li's center of power was in Hubei with extended influence over Shaanxi and Henan.[77]

Internal, not external.
#14771904
I do realize who he is, and guess what. \ all the Jurchen tribes were already part of the empire
Image


But according to that logic you seem to use.
Lets take an example from Iran which i know well.
Currently, the Clerics and the majority rule is held by Azzari Turks, Kurds, and Arabs not by Persians. Atleast before the last election.
Now there are two ways to enterpret this, either they are never the less Iranians whom simply have different origins. Or since the 1979 revolution became an armed revolution once the clerics whom are Azzari got involved, i assume they've conquer us right ?

Think about it, its really the same logic.
If a group within the Chinese empire took the thrown by force then thats considered a foreign invasion.
Then obviously, the revolution in Iran was also a foreign invasion (i.e Azzari Turks, whom majority form Azerbaijan now against Persians.)

The difference with China is that two groups who had two different empires were united under foriegn rule then they became independent and formed an empire together.
First the Han took thrown then the Jurchens took thrown.
Simple. No foreign invasion, and nothing that is not usual in most empires in history.


EDIT: BTW, even in the wiki page on the civil war, he ordered his people to rebel against the Ming. Rebellions happen from within.
Last edited by anasawad on 04 Feb 2017 15:15, edited 1 time in total.
#14771906
MB. wrote:Those who are interested can watch a documentary made about Gavin Menzies and his work here:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/1421-the ... d-america/

i can't say that I've read the book myself, however, I have been variously exposed to the Zheng He / Columbus comparison on several occasions and I cannot say that it holds water, or needs to be discussed beyond popular history. The importance of Gavin Menzies, it seems to me, is as a popularizer of the Zheng He voyages themselves, which, as I've mentioned, are terribly important and deserving of wider study and attention.

The obsession with 1492 and all that seems to say more about popular history of the west than it does about China or the Ming role in the world system during the great divergence.

I gave up on Menzies after a couple of chapters. He is like a conspiracy theorist believing in having unearthed a spectacular story that will revolutionize thinking (and sell his book). He also wrote a book about the lost continent of Atlantis (not about me, mind you ;) ). But he doesn't care about historical accuracy. I think he doesn't even read Chinese. He is just part of that human debris left by the British empire strewn across the globe. Dismissed from the navy not very honorably, he tries to make a living by whatever means. But in that he is typical of travel writers including Marco Polo, Fernao Mendes Pinto, etc., they all mix the occasional fact with a liberal doses of fantasy. They can be seen in the tradition of Don Quixote.

What I wrote above from memory about Zheng He's treasure ships is confirmed:

Chinese treasure ship

One explanation for the alleged size of these colossal ships was that the largest 44 Zhang treasure ships were merely for a display of imperial power by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats on the Yangtze River when on court business, including when reviewing Zheng He's actual expedition fleet. The Yangtze River, with its calmer waters, may have been navigable for such large but unseaworthy ships. Zheng He would not have had the privilege in rank to command the largest of these ships. The largest ships of Zheng He's fleet were the 6 masted 2000-liao ships. This would give burthen of 500 tons and a displacement tonnage of about 800 tons.[4]



The Archaeological Researches into Zheng He's Treasure Ships
Rear Admiral Zheng Ming (retired), The Beijing Association for the Studies of Zheng He ' s Voyage
(Nov.2, 2004)

Whether there existed large-size treasure ships (44 zhangs) has been a key and controversial research topic in researches on Chinese Ming history and Zheng He's voyages. An important breakthrough on this issue has been achieved since the author and scholars both at home and abroad initiated Zheng He's treasure ship restoration and replication project at the end of the 20 th century. For example, “ ‘the large-size' and ‘medium-size' treasure ships were ridden by the Ming Emperor Yongle and imperial households and high-ranking officials of central organs, by which they voyaged and visited only on the inland rivers instead of the open seas after attending the ceremonious setting-sail rites. The remaining ‘small-size' treasure ships voyaged to the western ocean after replacement and replenishment in Liujia Harbor and Taiping Harbor,” [1] proposed Prof. Xu Gongsheng (Fujian Teachers University) in 2004. “The large-size treasure ships were 44.4-zhang (138-meter) long and 18-zhang (56-meter) wide, which greatly exceeded the bigness of the Fengtian Hall (renamed as ‘the Hall of Supreme Harmony' later) and Lingsi Hall (The Mausoleum of Emperor Yongle), so it seemed to perpetrate a crime of overstepping their authorities from the point of view of the feudal patriarch etiquettes,” proposed Mr. Wang Yabo (Wuhan) in 2002: “The castles on the decks of treasure ships should be in conformity with the proportional relationships and a set of believable buildings, but Zheng He was an eunuch, so he violated the legally constituted authorities if he could enjoy them.” [2] We can draw a conclusion by analyzing the abovementioned papers: The large-size treasure ships had actually been constructed and ridden by the Emperor Yongle to review Zheng He's expedition fleet. It is more justifiable .

Prof. He Guowei ( Wuhan University of Technology ) also noted in 2004: “The scale features of Zheng He's treasure ships can be summed up as three words: large and flat . …the scale proportions that deviated from the features of the sea ships,…particularly compared with such scale proportion of the beam as width-depth and width-draft proportion,…more extremely than river ships,…inevitably led to the existence of defects in marine technologies,…they were pinned down by the wind force during voyages,…the seaworthiness was not so good,…the steering was not so agile,…the intensity of hull structures was weak…” [3] We can draw a conclusion by analyzing this paper: As giant Yangtze River ships for use of an emperor, which were both “towering and incomparable” and not for voyages to the western ocean, the features of the large-size treasure ships met the service requirements and were not technological defects.

[...]
After summarizing and analyzing the opinions of all scholars, I advances the following conclusive viewpoints soliciting opinions:
⑴ It is believable that the large-size treasure ships were 44.4 zhangs in length recorded in the historical data;
⑵ The large-size treasure ships were the ships for use of Ming emperors, which navigated or anchored on river areas near Nanjing for the emperors to review instead of leading Zheng He's expedition fleets to go to the western ocean;

During the years of Emperor Yongle, a series of shipbuilding missions were assigned across the country, and the ship types may included Fujian ships, Sha ships, bird ships, Canton ships, etc. The main ship types of which were 2,000-liao and 1,500-liao sea ships;
⑶ The 2,000-liao sea ships were the main ship types among “Zheng He's expedition fleet. Emperor Yongle issued orders time after time to construct treasure ships in batches for dispatching envoys to the countries of the western ocean;
⑷ Such main ship types as the 2,000-liao sea ships, 1,500-liao sea ships and 8-scull ships are included in the organizations of Zheng He's expedition fleet;
⑸ The ships among Zheng He's expedition fleet were various in types differentiating by shipbuilding sites, missions and functions and divided into large-size, medium-size and small-size ships. They could include such ship types as Fujian ship, Sha ship, bird ship and Canton ship, bearing the missions of the treasure ship, water ship, escort, transport ship of the expedition fleet, respectively;
⑹ The Treasure Ship Yard in Nanjing series constructed the 2,000-liao sea ship type treasure ships, several “treasure ship rudderstocks” are unearthed there and there were evidences that they well matched the dimensions of the 2,000-liao sea ships;
⑺ The Fujian shipyards concerned constructed the treasure ships for use of Zheng He's voyage during the years of Emperor Yongle; and constructed the conferred ships (also called “treasure ships”) for dispatching envoys to Ryukyu during the years of Emperor Jiajing,Wanli and Chongzhen. They were 100 years apart, but similar in shapes and structures, and both about 15-20 zhangs in length; and
⑻ The treasure ships were official ships that the Ming emperors and governments ordered Zheng He to deliver “treasures” to the countries of the western ocean and bring “treasures” back home, and were also the command ships of Zheng He's expedition fleet and squadrons.
#14771910
I've only looked into this when doing a bit of World History (despite being a Europeanist) and the World Historians emphasize connections a lot...Though they seem to claim that the Chinese trade ships went into East Africa, traded extensively through the Indians Ocean, and partially as a result of a trade imbalance in which they lost a lot of metal in coin, pulled back in and got rid of the ships. Two years later the Portugese came into the Indian Ocean and were able to easily come into a trade route that the Chinese had abandoned.

I only know about that from very broad World Histories though.

So this is interesting.

I do want to point out that toward the beginning, a problem with conspiracy theories like political correctness (in this iteration) is that it serves to stifle discussion and thought. One cannot, for instance, say the Chinese weren't cannibals (though I see no evidence of this) without being part of the conspiracy.
#14771911
@anasawad, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

What can be called Han or Chinese is a cultural continuum held together by the Chinese writing system, Confucian ethics, and ancestor worship resulting in the deification of the Yellow emperor as the first ancestor. Official history has it that Qin Shi Huang Di reunited China for the first time during the Qin (259 - 210 BC), following the Warring States period in which competing kings fought for domination. But China has been united and disunited politically before and after that numerous times. Competing kingdoms would often ally with non-Han tribes from the North which were reputed for their ferocity in fighting. Thus, there were a number of dynasties which were dominated by Northern non-Han tribes. The Yuan and Qing are only two of the better known.

China expanded by cultural assimilation of "barbarians" inside and outside the realm. Thus, it is futile to discuss when the Manchus or other tribes were assimilated. The fact remains that all foreign invaders (invited or not) were eventually assimilated by a superior Chinese culture. That is an important message for today's migration debate. In the end, expansion can only be achieved by cultural assimilation into the superior culture. Military expansion is futile. Genetics is not important.

If you read German, there is an excellent study about cultural assimilation of the "barbarians" from inside and outside the realm into Chinese culture:

'China und die Fremden' Wolfgang Bauer, 1980, ISBN 3 406 07 604 1
#14771919
What 'm arguing is exactly that.
China that we know today and has been for the past centuries since the Ming and onwards is a group of nations. All of them are Chinese.
The Hans were the majority but all the others lived within the empire and were part of it.
Even the Jurchen tribes were within it and under its control.
Their take over is not foreign invasion and enslavement like the OP is saying but rather an internal coup.
Thats how empires work, all empires are groups of nations, where different dynasties take over the thrown either by military take over or by marriage.

The Jurchen tribes latter on forming the Qing dynasty were part of the empire and took the thrown by military force.
Nurhaci was born in 1559. Being a member of the Gioro clan of the Suksuhu River tribe, Nurhaci also claimed descent from Möngke Temür, a Jurchen headman who lived some two centuries earlier. According to Chinese sources[citation needed], the young man grew up as a soldier in the household of the Ming dynasty general Li Chengliang in Fushun, where he learned Chinese. He named his clan Aisin Gioro around 1612, when he formally ascended the throne as the Khan of the Later Jin dynasty.

In 1618, Nurhaci commissioned a document entitled the Seven Grievances in which he enumerated seven problems with Ming rule and began to rebel against the domination of the Ming dynasty. A majority of the grievances dealt with conflicts against Yehe, and Ming favouritism of Yehe.

Defectors from the Ming side played a massive role in the Qing conquest of the Ming. Ming generals who defected to the Manchus were often married to women from the Aisin Gioro clan while lower-ranked defectors were given non-imperial Manchu women as wives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurhaci


From this article:
The Qing conquest of the Ming, also known as the Ming–Qing transition and as the Manchu conquest of China, was a period of conflict between the Qing dynasty, established by Manchu clan Aisin Gioro in Manchuria (contemporary Northeastern China), and the Ming dynasty of China in the south (various other regional or temporary powers were also associated with events, such as the short-lived Shun dynasty). Leading up to the Qing conquest, in 1618, Aisin Gioro leader Nurhaci commissioned a document entitled the Seven Grievances, which enumerated grievances against the Ming and began to rebel against their domination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_conquest_of_the_Ming


It was internal coup. Not as the OP says it is.
This is how empires always worked.

Here are a couple of example from Iran.
The Parthian empire and the Sasanian empire also took the thrown the same way.
Tribes, within the already existing empires, start rebelling against the ruling dynasty.
Start taking land, region after region through several years. Until the former dynasty falls completely and the new one takes the thrown and consolidate its rule over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_ ... ablishment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_ ... 0.93310.29

The Parthians or Parni or locally known as the Hazzari (i.e my people) are one of the two major tribes of Persia, Roujam and Hazzar. Roujam is the one that created the Achaemenid empire.
The Sasanian empire was also Roujami.
Both of them are Persian because Persian empire is not one nation, its several.
And the same with the Chinese empire, several nations united under one rule.
Generally all empires are like that not just those two.

So the Qing just like the Parthians, just like the Sasanians, and just like many other dynasties aren't foreign invaders who conquered the empire and enslaved its people.
They're internal forces that took the thrown by force.

And back then, centuries ago, wars were alot longer and it took long years and even decades for a rival faction to fully consolidate all the lands of the empire and removing all the former dynasty or faction from control.
Thats how things worked.
#14771923
The problem is that you're trying very hard to express some kind of rule about the nature of empires, and according to that rule, the Jurchen must be Chinese.

It's very obvious where your thought process here has failed.

How do you reconcile the external conquest of empires by minority, non-imperial, people with your empire theory more generally?
#14771930
@MB.
No, 'm not really trying very hard to say there is some kind of rule for it.
'm saying that all empires in history indeed followed the exact same pattern with rare exceptions.
Thats how transitions between dynasties happen.

The term Chinese refers to over 50 different groups whom differ either by culture, ethnicity, origins, etc.
Not one, but over 50.
The Han whom are the largest group makes a majority, that doesn't mean they're the only ones.

If my thought process has failed, then you obviously can explain how the Jurchen tribes rebelled against the empire with help of deficted Ming soldiers and general rather than being a foreign invasion.

But nevertheless, according to your own logic. Does that mean that Parthians are foreign invaders of the empire ?
Or the Sasanians are foreign invaders ?

Or maybe the Ummayyads were foreign invaders to the first caliphate ? Or the Abbassids to the Ummayyads ?

Or maybe the Mughal empire and Safavid empire were foreign invading force to the Timurid empire ?
Because all of those formed the exact same way. And many many more across history.

So what is ? Is it how usual transitions between dynasties take place ? or are all of those foreign invasions and conquests of their former ?



For the Jurchen being Chinese, When you migrate to a land and stay in it for several centuries.
Live for a considerable time (i.e centuries) under its rule, learn and adopt their culture.
Participate, act and become as one of them. Then you're indeed one of them.
By the time the Jurchen made the rebellion, they had spent around 4 centuries living under the Hans whom you insist that are the only Chinese people. They have adopted their culture and their heritage and even built the nation with them. Just like all the other groups whom were integrated into the identity. By then, they're already Chinese. They're already part of the empire. And their take over, is in all simplicity, internal.

External is when you describe a brand new group coming in and taking control, like the Israelis in Palestine for example. Thats external. Not when you spend 4 centuries living side by side (i.e through the Yuan and the Ming) and mixing with each other.
Last edited by anasawad on 04 Feb 2017 16:49, edited 1 time in total.
#14771931
Was the yuan dynasty a foreign invasion or a domestic rebellion, according to your reasoning?


(This is beside the fact that Manchu dramatically altered Ming society and ruled the Qing state as a multiethnic empire, so you are factually wrong about all of your assertions).
I am merely interested in your reasoning and how you came to believe in this bizzare theory of empire by which empires are determined by your definitions of them.
#14771936
The Yuan was a mongol dynasty.
The Mongols weren't living in China, they were north of it.
Thats why there is a great wall there.


You still didn't answer the question.
Were all those empires listed formed by foreign invasions ?
Note that in all of them, the new empire was built by a different faction or nation within the older empire.
And all taken by military force.

EDIT:
And since you're circling around the same point.
Do answer the question i asked Kateman.
Who are the Chinese people exactly ?
#14771940
Not really, it didn't actually through Manchu territories. They lived around the coasts. (not in as near the beach but as in the regions near the coast lines. i.e south of the manchuira region. As far as the Jin dynasty they lived within the southern parts of Manchuira)
NOTE: They're one of the first to actually begin building it.
The modern day region we call manchuira isn't representative of where they lived, rather the lands the Japanese occupied.

The mongols did not live in the lands, they did not integrate with the people, nor did they do anything to actually be a part of the nation.
They just as in everywhere else, invaded, destroyed, and occupied. And they rarely put their own people to actually run things rather they represented in conquered nations the top of the social ranks mainly the ruling dynasties.

Meaning they're not internal, they're an actual foreign power that invaded the land. Not an internal faction the rebelled against an existing dynasty.
Big difference there.
#14771946
I just noted the edit to the post previously.
Qing did indeed run the empire as a multiethnic empire and made it official.
However, that doesn't mean it wasn't already mutli ethnic.
The han as said are the majority and indeed have the dominant culture, and they integrated many into it.
Even the people who rebelled against the Ming and overthrew them were people either them selves Han or they were raised with them. They were already integrated into the Han. The rebellion wasn't against the Han per say, it was against the Ming Dynasty for their poor actions.
Thats why it clearly states in all the articles about the topic how the Ming were already dealing with several uprising all over their empire due to poverty and poor conditions. The Jurchen tribes were simply the ones successful to lead it.
It doesn't mean they weren't already integrated. Or if as you say they weren't, then by that we can assume even the Han rebels themselves and the Ming generals who switched sides are also not culturally integrated into the nation ?
No, ofcourse not. This is simply a casual transition between ruling dynasties that happened dozens of times all over the world all across history.

If the Manchu did not speak Mandarin, if the land (steppe) was under Ming military governance (occupation), and if the Manchu were considered barbarians by the Han Chinese, what precisely, leads you to conclude they were "integrated" and "internal" in a way the Mongols were not?

How exactly were they under military occupation ?
They were under occupation and only decided to rise against it after nearly 3 centuries ?
And with some of them growing side by side by the acclaimed occupier ?
#14771949
You insist that the Manchu conquest of Ming China was infact a normal dynastic succession, and certainly not, you insist for some bizzare reason, the military conquest of one people by another. If you agree that the Mongols conquest was an "external conquest", to be consistant, you must accord the same status to the Manchu. The Mongols are as different from the Song as the Jurchen were for the Ming.

Apparently this statement of basic logic invalidates your entire preconceived historical worldview, which I find amazing but not unsurprising.
#14771954
Ok, 'm going to try to get my point by an example from Iran.
As you might know already, Iran is currently formed a multiple cultural groups and nations and historically the empire was made of many nations.
The ones who pretty much became permanent of the empire are the ones in western central Asia current day Iran, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.
After centuries of all these nations living together under one empire, different dynasties but one empire. They start integrating with each other.
No group was dominant culturally thus all started moving towards a center point if you can call it that.
Century after century, the Persian identity began to be born. Each one of those groups still recognize its origins and history and culture, yet they all consider them selves Persian. Infact, many of them don't even speak the same language, even today some still don't. But nevertheless, Persian.
Why ? because they've been together as part of the same system for centuries.

That is simillar to how the Jurchen and the Han which i assume the Han is what you consider Chinese, have.
They lived together under same system for centuries. same nation, same land, same army, almost the same in everything.
And not just through the Ming, but also through the Yuan dynasty which ruled them together.
After this many centuries, they become the same nation. Which is evident by the co-operation between the Jurchen and the Han against the Ming.
They became one nation.
Cultural remnants of their old selves remain, sure. But not the ruling drive.
Even the guy who led the Jurchen was raised within the Han.

The Mongols on the other hand, didn't have that with either.


This is evident btw not only in Persia, but also in the middle east in general, in north africa, in India, etc.
The same integration happened in all these places. multiple nations become one after centuries of being together even if by force or unwillingly.
Last edited by anasawad on 04 Feb 2017 17:46, edited 1 time in total.
#14771955
Thus, if I demonstrate to you that the Jurchen Infact had entirely different cultural institutions, a different language, different military system, different land and taxation system during the Ming military occupation, you must accept that they were in fact not "Ming" (that is to say, Han) Chinese as you put it.
On Lebanon

@Palmyrene Of course you're not. :lol: I[…]

Trump and Russiagate

At the expense of how many other jobs? You're igno[…]

What seems to have escaped you is that the Presid[…]

The dependence of the world economy on energy reco[…]