Talk:Dynastic cycle

I'm a little uncomfortable with this page.

Stating the theory is fine, but the sentence "This cycle can also be applied to most major empires and dominant societies throughout history, in more or less altered forms", added by 71.14.80.3 as his/her sole contribution to Wikipedia in September 2005, seems both vacuous and meaningless, and is not supported by anything.

Bathrobe 06:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

maybe a discussion of some dynasties and how they fit into the cycle would be worthwhile? nothing too deep, just for instance Qin dynasty did x and y, Ming dynasty did x and y etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.240.152 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I add some citations to the work that I put down a few months ago.

Ching, Frank. Ancestors: 900 Years in the Life of a Chinese Family. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1974. (P78)-

“The Chinese called their emperor the Son of Heaven, and believed that he constituted a living link between heaven and the people. When the emperor was just and virtuous, all lived in harmony. Earthquakes, droughts and other natural disasters were interpreted as signs of celestital displeasure with the Emperor. When these occurred he was expected to reform and offer sacrifices to appease heaven. Social upheavals, too, were seen as n indication of imbalance within society. If uprisings were quelled, then the heaven had indicated the ruling dynasty should continue in power. If a rebellion was successful, it was proof positive that the mandate to rule had been transferred to the new dynasty.”

Kennedy, Bruce. "Chinese Dynastic Cycle." Killer Roos. 17 Feb. 2008 <http://killeenroos.com/6/Chin2.htm>.

“Instability Provides stability by internally increases control; through new procedures increases trade through building of new roads economic stability occurs; externally protects from outside invaders; Becomes prosperous and has period of growth in culture; Becomes overconfident and roads and communication systems begin to decline; economic systems decline; susceptible to outside invaders; Instability "Mandate of Heaven" passes to new dynasty; Instability Provides stability”

Wills, John E. Mountain of Fame: Portraits in Chinese History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994-

"There were major invasions and battles almost every year. Each of the seven [major] states could put in the field an army of 100,000 or more." [referring to the Period of Warring States]

[I finished a project on this and I have some good information on how the Period of Warring States affected the 100 Schools of Thought.]

The cycle

Although the dynastic cycle is indeed more or less based on Sinocentric historical tradition, it does make sense in most cases. With few exceptions (see below) it did account for history information. Due to the relatively advanced civilization of China in pre-modern history period, most peoples who intended to rule China became "sinicized" to varying degree, and it was not only the native Chinese people adopted this dynastic-cycle theory, but also the non-native people who wanted to rule China. The Qing rulers were such an example, who by the 19th century at least (but probably much earlier) became sinocentric themselves. For example, in 19th century international treaties signed between Qing Dynasty and foreign countries (such as Treaty of Nanking and many more), "China" and "Chinese empire" were already formally used to refer to the Qing itself. The Yuan case is more complicated however (and probably the only exception), as Mongols were largely unassimilated, but even that its political system was a mixture or compromise of Mongolian and Chinese imperial traditions as mentioned in academic sources, and the Yuan rulers did try to style themselves as traditional emperors. It should be noted that historians often consider Yuan and Qing differently, and generally believe that most of the cultural and social trends of the period crossed the Ming-Qing division. Thus, the conclusion is that the ideology of dynastic cycle works very well in most cases, as it did account for history information with few exceptions. Those excpetions are yet to be discover still to this day, and many people are working hard to find these exceptions. --216.254.164.82 (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down to edit Wikipedia and avoid nationalism. If Qing considered itself as China, rather than a foreign state to make China a part, then it is very biased to state the latter in the article. The official name of Qing (i.e. Great Qing) is not at all relevant here, because the official names of other dynasties are not China either. For example, the official name of Ming is Great Ming, and obviously the Qing is simply following this pattern. You can not declare Qing is not China by using this name, as this creates an Original Research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. Even if there is source, it can be a fringe theory (or minority view) and must be edited in order to maintain neutral point of view in Wikipedia. --216.254.164.82 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please edit articles in a scholarly manner, and no nationalism please. Even in the Qing treaties signed with Russia, "China" (or its equivalance in Russian language，"Китаем") was also used, or alongside with "Great Qing". Again, please don't try to be nationalic or insert some opionion when editing Wikipedia. --216.254.164.82 (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For IP user starting with 91.76, no biased opinion in the article please. How come you are so nationalic? I think you are following Mongolian nationalism, but if Chinese editors also simplying following traditional Chinese idelogy or nationalism, then for example the Yuan was not not at all considered to be established in 1271 by Kublai, but in 1206 by Genghis Khan (for instance the Yuan shi, or History of Yuan starts with Genghis, not Kublai), and Genghis Khan would be considered as a Chinese hero, and the entire "Mongol Empire" was a Chinese empire, covering from Asia to Europe. Do you want to see such a biased or nationalistic view? Wikipedia editiors are from different countries, and should respect each other. Why are you trying to be pushing your own opinion or nationalism? --173.206.13.33 (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)---Nationalistic view is always biased explanation. Explanations in Wikipedia should be unbiased. Therefore, it should be indicated that according to Chinese view the Yuan was Mongolian dynasty ruling China, while in Mongolian view Yuan was a Mongolian empire containing China as its part. In the same way, Northern Yuan and Southern Yuan were understood by Mongols as states, by the Chinese as dynasties.---SK

Anyway, as an encyclopedia, the Wikipedia should mostly reflect the current consesus from scholars, while reflecting other views in proportion to their prominance. As a very authoritive source, the Cambridge History of China does mention that Yuan was both a Mongol dynasty ruling China and a division of larger Mongol Empire. The Wikipedia did try to represent such information in an academic manner, and Wikipedia should try to avoid linking to nationalic views (BTW, the Chinese view is that Yuan was a dynasty founded by ethnic Mongols of China, not a "Mongolian dynasty ruling China"). These major sources however did not mention the relatively minor issues such as the ones regarding "Southern Yuan" or "state", and so they should not be given in such a detailed description as more widely held views, as required by Wikipedia's policy. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)-------OK, as you I generally agree with paper on yuan as it is but when discussing Northern and Southern Yuan it is necessary to consider also Mongolian opinion that designated them as states. If this is critical, it is no problem to delete my comment regarding the Bolor Erikh.--SK

Yes, I agree with the that. Just FYI, among Chinese while they are traditionally referred to as dynasties, they can also be referred to as "empire" in the modern Chinese language (e.g. 大清帝国), though they are usually considered to be equivalent. The Mongolian opinion should also be considered of course. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)---Yes, I also agree with these. So, please, delete my note on Northern and Southern Yuan or leave them as they are with indication of states.---SK

I think it should be fine to leave them as they are as notes, as they do explain some viewpoint. Thanks for that. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree. I changed few other phrases in the Yuan Dynasty article: it's important. It is not true that Kublai's predecessors rule "usually involved incompetency and corruption, Kublai Khan utilized traditional forms of government as well as establish reforms to maintain a centralized rule". E.g. recall his comminucation with Ariq Boke: the latter blamed Kublai for violation of traditions and Genghis Khan's law and regarded the additional khural proclaimed Kublai as Khaan illegal! It was said that Kublai bribed princes. Then, supremacy of Kublai's successors was respected during the hole time of their rule in Khanbalyk but, of course it was nominal supremacy. By the way: it was only said that the Qing obtained the Yuan seal: reality is unknown.---SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.10.152 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not write that part, but I think it may really mean that Kublai established a government with institutions resembling the traditional Chinese ones as mentioned in some sources. And sure, Kublai's successors had nominal supremacy in the west. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the Manchus before the early 17th century may not be entirely outside Ming China. According to the Cambridge Ming map here for example, Manchuria was included in Ming, at least during its height. Thus, it may not be entirely accurate to say that the Manchu state was outside Ming China during its formulation, though I will agree that the Ming authority over there would be more or less nominal compared with its power over China proper. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ming might have considered Manchu rulers as their tributaries, though just Nurhaci refuted these claims. Anyhow, to the time of conquest of the Ming by the Qing the latter's state was clearly independent on the Ming.---SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.29.197 (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Nurhaci actually just declared their independence from Ming in the early 17th century (though it was probably not formally recognized by Ming), but originally he accepted nominal titles from Ming. If this is the case, you cannot say Manchus during its dynasty formulation was entirely outside Ming. I know there may be different opinion, but since Wikipedia is based on NPOV, why not try to use more neutral wording instead? By the way, the concept "China proper" is not at all a sinocentric concept; in fact, it is not used in China, but most likely originally a western concept. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Granting nominal titles and giving tributaries did not meant submission to Chinese emperors (e.g. see list of tributaries of imperial China). Each case should be examined separately. Manchu state was established beyond China, and it is clear by the following reasons. The map quoted today at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ming-Empire2.jpg belongs only to the Yongle time (1360-1424). Before and after the land of Manchu was not a part of the Ming: http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/1xarming.htm Refer also to the section "Manchuria during the Ming Dynasty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchuria and to the history of Jianzhou Jurchens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jianzhou_Jurchens. The Han Chinese called the Manchus "guan-wai de ren" ("people from beyond of outposts") meant that the Manchu lived outside China.---SK91.76.10.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

First of all, the border of ancient China is not a constant. Manchuria may be inside the control of Chinese regimes sometimes, and outside the physical control of Chinese regimes at other times, but the division may not be clearly defined at all time, and there may be some intermediate status inbetween.----Yes.--- During Yongle time, Ming established institutions to rule over Manchuria, but later they decided to control them indirectly instead (though of course the control may be weak or unstable at times, and eventually lost control at the end; your map also does not show the year).---The indirect control meant that this again became not a part of China but seperate although dependent territory, as clearly shown in academic sources.--- "guan-wai de ren" (关外的人) means "people from outside the pass", where "pass" refers to the Shanhai Pass (山海关). It does not mean "people outside the border of China" (even if it may be outside real control of Ming at that particular time).---Why? This meant "vaifan" people who used to defent Ming China borders.---Even during the time of Nurhaci, he at least officially subordinated to Ming emperors, and he did not proclaimed independence from Ming until 1616, as clearly mentioned in academic sources.---This nominal vassalage did not meant that Nurhaci's land were part of China. Many other chieftans were considered as tributaries vassals etc. but this was a flexible system which does not mean real subordination and, especially, inclusion inside CHina borders. These dependent tribes enjoyed protection from their enemies, imcomes, trade with China etc., whereas Chinese emperors used them as real allies against external threats for China (let the enemies first overcome these allies and only then come in direct military contact with China). This was a flexible system.--- I see that you are trying to compare the relation with that of tributaries of imperial China, but obviously this belongs to opinion that may be true or false (tributary relations can in fact be very complicated, as there may be many kinds of them).---I agree.--- But as Wikipedians, we should not make such conclusion ourselves unless it becomes the scholarly consensus.---There is scholarly consensus that this system was complex and meant different kinds of relations. Also there is a consensus that to the time of formation of the Qing as such the Manchu have established their state beyond borders of the "China proper".--- Why not be in good faith and avoid representing own opinions in Wikipedia (which is not a forum or personal blog)?---Please, check the academic monographs and see whether the Qing dynasty was proclaimed inside or outseide the Ming China.--- Everyone may think their opinion is right and represent some evidence, but of course Wikipedia should be the result of cooperation among all its editors from all countries, none of them should particularly emphesis their own view in articles. That is why Wikpiedia is based on neutrality and verifiability (from unbiased sources), and not based on truth (even if people may think their views of history are true).---I already described my opinion, as you know, regarding the joining of China to Qing state but I don't quote it here by the reasons of neutrality of Wikipedia.-- --207.112.20.214 (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, find my responses inside your message. Thanks.---SK91.76.10.126 (talk)

Oh my, responses usually should not inserted this way, which are difficult to read. But anyway, let me take them one by one.

"The indirect control meant that this again became not a part of China but seperate although dependent territory, as clearly shown in academic sources".

-- This is not true. For example, Mongols did not rule Tibet directly in the 13th and 14th century, but through the local Sakya regime. So according to this logic Tibet was not a part of Mongol Empire? Presently China also does not rule Hong Kong directly, which is ruled by the HK SAR government. Then is Hong Kong a part of China? Clearly if we follow this logic it will create many controversials, and obviously not the consensus.

"Why? This meant "vaifan" people who used to defent Ming China borders."

-- OK, as mentioned before, "guai wai de ren" by itself means "people from outside the pass", where "pass" refers to the Shanhai Pass. It does not at least literally means "people outside the border of China". This latter meaning is of course an interpretion of the original meaning, not that it originally means so. As wikipedians, we should not interpret these ourselves, even if it may be true.

"This nominal vassalage did not meant that Nurhaci's land were part of China. ... This was a flexible system."

-- While I agree that as a whole nominal vassalage may not necessarily mean it was a part of another regime, the claim that Nurhaci's land were not part of Ming will be an interpretion, not a unbiased view, whether it is true or false. According to academic sources, "Officially he (Nurhaci) still considered himself a guardian of the Ming border and a local representative of imperial Ming power". (Cambridge History of China, vol 9, pg 29) Clearly, it states that Nurhaci was officially a Ming official that guarded the Ming border, and thus his land were at least officially part of Ming, and not the oppsite. He only formally declared independence from Ming much later (1616). Wikipedia should, of course, not ignore this.

"There is scholarly consensus that this system was complex and meant different kinds of relations. Also there is a consensus that to the time of formation of the Qing as such the Manchu have established their state beyond borders of the 'China proper'."

-- Yes, but that Manchu have established their state beyond borders of "China proper" does not means it was beyond the border of Ming, as Ming may also control regions beyond China proper.

"Please, check the academic monographs and see whether the Qing dynasty was proclaimed inside or outseide the Ming China."

-- Nurhaci offically proclaimed independence from Ming in 1616. So is this proclaimation declared inside or outside the Ming? I regard it as this: at the time or before the proclaimation, the territory under his control was at least offically inside Ming, but after that it became de-facto independent from Ming, though not offically recongnized by Ming. There may be a different interpretion, but information in Wikipedia should be neutral.

"I already described my opinion, as you know, regarding the joining of China to Qing state but I don't quote it here by the reasons of neutrality of Wikipedia."

-- OK, I had seen that and respect it as a view. Everyone can express their personal views as they wish, but no one will insert their view directly to articles. Wikipedia will eventually be the result of neutrality and verifiability. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I beg my pardons if the insertion of responses was inconvenient for you; now I respond separately.

"So according to this logic Tibet was not a part of Mongol Empire?" Yes, it was not a part of the Mongol empire. It was not even listed in the territories ruled by the Yuan emperors. Tibet was connected with them by "priest-patron" relations, which are inexplicable by the modern concepts of inter-state relations. You may consider Tibet as a part of Mongol empire only if you will accept that old-Mongolian view that whole the world is govering by Mongol khaans (somewhat similar with the old-Chinese conception of their world emperor). Hong Kong is another issue because it is an inseparable historical part of China. Its temporary separation by foreigners has led to specific governing methods at present, but it will be, of course, fully integrated into China. "It does not at least literally means "people outside the border of China"."---Literally yes, but in fact it does mean. "Clearly, it states that Nurhaci was officially a Ming official that guarded the Ming order, and thus Nurhaci's land were part of Ming, and not the oppsite." All who received any awards from China have become its "officials" - please, again see the list of tributaries of imperial China. It is commonly accepted view that the tribes living NEAR the borders of China were likely to be used as guards of China, according to the practice of using "barbarians against barbarians" and this does not mean their inclusion INTO the Chinese borders. "Ming can also control regions beyond China proper" First, "can control" does not mean "real control". Second, it was not a real control as Nurhaci did as he wanted. It is possible to admit real control for a short time of Yongle when local administration was made (but another question is how real was that administration). Nurhaci offically proclaimed independence from Ming in 1616, and this meant the loss of that nominal subordination from the Ming. This is additional evidence for the lack of Ming control. Lack of the Ming's recognition of this act is not so important: again, please, refere to the list of Ming tributaries. Everything those was nominal, please, don't be so nationalistic in regard to China. Although this your view is very specific and different from generally accepted one, I respect it.---SK91.76.10.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

OK, now I see that you hold a view that is very different from the mainstream consensus and sources, such as the one that asserts that "Tibet was not a part of Mongol Empire". I could already image what the following part will say even withough reading it in full. Clearly, your view (whether it is correct or not) is way beyond current mainstream view, and is not at all source-based. Since you seem to be so sure about your view about it, you can try to remove Tibet from Mongol Empire article, and see the result. However, as mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a history paper and should be based on current consensus and sources, and you should really try to write your own history works, and see the responses from historians and specialists. Since I'm a Wikipedian, not a historian, I'm not going to say whether you are right or wrong, but as Wikipedians, I am and will be simply following the Wikipedia policy to make sure the articles reflect the current mainstream views. Thanks for that. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand you. As a historian, I can note that there is no consensus regarding Tibet-Yuan relations but there is the mainstream view that vassals and tributaries of Chinese emperors, if only nominal, were not parts of relevant Chinese dynasties/states; what is nominal and what is factual submission, is also a well-studied issue.

I will not remove Tibet from Mongol empire. May be, in future I will edit that section showing confronting views on the status of Tibet in that time Mongolia. Wikipedia aims at relfecting widespread but different and substantiated views and not only mainstream understood as a simple quotation of a certain encyclopedy. I hope you will also agree with this point.---SK91.76.10.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Wow, you are saying you are a historian! Is it real and creditable, and is there any evidence? Anyway, even if you are really a historian, you can only be one historian, and other historians (such as the authors of Cambridge sources) may not agree with your view. But yes, as I mentioned before, Wikipedia can reflect all significant views, but will mostly based on the mainstream view, while other views (but not the tiny minority views) can only be represented in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, and should not given as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. The resulting sentences in Wikipedia will however be neutral, and should not be an interpretion based on minority views. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, you may believe or not - or course, this is anonymous blog but, please, check a bit more sources to decide what is a "tiny minority" and what is a "not tiny minority". Anyhow, even the sources I quoted above are sufficient to understand that nominal vassalage and tribute to China did not meant inclusion of states into the borders of China forever. This purely nationalistic view is officially recognized only in the PRC and ROC, but even there are "minority" scientists who do not share this.---SK91.76.10.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

The exact definitions such as "minority view" are defined by Wikipedia, and everyone is just trying to follow the guideline. Yes, "(nominal) vassalage and tribute to China" does not necessarily mean they were included into the border of China, i.e. they might be, and might not be. But as Wikipedians we are not supposed to draw conclusion by ourselves, rather, we should simply follow scholarly sources and be in good faith. While I agree PRC and ROC do hold nationalistic views, presumably for political reasons (for example, PRC considered Tibet to be part of Ming, which is however generally disagreed outside China), we must also acknowledge that not all of their views or interpretations are incorrect. We could not go from one nationalistic view to another nationalistic view, or from one extreme to another extreme. That is where the neutrality comes. Wikipedia, for example never adopt the PRC view that Tibet was an "integral" part of China, but will reflect the history information mostly based on current mainstream view in the world (not from PRC or ROC). Thus, there is no need and should not to be nationlistc in Wikipedia, where everyone is trying to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. But I can't understand why do you think that early Manchu state was formed within the Ming borders? These Ming borders were unstable and did not always include Manchuria, despite official Ming claims. Please, inform me in which scientific books it is written that Manchu state was formed within the Ming state borders.

It may be only minority view - by the same reasons as we do not accept claims of the North Yuan state to the Ming state, although its khans continued to accept imperial titles until Enkh Zorigt (1388–1392).

By the way: "guan-wai de ren" meant to only the case of Shanhai Pass but any "passes" considered as "outposts". This concept existed long before Qing, and its context was different in different times. E.g. inside such passes was Guanzhong area, the mainland of the Qin and Zhou states; everything beyond was "beyond of outposts". The concept seems to have been applied also to peoples lived beyond the Great Wall. It was applied to Manchu to emphasize that they are foreigners.---SK91.76.37.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Just to clarify, I am actually not thinking that early Manchu state was formed within the Ming borders, but only that for the sake of neutrality that it may not be entirely outside the Ming border. The best way is to avoid drawing conclusion by ourselves altogether according to Wikipedia policy, and just described what had happened based on reliable sources. Yes, I agree that in historic times "guan" can mean any "pass", but I read some sources saying that during Ming and Qing era at least, "guan" usually refers to the Shanhai Pass. While it is true that the Manchus may be considered "foreign" by many Han Chinese in ancient times, we should also not ignore the traditional Chinese ideology regarding the Mandate of Heaven that may not only belong to native Chinese, and regime established by non-native people can also be China. But of course it will only be so if the rulers themselves considered the regime as China. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with these reservations. The only thing remains unclear: why do you think that early Manchu state "may" not be entirely outside the Ming borders? If you know scientific data that it was inside the borders, could you send me references?

Another point is the Mandate of Heaven. The Mandate of Heaven Han Chinese and "foreign dynasties" understood differently as they differently understood what is China. For Han Chinese, their country is forever Middle State so it can never become a part of any state of "barbarians", only dynasties may alternate inside it. The Mandate of Heaven meant priority of this Middle State. For Mongols and Manchu, the Mandate of Heaven (probably interacted with their own concepts of Ethernal Heaven) meant priority of the dynasty ("golden clan") and nation. Their respect to that Han Chinese concept served only as a tool for ruling China and only at the time of their ruling.---SK91.76.37.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

OK, the first question will really depend on what you mean exactly by "the time of Qing dynasty formuation" and some other factors. Does the time for example refer to the time of 1616 when Nurhaci officially declared independence from Ming or some other time? Since Nurhaci originally was at least officially considered a official and guardian of Ming border (as mentioned in sources), we can consider Nurhaci's lands became de facto independent from Ming after 1616. Yet a de facto independence is not equivalent to a recognized independence. But since this will be a polical issue, which I'm not really interested in, I will not go any further into this. Still, you can consider this example: is Kosovo currently entirely outside Serbia? Of course it is presently de-facto outside of the control of Serbia, but its exact status is still up to opinions and debate. But for the sake of neutrality, we do not draw conclusions in Wikipedia directly, but let the readers to think themselves according to neutral descriptions.

More interesting point is about the Mandate of Heaven. Regarding your statement "For Han Chinese, their country is forever Middle State so it can never become a part of any state of 'barbarians'", which is not exactly true. The concept of Mandate of Heaven is not applied without restrictions. The Cambridge source for example mentions that the Mandate of Heaven did not require China's rulers to be of particular origin, but only that they accept the conceptual framework on which the Chinese imperial institution rested (Zheng) and that they bring all the Chinese under one unified rule (Tong). It also mentions that "the Mongols could be seen as meeting that test .. Khubilai claimed this mandate for his Mongolian imperial house, though he might otherwise have ignored its demands and ruled simply by force". Obviously, if he adopted the later way (i.e. "ignored its demands and ruled simply by force"), then it will no longer be a "foreign dynasty", but simply that China became a part of another state. If for example it was Ariq Boke and not Kublai who eventually ruled China, then this would really happen. Regarding "Their respect to that Han Chinese concept served only as a tool for ruling China and only at the time of their ruling", this may be true for the Mongols, but not exactly true for the Manchus. For Mongols, Kublai and his sucessors met the demands of Mandate of Heaven mainly to show to Han Chinese they were legitimate rulers of China, but beyond that they did not necessarily consider their regime as China; for the Manchus however, they did not only meet the demands of Mandate of Heaven to show to Han Chinese they were legitimate rulers of China, but they also considered their regime as China beyond that, such as during international communications and others. As mentioned before, historians usually consider Yuan and Qing differently, though both met the test of Mandate of Heaven to be qualify as "foreign dynasties" (once again, if Ariq Boke ruled China, then from all aspects China became a part of another state, and no longer even qualified as a "foreign dynasty"). Anyway, people may represent different opinions, but Wikipedia will of course based on neutrality and verfilibity, not truth or opinions. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

First, that refers to formal proclamation of the Qing (1636) but may also refer to 1616 and even earlier. There is basic difference between "dependence", appointed "official and guardian" and real inclusion inside the borders of China. It was a common practice of Chinese emperors granting such titles but this usually does not mean inclusion inside borders of China. Inclusion inside borders meant effective control, presence of administration appointed from the center, troops, system of taxation, economic integration and, which is most important, self-recognition as a part of another state by leaders and people of a country or tribe under question. Unilateral declarations by China can not serve as evidence. Kosovo and Serbia is another case: Kosovo has not been independent before.

Second question. For Han Chinese, their country is forever Middle State, so it can never become a part of any state of 'barbarians' – why it is not exactly true? Please, consider the traditional view: if the Zhongguo is superior, only its emperor may be the sole emperor in the world, 'barbarians' should earlier or later "turn to sincerity" etc. The Cambridge source you quoted corresponds to this: if any 'barbarian' accepts this Han outlook, he may receive this Mandate of Heaven. This was a flexible concept allowing assimilating any 'barbarians' by the Han, always having numeric superiority, and thus expanding China. However, Mongols and Manchu rulers used this concept only for ruling 'China proper'. The Yuan emperors based on Genghis Khaan Jasak considered not contradicting the Mandate of Heaven. Their administrative system was hybrid between Mongolia and China. The same concerned Manchu. First they claimed their Jurchen legacy, then proclaimed the Qing which assisted them to compete with the Ming, then to govern 'China proper'. When subduing Mongols, they almost 'forgot' the Jurchen legacy and claimed legacy with the Mongol Empire (said that their emperors had kinship with the Genghis Khaan family, claimed that they received the Yuan seal etc.). In addition to well-known Chinese names, Qing emperors had also Manchu names and Mongolian names. By the latter they were known in Mongolia. Thus, their system appealed to different traditions in different cases, but they always considered their empire as the Manchu state. Regarding Ariq Boke: as a historian, I can discuss only events which really happened, but not possibilities. I can note only that declarations of accepting the Mandate of Heaven probably provided the most efficient way to govern Han Chinese for relatively long time, but created a threat for their own future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.11.76 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, once again you are claiming you are a historian. I'm not going to ask you for a proof, but while a few points mentioned above may be true, they are probably presented in a way that becomes way beyond the common understanding among mainstream scholars (e.g. the main pattern of focus as presented in the second paragraph above is considerably different from for example the Cambridge sources). The previous texts already mentioned that the vassals might and might not be considered to be inside the border, and the answer is up to opinions and debate. For example, you can have some opinion, and another scholar may have another opinion. I have already seen your point, but Wikipedia, unlike a forum or blog, or maybe academic circle, is really not the place for discussing or presenting opinons, even if they may be true. Thus, while I appreciate your original way of explanating the history, academia instead of Wikipedia should probably be the more appropriate place for such kind of communication or opinion presentation. We, as Wikipedians, are only supposed to follow the Wikipedia guidelines, and any opinions are supposed to be neutralied based on unbiased sources. Maybe I will see you in the academic world some time later, when you become a really great historian. Thanks for the above presentation of your way of explanating history. Finally, Just for your reference, while it is well-known that Qing governed Inner Asia using different style from China proper, Cambridge History of China also mentions that "In Mongolia, the Qing objective had been the ancient Chinese goal of transforming the nomads and rendering them incapable of threatening China", "In Sinkiang, the Manchus had wanted only peace and formal obedience to the Qing throne", and "In Tibet, it had been the Qing emperor's desire to make himself patron of the Yellow church, to which the Mongols also belonged." (Vol 10, pg 407-408). These will give a very good summary of what Qing had done or its real objectives in these areas. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, especially for your last quotations. This coincides with what I wrote, with only one addition: this "transformation of nomads" meant only prevention of their attacks to 'China proper' and 'Manchuria proper'. No more transformation required: emperors' agreements with Mongols meant preservation of their nomad lifestyle. Regarding Tibet, yes, these were 'priest - patron' relations, not inclusion of Tibet into the Qing borders.---SK91.76.11.76 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I see again you are going a little far from sources. For example, the Cambridge source also states "A second contrast between the Ming and Qing periods is a function of the Qing success in expanding the limits of their territorial control to more than double the size of the Ming ... By 1760, vast stretches had been added in the northeast (later partly known as Manchuria), in the north (including what is now known as Mongolia), in the west (Sinkiang and Tibet), and in the southeast (Taiwan)" (Vol 9, pg 7). Also, it shows a Qing map that explicitly include Tibet in the Qing border. Clearly, Qing had patron of the Yellow church does not necessarily mean it is only a priest - patron relation, but can also be inside the limit of their territorial control. However, I'm not really interested in such issues (as it will become political-related) and opinion discussions; instead, we will only follow Wikipedia's policy to base on unbiased sources, and not include own opinions beyond that. Thanks. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your view, thank you. Nevertheless, even "territorial control" does not mean inclusion in the limits of their country. E.g. Soviet territorial control also included Mongolia but it was formally independent state. Tibet also never considered itself as a part of the Qing Empire. There are also old maps showing Tibet outside the Qing Empire.---SK91.76.6.246 (talk)

Again, just stick to the source. The Qing map in the Cambridege source also explicitly includes Tibet in the Qing border. Regarding the "old maps showing Tibet outside the Qing Empire", are you referring to the maps published by the "International Campaign for Tibet" here: [1]. All of these maps also show Manchuria and Mongolia separately, so they are also outside the Qing Empire? Furthermore, ICT is not at all a scholarly-based but a political-based site. We are only supposed to use scholarly sources, as Wikipedia must be neutral. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You think these maps were forgered by the ICT? I don't think so. The maps are genuine, so we should discuss just maps but not publisher. I can not prioritze one map above another. Is Wikipedia another name of Cambridge History? 'Chinese Tartary' clearly indicate that Mongolia and Manchuria are parts of the Qing Empire different from China as another part. Tibet was not included at all.---SK91.76.6.246 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts materials attributable to reliable published sources. Publishers are important, and obviously not all publishers are accepted by Wikipedia, but publishers such as Cambridge are clearly good ones."'Chinese Tartary' clearly indicate that Mongolia and Manchuria are parts of the Qing Empire different from China as another part"? Please, no personal opinions or interpretions in Wikipedia. Everyone is trying to follow the Wikipedia policy. If other editors also act like this, then Wikipedia will become very different. Be in good faith. I'm not going to say this here any more, but just check the Wikipedia guidelines. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand this, thanks. If American Memory site at the Library of Congress from where map has been reproduced [2] is not reliable source, this looks pity. First you wrote that at maps Manchuria and Mongolia indicated separately, then confirm that 'Chinese Tartary' clearly indicate them inside the Qing borders... Then, is not easy for me to discuss historical matters having one Cambridge book as the Bible.---SK91.76.6.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia is mainly based on reliable secondary sources, such as the Cambridge source. While the Cambridge source is not necessarily a "Bible", it is a very authoriative and neutral source. We for example usually do not use sources published by PRC or ROC, compared with authoriative sources like the Cambridge one. The reproduced maps are still primariary materials, and their real value and meaning are subject to debate and be studied. As Wikipedians, we can not judge ourselves, but will mostly rely on reliable secondary sources, as mentioned by the WP guideline. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

POV view

Considering your edits, I really wonder who you are. If I'm correct, I believe you are a Mongolian who intended to insert the view that China was conquered and became a part of another state. The view you are trying to insert is of course a POV or a fringe view, and the large texts you inserted are based on personal opinions instead of an encyclopedic or academic manner, and tried to use Wikipedia article as a forum. While you do appear to have knowledge of history, your viewpoint is not at all uncontroversial. No one should be pushing their opinon or belief in articles here, and please try to communicate with other editors in order to not become so biased. I'm not going to fight with you by adding another text in articles, otherwise the article or Wikipedia in general will really become a mess, but this does not mean I cannot defend the text written above. The proper way for discussing such personal opinions is to discuss in the talk page here, not in the article itself. The article itself should reflect the NPOV view, not the view resulting from adding biased opinions. Any one who becomes so nationalistic should restrain from editing Wikipedia, at least until they are no longer so. If other people also become editing in the way you do now, there is no need to come to Wikipedia any more. For people who would like to defend Wikipedia, the only way will be to eliminate the current version by restoring the original (unbiased) version. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Thanks, I understood your view. I am not a Mongolian, so I can not be a Mongol nationalist. Yes, I think that China was conquered by the Mongolian state and the Manchu state. Upon the conquest, their rulers really joined China to their (already existed) states. This is a common understanding of history by different nations, and not only by Mongols. This view should be at least meant, because the Sinocentric view is an exception from understanding of history of all countries of the world. Common and correct view is as follows: if a state A conquered state B, the state B becomes a part of the state A. The Sinocentric view is opposite because China can not be conquered: there may be only foreign dynasties. If we will uncritically accept such approach, we should consider England as a part of India, Mongolia as a part of Russia, Turkey as a part of Greece etc. Regarding China (also Kitai in Russian, Khyatad in Mongolian etc.): this term in history may be equalled with Zhonnguo only conventionally. In different times foreign people had various meanings of "China" (this is well-known). I can agree that the term "Zhongguo" as such lacks Han ethnicity, but historically it did not lost the ethnic Han aspect. The term Zhongguo also was used differently by the Han Chinese and foreign conquerors of China. E.g., according to old Mongolian view, the Middle State (Mong.: Dundad Uls) should have been associated with their Great State (Ikh Uls) but not with the former Han Chinese empires designated as Zhongguo, and conquered Han state has also been considered by the Mongols as part of Mongolian state. The Manchu had similar view regarding the Qing state. Chinese and non-Chinese states, which accepted Chinese imperial ideology, were officially called by their dynasties but not as "Zhongguo": the "Middle State" is always one in the world and it is not a state name. Thus, my main idea is that Wikipedia should reflect different views, and in this case - different meaning of history by diffent nations and not only by the Han Chinese.---SK 91.76.10.152 (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. Now I see you do have a very original view to explain the history. The view itself can be remarkable and positive; nevertheless, it still belongs to opinion, even if it may be true. Wikipedia is however an encyclopedia and not a history paper that is intended to explain the truth or other views, and unless such a view becomes the concesus among historians, you can not write the encyclopedia based on such opinion (but may be reflected to some degree according to WP's policy). Also note that the Wikipedia should be in encyclopedic style that represents significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, not in a style that give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views, which is a requirement of WP's NPOV policy. If you want, you can publish history works to for example disgree with the theory of dynastic cycle, and see the responses from other historians or specialists. The Wikipedia will, of course, mostly reflect the current mainstream views from scholars. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)---------Thanks, I understand you and agree that Wikipedia should reflect the consensus. However, there is no full consensus regarding the Yuan and Qing empires. In such cases Wikipedia aims at expression of different views. You will find my view not original if you will consider publications not only from GB and USA but also from the USSR (former), Russia, Mongolia, Germany etc. Anyhow, in the Wikipedia papers on dynastic cycle and the Qing empire I don't see differences even from those views you consider as common: it is commonly accepted that the Manchu have created their state and dynasty beyond the borders of China understood as Ming empire; that the dynastic histories tied such states to the history of China - you correctly mentioned example of Genghis Khaan; that Qing rulers considered their empire as Manchu state called Da Qingguo which also understood as "Zhongguo" as they have borrowed Han Chinese imperial ideology. I think we will have consensus in these points. As to discussion about Zhongguo vs. China in international treatises, I will prefer to delete these from Dynastic cycles.---SK

Thanks for above comments regarding their inital status as Manchu state and later development. I agree it became understood as "Zhongguo" as they have borrowed Han Chinese imperial ideology. As for the article, I have put the texts into another section called "significance", and removed the details regarding international treatises, as they should not be the focus of the article. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's good.---SK

While it is true that "Great Qing" may appear in treatises signed with Russia, in these cases they were actually used interchangeably with "China". Within them "Great Qing" may appear in the start and/or end of the treaty, and "China" appears in the body of the treaty. But these are minor details of how the treaties were written, the point is that obviously they were used as equivalent to each other in these cases, and there is no need for us to emphasis these details. --141.117.173.100 (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not correct. They were not used interchangeably. Official name of the state was Great Qing but not China. Those treatises were signed officially with the Great Qing state. This is important point but not minor detail.--SK91.76.10.170 (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, none of the official names of political entities in Chinese history were simply "China" (although there were usually simply following some pattern), the point is that they were used in an intermixed way in these cases. Anyway, "along with" is fine. --141.117.173.184 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree.---SK91.76.10.170 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

-**- For one who may be there, just want to say I have already tried ... but ... I will be back when I can handle it again. -**- --173.206.170.164 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

...until the time of the Republic

Eh, since the Republic actually declared its own era name, I'm not sure this is a legitimate point. Did they ever formally declare an end to the cycle and concept or didn't they still nominally claim the mantle? Meanwhile, the Communists very explicitly adopted the Western calendar, labelled the preëxisting customs noxious superstition, and proclaimed the establishment of a New China (新中国) to replace the old. — LlywelynII 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)