Talk:Siege of the International Legations

Deletion

This "article" is a complete and utter joke. Listen, my gook brothers and busy editors, we all know that where you live, "truth" is constructed at the whim of the party headquarters and plausibility is no concern at all. But please, don't try to export this cheap commodity ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.145.198 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This article should be deleted, the Battle of Peking article origionally featured a description of the siege (and will again) so this article should not be necessary.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a new large article at Siege of the Legations, Beijing 1900, about seemingly the same event. That was created after this one was created... but is poorly named. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

At the very least they need to be merged. Unfortunately I do not have enough knowledge about the subject to complete this task, so if anyone else out there would like to assist that would be appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, these two articles should be merged and then one redirected to the other. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Support merge. Please try to find a knowledgeable editor who can help.--Kudpung (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

i would rather that this article be deleted, and the article 'Siege of the Legations, Beijing 1900' be retained. this article is very biased towards the Chinese perspective, while the latter article has an impartial look on the actual events.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.96.4 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The merge has been completed now. Anotherclown (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the merge of my article with this one. However, in the merging I lose all credit for the 99 percent of the merged article which is my work. Is there a remedy to this? Or do I swallow my (overly large) ego and accept that my contribution to the wisdom of the world was "writ in water" -- as a fellow named John Keats said of his poems? Smallchief 21:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added the merge to/from tag above, which links to the other article's history. Not sure if this helps, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, you learn something every day. Anotherclown (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your kindness. Smallchief 02:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help where I can. Incidentally, the article seems like it has potential for a higher rating. If you are keen to continue working on it, I'd suggest requesting a peer review. That would hopefully elicit suggestions from other editors about what might need to be done to take it towards GA and above. If you wish to do this, just follow the link I've provided above and there are a list of steps. Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. A new Wiki experience! I'm getting addicted. ("Get a life," says the Memsahib)

Well, looking at the instructions for requesting a peer review I'm totally confused. Is there a regular review process by which articles will be evaluated? Or does one have to request a review? Smallchief 11:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It has to be specifically requested. The first step is to add "peer-review=yes" to the Milhist banner above, then after saving it there will be a redlink to the peer review page. Click on that link and create the peer review page. From there it can be transcluded onto the Milhist peer review page, where editors will review and make comments. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! (I think) My problem was I couldn't find the link. I'll be interested in how this process works. Smallchief 20:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename and merging

This article should be renamed the "Siege of Peking" because that is the name most commonly used and perhaps the Battle of Peking article (which refers to the relief) should be merged with this article. It was all one engagement.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a stand alone article and that the title is correct. The siege was of the Legation Quarter which was one small area of Peking (or Beijing, as you prefer).

The Battle of Peking in my opinon refers to the allied relief expedition (called in Wiki the "Eight Nation Alliance") which marched from Tianjin to Beijing, defeated the Chinese army, and relieved the siege of the Legation Quarter. (Relief of Beijing might be a more accurate title that "Battle of Beijing."

Seems to me that a hierarcy of articles is needed. The first level is the article "Boxer Rebellion" which should cover all the events in brief. The second level is articles about major sub-topics such as the Siege of the Beijing Legation Quarter, Battle of Beijing, Battle of Tianjin, etc. Then, a third level comes in with less important events such as "Battle of Yancun, Battle of Dagu Forts", etc. Smallchief 17:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop adding this kind of non-information

"thousands of Boxers burst into the walled city of Beijing ... The soldiers at the British Embassy and German Legations shot and killed several Boxers.[14] The trigger-happy foreign soldiers alienated the Chinese population of the city..." : trigger-happy weren't they? Killed a few while under attack. And the entire population of Beijing was aroused? Is that a fact?

"The Muslim Kansu braves and Boxers, along with other Chinese then attacked and killed Chinese Christians around the legations in revenge for foreign attacks on Chinese, the foreigners provoked the Chinese forces numerous times due to the rampant killing of Chinese labeled as "Boxers". " : so the Boxers were only killing in retaliation, because the killing of Chinese was 'rampant', and they were killing indiscriminately, innocent victims which they labeled as 'Boxers'. So the killing of Chinese Christians was well justified -- that's your message, isn't it?

"Angry at the Chinese christians for collaborating with foreigners who were murdering Chinese, the muslims and Boxers roasted some of them alive." : well, it's understandable, they were angry at these collaborators, so they roasted them --

Not only is all this strongly and childishly biased, but it does in fact present no fact, no bit of information that could help understand the admittedly confusing situation at the time.81.57.148.99 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wrote most of this article, but allow me to deny any responsibiity for the childish and misleading part of it. For example, in one paragraph we have the Chinese army skillfully attacking foreigners and killing them in droves and in the next we learn that the whold Siege was a sham and that the Chinese were only setting off firecrackers. The internal contradictions in this article are many. I would edit out the objectionable parts, but I've done that before on related acticles and they just get reinserted.

I would, however, defend the trigger-happy characterization of the foreign soldiers (although the term "trigger-happy" is not appropriate). There's no doubt in my mind that the frequent incidents of foreigners shooting Chinese indiscriminately -- in the pre-siege stage before the Legations were under attack -- contributed to the hostilty of the Chinese. Especially prone to shooting Chinese was Baron Von Ketteler, the German diplomat, whose assassination may have been in retaliation. Smallchief (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

The Relief of the Legations section first claims that "After many relatively quiet days, the night of August 13, ... may have been the most difficult of the siege." In the next paragraph, though, "The fighting and Chinese offensives became so severe from August 9–13 that the legations would have fallen if the relief force had not arrived." Does this mean the Chinese attacked on tiptoe on August 9-12? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement with the Battle of Peking article

There it says the British fought Chinese Muslims, whereas here it states they got in through an unguarded gate and continued unopposed. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Peking actually has a source that says that the British were opposed by Muslim troops during the relief of the legations, so thats the one that is correct.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus seeking to use of official name

Muslim Kansu braves, Chinese Muslims, these are not official name. The official name is Wuwei Rear Troop, editors should use official name to avoid confusion. Arilang ^talk 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Were they ever called "Muslim Kansu braves" or "Chinese Muslims"? If so, the new article ought to mention it, who called them that, and why. (Hohum ^@) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Kansus braves and Chinese Muslims, both of them are not official names, during Boxer Rebellion times, all different troops with different name were recruited into a new army, that is the Wuwei Troop, that is the official name, why should other names be used? Arilang ^talk 16:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical books

Tong Tekong, scholar, historian and university lecturer, Hou Yijie, scholar, historian and writer of university text books, Wang Shuzhen, history books writer, and Jin Manluo, and their books cover 10 to 70 years of Manchu Empire history, and yet, none of their books were being cited in all the Boxer Protocol related articles. Put it this way, their books cover many important historical topics, and Yihetuan is just part of them. Discussion is open now. Arilang ^talk 03:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Shortening article

There is a lot of repetitive, emotional, and contradictory material in this article which I am attempting to remove or fix. Hopefully, my efforts will find approval. Smallchief (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

False reports of massacre of foreigners in the western press

http://books.google.com/books?id=-YoxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA657#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=H7gRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA657#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Conduct during the siege of the legations

The old convert, of whose character the French Fathers spoke disparagingly, showed not the slightest reluctance to take our reply, and it was surmised that he had secured a friendly reception from the enemy hy promising information as to our position and resources. He was sent out at noon on the 15th by the sluice gate, followed, within an hour, by the man who had come in with him. It had been intended that they should be dispatched together, but, owing to a misunderstanding, this was not done, and the second man was fired at by the Chinese soldiers outside, with what effect is not known.

There was much rifle fire on the afternoon of the 15th, and one of the Student Interpreters of the Legation, Mr , Warren, was wounded at a loophole at a barricade in the Fu. It was doubtful at first whether his wound, though known to be serious, would prove fatal, but he died early in the night. He had done his duty gallantly throughout the siege. Next morning, early (16th July) there occurred the greatest loss which our defence had yet suffered, in the death of Captain Strouts, commanding the detachment of Royal Marine Light Infantry. He was hit while walking in the Fu with Colonel Shiba and the "Times " correspondent, Dr. G. Morrison, and died within two or three hours from exhaustion, due to the loss of blood. It is impossible for me to adequately express my regret for his loss. Captain Strouts and Mr. Warren were buried at 6 o'clock in the evening, and just as the funeral procession was being formed, word was brought that a messenger with a white flag was advancing from the North Bridge towards the main gate of the Legation. As he came nearer, he was recognized as the old convert. His approach, which owing to his feebleness was very slow and deliberate, was accompanied by a succession of shells from a Krupp gun, most of which burst over the Legation. One exploded close to a group outside the gate, who were waving handkerchiefs to encourage him. He brought a letter to myself, and a telegram in cypher to the United States' Minister, transmitted through the Chinese Minister in Washington. The reply to this, a terse statement of our experiences, has been published. The tone and style of the communication to myself were different from that of the letter of the 14th. Our refusal to proceed to the Yamen was accepted without demur, and assurances given that the Legations would henceforth be properly protected. So great was the change in the tone of this letter that we suspected something to have happened in the outside world alarming to the Chinese Government. In this we were correct, for on the 11th July the native city of Tien-tsin had been taken, and probably an immediate advance on Peking was feared. There followed on the receipt of this letter a suspension of hostilities for several days. Some shells were fired the next morning, but they were the last until the closing days of the siege, and for ten or twelve days there was no heavy rifle firing. The Chinese troops showed themselves freely without arms on all their barricades, came forward to talk to our men, and explained that orders had now been received not to fire. This ready obedience to the orders to cease fire showed how completely under the control of the Government had been the previous attacks. We were far from reciprocating the confidence they showed in our good faith, aud were at much pains, both by verbal explanations and warning placards, to make clear to them that il they came too close they would be shot, but it was very difficult to restrain their curiosity to see more of our defences. There were noteworthy differences, however, between the troops on different sides of us, those to the north and west—all Kansuh men under Tung-fu-hsiang— remaining sullen and suspicious. From other directions, and especially on the east, where Jung Lu's troops were posted, it was possible to obtain supplies (small, but welcome) of eggs and vegetables, the sellers being smuggled through the Chinese soldiers' lines in spite of the prohibition of their officers, and it was from this side that the messengers came with all later letters. They declared, in fact, that they could not get through the troops on our western side without being shot. The truce, by whatever motives dictated, was very welcome, and we were anxious not to abbreviate it by any action of ours, but it was evidently regarded by the Chinese Government as likely to be but temporary, for on all sides the work of strengthening their barricades and gun-platforms proceeded.

So great was their activity in this direction as to give some ground for a suspicion that the truce was treacherously designed to enable these works to be carried out without danger from our fire—a suspicion strengthened by reports (since ascertained to have been correct) that mines were also being dug under different parts of our lines. Against these we took unremitting precautions in the shape of trenches and counter-mines,

Papers by Command, Volume 105 By Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons

http://books.google.com/books?id=ds85AQAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3F4LAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=R5tPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA137#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rJgAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1246#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 296

• Lipman, Jonathan N. (Jul., 1984). "Ethnicity and Politics in Republican China: The Ma Family Warlords of Gansu". Sage Publications, Inc. p. 296. JSTOR 189017. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Page 114

http://books.google.com/books?id=eSiGQwAACAAJ

Title The Boxer Catastrophe, by Chester C. Tan Author Chester C. Tan Editor Columbia university. Faculty of political science. [New York.]. Publisher Columbia University Press, 1955 Length 284 pages    

Primary sources for wikisource

put on wikisource and link to this article

http://books.google.com/books?id=RNANAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=K-qdMZOS33oC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Spanish? Belgians?

Weren't the Spanish and Belgian legations also under attack? Did they legation guards engaged in the defence? FOARP (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Spanish, Belgians and also Dutch had representatives in the Legation quarter, but these were small trade offices compared to the others. The combined manpower of all three could not have been more than a dozen men at most. And their countries took not part of the Eight Nations Alliance and relief force in any case. If you can find a source with accurate numbers then it may be worth mentioning. Mediatech492 (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Was there a Portuguese presence? They were holding Macau. --Error (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Siege of the International Legations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120512123211/http://seeingredinchina.com/2011/09/15/the-partys-narrative-of-chinas-history/ to http://seeingredinchina.com/2011/09/15/the-partys-narrative-of-chinas-history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

First boxer captured

The account of how Clemens von Ketteler spotted the first boxer, as cited in the article (Indiscreet Letters From Peking, ed. B. L. Putman Weale, New York 1907, p.50/51), can be found online, e.g. here or on archive.org.

"Walking out in the morning, the German Minister saw one of the ordinary hooded Peking carts trotting carelessly along, with the mule all ears, because the carter was urging him along with many digs near the tail. But it was not the cart, nor the carter, nor yet the mule, which attracted His Excellency's immediate attention, but the passenger seated on the customary place of the off-shaft. For a moment Baron von K—— could not believe his eyes. It was nothing less than a full-fledged Boxer with his hair tied up in red cloth, red ribbons round his wrists and ankles, and a flaming red girdle tightening his loose white tunic; and, to cap all, the man was audaciously and calmly sharpening a big carver knife on his boots! It was sublime insolence, riding down Legation Street like this in the full glare of day, with a knife and regalia proclaiming the dawn of Boxerism in the Capital of Capitals, and withal, was a very ugly sign. What did K—— do—go home and invite some one to write a despatch for him to his government deprecating the growth of the Boxer movement, and the [51]impossibility of carrying out conciliatory instructions, as some of his colleagues, including my own chief, would have done? Not a bit of it! He tilted full at the man with his walking stick, and before he could escape had beaten a regular roll of kettledrums on his hide. Then the Boxer, after a short struggle, abandoned his knife, and ran with some fleetness of foot into a neighbouring lane. The gallant German Minister raised the hue and cry, and then discovered yet another Boxer inside the cart, whom he duly secured by falling on top of him; and this last one was handed over to his own Legation Guards. The fugitive was followed into Prince Su's grounds, which run right through the Legation area, and there cornered in a house. The mysterious Dr. M—— then suddenly appeared on the scenes and insisted upon searching the Manchu Prince's entire grounds and most private apartments. But time was wasted in pourparlers, and in spite of a minute inspection, which extended even to the concubine apartments, the Boxer vanished in some mysterious way like a breath, and is even now untraced. This shows us conclusively that there are accomplices right in our midst."

In short, Clemens von Ketteler came upon two boxers. One managed to run away, one was handed over to the German legation guards. No word on their ages or whether the prisoner was or was not executed. For this reason, I will remove the word "boy" and the phrase "and inexplicably executed him" Yaan (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• BaronRongluJung-LubyGeorgeSStuart.jpg
• BoxerRevolutionarybyGeorgeSStuart.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)