Li Shimin, Taizong Emperor of Tang China 唐太宗
Confident, enlightened, and accomplished. A cunning thinker and a daring warrior, Li Shimin was renowned both for his scholarly qualities as well as his deadliness on the battlefield.
TALENT AND MERCY
Prince Shimin's elite bodyguards: Clad from head to toe in heavy jet black armor, the 玄甲军 Xuan Jia Jun or "Black Armor Cavalry" were 1,000- 3,500 of Li Shimin's best shock horsemen and were instrumental in defeating many of early Tang's enemies. For full articles about them please check out the links: Jet Black Armor Cavalry Part 1, and Part 2.
It's little surprising that upon his ascension as the Taizong Emperor his cabinet eventually consisted of many defeated ministers, and that a good portion of his best generals were former enemies -be they vagabond hooligans or Gokturk Princes who had faced him in battle.
So hi all 😄! I want you to know that your support has really meant a lot to me. Last year I was able to write 38 articles with your support, and this year I have wrote over 60 articles before the final quarters of 2018. I really plan to spend more time doing this, and find more opportunities to sit down and get the things I have been reading to you guys on a more consistent basis 🧐. Same goes for doing more Youtube videos, artworks and doing more commissioned concept art for you if you care to book it.
→ ☯ [PLEASE SUPPORT ME @ PATREON] ☯ ←
😏 It would be a huge solid for me on a personal level as well since I am between jobs and have to balance churning out articles, buying new books for research, family, and doing new artworks. If you like my works and like to see more of it. Please think of supporting me on Patreon or book an artwork from me- as this great gesture would mean the world to me, because you are already the world to me at this moment. Thank you 🤗.
Thank you to my Patrons who has contributed $10 and above:
You made this happen!
➢ ☯ José Luis Fernández-Blanco
➢ ☯ Vincent Ho (FerrumFlos1st)
➢ ☯ BurenErdene Altankhuyag
➢ ☯ Stephen D Rynerson
➢ ☯ Steven Chan
➢ ☯ Michael Lam
%20(1).jpg)
Comments
You Sir do like contrasts!
After knowing what the 19th century was from a global perspective and seeing all the choices she made really grinds my gears. There are some historians who point out that she was conservative enough to take the battle to the westerners, and at an age where the Qing was staffed with weak Emperors. But I respond with, yeah, but she was the reason a lot of them are weak and house arrested. She actively stumbled many modernization efforts. It could be argued that much of the Chinese themselves were indeed pissed off and suspicious about foreign influences and if anything she was populist in her nativist arrogance. But she was still ultimately wrong. Her attempts to make herself some kind of Diva of the old world mold is whole incompatible with the world around her, and only in the end did she (almost) try to make some changes. China suffered throughout the 20th century because of these poor early steps.
But HEY! That's why I turn to Taizong and his confident ways lol. At least he was ahead of his time and a visionary who set up solid foundations for centuries. Because I am a daoist I always try to balance out my content ;) so very perceptive of you friend!
I feel that history is stocked full with "Great Men" who in truth were ruthless conquerors who are paranoid and then in their old age became purely tyrannical. And there are only a few historical rulers that was above the: how should I put it, the base necessities of (harsh) rule. Plus in the context of the world before him and the world after him I feel he did okay.
I understand that the South Korean cinema- largely reflective of the worries and the vulnerabilities of the South Korean populace, looks at a powerful and looming China with trepidation like its a living threat, and thus sought to invoke examples from their past to buttress the idea of native sovereignty and the tenacity of resistance.
But my problem is that most of these stories are so simplistically written that it flat out paints the Chinese as bad guys and flat characters without any nuance to them, in the end making movies that are little better than the propaganda pieced from within China. And believe me, I grew up watching those from within the country so I know the standards for what it looks like. My gripe is that I totally understand that being a powerful ethnocentric empire, my ancestors could be inconsiderate bastards and also at times were flat out imperialists- one could argue that Taizong was one such man, but just with a happy face and in specific cases I might agree with that argument.
However~ where as European movies could make a movie about the Ottomans vs the Europeans, and still give credits to both the Turks and the likes of Suleiman and Bayezid I as worthy adversaries and honorable but implacable foes (taking in consideration of what those rulers were to their people) most Korean movies didn't bother to do that. In a lot of TV series about the Imjin War the Ming were portrayed as flat out villains, they would come in demanding bribes, rape local women, and purposely through their corrupt negligence let the Koreans do all the work and let the people die despite history of both country's accounts proving other wise, Wanli Emperor was depicted as a idiot who only want to chase after women in his harem and totally irresponsible, Li RuSong was depicted as openly soliciting bribes while doing nothing and twirling his fat mustaches and both are flat out wrong- this depiction only changed with the latest Korean dramas about the subject like the Jingbirok and Imjin War 1592. Like~ at least acknowledge that they were brothers dying for each other?
But all of that is nothing compared to flat out wrong depictions of history. There was a 2008 Korean movie called "The Divine Weapon" 신기전 which depicted a Ming invasion of Joseon where the Ming came to Korea and massacred many people and culminated in a defense of Korea where less than 100 Korean defenders killed hundreds thousands of Ming forces with Hwachas. The kicker is: the Ming never invaded Joseon Korea, had peace for centuries, and came to their rescue in the Imjin War. When history was flat out distorted to that degree, it's just full cringe lol.
I guess you can't blame the Koreans, one always wants to be the 'good guys' when telling your country's story. Hence why I find watching these Korean movies and shows to be so jarring, I'm use to seeing the Chinese as always the 'good guys' !!!
The Imjin War is interesting, a selfless act by Ming China frankly, but you know that. What about the Battle of Baekgang??, a more ambiguous and mysterious conflict, sort of a preview of the Imjin War with the Japanese invading Korea for the first time. Arguably Tang China had ulterior motives of conquering Korea and Silla was cunning enough to resist successfully.
The battle would be important, but given that all the participants didn't think it was too big a deal afterwards it didn't become that important in the public conscious (same goes for the Battle of Talas lol.) What I mean is that Baekje was the worst affected, but because they are now stateless, their identity was merged with that of the Yamato court. Yamato- especially the new Emperors were simply contend with the Tang leaving them alone. Silla was gladdened for the aid, but kept a weary eye on the situation. While the Tang sought to cement their hold on both of the 2 kingdoms.
How should I put it, the battle was in the "middle" of a lot of these power's designs. A process of sorts but was not seen as a definitive end point. The Tang were imperialistically asserting their control in the region while Silla was aggressively making sure they would not be trapped.
I mean, how can one present the guy as a military genius otherwise? He wants to claim the mandate of heaven from the MIng for the Japanese imperial house? How does he do that?
By landing 300 000 men in a poor mountain area, which has no resources to feed them all and where logistics are terrible. Not only that, he also sails of without any care for warships, meaning that the transport fleet could have been sunk by the Korean coast guard, not to mention the Ming navy, that managed to beat even the Dutch, not some rafts without cannons..... Also he forgot to give his army any artillery, meaning that they couldn't really engage the Ming in open battle.....Now either he was delusional, or he just wanted these men dead.
2. I thought the theory about Hideyoshi sending restive Samurai over to Korea so they wouldn't cause trouble in Japan has been debunked? I mean, if that were the case, why did Hideyoshi send his most trusted and able vassals (Kato and Konishi) and their formidable armies over and not Tokugawa et al who would one day betray and overthrow Hideyoshi's dynasty??
3. The Japanese didn't have cannon artillery because of Japan's iron shortage I think. Ming cannons and the Korean navy won the Imjin War I think.
Japan had enough iron to make arms and armor for 300 000+ troops, but none for guns? Why not buy some from the Europeans?
Also there is just no explanations for why they didn't care to actually arm their ships and get warships to protect their transports. Most Japanese died from hunger and illness.
In my opinion the Imjin wars main weakness, is its lack of large land battles. The Koreans mostly got routed without much of a fight and the Japanese mostly avoided open battle with large Ming forces, because they couldn't counter their artillery.
The Japanese lack of adequate warships is a glaring weakness I agree, but only with hindsight perhaps? After all, despite inferior ships, the Japanese did manage to defeat Korean naval forces now and then (Battle of Chilcheonryang), those forces not under the command of Admiral Yi of course. I would compare it to the famous Roman deficiency in cavalry forces. The Samurai are not sailors, the Romans are not horseman.
Now in comparison Hideyoshis army marched trough a near defenceless Korea and was forced to retreat south (and then starve there) after making contact with a numerically inferior Ming army.
Only the second invasion wave had any warships to protect the transports (victory at Chilcheonryang was at that stage), the first invasion could have been utterly annuhilated, had 2 Korean admirals not panicked and scutteled their ships. They just couldnt imagine, that the fleet that advanced on Korea was utterly defenceless. Also the Ming fleet was much stronger then the Korean fleet (it even beat the Dutch). And it was only a matter of time till it arived and cut off Japans troops in Korea.
As for cannons. Japans lack of Cannons is strange, because everyone else in Eurasia made very sure to have them. All european states (no matter their iron deposits or lack thereoff), had artillery parks, so did the Ottomans and Persians, so did the Afghans and Mongols, the Mughals and their indian foes. South east Asians had them. Most of these states had a lot less armor then the Japanese, so it couldnt have been a question of Japans lack of Iron or bronze, they just understood that its better to have less armor and more artillery then vis versa.
We can debate WWII all day I suspect, LOL! Suffice it to say I don't think the Nazis had any chance against the USSR, and the Japanese did attempt aggression against Siberia but were soundly beaten back by the Red Army. Hitler invasion of the USSR wasn't an invasion, but rather a preemptive strike as Stalin was poised to invade Europe with Germany's attention on Britain. I've read 'The Chief Culprit' by Viktor Suvorov and I'm all in on this theory. Have you read the book?
Back to the Imjin War, the Japanese like the Germans vs USSR had no chance against Ming China. Samurai fan boys may disagree but the feudal Samurai armies were indeed out classed by the Ming forces (like you said, Ming forces were only half the size of the Japanese forces) in terms of organization, centralized command structure, logistics, tactics and of course artillery. That being said, the Japanese forces were manned by fierce warriors led by formidable feudal warlords like Kato Kiyomasa. Kato even invaded Jurchen territory in Manchuria and engaged Jurchen forces in a few skirmishes, it's a pity we don't know more about this campaign!!
And to your question about why Japanese forces lacked heavy artillery, I too find it perplexing. I have read somewhere that it was for a lack of iron deposits in Japan but you disagree. But maybe another reason is the one area the Japanese excelled ... namely their arquebus forces, they didn't need artillery because their musketeers were so effective perhaps? The Ming had more cavalry and artillery, the Koreans their Navy and guerilla forces, and the Japanese had disproportionately large musketeer forces and spent all their iron on katana swords and arquebuses perhaps?? I've also read somewhere that Japan during the Sengoku Period produced more arquebuses than all of Europe combined during the same period.
I welcome your thoughts.
Mind you, they did have cannons, such as the famous Daimyo Ōtomo Sōrin's European breech-loading swivel gun swirl gun called the "Destroyer of Domains" - or later on during Tokugawa's 1615 siege of Osaka Castle's coastal defenses, during that time Tokugawa deployed many large European cannons against the city and even had his own version of miniature armored ships called mekura bune, or ‘blind ship’, which was completely covered with cannons protruding out. The bamboo protection covering it resembled a shell, and almost looked like a small turtle ship.
I really don't know how it will really turn out. Late Ming's army ran into a lot of problems, and there was constant shortage of equipment for the soldiers on the front. Plus the quality of the northern army was not very good. Though I will say this, the Japanese will have a lot of problems trying to take well defended Chinese cities, and even if they take them they will have a lot of problems trying to hold on to them and expand further.
Despite whatever they are able to gain in the initial thrust (Assuming Jeolla fell, Yi never had his chance to shine, and Hideyoshi succeeded in ejecting the Korean court and defeat some garrisons in Liaodong) they can neither hold the Korean land bridge for long without a rebellion from behind them (such as the guerrilla Monks of the Righteous army) or are able to easily push forward to take more cities.
My point being, despite the size of Hideyoshi's army, after suffering attrition and garrisoning these alien cities, their momentum would quickly run out. Because of their inadequate siege capabilities men (men with sometimes life long experiences and institutional memory) would be killed in large numbers, and each city taken means they have to split more and more forces to hold on to these territories. God help them if one of their marching columns gets ambushed by a local commander that knows the area.
Yeah no, aside from at most a few cities (near Liao Dong Peninsula) the invasion will bog down. Plus if they are coming from the northeast it should be point out that they are still beyond the Ming Great Wall. By that time a truly threatened Ming will be sure to swing its navy to defend the home turf. At the end of the day for the Ming the Imjin War was but an extended intervention, its true strength was not yet forced out.
I know Suvorovs work and am myself not convinced. When it comes to the Japanese-Soviet border clashes, while the Reds did indeed win booth major engagement, if one looks at them in detail, the picture is far from one sided.
At lake Khasan around 7000 Japanese did engage 23 000 Reds with 354 tanks, and still the Red losses were 4000 vs around 1500 for the Japanese. At Khalkhin Gol the Reds had 74 000 vs 38 000 Japanese, not to mention total material superiority and still Soviet losses were larger.
Now the Red army back then, was indeed the best equipped army in the world, but its quality was abysmal, which the Finland campagin shows very well. Now the Japanese army wasnt very efficient either, due to their love for heroic frontal charges and their officers constantly getting themselves killed, trying to reach their enemies with their Katanas. Still it did prove itself more effective then the Red army, being able to inflict heavier casualties on it, then it sustained, while being outnumbered and massivly outgunned. Now back in 1941, when The USSR was on its last dying breath a Japanese attack would have overwhelmed the Sibirian troops with superior numbers allone. The reason they didnt go for it was in my opinion mostly because of Chiang Kai Shek keeping them busy in the vastness of China (which is exactly why so much of the Japanese general staff didnt want to get involved in a war against China, they knew that a war with the USSR was comming, but local leaders largly dragged Japan into this war).
I don't think, that arquebus can be seen as a substitute for artillery, since their functions are radically different. With artillery being a long range weapon, while the Musket is a middle range weapon. This is exactly the reason, why these two weapons became standard in all European armies. Let me describe it in an example. 1770 the Russians fought a Crimean Tatar army at Larga, the Tatars outnumbered the Russians 2 to 1. The Russians formed themselves into a massive square with cannons in the middle. Now Tatar bows did outrange Russian muskets, but Russian cannons outranged Tatar bows, so the Russian 115 guns covered the Tatars in Shrapnel and forced them to frontally attack the Russian square to end it all. They were mowed down by Russian musket fire. Results were: 29 dead and 61 wounded on the Russian side and over 3000 casualties on the Tatar side. Without artillery the Musket man is vulnerable to archers. Now one could argue, that in the mid 18th century the rifle arose as a long range firearm, but many generals didn't like it. Napoleon forbade rifles in his army and even his light infantry was armed with smoothbore muskets. Why? Napoleon thought that long range damage was for cannons, the musketeer must mostly just have a high rate of fire at a short range. Rifles, with their long reload time, were hence a waste.
I agree with Dragon's Armory's assessment about that even if they had massive luck, Hideyoshis armies just couldn't have won. Now had they attacked 30 years later, then It might have been the Japanese instead of the Manchu, who could have taken the Mandate, when it was lying around on the street. As for Tokugawas cannons, I thought he got them from a stranded English ship? The captain of the ship entered his service and the show "Shogun" from the 1970s is based on this (I remember liking it).
Sorry for my bad English.
And interesting analysis regarding muskets = short range, and artillery = long range. I would tend to agree, it's obvious with hindsight. All I would say is these tactics were undeveloped and 'works in progress' so to speak. Europeans had a plethora of wars between each other, and against the Ottomans to further perfect the coordination of muskets and artillery and cavalry, while East Asia did not due to the overwhelming dominance of China under the Ming and then the Qing.
Do you really think the Japanese could have emulated the Manchus and claimed the Mandate of Heaven if Hideyoshi lived another 30 years? I think not frankly. The Manchus benefited from defecting Ming generals joining the Qing, the Manchus cultivated these traitors and collaborators to only take over northern China, remember it wasn't until the Kangshi emperor were the Three Feudatories in southern China brought under Qing rule. The Japanese invasion of Korea showed them to be more like the Nazis during Operation Barbarossa, instead of coopting local sympathizers and welcoming defected enemies like the Manchus, the Nazis and Japanese treated the locals like conquered slaves. In short, I think the Manchus were able to claim the Mandate by becoming more Chinese than the Chinese, something impossible for the Nazis and the Japanese Samurai.
I dont know very much about the Qing conquest, but I tought that while later Qing emperors did indeed go out of their way to be "more chinese then the Chinese" and respect Neo-Confucian doctrine, Dorgon was very different. He did after all force the pigtail on the Han, which was basically forcing them to commit sacrilege. Despite this highly agressive measure, the Qing still won. Mostly because China was divided and in Chaos and they could conquer it piece by piece. I dont think the Japanese would have done anything that stupid. I do agree with you, that the Japanese could have only conquered CHina, if they adopted chinese artillery in liaoning and convinced Chinese troops to join them, by promising their leaders nobility and elite status in the new order. Meaning, that the Japanese could only have won by recruiting Chinese and even Jurchen/Mongols for their conquest. In Korea, they indeed didnt do very well on that front.