Who is your favorite Chinese Emperor?

Right  RevanShan

So one can apply this "feminist" theory to others as well, since the fifth king of Tubo, ChiSongDeZan's mother is a Chinese, Princess JinCheng of Tang dynasty, then one can claim since 755A.D(the year the ZanPu ascended Tibetan Throne) Tibet was already a "Chinese Colony".

And since Richard the lionheart's mother was a French, then England was a "French colony".

And to find out whether the imperial family of Ming dynasty was Muslim or not, the theorists could just come to China and ask the descendants of the Zhu family, whether they agree with it or not. afterall those directly involved should have their say.

Even empress Ma was a Hui, and apply this "feminist' theory, the later YongLe emperor was not born from empress Ma, then hardly to claim the whole dynasty was not Chinese.

Edited by Beijingguy

Originally posted by wuTao How did you come to the conclusion that their ethnicity is half unascertained? The only way you would be able to claim that the rulers of the Sui and Tang house were half Xianbei is through the Chinese annals, but those also state that they were half Han. If you can accept one of the statements from the annals, why ignore the other?

The Chinese annals clearly stated Tang imperial family's paternal line is Han, and left the other half of the bloodline unrecorded (as the maternal line wasn't considered important back then). The only reason to say Tang Taizong's mother/grandmother were Xianbei is because their family names, but is far from conclusive as both their family names was used by both Han and Xianbei. So we can only say Tang Taizong probably have Xianbei blood from the maternal line.  But to some anti-Han racist, from Tang Taizong's mother/grandmother is probably Xianbei it follows Tang Taizong is Xianbei and not Han.  Well, let's apply this feminist reasoning to Kangxi, it's known for certain Kangxi's mother is Han, therefore,  Kangxi must be a Han not Manchu! Qianlong's mother is probably Han, so Qianlong is Han too! Of course those anti-Han racist wouldn't agree with this (that's why they're racist not feminist).

I'd like to attribute more to the culture as a teamwork rather than name "the Greatest" of certain person in certain peroid of time.

Thus, my stand,

That Qin ShiHuangDi's unification of China is a turning point for the culture despite his ruthlessness.

Han WuDi's advocacy of Confucianism, and military expeditions against the XiongNu etc was a stage marked the further consolidation of the culture that it inherited from the previous short-lived dynsaty. Which of became the core of the Chinese culture.

Consider the "Era of division"(sixteen kingdoms-Northern&Soutnern Dynasties)   marked the end of Han dominant position i.e politically and changes in relation with the semi-or more sinicized nomads from the North. Out of ethnic and cultural conflict, there is 1 man more or less successfully established a style of governing that begin to change the face of this relatively chaotic period, was Northern Wei's Wei XiaoWenDi. Although he never achieved complete military conquest of the South.i.e unification of China.(which he personally so eager to achieve, for he wrote a poem"all lands are under light of sun, except that of the south".Nevertheless, hes cultural achievements(despite his reign was relatively short due to early pass away) was a combination of XianBei military success& importation of Buddhism& adoptation of Confucianism.. this at one end ease the tension between Han&non-Han ppl, and at the other end accelarated the cultural and ethnic acceptance by mutual means. Inwhich ultimately gave  rise to Sui-Tang cultural, which was characterized by its open-mindedness and multi-culturalism, which was markedly different from that of Han, i.e b4 the collapse of West Jin dynasty, and the begining of divisive period. In conclusion, XiaoWenDi's role and contribution was in a way like that of the unification of China under Qin ShiHuangDi. And he's just the first of the rulers to setup a mutually respectful multi-ethnic state. Which also characterize the current ethnic policy of China.(though disputes can never be ignored completely). So my high points to him.

GengghisKhan was a great figure that has many qualities i would like to advocate. But his "demerit"(though i should admit in a way it's pride for his ppl, i respect their  heritages, i.e culturally and ethnically), is also apparent and absence in the following process makes him more belonging to the steppe  rather than that of China's concerns. Thus recall whom had more focus on China and did actually had more success and influence, will be his grandson- Kubilaikhan, His number of achievements are very important in Chinese history, consider the decline of Tang power and later the political migration of Song Chinese, the  begining of another period of "era of division" for China. Only that the players changed from XiongNu-XianBei(and number of others) to Khitan & Tangut and Jurchens, and to an extend the Mongols. With notably similarities in sinicization and use of Confucianism and Buddhism for maintenance of the authority.etc. KubilaiKhan's Chinese-style Yuan dynasty played a role inaway like that of Sui-dynasty, which unified the divided country into one. Though culturally resistant to Chinese in Chinese's eyes, but Yuan was an extended version of early Qin&Sui dynasty in politically unify the state. And its successor Ming dynasty inaway like the Han&Tang which inherit the previous dynastic achievements, though the Ming is less convincing than the Han&Tang, neverthless, Later, the  Qing would combine the assets of Both Yuan&Ming, that is exactly what PRC has inherited from history. (mostly)Anyway, the establishment of Mongol-Yuan dynasty was another turning point for China, despite the Mongols were relatively late comers to affect the cultural progress of China compare to that of already sinicized Khitan&Tangut&Jurchen dynasties. But it was the first of its kind to successfully rule over whole of China. As a consequence it inevitably impact greatly on the culture and it was done under the reign of Kubilaikhan.

Qing's KangXi, YongZheng, QianLong were all remarkable emperors, their rule further consolidated the country. But tension between Han-Manchu never fully eased.

Perhaps, atleast in my mind, the most unquestioned ruler for achievements in certain duetime thats  certainly  "great" , would be Tang TaiZong. But China doesnt stay in the "Golden era" for ever.

And most questionable ruler for "greatness"  is Ming's  YongLe emperor...in my opinion. Since, the debates are still on, and the possible future it inspires isn't clear enough for everyone to see.

Edited by Beijingguy

Originally posted by Chinghiz Originally posted by blitz Khubilai Khan. He was the first foreign ruler of all china and at the same grand khan of mongols and splendid one in all things.  In comparison with him Qin Shi Huang Di was pitiful.    You are wrong! 1) King Shun of Yu State, an Eastern Barbarian, ancient Korean or Manchu. 2) King Yu of Xia, an ancient Turk or Mongol. 3) King Wen of Zhou State was a Tibet, Qiang (common theory) or Turk (Hun, later). 4) Qin Shi Huang Di was non-Chinese (Shi Ji). 5) Emperor Liu Yuan Hai (Xiong Nu) 6) Emperors of (Northern) Wei (Sianbi-Mongol) 7) Emperors of Sui State (Half-Sianbi, Half-unascertained) 8) Gao Zu of Tang (as above), 9) Taizong of Tang (as abo.) 10) Emperor Shi Jing Tang (of five dynasties): Turk 11) Emperor Li Ke yong: Turk 12) Emperor Abaoji (Kitan) and his descendants 13) Emperor Aguda of Jin State  and his posteriors (Nu Zhen) 14) Manchu-Qing emperors.

Just curious about each of your points...

1) What is the Yu state and what sources did you use to come to this conclusion?

2) What sources did you use to come to this conclusion?

3) What sources did you use to come to this conclusion?

4) What passage in the Shiji did you use to come to this conclusion?

7), 8), 9) How did you come to the conclusion that their ethnicity is half unascertained? The only way you would be able to claim that the rulers of the Sui and Tang house were half Xianbei is through the Chinese annals, but those also state that they were half Han. If you can accept one of the statements from the annals, why ignore the other?

Originally posted by cliveersknell Poirot You forgot Khubilai r's Clive

 

Poirot is right. Khubilai is a Mongol.

I am proud of him, don't say he is a Chinese emperor. He was the emperor of Green Mongol Empire and at the same time, he was also the ruler of the Chinese! But, he was not a Chinese!

 

Originally posted by babyblue     kangxi a better civil administrator than Qin Shihuangdi?

 

Yes, he was! He was from the Manchu barbarians, but ruled the whole chinese territory and even made the big mongolia or, at least, half of it to pay tribute to him. He also saved the Chinese culture and language and ordered to treat the Chinese as equal ashe traeted his Manchu people! 

Originally posted by RevanShan Originally posted by blitz Khubilai Khan. He was the first foreign ruler of all china and at the same grand khan of mongols and splendid one in all things.  In comparison with him Qin Shi Huang Di was pitiful.    You're being very offensive here. It's like saying Queen Victoria was the greatest ruler of India, because she's the first foreign Empress of India and head of the great British Empire, so in comparison with the great Queen, Ashoka was so pitful.

I didn't vote for Khubilai, just because he was a foreigner. I said he was splendid in all things.  

In this order:

Tang Taizong, Han WuDi, Qin Shi Huang, Han Guang Wu Di, Wu Ze Tian (yes, believe it or not!), Yongle, Hongwu, Kang Xi.

Zhu Di is now my favorite, but often times I switch back to Tang Taizong or Shi Huangdi.