Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The importance of the Tai-ping Rebellion

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Voskhod View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Oct-2008
Location: Melbourne
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 98
  Quote Voskhod Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The importance of the Tai-ping Rebellion
    Posted: 25-Jan-2009 at 11:58
The rebellions would've happened anyway without the Taiping Rebellion, IMHO. The Qings and their allies were pretty oppressive towards Muslims. The Taipings rebelling at the same time made the scale of the Muslim rebellion larger, but didn't cause it. Also, Muslim rebellions in Xinjiang and the Nien Rebellion also occurred at the same time.

Anyway, the Taiping (and the other concurrent rebellions) was a social and demographic disaster for the Chinese, Muslim or Han.
"All the true heroes of history will be forgotten and all the villains will be remembered as heroes."
- Leo Tolstoy
Back to Top
ychennay View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
  Quote ychennay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2009 at 07:33
Can we also argue that the Taiping Rebellion fundamentally shifted the religious makeup of China? Millions of Huis and other Muslims were massacred or exiled after the failure of the Panthay Rebellion, Dungan Revolt, etc. These rebellions were only possible because of the complete and utter state of confusion and anarchy that the Taiping Rebellion had left much of central and southern China.

Without the Taiping Rebellion, would China have been much more "Muslim" than it is today (only 20-25 million Muslims or so)?
Back to Top
The Charioteer View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 735
  Quote The Charioteer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2007 at 01:10
Originally posted by Decebal

The importance of the First Opium War has been exaggerated by western historians. In terms of casualties and material damage, the Taiping rebellion was orders of magnitude more damaging. The First Opium war did little more than expose the corruption and weakness of the Qing state. The Taiping rebellion dealt it a blow which left it moribund.
 
So is the nature of such proposition of yours, exaggerating "the importance of the Tai-ping movement". Like the  idiom says " The pot calling the kettle black ."
 
History or historical events can be investigated from many different angles. Surely, those huge reparations Qing paid to the Western colonial powers are counted in neither definition of "casualties" nor definition of "material damage".
 
Who's exaggerating and who's not, it too depends on what angles or perspectives one look at history.
Back to Top
The Charioteer View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 735
  Quote The Charioteer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2007 at 22:29
Originally posted by Siege Tower

you watch the show too, but comparing Manchus to Goa'ulds? i don t believe my ancestors actually enslaved han Chinese
 
I did not compare the Manchus to Goa'ulds, you did.
 
The short explanation would be i put 's' to the word 'resemble', and 'es' to the word 'do'
 
As you can see "Ever watched science-fiction show Stargate SG-1, i find Tai-ping resembles the Goa'uld convincingly no more than the Manchu does. "
 
Now i was referring to 'it', be 'it' a system, ruling style etc, not necessarily "them", be "them" the Manchu or the Goa'uld etc.
 
 
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2007 at 11:48
Originally posted by vulkan02

The  First Opium War which happened before I believe was more detrimental than the rebellion. However the rebellion certainly weakened the corrupt and inefficient Qing dynasty.
 
The importance of the First Opium War has been exaggerated by western historians. In terms of casualties and material damage, the Taiping rebellion was orders of magnitude more damaging. The First Opium war did little more than expose the corruption and weakness of the Qing state. The Taiping rebellion dealt it a blow which left it moribund.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
  Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 00:39
The  First Opium War which happened before I believe was more detrimental than the rebellion. However the rebellion certainly weakened the corrupt and inefficient Qing dynasty.
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 00:09

Too bloody. Thats all its significance. Third Namking, had something like 65,000 killed for each day of its battles.

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 14:06
All government is slavery of one kind or another.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Siege Tower View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Location: Edmonton,Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 580
  Quote Siege Tower Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 13:20
you watch the show too, but comparing Manchus to Goa'ulds? i don t believe my ancestors actually enslaved han Chinese
Back to Top
The Charioteer View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 735
  Quote The Charioteer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 02:35

Ever watched science-fiction show Stargate SG-1, i find Tai-ping resembles the Goa'uld convincingly no more than the Manchu does.

Back to Top
Siege Tower View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Location: Edmonton,Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 580
  Quote Siege Tower Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 16:32
the Tai-ping rebellion's failure cerainly deserves sympathy but there system were even more corrupted than the Qing government.
Back to Top
The Charioteer View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 735
  Quote The Charioteer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:44
The Author of this thread make a good hat, but i wonder whether this hat would fit the head.
 
To quote from Paul's notion "
I find it difficult to see China on anything but a road to decline, Taiping rebellion or no Taiping rebellion. China had already lost the Opium Wars when it happened."
 
You cant possibly blame the Taiping movement for the lost of Opium war, the Qing military equipment were way outdated, despite the fact the British trade ambassador George Macartney presented advanced European firearms during the reign of emperor Qianlong. Even the specialist on Qing history, YanChongNian(who had made series of lectures regarding the Qing dynasty on CCTV 10 the educational channel, and whos pro-Qing attitude is seriously questioned and condemned by "Han-Chauvanist") admit before the Opium war happened, the Qing had number of opportunity to engage with the outside world, open to the west, instead the door was shut by the instruction of the Manchu emperors themselves. History has proven this was bad decision by the Qing rulers, so if Taiping movement is gonna take the big hat of causing China's 100 years of weakness, what would be the responsiblity of the Qing government and their misbehaviours? The only type of person would advocate such idea would be the Manchu-Chauvanist, by painting the Taiping movement of bad image to the extreme(100 years of negative consequence? you cant be serious), as the Qing is traditionally regarded by the public opinion responsible for the weakness of early Modern China, now someone else(Taiping movement) is taking the title, so their "Glorious" dynasty is "glorious" afterall. And its only "recently" one has came to be aware of "the importance of the Taiping" rebellion, because its relatively speaking "only recently" such paint of Taiping gained attention through convenience of the internet. In other words, this is the result of deliberate misleading.
 
An interesting twist, there were few hundrend foreigners who joined the Taiping army, one of them a British captain named FALindley, according to him, when he arrived at the domain of Taiping army, unlike what the Qing government says about the Taiping in their propaganda, they are not like the Qing army which are "cruel and greedy", rather they are "friendly" in their manner and "disciplined" in their behaviour. Such impression on the Taiping contributed to his final decision to join them. This makes one wonder "such army could be totally responsible for the loss of human lives during the period?"
 
From this point, i would like to elaborate further, that its well known the Manchu Qing are responsible for the destruction of many Ming dynasty records(more than 3300 of Ming historical records lost forever) they systematically erased and altered records of history.
 
As the Taiping movement was eventually suppressed by the Qing, much of their descriptions and records come from the victor, given their standardized version regarding the Taiping, and refer again with the case of British captain Lindley, would anyone just give their confidence to them without a question? I would not.
 
So the point is the lost of the "opium war" by the Chinese side does not qualified to be an event which signified the weakness of China in early modern age? Then Taiping movement cant possibly hold responsible for it solely.
 
Likewisely, when the Qing later lost the naval battle to the Japanese on the Yellow sea, it feels just not right to hold the Taiping responsible for all the "weakness of China". At this point the Qing had arguably better navy than the Japanese, which itself is an evidence that Qing modernized its army much. Yet, funds for the navy were taken away to the use of building summer palace, this decision may or may not affect the outcome of the naval battle with the Japanese, but its not made by the Taiping. right?
 
I dont agree with the pathetic reasons Paul gave to the "Chinese arrogance", but i do agree with the guy on this particular matter, that Taiping cant be holding the responsibility solely for the "weakness of China" in the following 100 years.
 
Its just too big for the head as a hat.
Back to Top
The Charioteer View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 735
  Quote The Charioteer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 23:28
Originally posted by Paul

The Mandarins of course were a corrupt and conservative force holding China back for centuries and I can see little breaking their hold. The Manchus were nothing more than foriegn occupiers who had no regard for China as anything more than their money box. The Hans were their inbred effete pet poodles.
 
I find it difficult to see China on anything but a road to decline, Taiping rebellion or no Taiping rebellion. China had already lost the Opium Wars when it happened.
 
However if the Taipings had won. I wonder what would have happened to China then?
 
"Qing is overlooked by the Chinese, because its a non-Chinese dynasty." says Flyingzone, the anti-sinocentrist.
 
So basically as a Han-Chinese, if you have negative attitude towards the Manchu Qing, then you are probably "sino-centrist".
 
No wonder when i tried to explain the usage of the term "barbarian" via PM to the anti-sinocentrist, when i mentioned the destruction and cruelty that both the Mongol and Manchu armies brought to China during the conquest and rule, the anti-sinocentrist asked me a question "During the expansion of Han and Tang dynasty, can you say that the Chinese(Han) didnt do the same thing to other peoples?"
 
Sounds like when one condemn what the Japanese did during their militaristic conquest of Asia-pacific, some Japanese person would jump out and say "the Europeans did the same thing during their conquest of the world, didnt they?"
 
The anti-sinocentrist would not appear to be agreeing with the latter, but essentially he did the same thing when he is comparing Chinese atrocities of Han and Tang with non-Chinese atrocities of Yuan and Qing.
 
The inconsistency in his attitude rather reveals the consistency of his attitude, which is "anti-sinocentrist", as he himself admitted.
 
And i remeber the last time i mentioned something in the "Manchuguo" thread, that the Manchu were bad, i was branded by a Chinese version of "anti-sinocentrist", a "Han chauvanist".
 
Oh wait a second, you are not a Han-Chinese, arent you? But you acutally mentioned something very close to Han-Chauvanist opinion.
 
I wouldnt say that you are absolutely right, but at least this demonstrates a fact that you dont have to be a Han-Chinese to hold "Han-Chauvanist" view, which in reverse leaves room for speculation that "Han-Chauvanist" view maybe not "chauvanist" all the time, and even better they maybe the byproduct of "anti-sinocentrist, anti-Han chauvanist", anti- other form of Chauvanism.
 
 


Edited by The Charioteer - 09-Jan-2007 at 23:32
Back to Top
poirot View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
  Quote poirot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 17:41
I disagree with the argument that China would fare better had the Taiping Rebellion survived.  Being a leftist, I have extreme sympathies for the Taiping Rebellion, and I would have loved to see it succeed, but here is how I look at the problem:

The Taiping Rebellion forced the Qing government to adapt to reform measures - albeit at a limited level - that paved the way for modernization, although that modernization would still pale compared to Menji Japan. 

The mandarin elite that the Taiping Rebellion tried to uproot actually served in the forefront of the post-Taiping modernization.  The Qing government realized that its traditional Bannermen were useless against more agile Taiping forces, and relied on private armies from influential mandarins to defeat the Taiping, giving those influential mandarins enough power to initiate subsequent reforms.  The most famous of the mandarin scholar-generals were Zeng Guofan (built the first modern Chinese arsenal, sent the first wave of Chinese students overseas), Li Hongzhang (built the Beiyang fleet), Zhang Zhidong (built the first modern Chinese armament factory in Wuhan, petitioned for the abolishment of the civil service examination system.)
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           
Back to Top
poirot View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
  Quote poirot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 17:24
The Taiping Rebellion was a direct response to the Opium Wars, and most of its participants, at least in its earlier stages, were disgrunted peasants and workers living in areas with economies more affected by trade with foreign powers. 

Regardless of its ultimate failure, one should be amazed at the shock value of the Taipings, because like the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War, they were never expected to last very long.  Like the Confederacy, the Taiping Rebellion had some very talented, charismatic, and daring generals, such as Shi Dakai, Chen Yucheng, Li Xiucheng, and Yang Xiuqing.

The average age of the Taiping leadership, besides Hong Xiuquan, was extremely young - Shi Dakai was captured and executed at the age of 33 in 1863, Chen Yucheng was captured and executed at the age of 26 in 1862, etc.  Considering that Shi Dakai's glory days with the Taiping was circa 1856, and that Chen Yucheng made his name around 1859, that is amazing.  Most of the other Taiping generals, like Wei Changhui, Li Shixian, Wei Jun, Feng Yunshan, and Yang Xiuqing were all around their 20s or 30s at their peak with the Taiping Rebellion.



AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           
Back to Top
jiangweibaoye View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 25-Mar-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 360
  Quote jiangweibaoye Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 14:49
The Foreigners supported the Manchu's because they knew the Qing government to be corrupt and inefficient.  The foreign powers were afraid that if the Taiping was successful, they may be a more effective organization.
 
If the Taiping were to win, I think we would have seen China would have modernize more quickly.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 14:42
The Mandarins of course were a corrupt and conservative force holding China back for centuries and I can see little breaking their hold. The Manchus were nothing more than foriegn occupiers who had no regard for China as anything more than their money box. The Hans were their inbred effete pet poodles.
 
I find it difficult to see China on anything but a road to decline, Taiping rebellion or no Taiping rebellion. China had already lost the Opium Wars when it happened.
 
However if the Taipings had won. I wonder what would have happened to China then?


Edited by Paul - 09-Jan-2007 at 14:43
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
poirot View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
  Quote poirot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 13:54
The Taiping Rebellion was peculiar in many respects: 1. It was a Christian movement in a predominately anti-Christian land, and was opposed by foreign nations that were predominately Christian.  2. It was an ethnic struggle led by a non-Han Chinese elite (arguably) against another non-Han Chinese regime, under the slogan of restoring Han Chinese rule.  3. It was to an extent a socialist movement, stressing equality of sexes and common ownership of property, led by a leader who amassed vaults of gold and gathered a harem of beauties in his Heavenly Capital.
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 11:44

I have recently come to realize that the Taiping Rebellion is one of the most underrated events in world history (at least in the West). Coming at a time when China had some serious economic difficulties, the Tai-ping war caused so much death, destruction and economic disruption, that I consider it largely responsible for the weakness of China for the next 100 years. If not for the Tai-ping war (and the other associate rebellions), then China would have profited a lot more from the most developed regions in the Yangtze valley, and might have had a much better path in modernizing its economy. As it was, the Tai-ping war contributed a lot to the reticence of the Chinese elite to modernize the country, by creating the impresson that a return to traditional values was needed. What's more, the reconstruction after the war focused on the agriculture, creating the stereotype of the rural China. To get money for the reconstruction of the agriculture, the imperial government taxed industry and commerce most heavily, seriously jeopardizing their ability to modernize and the creation of capital which was critical for bringing China in the industrial age. Thus, not only did the Tai-ping rebellion seriously weaken China, but it also impeded both the means and the will to change the country to adapt to modern realities.

I would speculate that if not for these events, China could have modernized and stayed strong enough to at least not fall easy prey to the Western powers and especially Japan. I seriously doubt that Japan could have conceived of mounting a large scale invasion of a modernized China in the 1930's. This also means that this would have modified drastically the balance of power in the Pacific during WW2, which might have led to the Japanese never attacking the Americans at all at Pearl Harbor. America would thus have had to wait for another excuse to enter the war (and perhaps staying out of it altogether), with all the consequences that this entails for WW2 in Europe. This event, almost unknown in the west, thus probably changed the world in a very dramatic way.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.092 seconds.