Conquest dynasty

A conquest dynasty (Chinese: 征服王朝; pinyin: Zhēngfú Wángcháo) in the history of China refers to a Chinese dynasty established by non-Han ethnicities which ruled parts or all of China proper, the traditional heartland of the Han people, and whose rulers may or may not have fully assimilated into the dominant Han culture.

Concept

The term "conquest dynasty" was coined by the German-American sinologist Karl August Wittfogel in his 1949 revisionist history of the Liao dynasty (916–1125). He argued that the Liao, as well as the Jin (1115–1234), Yuan (1271–1368), and Qing (1636–1912) dynasties of China were not really "Chinese", and that the ruling families did not fully assimilate into the dominant Han culture.^[1] The "conquest dynasty" concept was warmly received by mostly Japanese scholars such as Otagi Matsuo, who preferred to view these dynasties in the context of a "history of Asia" rather than a "history of China". Alternative views to the concept of "conquest dynasty" from American sinologists include Owen Lattimore's idea of the steppe as a "reservoir", Wolfram Eberhard's concept of a "superstratification" of Chinese society with nomadic peoples, and Mary C. Wright's thesis of sinicization. Among historians, the labelling of "conquest dynasties" has proven to be controversial, especially when using such characterization on dynasties such as the Jin.^[2]

Scope of China (Zhongguo)

See also: Names of China and Names of the Qing dynasty

In the English language, "Zhongguo ren" (中國人; "People of China") is frequently confused and conflated with "Han ren" (漢人; "Han people").^[3]

Dynasties of ethnic Han origin only used "Zhongguo" (中國; "Middle Kingdom") to explicitly refer to Han areas of their empire.^[4] The Ming dynasty used Zhongguo to refer to only Han areas of the empire, excluding areas populated by ethnic minorities under Ming rule from the definition.^[5]

The Xianbei-led Northern Wei referred to itself as "Zhongguo" and claimed yogurt as a food of Zhongguo.^[6] Similarly, the Jurchen-led Jin dynasty referred to itself as "Zhongguo".^[7]

In 1271, Kublai Khan proclaimed the Yuan dynasty with the official name "Great Yuan" (大元) and claimed succession from former Chinese dynasties from the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors up to the Tang dynasty.

Qing emperors referred to all subjects of the Qing dynasty regardless of their ethnicity as "Chinese" (中國之人), and used the term "Zhongguo" as a synonym for the entire Qing Empire while using "neidi" (内地; "inner regions") to refer only to the core area (or China proper) of the empire. The Qing Empire was viewed as a single multi-ethnic entity.^[8][9]

The Qing emperors governed frontier non-Han areas in a separate administrative system under the Lifan Yuan. Nonetheless, it was the Qing emperors who expanded the definition of Zhongguo and made it "flexible" by using that term to refer to the entire empire. Zhongguo was also used by the Qing Empire as an endonym in diplomatic correspondence. However, some Han subjects criticized their usage of the term and used Zhongguo only to refer to the seventeen provinces of China and three provinces of the east (Manchuria), excluding other frontier areas.^[10] Han literati who remained loyal to the Ming dynasty held to defining the old Ming borders as "China" and used the term "foreigner" to describe ethnic minorities under Qing rule, such as the Mongols, as part of their anti-Qing ideology.^[11] As the territorial borders of the Qing Empire were fixed through a series of treaties with neighboring foreign powers, it was able to inculcate in the Qing subjects a sense that China included areas such as Mongolia and Tibet due to educational reforms. Specifically, the educational reform made it clear where the borders of the Qing Empire were, even if Han subjects did not understand how the Chinese identity included Mongols and Tibetans or understand what the connotations of being "Chinese" were.^[12]

In an attempt to portray different ethnicities as part of one family ruled by the Qing dynasty, the phrase "Zhongwai yijia" (中外一家; "interior and exterior as one family") was used to convey the idea of the "unification" of different ethnic groups.^[13] After conquering China proper, the Manchus identified their state as "China" (中國; Zhōngguó; "Middle Kingdom"), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in the Manchu language (Dulimbai means "central" or "middle", while gurun means "nation" or "state"). The emperors labelled the lands of the Qing Empire (including present-day Northeast China, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet, and other areas) as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages. This effectively defined China as a multi-ethnic state, thereby rejecting the idea that "China" only meant Han-populated areas. The Qing emperors proclaimed that both Han and non-Han ethnic groups were part of "China". They also used both "China" and "Qing" to refer to their state in official documents, international treaties (the Qing Empire was known internationally as "China"^[14] or the "Chinese Empire"^[15]), and foreign affairs. The "Chinese language" (Dulimbai gurun i bithe) included Chinese, Manchu, Mongol, and Tibetan languages, while the "Chinese people" (中國之人; Zhōngguó zhī rén; Manchu: Dulimbai gurun i niyalma) referred to all subjects of the Qing Empire.^[16]

In the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk, the term "China" (Dulimbai Gurun; Zhongguo) was used to refer to the Qing territories in Manchuria in both the Manchu and Chinese language versions of the treaty. Additionally, the term "the wise Emperor of China" was also used in the Manchu version of the treaty.^[17]

The Qianlong Emperor rejected the earlier idea that only the Han people could be subjects of China and only Han lands could be considered as part of China. Instead, he redefined China as being multi-ethnic, saying in 1755 that "there exists a view of China (Zhongxia; 中夏), according to which non-Han peoples cannot become China's subjects and their lands cannot be integrated into the territory of China. This does not represent our dynasty's understanding of China, but is instead a view of the earlier Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties."^[4] The Qianlong Emperor rejected the views of ethnic Han officials who claimed that Xinjiang was not part of China and that he should not annex it, putting forth the argument that China was multi-ethnic and did not just refer to Han areas.^[18]

When the Qing conquered Dzungaria, they proclaimed that the new land which formerly belonged to the Oirat-led Dzungar Khanate was now absorbed into China (Dulimbai Gurun) in a Manchu language memorial.^[19][20][21]

The Yongzheng Emperor spoke out against the claim by anti-Qing rebels that the Qing dynasty were only the rulers of the Manchus and not of China, saying "The seditious rebels claim that we are the rulers of Manchus and only later penetrated central China to become its rulers. Their prejudices concerning the division of their and our country have caused many vitriolic falsehoods. What these rebels have not understood is the fact that it is for the Manchus the same as the birthplace is for the people of the Central Plain. Shun belonged to the Eastern Yi, and King Wen to the Western Yi. Does this fact diminish their virtues?" (在逆賊等之意，徒謂本朝以滿洲之君入為中國之主，妄生此疆彼界之私，遂故為訕謗詆譏之說耳，不知本朝之為滿洲，猶中國之有籍貫，舜為東夷之人，文王為西夷之人，曾何損於聖德乎？)^[22]

According to scholar Sergius L. Kuzmin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, despite the Qing dynasty's usage of the term "China", these empires were known officially by their respective dynastic name. Non-Han peoples considered themselves as subjects of the Yuan and Qing empires and did not necessarily equate them to "China". This resulted from different ways of the Yuan and Qing legitimization for different peoples in these empires.^[23][24] Qing emperors were referred to as "Khagan of China" (or "Chinese khagan") by their Turkic Muslim subjects (now known as the Uyghurs),^[25] as "Bogda Khan" or "(Manchu) Emperor" by their Mongol subjects, and as "Emperor of China" (or "Chinese Emperor") and "the Great Emperor" (or "Great Emperor Manjushri") by their Tibetan subjects, such as in the 1856 Treaty of Thapathali.^[26][27][28] It is pointed out that Tibetan subjects regarded the Qing as Chinese, unlike the Yuan which was founded by Mongols.^[29] According to Kuzmin, the Liao, Jin, Yuan and Qing were multi-national empires led by non-Chinese peoples to whom the conquered China or its part was joined.^[30] Nevertheless, American historian Richard J. Smith points out "China proper" (often designated 内地 meaning "inner territory" in Chinese) refers to the core eighteenth provinces of the Qing dynasty, but from a Manchu perspective, however, the concept of “China” (Chinese: Zhongguo; Manchu: Dulimbai Gurun) embraced the entire empire, including Manchuria, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet.^[31]

The modern territorial claims of both the People's Republic of China, based in Beijing, and the Republic of China, based in Taipei, are derived from the territories that were held by the Qing dynasty at the time of its demise.^[32][33][34] The nationalistic concept of the Zhonghua minzu (Chinese nation) also traces its roots to the multiethnic and multicultural nature of the Qing Empire.

Criticism

Certain traits assigned by past scholars to "conquest dynasties" to distinguish them from "native" dynasties may not have been so distinguishing. An example is the "royal hunt",^{[further explanation needed]} which, according to David M. Robinson, "originated in China in a complex legacy of venerable Central Plain polities of high antiquity."^[35]

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under Xi Jinping rejected the concept because it could encourage separatist sentiments in Tibet and Xinjiang.^[36] The CCP has forced historians to rewrite an official "Qing History" tome so that it aligns better with Xi Jinping Thought.^[36] Pamela Kyle Crossley of Dartmouth College stated that "[a]ccording to Xi Jinping, there have been no conquests in Chinese history. Only happy unifications with people aspiring to be Chinese."^[36]

List of non-Han dynasties

This list includes only the major dynasties of China ruled by non-Han ethnicities, there were many other such dynastic regimes that ruled an area historically or currently associated with "China" not shown in this list. Also, not all non-Han regimes are seen as conquest dynasties, and many of them are actually considered as "infiltration dynasties".

Ethnicity	Conquest dynasty	Period of rule	Territorial extent
Xianbei 鮮卑	Tuyuhun 吐谷渾	284–670 CE	Parts of China proper
	Former Yan 前燕	337–370 CE
	Later Yan 後燕	384–409 CE
	Western Qin 西秦	385–400 CE, 409–431 CE
	Southern Liang 南涼	397–414 CE
	Southern Yan 南燕	398–410 CE
	Dai 代	310–376 CE
	Duan Qi 段齊	350–356 CE
	Western Yan 西燕	384–394 CE
	Northern Wei 北魏	386–535 CE
	Eastern Wei 東魏	534–550 CE
	Western Wei 西魏	535–557 CE
	Northern Zhou 北周	557–581 CE
Di 氐	Chouchi 仇池	296–371 CE, 385–443 CE
	Cheng-Han 成漢	304–347 CE
	Former Qin 前秦	351–394 CE
	Later Liang 後涼	386–403 CE
Xiongnu 匈奴	Han-Zhao 漢趙	304–329 CE
	Northern Liang 北涼	397–439 CE
	Hu Xia 胡夏	407–431 CE
	Xu 許	618–619 CE
Jie 羯	Later Zhao 後趙	319–351 CE
	Hou Han 侯漢	551–552 CE
Qiang 羌	Later Qin 後秦	384–417 CE
Dingling 丁零	Zhai Wei 翟魏	388–392 CE
Sogdian 粟特^[37]	Former Yan 前燕	756–759 CE
Göktürk 突厥	Later Yan 後燕	759–763 CE
Shatuo 沙陀	Former Jin 前晉	907–923 CE
	Later Tang 後唐	923–937 CE
	Later Jin^[38] 後晉	936–947 CE
	Later Han^[39] 後漢	947–951 CE
	Northern Han 北漢	951–979 CE
Khitan 契丹	Liao dynasty 遼朝	916–1125 CE
	Dongdan 東丹	926–936 CE
	Northern Liao 北遼	1122–1123 CE
	Western Liao 西遼	1124–1218 CE
	Eastern Liao 東遼	1213–1269 CE
	Later Liao 後遼	1216–1219 CE
Baiman 白蠻	Dali 大理	937–1094 CE, 1096–1253 CE
	Dazhong 大中	1094–1096 CE
Tangut 党項	Western Xia 西夏	1038–1227 CE
	Shun dynasty 順朝	1644–1646 CE
Jurchen 女真	Jin dynasty 金朝	1115–1234 CE
	Eastern Xia 東夏	1215–1233 CE
	Later Jin 後金	1616–1636 CE
Mongol 蒙古	Yuan dynasty 元朝	1271–1368 CE	All of China proper
	Northern Yuan 北元	1368–1635 CE	Parts of China proper
Manchu 滿洲	Qing dynasty 清朝	1636–1912 CE	All of China proper

See also

• Yuan dynasty in Inner Asia
• Qing dynasty in Inner Asia
• Ethnic groups in Chinese history
• New Qing History
• Tatar yoke
• Dynastic cycle
• Dynasties of China
• Sinicization
• De-Sinicization
• Sinocentrism
• Chinese historiography
• Mandate of Heaven
• Zhonghua minzu
• Hua–Yi distinction
• Civilization state
• Debate on the Chineseness of Yuan and Qing dynasties

References

Citations

1. Crossley, Pamela Kyle (December 1985). "An Introduction to the Qing Foundation Myth". Late Imperial China. 6 (2): 13–24. doi:10.1353/late.1985.0016. ISSN 1086-3257.
2. Tao, Jing-shen. The Jurchen in Twelfth-Century China: A Study of Sinicization. University of Washington Press. pp. xi–x.
3. Liu 2004, p. 266.
4. , p. 4.
5. Jiang 2011, p. 103.
6. Scott Pearce; Audrey G. Spiro; Patricia Buckley Ebrey (2001). Culture and Power in the Reconstitution of the Chinese Realm, 200-600. Harvard Univ Asia Center. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-0-674-00523-5.
7. Patricia Buckley Ebrey; Anne Walthall; James B. Palais (2013). East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History, Volume I: To 1800. Cengage Learning. pp. 138–. ISBN 978-1-111-80815-0.
8. Elena Barabantseva (2010). "Overseas Chinese, Ethnic Minorities and Nationalism: De-Centering China (2010) (pages 20-22)". New York: Routledge. (PDF) from the original on 2022-08-16.
9. Yuan-kang WANG (May 2013). "Managing Hegemony in East Asia: China's Rise in Historical Perspective" (PDF). Western Michigan University. (PDF) from the original on 2022-04-10.
10. Esherick 2006, p. 232.
11. Mosca, Matthew W. (December 2011). "The Literati Rewriting of China in the Qianlong-Jiaqing Transition". Late Imperial China. 32 (2): 89–132. doi:10.1353/late.2011.0012. ISSN 1086-3257.
12. Esherick 2006, p. 251.
13. Elliott & Chia (2004), pp. 76–77.
14. Treaty of Nanking. 1842.
15. McKinley, William. "Second State of the Union Address". 5 Dec. 1898.
16. Zhao (2006), pp. n .
17. Zhao (2006), pp. .
18. , pp. 11-12.
19. Dunnell 2004 2023-04-11 at the Wayback Machine, p. 77.
20. Dunnell 2004 2023-04-11 at the Wayback Machine, p. 83.
21. Elliott 2001 2023-04-11 at the Wayback Machine, p. 503.
22. Yongzheng Emperor. 大義覺迷錄 [Record of how great righteousness awakens the misguided], 近代中國史料叢刊 [Collection of materials on modern Chinese history] (Taipei: 文海出版社, 1966), vol. 36, 351–2, 1: 2b–3a.
23. Kuzmin, Sergius L. "Dmitriev, S.V. and Kuzmin, S.L. 2012. What is China? The Middle State in historical myth and real policy, Oriens (Moscow), no 3, pp. 5-19". from the original on 2022-02-12. Retrieved 2015-02-08.
24. Kuzmin, Sergius L. "Dmitriev, S.V. and Kuzmin, S.L. 2014. Qing Empire as China: anatomy of a historical myth, Oriens (Moscow), no 1, pp. 5-17". from the original on 2017-03-17. Retrieved 2015-02-08.
25. Onuma, Takahiro (2014). "The Qing Dynasty and Its Central Asian Neighbors". Saksaha: A Journal of Manchu Studies. 12 (20220303). doi:10.3998/saksaha.13401746.0012.004. from the original on September 19, 2023. Retrieved September 17, 2023.
26. "Treaty between Tibet and Nepal, 1856 (translation)" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 2023-08-26. Retrieved 2023-09-03.
27. Bell, Charles (1992). Tibet Past and Present. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 278. ISBN 9788120810679. from the original on 2023-10-29. Retrieved 2023-10-30.
28. Dunnell, Ruth (2004). New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. Taylor & Francis. p. 124. ISBN 9781134362226.
29. Santa Barbara, "A Union of Religion and Politics: The Tibetan Regency of Ngawang Tsültrim", Page 18
30. Kuzmin, Sergius L.; Dmitriev, Sergey. "Dmitriev, S.V. and Kuzmin, S.L. 2015. Conquest Dynasties of China or Foreign Empires? The Problem of Relations between China, Yuan and Qing, International J. Central Asian Studies, vol. 19, pp. 59-91". from the original on 2018-09-21. Retrieved 2016-06-11.
31. Smith, Richard J. (2015). The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Chinese Culture. Lantham, Boulder, New York and London: Rowman and Littlefield. p. 448. ISBN 9781442221925.
32. Esherick, Joseph; Kayali, Hasan; Van Young, Eric (2006). Empire to Nation: Historical Perspectives on the Making of the Modern World. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 245. ISBN 9780742578159.
33. Zhai, Zhiyong (2017). 憲法何以中國. City University of HK Press. p. 190. ISBN 9789629373214.
34. Gao, Quanxi (2016). 政治憲法與未來憲制. City University of HK Press. p. 273. ISBN 9789629372910.
35. Roger des Forges, (Review) 2016-10-07 at the Wayback Machine Journal of Chinese Studies No. 60 – (January 2015) pp. 302-303.
36. Wong, Chun Han. "Xi Jinping's Historians Can't Stop Rewriting China's Imperial Past". The Wall Street Journal. from the original on 2024-03-23. Retrieved 2024-03-23.
37. An Lushan's father was of Sogdian and his mother was of Göktürk origin.
38. Wudai Shi ch. 75. 舊五代史/卷75  (in Chinese) – via Wikisource.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Considering the father was originally called Nieliji without a surname, the fact that his patrilineal ancestors all had Chinese names here indicates that these names were probably all created posthumously after Shi Jingtang became a "Chinese" emperor. Shi Jingtang actually claimed to be a descendant of Chinese historical figures Shi Que and Shi Fen, and insisted that his ancestors went westwards towards non-Han Chinese area during the political chaos at the end of the Han dynasty in the early 3rd century.
39. According to Old History of the Five Dynasties, vol. 99, and New History of the Five Dynasties, vol. 10. Liu Zhiyuan was of Shatuo origin. According to Wudai Huiyao, vol. 1 Liu Zhiyuan's great-great-grandfather Liu Tuan (劉湍) (titled as Emperor Mingyuan posthumously, granted the temple name of Wenzu) descended from Liu Bing (劉昞), Prince of Huaiyang, a son of Emperor Ming of Han

Sources

• Biran, Michal (September 15, 2005). The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-84226-6. from the original on August 1, 2023. Retrieved October 8, 2015.
• Dunnell, Ruth W.; Elliott, Mark C.; Foret, Philippe; Millward, James A (2004). New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. Routledge. ISBN 1134362226. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
• Elliott, Mark C. (2001). The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China (illustrated, reprint ed.). Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804746842. from the original on 11 April 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
• Elliott, Mark C.; Chia, Ning (2004). "The Qing hunt at Mulan". In Dunnell, Ruth W.; Elliott, Mark C.; Forêt, Philippe; Millward, James A. (eds.). New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. Routledge. ISBN 9780415320061.
• Zhao, Gang (January 2006). "Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century". Modern China. 32 (1). Sage Publications: 3–30. doi:10.1177/0097700405282349. JSTOR 20062627. S2CID 144587815.