India and China are the sources of the greatest civilizations in Eastern and Southern Asia. Their rulers saw themselves as universal monarchs, thereby matching the pretensions of the Roman Emperors in the West. The only drawbacks to their historical priority were that India suffered a setback, when the Indus Valley Civilization collapsed (for disputed reasons), and China got started later than the Middle Eastern civilizations. By the time India recovered, it was a contemporary of Greece, rather than Sumeria, with many parallel cultural developments, like philosophy. And, curiously, China reached a philosophical stage of development in the same era, the "axial age," 800 to 400 BC. Later, when the West, India, and China all had contact with each other, it was at first India that had the most influence on China, through the introduction of Buddhism. Indian influence on the West, though likely through the skepticism of Pyrrho, and possibly evident in the halos of Christian saints (borrowed from Buddhist iconography), did not extend to anything more substantial -- unless the whole world-denying character of Christianity was due, as Schopenhauer might have thought, to Indian influence. While China then made Buddhism its own, India later endured the advent of Islâm, which introduced deep cultural and then political divisions into the Subcontinent. The only comparable development as distruptive in China was the application of Marxism by the Communist government that came to power in 1949. While China has now embraced a more liberal economic vision and has outgrown India, it retains the political dictatorship of Communism. India, with a successful history as a democracy, has found its growth hampered by socialist expectations and regulations (the stifling "Licence Raj"), with some, but not enough, economic liberalization in the 1990's.
The 
idea that there are "Three Kingdoms," Sangoku, is a Japanese conceit, placing those peripheral islands on equal standing with the great centers of civilization, India and China. Until the 20th century, there would not have been a shadow of justification for that, except perhaps in subjective judgments about the creativity or originality of Japanese culture, which I am sure would be disputed by Koreans and Vietnamese. However, after a process of self-transformation sparked by American intervention, Japan leapt to the status of a Great Power by defeating Russia in 1905. The Empire then spent the next 40 years throwing its weight around, occupying Korea and invading China, ultimately taking on the United States in a disastrous bid for hegemony (1941-1945). Catastrophic defeat slowed Japan down a little, but by the 1980's, the country had vaulted to the highest per capita income in the world, with wealth and economic power that deeply frightened many, even in the United States. Japan remains the only Great Power, in economic terms (as the Japanese military establishment remains low profile), not directly derived from European civilization. Now, even after a decade of economic stagnation, Japan remains the second largest economy in the world (about 40% the size of the United States, more than 1.7 times the size of Germany, and finally reviving a bit in 2004), although in per capita terms declining from 3rd in the world in 2003 to 11th in 2007 [The Economist Pocket World in Figures, 2007 Edition]. This level of success might be thought to justify the Japanese view of themselves as unique, or at least special, certainly of the first order of geopolitical importance, giving us some motivation for the inclusion of Japan in a "Sangoku" page.
Index
Copyright (c) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved
India has had less of a 
tradition of political unity than China or Japan. Indeed, most of the names for India ("India," "Hindustân") are not even Indian. As Yule & Burnell say in their classic A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases ["Hobson-Jobson," Curzon Press, 1886, 1985, p. 433]:
It is not easy, if it be possible, to find a truly native (i.e. Hindu) name for the whole country which we call India; but the conception certainly existed from an early date. Bhâratavarsha is used apparently in the Purânas with something like this conception.
Bhâratavars.a, 
, meant the "division of the world" (vars.a) of the Bhâratas -- the heroes of the great Mahâbhârata epic. An independent India in 1947 decided to officially become Bhârat (the short final "a" not being pronounced in Hindi). Probably India did not have a clear local name earlier because, like China, it seemed to be the principal portion of the entire world, and so simply "the world" (vars.a) itself.
In Chinese, we get various ways of referring to India. The modern form, 
, renders the name phonetically with characters of no particular semantic significance ("print, stamp, or seal" and "a rule, law, measure, degree"). This rendering, of course, is based on a name from Greek or Arabic that would have been unknown in China until modern times. The older practice, however, was dedicated characters that might have a larger meaning. Thus, we get 
or 
, in which can be a kind of bamboo but otherwise is just used for India. Semantically stronger is 
, where is primarily used for the Indian god Brahmâ (
) and then for compounds involving India or Buddhism. Thus we get expressions like 
, "Sanskrit," 
, "Sanskrit writing," and 
, "Sanskrit characters." In Japan, India was sometimes called the Yüehchih, 
, the "Moon Tribe." This appealed because of the contrast with Japan, the 
, "Sun Source." The Japanese knew from Chinese histories that the Yüehchih were in the West, and since they were a bit vague about what was in the West, but they knew that India was also, the connection got made. They might not have known that the Yüehchih actually did enter India as the Kushans
When a unified state has occurred in Indian history, it has had varying religious, political, and even linguistic bases: e.g. Hindu, Buddhist, Islâmic, and foreign. The rule of the Sult.âns of Delhi and the Moghul Emperors was at once Islâmic and foreign, since most of them were Turkish or Afghani, and the Moghul dynasty was founded directly by incursion from Afghanistan. The supremely foreign unification of India, of course, was from the British, under whom India achieved its greatest unity, although that was lost upon independence to the religious division between India and Pakistan. The Moghuls and British, of course, called India by its name in their own languages (i.e. "Hindustân," 
or 
, and "India").
With a unified state in India a rare phenomenon, often under foreign influence, and with only a derivative indigenous name for the country as a whole, one might wonder if the term "Emperor," with its implications of unique and universal monarchy, is aptly applied to Indian rulers. However, from an early date there was a notion of such monarchy, which depended only on a conception of the world, whether India itself was clearly conceived or not. The universal monarch 
was the Cakravartin, 
, "Who Turns the Wheel of Dominion." Thus, the prophecy was that Siddhartha Gautama might have become the Buddha, or a Cakravartin, a world ruler. The word was ambiguous, since the term can mean simply a sovereign, but its use is paralleled by the Latin word Imperator, which simply means "Commander" and grew, by usage, into a term for a unique and universal monarch. As it happened, many of the monarchs who began to claim ruler over all of India did usually use titles that were translations or importations of foreign words. Thus, the Kushans used titles like Râjatirâjâ, "King of Kings," and Mahârâjâ, "Great King," which appear to be translations from older Middle Eastern titles. While the original "Great King" long retained its uniqueness, thanks to the durability of the Persian monarchy, the title in India experienced a kind of grade inflation, so that eventually there were many, many Mahârâjâs. With Islâm came a whole raft of new titles. One was Sult.ân, which originally was an Arabic title of universal rule itself but had already experienced its own grade inflation. Persian titles, like Pâdeshâh, centuries after the Achaemenids, were now borrowed rather than translated. With the Moghuls, however, the names of the Emperors, more than their titles, reflected their pretensions: like Persian Jahângir, "Seize (gir) the world (jahân)." The most remarkable title borrowed from the West is probably Kaisar, but the Latin title itself arrived with Queen Victoria, IND IMP, Indiae Imperatrix, in 1876. The last Indiae Imperator was King George VI, until 1947.
In addition to these complications, Indian history is also less well known and dated than that of China or Japan. Classical Indian literature displays little interest in history proper, which must be reconstructed from coins, monumental inscriptions, and foreign references. As Jan Nattier has said recently [A Few Good Men, The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipr.cchâ), University of Hawai'i Press, 2003]:
...the writing of history in the strict sense does not begin in India until the 12th century, with the composition of Kalhan.a's Râjataran.gin.î. [p.68]
Because of this, even the dating of the Mauryas and the Guptas, the best known pre-Islâmic periods, displays small uncertainties. The rulers and dates for them here are from Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford University Press, 1989], the Oxford Dynasties of the World by John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002], and Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. Gordon had the only full lists I'd ever seen for the Mauryas, Kushans, and Guptas until I found the Oxford Dynasties, which has the Mauryas and Guptas but nothing else until the Sultanate of Delhi. The Mauryas and Guptas can now also be found in the Facts On File Encyclopedia of World History [George Philip Ltd., 2000, p.520]. Besides Wolpert, another concise recent history of India is A History of India by Peter Robb [Palgrave, 2002]. It is becoming annoying to me that scholarly histories like these are almost always but poorly supplemented with maps and lists of rulers, let alone genealogies (where these are known). Both Wolpert and Robb devote much more space to modern India than to the ancient or mediaeval country, and this preference seems to go beyond the paucity of sources for the earlier periods.
The "Saka Era," as the Indian historical era, significantly starts rather late (79 AD) in relation to the antiquity of Indian civilization. Indeed, like Greece (c.1200-800 BC) and Britain (c.400-800 AD), India experienced a "Dark Ages" period, c.1500-800 BC, in which literacy was lost and the civilization vanished from history altogether. Such twilight periods may enhance the vividness of quasi-historical mythology like the Iliad, the Arthurian legends, and the Mahâbhârata. The earliest history of India is covered separately at "The Earliest Civilizations" and "The Spread of Indo-European and Turkish Peoples off the Steppe." The affinities of Indian languages are also covered at "Greek, Sanskrit, and Closely Related Languages."
Readers should treat with caution some scholarship and a great deal of the material on the internet about the Indus Valley Civilization and its relationship to Classical Indian civilization, or all of civilization. The claims have progressed to the point now where not only are all of Indian civilization and all of its languages regarded as autochthonous (with Indo-European languages said to originate in India, and derived from Dravidian languages, rather than arriving from elsewhere and unrelated to Dravidian), but the civilization itself is said to extend back to the Pleistocene Epoch (before 10,000 BC), with any ruins or artifacts conveniently covered by rising sea levels. The urge towards inflated nationalistic claims is familiar. Particular claims about India are treated here in several places but especially in "Strange Claims about the Greeks, and about India."
| THE MAURYAS, c.322-184 BC | |
|---|---|
| Chandragupta (Gk. Sandrokotos) | c.322-301 |
| Bindusâra | 301-269 |
| Ashoka | 269-232 |
| Kunala ? | 232-225 |
| Dasharatha | 232-225 |
| Samprati | 225-215 |
| Shâlishuka | 215-202 |
| Devadharma/ Devavarman | 202-195 |
| Shatamdhanu/ Shatadhanvan | 195-187 |
| Br.hadratha | 187-185 |
the greatest king of the Dynasty, Ashoka, commemorated himself with monumental inscriptions, especially on a series of pillars erected around India. The most famous of these is at Sarnath, where the Buddha began preaching. The lion capital of the pillar at Sarnath is now used as the official crest of modern India, with the Wheel of the Law (Dharmachakra) on it (as at right) on the flag of India. Indeed, Ashoka is the most famous for converting to Buddhism and sending missionaries abroad. He was not the first Maurya to get religion late in life. Chadragupta himself is supposed to have renounced the throne, become a Jain monk, and eventually starved himself to death, in Jain fashion, in Bhadrabahu Cave in Karnataka.
Ashoka can be rather well dated because he sent letters to the contemporary Hellenistic monarchs, Antigonus II Gonatas (Antikini) of Macedonia , Antiochus II Theos (Anityoka) of the Seleucid Kingdom, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Turamaya) of Egypt, Alexander II (Alikasudara) of Eprius, and Magas (Maga) of Cyrene, urging them to convert to Buddhism themselves. Greek history contains no record of these requests. There is also an attested eclipse in 249 dated with a regal year date. Ashoka's reign is used to date the life of the Buddha, since tradition in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is that the Buddha died 218 years before Ashoka came to the throne. That would put his death in 487 BC, which is close to the generally used date. The Ceylonese chronology is sometimes questioned.
While the Mauryas are the beginning of historical India, a great deal had already been going on (like the life of the Buddha) that in a Greek or Chinese context we would expect to be within historical time. In traditional Indian terms, such events were already covered by the "Fifth Veda," the historical Epics of the Mahâbhârata and the Râmâyan.a. One reason for the lack of interest in history in Indian secular literature may have been the feeling that, as only eternity is significant and all other time is cyclical and repetitive, the Epics thus represent everything that can possibly happen in history. Our lack of knowledge of individual Indian philosophers from this early period, even though we possess much of an undoubted early date in the Upanis.ads, may also be due to the idea that such texts, as parts of the Vedas, were actually part of eternal revelation and were not originated by their authors.
| MACEDONIAN KINGS OF BACTRIA 256-c.55 BC |
|---|
| THE SAKAS, c.130 BC | |
|---|---|
| Maues | 97-58 BC |
| Vonones | |
| Spalyris | |
| Spalagademes | |
| Spalirises | |
| Azes I | c.30 BC |
| Azilises | |
| Azes II | |
| THE PARTHIANS/SUREN | |
| Pakores | |
| Orthagnes | |
| Gudnaphar (Gondophernes) | c.19-45 AD |
| Abdagases | |
| Sasas | |
| Arsaces Theos | |
| Nahapa | 119-124 AD |
| THE SAKA ERA, THE INDIAN HISTORICAL ERA | 79 AD |
|---|---|
| 2000 AD - 78 = 1922 Annô Sakidae | |
Simultaneously with the descent of Sakas into India, Parthians (Pahlavas) or Suren appear from the west, and some of them become established in India independent (or not) of the Parthian King. The Parthians spoke a "North-Western" Iranian language, though its origin was far south of the Scythians. The sources are sometimes confused about which Indian rulers are Sakas and which are Parthians, since they are never attested as which. Gudnaphar (Greek Gondophernes), who traditionally is supposed to have welcomed the Apostle Thomas to India, seems to have been Parthian. The legend of the mission of Thomas to India is now of renewed interest because of the discovery of the text of the Gospel of Thomas, one of the Gnostic Gospels, in Egypt in 1945.
| THE KUSHANS | |
|---|---|
| Kujula Kadphises | c.20 BC-c.30/64 AD |
| Wima/Welma Taktu | c.30-c.80 |
| Welma Kadphises | c.80-c.103 |
| Kanishka I | c.103-c.127 AD |
| Vasishka I | c.127-c.131 |
| Huvishka I | c.130-c.162 |
| Vasudeva I | c.162-c.200 |
| Kanishka II | c.200-c.220 |
| Vasishka II | c.220-c.230 |
| Kanishka III | c.230-c.240 |
| Vasudeva II | c.240-c.260 |
| Vasu | late 3rd century |
| Chhu | late 3rd century |
| Shaka | 3-4th century |
| Kipanada | 4th century |
, the "Moon Tribe." They seem to have been a group who moved far east on the steppe very early, speaking a language with many archaic features. By attacking the Hsiung-nu, 
, probably the later Huns, the Chinese of the Han Dynasty drove them back into the Yuèzhi, who then migrated (170 BC) into the Tarim Basin (the Lesser Yüeh-chih, 
) and Transoxania (the Greater Yüeh-chih, 
), areas which they dominated c.100 BC-300 AD. The language of the Lesser Yüeh-chih is attested in Buddhist texts in two dialects of Tocharian (A and B). The Greater Yüeh-chih, as the Kushans, followed other steppe people down into India. Some small uncertainty perisisted over the identification of the Yüeh-chih with the Kushans and the writers of Tocharian, but the debate over Tocharian seems to have been resolved with a positive identification. The recent discovery of well-preserved, European-looking mummies along the Silk Road serves to affirm the European and so Indo-European bona fides of the still illiterate (from a period long before Tocharian) local culture. Unfortunately, the Tocharian texts do not include historical works, which might have removed uncertainties and added an invaluable framework for understanding the area.Although the dates are still very uncertain, historical information in India is rather better than for the preceding period. Of special importance is King Kanishka, under whom the Fourth Great Buddhist Council is supposed to have been held, as the Third was under Ashoka. Kanishka is said to have been converted to Buddhism by the playwright Ashvaghosha. The earliest actual images of Buddhas and Boddhisattvas date from his reign. Also of interest are the Kushan royal titles, Maharaja Rajatiraja Devaputra Kushâna. Rajatiraja, "King of Kings," is very familiar from Middle Eastern history, since monarchs from the Assyrians to the Parthians had used it. Maharaja, "Great King," is very familiar from later India but at this early date betrays its Middle Eastern inspiration, since it was originally used by the Persian Kings. Devaputra, "Son of God," sounds like the Kushans claiming some sort of Christ-like status, which is always possible, 
but it may actually just be an Sanskrit version of a title of the Chinese Emperor, "Son of Heaven."
The Roman trading posts in Kushan India bespeak a great deal of trade and contact, about which we get the occasional notice in Greek and Roman writers, but which do not become a source of any extensive knowledge of India or its history recorded by either. Something else overlooked by Classical historians nevertheless turns up in Chinese history. That is, a Roman Embassy made its way by way of India by sea to the China of the Later Han Dynasty. It is recorded that in the year 166 AD (in the time of King Vasudeva I) an embassy arrived in Lo-Yang from a ruler of 
, "Great Ch'in," named Andun, which looks like a rendering of Antoninus. The year 166 was in the early days of Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus). Since we know, besides the presence of Romans in India, that there were well traveled sea routes to China (see the voyage of Fa-Hsien below), this Roman Embassy easily passes the test of credibility. It is a shame that such a project, like the letters written by Ashoka to Hellenistic monarchs, escaped the notice of Greek and Roman historians.
While the imperial maps here until 1701 are based on Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford University Press, 1989], the map for the Kushans is based on the The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume I [1974, Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, p.42], which now has been reissued in identical form as The Penguin Atlas of World History, Volume I [Penguin Books, 1978, 2003].
The rule of the Guptas was one of the classic ages of Indian history, for whose culture we have a rather full description by the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Fa-Hsien, who was in India between 399 and 414 (see map below), in the time of Chandra Gupta II. This was the last time that the North of India would be united by a culturally indigenous power. The Guptas patronized the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain religions equally. Consequently, they now become celebrated, like Ashoka and Akbar, as examplifying a modern liberal ideal of tolerance and enlightenment. 
This is anachronistic but not inappropriate as long as we realize the limitations of such an identification. The Indian monarchs, however relatively enlightened, were autocrats, and thus comparable less to liberal democracy than to "Enlightened Despots" like Frederick the Great of Prussia. Thus, their magnanimous patronage of religions certainly did not extend to the toleration of political opposition.
THE GUPTAS,  ,c.320-551 AD | |
|---|---|
| Gupta | 275-300 |
| Ghat.otkacha | 300-320 |
| Chandra Gupta I | 320-335 |
| Samudra Gupta | 335-370 |
| Rama Gupta ? | 370-375 |
| Chandra Gupta II | 375-415 |
| Kumâra Gupta I | 415-455 |
| Skanda Gupta | 455-467 |
| Kumâra Gupta II | 467-477 |
| Budha Gupta | 477-496 |
| Chandra Gupta III ? | 496-500 |
| Vainya Gupta | 500-515 |
| Narasimha Gupta | 510-530 |
| Kumâra Gupta III | 530-540 |
| Vishn.u Gupta | 540-551 |
("guarded, protected"), element in names of the Gupta dynasty is usually, but not always, written as a separate word. The Oxford Dynasties writes them together. Classical Sanskrit, of course, like Greek and Latin, ordinarily did not separate words at all.
One of the unique monuments of the Gupta dynasty is the Iron Pillar of Delhi, seen at right. This is a solid piece of wrought iron more than 22 feet tall. Delhi was not its original location, but exactly where that was and when or why the pillar was brought to Delhi is a matter of conjecture. The pillar is dedicated to Vishnu, but any other Hindu structures around it were demolished by the Sultâns of Delhi, who built the nearby Qutub Minar tower and the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque. Dating the pillar is also a matter of some uncertainty, since its inscription merely mentions a King named "Chandra." This is generally taken to mean Chandra Gupta II, reinforced by the evidence of the style and language of the pillar, in comparison to known art of the Guptas, like the coins of Chandra Gupta II. It is also sometimes said that the pillar was erected to commemorate Chandra Gupta by his successor Kumâra Gupta I. The Pillar, however, is such an extraordinary artifact that some people reject the mundane historical explanations and prefer that the object is much, much older, or even the work of extra-terrestrials. The Pillar does testify, however, to the sophistication of Indian iron work, of which there is much other evidence. The steel of the famous Damascus steel swords of the Middle Ages was actually manufactured and exported from India, with techniques that had been used for centuries. The Pillar, although not itself steel, does exhibit the technique that leaves it appearing to be a single piece of iron -- forge welding, where hot iron is hammered and fused together. This is the technique that produced the bars of steel that were exported.
The pilgrimage of Fa-Hsien (Faxian) is noteworthy for many things, but one feature in particular evident from the map is that the entire homeward leg of the journey was by sea. This reminds us of the sea routes that had been busy since the Greeks and extended all the way from Egypt to China. We frustratingly have little in the way of historical documents about this business, but when we do get an account, as with Fa-Hsien, we realize how routine the communication was.
Towards the end of the period, the Guptas began to experience inroads from the Huns (Huna), the next steppe people, whose appearance in Europe (it is supposed that these are the same people), of course, pressured German tribes to move into the Roman Empire. By 500, Huns controlled the Punjab and in short order extended their rule down the Ganges. They don't seem to have founded any sort of durable state and eventually suffered defeats. The Huns were the last non-Islamic steppe people to invade India.
| Vardhanas of Thanesar | |
|---|---|
| Naravardhana? | c. 500-? |
| Rajyavardhana I? | |
| Pushyabhûti | |
| Adityasena Vardhana | c.555-580 |
| Prabhakaravardhana | c.580-c.605 |
| nephew of Mahâsenagupta | |
| Rajyavardhana (II) | c.605-606 |
| Harsha Vardhana | 606-647 |
| The Later Guptas, of Magadha, c.550-700 AD | |
|---|---|
| Kumâragupta | c.550-560 |
| Dâmodaragupta | c.560-562 |
| Mahâsenagupta | c.562-601 |
| vassals of Kâlachuris, 595/6-c.601 | |
| Mâdhavagupta | c.601-655 |
| Âdityasena | c.655-680 |
| Devagupta | c.680-700 |
| overthrown by Yashovarman of Kanauj, 725-730 | |
Unfortunately, Cosmas was a bit of a crackpot who seemed just as concerned with proving, despite widely accepted evidence (recounted in detail by Aristotle), that the Earth was flat rather than spherical. Thus, we can imagine that Cosmas, whose book was the Christian Topography, was hostile to a round earth for much the same (religious) reasons that contemporary anti-Darwinians are hostile to Evolution.
Harsha enjoyed a long reign but, when he attempted to expand south into the Deccan, he was defeated by Pulakeshin II of Vâtâpi (or Badami). Subsequently, we get dynasties whose power occasionally spans the country, but none are able to secure hegemony for long.
Indian Buddhism, although patronized by Harsha, already seemed to be in decline to Hsüan-tsang, and some important Buddhist sites were already neglected or abandoned. Indeed, I think the contemporary development of Tantrism was obscuring the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism. It was also during this period that we begin to get identifiable individual Indian philosophers, like Shankara (c.780-820), from whom we have a classic formulation of the doctrine of the Vedanta School. With the period of the Classical Empires over, it is striking that only now do individuals appear in the light of history in Indian philosophy. There is speculation that Shankara already represents a reaction to the arrival of Islâm on the borders of India.
| the Deccan, the Carnatic, & Maharashtra | |
|---|---|
| Châlukyas of Vâtâpi | |
| Pulakeshin I | c.543-566 |
| Kîrtivarman I | c.567-597 |
| Mangalesha | c.597-609 |
| Pulakeshin II | c.609-642 |
| overthrows Kâlachuris, c.620; killed in battle by Narasimha Varman I of Pallava, 642; interregnum, 642-655; Arab attacks, 644 | |
| Vikramâditya I | 654/5-681 |
| Arab attacks, 677 | |
| Vinayâditya | c.680-696 |
| defeats Later Gupta Devagupta, 695 | |
| Vijayâditya | c.696-733/4 |
| Vikramâditya II | c.733-744/5 |
| defeat and explusion of Arabs from India, 737 | |
| Kirtivarman II | 744/5-753 |
| Râs.t.rakût.as of Ellora & Malkhed | |
| Dantidurga | c.735-744 |
| Krishna I | c.755-772 |
| Dhruva Dhârâvarsha | c.780-793 |
| defeats Gangetic powers but abandons North | |
| Govinda III | c.793-814 |
| occupies North again, height of Râs.t.rakût.a power | |
| Amoghavarsha | c.814-880 |
| Krishna II | c.878-914 |
| Indra III | c.914-928 |
| Amoghavarsha II | c.928-929 |
| Govinda IV | c.930-935 |
| Amoghavarsha III | c.936-939 |
| Krishna III | c.939-967 |
| Khot.t.iga | c.967-972 |
| Karkka II (Amoghhavarsha IV) | c.972-973 |
| Châlukyas of Kalyân.î | |
| Taila II Ahavamalla | 973-997 |
| Satyasraya Irivabedanga | 997-1008 |
| invasions of Mahmud of Ghaza, 1001-1024 | |
| Vikramaditya I | 1008-1014 |
| Ayyana | 1014-1015 |
| Jayasimha | 1015-1042 |
| Somesvara I | 1042-1068 |
| Somesvara II | 1068-1076 |
| Vikramaditya II | 1076-1127 |
| Somesvara III | 1127-1138 |
| Jagadekamalla | 1138-1151 |
| Tailapa | 1151-1156 |
| Kâlachuris | |
| Bijjala | 1156-1168 |
| Somesvara | 1168-1177 |
| Sankama | 1177-1180 |
| Ahavamalla | 1180-1183 |
| Singhana | 1183-1184 |
| Châlukyas | |
| Somesvara IV | 1184-1200 |
| Yâdavas | |
| Singhana | 1200-1247 |
| Krishna | 1247-1261 |
| Mahadeva | 1261-1271 |
| Amana | 1271 |
| Ramachandra | 1271-1311 |
| Sankaradeva | 1311-1313 |
| Harapaladeva | 1313-1317 |
| To Delhi, 1317-1336; then Vijayanagar, 1336 | |
Initial invasions by the Arab Ommayad Caliphs, starting in 644, were repulsed by 737, after episodes of the Arabs slaughtering local populations or deporting them as slaves. The following period, then, is the calm before the full force of Islâm burst on the country with the invasions of Mah.mûd of Ghazna, from 1001 to 1024. While Shankara's views were later criticized as too influenced by Buddhism, they are more faithful to the Upanishads than the theism of the critics, who themselves seem increasingly influenced by the monotheism of Islâm. There also appears to be a decisive influence from Islâm on Indian dress. 
While in Classical India women are typically shown bare breasted, as at left, the rigors of the Middle Eastern nudity taboo came into full force in modern India, at least for women. I am not aware just when this transition occurs. By the 19th century Krishna's lover Radha is shown in a full shoulder to floor woven dress. Someone could easily chronicle the transition by cataloguing such sculpture and portraiture.
My source for the list of the rulers from the fall of the Guptas (551) to the dominance of the Sultanate of Delhi (1211), beginning with the line of the Châlukyas, was originally from Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. I took details of the period from Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford, 2000, pp.95-103]. There was clearly uncertainty about the dates, since Wolpert has Krishna I Râs.t.rakût.a, patron of the remarkable Kailasanatha temple to Shiva, reigning 756-775, while Gordon has 768-783. This is, of course, not too surprising, given the problems with Indian historiography. Now, however, I have found a much more thorough treatment of the period in Ronald M. Davidson's Indian Esoteric Buddhism, A Social History of the Tantric Movement [Columbia University Press, 2002], which has an extensive summary of the whole period [pp.25-62], with maps and lists of many of the rulers. Here we find Krishna I with the dates c.755-772, in much closer agreement with Wolpert, but still, of course, residual uncertainties.
| Kârkot.as of Kashmir | |
|---|---|
| Candrâpîd.a | c.711-720 |
| asks for alliance with China, 713 | |
| Târâpîd.a | c.720-725 |
| Lalitâditya Muktâpîd.a | c.725-756 |
| overthrows Yashovarman of Kanauj, 733; secures Ganges Valley, 747; dies in Tarim Basin | |
| Kuvalayâpîd.a | ? |
| Vajrâditya | ? |
| Prthivyâpîd.a | ? |
| Samgrâmâpîd.a | ? |
| Jayâpîd.a Vinayâdirya | c.779-810 |
Pulakeshin II ruled from the Deccan Plateau, which now emerges as a force that often intrudes into the North of India. Wolpert [p.101] introduces the subject by mentioning the territory of Mahârâshtra ("Great country"). We are left with the implication that the Châlukya Dynasty, which ruled the area, was of Maharashtran origin. However, Wolpert also mentions that the Châlukya capital was Badami (Davidson says Vâtâpi), "just south of the River Krishna." This is not in the modern state of Mahârâshtra, but in Karnâtaka. These modern states are drawn with linguistic boundaries. The language of Maharashtra is Marathi, while that of Karnataka is Kannada (or Kanarese). As it happens, the inscriptions of the Vâtâpi Châlukyas are in Kannada, and a correspondent drew my attention to the problem that it would be a confusion to associate them with Maharashtra or the Marathas. On the other hand, as Davidson notes, the meaning of expressions like "Maharashtra" was previously rather vague had more to do with geography than with language. Wolpert was continuing to reflect that circumstance.
| The Gurjara-Pratîhâras of Ujjain & Dantidurga | |
|---|---|
| Nâgabhat.a I | c.725-760 |
| helps defeat Arabs, 725 | |
| Devarâja | c.750-? |
| Vatsarâja | ?-c.790 |
| Nâgabhat.a II | c.790-833 |
| occupies Kanauj and middle Ganges, 815 | |
| Râmabhadra | c.833-836 |
| Mihira Bhoja | c.836-885 |
| Mahendrapâla I | c.890-910 |
| Mahîpâla | c.910-? |
| Bhoja II | ?-914 |
| Vinâyakapâla I | c.930-945 |
| Mahendrapâla II | c.945-950 |
| Vinâyakapâla II | c.950-959 |
| Vijayapâla | c.960-1018 |
| invasions of Mahmud of Ghaza, 1001-1024 | |
| Râjyapâla | c.1018-1019 |
| Trilocanapâla | c.1019-1017 |
| Mahendrapâla III | ? |
More importantly, the history of India in this period is not the national history of linguistic communities. It is dynastic history, and dynasties like the Châlukya were much more interested in territory, anywhere, than in national origins, homelands, or languages. Thus, Châlukyas ruled elsewhere, without much regard for the local language, with branches of the dynasty in what is now Andhra Pradesh (Telugu speakers) and Gujarat (Gujarati). When the Vâtâpi Châlukyas were overthrown by their vassals, the Râs.t.rakût.as of Ellora, this was a dynasty definitely seated in a Marathi speaking area of Maharashtra, though they subsequently moved their capital to Malkhed, virtually at the border between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The Râs.t.rakût.as were in time displaced by a branch of the Châlukyas again, who in turn fell to the Kâlachuris, a dynasty from a region in modern Madhya Pradesh that now speaks Hindi. Thus, the language of their domain was not nearly as important to all these rulers as the possession of dominion.
As the Châlukyas moved, they could also take a geographical name with them. The British rendering of "Karnataka" was as the "Carnatic" (much like the word in Hindi, where a short final "a" would not be pronounced). The name "Carnatic" migrated south and south-east, with the movements of the Châlukya dynasts. On the Bay of Bengal, the Eastern Châlukyas became established, and we also find the name "Carnatic" applied there. That eastern "Carnatic" then also came to be associated with the large Vijayanagara realm, which straddled the modern states of Karnataka, Tamil Nâdu (the language is Tamil), and Andhra Pradesh. Thus, on old maps of India, the name "Carnatic" can sometimes be found adjacent to the west coast, and on others along the south-eastern coast. The name disappeared altogether for a while between Maharashtra to the north and the later state of Mysore to the south. The modern Indian state of Karantaka was originally itself called "Mysore," but this was changed in 1973 to "Karnâtaka" to reflect its linguistic character.
Pulakeshin II, who was also visited by Hsüan-tsang, declared himself "Lord of the Eastern and Western Waters." Although the Châlukyas never united the north or dominated the country like the Guptas or Harsha, they would appear there, and I have focused on them and their successors as the best sequence to span the period down to the Sult.âns of Delhi. There were many other states of similar size and power during this era, several often called "Empires." Now I include lists for Kashmir and for the Gurjara-Pratîhâras, whose realm centered on Ujjain in the western part of the modern Madhya Pradesh. All of these states contended at one time or another for the Ganges Valley and thus were candidates for achieving a North Indian hegemony. Their successes proved only temporary, often because of rebellions in their rear.
The Châlukya dynasty suffered a severe reverse when Pulakeshin II was killed in battle by Narasimha Varman I of Pallava, and Vâtâpi occupied. After reestablishing themselves, they most importantly planted cadet lines in the East and in Gujarat, which would eventually provide for the restoration of the dynasty.
| Chola Kingdom | |
|---|---|
| Vijayalaya | c. 846-c. 871 |
| Asitya I | c. 871-907 |
| Parantaka | 907-947 |
| Rajaditya I | 947-949 |
| Gandaraditya | 949-956 |
| Arinjaya | 956 |
| Parantaka II | 956 |
| Aditya II | 956-969 |
| Madhurantaka Uttama | 969-985 |
| Rajaraja I Deva the Great | 985-1012 |
| Conquest of Ceylon, 993 | |
| Rajendra I Choladeva | 1012-1044 |
| Rajadhiraja I | 1044-1052 |
| Rajendra II Deva | 1052-1060 |
| Ramamahendra | 1060-1063 |
| Virarajendra | 1063-1067 |
| Adhirajendra | 1067-1070 |
| Rajendra III | 1070-1122 |
| Vikrama Chola | 1122-1135 |
| Kulottunga II Chola | 1135-1150 |
| Rajraja II | 1150-1173 |
| Rajadhiraja II | 1173-1179 |
| Kulottunga III | 1179-1218 |
| Rajaraja III | 1218-1246 |
| Rajendra IV | 1246-1279 |
| Overthrown by Delhi, 1279 | |
One of the "Empires" of the period was the Kingdom of Chola. As it happens, this is a realm in origin and history with a decidedly linguistic basis, in the Tamil language of modern Tamil Nâdu. The Chola Kings cultivated Tamil literature and are remembered as heroic patrons of Tamil power, learning, and religion. Chola is in the competition as an "Empire" because of it spread north, briefly all the way to the mouths of the Ganges, and, most strikingly, by its projection beyond the sea, initiated by King Rajaraja I Deva, whose name has the decidedly Imperial ring of "King of Kings, god." With grave portent for future history, the first such projection of Chola power was into Ceylon. Tamils had settled in Ceylon and briefly ruled there already, and even the Chola occupation was relatively short lived, but it all contributed to a durable Tamil ethnic presence that, in the modern day, exploded into a vicious and protracted civil war, whose appalling course and sobering lessons are examined elsewhere.
Of dramatic course and great portent in its own way is the other projection of Chola power, which was across the sea of the Bay of Bengal, through isolated land such as the Andaman Islands, all the way to Sumatra, Malaya, and the trade route of the Straits between those Indonesian islands. It is hard to know how much of the area was actually occupied and ruled. Some maps (optimisticly or nationalisticly) show a Chola domain over entire islands like Sumatra and over the entire peninsula of Malaya. Other maps (more realistically) show a Chola presence along the coastlines. In whichever form, this is the first example we know of an incursion that will be significantly mirrored in later history. Four hundred years after the Chola presence, the Chinese would arrive in the Straits from the opposite direction and initiate what was probably much the same kind of process, finally arriving themselves at Ceylon and the coast of Tamil Nâdu. As we will see below, this did not last long. Not long after the Chinese left, however, the Portuguese arrived from across the Indian Ocean, themselves occupied Ceylon and areas on the mainland of India, and then followed in the wake of the Chola voyagers into Indonesia. This produces occupations of considerable extent and duration, though mostly consumated by the Dutch and the British who replaced the Portuguese. The Chola "Empire" thus pioneers the colonial history of Indonesia -- though the hiatus between the Chola presence and the arrival of the Chinese will see a heavy Islamicization, by influence of trade alone, of the area.
Chola was finally broken up by the Sultanate of Delhi, which, however, was unable to retain a dominant position in the south. Thus, the small kingdom of Madura became the successor state at the southern tip of India, while the larger kingdom of Vijayanagar came to dominate much of the South, including the old metropolis Chola, Gangaikondacolapuram.
The map shows the aggressive powers of the 11th century in India. In the South, Chola looks on its way to making the Bay of Bengal into a Cholan lake, but apparently it never does have much success on the coast of Burma, where Pagan has grown into a powerful kingdom with its own brilliant civilization. The darker green in the image shows the conquests of Rajendra I, the son of Rajaraja I.
Otherwise, what we see is the domain of the conqueror Mah.mud of Ghazna. He began raiding into India in the year 1001 (enough to warm the heart of any ordinalist). Eventually he established a presence in the Punjab, but he also continued raiding deeper into India, usually with the aim of plunder, to be sure, but practiced with particular relish in the sacking of Hindu and Jain temples. This allowed for the particuarly Islamic diversion of smashing idols -- where in most Islamic conquests, in Christian and Persian lands, there had actually been few to smash. This set a poor precedent in the area, since in recent years the savage vandals of the Tâlibân regime in Afghanistan determined to smash all the Buddhist art in the Kabul Museum and that present around the country on cliff-face sculpture, including two great cliff carved Buddhas in Bamian province, 175 and 120 feet tall. This certainly represents the worst of Islamic Fascism. Given the fury of his own attacks, Mah.mud's treatment of the Hindu population was actually more conciliatory than one might expect, and it laid the groundwork, once the smashing was finished, for durable Islamic regimes in India.
A curious linguistic issue arises when we deal with Mah.mud. The name of the city of Ghazna, 
, is written in the Arabic alphabet with the letter "y" at the end. Ordinarily, this would indicate the long vowel "î"; but sometimes in Arabic, and originally in this case, the "y" is pronounced as the vowel "a." This is called alif maqs.ura and occurs in some very common words in Arabic.
| Râjâs of Mysore | |
|---|---|
| Ballala I | 1100-1110 |
| Vishnuvardhana | 1110-1152 |
| Narasimha I | 1152-1173 |
| Ballala II | 1173-1220 |
| Narasimha II | 1220-1238 |
| Somesvara | 1233-1267 |
| Narasimha III | 1254-1292 |
| Ballala III | 1291-1342 |
| Vijayanagara rule after 1336 | |
| Virupaksha Ballala IV | 1342-1346 |
| Vacant, 1346-1399 | |
| Wadiyar, Wodeyar Dynasty | |
| Yadu Raya | 1399-1423 |
| Hiriya Bettada Chamaraja I | 1423-1459 |
| Timmaraja I | 1459-1478 |
| Hiriya Chamaraja II | 1478-1513 |
| Hiriya Bettada Chamaraja III | 1513-1553 |
| Timmaraja II | 1553-1572 |
| Vijayanagara broken up by Moghuls, 1565 | |
| Bola Chamaraja IV | 1572-1576 |
| Bettada Devaraja | 1576-1578 |
| Raja Wadiyar | 1578-1617 |
| Chamaraja V | 1617-1637 |
| Immadi Raja | 1637-1638 |
| effective independence, 1637 | |
| Kanthirava Narasaraja I | 1638-1659 |
| Kempa Devaraja | 1659-1673 |
| Chikkadevaraja | 1673-1704 |
| Kanthirava Narasaraja II | 1704-1714 |
| Krishnaraja I | 1714-1732 |
| Chamaraja VI | 1732-1734 |
| Krishnaraja II | 1734-1766 |
| Muslim H.aydarids | |
| H.aydar 'Alî Khân Bahâdur | 1762-1782 |
| First Anglo-Mysore War, 1766-1769; Second Anglo-Mysore War, 1780-1784 | |
| Wodeyar figureheads for H.aydarids | |
| Nanjaraja | 1766-1770 |
| Bettada Chamaraja VII | 1770-1776 |
| Khasa Chamaraja VIII | 1776-1796 |
| Tîpû Sult.ân | 1782-1799 |
| Third Anglo-Mysore War, 1789-1792; Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, 1798-1799 | |
| restoration of the Wodeyars | |
| Krishnaraja III | 1799-1831 |
| British rule, 1831-1881 | |
| Chamaraja IX | 1881-1894 |
| Krishnaraja IV | 1894-1940 |
| Jayachama- rajendra Bahadur | 1940-1949 |
| Annexation to India, 1947 | |
, and, consequently, alif maqs.ura tends to end up getting read in the more obvious way, as a long "î." Eventually this happened with Ghazna, which today is locally pronounced "Ghaznî," which would have been written 
in Arabic. Thus, sources whose focus is more on India and less on Islam or on Arabic, tend to project the modern, Persian pronunciation back on the figure who therefore tends to get called "Mah.mud of Ghaznî." It is instructive to know why this variation occurs.
| SULT.ÂNS OF DELHI (DILHÎ) | |
|---|---|
| Mu'izzî or Shamsî Slave Kings | |
| Aybak Qut.b adDîn | Malik in Lahore for Ghûrids, 1206-1210 |
| Ârâm Shâh | 1210-1211 |
| Iltutmish Shams adDîn | Sult.ân in Delhi, 1211-1236 |
| Fîrûz Shâh I | 1236 |
| Rad.iyya Begum | Sult.âna, 1236-1240 |
| Bahrâm Shâh | 1240-1242 |
| Mas'ûd Shâh | 1242-1246 |
| Mah.mud Shâh I | 1246-1266 |
| Balban Ulugh Khân | viceroy since 1246 |
| 1266-1287 | |
| Kay Qubâdh | 1287-1290 |
| Kayûmarth | 1290 |
| Khaljîs | |
| Fîrûz Shâh II Khaljî | 1290-1296 |
| Ibrâhîm Shâh I Qadïr Khân | 1296 |
| Muh.ammad Shâh I 'Alî Garshâsp | 1296-1316 |
| 'Umar Shâh | 1316 |
| Mubârak Shâh | 1316-1320 |
| Khusraw Khân Barwârî | 1320 |
| Tughluqids | |
| Tughluq Shâh I | 1320-1325 |
| Muh.ammad Shâh II | 1325-1351 |
| Fîrûz Shâh III | 1351-1388 |
| Tughluq Shâh II | 1388-1389 |
| Abû Bakr Shâh | 1389-1391 |
| Muh.ammad Shâh III | 1389-1394 |
| Sikandar Shâh I | 1394 |
| Mah.mûd Shâh II | 1394-1395, 1401-1412 |
| Nus.rat Shâh | 1395-1399 |
| Dawlat Khân Lôdî | 1412-1414 |
| Sayyids | |
| Khid.r Khân | 1414-1421 |
| Mubârak Shâh II | 1421-1434 |
| Muh.ammad Shâh IV | 1434-1443 |
| 'Âlam Shâh | 1443-1451 |
| Lôdîs | |
| Bahlûl | 1451-1489 |
| Sikandar II Niz.âm Khân | 1489-1517 |
| Ibrâhîm II | 1517-1526 |
| Moghul Rule, 1526-1540 | |
| Sûrîs | |
| Shîr Shâh Sûr | 1540-1545 |
| Islâm Shâh Sûr | 1545-1554 |
| Muh.ammad V Mubâriz Khân | 1554 |
| Ibrâhîm III Khân | 1554-1555 |
| Ah.mad Khân Sikandar Shâh III | 1555 |
The consequences of the Islâmic conquest of India can hardly be underestimated. Up to a quarter of all Indians ended up converting to Islâm. Buddhism disappeared. Some of the greatest monuments of Indian architecture, like the Taj Mahal, really reflect Persian and Central Asian civilization rather than Indian. Indian Moslems became accustomed, as was their right under Islâmic Law, to be ruled by a Moslem power. In practical terms, that meant that they did not want to be ruled by Hindus, when and if India should become independent. Today, the separation of Pakistan and Bangladesh from the Republic of India, with ongoing strife between them, and the occasional riot between Hindus and Moslems in India itself, are all the result of this.
Mysore (Mahisur, Maysûr, Mahishûru, Mysuru) began as a dependancy of the rulers of the Deccan to the North. In 1100, in the days of the Châlukyas of Kalyân.î, Mysore became independent under the dynasty that had been in place since the 6th or 7th century. However, after the passage of the Sultâns of Delhi, Mysore then became a dependency of the Vijayanagara kingdom that was established in 1336. The Wodeyar Dynasty was a cadet line of Vijayanagara. The subordination of Mysore was broken up after Vijayanagara was defeated by the Moghuls in 1565. Moghul rule, such as it was, seems to have ebbed and flowed in presence and affectiveness. The domination by Aurangzeb was certainly a brief one, after which Mysore was independent.
Mysore lost its traditional Hindu rule and became a center of conflict when its own general, H.aydar Alî, who had defeated the Marathans, seized power in his own right. The Râjâs were retained as figureheads until deposed in 1796 by H.aydar's son, the celebrated Tîpû. The rule of these Muslim warriors quickly led to repeated conflict with the British. H.aydar Alî became an active ally of the French in the War of American Independence, 1778-1783 (the Second Anglo-Mysore War, 1780-1784), but his invasion of Madras, with some French troops, was defeated. However, after his death (1782), Tîpû crushed a British force of 2000, killing 500 and taking the rest prisoner. This made him the "Tiger of Mysore." Tîpû amused himself with a six-foot long mechanical figure of a tiger gnawing at the throat of an Englishman and snarling at the turn of a crank.
Continuing with the enemies of his enemy, Tîpû entered into relations with Revolutionary France, whose rationalists, deists, and atheists curiously found a kindred spirit in a fanatical and tyrannical Muslim -- a dynamic we may see today in the affinity of the Left for Islamic Fascism. When Napoleon landed in Egypt in 1798, it looked like help might be on the way; but there really wasn't much that the French Republic could do for "Citizen Tipu." The British whittled away at Tîpû's realm until he was killed in 1799. The Wodeyar Râjâs were restored, doubtless with some relief to Hindus who had undergone forced conversion and circumcision by Tîpû.
On the map of India in 1236, the Sult.ânate of Delhi has completed its conquest of the North of India, all the way down the Ganges to the Bay of Bengal. Although the fortunes of the state will vary, this area will generally be preserved until the coming of the Moghuls.
This map is based on Stanley Wolpert [op.cit.]; but the following map, and those of Harsha and of Chola above, are based on maps in The Harper Atlas of World History [Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Editor, Jacques Bertin, Cartographer, Harper & Row, New York, 1986, p.117]. In assembly information for the maps on this page, this is the only source I have that shows Chola or the Sult.ânate at its high water mark.
On the map for 1335, we see the Sult.ânate of Delhi astride the whole Sub-Continent. This is the largest Indian state in a long time, if not the largest ever. But it will not last long.
The following map below, for 1350, indicates the kingdoms in the South that are the result of the earlier states (like Maharashtra and Chola) being broken up by Delhi, which, then unable to remain dominant in the area, was driven out.
We also see the routes travelled by Zheng He, the Chinese admiral who led seven great voyages of exploration, trade, and military intervention during the early days of the Ming Dynasty, from 1405 to 1433. The military intervention became less a factor the further West we get. It was intense in Indonesia, where considerable battles were fought and kings were made -- or sent back to China for execution. A Chinese base was established and fortified at Malacca. In Ceylon, we still get some intervention, with King Vira Alakeshvara of Raigama (1397-1411) captured and sent back to China. But the Emperor apologized for this, and returned the King to Ceylon (though not, apparently, to his throne). Further West, trade and embassies seem to have been the rule. All this stopped abruptly in 1433, as China withdrew from foreign contact. When the Portuguese arrived in 1498, the Chinese were long gone.
| Vijayanagar | |
|---|---|
| SANGAMA | |
| Harihara I | 1336-1356 |
| Bukka I | 1356-1377 |
| Harihara II | 1377-1404 |
| Virupaksha I | 1404-1405 |
| Bukka II | 1405-1406 |
| Devaraya I | 1406-1422 |
| Rama- chandra | 1422-1430 |
| Vira Vijaya I Bukka Raya | 1422-1424 |
| Devaraya II | 1424-1446 |
| Vijaya II | 1446-1447 |
| Mallikarjuna | 1446-1465 |
| Virupaksha II | 1465-1485 |
| Praudha Raya | 1485 |
| SALUVA | |
| Narasimha- devaraya | 1485-1490 |
| Thimma Bhupala | 1490-1491 |
| Immadi Narasimha | 1491-1505 |
| TULUVA | |
| Vira Narasimha | 1505-1509 |
| Krishna- devaraya | 1509-1529/30 |
| Achyota- devaraya | 1529/30-1542 |
| Venkata | 1542 |
| Sadashi- varaya | 1542-1565 |
| disrupted by Moghuls, 1565 | |
| ARAVIDU | |
| Tirumala Devaraya | 1565-1572 |
| Sriranga I Devaraya | 1572-1586 |
| Venkatapati I Devaraya | 1586-1614 |
| Sriranga II Raya | 1614 |
| vacant | |
| Rama- devaraya | 1617-1632 |
| Venkatapati Raya | 1632-1642 |
| Sriranga III Raya | 1642-1646 |
| Venkatapati II Raya | 1646-c.1660 |
The kingdom of Vijayanagar, based in the area of Kannada speakers again (stretching East in Telugu speaking country), originates in revolt against the Sult.ânate of Delhi, which only briefly dominated the South, but nevertheless broke up the older powers in the area. Vijayanagar reestablishes local independence. It will continue dominant until the arrival of the Moghuls. We do not, however, see a simple conquest any cleaner than what Delhi had managed to accomplish in the same area. In 1565, Akbar defeated and disrupted the power of the state, but the result was not Moghul occupation. Instead, a cadet line of Vijayanagar at Mysore begins to overshadow its parent state, as recounted above and shown on the maps below. By the time Aurangzeb returned to briefly conquer the area, Vijayanagar had faded away. In 1646 the capital itself was seized by the Sult.âns of Bijapur and Golkonda. The last king, Venkatapati II, was thus himself an exile in some small fragment of the former kingdom.
Sikhism, from Pâli sikkha (Sanskrit shis.ya), "follower," was a new religion, founded in the days of the Sult.ânate of Delhi, that attempted to reconcile and replace Hinduism and Islâm. Although there are some 18 million Sikhs today, this never made much of a dent in the numbers of Hindus or Moslems, and long earned the Sikhs little but hostility from both. After the Fifth Gurû ("Teacher") was executed by the Moghuls, the Sixth rejected Moghul authority and was forced to flee to the mountains. When the Ninth Gurû was later again executed by the Moghuls, the Tenth, Gobind Râi, took things a step further by transforming the community into an army, the Khâlsâ, "Pure."
| Sikh Gurûs | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nânak | 1469-1539 |
| 2 | An.gad | 1539-1552 |
| 3 | Amar Dâs | 1552-1574 |
| 4 | Râm Dâs Sod.hi | 1574-1581 |
| 5 | Arjun Mal | 1581-1606 |
| 6 | Hargobind | 1606-1644 |
| 7 | Har Râi | 1644-1661 |
| 8 | Hari Krishen | 1661-1664 |
| 9 | Tegh Bahâdur | 1664-1675 |
| 10 | Gobind Râi Singh | 1675-1708 |
| Khâlsâ, 1699 | ||
| Bandâ Singh Bahâdur | 1708-1716 | |
| Khâlsâ Râj, Punjab, 1761 | ||
| Ranjît Singh | 1780-1839 | |
| Kharak Singh | 1839-1840 | |
| Nao Nehal Singh | 1840 | |
Chand Kaur  | 1840-1841 | |
| Sher Singh | 1841-1843 | |
| Duleep Singh | 1843-1849, d. 1893 | |
| First Sikh War, 1845-1846; Second Sikh War, 1848-1849; annexed by British, 1849 | ||
At first this transformation did not seem to improve things much. Gobind Singh and his temporal successor, Bandâ Singh Bahâdur, both died violent deaths, and the community fragmented. But with the decline of Moghul power, opportunity knocked. The Khâlsâ was soon again unified and installed in Lahore, under Ranjît Singh, who became Mahârâjâ of the Punjab. Henceforth the Sikhs, although never more than a minority, were the greatest military power in northern India. The death of Ranjît, however, led to a chaotic succession and conflict among his heirs. Two sharp wars with the British led to the annexation of the Punjab, after which Sikh warlike ambitions could be directed through membership in the British Indian Army, where the Sikhs stood out with their characteristic turbans and beards.
In modern India a movement began for Sikh independence from India, with the Indian Punjab becoming Khâlistân. Led by Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrânwale, this led to a catastrophic showdown in 1984 when the Golden Temple in Armitsar, the fortified center of the Sikh Faith, was stormed by the Indian Army, and Bhindrânwale killed. When Prime Minister Indria Gandhi was assassinated later the same year by Sikh bodyguards, few doubted that this was an act of revenge. Sikh nationalism continues to trouble India.
 MOGHUL EMPERORS | |
|---|---|
| Great Moghuls | |
| Bâbur | 1498-1500, 1500-1501 in Transoxania |
| 1526-1530 | |
| Humâyûn | 1530-1540, 1555-1556 |
| Akbar I | 1556-1605 |
| Jahângîr | 1605-1627 |
| Dâwar Bakhsh | 1627-1628 |
| Shâh Jahân I Khusraw | 1628-1657, d. 1666 |
| Awrangzîb 'Âlamgîr I | 1658-1707 |
| Shâh 'Âlam I Bahâdur | 1707-1712 |
| Jahândâr Mu'izz adDîn | 1712-1713 |
| Farrukh-siyar | 1713-1719 |
| Shams adDîn Râfi' adDarajât | 1719 |
| Shâh Jahân II Râfi' adDawla | 1719 |
| Nîkû-siyar Muh.ammad | 1719 |
| Muh.ammad Shâh Nâs.ir adDîn | 1719-1748 |
| Looting of Delhi by Nâdir Shâh, 1739 | |
| Ah.mad Bahâdur Shâh I | 1748-1754 |
| 'Azîz adDîn 'Âlamgîr II | 1754-1759 |
| Shâh Jahân III | 1759 |
| Shâh 'Âlam II | 1759-1788, 1788-1806 |
| Diwani of Bengal granted to East India Company, 1765; Marathans eject Afghans from Delhi, 1770 | |
| Bîdâr-bakht | 1788 |
| Mu'în adDîn Akbar II | 1806-1837 |
| Moghul authority replaced by Britain, 1827; English replaces Persian, 1828; Suttee illegal, 1829; suppression of Thugee launched, 1836 | |
| Sirâj adDîn Bahâdur Shâh II | 1837-1858, d.1862 |
| Great Sepoy Mutiny, 1857-1858; British Rule, 1858-1947 | |
, is Persian (Mughûl in Arabic) for "Mongol" -- although the Moghuls were rather more Turkish than Mongol. An alternative pronunciation in Persian is Moghol, which, with a different final vowel, would give a Hindi-Urdu pronunciation of Mughal -- written 
in Urdu, 
in Hindi -- which now tends to be used by historians. However, Persian was the Court language of the Moghuls themselves. "Mughal" would be strange to them, as Hindi-Urdu, or Hindustani, was simply the language that ended up adopted as the language of their army -- as it remained the language of command in the British Indian Army. It has gone on, of course, to be the principal language of India, although it is used as a first language mainly in the North.
Pretensions to universal rule, which figure in Indian mythology, in Persian imperial tradition, and in the titles of earlier Indian rulers, are reflected in many of the actual names of Moghul emperors. "Akbar" in Arabic is "Greatest." "Jahângir" in Persian means to "seize" (gir) the "world" (jahân). "Shâh Jahân" is also Persian for "World King." "'Âlamgir" and "Shah 'Âlam" both simply substitute the Arabic word for "world," 'âlam, for the Persian word. As the Moghul state decays in the 18th century, of course, these names and pretentions become increasingly farcical.
Almost from the first, Moghul policy was to tolerate and win the cooperation of Hindus, especially the warriors of Rajasthan. With Akbar this approached a policy of positive toleration and religious syncretism, which earned Akbar the disfavor of Moslem clerics but, like Ashoka, the esteem of modern liberal opinion. Akbar even toyed with the idea of a universal syncretistic religion, to be called the Din-e Allâh, the "Religion of God." This was rather like what the Sikhs has originally been trying to do. But while Hinduism was always open to various kinds of syncretism, Islâm certainly was not.
Even the most basic elements of Moghul policy, however, were reversed by the fanatical Awrangzîb (or Aurangzeb), who briefly brought the Empire to its greatest extent but whose measures against Hindus and Sikhs (the execution of the ninth Sikh Gurû) fatally weakened the state. Non-Moslems no longer had any reason to support the Moghuls, and in short order the Empire was only a shell of its former strength and vigor, with the Persians sacking Delhi itself (1739), under the Emperor, Muh.ammad Shâh, who had done somewhat well at maintaining things.
Henceforth, the shell of Moghul authority would stand just until a new conquering power would appear. After a surge of French influence under their brilliant governor Joseph Dupleix (d.1763), that turned out to be the British, who, however, only gradually conceived the notion of actually replacing nominal Moghul authority with an explicit British Dominion in India. Although the last Moghul was deposed in 1858, the full process was not complete until Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of Indian in 1876. The British Râj would then last exactly 71 more years -- testimony to the rapidity of modern events after the 332 years of the Moghuls. How durable the British heritage will be is a good question. The form of government in India, which has in general remained democratic, is far more British than that of other former British possessions. And English, with its own distinctive Indian accent and vocabulary, remains the only official language of the country that does not provoke communal conflict.
The maps of Moghul India begin to feature European colonial possessions. Portugal is first, and for a good while they have the scene to themselves. Goa is the center of the operation, which then would extend all the way to China and Japan. St. Francis Xavier (d.1552) entered Japan and learned Japanese, and his reportedly incorrupt body is now still enshrined at Goa. Although nearly lost among the billion people of India, a fair number of Catholics survive from Portuguese missionary activity, often with Portuguese names, like D'Souza. Famous Portuguese missionaries in China, like Matteo Ricci (d.1610), also passed through Goa. The Kingdom of Kandy in Ceylon came to be in a rebellion against the Portuguese (1590) and then would survive in the mountains all through the Dutch tenure on the island, until the British took over (1815).
Until this point the maps of Imperial domains in India are based on Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford University Press, 1989]. Now, however, they are largely based on the The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume I [1974, Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor] and Volume II [1978], and the Historical Atlas of the World [Barnes & Noble, 1972].
A century after Akbar, as the Moghul Empire totters a moment before falling, things are getting a bit crowded, with Britain, the Dutch, the French, and even the Danes piling on. One of the earliest British toeholds was Bombay, which was actually a gift from Portugal in the dowry of Catherine of Braganza when she married Charles II of England in 1664. In 1701, it looks like the Dutch have the strongest hold, but as the 18th century progressed, and the Moghul domain crumbled, France and Britain would become the principal rivals for hegemony.
The genealogy of the Moghuls is entirely from The New Islamic Dynasties, by Clifford Edmund Bosworth [Edinburgh University Press, 1996]. Some brief reigns given by Bosworth, which are so ephemeral as not to figure in most lists of the Moghuls, including the table above, are marked as "disputed." Otherwise, the title, Pâdishâh, "Emperor," and an imperial crown are given. The most memorable monument of the Moghuls is the Tâj Mahal, "Crown Palace." Shâh Jahân built this mausoleum in tribute to his favorite wife, Mumtâz-i-Mahal, "Select of the Palace" (in Persian, this would be pronounced Momtâz-e-Mahal -- mumtâz is Arabic [root myz] and can mean "distinguished," "exquisite," "select," "excellent," etc.), the mother of Aurangzeb. He lies there now with her, but his reign did not end well. He became ill and his sons then fell out among themselves, until Aurangzeb, the last of the Great Moghuls, gained control -- and imprisoned Shâh Jahân for the rest of his life. One might say that Aurangzeb ruled with such force that the Empire shattered in his hands. For a good while, as the realm broke up, the Throne was passed between brothers and cousins. Some stability was achieved when it no longer made much difference. The last, aging Moghul, Bahâdur Shâh II, threw his lot with the Mutineers and was deposed by the British.
| Maratha (Mahratta) Confederacy/Empire | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Chattrapatis, Kings | |||
| Sivaji I the Great | 1674-1680 | ||
| Shambhuji I | 1680-1689 | ||
| Rajaram I | 1689-1700 | defeat and occupation by the Moghuls, 1700 | |
| Tara Bai | regent, 1700-1708 | ||
| Chattrapatis, Kings | Peshwas, Ministers | ||
| Shahu I | 1708-1749 | Balaji Vishvanath | 1713-1720 |
| Baji Rao I | 1720-1740 | ||
| Balaji Baji Rao | 1740-1761 | ||
| Ramaraja II | 1749-1777 | Madhava Rao Ballal | 1761-1772 |
| defeated by Afghans, battle of Panipat, 1761, occupation of Delhi, 1770 | |||
| Narayan Rao | 1772-1773 | ||
| Raghunath Rao | 1773-1774 | ||
| Madhava Rao Narayan | 1774-1796 | ||
| Shahu II | 1777-1808 | Chimnaji Appa | 1796 |
| Baji Rao II | 1796-1818 | ||
| Pratap Singh | 1808-1839 | ||
| Shahji Raja | 1839-1848 | ||
| Nawwâbs of the Carnatic, at Arcot | |
|---|---|
| Zulf'iqar 'Ali Khan | c.1690-1703 |
| Da'ud Khan | 1703-1710 |
| Muhammad Sa'adat-Allah Khan I | 1710-1732 |
| Dost 'Ali Khan | 1732-1740 |
| Safdar 'Ali Khan | 1740-1742 |
| Sa'adat-Allah Khan II | 1742-1744 |
| Anwar ud-Din Muhammad | 1744-1749 |
| defeated by the French, 1744; defeated by the French & killed, 1749 | |
| Chanda Sahib | 1749-1752 |
| installed by the French under Dupleix, 1749; defeated by the British, surrendered, executed, 1752 | |
| Wala Jah Muhammad 'Ali | 1749-1795 |
| installed & supported by the British | |
| 'Umdut ul-Umara | 1795-1801 |
| 'Azim ud-Dawlah | 1801-1819 |
| 'Azim Jah | 1819-1825 |
| Annexed to British India, 1825 | |
Both the Nawwâb Anwar ud-Din of the Carnatic and the S.ûbadâr Nâs.ir Jang of Hyderabad were killed in battle with the French allied to pretenders to their positions. French forces were sent with Muz.affar Jang to support his government in Hyderabad. However, in 1752 their candidate for the Carnatic, Chanda Sahib, was defeated in battle, surrendered, and then was executed by the British candidate, Muhammad 'Ali, who would then rule under British protection for many years.
By 1756, Dupleix had been recalled (in 1754), and his policies repudiated. His job, after all, was to make money, not to make war on the English or take over Indian states. He had done this with some justification during the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) but his aggressive actions had continued after the Peace. This was a problem, and, indeed, the adventure in Hyderabad never did make any money for the French.
In retrospect, Dupleix's recall looks ill considered, as the Seven Years War (1756-1763) was about to begin; the local French forces would need to make war on the English; and France would need as strong a position as possible to do that. She wasn't going to have it, and the British would be just as victorious in the war in India as in the Americas. But that is in hindsight. Back in France in 1754, it would not have been appreciated that Dupleix had created a whole new dynamic in Indian history. Formerly, Moghul authority continued to external appearances and Europeans approached local officials deferentially with nothing but trade privileges in mind. Now, with some exceptions and setbacks, the European traders could make and unmake local authorities at will. This was at first discovered and exploited by the French, but the British would prove far better and more successful at the game.
| Nawwâbs of Bengal, 1704-1765 | |
|---|---|
| Murshid Qulî Khân 'Alâ' adDawla | 1704-1725 |
| Shujâ' Khân Shujâ' adDawla | 1725-1739 |
| Sarfarâz Khân 'Alâ' adDawla | 1739-1740 |
| 'Alîwirdî Khân Hâshim adDawla | 1740-1756 |
| Mîrzâ Mah.mûd Sirâj adDawla | 1756-1757 |
| Defeated & dethroned by Robert Clive, Battle of Plassey, 1757 | |
| Mîr Ja'far Muh.ammad Khân Hâshim adDawla | 1757-1760 1763-1765 |
| Mîr Qâsim 'Alî | 1760-1763 |
| Najm ud-Dawlah | 1765-1766 |
| Saif ud-Dawlah | 1766-1770 |
| British East India Company Rule, 1765-1858, Presidency of Calcutta; Nawwâbs continue as pensioners | |
| Robert Clive | Governor, 1755-1760, 1764-1767 |
| Henry Vansittart | 1760-1764 |
| First Anglo-Mysore War, 1766-1769 | |
| Henry Verelst | 1767-1769 |
| John Cartier | 1769-1772 |
In 1765, Clive obtained from the Moghul Emperor Shâh 'Âlam II, who was a fugitive in British care, a grant of the Diwani, or revenue responsiblity for the province of Bengal. This made the British East India Company, as the Diwan of Bengal, part of the consitutional order of the Moghul Empire, and it is often considered the beginning of British Rule, the "Râj," 
, in India. However, Clive had no intention of replacing the Nawwâbs, and the Company intended to leave local officials in place to collect the actual revenues of Bengal. This was consistent with Clive's previous policy of supporting local rule, when he installed Mîr Qâsim as Nawwâb in 1760. Mîr Qâsim was a competent ruler, but, after Clive left, he was essentially doubled-crossed by the enemies of both himself and Clive, manueuvered into a war, and then driven from Bengal. The incompetent Mîr Ja'far was restored, evidently with the intention of employing him only as a puppet. Clive, on his return, could not undo this coup, but he did try to retain the Nawwâb as a real factor in the governance of Bengal, with the East India Company as Dîwân.
The Nawwâb at least remained so in name until 1880, when Mansur Ali Khan, the last Nawwâb of Bengal, was deposed. His son, however, Hassan Ali Mirza Khan Bahadur, succeeded with the title Nawwâb of Murshidabad. The titular line of Nawwâbs actually continued until 1969, when the main line died out and the succession was left in dispute.
Bengal became one of the three "Presidencies" through which direct British rule in India was effected (with different arrangements for the Princely States, which remained nominally under local rule). The others were Bombay and Madras. However, Bengal was also the seat of general British authority; and when the Governor of Bengal became the actual Governor-General of India, his seat continued to be in Calcutta. The capital of India was not moved to Delhi until rather late in British rule, in 1912. New Delhi became the capital in 1931.
The British conquest of India was the first that progressed up rather than down the Ganges. Previous invasions had all come from Central Asia over the Hindu Kush and the Khyber Pass. This had happened so often, beginning with the Arya in the 2nd millennium BC, that is rather difficult to say just how many such invasions were there. The British, however, like all the European powers, had come by sea. Where the Persians or the Afghans, most recently, would head straight for Delhi, the British were coming up all the way from Calcutta. They wouldn't get to Delhi until 1803.
 British Governors-General of India |
|
|---|---|
| Warren Hastings | Governor-General 1772-1785 |
| First Anglo-Maratha War, 1776-1782; Second Anglo-Mysore War, 1780-1784 | |
| John MacPherson | 1785-1786 |
| Lord Cornwallis | 1786-1793 & 1805 |
| Third Anglo-Mysore War, 1789-1792 | |
| Sir John Shore | 1793-1798 |
| Lord Mornington | 1798-1805 |
| Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, 1798–1799; Second Anglo-Maratha War, 1803-1805 | |
| Sir G. Barlow | 1805-1807 |
| Lord Minto | 1807-1813 |
| Lord Moira (Lord Hastings) | 1813-1823 |
| Gurkha War, 1814-1816; Third Anglo-Maratha War, 1817-1818 | |
| Lord Amherst | 1823-1828 |
| First Burmese War, 1824-1826; Moghul authority replaced by Britain, 1827 | |
| Lord Bentinick | 1828-1835 |
| English replaces Persian, 1828; Suttee illegal, 1829; name of Moghul Emperor removed from coinage, 1835 | |
| Lord Metcalfe | 1835-1836 |
| Lord Auckland | 1836-1842 |
| suppression of Thugee launched, 1836; First Afghan War, 1839-1842 | |
| Earl of Ellenborough | 1842-1844 |
| Lord Hardinge | 1844-1848 |
| First Sikh War, 1845-1846 | |
| Earl of Dalhousie | 1848-1856 |
| Second Sikh War, 1848-1849; Punjab annexed, 1849; Second Burmese War, 1852; Oudh annexed, 1856 | |
| Lord Canning | 1856-1858 |
| Viceroy, 1858-1862 | |
| Great Sepoy Mutiny, 1857-1858; Crown Rule, 1858-1947 | |
Hastings thus inaugurates de facto direct Birtish rule over India, even if it is still really only the East India Company, and even if the fiction of Moghul sovereignty is retained for a while. British rule is often called "the Raj," from the Sanskrit and Hindi-Urdu word for "King." This is written in Urdu and in Hindi. There is no reason not to call the regime of the Moghuls or Guptas "the Raj" also, but the term seems to be restricted to the British dominion.
The very odd thing about this period is the ambiguity about just who owned British possessions in India and who the real sovereign authority was. The British constitutional authority in Bengal under Hastings was still based on authorizations from the Moghul Emperors. Some fiction of Moghul sovereignty was maintained at least until 1827 -- although the Moghul Emperor himself had been living under British rule since 1803. In 1813, when the charter of the East India Company was renewed, the British Parliament did formally assert the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Company's territories in India. This unilateral declaration, although recognized after 1815 by other European powers, was less obviously asserted in India itself. Lord Hastings did not meet with the Emperor Akbar II in 1814 because the Emperor expected to receive the Governor-General as a vassal rather than an equal. It would then be in Akbar's reign that most of the remaining signs of Moghul sovereignty would be stripped away. The Moghul court language, Persian, was replaced by English in 1828. Originally British Indian coins simply said "East India Company." In 1835, the face of the King of England (William IV) began appearing on East India Company coins. The ambiguities were not all settled until 1858, when the Last Moghul, Bahâdur Shâh II, was deposed (he had sided with the Mutineers), the East India Company was abolished, and the Governor-General became the Viceroy, the sovereign agent for Queen Victoria. Nevertheless, another ambiguity continued, which is what kind of entity India was, simply a "Crown Colony" or something else? This was cleared up in 1876, when Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India, meaning that India itself was an Empire, as it was presumed to be under the Moghuls. Thus, the slow process was completed by which the British Sovereign replaced the Moghul.
The slow progress of claims to sovereignty may indicate the ambivalent nature of the British presence in India. They really were there just to make some money; and the very idea that the British would rule in India like Ashoka or Akbar was something that was both foreign and repugnant to a great deal of British public opinion. The Whigs and their successors, the Liberals, were never happy about British "imperialism." In this era an interesting example of the controversy was the impeachment (1787) and prosecution (1788-1795) of Warren Hastings, the first formal Governor-General 
of India, after his return home. This was led by Edmund Burke and other Whig leaders, charging that Hastings had been a corrupt tyrant exploiting and victimizing the people of India. While many would now think of the whole British sojourn in India as of that nature, and there is no doubt that in the 1770's and '80's there was a bit of a Wild West feel to many who wanted to make their fortune in the country, Hastings himself actually seems to have been relatively conscientious and benevolent. The fury of Burke's attacks and the extraordinary length of the trial may have helped generate positive sympathy for Hastings -- the cartoon shows him literally attacked by, from left to right, Burke, Lord North, and another Whig leader, Charles James Fox. He was acquited. The whole business, however, exposes such uncertainties as can never have troubled the likes of Mahmud of Ghazna or Bâbur the Great Moghul.
Two remarkable undertakings in this period were the suppression of Suttee and of Thugee. Suttee was the burning of widows on the pyres of their husbands. This was supposed to be voluntary, as an act of devotion, as Sita did for her husband Rama in the Epic Ramayana (though a correspondent has denied this), but it mainly became an act of murder, by which the husband's family could rid themselves of an unwanted daughter-in-law (now I hear the claim that it was only done to protect widows from rape by British soldiers -- though the murder of daughters-in-law and widows is not unheard of in recent India). The Thugs were devotees of the goddess Kali, who murdered and then robbed in her name (the practice of Thugee). Since the Thugs were a secret society, exposing and arresting them was a more difficult and protracted process. That these practices were worthy of suppression provides an interesting subject for arguments about cultural relativism. At the time they did raise fears that the British intended to replace native religion with Christianity, which helped provoke the Great Mutiny.
| Nawwâbs & Kings of Oudh (Awadh), 1722-1856 | |
|---|---|
| Sa'âdat Khân Burhân alMulk | 1722-1739 |
| Abû Mans.ûr Khân S.afdâr Jang | 1739-1754 |
| H.aydar Shujâ' adDawla | 1754-1775 |
| Âs.af adDawla | 1775-1797 |
| Wazîr 'Alî | 1797-1798, d. 1817 |
| deposed by British | |
| Sa'âdat 'Alî Khân | 1798-1814 |
| H.aydar I Ghâzî adDîn | 1814-1827; King, 1819 |
| H.aydar II Sulaymân Jâh | 1827-1837 |
| Muh.ammad 'Alî Mu'în adDîn | 1837-1842 |
| Amjad 'Alî Thurayyâ Jâh | 1842-1847 |
| Wâjid 'Alî | 1847-1856; d. 1887 |
| Deposed by British, Oudh annexed to British India, 1856; Great Sepoy Mutiny, 1857-1858 | |
| Barjîs Qadïr | 1857, during the Mutiny |
| British Rule, 1858-1947 | |
Convicted Mutineers were often "blown from the guns," i.e. strapped to the mouth of a cannon that was then fired, tearing the body of the condemned apart. I long thought that this appalling practice was invented on the spot out of a spirit of savage, Imperial(ist) vengeance on the part of the British. However, such a form of execution had always been used in the British Indian Army, and it was actually inherited from the Moghuls. This reveals another ambivalence about British rule in India. On the one hand, the British were themselves appalled by many traditional practices in the country, where Moghul courts often inflicted the death penalty, for instance, in the form of impalement. One English officer asked, "How much longer are we to be outraged by the sight of writhing humanity on stakes?" [Sir Penderel Moon, The British Conquest and Dominion of India, Duckworth, Indiana University Press, 1989, pp.155-156]. On the other hand, it would be some time before it was believed proper simply to impose European sensibilities on the country and reform the government and judiciary on 18th century Enlightenment or 19th century Liberal principles. Thus, even when the East India Company began to take over the courts of Bengal, Islamic law continued for some time to be applied, as under the Moghuls. Although the imposition of British values offends cultural relativism and now seems a salient and offensive characteristic of British rule in India, most objections to the Raj even now tend to revolve around features of the regime inherited from the Moghuls. The very idea of foreign conquest and rule being wrong, for instance, by which the whole British presence in India can be condemned, is itself a supremely Liberal judgment, unrelated to any value from traditional India. Nothing would have been so traditional as for Queen Victoria to have proclaimed herself, not the Empress, but the Chakravartin -- certainly apt for a ruler who possessed a realm upon which the Sun Never Set. Thus, it is shocking to think of Mutineers being "blown from the guns," but who are we to ethnocentrically criticize traditional Indian practices? [irony]
| Niz.âms of Hyderabad, (Haydarâbâd) 1720-1948 | |
|---|---|
| Chin Qïlïch Khân Niz.âm alMulk | 1720-1748 |
| Nâs.ir Jang | 1748-1750 |
| overthrown by the French, under Dupleix, killed in battle, 1750 | |
| Muz.affar Jang | 1751-1752 |
| installed by the French, under Dupleix | |
| S.alâbat Jang | 1752-1762 |
| installed by the French, under Dupleix | |
| Niz.âm 'Alî Khân | 1762-1803 |
| Sikandar Jâh | 1803-1829 |
| Farkhanda 'Alî Khân Nâs.ir adDawla | 1829-1857 |
| Mîr Mah.bûb 'Ali I Afd.al adDawla | 1857-1869 |
| Mîr Mah.bûb 'Ali II | 1869-1911 |
| Mîr 'Uthmân 'Alî Khân Bahâdur Fath. Jang | 1911-1948, d.1967 |
| Annexation by Dominion of India, 1948 | |
Oudh and Hyderabad are distinguished by color on the map below. A striking microcosm of the effect of British rule was the difference between the economic development of Hyderabad and that of the adjacent coast, under direct British rule. Although these encompassed the same Telugu speaking Hindu people and were included in the same state of Andhra Pradesh on independence, the greater economic development of the British area resulted in complaints from Hyderabadis that they were being taken over, exploited, etc. by migrants from the coast. The result was political moves to create preferential policies for the natives of Hyderabad. That the "exploited" colonial area is more economically developed than the area left to traditional rule is something that should not be surprising, but it is if all one has done is read Leninist economics [see Thomas Sowell, Preferential Policies, An International Perspective, "Andhra Pradesh," pp.65-69, William Morrow & Co., 1990]. Hyderabad is an important case to demonstrate that economic development can vary with history even where race, language, culture, and religion are otherwise identical.
| BRITISH EMPERORS OF INDIA | Viceroys & Governors- General of India | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Victoria | Queen, 1858-1901 | Lord Elgin | 1862-1863 |
| Lord Lawrence | 1863-1869 | ||
| Duar War, with Bhutan, 1864-1865 | |||
| Lord May | 1869-1872 | ||
| Lord Northbrook | 1872-1876 | ||
| Empress, 1876-1901 | Lord Lytton | 1876-1880 | |
| Second Afghan War, 1878-1881 | |||
| Lord Rippon | 1880-1884 | ||
| Lord Dufferin | 1884-1888 | ||
| Lord Landsdowne | 1888-1894 | ||
| Third Burmese War, 1885 | |||
| Lord Elgin | 1894-1899 | ||
| Lord Curzon | 1899-1905 | ||
| Edward (VII) | 1901-1910 | ||
| Lord Minto | 1905-1910 | ||
| George (V) | 1910-1936 | Lord Hardinge | 1910-1916 |
| Capital moved from Calcutta to Delhi, 1912, to New Delhi, 1931 | |||
| Lord Chelmsford | 1916-1921 | ||
| Third Afghan War, 1919 | |||
| Lord Reading | 1921-1926 | ||
| Lord Irwin (Lord Halifax) | 1926-1931 | ||
| Lord Willingdon | 1931-1936 | ||
The list of British Viceroys was originally compiled from The British Conquest and Dominion of India, Sir Penderel Moon [Duckworth, Indiana University Press, 1989]. Lord Reading was actually Jewish, probably the highest ranking Jew in the history of the British Empire, where the Viceroy of India, always raised to the Peerage for his office, held the highest Office of State next to the Throne itself.
When India became independent in 1947, it legally became a British Dominion, which means that the King of England was still the formal Head of State. Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy, was asked by Jawaharlal Nehru, the new Prime Minister, to stay on as Governor-General of the Dominion. There was then only one Indian Governor-General before the country was declared a Republic in 1950. The first Governor-General of Pakistan, which similarly became a Dominion, was the Moslem nationalist leader, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Jinnah died of cancer in 1948, and there were several Pakistani Governors-General before the country became a Republic in 1956.
What the British heritage in India tends to stand for is something democratic, unifying, fair, and evenhanded -- a plus for India and a tribute to the British. One accusation against British evenhandedness was what seemed their preference for Muslims, which may have led to unnecessary haste in deciding to partition the country. However, it has always been the policy of every imperial power to use the services of minorities who dislike or fear the prospect of government by the majority communities. When minorities are subsequently oppressed, expelled, or massacred afterways, the majority community tends to justify the matter as retribution for cooperation with the occupiers. However, if the minorities had been oppressed before the arrival of the imperial power, this rationalization rings a little hollow. In India, Islam arrived with the imperial power of Ghazna, the Ghurids, and the Moghuls, and Muslims had never lived under a Hindu majority government. For reasons both rational and irrational, the movement arose to avoid this. Whether or not the British, who certainly included Islamophiles like Sir Richard Burton, favored Muslims, we are now familiar enough with the cultural dynamic of Islâm to see that very little favor indeed, if any, was necessary to produce the nationalism of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Even if the British had granted independence to India in 1919 or 1930, before Jinnah's movement began, it is not difficult to see a certainty of the emergence of something much like it, whose consequence would have been civil war rather than quick and simple Partition -- however terrible things often were during the Partition, with many indicidents of mutual massacre, though sometimes these were stopped by the remarkable influence of Gandhi. The partition that Muslims favored in India as the minority, of course, they rejected as the solution for Palestine, where they were the majority.
On the map we see the final form of British India, with Burma thrown in for good measure. The special North West Frontier Province and the imposition of direct British rule along the southern border of Afghanistan both bespeak increasing British concern about the advance of the Russians in Central Asia. The espionage and diplomatic maneuvering associated with Russian actions and intentions were often called the "Great Game." In retrospect, not much seems to have come of it all; but at the time, Russia, actually with the largest economy in the world, seemed more powerful and aggressive than it looks now. We forget that Russia was at the time conquering Central Asia, and the British remembered well the hard fight of the Crimean War (1853-1856). The principle consequence of the Russian approach was British intervention in Afghanistan, either to attach the kingdom to the Empire, or at least preserve it as a buffer state. The First Afghan War (1839-1842) was a famous catastrophy, with, after intitial successes, the entire British force wiped out in retreat from Kabul. The Second Afghan War (1878-1881) at least accomplished the task of rendering Afghanistan under British protection as a buffer against the Russians, just as the Russians actually were arriving in the mountains to the north. The most famous casualty of this war is the fictional John H. Watson, M.D., whose wound and small income led to him to find a roommate in the person of one Sherlock Holmes. The rest is, after a fashion, history. The practical end of the Great Game may have come in 1905, when the Wakhan salient was attached to Afghanistan to separate India from Russia. It still gives Afghanistan a small border with China. The Third Afghan War (1919), led to full formal Afghan independence in 1921. The Russians eventually arrived after all in 1979 but in the end probably wished that they had not bothered, with the Soviet Union itself collapsing shortly after the Russian occupation ended in 1989. Now, however, after Afghanistan began harboring Islamist terrorists, an American and NATO military presence (2001) has mainly succeeded in chasing the radicals and their allies into the mountains within the Pakistani border. This region, shown as annexed by the British in 1890 and 1893, is a primitive tribal area that was never very much under British control. The Pakistanis have not done markedly better with the place, which is still protected by the fearsome terrain, the resolute anarchy of the inhabitants, and now by the political problem of Islamist and pro-terrorist sentiment within Pakistan itself, which makes a sustained crackdown unpopular. La plus ça change...
| BRITISH EMPERORS & KINGS | Viceroys & Governors-General of India | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edward (VIII) | 1936 | Lord Linlithgow | 1936-1943 | ||
| George (VI) | Emperor, 1936-1947 | ||||
| Lord Wavell | 1943-1947 | ||||
| Lord Mountbatten | 1947 | ||||
| King;
India 1947-1950, Pakistan 1947-1952 | Governor- General of India, 1947-1948 | Mohammad Ali Jinnah | Governor- General of Pakistan, 1947-1948 | ||
| Chakravarti, Rajagopalachari | Governor- General of India, 1948-1950 | Khwaja Nazimuddin | Governor- General of Pakistan, 1948-1951 | ||
| India becomes a Republic, 1950 | |||||
| Elizabeth (II) | Queen,
Pakistan, 1952-1956 |   | Ghulam Mohammad | Governor- General of Pakistan, 1951-1955 | |
| Iskander Mirza | Governor- General of Pakistan, 1955-1956 | ||||
| Pakistan becomes a Republic, 1956 | |||||
Although many Indians preserve an ideological or nationalistic animus towards the British (which they may or may not have, for instance, towards the Moghuls), believing that the British exploited India and inhibited its development -- for instance I find an equestrian statue of Edward VII in Toronto that had been relocated from an apparently unwelcoming Delhi (shouldn't the Tâj Mahal be deported to Bâbur's Farghâna?) -- there is the striking circumstance that, while on independence in 1947 the Indian economy was twice the size of that of China, that advantage was lost by 1990, and the Chinese economy by 2003 was more than twice the size of India's. Thus, it seems to be that the British promoted Indian development more than otherwise and that the socialist and autarkic policies instituted by Nehru, and later his daughter Indira Gandhi, have done more damage than can ever be blamed on the British (unless it be on the influence of British socialists). Fortunately, these policies began to be reversed in the 1990's and great improvement has occurred, as discussed elsewhere. Today, an American calling a customer service number for an American company may well find themselves speaking to somebody in India. Some resent this, but it is really rather marvelous and would seem to bespeak a handsome kinship between two different subjects of the former British Imperium. Americans are otherwise familiar with the entrepreneurial talent of Indian immigrants to the United States, where they are disproportionately successful in a number of areas of business, including hotels and motels, of all things. In 1982 I was personally bewildered when my car broke down in Artesia, New Mexico, to find a motel run by people from India. The industry of Indians is beyond doubt, all they needed was the sympathy and cooperation of their own government.
History of Philosophy, Indian Philosophy
History of Philosophy, Buddhist Philosophy
The Caste System and the Stages of Life in Hinduism
British Coinage of India, 1835-1947
The Sun Never Set on the British Empire
The Kings of England, Scotland, & Ireland
British Coins before the Florin, Compared to French Coins of the Ancien Régime
The list of Chinese Emperors here was originally as given in Mathews' Chinese-English Dictionary [Harvard University Press, 1972, pp. 1165-1175]. Now most of the names and dates are from A Short History of the Chinese People by L. Carrington Goodrich [Harper Torchbooks, 1943, 1963], The Horizon History of China by C.P. Fitzgerald [American Heritage Publishing, 1969], The Chinese Calendar and the Julian Day Number, a pamphlet by O.L. Harvey [1977, based on Chronological Tables of Chinese History by Tung Tso-pin, Hong Kong University Press, 1960], The Glory and Fall of the Ming Dynasty by Albert Chan [U. of Oklahoma Press, 1982], The Southern Ming, 1644-1662 by Lynn A. Struve [Yale University Pres, 1984], A History of Chinese Civilization by Jacques Gernet [translated by J.R. Foster, Cambridge University Press, 1972, 1982, 1990], the Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors by Ann Paludan [Thames & Hudson, London, 1998], the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian [3 volumes, Qin, Han I, & Han II, Columbia University Press, 1993], The Cambridge History of Ancient China, from the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C. edited by Michael Loewe & Edward L. Shaughnessy 
[Cambridge U. Press, 1999], A Concise History of China by J.A.G. Roberts [Harvard University Press, 1999], Chinese History, A Manual by Endymion Wilkinson [Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series, 52, Harvard U. Press, 2000], the Oxford Dynasties of the World by John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002, pp.215-221], Historical Records of the Five Dynasties, by Ouyang Xiu [translated by Richard L. Davis, Columbia U. Press, 2004], China, A New History by John King Fairbank & Merle Goldman [Belknap Press of Harvard U. Press, 2006], The Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten, or Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History, on CD-ROM [Yamato Shobô, 2006], and some other books and websites that are referenced at various points below.
The traditional Chinese dates for the Emperors are usually for the first full year of the reign, which is also the first year of the appropriate Era. This can be a little confusing, and sources on Chinese history do not always seem consistent (or we run afoul of when the Chinese calendar year starts -- or I have gotten confused!). The convention is even applied to the Chinese Republic, which is often said to have begun in 1912, even though the Ch'ing Dynasty was overthrown in 1911 -- although in this case the Republic was actually not formally proclaimed until January 1, 1912; so the history was arranged to match the chronology. (But then the Emperor did not abdicate until March 1912.) The convention also makes it possible that Emperors who do not survive beyond their initial calendar year may not even be counted, which is the case, creating some confusion, with a couple of the Mongols. Other Emperors are not listed in Chinese sources as unworthy for other reasons. In Mathews', only the first year of a reign is ordinarily given. Here, for the Ming and Ch'ing Dynasties, this year corresponds to the first Era given with the reign. All other Era names, from the Han up to and including the Yüan, are given on a popup page -- or it may be opened in the current window.
Wade-Giles writings are usually used, consistent with the older sources. But Pinyin versions are occasionally given, especially for the dynasties, and also exclusively with images of characters. Superscript numbers are given for the tones in Pinyin, when HTML codes are not available for them (i.e. the lst & 3rd tones). Note that Wade-Giles "ho" and "he" can both be found for Pinyin "he" -- as other writings sometimes reflect older Mandarin pronunciations (e.g. "Peking" itself). While newer sources use Pinyin exclusively, I think this is improper. As a denial of history, it is like teaching Chinese with only the "simplified" characters. Simplified characters themselves are not given here because they are (1) ugly, (2) ahistorical, (3) not used in older sources, and (4) not used in Taiwan or by many or most overseas Chinese communities (though, I understand, this is changing). It may be too late to stop the simplified character bandwagon, but the attempt should be made. While the idea was that simplified characters would make literacy easier, it actually makes larger literacy more difficult when traditional characters must be learned anyway to read older books, historical inscriptions, overseas Chinese, or Japanese kambun (
), i.e. written Chinese from Japanese writers who didn't actually speak Chinese (a similar phenomenon was formerly found in Korea and Vietnam). A break with the past was certainly one motivation for the simplification -- though Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) then published his own poetry in traditional characters! Curiously, The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary [Editor-in-chief Wu Jingrong, The Commercial Press, Beijing, Hong Kong, & John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1979, 1985], which gives the simplified character for 
in the text [p.266] and in the Chinese Foreword [p.2], nevertheless has the traditional character on the front of the book and on the title page. Indeed, newer dictionaries in Pinyin do a better job of giving the traditional characters along with the simplified ones. And when an edition was prepared of the 24 Standard Dynastic Histories, the Ershisishi [241 volumes, Zhonghua, 1962-1975], at the personal direction of Chairman Mao, it was all in traditional, "complex" characters.
| THE CHINESE HISTORICAL ERA, short count | 2637 BC |
|---|---|
| 1998 AD + 2637 = 4635 Annô Sinarum | |
| THE CHINESE HISTORICAL ERA, long count | 2852 BC |
| 1998 AD + 2852 = 4850 Annô Sinarum | |
| The Legendary Period, Age of the Five Rulers | 647 years |
Hsia,  , Dynasty | 1962-1523 (2205-1766) |
The maps are based on L. Carrington Goodrich, A Short History of the Chinese People [Harper Torchbooks, The University Library, 1963], The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume I [Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, 1974], Michael Prawdin, The Mongol Empire, its Rise and Legacy [Free Press, 1961], The [London] Times Concise Atlas of World History, edited by Geoffrey Barraclough [Times Books Ltd, Hammond Inc., 1988], The Cambridge History of Ancient China, from the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C. edited by Michael Loewe & Edward L. Shaughnessy [Cambridge U. Press, 1999], and a few other sources I've lost track of. Paludan's Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors, although an excellent book in every other way, is suspiciously deficient in maps, with a glaring mistake on one that is given -- the absence of the trans-Amur Maritime Province, later lost to Russia, on the map of the Ch'ing Empire [p.11]. There seem to be considerable uncertainties, or at least disagreements, about the boundaries in many periods, even well documented ones, like the T'ang and Ming.
The Thought Police are hereby informed that the color yellow 
is used for the tables and maps for China, not because China is the racial "Yellow Peril," but because the color yellow is associated with the element
 |
) at the center. Thus, China can even be called 
, "Middle Earth." At least from the Ming Dynasty, yellow tiles were reserved for use on the roofs of Imperial palaces, and so the color came to mean the Emperor himself.
China can also be called the 
, "Middle Glorious," with used for "Chinese" in many expressions (almost interchangeably with 
and 
), e.g. 
or 
for "Chinese People," or 
for "Chinese labor (abroad)," or , "Chinese language."
While the "Middle Kingdom" or "Middle Earth" give China a central place in the world, another locution, 
, "Under Heaven," can mean both China and the entire World -- all under heaven. Since the title 
, "Emperor," when introduced in the Ch'in, signified uniqueness, supremacy, and universal monarchy, "Emperor," Latin Imperator, is a suitable translation in relation to Roman ideology of universal monarchy over the Cosmopolis, the world state. To all the countries around China, as to Imperial Princes, the Emperors bestowed no more than the title , "King." This was not graciously received in courts, like Japan, where the Monarch was regarded as the equal of the 
, "Son of Heaven."
Several characters are used to mean "dynasty." With the Northern and Southern Dynasties we see 
(which, with a different pronunciation, otherwise means "morning," as in the name of the Japanese destroyer Asagiri, 
, "Morning Mist"). With the Five Dynasties, however, we see 
. Indeed, the first entry for "dynasty" in a modern Chinese dictionary is [Concise English-Chinese Chinese-English Dictionary, A.P. Cowie, A. Evison, The Commercial Press, Oxford University Press, Beijing, Hong Kong, 1986, p.134]. With the names of dynasties, however, one often sees 
("record, annals"), as in 
, "Ming Dynasty" (cf. Mathew's, character 430, p.57, and in Appendix A, with the tables of dynasties, pp.1165-1175).
Shang,  , Dynasty,1523-1028 (1766-1122) | |
|---|---|
| Shang-chia | |
| Pao-yi | |
| Pao-ping | |
| Pao-ting | |
| Shih-jen | |
| Shih-kuei | |
| Ta-yi | |
| Wai-ping | |
| Chung-jên | |
| Ch'êng-t'ang? | |
| T'ai-chia | |
| Wu-ting | |
| T'ai-kêng | |
| Hsiao-chia | |
| Yung-chi | |
| T'ai-wu | |
| Chung-ting | |
| Wai-jên | |
| Tsien-chia | |
| Tsu-yi | |
| Tsu-hsin | |
| Ch'iang-chia | |
| Tsu-ting | |
| Nan-kêng | |
| Hu-chia | |
| P'an-kêng | |
| Hsiao-hsin | |
| Hsiao-yi | |
| Wu-ting | ?-1189 |
| Tsu-kêng | 1188-1178 |
| Tsu-chia | 1177-1158 |
| Lin-hsin | 1157-1149 |
| K'ang-ting | 1148-1132 |
| Wu-yi | 1131-1117 |
| Wên-wu-ting | 1116-1106 |
| Ti-yi | 1105-1087 |
| Ti-hsin | 1086-1045 |
The Shang, a splendid Bronze Age civilization, is the true beginning of Chinese history, emerging just as India was falling into its own Dark Ages period (1500-800 BC). The system of writing we see developing in the Shang already displays most of the characteristics of Chinese characters and was destined to be the only ancient system of ideographic writing to survive into modern usage, both in China and Japan. However, Shang writing is known mainly from oracle bones. There is no surviving literature, documents, or monumental inscriptions from the period. Data like the list of Shang kings or the excavation of Shang royal tombs thus leaves us pretty much in the dark about historical events, though this is not much different from what is often the case with contemporary Egypt or Mesopotamia. The sophistication of Shang culture, on the other hand, may be inspected directly in the magnificent bronzes that are featured in many of the world's museums.
The beginning of Chinese civilization in the North, in the Hwang Ho (or Huang He) valley, means that, among many things, the Chinese diet was not at first what we would expect. Rice only grows further South, where there is much greater rain. The Huang He valley is semi-arid. Even today it is wheat that is grown there. Of course, wheat was used for another characteristic Chinese food: Noodles -- which Marco Polo is supposed to have brought back to Italy.
Chinese characters in the Shang were still pictographic in form. At right are some examples of common modern characters with their Shang antecedents. The pronunciation, of course, is modern. There is little and poor evidence about the pronunciation of Chinese at this early period. Chinese at this point may not even have had tones. There are no tones in related languages, like Tibetan, but there are tones in unrelated regional languages, like Vietnamese. Chinese may have picked up tones as part of a Southeast Asian Sprachbund, where, as in the Balkans, unrelated or distantly related languages borrow features from each other. There is also the accepted view that tones developed from morphological features that have now disappeared. There is no reason, however, why influence may not have accompanied such a development. There is also the problem that the inclusion of Chinese in the same language family as Tibetan and Burmese is based on relatively narrow evidence.
Previously, I had not given dates for reigns in the Shang dynasty, because of the uncertainties of early Chinese chronology. However, I have now filled in those given in The Cambridge History of Ancient China [edited by Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 1999, p.25]. I have left the dates of the Dynasty itself the same, however, to indicate the traditional level of uncertainty. I have kept the Chinese convention of ending a reign a calendar year before the beginning of the next reign, both to indicate that this is the convention and because the uncertainties of the dates make the point moot.
The genealogy of the Shang, from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History) and the Cambridge History of Ancient China, may be examined on a popup image. Different lists of early Shang rulers are to be seen. In Mathews' Chinese-English Dictionary, the dynasty begins with a Ch'eng-t'ang immediately before T'ai-chia. However, the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten does not give a Ch'eng-t'ang at all and begins the dynasty two generations before T'ai-chia, with Ta-yi. The Cambridge History starts six generations before Ta-yi with Shang-chia. The Nihon Kodaishi and the Cambridge History differ in their construction of the early genealogy. I have tried to indicate where the differences occur. Usually these are in which generation a king belongs. The Cambridge History sometimes has a different element in a name -- I have put their version in parentheses. Where the Nihon Kodaishi has T'ai, 
, the Cambridge History usually has Ta, -- the characters differ by a small stroke and can actually mean almost the same thing. Like the Cambridge History, the Nihon Kodaishi does not give dates for rulers before Wu-ting, but it does give the beginning of the dynasty at 1600, as the Cambridge History does at 1570. The numbering on the crowns is that of the Nihon Kodaishi.
Chou,  , Dynasty1027-256 (1122-256) | |
|---|---|
Western Chou,  1027-771 | |
| Wen Wang | 1099/56-1049 |
| Wu Wang | 1049/45-1042 |
| Chou Kung | 1042-1036 |
| Chêng Wang | 1042/35-1005/03 |
| K'ang Wang | 1005/03-977/75 |
| Chao Wang | 977/75-956 |
| Mu Wang | 956-917/15 |
| Kung Wang | 917/15-899/97 |
| Ih Wang | 899/97-872? |
| Hsiao Wang | 872?-865 |
| I Wang | 865-857/53 |
| Li Wang | 857/53-842/28 |
| Kung Ho | 841-827/25 |
| 841, first solid date in Chinese chronology | |
| Hsüan Wang | 827/25-781 |
| Yu Wang | 781-771 |
Eastern Chou,  ,771-256; Middle Chou, 771-473 | |
| P'ing Wang | 770-719 |
Spring and Autumn,  ,Period, 722-481 | |
| Huan Wang | 719-696 |
| Hsiang Wang | 696-681 |
| Hsi Wang | 681-676 |
| Hui Wang | 676-651 |
| Hsiang Wang | 651-618 |
| Ch'ing Wang | 618-612 |
| K'uang Wang | 612-606 |
| Ting Wang | 606-585 |
| Chien Wang | 585-571 |
| Ling Wang | 571-544 |
| Ching Wang | 544-520 |
| Tao Wang | 520 |
| Ching Wang | 519-475 |
Warring States,  ,Period, 481-221 | |
| Yüan Wang | 475-468 |
| Late Chou, 473-256 | |
| Chêng-ting Wang | 468-441 |
| K'ao Wang | 440-425 |
| Wei-lieh Wang | 425-401 |
| An Wang | 401-375 |
| Lieh Wang | 375-368 |
| Hsien Wang | 368-320 |
| Shên-ching Wang | 320-314 |
| Nan Wang | 314-256 |
The changes were so drastic that the dynasty is typically divided into three parts, though there are different versions of exactly how to do this. The Early Chou presents us with the least satisfactory material, since things seem to have rather declined after the fall of the Shang.
Of much greater interest is what happens when the central authority of the state actually collapses, which moves us into the Middle Chou or the Spring and Autumn Period. The country breaks up into small domains, which separately become vigorous and expansive, and the Chou kings are reduced to ruling a small county on the Huang He River. We finally get into a period with secure historical dating. The name of the Spring and Autumn Period itself is derived from the Spring and Autumn Annals, , one of the Chinese classics, which was a chronicle of the state of Lu, the birthplace of Confucius. The origin of the name may be that "Spring and Autumn" was used to simply mean "year," and so by extension an annal or chronicle. The origin of the phrase, however, is now obscured by its being the name of the book itself. One of the works later interpreted as a commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals, the Tso Chuan, 
, actually contains more information than the Annals itself. Indeed, the Tso Chuan really isn't a commentary but originally an independent narrative history, the first in Chinese literature, covering the same period.
Suddenly we have the beginning of Chinese literature, history, and philosophy, curiously at about the same time as the beginnings of Greek and Indian philosophy also. The following links deal with matters in Chinese philosophy.
Although Confucius hoped to end the warfare between the small states of his time, things actually got worse after he died. The following time thus is often called the "Warring States" period. As time went on, however, one of the Warring States began to win, and to conquer the others. This was the state of Ch'in (Qin), which lay in Shensi (Shaanxi) Province, in the great bend of the Huang He river. In 256, the ruler of Ch'in, Chao-Hsiang, dethroned the last Chou king. Although the Warring States period was not over, the Chou Dynasty was. All of the rulers of the States of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period may be examined in a separate page. A new window will open with these links, and it should be maximized because the tables are large.
A ruler in the Chou Dynasty was a 
. Once the country had broken up, but the King retained some kind of precedence, the rulers of the successor states are usually known by the title 
[kung in Wade-Giles]. Thus, we find Confucius visiting "Duke Ching of Ch'i" [Analects 12:11]. In the table of the Ch'in Dynasty following, we can see the title of the ruler changing from "Duke" to "King" in the year 324. Some rulers (Tsin/Jin, Yen/Yan, and the later Han, Wei, and Chao) originally used 
, before upgrading to "Duke". Indeed, as shown in the genealogy of Ch'in below, we see that, before the Spring and Autumn Period, the ruler of Ch'in began as a Marquis also. One state, Ch'u, had used Wàng from an early date; but by the Late Warring States Period all of the states had adopted that title. "Duke" and "Marquis" were the first of the feudal "Five Ranks," 
. All the ranks can be examined under the Chinese elements and under Feudal Hierarchy.
Previously, I had not given dates for reigns before 841, because of the uncertainties of early Chinese chronology. However, I have now filled them in from The Cambridge History of Ancient China [edited by Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 1999, p.25]. Beginning with Hsüan Wang, the dates then seem to match what I was already using. I have left the dates of the Dynasty itself the same, however, to indicate the traditional level of uncertainty. Also, I have eliminated the Chinese convention of ending a reign a calendar year before the beginning of the next reign.
The genealogy of the Chou, from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History), may be examined on a popup image, though the names and dates are from the Cambridge History.
| Ch'in, , Dynasty 256-207 BC | |
|---|---|
| Hsiao Kung Ying Hsiao | 361-337 |
| Hui-wen Kung | 337-324 |
| Wang, 324-310 | |
| Wu Wang | 310-306 |
| Chao-hsiang Wang | during Chou, 306-256 |
| 256-250 | |
| Hsiao-wên Wang | 250, 3 days |
| Chuang-hsing Wang | 250-247 |
| Wang Chêng, (changes his name to) Shih-huang-ti/ Shihuángdì | 247-221 |
| Emperor, 221-210 | |
| End of Warring States Period, 221; burning books, 213 | |
| Erh-shih-huang-ti Ying Huhai | 210-207 |
| Ch'in Wang Tzu-Ying | 207 |
There is an obscurity in the chronology here. 
Sources often say that Chao-hsiang Wang died in 251, but the historian Szu-ma Ch'ien [Sima Qian], who is about the only real source for the chronology, says that Hsiao-wên Wang only reigned for 3 days in what would have been 250. There is no evidence of a hiatus, so the "251" may be an artifact of the Chinese habit of dating new things to the following year (i.e. 250 follows 251). Many Chinese histories and king lists, like the Oxford Dynasties of the World, are sparing or skip entirely dates in the Ch'in Dynasty before Shih-huang-ti. So I have just tried to apply the most obvious interpretation to Szu-ma Ch'ien and have dated the death of Chao-hsiang Wang to 250. As it happens, The Cambridge History of Ancient China [edited by Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 1999] follows the Chinese practice, ends the reign of Chao-hsiang Wang in 251, gives Hsiao-wên Wang 250, and then begins the reign of Chuang-hsing Wang in 249. It thus looks like Hsiao-wên Wang's three days unites all the reigns in 250.
Whatever his origins, Wang Chêng conquered most of the other Warring States and by 221 brought the country together for the first time since the Early Chou. And a much larger and more sophisticated country it now was, too. Although one might say that he was a combination, for Chinese history, of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, nevertheless he was not a great general himself, just the ruler. One of the first things he decided to do was come up with a more appropriate title. Previously, Chinese rulers had been styled , or "king" (ô in Japanese, wang in Korean). This was not going to be good enough. So Wang Chêng made up a new title, , the "August God," or, as we would say, the Emperor. Later, either one 
of these characters could be used individually to mean "emperor," as the latter became a suffix for the names of many Han Emperors. The whole expression would become kôtei in Japanese (hwangje in Korean), but much more commonly in Japanese only the first character was used (kô or ô), suffixed to "heaven," 
, as Tennô in Japanese, "heavenly" or "divine" Emperor. This distinction is even preserved in Vietnamese, where hoàng-ðê´ is "emperor" but thiên-hoàng is "Emperor of Japan." The Emperor could also simply be the "Son of Heaven," , tenshi in Japanese, thiên-tù. in Vietnamese.
The new "Emperor" of China then decided that he would simply be known as the "First Emperor," and that all rulers after him would continue the sequence, "Second Emperor," etc. This made him 
(Shih3-huang2-ti4), which he is still usually called. After the "Second Emperor," however, nobody bothered with the numbering. Wàng came to be used for foreign rulers and Imperial Princes. Thus, the "Prince of Fu" who resisted the Manchus as the first Emperor of the Southern Ming, was really Fu Wang, "King of Fu." The rulers of Japan didn't like being called wàng, but it stuck for places like Siam/Thailand or Korea.
The genealogy of Ch'in here is based on that in The First Emperor of China, by Jonathan Clements [Sutton Publishing, 2006, pp.170-172]. This begins in the Early Chou, with the first Marquis of Ch'in, and continues through all the Dukes and Kings of the Eastern Chou. Although I have seen no such detail given anywhere else, Clements unfortunately does not discuss the style of Chinese dating and does not address the specific issue of the short, peculiar reign of Hsiao-wên Wang -- which he dates to 451, beginning the next reign in 450. He does actually appear to attribute months, not days, to the reign, with the "three days" confined to the time after the coronation at the New Year (of 450?). I do not know if this is an interpretation or is clearly asserted by some source. Clements does mention, which I have not seen elsewhere, that the family name of the house of Ch'in was Ying. He also addresses the question of the legitimacy of Wang Cheng, but curiously only as an aside in an appendix, "The First Emperor on Screen" [pp.177-180]. If Lü Pu-wei were the father, Clements says that the queen would have needed to "carry the First Emperor in her womb for eleven months" [p.177]. That would settle the question, but we really do not get the matter argued in an explicit manner.
While Clements gives the earliest rulers of Ch'in the title of , according to Burton Watson [The Tso Chuan, Selections from China's Oldest Narrative History, Columbia U. Press, 1989], this would have been no more than a posthumous rank. The ruler of Ch'in at the beginning of the Spring and Autumn Period was still no more than a 
. However, Watson does not chronicle the stages by which the rulers certainly increased their rank, which reached in 324. This matter is discussed with the States of the Eastern Chou.
Until the Ming, Chinese Emperors are usually known by posthumous names, which frequently describe something characteristic of the Emperor or his reign. Until the T'ang, these names are "memorial titles" (shih), most frequently ending in ti 
, "Emperor." Starting with the T'ang, the posthumous names are "temple names" (miao hao), and the final character is most commonly tsu 
, "Founder," or tsung 
, "Ancestor." "Founder" is used at the beginning of the Dynasty, or after an event like a refounding during it. The last Emperor in a Dynasty (or before another kind of hiatus) gets a memorial rather than a temple name, since, at the end, he is not an ancestor. Personal names, which are not used after ascending the Throne (a reigning Emperor is simply the "Present Emperor"), are given for many of the following Emperors. They are identifiable because they begin with the family name of the Dynasty, e.g. Liu for the Han (both of them), Yang for the Sui, Li for the T'ang, and Chu for the Ming. The Mongols and Manchus did not use Chinese family names -- and with both of them we get two "Founders" because Chinese historians officially began the dynasties only when they considered them the legitimate rulers of China. With the Ming, Emperors start being known by the name they chose themselves for their Era (nien-hao). Earlier there usually were several Eras per reign, so this was not a convenient device, but the Ming Emperors stuck to one, a practice maintained by the Ch'ing and adopted by the Japanese in 1868. The Founder of the Ming, Chu Yüan-chang, thus was given the temple name T'ai Tsu ("Great Founder"), but instead is usually known as the "Hung-wu [Vast Military Power] Emperor." Similarly, Hirohito is now the "Shôwa Emperor."
Shih-huang-ti had a ferocious and ruthless disposition that found the advice of the Legalist philosopher Li Szu [Li Si] agreeable. In 213, on Li Szu's urging, Shih-huang-ti outlawed all other schools of thought and began to burn their books. This may be why more is not know about the "Hundred Schools" reputed to have existed under the Chou Dynasty. Scholars who resisted the order were executed: 346 (or more) are supposed to have actually been buried alive. The fall of the Ch'in Dynasty soon thereafter was later seen as proof of the working of the Mandate of Heaven. Mao Tse-tung is reported as saying in 1958:
What's so unusual about Emperor Shih Huang of the Chin Dynasty? He had buried alive 460 scholars only, but we have buried alive 46,000 scholars....We are 100 times ahead of Emperor Shih of the Chin Dynasty in repression of counter-revolutionary scholars. |
Mao is often compared, not surprisingly, to Shih-huang-ti. Elsewhere, the Emperor's ruthlessness was evident in his construction of the Great Wall of China, which is supposed to have cost many lives per mile. A wall in the North, however, was reasonable when nothing but desert and nomads lay beyond. In the South, he sent an army, which for the first time extended the county down to the South China Sea. It would take some years before the enclosed coastal mountains were settled and pacified by the Chinese. If these things were more good than bad for China, Shih-huang-ti also set in motion some real reforms, like a simplification of the writing system and the end of feudal tenure in farmland.
While Mao is gone, his political heirs still favor positive portrayals of Shih-huang-ti. We see this in a recent movie, Hero [Yingxióng], by director Zhang Yimou. This was released in China in 2002, and DVD's of it were soon available elsewhere. The movie was not released to theaters in the United States until 2004. It was said to be "presented by" director Quentin Tarantino, with the hope perhaps that Tarantino's well known enthusiasm for martial arts movies would help draw in audiences. They needn't have worried, since the movie opened in the number one position. The story is about how assassins attempting to kill Shih-huang-ti become converted to his cause. Although the King of Ch'in himself says that many people think of him as a tyrant, we do not yet see the degree to which his ruthlessness later went. Instead, we are given to understand that, whatever he does, it is simply for the sake of unifying the country and bringing peace. The key element in the conversion of the assassins are the two characters . These are not actually shown in the film, simply read by the lead assassin. In the Chinese DVD, which did have English subtitles, it is literally translated "under heaven," and means the world or, the practical equivalent, China. This represents the unifying program of Ch'in. However, the subtitles of the film as released in the United States rather awkwardly translate it as "our land," which may indeed be a suitable translation but does have a very different feel to it. We lose the Chinese sense of the universality of its civilization, or of the universal sovereignty of the Emperor. Probably this was not thought suitable for foreign audiences. An expression does exist in Chinese for "our land," namely 
, but this is not what is used in the movie.
| (Former or Western) Han, ,Dynasty, 207 BC- 25 AD | |
|---|---|
| Kao Tsu Liu Pang | 207- 195 |
| Hui Ti Liu Ying | 195- 188 |
| Empress Lü Lü Chih | regent 188- 180 |
| Shao Ti Liu Kung | 188- 184 |
| Shao Ti Liu Hung | 184- 180 |
| Wên Ti Liu Heng | 180- 157 |
| Ching Ti Liu Ch'i | 157- 141 |
| Wu Ti Liu Ch'e | 141- 87 |
| Chao Ti Liu Fu-ling | 87-74 |
| Hsüan Ti Liu Ping-i | 74-48 |
| Yüan Ti Liu Shih | 48-33 |
| Roman Soldiers (!?), escaped from Parthians (?), captured from Hsiung-nu, 36 BC | |
| Ch'eng Ti Liu Ao | 33-7 |
| Ai Ti Liu Hsin | 7-1 BC |
| P'ing Ti Liu Chi-tzu | 1 BC-6 AD |
| Ju-tzu Liu Ying | 6-9 |
| Chia Huang-ti, Wang Mang; Hsin,  , Dynasty | 9-23 |
| Huai-yang Wang Liu Hsüan | 23-25, d.26 |
Shih-huang-ti is a good example of the ruler who the Taoists said is successful from fear. When he died, his success could not endure. A plot at the court, masterminded by the eunuch Chao Kao (but with the agreement of Li Szu), faked a message to the Crown Prince Fu-su, ordering him to kill himself, which he did. A weak younger brother was made the "Second Emperor," but he was the tool of the manipulators, who did not know how to actually govern the country, which began to slip into rebellion. Meanwhile, Chao Kao had managed to execute any other potential leaders of the house of Ch'in. It was a former peasant, Liu Pang, who soon took the capital and founded a new dynasty.
The importance of the Han Dynasty should be evident in the circumstance that this is what the Chinese have called themselves ever since, 
, the "Han People." The Chinese language is the 
(kango in Japanese), "Han speech"; and Chinese characters are called the 
(Kanji in Japanese, Hanja in Korean), the "Han letters." The expression can mean "Chinese writing," or "literature of the Han Dynasty," or the "Han Emperor Wên Ti." In Japanese, however, where it is pronounced Kambun, it usually means Chinese as written by Japanese writers, who usually did not speak Chinese. We see the combination of the second characters wén and zì in 
(moji or monji in Japanese), which can mean "characters, script, writing." (Be warned that there is a simplified character now used for "Hàn" in China.)
The genealogy of the Former Han is from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History) supplemented with information from the Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors by Ann Paludan [Thames & Hudson, London, 1998]. Paludan, unfortunately, renders the name of the Empress Lü as "Lu."
The greatest Emperor of the Former Han Dynasty was probably Wu Ti. This name means "Martial Emperor," because of the success of Chinese arms in the occupation of the Tarim Basin; but the cultural heritage of his long reign was far more durable. The establishment of Confucianism as the official moral and political ideology of the state was due to the advice of 
Wu Ti's minister Hung Kung-sun (d.121). In 136 official experts in each of the Five Classics were appointed at court, and in 124 they took on fifty students. By 50 BC this palace school had 3000 students, and by 1 AD graduates staffed the bureaucracy. Also at Wu Ti's court was the historian Szu-ma Ch'ien [Si1ma3 Qian1] (145-86 BC). Szu-ma angered the Emperor in some way and was ordered castrated. Ordinarily, this humiliation would have led to suicide, but the historian lived with his shame in order to finish the first great Chinese history, the Shih Chi, 
, "Historical Records," which covers all Chinese history up to the Ch'in and early Han Dynasties. This established the standard and the form for subsequent official Chinese dynastic histories -- not narrative history as familiar from Greek and Roman historians, but something more like an encyclopedia, with a chronicle, monographs on various subjects, and biographies. It had been started by Szu-ma's father, Szu-ma Tan (d.110) and was completed in 87 BC.
Beginning with the reign of Wên Ti, auspicious names begin to be given to periods of time. These become the Era names (nien-hao, niánhào).
Later (Eastern) Han,  , Dynasty, 25-220 AD | |
|---|---|
| Kuang-wu Ti Liu Hsiu | 25-57 |
| Ming Ti Liu Yang | 57-75 |
| Chang Ti Liu Ta | 75-88 |
| Ho Ti Liu Chao | 88- 106 |
| Shang Ti Liu Lung | 106 |
| An Ti Liu Yü | 106- 125 |
| Shao Ti Liu Yi | 125 |
| Shun Ti Liu Pao | 125- 144 |
| Ch'ung Ti Liu Ping | 144- 145 |
| Chih Ti Liu Tsuan | 145- 146 |
| Huan Ti Liu Chih | 146- 168 |
| Embassy arrives from Roman Emperor (?), 166 | |
| Ling Ti Liu Hung | 168- 189 |
| Shao Ti, Shun Ti Liu Shun | 189, d.190 |
| Hsien Ti Liu Hsieh | 189- 220, d.234 |
The Later Han is often called the "Eastern" Han because the capital was moved down the Huang He valley, back to where the capital of the Chou had been. This location was actually more easily supplied than the area of Ch'ang-An. Since the previous dynasty is often called the "Former" Han, it seems like the new one should be the "Latter" rather than the "Later" Han, but the usage is established. The "Former Han" is the Ch'ien Han, where 
is "formerly, before, in front of." The Former Han can also simply be called the "Han." "Later" is a translation from Chinese , "afterward, behind, to follow." Actually, looking at those, "former" and "latter" might be the best translations. They are also seen rendered as "early" and "posterior," respectively, with the names of other dynasties.
The change of dynasty was mainly because of rebellion against the "dictator" Wang Mang at the end of the Former Han. The Throne was successfully seized by a distant Han cousin, who retained the Dynastic name. As shown in the genealogy at left, the rulers of the Later Han and the subsequent Minor Han (or Shu Han) both traced descent from Ching Ti of the Former Han (this genealogy of the Shu Han is that recounted in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms). Eventually, the Later Han Emperors returned to the Tarim Basin, conquered Hainan, Tonkin, and Annam, and even moved north of the Great Wall into Mongolia.
The History of the Later Han Dynasty records that in the year 166 an embassy arrived in Lo-Yang from a ruler of , "Great Ch'in," named Andun. This had come up from Vietnam after, apparently, travelling by sea from the West. Andun looks like it might be "Antoninus," which could mean either Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius, both of whom used the name. Thus, "Great Ch'in" is usually taken to mean Rome, and the embassy was sent to explore ways to redirect the silk trade around the route, the Silk Road through Central Asia, dominated by the Parthians. If so, nothing came of it. The possibility of any communication between the great contemporary Empires of Rome and the Han is tantalizing. My impression has been that Chinese attempts to establish some communication overland were frustrated by the Parthians. Since we know that the Romans had knowledge of and trade with India and Ceylon, and that Chinese pilgrims like Fa-Hsien went by sea from India to China (399-414), it is not at all impossible or unlikely that some Romans, in the days of the Kushans in India, could have done what the dynastic history says. The History was actually written in Anterior Sung Dynasty (420-479), and the Chinese were still aware that the Parthians were frustrating attempts at direct trade with "Great Ch'in."
Like Szu-ma Ch'ien before him, the compiler of the History of the Former Han Dynasty [simply the 
, "Han History," or Ch'ien Han Shu, "Early Han History," in Chinese], Pan Ku (Ban Gu, 32 AD-92), ran afoul of the Emperor, in this case actually dying in prison. Nevertheless, this confirmed the tradition of the history of each dynasty being written under the following one.
The Eras of the Later Han Dynasty can be examined on a popup page. The genealogy of the Later Han is from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History) supplemented with information from the Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors by Ann Paludan [Thames & Hudson, London, 1998].
The Three Kingdoms,  , 220-266 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minor Han,  ,Dynasty, 221-263 | Wei,  , Dynasty, 220-266 | Wu,  , Dynasty, 222-280 | |||
| Chao-lieh Ti Liu Pei | King of Shu/ Han-chung, 219-221; Emperor, 221-223 | Wen Ti Ts'ao P'i [Cao Pi] | Emperor, 220-226 | Wu Ta Ti Sun Ch'üan | King of Wu, 222-229; Emperor, 229-252 |
| Hou Chu Liu Shan | 223-263, d.271 | Ming Ti Ts'ao Jui | 226-239 | ||
| Shao Ti, Fei Ti, Ch'i Wang Ts'ao Fang | 239-254, d.274 | Fei Ti Sun Liang | 252-258 | ||
| Shao Ti, Kao Kuei Hsiang Kung Ts'ao Mao | 254-260 | Ching Ti Sun Hsiu | 258-264 | ||
| conquest by Wei, 263 | Yüan Ti Ts'ao Huan | 260-266, d.302 | Mo Ti Sun Hao | 264-280, d.281 | |
| overthrown by Chin, 266 | conquest by Chin, 280 | ||||
The period of the "Three Kingdoms" is a brief interlude before things settle down for a while in the dynamic of the following period. It may be remembered now with special attention because of a literary source, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, 
(from the Ming Dynasty). The expression can mean a "historical novel/romance," but literally it reads "practice righteousness," which suits its often moralizing approach. Although occasionally fictionalized, the novel covers the entire period from the fall of the Later Han to the succession of the Western Chin with largely historical detail. It became a very influential treatment of the history, and of history in general. In 2008 director John Woo has released an epic movie, Red Cliff [Chibi], based on the Battle of Red Cliff in the year 208. 
This was a critical event in the formation of the Three Kingdoms. With the last Han Emperor reduced to a figurehead, the Prime Minister, Ts'ao Ts'ao [Cao Cao], attempted to crush the southern forces of Liu Pei [Liu Bei] and Sun Ch'üan [Sun Quan]. Where the Han River flows into the Yangtze, Ts'ao Ts'ao's fleet and army were broken, with the consequence that Liu Pei and Sun Ch'üan would be able to establish their independent domains of the Minor Han and Wu. When Ts'ao Ts'ao's son Ts'ao P'i deposes the last Han Emperor in 220, Liu Pei and Sun Ch'üan declare independence. Traditionally, Wei was counted as the "legitimate" successor to the Han, but in the Three Kingdoms the sympathy and regard is all for Liu Pei.
The Minor Han is supposed to derive from the Former Han Dynasty. "Shu Han" actually means the "Han of Szechwan." The character does not mean "minor." I have always been intrigued that the Shu Han is shown by L. Carrington Goodrich (A Short History of the Chinese People, Harper Torchbooks, 1959, 1963, p.59) occupying an area of Yunnan that had only been partially occupied by the Han, is missing from many maps of the T'ang, and was only properly settled by Chinese with veterans at the beginning of the Ming. J.A.G. Roberts, in A Concise History of China [Harvard, 1999], more reasonably identifies the area as Szechwan [Sichuan, north of the Yangtze], but then doesn't provide a map of the period (the maps he does provide jump directly from Confucius to the T'ang). Ann Paludan (Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors, Thames & Hudson, 1998) provides a nice map of the Three Kingdoms [p.64], though, mysteriously, none of the Sui or T'ang, showing somewhat less, thought still substantial, territory south of the Yangtze. After repulsing Ts'ao Ts'ao, Liu Pei moved to occupy Szechwan. The territory he held in Hupei was then taken by Wu. The Romance of the Three Kingdoms does recount extensive campaigns in Yunnan by the Prime Minister K'ung-ming (Kongming), so perhaps it is these campaigns, with the subjugation of the "Man" people, that account for its inclusion in the maps of the Shu Han. There is an explicit denial, however, of Chinese occupation or colonization. Yunnan thus has a vassal status that could easily lapse. The Shu Han kingdom is later absorbed by the Wei (Ts'ao Ts'ao's grandson overthrowing Liu Pei's son). The Wei is replaced in a coup by the founder of the Western Tsin [or Chin, Pinyin Jìn], Sima Yan, a general of Wei, in 266. He conquers Wu in 280, reunifying the country. This doesn't last, as civil war breaks out in 290. Barbarians, the Hsiung-nu, , sacked the capital of Luoyang in 311. Debate continues whether the Hsiung-nu are none other than the Huns who later (within two centuries) invaded Europe and India. Whether they are or not, they inaugurate an era when barbarians dominate the North.
There is a curious inconsistency in the Emperors of the Wei between Paludan and the Oxford Dynasties of the World [p.215-216]. Paludan drops Fei Ti from the list and attributes his reign years to "Shao Ti," 
. A "Kao Kuei Hsiang Kung" [Gao Gui Xiang Gong] is then inserted between Shao Ti and Yüan Ti, with Shao Ti's regal years. "Kao Kuei Hsiang Kung" is, of course, a peculiar name, without the "Ti" element, which should mean that, in some sense, he was not judged legitimate ("Kung," as we have seen, is "Duke"). But Paludan, who discusses the era as the Dynasties does not, does not address this question. In the list of Mathews' Chinese-English Dictionary [p.1168], however, Shao Ti is Kao Kuei Hsiang Kung. Fei Ti is noted as deposed, as the Oxford Dynasties notes him as both adopted and deposed. At the Chinaknowledge website, Ulrich Theobald matches Paludan, with Shao Ti identified as Ch'i Wang, which is how Mathews' identified Fei Ti. What appears to be the case is that, as "Fei Ti" simply means the "overthrown Emperor," "Shao Ti" simply means the "minor Emperor" (in the sense of either young or insignificant). Thus, more than one Emperor in a dynasty, even successors, might be "Fei" or "Shao" or both -- see the Former Han. So I suspect "Shao" has been used for both Emperors in question. "Mo Ti," 
, simply means the "last Emperor" -- see the Ch'ing for the very last Emperor.
The Eras of the Minor Han and Wei Dynasties can be examined on a popup page. The genealogy of the Three Kingdoms is from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History) supplemented with information from the Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors by Ann Paludan [Thames & Hudson, London, 1998].
The Northern and Southern Empires,   , 266-589 | |
|---|---|
The Six Southern Dynasties, | |
1. Western Chin/Tsin,  , Dynasty, 266-316 | |
| Wu Ti Ssu-ma Yen/Sima Yan | 266-290 |
| Hui Ti Ssu-ma Chung | 290-307 |
| Huai Ti Ssu-ma Ch'ih | 307-313, d.318 |
| siege of Loyang, 309-311; captured by Hsiung-nu of the Early Chao, 313 | |
| Min Ti Ssu-ma Yeh | 313-316, d.318 |
| moved court to Ch'ang-an, 313; captured by Hsiung-nu of the Early Chao, 316; excecuted with Huai Ti, 318 | |
| 2. Eastern Chin/Tsin, , Dynasty, 317-420 | |
| Yüan Ti Ssu-ma Jui | 317-323 |
| Ming Ti Ssu-ma Shao | 323-325 |
| Ch'êng Ti Ssu-ma Yen | 325-342 |
| K'ang Ti Ssu-ma Yüeh | 342-344 |
| Mu Ti Ssu-ma Tan | 344-361 |
| Ai Ti Ssu-ma P'i | 361-365 |
| Fei Ti, Hai-hsi Ti Ssu-ma I | 365-372 |
| Chien-wên Ti Ssu-ma Yü | 372 |
| Hsiao-wu Ti Ssu-ma Yao | 372-396 |
| An Ti Ssu-ma Te-tsung | 396-419 |
| Kung Ti Ssu-ma Te-wen | 419-420 |
3. Anterior Sung,   , Dynasty, 420-479 | |
| Wu Ti Liu Yü | 420-422 |
| Fei Ti, Shao Ti, Ying-yang Wang Liu I-fu | 422-424 |
| Wen Ti Liu I-lung | 424-453 |
| Hsiao-wu Ti Liu Chün | 453-464 |
| Ch'ian Fei Ti Liu Ye | 464-466 |
| Ming Ti Liu Yü | 466-472 |
| Hou Fei Ti, Ts'ang-wu Wang Liu Yeh | 472-477 |
| Shun Ti Liu Chün | 477-479 |
4. Southern Ch'i,  , Dynasty, 479-502 | |
| Kao Ti Hsiao Tao-ch'eng | 479-482 |
| Wu Ti Hsiao Tse | 482-493 |
| Yü-lin Wang Hsiao Chao-yeh | 493-494 |
| Hai-ling Wang Hsiao Chao-wen | 494 |
| Ming Ti Hsiao Luan | 494-498 |
| Tung Hun Ho Hsiao Pao-chüan | 498-501 |
| Ho Ti Hsiao Pao-jung | 501-502 |
5. (Southern) Liang,  , Dynasty, 502-557 | |
| Wu Ti Hsiao Yan | 502-549 |
| Chien-wên Ti Hsiao Kan | 549-551 |
| Yü-chang Wang Hsiao Tung | 551, d.552 |
| Yüan Ti Hsiao I | 552-555 |
| Wu-ling Wang Hsiao Chi | 555 (552?) |
| Ching Ti Hsiao Fang-chih | 555-557, d.558 |
| 5a. Later Liang, , Dynasty, 555-587 | |
| Yi Ti Hsiao Ch'a | 555-562 |
| Ming Ti Hsiao K'uei | 562-585 |
| Ts'ung Hsiao Ts'ung | 585-587 |
6. Southern Ch'ên,  , Dynasty, 557-589 | |
| Wu Ti Ch'en Pa-hsien | 557-559 |
| Wên Ti Ch'en Ch'ien | 559-566 |
| Fei Ti, Lin-hai Wang Ch'en Po-tsung | 566-568, d.570 |
| Hsüan Ti Ch'en Hsü | 569-582 |
| Hou Chu Ch'en Shu-pao | 582-589, d.604 |
| Falls to Sui, 589 | |
the Sixteen Kingdoms of the Five Barbarians,    | |
|---|---|
1. Early Chao,  , (Northern Han) Dynasty, 304-329 (Hsiung-nu), Shansi, Hopei, & Shensi | |
| Kao Tsung Liu Yuan | 304-309 (311?) |
| Liu Ho | 309 |
| Chao-wu Ti Liu Ts'ung | 310-317 |
| Sack of Loyang, 311; captures last two Chin Emperors, 313, 316; ends Western Chin, 316 | |
| Yin Ti, Shao-chu Liu Ts'an | 317 |
| Ch'in Wang Liu Yao | 318-329 |
| fell to Later Chao | |
| 2. Later Chao, , Dynasty, 319-352 (Chieh) | |
| Kao Tsu Shih Le | 319-333 |
| Hai-yang Wang Shih Hong | 333-334 |
| T'ai Tsu Shih Hu | 334-349 |
| Ch'iao Wang Shih Shih | 349 |
| P'eng-ch'ung Wang Shih Tsun | 349 |
| I-yang Wang Shih Chien | 349-350 |
| Hsin-hsing Wang Shih Chih | 350-351 |
| Jan Min | 350-352 |
| fell to Early Yen | |
3. Ch'eng-Han,  , Dynasty, 304-347 (Ti), Szechwan | |
| Shih Tsu Li T'e | 302-303 |
| Chin-wen Wang Li Liu | 303 |
| T'ai Tsung Li Hsiung | 303-334 |
| Ai Ti Li Pan | 334 |
| You Ti, Fei Ti Li Ch'i | 334-337, deposed |
| Chung Tsung Li Shou | 338-343 |
| Hou Ti Li Shih | 343-347 |
| fell to Eastern Chin | |
4. Early Liang,  , Dynasty, 313-376 (Chinese), Kansu | |
| Wu Wang, T'ai Tsung Chang Kui | 301-314 |
| T'ai Tsung Chang Shih | 314-320 |
| Ch'eng Wang Chang Mao | 320-324 |
| Wen Wang Chang Chün | 324-346 |
| Ming Wang Chang Ch'ung-hua | 346-353 |
| Ai Kung Chang Yao | 353 |
| Wei Wang Chang Tsuo | 353-355 |
| Ch'ung Wang Chang Hsüan-ching | 355-363 |
| Tao Kung Chang Tien-Hsi | 363-376 |
| fell to Early Ch'in | |
| 5. Later Liang,, Dynasty, 386-403 (Ti) | |
| T'ai Tsu Lü Kuang | 386-399 |
| Yin Wang Lü Shao | 399 |
| Ling Ti Lü Tsuan | 399-401 |
| Hou-chu Chien-k'ang Kung Lü Lung | 401-403 |
| fell to Later Ch'in | |
| 6. Southern Liang, , Dynasty, 397-404, 408-414 (Hsien-pei) | |
| Lieh Tsu T'u-fa Wu-ku | 397-399 |
| K'ang Wang T'u-fa Li-lu-ku | 399-402 |
| Ching Wang T'u-fa Ju-t'an-li | 402-414 |
| fell to Western Ch'in | |
| 7. Western Liang, , Dynasty, 401/5-421 (Chinese) | |
| T'ai Tsu Li Kao | 400-417 |
| Hou-chu, Liang Kung Li Hsin | 417-420 |
| Kuan-chün Hou Li Hsün | 420-421 |
| fell to Northern Liang | |
| 8. Northern Liang, , Dynasty, 397-439 (Hsiung-nu) | |
| Chien-k'ang Kung Tuan Yeh | 397-400 |
| T'ai Tsu, Wu-hsüan Wang Chü-ch'ü Meng-hsün | 401-432 |
| Ai Wang Chü-ch'ü Mu-chien | 433-439 |
| [Chü-ch'ü Wu-hui] | 443 |
| [Chü-ch'ü An-chou] | 444-460 |
| fell to Northern Wei | |
9. Early Yen,  , Dynasty, 349-370 (Hsien-pei), Shansi & Hopei | |
| P'u-kuei | 281-283 |
| Shan | 283-285 |
| Wu-hsüan Ti Mu-jung Hui | 285-333 |
| T'ai Tsu Mu-jung Huang | 333-348 |
| Lieh Tsu Mu-jung Chün | 348-360 |
| Yu Ti Mu-jung Wei | 360-370 |
| fell to Early Ch'in | |
| 10. Later Yen, , Dynasty, 384-408 (Hsien-pei) | |
| Shih Tsu Mu-jung Ch'ui | 384-396 |
| Lieh Tsung Mu-jung Pao | 396-397 |
| K'ai-feng Kung Mu-jung Hsiang | 397 |
| Chao Wang Mu-jung Lin | 397 |
| Chung Tsung Mu-jung Sheng | 398-401 |
| Chao-wen Ti Mu-jung Hsi | 401-407 |
| Hui-i Ti Kao Yün | 407-408 |
| fell to Northern Yen | |
| 11. Southern Yen, , Dynasty, 398-410 (Hsien-pei) | |
| Shih Tsu Mu-jung Te | 398-405 |
| Pei-hai Wang Mu-jung Chao | 405-410 |
| fell to Eastern Chin | |
| 12. Northern Yen, , Dynasty, 409-436 (Chinese) | |
| T'ai Tsu Feng Pa | 408-430 |
| Chao-ch'eng Ti Feng Hong | 430-436 |
| fell to Northern Wei | |
| 13. Early Ch'in, , Dynasty, 351-394 (Ti), Shensi [Shaanxi] | |
| T'ai Tsu Fu Hong | 349-350 |
| Kao Tsu Fu Chien | 350-354 |
| Chao Li Wang Fu Sheng | 354-357 |
| Shih Tsu Fu Chien | 357-385 |
| Ai P'ing Ti Fu P'i | 385-386 |
| T'ai Tsung Fu Teng | 386-394 |
| Mo-chu Fu Ch'ung | 394 |
| fell to Later or Western Ch'in | |
| 14. Later Ch'in, , Dynasty, 384-417 (Ch'iang) | |
| Shih Tsu Yao I-chung | |
| Wei Wu Wang Yao Hsiang | |
| T'ai Tsu Yao Ch'ang | 383-393 |
| Kao Tsu Yao Hsing | 393-415 |
| Hou-chu Yao Hong | 415-417 |
| fell to Eastern Chin | |
| 15. Western Ch'in, , Dynasty, 385-390, 409-431 (Hsien-pei) | |
| Lieh Tsu Ch'i-fu Kuo-jen | 385-387 |
| Kao Tsu Ch'i-fu Ch'ien-kuei | 387-411 |
| T'ai Tsu Ch'i-fu Chih-p'an | 411-427 |
| Ho-chu Ch'i-fu Mu-mo | 427-431 |
| fell to Hsia | |
| 16. Hsia, , Dynasty 407-431 (Hsiung-nu), Shensi | |
| Shih Tsu Ho-lien Po-po | 407-425 |
| Fei-chu, Ch'in Wang Ho-lien Ch'ang | 425-428 |
| Hou-chu, P'ing-k'ang Wang Ho-lien Ting | 428-431 |
| fell to Northern Wei | |
Chinese historians regarded the Southern Dynasties as the legitimate succession of the Chinese Throne, which is why, even though Yang Chien came to a unified Northern Throne in 581, the period is reckoned to extend down to 589 and the Sui begun in 590. All sources tend to neglect listing the rulers of the Northern Dynasties and Kingdoms, or even many of the Northern Dynasties and Kingdoms themselves. The latter neglect tends to follow a division, between the less Chinese, more ephemeral, and so less noteworthy "Sixteen Kingdoms," and the "Five Northern Dynasties" which unify the North, last longer, become much more Sinified, and lead, by way of the Northern Chou, to the reunification of the country. The Eras of the Six Southern Dynasties can be examined on a popup page.
The genealogies of the Six Southern Dynasties, the Sixteen Kingdoms, and the Five Northern Dynasties can all be examined on a very large [90.0K] popup image [use a default gray background for best effect]. Or it can be loaded into the current window. These genealogies are entirely from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History), though the names and dates may be from other sources.
It will be noticed that there are two Later Liang dynasties -- pronounced the same but not using the same character -- one with the Six Dynasties (, #5a), but not one of them, and another among the Sixteen Kingdoms (, #5). The former, while not an official part of the Six Dynasties or the Northern Kingdoms or Dynasties, was simply a survival of the official Liang Dynasty (#5), after it had been displaced by the Southern Ch'ên (#6). As such, it is often ignored or anomalously placed with the Sixteen Kingdoms.
The "Anterior" Sung is actually called the Sung, i.e. the Sung of the Liu family, which otherwise is the family of Han Dynasties -- though not, as it happens, of the Ch'eng Han, whose surname is Li (like the T'ang Dynasty). The character means "final," as though this was the very last Han dynasty. It wasn't, and the character is not otherwise used.
It is under the Western Chin (266-316) that the tradition of dynastic histories was continued, with the Record of the Three Kingdoms [San Kuo Chih or Sanguozhi], by Ch'en Shou, in 297. Under the Anterior Sung Dynasty (420-479) we get the publication, in 445, of the History of the Later Han Dynasty, the 
, by Fan Yeh (398-455). Under the Southern Ch'i (479-502) the History of the [Anterior] Sung [Sung Shu or Songshu], by Shen Yüeh, was published (493); and under the Southern Liang (502-557) the History of the Southern Ch'i [Nan Ch'i Shu or Nan Qishu], by Hsiao Tzu-hsien (537), and the History of the [Northern & Eastern] Wei [Wei Shu or Weishu], by Wei Shou (554), were published.
| the Five Northern Dynasties, | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1. Northern Wei, , Dynasty, 386-534 (Hsien-pei) | ||
| Tao Wu Ti, T'ai Tsu T'o-pa Kuei | 386-409 | |
| Ming Yüan Ti T'o-pa Ssu | 409-423 | |
| T'ai-wu Ti T'o-pa T'ao | 423-452 | |
| Nan-an Wang T'o-pa Yü | 452 | |
| Wên Ch'êng Ti T'o-pa Chün | 452-465 | |
| Hsien Wên Ti T'o-pa Hong | 465-471, d.476 | |
| Hsiao Wên Ti Yüan Hong | 471-499 | |
| Hsüan Wu Ti Yüan K'o | 499-515 | |
| Hsiao Ming Ti Yüan Hsü | 515-528 | |
| Hsiao Chuang Ti Yüan Tzu-yu | 528-530, d.531 | |
| Tung-hai Wang Yüan Yeh | 530 | |
| Fei Ti, Chieh Min Ti Kuang-ling Wang Yüan Kung | 530-531, d.532 | |
| Hou-fei Ti, An-ting Wang Yüan Lang | 531-532 | |
| Hsiao Wu Ti Yüan Hsiu | 532-535 | |
| 2. Eastern Wei, , Dynasty, 534-550 (Hsien-pei) | ||
| Hsiao Ching Ti Yüan Shan-chien | 534-550, d.552 | |
| 3. Western Wei, , Dynasty, 535-556 (Hsien-pei) | ||
| Wên Ti Yüan Pao-chü | 535-551 | |
| Fei Ti Yüan Ch'in | 551-554 | |
| Kung Ti Yüan K'uo | 554-557 | |
| 4. Northern Ch'i, , Dynasty, 550-577 | ||
| Wên Hsüan Ti Kao Yang | 550-559 | |
| Fei Ti Kao Yin | 559-560, d.561 | |
| Hsiao Chao Ti Kao Yen | 560-561 | |
| Wu Ch'êng Ti Kao Chan | 561-565, d.569 | |
| Hou-chu Kao Wei | 565-577 | |
| An-te Wang Kao Yen-tsung | 577 | |
| Yu-chu Kao Heng | 577 | |
| 5. Northern Chou, , Dynasty, 557-581 (Hsien-pei) | ||
| Hsiao Min Ti Yü-wên Chüeh | 557 | |
| Ming Ti, Shih Tsung Yü-wên Yü | 557-560 | |
| Wu Ti, Kao Tsu Yü-wên Yung | 560-578 | |
| Hsüan Ti Yü-wên Yün | 578-579, d.580 | |
| Ching Ti Yü-wên Ch'an | 579-581 | |
| Overthrown by Yang Chien, 581 | ||
While something like the Sixteen Kingdoms sounds like an obscure period, like the Dark Ages in Europe, this is only an impression, not because of lack of records, as in the European Dark Ages. There was a history, the Shiliuguo Chunqiu, or the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Sixteen Kingdoms, by Ts'ui Hong [Cui Hong]. Unfortunately, the original of this was lost, though, as with many Greek and Roman histories, elements of it were preserved in later writers. Indeed, the history of the period ends up being covered by no less than eight of the standard dynastic histories. The Six Southern Dynasties are featured in the Jinshu (History of Tsin/Jin), Songshu (History of the Anterior Sung), Nan Qishu (History of the Southern Ch'i), Liangshu (History of the Liang), and Chenshu (History of the Ch'en). The Five Northern Dynasties are featured in the Weishu (History of Wei), Bei Qishu (History of Northern Ch'i), and Zhoushu (History of Chou). Since there were only 24 standard dynastic histories finished before the end of Imperial China in 1912, this group counts for exactly a third of the whole corpus. However, there is more. Two more histories of the period, the Nanshi (Southern Dynasties) and the Beishi (Northern Dynasties) were added by T'ang historians. So this came to 10 out of the 24 histories.
The Sixteen Kingdoms are of the "Five Barbarians," , i.e. five barbarian peoples. These were (1) the Hsiung-nu, , (2) the Chieh, 
, or 
, (3) the Hsien-pei [or Hsien-pi], 
, (4) the Ch'iang, 
, and (5) the Ti, 
, or . The Ch'iang and the Ti, like the later Hsi-Hsia kingdom, were early groups of Tibetan or Tangut peoples, all speaking languages ultimately related to Chinese in the Sino-Tibetan language family. The other groups were all speaking Altaic languages, closely related to Turkish, Mongolian, and Manchu. The Indo-European speaking Yüeh-chih, , are long gone, appearing as the Kushans in Central Asia and India, after they were defeated and driven away by the Hsiung-nu in 170 BC (in the early days of the Han Dynasty). As noted above, a reasonable speculation holds that the Hsiung-nu are none other than the Huns, whose linguistic affinity was probably with Mongolian, though some sources say Turkish. The Hsien-pei, in turn, appear to have been Turkish. However, it may be that all the languages are rather close to proto-Altaic and the Mongolian and Turkic groups have not definitely separated yet. A few of the Northern Dynasties were evidently Chinese, but all became increasingly Sinified both in culture and, through intermarriage, ethnically.
One thing that fragmented and weakened government made possible was basic cultural innovation. Buddhism took a while to catch on in China. Confucians would really never accept a teaching that advised people to abandon their families and become dependants on society, as Buddhist monks and nuns did. Buddhism had arrived during the Later Han, not always attracting negative official notice, but basic Confucian hostility was only overcome by the weakening of central authority with the now fragmented nature of the country, especially under the barbarian Northern dynasties, where undiscriminating "barbarian" tastes perhaps didn't know any better. It was from the Northern Wei that the fabulous Buddhist cave shrines began to be carved and painted at Dunhuang, on the Silk Road in western Kansu [Gansu]. There was also a change in Buddhism itself: Mahâyâna Buddhism had become less hostile to the world than earlier forms, and this was altogether more agreeable to the Chinese.
| Unclassified Dynasties | |
|---|---|
| 1. Western Yen, , (= Later Han?) Dynasty, 384-394 (Hsien-pei), Shansi & Hopei | |
| Mu-jung Hong | 384-385 |
| Wei Ti Mu-jung Ch'ung | 385-386 |
| Mu-jung I | 386 |
| Mu-jung Yao | 386 |
| Mu-jung Chung | 386 |
| Mu-jung Yung | 386-394 |
| fell to Later Yen | |
| 2. Tai, , Dynasty, 315-376 (Hsien-pei), Shensi | |
| T'o-pa I-lu | 315-338 |
| T'o-pa Shih-i-chien | 338-376 |
| fell to Early Ch'in | |
3. Former Ch'iu-ch'ih, , Dynasty, 296-371 (Ti), Kansu | |
| Yang Mao-sou | 296-317 |
| Yang Nan-ti | 317-334 |
| Yang I | 334-337 |
| Yang Ch'u | 337-355 |
| Yang Kuo | 355-356 |
| Yang Chün | 356-360 |
| Yang Shih | 360-370 |
| Yang Ts'uan | 370-371 |
| fell to Early Ch'in | |
| 4. Later Ch'iu-ch'ih,, Dynasty, 385-443 (Ti) | |
| Wu Wang Yang Ting | 385-394 |
| Hui-wen Wang Yang Sheng | 394-425 |
| Hsiao-chao Wang Yang Hsüan | 425-429 |
| Yang Pao-tsung | 429 |
| Yang Nan-tang | 429-441 |
| Yang Pao-ch'ih | 441-443 |
| fell to Northern Wei | |
5. Wu-tu,  , Dynasty, 447-477 | |
| Yang Wen-te | 443-454 |
| Yang Yüan-te | 454-466 |
| Yang Seng | 466-473 |
| fell to Northern Wei | |
6.Wu-hsing,  , Dynasty, 478-530 | |
| Yang Wen-hong | 478-480 |
| Yang Chi-shih | 480-503 |
| Yang Shao-hsien | 503-? |
| Yang Pi-hsieh | ?-530 |
| fell to Northern Wei | |
The popularity of Buddhism ushered in the great era of missionaries and pilgrims. Buddhist missionaries arrived to spread the dharma. One of these was Kumârajîva (344-413), the great translator of the Lotus Sutra, who arrived in China in 401. Another was the semi-mythical Bodhidharma (died circa 528), who founded the Ch'an (Zen) School of Buddhism, which combined Buddhism with Chinese ideas from Taoism. This missionary effort was reciprocated by Chinese pilgrims who travelled to India, like Fa-Hsien, whose route, overland going (on the Silk Road), by sea returning, is shown below. The purpose of the pilgrims was usually not just to visit holy sites but to learn Sanskrit and fetch back texts to translate into Chinese.
Hunting down the details of this period has been a challenge. The print histories I have seen are woefully deficient in chronological apparatus, with few lists of rulers and often lacking even lists of dynasties, especially of the Sixteen Kingdoms and Five Northern Dynasties. The rulers of the Five Northern Dynasties are from the Oxford Dynasties of the World, by John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002, pp.217-218]. L. Carrington Goodrich [A Short History of the Chinese People, Harper Torchbooks, 1943, 1963] had the first detail of the Sixteen Kingdoms that I had seen. Otherwise, I have had to resort of other kinds of resources. The Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History) actually gives genealogies for all the Dynasties and Kingdoms but, being all in kanji, requires (for me) a slow effort of decipherment. On line, Wikipedia has good treatments, and some other websites give complete lists of rulers. I now find the most complete treatment of the Sixteen Kingdoms, however, at the Chinaknowledge website of Ulrich Theobald. He includes all the forms of the names of the rulers, with characters and era names. This is pretty definitive. Theobald strictly uses Pinyin readings, which are sometimes jumbled together with Wade-Giles at some sites, sometimes even in the same names. Here, of course, I try to give Wade-Giles first with some Pinyin alternatives, but the process of imposing uniformity in these tables is not yet complete. There are some minor differences in dates for the Sixteen Kingdoms between Goodrich and Jacques Gernet [A History of Chinese Civilization, translated by J.R. Foster, Cambridge University Press, 1972, 1982, 1990]. There are systematic differences in dates between the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten and other sources, probably explicable in terms of the practice of dating a reign from the first full year. The Daijiten dates, reflecting that practice, are given here.
Some unclassifed dynasties occur in different sources -- i.e. they are not in the traditional roster of the Six Southern Dynasties, the Sixteen Kingdoms, or the Five Northern Dynasties. Goodrich mentions and the Daijiten lists the Southern "Later Liang" discussed and listed above. Goodrich also mentions a "Western Yen," and some websites list a "Later Han" and a "Tai." The "Western Yen" and the "Later Han" suspiciously both have the same starting and finishing dates, so I have taken the liberty of equating them. Theobald gives full information on the Western Yen, Tai [Dai], and several others, of which I had added the Former and Later Ch'iu-ch'ih [Qiuchi], the Wu-tu, and Wu-hsing.
I have never seen a map of the arrangement or history of the kingdoms, north or south, in this period. Theobald does give some geographical designations, which I have added to the names of the dynasties. Dynasties with the same names (e.g. Chao, Liang, Yen) follow in the same geographical areas. Note that Shansi is now written as Shanxi, and Shensi as Shaanxi. The former means Western Mountain (
), the latter Western Mountain Passes (
). Shensi is in the great bend of the Huang He river, west of Shansi. This was the homeland of Ch'in and the seat of the Former Han, as it would be of the T'ang, at Ch'ang-an (modern Sian or Xian). A while ago a correspondent objected that there is no word "Shaanxi" in Chinese. That is true, but using the two a's is the convention adopted in China itself to distinguish between the two provinces, which otherwise, in the absence of written tones, would have identical names.
Sui,  , Dynasty,589-618 | |
|---|---|
| Wên Ti Yang Chien | Northern Empire, 581-604 |
| Southern Empire, 589-604 | |
| Yang Ti Yang Kuang | 604-617, d.618 |
| Kung Ti Yang Yu | 617-618, d.619 |
| Yüeh Wang, Kung Ti Yang T'ung | 618-619 |
would have similar to what we see in China. Yang Chien was raised a Buddhist; and on assuming the Northern Throne in 581, he announced that his rule would be like that of a Cakravartin, the universal monarch of Indian ideology, promoting the "ten Buddhist virtues." There could be no more striking a testimony to the legitimization of Buddhism as a Chinese religion. However, Confucians never liked Buddhism very much, and it was certainly not forgotten that Buddhism was a foreign introduction. There was latent hostility towards it, though no anti-Buddhist measures would ever go so far as they subsequently would in Korea.Besides reuniting
the country, the Sui is particularly famous for the building of the Grand Canal. This took essentially the entire duration of the Dynasty, and aroused great resentment from the severity of the forced labor. More than 3,000,000 workers were impressed, and those evading service were executed. The project was pursued by the Emperor Yang Kuang, who also provoked opposition with disastrous attempts to conquer Korea. Then, when rebellions broke out, he did little to suppress them and was eventually killed by the captain of his own guard. Meanwhile, the T'ang had become established at Ch'ang-an. The last person on the list, the Prince (Wang) of Yüeh, is often not included among the Emperors. The T'ang had already deposed the dynasty.
The Eras of the Sui Dynasty can be examined on a popup page. The genealogy of the Sui is from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History), with some help from the Chinaknowledge website of Ulrich Theobald.
T'ang,  , Dynasty,618-907 | |
|---|---|
| Kao Tsu Li Yüan | 618-626 |
| T'ai Tsung Li Shih-min | 626-649 |
| Legendary life of Ti Jen-chieh (Di Renjie) Judge Dee, 630-700; Nestorian missionaries arrive in Ch'ang-an, 635; Conquest of Tarim Basin, 645 | |
| Kao Tsung Li Chih | 649-683 |
| Transoxania occupied, 659-665; Korea occupied, 668-676 | |
| Chung Tsung Li Che | 684, 705-710 |
| Jui Tsung Li Tan | 684-690, 710-712, regent, 712-713, d.716 |
| Wu Hou, "Empress Wu," (Chou, , Dynasty) | 690-705, deposed, d.705 |
| Hsüan Tsung, Ming Huang Li Lungchi | 712-756 |
| appeal for alliance from Kashmir, 713; Battle of Talas, 751; Arabs defeat Chinese, under Kao Hsien-chih, but advance no further into Central Asia | |
| Su Tsung Li Yü | 756-762 |
| Tai Tsung Li Yü | 762-779 |
| Loss of Tarim Basin to Tibetans, Ch'ang-An occupied by Tibetans, 763 | |
| Tê Tsung Li Shih | 779-805 |
| Battle of T'ing-chou, Kansu lost to Tibetans, 791 | |
| Shun Tsung Li Sung | 805 |
| Hsien Tsung Li Ch'un | 805-820 |
| Mu Tsung Li Heng | 820-824 |
| Ching Tsung Li Chan | 824-827 |
| Wen Tsung Li Ang | 827-840 |
| Wu Tsung Li Yen | 840-846 |
| Persecution of Buddhism, 845 | |
| Hsüan Tsung Li Ch'en | 846-859 |
| Yi Tsung Li Wen | 859-873 |
| Hsi Tsung Li Yen | 873-888 |
| Chinese ports closed to foreigners, 878; rebel Huang Ch'ao seizes Ch'ang-an, 881 | |
| Chao Tsung Li Chieh | 888-904 |
| Chao-hsüan Ti, Ai Ti Li Chu | 904-907, d.908 |
The T'ang may very well have been the greatest Chinese dynasty. None other, for a time, so dominated its surroundings or so influenced its neighbors. Japanese civilization, for instance, basically came into existence under T'ang (and Korean) influence. Similarly, the mountainous coastal regions of the South of China were first integrated into the state. A remaining artifact of this is that in Cantonese, the Chinese people are not the "Han People," , but the "T'ang People," 
, or 
, as pronounced in Cantonese itself.
The Founder of the dynasty was more or less a figurehead for his great son, Li Shih-min, the real creator of the T'ang state, and the mastermind of rebellion against the Sui while only 16 years old. This, at least, is what Li Shih-min later said, and some scepticism is now expressed about it. Nevertheless, while Emperor himself, remembered as T'ai Tsung, with the realm well established, Li Shih-min created the system of civil service examinations in the Classics that would choose China's bureaucrats for nearly the next 1300 years.
Buddhism, which became entrenched during the period of the Northern and Southern Empires, was finally accepted (probably with ill grace by Confucian officials) as a properly Chinese religion (the third of the "Three Ways") during the Sui and T'ang. Chinese pilgrims, like Hsüan-tsang (Xuanzang, d.664), continued to brave the Silk Road and the Pamirs to travel to India to learn Sanskrit and bring back Buddhist texts. The story of Hsüan-tsang, who travelled in the days of the T'ai Tsung Emperor, was later embellished and expanded into a popular Ming Dynasty novel, the Journey to the West, 
("Record of the Western Journey"). Few historical details are left in this story, but miraculous events and memorable characters, especially the Immortal Monkey King, made it a perennial favorite in China, with an increasing audience in the West. A recent movie, The Forbidden Kingdom [Lionsgate, 2008], extracts the Monkey King with some other elements from the Journey to the West and constructs an unrelated story around him.
One of T'ai Tsung's own concubines seduced his weak son on his succession and, as the 
Wu, dominated the next 45 years of Chinese history. Consort of Kao Tsung, mother of Chung Tsung and Jui Tsung, effectively the sole ruler from 684 to 705, and ruler in her own name from 690, she was the only woman to thus rule China in all of Chinese history. Her career was very similar to that of the Empress Irene, who was the first Roman Empress to rule in her own name, and the only one to seriously exercise power on her own initiative. Thus, like Irene, the Empress Wu had a relatively weak willed husband; and, when he died, she acted first as regent for one son, dethroned him, then for another, and then assumed the throne in her own right. While Irene had her son blinded, an injury from which he died, and ruled only briefly in her own right, Wu did not harm her sons and then ruled for fifteen years (when each followed her). Both Wu and Irene ruled rather well, but were then deposed, without being killed. At that point Wu herself may have just been too old to resist. Subsequently, misogynistic Confucians portrayed Wu as consumed with bloody and immoral appetites. Irene's reign gave Pope Leo III justification for crowning Charlemagne Roman Emperor, since neither believed that a woman could 
be a legitimate Roman ruler.
The Empress Wu's grandson Hsüan Tsung was the last great figure of the dynasty, also known as "Ming Huang," or the "Bright [or brilliant] Emperor." Unfortunately, Hsüan Tsung's long reign ended troubled by rebellion, which substantially impaired the strength of the state for the rest of the history of the dynasty. Nevertheless, important innovations continued to occur. Books began to be printed in the 9th century, porcelain became common, and tea began to be made regularly, not just used as a medicine. The wine drinking of Judge Dee's day gave way to the more sober potable.
Judge Ti (Di, Dee; 630-700) became the hero of later Chinese detective fiction. Such stories always featured a District Magistrate as the protagonist; and since the Magistrate was also the Police Chief, Prosecutor, and Judge in his District, this allowed for dimensions of crime fiction that now in Western fiction would usually belong to separate genres. Judge Ti was brought into modern fiction by the Dutch diplomat and linguist Robert van Gulik (1910-1967). Van Gulik first translated a Chinese story, the Digong Àn ("Judge Ti Cases"), as the Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee in 1949. He hoped this would spark a revival of such stories in Chinese and Japanese; but when it didn't, he began writing a series of such stories himself. This is examined in more detail elsewhere. The culture of van Gulik's Dee stories, and the costumes he illustrated in his own drawings, were more of Ming times than of T'ang, however, since van Gulik was more familiar with that.
In the decline of the T'ang, Tibet becomes a major factor. It was the Tibetans who drove the T'ang out of the Tarim Basin (763) and then even took Kansu (791). This collapse even included an brief occupation of Ch'ang-An itself by the Tibetans (763). Tibetans remained in Kansu, later founding the durable Tangut or Hsi-Hsia state, which survived until the Mongol conquest. The irony of these Tibetan successes is now considerable, in light of recent events. Some might think of present Chinese claims and policies in Tibet as little more than a long delayed revenge for the Tibetan humiliation of the T'ang.
The Eras of the T'ang Dynasty can be examined on a popup page. The genealogy of the T'ang is entirely from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History).
In the T'ang Dynasty the process of producing the dynastic histories started becoming a matter of a team at the Historiographic Bureau, with an editor, rather than individual efforts, though some were produced in that way. In 636 several histories were finished. The History of the [Southern] Liang [Laingshu] and the History of the [Southern] Ch'en [Chenshu] were by Yao Ch'a and Yao Szu-lien, and the History of the Northern Ch'i [Bei Qushi] was by Li Te-lin and Li Po-yao. The History of the [Northern] Chou [Zhoushu] and the History of the Sui [Suishu] were produced by the Bureau, edited by Ling-hu Te-fen and Wei Cheng, respectively. In 646 the Bureau produced the History of the [Western & Eastern] Chin [Jinshu], edited by Fan Hsüan-ling. Finally, in 659, we get the History of the Southern Dynasties [Nanshi] and the History of the Northern Dynasties [Beishi], both by Li Yen-shou.
| The Five Dynasties, , 907-960 | |
|---|---|
| 1. Posterior Liang, , Dynasty, 907-923 | |
| T'ai Tau, T'ai Tsu Chu Wen | 907-912 |
| Ying Wang Chu Yu-kuei | 912-913 |
| Mo Ti Chu Yu-chen | 913-923 |
| 2. Posterior T'ang, , Dynasty, 923-937 (Turkish) | |
| Chuang Tsung Li Ts'un-hsü | 923-926 |
| Ming Tsung Li Tan | 926-933 |
| Min Ti Li Ts'ung-hou | 933-934 |
| Fei Ti Li Ts'ung-k'e | 934-937 |
| 3. Posterior Chin/Tsin, , Dynasty, 937-947 (Turkish) | |
| Kao Tsu Shih Ching-t'ang | 937-942 |
| Ch'u Ti Shih Ch'ung-kuei | 942-947, d.964 |
| 4. Posterior Han, , Dynasty, 947-951 (Turkish) | |
| Kao Tsu Liu Chih-yüan | 947-948 |
| Yin Ti Liu Ch'eng-yu | 948-951 |
| 5. Posterior Chou, , Dynasty, 951-960 | |
| T'ai Tsu Kuo Wei | 951-954 |
| Shih Tsung Ch'ai Juong | 954-959 |
| Shih Tsung Ch'ai Tsung-Hsün | 959-960, d.973 |
| The Ten Kingdoms, , 896-979 | |
|---|---|
1. Min,  , Dynasty, 896-944, Fukien [Fujian] | |
| Wang Ch'ao | 896-897 |
| T'ai Tsu Wang Shen-chih | 897-925 |
| Sze Tsung Wang Yen-han | 925-926 |
| Hui Tsung Wang Lin | 926-935 |
| K'ang Tsung Wang Ch'ang | 935-939 |
| Ching Tsung Wang Hsi | 939-944 |
| Tien-te Ti Wang Yen-cheng | 943-944 |
| fell to Southern T'ang | |
2. Ch'u,  , Dynasty, 896-951, Hunan | |
| Ch'u Wu-mu Wang Ma Yin | 896-930 |
| Heng-yang Wang Ma Hsi-sheng | 930-932 |
| Ch'u Wen-chao Wang Ma Hsi-fan | 932-947 |
| Fei Wang Ma Hsi-kuang | 947-950 |
| Ch'u Kung-hsiao Wang Ma Hsi-o | 950-951 |
| Ch'u Wang Ma Hsi-ch'ung | 951, d.962 |
| fell to Southern T'ang | |
| 3. Former Shu, , Dynasty, 907-925, Szechwan | |
| Kao Tsu Wang Chien | 907-918 |
| Hou-chu Wang Yen | 918-925 |
| fell to Posterior T'ang | |
| 4. Later Shu, , Dynasty, 930-965 | |
| Kao Tsu Meng Chih-hsiang | 930-934 |
| Hou Chu Meng Ch'ang | 934-965 |
| fell to Sung | |
| 5. Wu, , (Huai-nan) Dynasty, 902-937, Kiangsi [Jiangxi] | |
| Tai Tsu Yang Hsing-mi | 902-905 |
| Lieh Tsu Yang Wu | 905-908 |
| Kao Tsu Yang Wei | 908-920 |
| Jui Ti Yang P'u | 920-937 |
| fell to Southern T'ang | |
| 6. Southern T'ang, , Dynasty, 937-975, Kiangsi [Jiangxi] | |
| Lieh Tsu Li Sheng | 937-943 |
| Yüan Tsung Li Ching | 943-961 |
| Hou Chu, Wu Wang Li Yü | 961-975 |
| fell to Sung | |
7. Wu-Yüeh,  , Dynasty, 907-978, Chekiang [Zhejiang] | |
| Wu-su Wang Ch'ien Liu | 907-932 |
| Wen-mu Wang Ch'ien Yüan-kuang | 932-941 |
| Chung-hsien Wang Ch'ien Hong-tso | 941-947 |
| Chung-hsün Wang Ch'ien Hong-tsung | 947-948 |
| Chung-i Wang Ch'ien Hong-ch'u | 948-978 |
| fell to Sung | |
| 8. Southern Han, , Dynasty, 909-971, Kwantung [Guandong] | |
| Jang Huang Ti, Lieh Tsung Liu Yin | 909-911 |
| Kao Tsu Liu Yen | 911-942 |
| Shang Ti Liu Fen | 942-943 |
| Chung Tsung Liu Ch'eng | 943-958 |
| Hou-chu Liu Chi-hsing, Ch'ang | 958-971 |
| fell to Sung | |
9. Ching-nan,  , (Nan-P'ing [Nanping]) Dynasty, 907-963, Hupei [Hubei] | |
| Wu-hsin Wang Kao Chi-hsing | 907-928 |
| Wen-hsien Wang Kao Kung-hui | 928-948 |
| Chen-i Wang Kao Pao-jung | 948-960 |
| Ssu-chung Kao Pau-hsü | 960-962 |
| Kao Chi-ch'ung | 962-963 |
| fell to Sung | |
| 10. Northern Han, , Dynasty, 951-979, Shansi [Shanxi] | |
| Shih Tsu Liu Min, Ch'ung | 951-954 |
| Jui Tsung Liu Ch'eng-chün | 954-968 |
| Fei Ti, Shao-chu Liu Chi-en | 968 |
| Ying-wu Ti Liu Chi-yüan | 968-979 |
| fell to Sung | |
In this period China again breaks into Southern and Northern halves, but there are significant differances in comparison to the earlier period of the Northern and Southern Empires. Now it is the Five Dynasties, in the North and not entirely Chinese, that are regarded as the legitimate succession of the Chinese Throne. In the South were the mainly Chinese "Ten Kingdoms," whose rulers do not seem to be given in the common lists of Emperors. The priority apparently goes to the North as constituting the more unified part of the country. As at the end of the Northern and Southern Empires, a coup against the last Northern Dynasty ushered in reunification, under the Sung. One of the greatest differences, however, is just in the time scale. The Five Dynasties only last 53 years, while the Northern and Southern Empires endured 323 long years -- it is more like the period of the Three Kingdoms, at 46 years, that is comparable in scale to the Five Dynasties.
The Eras of the Five Dynasties can be examined on a popup page. The genealogies of the Five Dynasties and the Ten Kingdoms can all be examined on a large popup image. Or it can be loaded into the current window. These genealogies are entirely from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History), though the names and dates may be from other sources.
In this transition period some basic Chinese customs of later history are supposed to have originated. Previously people sat on floor mats, as the Japanese continued to do, but now chairs came into common use. Also, the bizarre and disturbing custom of binding the feet of women began, an affectation, as with the long fingernails of the Mandarin bureaucrats, to display one's freedom from physical labor. Unfortunately, a long fingernail seems merely ridiculous, and can easily be cut off in need, but ruined feet cannot be remade without extensive modern reconstructive surgery. Interestingly, when the Manchurians came to power, footbinding was prohibited among their own people; but the tyranny of fashion, or the desire to assimilate to the Chinese, meant that the prohibition eroded in practice.
One peculiarity of the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms is that, when listed, we often see six dynasties and nine kingdoms. This is because the Northern Han (like the Later Liang of the Six Dynasties) actually derives from the Posterior Han Dynasty. As the Posterior Han (4th of the Five Dynasties) was replaced in 951, the Northern Han began as one of the Ten Kingdoms. To indicate this connection, it is always tempting to list them together. This not done here. While the rest of the Ten Kingdoms are in the South, the origin of the Northern Han is evident in its situation in the North, in Shansi province.
One dynastic history was produced during the Five Dynasties, this was the Old History of the Tang [Jiu Tangshu], produced by the Historiographic Bureau in 945, during the Posterior Chin (937-947), edited by Liu Hsü.
| Tartar Dynasties | |
|---|---|
Liao,  , (Khitan,   ) Dynasty,907-1125 | |
| T'ai Tsu Yeh-lü A-pao-chi | 907-926 |
| T'ai Tsung Yeh-lü Te-kuang | 927-947 |
| Shih Tsung Yeh-lü Ju-an | 947-951 |
| Mu Tsung Yeh-lü Ching | 951-969 |
| Ching Tsung Yeh-lü Hsien | 969-982 |
| Shêng Tsung Yeh-lü Lung-hsü | 982-1031 |
| Hsing Tsung Yeh-lü Tsung-chen | 1031-1055 |
| Tao Tsung Yeh-lü Hong-chi | 1055-1101 |
| T'ien-tso Ti Yeh-lü Yen-hsi | 1101-1125, d.1128 |
| displaced by the Kin/Chin; relocated to Sinkiang as Western Liao | |
| The Hsi-Hsia, (Tangut,   ) Dynasty,990-(1032)-1227 | |
| Li I-chao | 933-935 |
| Li I-hsing | 935-967 |
| Li Chi-jui | 968-978 |
| Li Chi-Chun | 978-979 |
| Li Chi-feng | 980-1004 |
| Li Chi-Ch'ien | 982-1004 |
| Li Te-ming | 1004-1032 |
| Ching Tsung Li Yüan-hao | 1032-1048, Emperor, 1038 |
| I Tsung Li Liang-tzu | 1048-1068 |
| Hui Tsung Li Ping-Ch'iang | 1068-1086 |
| Ch'ung Tsung Li Ch'ien-shun | 1086-1139 |
| Jen Tsung Li Jen-Hsiao | 1139-1194 |
| Huan Tsung Li Ch'un-yu | 1194-1206 |
| Mongol vassal, 1206-1227 | |
| Hsien Tsung Li An-Ch'üan | 1206-1211 |
| Shen Tsung Li Tsun-hsu | 1211-1223 |
| Hsien Tsung Li Te-wang | 1223-1226 |
| Li Hsien | 1226-1227 |
| conquered by Mongols, 1226-1227 | |
While the division into North and South evokes the earlier one, a significant difference is that the country really had broken into three parts. North of the Five Dynasties were the Tartar Dynasties of Liao and Hsi-Hsia [Xixia]. These survived the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms and even survived the Sung. The Western Liao (derived from the Liao) and Hsi-Hsia only met their end at the hand of the Mongols. The "Tartar" territory thus was long alienated from Chinese rule and would not return until the Ming.
The genealogy of the Liao, from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History), may be examined on a popup image. I have not found a genealogy of the Hsi-Hsia, which was not regarded as Chinese enough to rate a dynastic history.
"Tartar" is a European rendering of Persian Tâtâr. The extra "r" seems to have crept in from Greek/Latin Tartarus, the deepest region of Hades, i.e. Hell. This reflects the judgment that the Tartars were like demons from Hell, which is more or less what the Chinese and ultimately other objects of Mongol conquest would have thought themselves. The "Tartar" dynasties here and the later ones below were not in the same league as the Mongols, and were ultimately Mongol victims, but were regarded as no less alien by the Chinese. With the Mongols, all the groups appear to be speakers of Altaic languages, except the Hsi-Hsia, who, as noted above, were Tanguts, closely akin to the Tibetans. "Tatar" remains as the name of a Turkic language spoken across Central Asia and in the area of the former Mongol Khanate of Kazan in Russia.
The Khitans and the Hsi-Hsia both wrote their languages using Chinese characters, as shown at left. This is revealing of the degree to which they part of the Chinese cultural sphere, in contrast to the Uighur alphabets later used by the Mongols and Manchurians.
Information about the Ten Kingdoms is often minimal in print histories of China, and it is possible to read a fair amount of material and actually be unaware of them. As with the Sixteen Kingdoms, I have needed to resort to sources like the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History) and to various websites. 
The Daijiten gives genealogies for all the Kingdoms but, being all in kanji, requires (for me) a slow effort of decipherment. The dates given by the Daijiten are, as in the section above, preferred. Some details were supplied from Wikipedia articles. But the most complete treatment of the Ten Kingdoms, as noted for other periods, appears to be at the Chinaknowledge website of Ulrich Theobald. He includes all the forms of the names of the rulers, with characters and era names. The treatment looks definitive.
Some small maps of this period are given in the Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors by Ann Paludan, but only the Five Dynasties are actually identified on them. Paludan's maps, however, appear to be based on, or related to (her edition antedates it), those in the Historical Records of the Five Dynasties, by Ouyang Xiu [or Ou-yang Hsiu, translated by Richard L. Davis, Columbia University Press, 2004], which identifies all the states. This is actually one of the standard dynastic histories of Chinese literature, the Wudai Shiji or Xin Wudaishi (New Five Dynasty History). Theobald also supplies some geographical information on the Kingdoms, given with the names of the dynasties. Here above/right is displayed a version of the first map, of the Posterior Liang Dynasty and contemporaries, in the Historical Records. Note that Ch'i, Chin, and Yen are not among the Ten Kingdoms. Maps for the rest of the period can be examined on popups for the Posterior T'ang, the Posterior Chin and Han, and the Posterior Chou.
| (Northern) Sung, , Dynasty, 960-1127 | |
|---|---|
| T'ai Tsu Chao K'uang-yin | 960-976 |
| T'ai Tsung Chao Kuan-i | 976-997 |
| Chên Tsung Chao Te-ch'ang | 997-1022 |
| Jên Tsung Chao Chen | 1022-1063 |
| Observation of Crab Nebula Supernova, 1054 | |
| Ying Tsung Chao Shu | 1063-1067 |
| Shên Tsung Chao Hsü | 1067-1085 |
| Chê Tsung Chao Hsü | 1085-1100 |
| Hui Tsung Chao Chi | 1100-1126 |
| Ch'in Tsung Chao Huan | 1126-1127 |
| displaced by the Chin/Kin, 1127 | |
Of great interest during the Sung was the observation of a supernova in the constellation Taurus. Unlike Western astronomers at the time, the Chinese did not believe that the heavens were unchanging, and they were always on the lookout for what they called "guest" stars, i.e. novas (nova stella in Latin, "new star") and supernovas. It would not be understood until modern astronomy that these were exploding stars. The guest star of 1054 was an extraordinarily bright and enduring supernova. A supernova can shine for a while with light equivalent to the whole rest of the galaxy. The remnant of the explosion today is the Crab Nebula, with an active Pulsar, or Neutron Star, at its center.
The Eras of the Sung Dynasty can be examined on a popup page. The genealogy of the Sung is entirely from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History). Both the Sung proper (or Northern Sung) and the Southern Sung are included in the same diagram. It is especially noteworthy how the first Emperor of the Southern Sung was actually the brother of the last Emperor of the Northern Sung. But the succession then passed to a very distant (sixth) cousin (once removed). The succession subsequently made an even larger leap to another collateral line.
During the Sung three dynastic histories were produced. In 974 the Historiographic Bureau published the Old History of the Five Dynasties [Jiu Wudaishi], edited by Hsüeh Chü-cheng. In 1060 we get the New History of the T'ang [Xin Tangshu] by Ou-yang Hsiu [Ouyang Xiu] and Sung Ch'i. Finally, in 1072, Ou-yang Hsiu published, as noted above, the Historical Records of the Five Dynasties [Wudai Shiji] or New History of the Five Dynasties [Xin Wudaishi]. This was the last dynastic history by an individual historian.
| Southern Sung, , Dynasty, 1127-1279 | |
|---|---|
| Kao Tsung Chao Kou | 1127-1162, d.1187 |
| Hsiao Tsung Chao Po-tsung | 1162-1189, d.1194 |
| Kuang Tsung Chao Tun | 1189-1194, d.1200 |
| Ning Tsung Chao K'uo | 1194-1224 |
| Li Tsung Chao Yü-chü | 1224-1264 |
| Tu Tsung Chao Meng-ch'i | 1264-1274 |
| Kung Tsung Chao Hsien | 1274-1276, d.1323 |
| Tuan Tsung Chao Shi | 1276-1278 |
| Ping Ti Chao Ping | 1278-1279 |
| conquered by Mongols, 1267-1279 | |
| Tartar Dynasties | |
|---|---|
| Northern Liao, , (Khitan, ) Dynasty, 1122-1123 | |
| Hsuan Tsung Yeh-lü Ch'un | 1122-1123 |
| Hsiao-te | 1122 |
| Liang Wang Yeh-lü Wali | 1123 |
| Western Liao, , Dynasty (Qara-Khitaï, "Black Cathay"), 1125-(1141)-1218 | |
| Te Tsung John Yeh-lü [Yeliuy] Dashi | 1124-1144 |
| defeat of Seljuks, Khwârazm, and Qarakhânids, occupation of Transoxania, 1141 | |
| Kan-T'ien-Hou Tabuyan, T'a-Pu-Yen | 1144-1151 |
| Jen Tsung Elias Yeh-lü I-lieh | 1151-1163 |
| Ch'eng-T'ien-Hou Yeh-lü Pusuwan | 1163-1178 |
| Mo Ti George Yeh-lü Chi-lu-ku | 1177-1211, 1213 |
| David Küchülüg | 1211-1218, d.1229 |
| conquered by Mongols, 1217-1218 | |
Kin/Chin,  , Dynasty (Jurchen/Nü-chên,   ), 1115-1234 | |
| T'ai Tsu Wan-yen A-ku-ta | 1115-1123 |
| T'ai Tsung Wan-yen Sheng | 1123-1135 |
| Hsi Tsung Wan-yen Tan | 1135-1150 |
| Hai-ling Wang Wan-yen Liang | 1150-1161 |
| Shih Tsung Wan-yen Yung | 1161-1189 |
| Chang Tsung Wan-yen Ching | 1189-1208 |
| Wei-shao Wang Wan-yen Yung-chi | 1208-1213 |
| Hsüan Tsung Wan-yen Hsün | 1213-1224 |
| Ai Tsung Wan-yen Shou-hsü | 1224-1234 |
| Mo Ti Wan-yen Ch'eng-lin | 1234 |
| conquered by Mongols, 1230-1234 | |
The Eras of the Southern Sung Dynasty can be examined on a popup page.
Readily available histories of China never seem to give any of the actual "Tartar" dynasty rulers, despite their importance in this era. The rulers of the Liao and the Kin/Chin Dynasties are from the Oxford Dynasties of the World, by John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002, p.219]. Here the Hsi-Hsia rulers were originally taken from Ah Xiang's Xi Xia page and Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. I also discovered a list of the Qara-Khitaï (Western Liao) rulers at Gordon. The names are fascinating for their combination of Christian, Chinese, and Turkic elements. The Christian elements are due to the effect of
the Nestorian missionaries who converted many in Central Asia in this period. Because of this, the Syriac alphabet ended up being adopted for many Central Asian languages, including Uighur, Mongolian, and Manchu, although written vertically, like Chinese, rather than right to left. The first name given by Gordon antedates the beginning of the Qara-Khitaï state, which is interesting since the Western Liao was simply the relocation of the Liao. Since the Liao was breaking up under Jurchen attack, my suspicion is that John Yeliuy [or Yeh-lü] Dashi begins as a bit of a rebel, or refugee. Morby's comment on this would have been nice, but the Oxford Dynasties is innocent of narrative. The closest we get is a note that "Chinese dates for Western Liao (here omitted) are unreliable" [p.221]. OK. Now I have added some information to this from the very detailed "Kara-Khitan Khanate" page at Answers.com, which evidently mirrors a similar page at Wikipedia. The most complete treatment of the Western Liao, however, appears to be at the Chinaknowledge website of Ulrich Theobald. He includes all the forms of the names of the rulers, 
Christian names included, with characters and era names. This is pretty definitive. Theobald also includes the ephemeral "Northern Liao," which I have not seen otherwise noted. John Yeliuy Dashi was apparently not the only Khitan leader looking to refound the state. In Chinese terms, however, the Northern and Western Liao were never Chinese enough to be considered part of Chinese history; and there never was a formal dynastic history of them (or of the Hsi-Hsia) as there was of the Liao and the Kin/Jin. What I would wonder if if the Western Liao continued using the Chinese script of the Khitans, or if they adopted the alphabetic writing of the Uighurs, who would have been the predominating ethnic group in their domain, largely the modern Sinkiang. Meanwhile, the Jurchen were writing with Chinese characters, like their Khitan predecessors. The genealogy of the Kin/Chin, from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History), may be examined on a popup image. I have not found the genealogy of the Northern or Western Liao.
Yüan,  (Mongol,  ),Dynasty, 1280-1368 | |
|---|---|
| Temüjin Chingiz Khân T'ai Tsu | 1206-1227 |
| Western Liao conquered, 1217-1218; The Hsi-Hsia State conquered, 1226-1227 | |
| Ögedei Khân T'ai Tsung | 1229-1241 |
| Kin/Chin Dynasty conquered, 1230-1234 | |
| Töregene Khâtûn, regent | 1241-1246 |
| Güyük Khân Ting Tsung | 1246-1248 |
| Oghul Ghaymish, regent | 1248-1251 |
| Möngke Khân Hsien Tsung | 1251-1259 |
| Yünnan conquered, 1253/54; Annam invaded, 1257-1258; Southern Sung invaded, 1257-1259 | |
| Qubilai Khân Shih Tsu | 1260-1294 |
| 1280 | |
| Southern Sung conquered, 1267-1279; Japan invaded, 1274, 1281 | |
| Temür Öljeytü Khân Ch'êng Tsung | 1294-1307 |
| 1295 | |
| Qayshan Gülük Hai-Shan Wu Tsung | 1307-1311 |
| 1308 | |
| Ayurparibhadra Ayurbarwada Jên Tsung | 1311-1320 |
| 1312 | |
| Suddhipala Gege'en Shidebala Ying Tsung | 1320-1323 |
| 1321 | |
| Yesün-Temür Tai-ting Ti | 1323-1328 |
| 1324 | |
| Arigaba Aragibag T'ien-shun Ti | 1328 |
| Jijaghatu Toq-Temür Wen Tsung | 1328-1329 1329-1332 |
| 1330 | |
| Qoshila Qutuqtu Ming Tsung | 1329 |
| 1329 | |
| Rinchenpal, Irinjibal Irinchibal Ning Tsung | 1332-1333, 53 days |
| Toghan-Temür Hui Tsung, Shun Ti | 1333-1370 |
| 1333 | |
| Mongols expelled from China, 1368 | |
| Northern Yüan, , Dynasty | |
| Ayushiridara Biliktü Qaghan Chao Tsung | 1370-1379 |
| Togus-Temür Usaqal Qaghan | 1379-1389 |
| line continues in Mongolia until Manchurian Conquest, 1696 | |
This character was formerly seen for the monetary unit of the People's Republic of China, replacing the traditional character for "dollar," which meant "round" and was applied to the Spanish silver dollars that were brought to Manila every year from Mexico and distributed across East Asia. Now, however, an actual simplified version of the original character has come to be used, as shown. A silver coinage had never existed in China, and the Spanish dollars established a monetary standard all over the Orient. Thus, the Japanese ¥en was also originally a silver dollar, long debased. In Japan now a special simplified character is used for the yen, and, as it happens, the "y" in the old Romanization never was pronounced.
While Mongol occupation and rule is an important chapter in the history of China, the Mongol domain, which extended all the way to Hungary and Egypt, is a much larger topic, covered separately under the "The Mongol Khâns."
There may be some question about just how bad Mongol rule was in China. Apart from R.J. Rummel's figures, like that above, we have accounts like this:
For a time it appeared as if the conquest would destroy Chinese culture and even the nation itself... Cities were annihilated, and tens of thousands of homeless refugees fled to the mountains, where they starved or survived as vast hordes of wandering mendicants. Great areas of land went out of cultivation... [C.P. Fitzgerald, The Horizon History of China, American Heritage Publishing, 1969, p.244] |
On the other hand, other accounts, e.g. L. Carrington Goodrich, A Short History of the Chinese People [Harper Torchbooks, 1943, 1963] or
Ann Paludan, Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors [Thames & Hudson, London, 1998], 
don't describe anything in the way of population loss. Each account, however, gives some hint of the Mongol ferocity familiar from their other campaigns. Paludan mentions the loss of over 100,000 Chinese in the very last, three week long battle of the Mongol conquest of the Southern Sung, off Kwantung in 1279 [p.147], and the proposal by Bayan, chancellor of Toghan-Temür, to exterminate "all Chinese with the five most popular names, some 90 per cent of the population!" [p.157]. There was always a faction among the Mongols that wanted a steppe culture imposed on China, with the extermination of agriculture, and population, that that would entail. Paludan mentions that the amount of land under cultivation tripled just between 1371 and 1379, in the early years of the Ming, and that "in 1395 alone, 41,000 resevoirs were rebuilt or restored" [pp.161-162]. This would imply some neglect or abandonment under the Yüan. Goodrich mentions how Qubilai Khân, emulating Shih-huang-ti, tried to suppress Taoism, ordering (1258 & 1281) that all of its books (with some exceptions) be burned [op.cit., pp.183-184].
I had some problems with reconciling the Mongolian dates and names [The Mongols, David Morgan, Basil Blackwell, 1986, and The New Islamic Dynasties, Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Edinburgh University Press, 1996, which do not give Chinese names] with the Chinese list of Yüan emperors [Mathews' Chinese-English Dictionary, Harvard University Press, 1972, p. 1175, which does not give the Mongolian names]. This is now cleared up by Ann Paludan's Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors. Two Emperors did not reign long enough to be acknowledged by Chinese historians. Also, Chinese sources list Ming Tsung before Wen Tsung (or Wen Ti, in Mathews') because only the second reign of the latter is counted. The list is confirmed by the Oxford Dynasties of the World, by John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002, p.220], which also gives Chinese names for the Khâns before Qubilai. The Eras of the Yüan Dynasty can be examined on a popup page.
During the Yüan three dynastic histories were produced. In 1344 the Historiographic Bureau published the History of the [Tartar] Liao [Liaoshi] and the History of the [Tartar] Chin [Jinshi] and in 1345 the History of the [Northern & Southern] Sung [Songshi], all edited by T'o-t'o (Tuotuo, from a Mongolian name, Togh-to).
The Míng was the first Chinese dynasty not to be named after a local ancient kingdom (Ch'in, Han, T'ang, etc.). This was because the Founder, Chu Yüan-chang, was of humble origin, not nobility that would have identified with such a locality. Like the Mongol Yüan ("Beginning"), the name is instead chosen to be auspicious,
"Bright." The Founder of the Han had originally been of low station also, a peasant, but he had already styled himself "King of Han" (Han Wang) before definitively claiming the Ch'in Emperorship. Also perhaps because of his origins, the Ming Founder was suspicious of the Scholars and sought to balance their influence in the Court with a competing Military institution of comparable depth and prestige. This wise provision, a kind of system of checks and balances, ultimately failed, as Emperors fell under the influence of the Scholars, and then even of the Palace Eunuchs, and neglected the Military. When the Manchus then seized power, 
some Chinese generals actually went over to them, expecting better status and attention. It was a Chinese general who overthrew the last of the Southern Ming Emperors.
| Ming, , "Bright" Dynasty, 1368-1644 | Era | |
|---|---|---|
| T'ai Tsu Chu Yüan-chang | 1368-1398 | 1368 Hung-wu |
| Hui Ti Chu Yün-wen | 1398-1402 | 1399 Chien-wên |
| Ch'eng Tsu Chu Ti | 1402-1424 | 1403 Yung-Lo |
| moves capital from Nanking (Nan-ching/Nanjing) to Peking (Pei-ching/Beijing); Tibet refuses tribute, 1413 | ||
| Jen Tsung Chu Kao-chih | 1424-1425 | 1425 Hung-hsi |
| Hsüan Tsung Chu Chan-chi | 1425-1435 | 1426 Hsüan-tê |
| Ying Tsung Chu Ch'i-chen | 1435-1449 | 1436 Chêng-T'ung |
| captured by Mongols at T'u-mu, 1449 | ||
| 1457-1464 | 1457 T'ien-shun | |
| T'ai Tsung, or Ching Ti Chu Ch'i-yü | 1449-1457 | 1450 Ching-t'ai |
| Hsien Tsung Chu Chien-shen | 1464-1487 | 1465 Ch'eng-hua |
| Reconstruction of Great Wall started, 1474 | ||
| Hsiao Tsung Chu Yü-t'ang | 1487-1505 | 1488 Hung-chih |
| Wu Tsung Chu Hou-chao | 1505-1521 | 1506 Chêng-tê |
| Portuguese arrive, 1514, Tomé Pires at Canton, 1517 | ||
| Shih Tsung Chu Hou-ts'ung | 1521-1567 | 1522 Chia-tsing |
Portuguese expelled, 1522; some Portuguese & their firearms captured, 1523; Portuguese at Macao, 1553-1554, Amoy, 1544; Japanese pirates,  , besiege Nanking, 1555; Army ejects pirates from Fukien (Fujian), 1560-1563 | ||
| Mu Tsung Chu Tsai-hou | 1567-1572 | 1567 Lung-ch'ing |
| foreign trade reopened, 1567 | ||
| Shên Tsung Chu I-chün | 1572-1620 | 1573 Wan-Li |
| Alessandro Valignano founds Jesuit Mission, 1577; Matteo Ricci reaches Peking, 1598, received at Court, 1601; war in Burma, 1599-1600; Japanese invasion, war in Korea, 1593-1598; Jesuits charged with correction of calendar, 1611 | ||
| Kuang Tsung Chu Ch'ang-le | 1620 | 1620 T'ai-ch'ang |
| Hsi Tsung Chu Yü-chiao | 1620-1627 | 1621 T'ien-ch'i |
| Chinese driven by Manchus behind Great Wall, 1622; but win battle at Liao-t'ung, 1626 | ||
| Szu Tsung Chu Yü-chien | 1627-1644 | 1628 Ch'ung-chên |
| Jesuits charged with correction of calendar, 1629; Rebellion of Li Tzu-ch'eng, 1640, occupies Peking, Emperor commits suicide, 1644; Wu San-kuei allows in Manchurians, Manchu occupation, 1644 | ||
| Southern Ming,, Dynasty, 1644-1662 | Era | |
| Fu Wang, Prince of Fu Chu Yu-sung | 1644-1645 | 1644 Hung-kuang |
| T'ang Wang Chu Yü-chien | 1645-1646 | 1645 Lung-wu |
| Yung-ming Wang Chu Yü-lang | 1646-1661, d.1662 | 1646 Yung-li |
| Emperor captured in Burma, 1661, executed by Manchus, 1662 | ||
At right is a portrait of Chu Yüan-chang, the Hung-wu Emperor. It is important to keep this image in mind, because one often sees an ugly Ch'ing caricature of the Emperor, even presented as a genuine and unproblematic portrait in otherwise reliable history books (e.g. China, A New History by John King Fairbank & Merle Goldman, Harvard, 1992, 2006, plate 12). Historians have no business insensibly promoting Manchu propaganda against the Chinese dynasty they overthrew [note].
For the first time in Chinese history, the Míng Emperors employed only one Era name for their reigns. It thus becomes convenient to refer to the Emperors by the Era, e.g. the "Yung-Lo Emperor." This practice continued in the following Dynasty, but was not adopted in Japan until the Meiji Restoration. The necessity or convenience of this device may not be obvious, but it should be noted that the personal names (e.g. Chu Yüan-chang) of the Emperors were properly no longer used once they came to the Throne, and that the names they are otherwise known by (e.g. T'ai Tsu) are posthumous. If a reigning Emperor is not simply to be called the "Current Emperor" (which is proper), he can at least be unambiguously identified by the Era.
The first capital of the Ming at is at Nanking on the Yangtze. The name means "Southern Capital," 
. I don't think this was a name initially used, since its meaning mainly serves to contrast it with the capital subsequently founded by the Yung-Lo Emperor much further north, which then became the "Northern Capital," , Peking (note that this spelling is not a mistake but simply reflects, in both syllables, an older pronunciation of Mandarin). This was the site of the Mongol capital of China, Khanbaliq in Mongolian or Shang-tu, 
, in Chinese -- the latter remembered by Coleridge as "Xanadu" (sometimes identified or confused with nearby Ta-tu). The location of Peking was clearly part of a forward strategic plan for the defense of the border. Unfortunately, in the absence of a genuine forward defense, i.e. attacks into Mongolia, it created a very shallow defensive backup and exposed the capital to sudden raids, for which the Ming were to pay dear. Nevertheless, the Peking (or Beijing) of today retains the landmarks of the Ming city, especially the Imperial Palace of the Forbidden City. The formal entrance to the Palace, the southern gate, the "Gate of Heavenly Peace," 
, gives its name to Tiananmen Square, immortalized by the tragic events of 1989.
Early Míng Emperors, mainly the Yung-Lo Emperor, sent Admiral Chêng Ho (Zheng He), a Moslem eunuch slave who started out as a prisoner of war, on seven great naval expeditions into the Indian Ocean between 1405 and 1433. Chinese historians report that the largest ships, the baochuan or "treasure ships," were 440 feet long.
| 1 | 1405-1407 | 317 ships |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1407-1409 | 249 ships |
| 3 | 1409-1411 | 48 ships |
| 4 | 1413-1415 | 63 ships |
| 5 | ? | ? |
| 6 | 1421-1422 | 41 ships |
| 7 | 1431-1433 | 100 ships |
This is comparable to the length of some 19th century clipper ships: The Great Republic of 1853, the largest ship of its time, was 325 feet long. Although this is larger, by half again, than Swanson wants to allow, there now have been some archaeological discoveries of ship fittings that seem consistent with the larger sizes, as with the rudder below.
Admiral He established a base at Malacca, where the local Sultân became a tributary of China and even sailed to China to pay homage to the Emperor. A Chinese cantonment protected, stored, and shipped goods from China and those obtained on the expeditions. On nearby Sumatra, a Chinese governor was installed at Palembang after a Chinese pirate was defeated, captured, and sent back to China for execution. In norther Sumatra, troops were put ashore to interfere in local politics (as Europeans would do later), installing one king and executing his rival. A king in Ceylon was defeated and sent to China, but then the Emperor returned him to his kingdom (thought he evidently was unable to recover his throne). Some of Zheng He's detachments went into the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and even down the coast of Africa, perhaps as far as Zanzibar.
The triumph of the xenophobic faction of the Scholars at Court, however, meant that the expeditions were terminated. It became a capital offense to build a ship with more than two masts, Chinese were prohibited from trading abroad, and when a request was submitted in 1480 to revive the expeditions, their official records were actually destroyed -- a very shocking expedient given Chinese conscientiousness about history: We know details of the expeditions from an account by Ma Huan, who sailed with Zheng He on three voyages. Thus, China withdrew into itself at the very time when the sea-lanes of the world were about to open to cosmopolitan traffic. Vasco da Gama arrived in India in 1498, just 65 years after Admiral He had left. The Portuguese found little to resist them at sea, when the Chinese probably had had superior technology and much larger forces. Having simply abdicated the contest, China would shortly fall behind and never catch up.
The innovations of European civilization were dramatically demonstrated when the Portuguese arrived in China in 1514 and were received at Canton in 1517. Although the Chinese had invented gunpowder and cannon, the Portuguese brought the first hand-held firearms. These were then named 
. This interesting expression could mean "Portuguese" or later "Spanish," but it also looks like a combination of , perhaps the familiar "Frank" of Middle Eastern and Indian languages, with , which can mean "machine." Firearms as the "machines of the Franks" would be appropriate. The Chinese government quickly became concerned about the weapons and hired Portuguese to manufacture them for the army. Thus, more modern weapons were for a time helpful against the Manchus, but it was also often stated that native Chinese were not very good dealing with the new technology. Indeed, it proved to be too little, too late to save China from conquest.
Given the general xenophobia of Confucianism, the adoption of Portuguese technology is remarkable, but something else is all but astonishing. The Jesuit Mission in China, begun in 1577, had worked its way into the Court by 1601. 
Matteo Ricci, an accomplished student of Christopher Clavius, and soon impressively fluent and learned in Chinese, obtained a permanent berth for the Jesuits, destined to last centuries, by demonstrating the greater accuracy of Western astronomy and calendrical methods. The reaction against this was sometimes fierce and effective; but in the end, the Jesuits were repeatedly charged, even under the Manchus, with governing the calendar. If the earlier Ming had only been so open to its own successes, the history of China might have been much different.
The triumph of the Scholars thus not only stifled the innovative spirit of the Chinese to explore and create but opened China to foreign conquest. This then exposed China again, although under the Qing, to new foreign encroachment, as European creativity and power waxed in the 18th and 19th centuries. The cultural readiness of the Chinese people to compete on modern terms was later demonstrated time and again as overseas Chinese communities often came to dominate the economy of places where they started with nothing and were often disliked -- the Philippines, Malaya, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. In China itself, the first chance for the Chinese to really prosper in a free economy was, ironically, in the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong.
Note that while the Southern Ming Emperors draw from the ranks of Imperial Princes, and are commonly thus identified (e.g. the "Prince of Fu"), their actual title in Chinese protocol was (e.g. Fu Wang). In the West, this is comparable to the Heir of the Holy Roman Empire being styled the "King of the Romans." That tradition was continued by Napoleon, who crowned his son, Napoleon II, "King of Rome." The Emperor of China was thus literally a "King of Kings," and Imperial Princes were put on a level of equality with the rulers of foreign countries like Korea or Siam.
The genealogy of the Ming is derived from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History), with relevant additions from The Southern Ming, 1644-1662 by Lynn A. Struve [Yale University Pres, 1984].
One dynastic history was produced by the Historiographic Bureau during the Ming, the History of the Yüan [Yuanshi] in 1370, edited by Sung Lien. It is regarded as perhaps the least satisfactory of the dynastic histories, but then the Chinese had no particular reason to expend effort on a fair or detailed treatment of the Mongol conquerors.
Manchu,   ,Ch'ing,  , "Clear"Dynasty, (1616)-1644- (1662)-1911 | Era | |
|---|---|---|
| T'ai Tsu Aisin Giorro Nurhachi | 1616-1626 | 1616 T'ien-ming |
| killed by Chinese, battle of Lao-t'ung, 1626 | ||
| T'ai Tsung Aisin Giorro Aberhai | 1626-1643 | 1627 T'ien-ts'ung |
| 1636 Ch'ung-te | ||
| Shih Tsu Aisin Giorro Fu-lin | 1643-1661 | 1644 Shun-Chih |
| Shêng Tsu Aisin Giorro Hsüan-ye | 1661-1722 | 1662 K'ang-Hsi |
| Shih Tsung Aisin Giorro Yin-chen | 1722-1735 | 1723 Yung-chêng |
| Christianity prohibited, but Jesuits retained at Court, 1724 | ||
| Kao Tsung Aisin Giorro Hong-li | 1735-1796 | 1736 Ch'ien-Lung |
| Jên Tsung Aisin Giorro Yung-yen | 1796-1820 | 1796 Chia-ch'ing |
| Hsüan Tsung Aisin Giorro Min-ning | 1820-1850 | 1821 Tao-kuang |
| Wen Tsung Aisin Giorro I-chu | 1850-1861 | 1851 Hsien-fêng |
| Taiping Rebellion, 1853-1864 | ||
| Mu Tsung Aisin Giorro Tsai-ch'un | 1861-1875 | 1862 T'ung-chih |
| Tz'u Hsi [Cixi] the Empress Dowager | regent, 1861-1873, 1875-1889, 1898-1908 | |
| Tê Tsung Aisin Giorro Tsai-t'ien | 1875-1908 | 1875 Kuang-hsü |
| Boxer Rebellion, 1900-1901 | ||
| Mò Ti Aisin Giorro P'u-i [Puyi] | 1908-1911 | 1909 Hsüan-t'ung |
| Emperor of Japanese controlled "Manchukuo," , 1934-1945,d.1967 | ||
The Manchurian conquest of China was a deeply humiliating experience for the Chinese. The Manchus, indeed, made things harder for themselves, as foreign rulers, with their decree that Chinese men would have to adopt Manchu costume (including the infamous "queue"). This provoked violent Chinese popular resistance and helped the "Southern Ming" princes rally forces against the Manchus for almost two decades. Some Chinese histories do not begin the list of Ch'ing rulers until the fall of the Southern Ming in 1662 -- 
hence two successive Emperors are named "Tsu," "Founder," when usually this means the sole first Emperor of the Dynasty -- but then the founder of the dynasty back in Manchuria in 1616 is also a "Tsu." Like the Mongols, the Manchus practiced the Vajrayâna form of Buddhism, and their Nestorian derived alphabet continued to be used for some purposes right down to the end of the Empire. The desire of the Manchus to be accepted as proper Chinese rulers, however, was otherwise intense. Even before incursion into China proper, they chose (1636) a name for the dynasty following the Ming precedent: Ch'ing (Qing1) means "Clear."
The genealogy of the Ch'ing is entirely from the Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten (Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History).
One dynastic history was produced by the Historiographic Bureau during the Ch'ing, the History of the Ming 
[Mingshi] in 1739, edited by Chang T'ing-yü.
While the Ch'ing was experienced bitterly as a foreign conquest of China, later it would be regarded as entirely Chinese in terms of the encroachment of European Powers and Japan on the territory and sovereignty of China. The Ch'ing Imperium thus becomes the victim, ironically, of "imperialism." The rhetoric about this can be rather heated. Histories may say that China was "dismembered" or even "crucified" by the Powers. It hardly went that far. Indeed, there were areas detached by foreign powers, the large ones mainly by Russia and Japan (the Russian ones still in Russia's hands), otherwise cities. Then there were Treaty Ports, cities opened to trade with particular or perhaps many foreign states, spheres of influence, and concessions. The "unequal treaties" governed such cessions and concessions, which also included extraterritoriality for foreign citizens, i.e. 
Chinese laws and courts did not apply to them. The latter was a provision that European powers usually claimed against all traditional governments (e.g. Turkey, Japan), especially where judicial torture and cruel punishments (dismemberment, etc.) were still employed, as they were in China. In several cities, but most famously in Shanghai, there was an "International Settlement" that mainly operated under its own laws. Even the United States, although promoting a "hands off" policy towards China, nevertheless contributed gunboats to keep the peace and protect foreigners. The 1966 movie The Sand Pebbles commemorates the confused and thankless nature of such missions.
British Hong Kong  | |
|---|---|
| Charles Elliot | administrator, 1841 |
| Sir Henry Eldred Curwen Pottinger | 1841-1843, Governor, 1843-1844 |
| Alexander Robert Johnston | agent, 1841-1843 |
| Sir John Francis Davis | 1844-1848 |
| William Staveley | acting, 1848 |
| Sir Samuel George Bonham | 1848-1854 |
| William Jervois | agent, 1852-1853 |
| Sir John Bowring | 1854-1859 |
| William Caine | acting, 1859 |
| Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson | 1859-1865 |
| William T. Mercer | acting, 1865-1866 |
| Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell | 1866-1872 |
| Henry Wase Whitflield | acting, 1872 |
| Sir Arthur Edward Kennedy | 1872-1877 |
| John Gardiner Austin | agent, 1874, 1875, 1877 |
| Sir John Pope Hennessy | 1877-1882 |
| Malcolm Struan Tonnochy | acting, 1882 |
| Sir William Henry Marsh | acting, 1882-1883 |
| Sir George Ferguson Bowen | 1883-1885 |
| Sir William Henry Marsh | acting, 1885-1887 |
| William Gordon Cameron | acting, 1887 |
| Sir George William Des Voeux | 1887-1891 |
| George Digby Barker | acting, 1891 |
| Sir William Robinson | 1891-1898 |
| Wilsone Black | acting, 1898 |
| Sir Henry Arthur Blake | 1898-1903 |
| Francis Henry May | acting, 1903-1904 |
| Sir Matthew Nathan | 1904-1907 |
| Sir Francis Henry May | acting, 1907 |
| Sir Frederick John Dealtry Lugard | 1907-1912 |
| Claud Severn | acting, 1912 |
| Sir Francis Henry | 1912-1918 |
| Claud Severn | acting, 1918-1919 |
| Sir Reginald Edward Stubbs | 1919-1925 |
| Claud Severn | acting, 1925 |
| Sir Cecil Clementi | 1925-1930 |
| Wilfrid Thomas Southorn | acting, 1930 |
| Sir William Peel | 1930-1935 |
| Sir Wilfrid Thomas Southorn | acting, 1935 |
| Norman Lockhart Smith | acting, 1935 |
| Sir Wilfrid Thomas Southorn | acting, 1935 |
| Sir Andrew Caldecott | 1935-1937 |
| Norman Lockhart Smith | acting, 1937 |
| Sir Geoffrey Alexander Stafford Northcote | 1937-1941 |
| Norman Lockhart Smith | agent, 1940 |
| Edward Felix Norton | agent, 1940-1941 |
| Norman Lockhart Smith | acting, 1941 |
| Sir Mark Aitchinson Young | 1941-1947, prisoner, 1941-1945 |
Japanese Occupation,  ,25 December 1941 - 16 August 1945 | |
| Takashi Sakai & Masaichi Niimi | military, 1941-1942 |
| Rensuke Isogai | 1942-1944 |
| Hisaichi Tanaka | 1945 |
| Franklin Charles Gimson | provisional, 1945 |
| Sir Cecil Harcourt | military, 1945-1946 |
| David Mercer MacDougall | acting, 1947 |
| Sir Alexander William Grantham | 1947-1957 |
| David Edgeworth Beresford | acting, 1957-1958 |
| Sir Robert Brown Black | 1958-1964 |
| Edmund Brinsley Teesdale | acting, 1964 |
| Sir David Clive Crosbie Trench | 1964-1971 |
| Sir Hugh Selby Norman-Walker | acting, 1971-1971 |
| Sir Murray MacLehose | 1971-1982 |
| Sir Philip Haddon-Cave | acting, 1982 |
| Sir Edward Youde | 1982-1986 |
| Sir David Akers-Jones | acting, 1986-1987 |
| Sir David Wilson | 1987-1992 |
| Christopher "Chris" Patten | 1992-1997 |
Chinese Hong Kong  | |
| Tung Chee-hwa | 1997-2005 |
| Sir Donald Tsang | 2005- |
, "Fragrant Harbor") and opened five ports to trade. There followed a series of incidents, wars, and treaties. The Second Opium (or Lorca) War (1856-1858/60) led to the Treaty of Tientsin, followed by the occupation of Peking and the Treaty of Peking (1860). This created the international embassy area in Peking that would be famously besieged during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. The Convention of Chih-fu (1876) opened four more treaty ports, the Convention of Chungking (1890) opened Chungking, and the Franco-Chinese commercial convention (1886/87, after the Sino-French War, 1883-1885) opened three more cities in the south to France. Meanwhile, the Powers sometimes helped prop up Ch'ing rule. The Taiping Rebellion (1853-1864) stood a good chance of overthrowing the Ch'ing altogether. With partially Christian inspiration, that might have resulted in a very different China. However, it was eventually put down with the help of Charles "Chinese" Gordan, who later died at Khartoum. Residual Chinese claims over Tonkin (Vietnam) and Burma were ceded to France (1885) and Britain (1886) respectively. Japan, beginning her predatory ways, went to war with China (Sino-Japanese War, 1894-95). Winning a naval battle and successful on land, the Peace of Shimonoseki ceded Japan Taiwan, the Pescadores, and the Liaotung Peninsula, and recognized the independence of Korea. This was too much for some of the Powers. The "Triple Intervention" of France, Russia, and Germany forced Japan to retrocede the Liaotung to China. However, Russia then soon moved into the void. In 1897, Darien (Dalian) and Port Arthur (Lüshun) were occupied in the Liaotung, Korea was made a Russian protectorate, and work was begun on the Chinese Eastern Railroad, which cut across Manchuria from the Siberian Railroad to Vladivostok. The same year, the murder of German missionaries led to the German occupation of Tsingtao (Ch'ing-tao, Qingdao). In 1898, Tsingtao and the neighboring Kiaochow (Chiao-chou) were leased to Germany for 99 years, as was Weihai (or Weihai Wei, Port Edward, until 1930) and the new Territories of Hong Kong (previously enlarged in 1860 by Kowloon) to Britain, and Kwangchouwan (Kuang-chow-wan, Guangzhouwan, modern Chankiang or Zhanjiang) to France. As Germans will do, they built a brewery in Tsingtao, which is still the name of a Chinese beer. All these encroachments and compromises of Chinese sovereignty and territory led to a popular uprising in the Boxer Rebellion (1900-1901, 
, the Boxers = "Fist Rebels"). Chinese "Boxing" was what is now more commonly known as "Kung Fu" (
, "ability; work; service"). Its mystical powers were expected to provide some advantage against Western technology. The success of the Rebellion even drew the imprudent support of the Empress Dowager. Christians were massacred, and the foreign embassies in Peking were surrounded, cut off (in the days before radio), and besieged. The world wondered while an expedition of Eight Powers was organized to relieve the embassies. The Emperor of Germany, Wilhelm II, memorably told his forces to behave like the Huns of Attila. Japanese forces, hitherto better disciplined, took this to heart as well. The embassies were relieved and China further humiliated.
The grudge nursed by Japan against Russia exploded in 1904. After a war (the Russo-Japanese, 1904-05) that often looked like a dress-rehearsal for World War I, Japan retrieved its conquests of 1895, obtained part of the Manchurian railroad system, and forced Russian troops out of Manchuria. World War I itself enabled Japan to occupy German possessions in China. In 1915 China was bullied into ceding these to Japan (confirmed in the Treaty of Versailles, which China refused to sign), but in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 they were returned to China. Later, Japanese conquest of Manchuria (1931) and invasion of China (1937) followed. The Japanese occupation of most foreign possessions in China during World War II led to their return to China after the war, except for Hong Kong and Macao, which were only returned in 1997 and 1999, respectively.
The third element often found with the name Weihai, 
, meaning "military station," hence "Weihaiwei," bespeaks a long history. Weihai was established as a naval base against Japanese pirates, , in 1398. In 1406 a two mile wall was built around it. In the 1880's the Chinese built a modern naval base there, corresponding to one on the northern side of the Pohai (Bohai) Strait, Lüshun. In 1898 Weihai and Lüshun became the British Port Edward and the Russian Port Arthur, respectively. The British, however, had no real need for Weihai, and it had no commercial advantages, so it was returned to China in 1930. Port Arthur, of course, fell to Japan (1905), with whom it stayed, as Ryojun, until 1945.
In retrospect, the Opium War evokes special horror, in the way it implies the destruction of Chinese society through drug addiction. This was certainly the belief of the Chinese government. 
We are left with a picture of the East India Company, and the British Government itself, as drug pushers, shoving opium down the throats of the helpless Chinese (as literally in the contemporary cartoon). However, there is a curious anomaly in this view. Whenever Chinese went overseas to work, they took opium habits with them, but these never seemed to render such immigrants lazy or demoralized. Instead, Chinese labor took over or created economies almost everywhere it went, in Malaya, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, and California. Indeed, Chinese laborers were attacked in California, not for being lazy dopers, but for being too hard working, Spartan, and competitive. Living in California and Nevada at the time of the Gold Rush, Mark Twain observed of the Chinese:
They are quiet, peaceable, tractable, free from drunkenness, and they are as industrious as the day is long. A disorderly Chinaman is rare, and a lazy one does not exist. [Roughing It] |
That raises the important question whether debilitating opium addictions were the effect rather than the cause of demoralization back in China. It seems undeniable that they were the effect and that China's problems originated with the anti-commercial attitudes of the Confucian Chinese Government. Chinese hopelessness was not the effect of opium, but of bad government. Today, drug use is harshly punished in a place like Singapore, but Singapore exists as a Chinese city because of Chinese immigrants who grew in wealth under a British regime that didn't (originally) bother with drug laws -- and one still sees opium offerings in Chinese temples in Southeast Asia, whose source must be a trade that is officially ignored at some level, in countries that often have the death penalty for drug crimes. The truth seems to be that drug (or alcohol) addiction as a social pathology may result from personal problems or cultural problems, but it does not just happen because drugs (or alcohol) are available. Morally, it is not clear how judicial punishments for people are superior to the natural harm that follows from what are judged to be imprudent behaviors. If the punishment in fact harms people more than the imprudence, a grotesque injustice has been effected.
At right we have been seeing the governors of British Hong Kong. This small colony ends up representing one of the most important lessons of history. Devastated by the Japanese, the British did little to rebuild the city after World War II. While in Britain itself industries were being nationalized by the Labourites, the British National Health Service was created, and restrictions were placed on the import and export of capital, nothing of the sort was done in Hong Kong. The city remained the last stronghold in the world of pure laissez-faire capitalism, with no labor law, minimum wage, social security, or working hours legislation. A good Marxist would expect nothing but misery and degradation. However, by the time Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997, the per capita GDP of Hong Kong had surpassed that of Britain herself. As of 2003, this was $23,930 for Hong Kong and $23,680 for Britain. More importantly however, adjusted for cost of living ("purchasing power parity"), Hong Kong enjoyed 75.0% of American GDP, while Britain only had 69.1%. Thus, under a British rule of benign neglect (as many would see it), Hong Kong became one of the richest places on earth. This without "natural resources" and burdened by millions of refugees (from Communist China and Vietnam) on almost no land. No wonder Communist China undertook to leave the economic system unchanged for fifty years in the treaty that returned the city to China. By then, China itself should be entirely capitalist. And Hong Kong did return to China, on a sad 30 June 1997, in heavy rain, with Prince Charles overseeing one of Britain's last Imperial acts. Hong Kong is still usually credited as having the greatest economic freedom in the world (followed by Singapore, New Zealand, and then a tie of the United States, the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, and Luxembourg). Thus, after 200 years, it looks like Say's Law was right after all.
The list of Governors of Hong Kong is from a page at the World Statesmen site.
The Sun Never Set on the British Empire
Despite the foreign origin of the Ch'ing, it is noteworthy that subsequent Chinese governments, both Nationalist and Communist, regarded all Manchurian conquests as "intrinsic" parts of China.
Thus Tibet, which had
been conquered by both Mongols and Manchus, and was independent after the fall of the Ch'ing in 1911, is claimed as an "intrinsic" part of China even though it had never actually been ruled by Chinese until the Communist invasion of 1950. The Tibetan language is related to Chinese, but culturally Tibet is a sub-Indian rather than a sub-Chinese civilization.
Although the Tibetans were promised internal autonomy by the Chinese, they soon were subjected to the inevitable oppression, vandalism, and massacres of Communist government. Since there never were very many Tibetans in their poor, Alpine country, this kind of treatment plus Chinese colonization began to produce a genocidal effect. The International Community, once energized about "de-colonization," and formerly alert to every police beating in South Africa, has shown little stomach for consistently confronting the Chinese over Tibet. On the other hand, the Dalai Lama, who fled into exile in 1959, 
has proven to be an appealing, eloquent, and respected spokesman for his country, attracting attention by many, including the Nobel Peace Prize committee and Hollywood devotees who now have produced sympathetic movies about Tibet and its plight (e.g. Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun). We can only hope that international pressure will increase and rescue a unique nation preserving an ancient heritage.
Although Western, usually American, defenders of Tibet are sometimes belabored with charges of hypocrisy, because of the treatment of the Indian tribes in American history, so that Americans are in no moral position to belabor the Chinese over the treatment of Tibet, it remains true that nowhere in the world have traditional tribal peoples, who were at neolithic or even paleolithic levels of development at their time of contact with the advanced civilizations (Eastern or Western), not been incorporated into larger modern states. There are often complaints about the status and treatment of tribal peoples in many places, from the United States to Brazil to the Sudan, but there is no special level of criticism about such peoples, of which there are many, in China. Tibet, however, was, for all its poverty and isolation, an organized state far beyond the tribal level. Like Ethiopia or Afghanistan, Tibet was the sort of state that, in the era of "decolonization," would be expected to become independent, regardless of its backward features. But the Chinese Empire and Chinese colonization survive, with no more justification than the precedent of the Manchurian Empire.
International Campaign for Tibet
| Presidents of the Republic of China | |
|---|---|
First Republic  | |
| Sun Yat-sen [Sun Zhongshan] | Provisional President, 1911; President, 1912 |
| Government in Peking | |
| Yüan Shih-k'ai | 1912-1916 |
| Li Yüan-hung [Li Yuanghong] | 1916-1917, 1922-1923 |
| Feng Kuo-chang [Feng Guozhang] | 1917-1918 |
| Hsü Shih-ch'ang | 1918-1922 |
| Chou Tzuch'i | acting, 1922 |
| Chang Shaotseng | acting, 1923 |
| Kao Lingwei | acting, 1923 |
| Ts'ao K'un | 1923-1924 |
| Huang Fu | acting, 1924 |
| Tuan Ch'i-jui [Duan Qirui] | provisional, 1924-1926 |
| Hu Weite | acting, 1926 |
| Yen Huich'ing | 1926 |
| Tu Hsikuei | acting, 1926 |
| Ku Weichün | acting, 1926-1927 |
| Chang Tsolin [Zhang Zuolin], the "Old Marshal" | 1927-1928 |
| Chang assassinated by Japanese, Northern Government abolished, 1928 | |
The beginning of Republican China was a very flawed business. When a rebellion broke out on 10 October (10/10) 1911, Sun Yat-sen, who headed the "Revolutionary Alliance" [Tongmenghui] since 1905, returned from exile and was invited to become the Provisional President. However, the Army commander in Peking, Yüan Shih-k'ai [Yuan Shikai], who was made the Imperial Prime Minister in November 1911, refused to depose the Emperor unless he was made President. Sun Yat-sen agreed to a compromise. Sun Yat-sen became the first official President of China on 1 January 1912. The Emperor Pu Yi, truly the "Last Emperor," , got around to abdicating on 12 February. Sun then resigned on 10 March, and Yüan Shih-k'ai became President. It was not long before Yüan entertained plans of establishing himself as Emperor. He briefly declared himself Emperor between December 1915 and March 1916. This was not popular; he retracted the declaration, and then soon died anyway. In July 1917, a Warlord (Chang Hsün, Zhang Xun) tried to restore the Emperor (who was allowed to live in the Forbidden City until 1924). The Republican Government was reestablished, but late in the same year Sun Yat-sen began forming rival governments in the South. Some semblance of a Constitutional order was maintained, but the Central Government quickly lost authority over most of the rest of the country; and Peking itself became
| Kuomintang, Government, Canton | |
|---|---|
| Sun Yat-sen | Generalissimo or President, 1917-1918, 1921-1922, 1923-1925 |
| Hu Han-min | acting, 1925 |
| Chairman of the National Government, Canton | |
| Wang Ching-wei [Wang Jingwei] | 1925-1926, 1927 |
| collaborationist government with Japan, 1938-1944 | |
| Chairman of the National Government, Nanking, 1926 | |
| Tan Yankai | 1926-1927, 1927-1928 |
| Communists expelled from Kuomintang, 1927; end of Government in Peking, 1928 | |
Second Republic | |
| Chiang Kai-shek [Jiang Jieshi] | 1928-1931, 1943-1948 |
| Lin Sen | 1931-1943 |
| Communist "Long March," 1934-1935 | |
| Presidents of the Republic of China, Nanking | |
| Chiang Kai-shek | 1948-1949, 1950-1975 |
| Li Tsung-jen | 1949-1950 |
| Government moves to Taiwan, 1949 | |
| Yen Chia-kan | 1975-1978 |
| Chiang Ching-kuo | 1978-1988 |
| Lee Teng-hui | 1988-2000 |
| Chen Shui-bian | 2000-2008 |
| Ma Ying-jeou | 2008 |
Pinyin versions of these names are becoming common, although they bespeak sources and historiography that are now influenced by Chinese Communist scholarship and ideology. The names of both Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek traditionally were given in the form of their own Southern Language, Cantonese. It is rare to see Wade-Giles versions of their names in Mandarin, but it is now becoming typical to see Pinyin versions of their names in Mandarin, even though nothing of the sort occurs in contemporary records or older histories. Here I give the names in the old ways, with Mandarin equivalents in Pinyin for the more important ones.
During the days of the Peking government, two dynastic histories were produced. In 1920 we get the New History of the Yüan [Xin Yuanshi], an individual history by K'e Shao-min. In 1927 the Historiographic Bureau produced the Draft History of the Ch'ing [Qingshigao], edited by Chao Erh-hsün. Ou-yang Hsiu is usually considered the last individual historian because the history of K'e Shao-min is often not counted among the "24 Histories" [Erh-shih-szu-shih or Ershisishi] as these stood at the end of the Ch'ing. Many of the records of the Bureau were removed to Taiwan in 1949, where another history of the Ch'ing was produced in the 1970's. But this tends to be ignored in PRC influenced historiography.
Meanwhile, as noted, Sun Yat-sen labored to set up a counter-government in the South. After a couple of false starts, he succeeded in 1923. Although Sun died in 1925, his movement had become established, and civil war was the result. Leading the Northern Expedition that occupied Nanking [Nanjing] in 1926 and eventually overthrew the Peking Government in 1928, 
Chiang Kai-shek [Jiang Jieshi] emerged as the leader of the Kuomintang (KMT, now GMD, ) Party. Nanking received foreign recognition as the Government of China. Peking, "Northern Capital" [], was renamed Peip'ing, "Northern Peace" [
]. These events are nicely recounted by Barbara Tuchman in Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-1945 [Macmillan Company, Bantam Books, 1971] -- General Joseph Stilwell, who was the American commander in the China Theater in World War II, and military liaison with Chiang, was already in China as an attaché in the 1920's.
As with the Government in Peking, it has been rather difficult determining the titular Heads of Government in Nanking. One problem was that there was not formally a President of China until after a Constitution was written in 1947. In the meantime, a Chairman was the Head of Government or State under various formulae. I have been able to reference a website where this is detailed. But Chiang was the one certainly in control, and during World War II he was commonly known as "Generalissimo," a title he shared with Josef Stalin. In the early days, the Kuomingtang was advised by the Soviets, starting with the Comintern agent Maring in 1921 and then with Mikhail Borodin starting in 1923. At the time the Northern Expedition began in 1926, the Nationalist Army had 150,000 Russian advisers. The Communists were told by Moscow to participate in the Kuomingtang Party and government. Soon this went bad, and the Communists were expelled from the Kuomingtang in 1927. Chiang became increasingly anti-Communist, regarding them as a greater threat than the Japanese. The Northern Expedition entered Peking only after Chang Tsolin, more concerned about the Japanese, was killed when the Japanese blew up his train. His son, Chang Hsüeh-liang [Zhang Xueliang], the "Young Marshall," threw in his lot with the Nationalists. By the 1930's Chiang's inspiration became increasingly that of the Fascist movements in Italy, Germany, Spain, etc. In 1931 a group of officers formed the "Blue Shirts," like the Fascist Black Shirts of Italy or Brown Shirts of Germany, to promote dictatorship and other Fascist ideological ends. This soon became more and more the face of the Kuomintang regime, and Chiang was effective enough at mass murder that R.J. Rummel classifies him as the fourth greatest "megamurderer" of the 20th century, with a total of 10,214,000 deaths [Death by Government, Transaction Publishers, 1994, p.8].
After Chiang drove the Communists from the South, which led to their "Long March" of 1934-1935, 5000 miles to Yenan [Yan'an] in Shensi [Shaanxi], and the Japanese occupied Manchuria in 1931, the "Young Marshall" was set to tracking the Communists down. When Chiang visited him in Sian [Xian] in 1936, however, Chang held him prisoner until he agreed to a truce with the Communists and cooperation against the Japanese. Chiang agreed, and a "United Front" was made with the Communists in 1937 -- just in time for war with Japan to begin at the Marco Polo Bridge on 7 July 1937. The "Young Marshall" paid for this deed with imprisonment by Chiang for the rest of his life.
There wasn't a great deal the Chinese could do against the Japanese. Some Americans learned first hand about Japanese air power when Claire Chennault led American volunteers in P-40's, the "Flying Tigers," against them. Unfortunately, the actual United States military didn't much like Chennault and didn't much believe his information, at the time. After Shanghai and Nanking fell 
(with the epic "Rape of Nanking" witnessed by foreign diplomats, including an indignant German ambassador), the Kuomintang government retreated to Chungking [Chongqing], where it spent the rest of the Pacific War. Although for years Joseph Stilwell urged military offensives on Chiang, and he himself trained up some Chinese divisions that fought well in Burma, Chiang was mainly concerned about husbanding his forces for the civil war to come with the Communists.
This was strategically perhaps a good idea. Chiang knew that the Americans were going to win the War elsewhere and didn't see why he should be wasting men and resources in futile attacks. This was quite right. When the Japanese themselves went on the offensive in 1944 to eliminate American B-29 bases, they were still able to defeat the Chinese with some ease. However, operationally Chiang had made the wrong choice. Without battle, his troops were untested, unhardened, and, worse, corrupt from idleness -- a characteristic of the regime as a whole. If Chiang had followed Stilwell's advice, he might have done better in 1944 and certainly would have been better prepared, and better thought of, for the civil war ahead. As it was, his caution and prudence in dealing with the Japanese, although he stubbornly never gave in to them, nevertheless ended up looking less than admirable in comparison to the Communists, who spent the War attacking the Japanese whenever possible. This did little to damage the Japanese, but both trained and advertised Communist forces.
Now it appears that the Communists may have been following more of a strategy like Chiang's, marshalling their forces for the civil war ahead. That they gave a different impression, then and now, was certainly their propaganda intention. They may have been helped in that respect, as they were later helped more substantially, by an infamous group of sympathizers in the United States Foreign Service. Indeed, Chiang's disadvantage in the civil war may not have owed all to his own miscalculations. For a while United States aid, in money and materiel, was withheld because of a report by Secretary of State George Marshall, wherein he was advised by Communist sympathizing "experts." Even when American aid was resumed, its timely delivery was continually and unaccountably delayed. Getting to the bottom of the matter became a highly partisan political issue in the United State, with Democrats, from that time to the present, unwilling to admit the extent of Communist infiltration and influence in the United States government. Even when President Eisenhower was elected, investigations are terminated because (1) retrospectively they were no longer judged necessary, and (2) Eisenhower himself did not want to embarrass old mentors like Marshall.
Chiang formally became President of China in 1948. By then, the days of the Nationalists on the Mainland were numbered. The Communists defeated them utterly in 1949. The Nationalist Government fled to Taiwan, taking most of the records of the Empire and the Republic, and the contents of the National Museum, with it. In 1950, as the Communists attacked in Korea and Mao occupied Tibet, the United States undertook to defend Taiwan from Communist invasion.
Still styling itself the Republic of China (ROC), the Government on Taiwan has grown into a democracy, with an economy counted as one of the "Four Tigers" of East Asia (South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore being the others) and notions about repudiating its claims to the Mainland and going its own way. Recently electing a pro-independence President, Taiwan has been harshly threatened by the Communists -- who in March 2005 passed a law authorizing force if Taiwan declares independence. The agreement that the United States made to recognize the People's Republic, however, precludes resolution of this issue by force, and Communist military demonstrations have been met with American counter-demonstrations. When democracy comes to the People's Republic, reunification may happen easily. But there are no signs that the Communists are anywhere near giving up power, despite the de facto abandonment of Communist economics.
Communist China -- People's Republic of China -- PRC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Third Republic | |||||
| Prime Minister | Communist Party | President | |||
| Mao Zedong, Mao Tse-tung | Chairman, 1935-1976 | ||||
| Zhou Enlai, Chou En-lai | 1949-1976 | 1949-1959 | |||
| Liu Shaoqi | 1959-1968 | ||||
| Dong Biwu | 1968-1975 | ||||
| Zhu De | 1975-1976 | ||||
| 1976-1980 | 1976-1981 | Song Qingling | 1976-1978 | ||
| Zhao Ziyang | 1980-1987 | Hu Yaobang | 1981-1982 | Ye Jianying | 1978-1983 |
| General Secretary, 1982-1987 | Li Xiannian | 1983-1988 | |||
| Li Peng | 1987-1998 | Zhao Ziyang | 1987-1989 | Yang Shangkun | 1988-1993 |
| 1989-2002 | Jiang Zemin | 1993-2003 | |||
| Zhu Rongji | 1998-2003 | 2002-present | Hu Jintao | ||
| Wen Jiabao | 2003-present | 2003-present | |||
Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) didn't want China to end up like Stalinist Russia. This did not mean he disapproved of dictatorship, mass murder, or torture. He simply didn't want the country ruled by a bunch of bureaucrats. So his ultimate inspiration was the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" (1966-1976), in which mass political action would produce the sort of stateless utopia predicted by Marx. What it actually produced was chaos, not to mention widespread vandalism, torture, murders, etc. Like Stalin's purges in 1938, the Communist Party itself came in for attack. The disgraced and humiliated Deng Xiaoping (d.1997) never forgot it. With the death of Mao and the defeat of the "Gang of Four" political radicals, Deng, although never holding any of the highest posts in the state (above), became the guiding force behind market reforms. But he was never prepared to allow political liberalization and is generally credited with the decision to crush the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989. This left China still where it is today, with the 
Communist Party firmly in place and in charge, but with an economy growing rapidly from de facto capitalist innovations, whose frank acknowledgement as such would void the whole purpose of the existence of the Communist Party. Yet the process continues. 
Farmland is in the hands of private leaseholders, although the de jure possession of Maoist communes. State industries, whose output is so worthless that some of it is simply warehoused and forgotten, are being steadily retired -- probably more quickly than in Russia, where the workers protest losing their (largely worthless) state incomes. Just the paradox of our time, where real laissez-faire capitalism flourishes under Communist government, in Hong Kong, while the voters in the democracies keep voting for bigger government handouts and ever more intrusive regulations and paternalism. Perhaps Deng was right about democracy. )
It is certainly not worth having when it means the violation of property rights and voluntary association that is now commonplace under laws, e.g. the United State Constitution, that were supposed to protect all that.
Late in 2002 Jiang Zemin turned the Chairmanship of the Communist Party over to Hu Jintao. The Presidency followed in March 2003. Zhu Rongji also resigned as Prime Minister at the same time. Chairman Hu was designated for his job by the late Deng Xiaoping and fits in rather awkwardly among Jiang's personal supporters in the Politburo. All are faced with the continuing mental gymnastics of simultaneously defending Communism and promoting Capitalism.
With a revival of religion in China, perhaps an ultimate irony is the transformation of Mao Tse-tung into a Bodhisattva. This would best be a deity, however, of principally wrathful form.
The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China use different terms for "republic." First came , which means "people country." This is by analogy with other expressions, like , "king country," i.e. "kingdom," or , "emperor country," i.e. "empire." Kingdoms and empires are named after the sources of their sovereignty, i.e. kings and emperors. A republic, where sovereignty is in the people, thus might properly be named with reference to them. For a "people's republic," however, , "people people country," might seem redundant. So we get a different expression for "republic," , where is glossed by Mathews' Dictionary as meaning "united in purpose." This would be a nice name for a kind of government, but it doesn't tell us much about what kind of government it is. We then get for "people's republic," where and can mean "people" either individually or together. Indeed, having avoided in "republic," we then get a kind of reduplication anyway to get a word for "people." Perhaps the notion was that would mean "Chinese People" and then would mean "People's Republic"; but doesn't seem to be the way that the name is broken down. Be that as it may, I have used in the expressions for "First," "Second," and "Third" Republics. Since "people's republic" was always used to misrepresent states that were actually dictatorships, there is no point in worrying too much about how its meaning gets expressed. The term , which literally means "collective" or "shared" 
, "harmony," unfortunately could even be used to mean "totalitarian." Indeed, 
is "Communist Party".
History of Philosophy, Chinese Philosophy
History of Philosophy, Buddhist Philosophy
Belittling the Ming and trumpeting "Qing Success" is just one of the strange preferences of Fairbank and Goldman's book. After a uniformly dismal treatment of the Ming, which might make one wonder how the dynasty could have lasted 276 years, we get the following bizarre statement, perhaps added by Goldman in his revision of Fairbank's history:
This disparaging judgment comes out of the context of the late twentieth century, when technology and growth have created innumerable disorders in all aspects of life all over the world without disclosing as yet the principles of order that may postpone the destruction of human civilization. In time the self-contained growth of Ming China with its comparative peace and well-being may be admired by historians, who may see a sort of success where today we see failure. [op.cit. p.140]
This really doesn't make things any better. Indeed, the casual reader might not know what the statement is referring to, with its coy allusion to "innumerable disorders." But this is the esoteric style of the modern academic leftist, who would rather merely evoke the farcical mythology of post-modern Marxism, for those in the know, than frankly express it to the uninitiated.
The problems with the Ming can easily be addressed in terms that would have been used by Chinese historians themselves. No sensible Chinese appreciated corruption, high and arbitrary taxes, a weak but dangerous military, constant rebellion, or foreign conquest of the country. When the army commonly provided evidence of suppressing rebels with the heads of randomly massacred civilians, we have a government whose problems are mortal. The dynasty did not end in "comparative peace and well-being." That it began that way, with institutions that gradually unraveled, is an explanation that we don't get in Fairbank and Goldman's treatment. Then, instead of correcting the picture in a reasonable and honest way, we get a nasty, dissimulating political dig at capitalism and modern commercial culture. This tells us nothing about the Ming, and nothing explicitly about the political arrangements Fairbank and Goldman (or perhaps just Goldman) would prefer -- since they attribute "xenophobia" to the Ming, perhaps this means they like it -- but it does leave us with the impression that they (or he) simply want to indicate their bona fide political correctness to fashionable colleagues. Shameful in itself, such a thing is absolutely out of place in such a book.
Except for the three central ones, the masts and sails depicted in the drawing of the baochuan are relatively small. Western sailing ships settled down to three large, composite masts in the 18th century. When ships grew larger in the 19th century, because of cross bracing for the ribs and then iron hulls, larger sets of the masts began to be seen. The largest full-rigged ship, the Preussen, of five masts, transported nitrates from Chile to Germany, until it was rammed in the English channel by a steamship that, typically, underestimated the sailing ship's speed. Although such ships were, to say the least, energy efficient, and dependable on routes with steady winds, their day passed permanently with World War I.
American coastal schooners expanded beyond five masts. 
The Thomas W. Lawson, built in 1902, had seven masts, which evidently were simply numbered from the Mizzen back to the Spanker. With the customary names for schooner masts, plus the Middlemast used in full-rigged ships and barks, we can get a set of names up to eight masts. Nine masts, however, as shown, would require at least one numbered mast, as in the Lawson. Considering the subordinate look of the three front masts on the baochuan, however, a different system of naming would probably be more appropriate. The three sets of three masts suggest first, , middle, 
, and rear, 
, members of fore, main, and mizzen groups. The names that the Chinese actually used would be lost with the tradition that was extinguished when the multi-masted ships were prohibited.
The list of Japanese Emperors, etc., is based 
on Andrew N. Nelson, The Modern Reader's Japanese-English Character Dictionary [Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1987, pp. 1018-1022], The Princeton Companion to Classical Japanese Literature [Earl Miner, Hiroko Odagiri, and Robert E. Morrell, Princeton University Press, 1988, pp. 119-127 & 463-475], E. Papinot, Historical and Geographical Dictionary of Japan [Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1910, 1988], and other sources I've lost track of. The genealogies are entirely from Papinot.
| THE JAPANESE HISTORICAL ERA | 660 BC |
|---|---|
| 1998 AD + 660 = 2658 Annô Japoniae | |
In modern times the Japanese historical era, unlike the Chinese, has frequently been used for ordinary dating. Thus the famous naval fighter aircraft of World War II, the Mitsubishi A6M, was known as the "Zero" for the year in which it became operational, 2600 of the Jimmu Era (=1940 AD), the last two digits of which are zeros. The Era is now less frequently used, in part because of unpleasant associations with Japanese totalitarianism. Traditional Japanese dating, however, uses Era Names, on the pattern of the Chinese Nien-hao. 
In Japanese, these are the Nengô. As with the Japanese Eras, they are given here on a separate popup page.| The Legendary Period, 660 BC-538 AD | |
|---|---|
| l Jimmu | (660 BC) First Century AD |
| 2 Suizei | |
| 3 Annei | |
| 4 Itoku | |
| 5 Kôshô | |
| 6 Kôan | Second Century |
| 7 Kôrei | |
| 8 Kôgen | |
| 9 Kaika | Third Century |
| 10 Sujin | 219-249 |
| 11 Suinin | 249-280 |
| 12 Keikô | 280-316 |
| 13 Seimu | 316-342 |
| 14 Chûai | 343-346 |
| Jingû Kôgô | regent |
| 15 Oojin | 346-395 |
| 16 Nintoku | 395-427 |
| 17 Richû | 427-432 |
| 18 Hanzei | 433-438 |
| 19 Ingyô | 438-453 |
| 20 Ankô | 453-456 |
| 21 Yûryaku | 456-479 |
| 22 Seinei | 480-484 |
| 23 Kenzô | 485-487 |
| 24 Ninken | 488-498 |
| 25 Buretsu | 498-506 |
| 26 Keitai | 507-531 |
| 27 Ankan | 531-535 |
| 28 Senka | 535-539 |
Japan enters history with a description in the Chinese chronicle of the Wei Dynasty. It is called the kingdom of 
-- Wo is the modern Mandarin pronunciation, Wa the Japanese pronunciation of the old Chinese word (the on reading). This is not a flattering name, since the word can mean "small," "mean," "dwarf," or even "hunchback" -- so Japan was the "Land of the Dwarves." We also get 
, in which "slave" is added to "dwarf." Eventually a less insulting character began to be used, 
, which means "harmony" or "peace." The Mandarin pronunciation of these two characters is now very different (the latter also turns up as Ho and Huo), but they both are still Wo in Cantonese. Eventually the Japanese also learned insulting references to their neighbors. Korea and Mongolia might be referred to as 
, "dog country."
| The Historical Period, 539-645 | |
|---|---|
| 29 Kimmei | 539-571 |
| 30 Bidatsu | 572-585 |
| 31 Yômei | 585-587 |
| 32 Sushun | 587-592 |
| 33 Suiko | 592-628 |
| 34 Jomei | 629-641 |
| 35 Kôgyoku | 642-645 |
| The Yamato Period, 645-711 | |
| 36 Kôtoku | 645-654 |
| 37 Saimei | 655-661 |
| 38 Tenji | 662-671 |
| 39 Kôbun | 671-672 |
| 40 Temmu | 673-686 |
| 41 Jitô | 690-697 |
| 42 Mommu | 697-707 |
| 43 Gemmei | 707-715 |
The pleasant Wa is still commonly used, in Chinese and Japanese, to mean Japanese (as is in Chinese to mean Chinese) -- as in 
, a Japanese 31 syllable poem. However, the older, insulting character still turns up in another term, , meaning Japanese pirates. Japan itself can still be called 
, "Great Wa," but this combination is now always read Yamato, the old Japanese name for Japan, derived from the area, later a province, where the Dynasty of Emperors and the Japanese State originated (hence the "Yamato Period" -- for the Eras of the Yamato Period, see the popup page). In some expressions in Chinese, 
is still used to mean "Japan." To the Japanese, the country would always also be the 
, "land of the gods."
The modern name for Japan may have originated in a letter sent from Prince Shôtoku (d.621), Regent for his aunt, the Empress Suiko, to the Sui court in 607. This was addressed from the "Son of Heaven in the land where the Sun Rises," to the "Son of Heaven in the land where the Sun Sets." The Emperor Yang Kuang naturally found this insulting and requested that he no longer be shown letters from barbarians who did not know the proprieties of addressing the true . The Chinese would never regard the Emperor of Japan as any more than the 
, the "King of Wa." Now, however, Japan begins to see itself as the , "Sun Source." There is considerable phonetic change in this expression. "Sun" gets borrowed into Japanese as nit; but since a Japanese word cannot end in a "t," the vowel "i" is added, which changes the pronunciation to nichi. "Source" is borrowed as hon or pon. In the combination, the vowel "i" is lost, and the "t" is either assimilated to the "p" as Nippon, or to the "h" as Nihon. "Nihon" is now much more common, with "Nippon" retaining some overtones of the "bad" old, pre-War Japan. Pre-War Japan, however, was not just Japan, but "Great Japan," Dai Nippon; and while Japan now is, officially, just "Nihon," pre-War Japan was the 
, the Dai Nippon Teikoku, the "Empire of Great Japan."
Prince Shôtoku is a historical figure, but not without legendary accumulations. He is supposed to have established Buddhism, fixed Court ranks, promulgated a law code (604), written histories, the Tennô-ki and Koku-ki (620), built multiple temples, like the Hôryû-ji near Nara (607), introduced the Chinese calendar (604), etc. It is always possible that Shôtoku accomplished so much, but the period imposes a few uncertainties on the account. Some suspect that Shôtoku was operating through Korean advisors, not a thought ever agreeable to Japanese nationalism. To a legend that Shôtoku exchanged poetry with an image of the goddess Kannon at the Hôryû-ji, one scholar has remarked that the image probably was as well able to write poetry as the Prince. Nevertheless, whatever Shôtoku's role or abilities, he represents a period in which Japan actively entered history and helped itself to the heritage of Chinese civilization, just as in the Meiji Era the process would be repeated with respect to the West.
| The Nara Period, 712-793 | |
|---|---|
| 44 Genshô | 715-724 |
| 45 Shômu | 724-749 |
| 46 Kôken | 749-758 |
| 47 Junnin | 758-764 |
| 48 Shôtoku | 764-770 |
| 49 Kônin | 770-781 |
The foundation of the city of Nara, 
, the first permanent capital of Japan (death pollution had impelled abandonment of previous seats of government), defines the Nara Period (for the Eras of the Nara Period, see the popup page). It was in Nara that we first get the classic "Six Schools" of Japanese Buddhism. These would develop into Eight in the following Heian Period and then into Twelve in the Kamakura Period. It was also at this time that the title of the Emperor is borrowed from China, a version as 
, the "Heavenly" (or divine) Emperor. The title Mikado, 
, "Honorable/Imperial Gate," had been used and would survive, even into Gilbert and Sullivan. This is rather like the government of Ottoman Turkey being called the "Sublime Porte," or the King of Egypt being called "Pharaoh," 
, i.e. "Great House." Indeed, there were a couple of streets of Kyôto that were called "mikado," e.g. Nakamikado, "Middle Imperial Gate," which led to a central gate of the Imperial Palace. Nevertheless, in characters, nothing more than the other Chinese character for emperor might be written for the word, i.e. 
. The later military ruler, who exercised authority for the Emperors, was called the Shôgun, short for an expression usually translated "Barbarian Subduing Generalissimo." The Shôgun was also called the Taikun, "Great Ruler," which became the word "tycoon" in English.
| The Heian Period, 794-1186 | |
|---|---|
| 50 Kammu | 781-806 |
| 51 Heizei | 806-809-824 |
| 52 Saga | 809-823-842 |
| 53 Junna | 823-833-840 |
| 54 Nimmyô | 833-850 |
| 55 Montoku | 850-858 |
| 56 Seiwa | 858-876-880 |
| 57 Yôzei | 877-884-949 |
| 58 Kôkô | 884-887 |
| 59 Uda | 887-897-937 |
| 60 Daigo | 897-930 |
| 61 Suzaku | 930-946-952 |
| 62 Murakami | 946-967 |
| 63 Reizei | 967-969-1011 |
| 64 Enyû | 969-984-991 |
| 65 Kazan | 984-986-1008 |
| 66 Ichijô | 986-1011 |
| 67 Sanjô | 1011-1016-1017 |
| 68 Go-Ichijô | 1016-1036 |
| 69 Go-Suzaku | 1036-1045 |
| 70 Go-Reizei | 1045-1068 |
| 71 Go-Sanjô | 1067-1072-1073 |
| 72 Shirakawa | 1072-1086-1129 |
| 73 Horikawa | 1086-1107 |
| 74 Toba | 1107-1123- 1129-1156 |
| 75 Sutoku | 1123-1141-1156 |
| 76 Konoye | 1141-1155 |
| 77 Go-Shirakawa | 1156-1158-1179- 1180-1192 |
| 78 Nijô | 1159-1165 |
| 79 Rokujô | 1166-1168-1176 |
| 80 Takakura | 1169-1180-1181 |
| 81 Antoku | 1181-1183-1185 |
| Battle of Dan-no-ura, Taira Clan overthrown by Minamotos, 1185 | |
The Heian Period begins with the founding of the city of Kyôto in 794. The city was originally called Heian-kyô, , "Peaceful Capital." Kyôto, , "Capital City," is the more prosaic designation (for the Eras of the Heian Period, see the popup page). The city was laid out as a regular Chinese square and grid between the Katsura River on the west side and the Kamo River on the east. The two rivers flowed together just south of town, to be joined slightly downstream by the Uji River coming in from the east. Forces approaching Kyôto from the south needed to cross the Uji, often at the Uji-bashi, the Uji Bridge, in the small town of Uji itself. So "crossing the Uji" came to mean marching on Kyôto -- a bit like "crossing the Rubicon" in Roman history. Over time, the southern and western parts of the original city were abandoned, and settlement moved north and east, so that now old parts of the city lie on both sides of the Kamo, pressing right up to the eastern hills, including Mt. Hiei. Now, of course, the modern city has grown back over all the lost ground, and more. East-west streets were numbered, starting with Ichijô, "First Street," in the north down to Kujô, "Ninth Steet," in the south -- now joined by a modern Jujô-dori, "Tenth Street." Later, Emperors and noble families of the Fujiwara were named after many of these streets, where they had residences. Many of the streets survive today, in longer or shorter stretches. Thus, one of the oldest surviving wood structures in Japan, the Sanjusangendo temple of the goddess and bodhisattva Kannon, is off Shichijô-dori, "Seventh Street," just east of the Kamo River (where there is now a MacDonald's right on the east bank).
Returning from China in 805 and bearing the doctrine of the important Chinese T'ien T'ai School of Buddhism -- Tendai in Japanese -- the monk Saichô (767-822) would found a vast establishment of temples and hermitages (the "Three Pagodas and Sixteen Valleys") on the 2783 foot sacred mountain, Mt. Hiei, which looms over the city of Kyôto to the northeast. This is the direction of the "mountain" trigram and the perilous "Demon Gate" in Chinese geomancy, which could thus be guarded by the temples. The central temple on Hiei, the Enryakuji, still bears an inscription that it is sited exactly north-east of the Imperial Palace in Kyôto. Tendai became the institutionally and politically dominant form of Japanese Buddhism, and most of the subsequent Kamakura schools were essentially spinoffs from Tendai. Mt. Hiei thus parallels in status and influence the "Holy Mountain," Hágion Óros, of Orthodox Christianity and the Mediaeval Roman Empire: Mt. Áthôs in the north of Greece. Women were once prohibited on Hiei, as they still are on Áthôs.
Before long Mt. Hiei was the center of secular as well as spiritual power, when the monks formed monastic armies -- strange and oxymoronic as such things would seem to be. Thus, the Emperor Shirakawa is supposed to have said that there were three things he could not control: the fall of the dice, the flow of the Kamo River, and the armed monks of Mt. Hiei. The power of the monks was broken when Oda Nobunaga slaughtered them and burned down Mt. Hiei in 1571. Elsewhere, I only know of monastic armies in the form of the Military Orders of the Crusades, such as the Hospitallers.
In the list of Emperors, where three dates are given, the second date represents the retirement of the Emperor (or, later, the Shôgun or Regent). This came to be a device by which Fujiwara ministers, starting with the Regent (Sesshô) Fujiwara Yoshifusa (858-872), could exercise control over minor Emperors. The Fujiwaras would exercise control as Regents for minor Emperors, and then as Chancellors (Kampaku) when the Emperors formally came of age.
As Fujiwara power declined, retired Emperors, who had become monks, began to exercise influence from their monasteries. This became the institution of the "Cloistered Emperors." Such Emperors were known by the title "In," hence, Shirakawa In -- who himself was the first to assume authority in this way, in 1086.
The names of Cloistered Emperors are given in boldface, as are the dates of their assumption of Cloistered power. Usually this is identical to the dates of their retirement, but sometimes there is a delay between retirement and the assumption of Cloistered power (e.g. Toba). There may also be a second retirement date.
Go-Toba was the last effective Cloistered Emperor. His second retirement was forced after his abortive attack on the Hôjô Regent Yoshitoki, the Jôkyû War, in 1221. He was exiled for the rest of his life to the remote Oki Islands, where, among other things, he worked on forging a sword.
This was to replace the sword of the Imperial Regalia that had been lost at sea, with the child Emperor (and Go-Toba's brother) Antoku, in the battle of Dan-no-ura. He also intended to use it to kill the Hôjôs. That never happened. Later in Japanese history, it became common for many figures, Regents and Shôguns as well as Emperors, to retire from office but sometimes to continue exercising much of their previous power.
The Heian Period ends with the naval battle of Dan-no-ura in 1185. The Taira (or Heike) Clan had dominated the Court under Kiyomori (1118-1181), but the Minamoto (or Genji) Clan overwhelmed them after his death. The leader of the Minamotos was Yoritomo (1147-1199), who became the first Shôgun (Sei-i Taishôgun, "barbarian subduing generalissimo"), founding his own military capital at Kamakura, after which the era is named; but it was his brother, Yoshitsune (1159-1189), who commanded the Minamoto forces and who destroyed the Tairas at Dan-no-ura.
The battle ended with one of the most dramatic and poignant moments in world history. Kiyomori's widow, Nii-no-ama, with her grandson, the seven-year-old Emperor Antoku, decided to leap into the sea, carrying the Imperial Regalia with them, rather than be taken by their enemies. The scene is recounted in the epic Heike-Monogatari and hauntingly portrayed in Masaki Kobayashi's movie Kwaidan (1964). Later the spirits of Taira warriors were thought to haunt the straits at Shimonoseki, and the local "Heike" crabs have shells that look like human faces as seen in Japanese theater masks -- Carl Sagan commented on this as the outcome of fishermen throwing back crabs that even faintly resembled human faces.
Yoritomo and Yoshitsune soon fell out and Yoshitsune was killed. Ironically, when Yoritomo died, his wife, Hôjô Masako, steered her own family, descendants of the Tairas, into power. Starting with her father, Tokimasa, Hôjô Regents governed in the name of puppet Shôguns until overthrown by Go-Daigo over a hundred years later.
Fujiwara Chancellors and Imperial Regents, 858-1868
The following diagram gives the genealogy of the Taira and Minamonto clans, whose great conflict, the Gempei War, culminated in the Battle of Dan-no-ura. Also given are the sources of the junior Minamoto lines that led to the Ashikaga and Tokugawa Shôguns and the Takeda Daimyo. The Gempei War has been compared to the somewhat later War of the Roses in England. The color used by the Taira was red (like Lancaster), and that of the Minamoto was white (like York). The winner of the War of the Roses was neither Lancaster or York, but Tudor. Similarly, although the Minamoto apparently won the Gempei War, it was the Hôjô who ended up with the power.
The most famous member of the Takeda clan was Shingen (or Harunobu, d.1573), the subject of Hiroshi Inagaki's movie Furin Kazan, 
, "Samurai Banners" (1969) and Akira Kurosawa's Kagemusha (1980). The title of Inagaki's movie refers to the distinctive banner of Shingen, which read, 
, 
, 
,
, "Swift as wind, grave (or "silent") as the forest, aggressive ("raid, plunder") as fire, immovable as a mountain." This was an abbreviation of a statement in Chapter 7 of Sun Tzu, 
, , , , "Let him be as swift as wind, grave as forest, aggressive as fire, immovable as a mountain." At least according to Kagemusha, Shingen named the four divisions of his army in these terms, with the infantry center "forest," , flanked by cavalry "fire," , and "wind," , with Shingen himself commanding the infantry "mountain," , reserve.
| Kamakura Shôguns | |
|---|---|
| Minamotos | |
| 1 Yoritomo | 1192-1199 |
| 2 Yoriie | 1201-1203-1204 |
| 3 Sanetomo | 1203-1219 |
| Fujiwaras | |
| 4 Yoritsune | 1226-1244-1256 |
| 5 Yoritsugu | 1244-1252-1256 |
| Imperial Princes | |
| 6 Munetake | 1252-1266-1274 |
| 7 Koreyasu | 1266-1289-1326 |
| 8 Hisa-akira | 1289-1308-1428 |
| 9 Morkuni | 1308-1333 |
| After Hôjôs | |
| 10 Morinaga | 1333-1334-1335 |
| 11 Narinaga | 1334-1338 |
| The Kamakura Period, 1186-1336 | |
|---|---|
| 82 Go-Toba | 1184-1198- 1221-1239 |
| 83 Tsuchimikado | 1199-1210-1231 |
| 84 Juntoku | 1211-1221-1242 |
| 85 Chûkyô | 1221-1221-1234 |
| 86 Go-Horikawa | 1222-1232-1234 |
| 87 Shijô | 1233-1242 |
| 88 Go-Saga | 1243-1246-1272 |
| 89 Go-Fukakusa | 1247-1259-1304 |
| 90 Kameyama | 1260-1274-1305 |
| 91 Go-Uda | 1275-1287-1324 |
| 92 Fushimi | 1288-1298-1217 |
| 93 Go-Fushimi | 1299-1301-1336 |
| 94 Go-Nijô | 1302-1308 |
| 95 Hanazono | 1309-1318-1348 |
| 96 Go-Daigo | 1319-1338 |
)
| Hôjô Regents (Shikken) | |
|---|---|
| 1 Tokimasa | 1203-1205-1215 |
| 2 Yoshitoki | 1205-1224 |
| 3 Yasutoki | 1224-1242 |
| 4 Tsunetoki | 1242-1246 |
| 5 Tokiyori | 1246-1256-1263 |
| 6 Nagatoki | 1256-1264 |
| 7 Masamura | 1264-1268-1273 |
| 8 Tokimune | 1268-1284 |
| Mongol Invasions, 1274 & 1281 | |
| 9 Sadatoki | 1284-1301-1311 |
| 10 Morotoki | 1301-1311 |
| 11 Takatoki | 1311-1333 |
, "divine winds," of strategically occurring, even out of season, typhoons. The struggle, however, gravely weakened the Hôjô government, with consequences that would be felt shortly.| Northern Emperors | |
|---|---|
| Hôjô Pretender | |
| 1 Kôgon | 1331-1333-1364 |
| The Nambokuchô,, Period, 1336-1392 | |
| Ashikaga Pretenders | |
| 2 Kômyô | 1336-1348-1380 |
| 3 Sukô | 1349-1352-1398 |
| 4 Go-Kôgon | 1353-1371-1374 |
| 5 Go-En-yû | 1372-1381-1393 |
| 6 Go- Komatsu | 1383-1392 (1392-1412- 1433) |
| The Nambokuchô,, Period, 1336-1392 | |
|---|---|
| Southern Emperors | |
| 97 Go-Murakami | 1339-1368 |
| 98 Chôkei | 1369-1372 |
| 99 Go-Kameyama | 1373-1392-1424 |
| The Muromachi Period, 1392-1573 | |
| 100 Go-Komatsu | 1392-1412-1433 |
| 101 Shôkô | 1413-1428 |
| 102 Go-Hanazono | 1429-1464-1471 |
| 103 Go-Tsuchimikado | 1465-1500 |
| 104 Go-Kashiwabara | 1501-1526 |
| 105 Go-Nara | 1527-1557 |
| 106 Oogimachi | 1558-1586-1593 |
| Ashikaga Shôguns | |
|---|---|
| 1 Takauji | 1338-1358 |
| 2 Yoshiakira | 1358-1367-1368 |
| 3 Yoshimitsu | 1367-1395-1408 |
| 4 Yoshimochi | 1395-1423-1428 |
| 5 Yoshikazu | 1423-1425 |
| 6 Yoshinori | 1428-1441 |
| 7 Yoshikatsu | 1441-1443 |
| 8 Yoshimasa | 1449-1474-1490 |
| 9 Yoshihisa | 1474-1489 |
| 10 Yoshitane | 1490-1493 |
| 11 Yoshizumi | 1493-1508-1511 |
| 10 Yoshitane | 1508-1521-1522 |
| 12 Yoshiharu | 1521-1545-1550 |
| 13 Yoshiteru | 1545-1565 |
| 14 Yoshihide | 1568 |
| 15 Yoshiaki | 1568-1573-1597 |
The city was then in the hands of members of the Nichiren sect (the Hoke-ikki or "Lotus Uprising") from 1532 to 1536. Parts of the Heian city became deserted during this period. The principal Gate of the city, the southern Rashômon, was famously abandoned and fell into ruin -- it is even said that it was no longer repaired after the reign of Enyû (969-984). Nothing today marks its site but a small monument in a playground. Now it is mainly remembered for Akira Kurosawa's movie Rashomon (1950), whence the name has entered international discourse to mean the difficulty or impossibility of reconstructing the truth of events from conflicting testimony.
It turned out to be uncommonly difficult to find the meaning of the name Rashômon. Ra is a character whose principal meaning seems to be "gauze" and is often used to transliterate foreign words. It can also mean "net" and, by extension, "enclose." The second character is now usually replaced by another character (meaning "live"), but the older one (still on the marker on site) was jô and meant "castle" or, in Chinese, "city." It took some digging by my wife, outside the ordinary dictionaries, to discover that in Chinese luóchéng could mean the "outer/enclosure wall of a city." Luóchéngmén was thus the main gate of the outer wall of a city, and it had been used that way in Nara as well as in Kyôto -- though now, evidently, the original meaning is not often remembered.
Of the protective temples that flanked the Rashômon, the Saiji ("Western Temple") and Tôji ("Eastern Temple"), only the Tôji remains. Hitherto remote areas of Kyôto, however, received enduring monuments from Ashikaga Shôguns, the Kinkaku-ji or "Golden Pavilion (Temple)" built in 1397 by Yoshimutsu just to the west of town, and the Ginkaku-ji or "Silver Pavilion (Temple)" built in 1473 by Yoshimasa in the hills to the east of the city. The former seems to represent the height of Ashikaga power, while the latter is a somber last gasp in its decline -- because money ran out, it was never covered in silver the way the Kinkaku-ji actually was with gold.
)
As the Ashikaga lost control of Japan, local warlords, or just gangs, took over. This has proven a rich era for Japanese samurai movies since it was, in its way, the golden age of the samurai -- with almost constant warfare. Especially memorable is Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (1954), about a group of unemployed samurai (ronin) hired to protect a village from robbers, and Kurosawa'a Yojimbo (1961), about a lone, nameless ronin who gets the two gangs in one village to annihilate each other -- this was remade by Sergio Leone as the Western, A Fistful of Dollars in 1967, which began the movie career of Clint Eastwood; but the story seems to be based on Dashiell Hammett's much earlier book Red Harvest, where Hammett's nameless "Continental Op" detective causes similar slaughter in a Montana mining town. The Seven Samurai was remade as the Western The Magnificent Seven (1960). A friend of mine, Lynn Burson, once taught a class at the University of Texas matching up samurai movies with Westerns. I don't know if she took it all the way back to Dashiell Hammett. This era also became the golden age of castle building, though most of the surviving castles, like Himeji-jô, 
, also known as the "White Heron Castle," Shirasagi-jô, 
, were rebuilt later to secure the pacification of the country effected in the following period. The image is of the elegant Ha-no-mon, or Third Gate, at Himeji, which was featured in Kurosawa's Kagemusha (1980). Click on the image for a map of the castle.
| The Azuchi-Momoyama Period, 1573-1603 | |
|---|---|
| 107 Go-Yôzei | 1587-1611-1617 |
| Dictator | |
|---|---|
| Oda Nobunaga | 1568-1582 |
| enters Kyôto, 1568; burning of Mt. Hiei, 1571; Shôgun deposed, 1573 | |
| Toyotomi Chancellors (Kampaku) | |
|---|---|
| 1 Hideyoshi | 1585-1591-1598 |
| 2 Hidetsugu | 1591-1595 |
The Edo,  , Period, 1603-1868 | |
|---|---|
| 108 Go-Mi-no-o | 1612-1629-1680 |
| 109 Meishô [Myôshô] | 1630-1643-1696 |
| 110 Go-Kômyô | 1644-1654 |
| 111 Go-Saiin | 1655-1662-1685 |
| 112 Reigen | 1663-1686-1732 |
| 113 Higashi-yama | 1687-1709 |
| "orphan" tsunami, 26 Jan 1700 | |
| 114 Nakamikado | 1710-1735-1737 |
| 115 Sakuramachi | 1736-1746-1750 |
| 116 Momozono | 1746-1762 |
| 117 Go-Sakuramachi | 1763-1770-1813 |
| 118 Go-Momozono | 1771-1779 |
| 119 Kôkaku | 1780-1816-1840 |
| 120 Ninkô | 1817-1846 |
| 121 Kômei | 1847-1866 |
At first, Ieyasu appeared to loyally support Hideyoshi's heir and successor, Hideyori (a previously adopted heir, Hidetsugu, had been executed), even after he defeated the Toyotomi forces at the great battle of Sekigahara in 1600. But Ieyasu then went on to get himself appointed Shôgun in 1603. Hideyori later died, with the last of his cause, when Ieyasu broke into and burned Ôsaka Castle in 1615. Ieyasu, who had by then already "retired," thus firmly established the rule of his family, which henceforth ruled from Edo, , not far from where the Hôjôs had ruled at Kamakura. For the Eras of the Edo Period, see the popup page.
The Japanese had long known that earthquakes could be followed by tidal waves, i.e. tsunami, 
. On 26 January 1700, however, a major wave hit without any warning. This was then an "orphan" tsunami. Its origin was a mystery until recently. Now it appears from the geological evidence that the earthquake, perhaps more than a 9 in magnitude, was in the Pacific Northwest of North America. Tree rings have even narrowed the event down to 1700 itself. Tsunamis crossing the Pacific to hit the opposite shore (and Hawai'i along the way) are now a familiar phenomenon.
In international scientific discourse a tidal wave is now properly called a "tsunami," with the term borrowed from Japanese. Part of the issue is that a "tidal wave" has nothing to do with tides, while a true tide in certain conditions can generate a wave. "Tsunami," however, contains a similar malapropism. It means "port, harbor, ford, ferry, stream," (the range of meaning in Chinese and Japanese), and "wave," . But tsunamis have no more essential connection to harbors or ferries than they do to tides. Indeed, the term "tidal wave" was probably based on the impression that they could come in like a tide. So "tidal wave" may be more appropriate than "tsunami." One wonders if there was simply some sort of politically correct urge to adopt a scientific term from another language. There is also the circumstance, on the other hand, that Japan, with a literate culture that often suffered from the waves, then had a long tradition of records and study of the phenomena. Even in the 18th century, Edward Gibbon knew so little about tsunamis that he doubted the truth of the description of one by the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus. Thus "tsunami" may properly represent a tribute to those who were first familiar with them in their details and had already made the connection with earthquakes. With the tsunami of 1700 we have a nice match between Japanese records and modern geology.
| Tokugawa Shôguns | Buried | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Ieyasu | 1603-1605-1616 | Nikko |
| 2 Hidetada | 1605-1623-1632 | Shiba |
| 3 Iemitsu | 1623-1651 | Nikko |
| 4 Ietsuna | 1651-1680 | Ueno |
| 5 Tsunayoshi | 1680-1709 | Ueno |
| 6 Ienobu | 1709-1712 | Shiba |
| 7 Ietsugu | 1712-1716 | Shiba |
| 8 Yoshimune | 1716-1745-1751 | Ueno |
| 9 Ieshige | 1745-1760-1761 | Shiba |
| 10 Ieharu | 1760-1786 | Ueno |
| 11 Ienari | 1786-1837-1841 | Ueno |
| 12 Ieyoshi | 1837-1853 | Shiba |
| 13 Iesada | 1853-1858 | Ueno |
| 14 Iemochi | 1858-1866 | Shiba |
| 15 Yoshinobu, Keiki | 1866-1868-1903 | Taitoku, Tôkyô |
Edo Castle, Tôkyô Imperial Palace -- originally built as the seat of the Tokugawas.
Ieyasu and then especially his grandson Iemitsu created a system of rule approaching totalitarian dimensions. Every person in the country and everything they did was subject to oversight and review. Every family had to register with a local Buddhist temple, and even their diversions and travel were the business of the government. The country became closed to foreigners -- even as Japanese were prohibited from going abroad -- except for one Dutch ship annually, which put in to Nagasaki. Christians were exterminated, and measures taken for years to hunt out any practicing secretly (not all were in fact found). "Samurai" changed from being a job description to being a caste. Commoners were forbidden to carry more than a single short sword for defense, while samurai were required to carry two swords and might summarily execute a commoner for insufficient deference. Firearms were forbidden and confiscated. Sumptuary laws limited the displays of wealth that commoners, like merchants, might engage in. All this was intended to freeze Japan in time, lock it away, and keep everything under the tight control of the government. It did produce peace, and one result was the familiar aesthetic of the samurai, who no longer needed to wear armor and fight battles, where the bow had always been the principal military weapon. Now they would usually do no more than fight duels, in which the sword rather than the bow could be celebrated as the "soul of the samurai." The problems of the samurai and their ethos in this era is explored in many movies. The plight of unemployed samurai from the demobilized feudal armies is seen in Masaki Kobayashi's Harakiri (1963). The story of Miyamoto Musashi, who went from digging trenches in the mud at Sekigahara to becoming the greatest of the dueling ronin (and whose own The Book of Five Rings has been kept in print as a key to Japanese business practices), is given in heavily fictionalized form in The Samurai Trilogy (1955), by Hiroshi Inagaki. Finally, the most celebrated samurai story of the Edo Period was the incident in 1701 of Lord Asano of Ako, and the revenge of 47 of his retainers. At the time, his story became a kabuki play, and since the introduction of cinema there have been countless movie versions. One of the best is Inagaki's 1963 Chushingura (the "Treasury of the Loyal [chû] Retainers [shin]"). Other versions of the story are often just called "The 47 Ronin" (the retainers were ronin after Asano's death). Modern visitors to Tokyo can still see the graves of Asano and the retainers at the Sengakuji temple (not far from the Shinagawa train station on the convenient Yamanote Line). The expected character of the Japanese as obedient and communal was fixed through the Tokugawa institutions, even if occasional troubles reminded people that there used to be older traditions of insurrection and disloyalty.
| The Modern Period, 1868-present | Era | |
|---|---|---|
| 122 Mutsuhito | 1866- 1912 | Meiji 1868 |
| Sino-Japanese War, 1894-1895; Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905; Annexation of Korea, 1910 | ||
| 123 Yoshihito | 1912- 1926 | Taishô |
| "21 Demands" on China, 1915; Washington Naval Conference, 1921-1922 | ||
| 124 Hirohito | 1926- 1989 | Shôwa |
| Annexation of Manchuria, 1931; Invasion of China, 1937; World War II, 1941-1945; American Occupation, 1945-1952 | ||
| 125 Akihito | 1989- present | Heisei |
| Naruhito | heir apparent | |
Modern Japan began with much of the paradox and irony familiar in world history. When Commodore Perry arrived in Japan in 1853, it was with the determination to force the country open to trade and international contact. Why this was thought to be necessary, or the business of the United States, is a good question. Ninety years later, many Americans might have wondered if it had been a good idea. When the Shôgun agreed in 1854 to open trade and allow foreigners into the country, this set off a reaction against the Shogunate that had not been seen in its history. The cry became Sonnô Jôi!, 
, "Respect the Emperor; expel the foreigners!" The Emperor Kômei wanted the foreigners expelled, so a movement gathered to depose the Shôgun and "Restore" the rule of the Emperor. In 1868 the Emperor was restored. The Shôgun resigned, and, after some fighting (the Shôgun, as the lord of the Kantô, didn't want to surrender his lands), Edo was occupied and the foreigners, well, were not expelled. Kômei had died, and the forces of Chôshû and Satsuma, with foreign arms, had, with the young emperor Mutsuhito, changed their minds. The Imperial Court moved from Kyôto to Edo, which now became Tôkyô, , the "Eastern Capital." Not only were the foreigners not expelled, but, instead, the new government set out to completely overturn the traditional society and create a modern state. The samurai class was simply abolished in 1872, but die hard samurai had to be defeated with modern weapons. The "Satsuma Rebellion" of Saigô Takamori in 1877 has recently been the subject of a Hollywood movie, The Last Samurai [2003], but the movie fictionalizes events beyond recognition. Saigô led 15,000 men and tried to take the castle and government garrison at Kumamoto, hence to march on Kyôto. A long siege failed, as conscript peasant soldiers held off the confident samurai. Fighting largely destroyed town and castle of Kagoshima. With only forty men left, wounded in battle at Shiroyama, Saigô committed suicide with the help of a retainer (Beppu Shinsuke, not an American solider). Just as hopeless and vicious folly redeemed by suicide is often celebrated in Japanese history, in 1899 Saigô earned a statue at the entrance of Ueno Park in Tôykô.
There had already been trouble in Satsuma, a telling incident in 1863, when the British bombarded Kagoshima, the capital of Shimazu Hisamitsu, Daimyô of the Satsuma Clan, in revenge for the murder of an Englishman, Charles Richardson, by Hisamitsu's retainers in Yokohama. To the British the action was a disaster, because a number of the new breech-loading guns exploded. The Japanese, however, did not know that. All they saw was the fortress getting blown to bits. The result was that the Satsuma Clan became patrons of the new Imperial Japanese Navy. This contrasts with the kind of thing that went on in China, where the first railroad, built with British money, was bought by the Chinese government simply to be torn up. Such things were apparently thought unnecessary. Trouble similar to that at Kagoshima, in the same year, occurred at Shimonoseki (near the site of the Battle of Dan-no-Ura), where the Daimyô of Chôshû, Môri Motonori, ordered that foreign ships passing by be shot at. Consequently, the French bombarded Shimonoseki, and the British, French, Americans, and Dutch did so also in 1864. Unlike at Kagoshima, where the Emperor thought that the Japanese had won because no action followed the bombardment, foreign troops landed at Shimonoseki and demolished the fortifications. Môri had to agree not to molest, and sometimes even to provision, passing ships. The Chôshû Clan subsequently became the patron of the new Japanese Army, which drew on French advice, until France was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), and then on German (not, as one might think from The Last Samurai, American).
So it turned out that, the way Nixon could go to China, Emperor Mutsuhito could put on pants and sit in a chair -- and build a modern nation.
With the "Meiji Restoration," the Japanese adopted the Chinese practice of the Ming and Ch'ing that only one Era Name is used per reign. Mutsuhito thus chose Meiji, , "Enlightened Rule," for himself. As in the recent Chinese practice, with the death each Emperor, he then became known by the Era Name, i.e. "The Meiji Emperor," rather than a new posthumous name, which in Japanese practice tended to reflect his residence (e.g. Nijô, the "Second Street" Emperor).
Almost from the very beginning of modern Japan, its foreign policy was aggressive and expansionist. 
Not only the Japanese themselves, but the International Community, considered that Japan had come of age and become a Power with the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). While none of this, not even the annexation of Korea in 1910, was regarded as particularly predatory behavior at the time, things began to change when Japan tried to impose demands on China during World War I. This was disagreeable to Britain, of whom Japan was a proud ally, and infuriating to the United States, which, with a soft spot for all the Chinese who were expected to convert to Christianity any day, suddenly became an international powerbroker by delivering victory to the Allies. Japan backed off and for a while was on relatively good behavior, the period of "Taishô Democracy." But darker impulses were always stirring, and the Depression did much the same work in Japan that it did in Germany. The greedy capitalists and the disloyal communists should both be defeated so that the National Essence could prosper and bring the Emperor's Benevolence to all of East Asia.
The takeover of Manchuria in 1931 was the first major act of fascist aggression in the 1930's, though the Japanese had long stationed troops there, as the Russians had before them. The League of Nations, whose principal members already had their own colonial empires, now became queasy over the naked continuation of the old style imperialism. The United States, probably the most outraged, was no longer involved enough in international affairs to make much difference. The saddest thing about the business was that none of it was really a considered policy of the Japanese Government. Military zealots, usually on the spot, initiated actions that the Government was literally afraid to repudiate -- Prime Ministers were assassinated just for the impression of not being sufficiently hard-line (though some revisionist historians now argue that the whole business was masterminded by Emperor Hirohito himself). The only real military question was whether action should be aimed at the Soviet Union or at China. This was decided, in effect, by the failure of a coup in Tokyo on February 26, 1936, the "2/26 Incident." China would be the target, and pretexts were duly arranged that were used to invade China in 1937. This began a war that lasted until 1945. Everything else, like the Pacific War with the United States and Britain, was just a detail coincident to the attack on China. For, as it happened, China was rather too large to be overrun by the Japanese, and Chiang Kai-shek was too stubborn, or stupid, to come to any accommodation with them. His expectation was that the Americans would eventually be drawn in, and then they would win the war for him. In that he turned out to be quite right.
Japanese strategy can be observed on the map of their East Asian Empire at its height. China is in practical terms surrounded. The last route of overland supply, through Burma (the arduous "Burma Road"), was the last one cut off. The Allies were reduced to flying supplies in over "The Hump," i.e. the Himalayas. This turned out to be less desperate than it might seem, since Chiang didn't want the supplies to fight the Japanese anyway. He figured that Japan would be defeated elsewhere, which it was, and that he needed to prepare for the post-War struggle with the Communists. Meanwhile, the Japanese secured a strategic oil supply in Indonesia and protected it by conquering adjacent territories, like the Philippines. The military, however, had paid insufficient attention to boring practical questions like running the oil fields and then getting the fuel back to Japan. A convoy system, which the Allies had to use against German submarines in World War I and World War II in the Atlantic, was never used by Japan, even when American submarines were decimating and even annihilating ships carrying desperately needed strategic supplies. One gets the impression that the whole affair had not been thought out very well, and it hadn't. The Japanese military wanted to die in battle, not to babysit civilian tankers and cargo ships. For much the same reason, Japanese submarines never returned the favor of general warfare against Allied shipping -- they went after warships, winning some prizes (the Yorktown, Wasp, and Indianapolis), but more often getting sunk by screening ships.
The ironically named Shôwa, , "Radiant Harmony," Era brought down the world, and the Bomb, on Japan and its ambitions. China was left to the grave miscalculations of its own leader, and the Japanese were left to pick up the pieces of flattened, blasted cities. Astonishingly, all the impractical foolishness and haughty distain for mere mundane details were soon traded in for an economic and commercial practicality rivaled by few. Japan had rolled with the punches and remade itself before, and it did again. Whether the moral lesson had really been learned was a question often asked by the Asian neighbors who had experienced the old Japanese "benevolence" first hand. But one thing remains clear: nothing but lack of determination has ever stopped "Third World" countries from entering the modern era and competing with European states as equals, in war and peace. Japan emerged from Tibetan isolation and xenophobia and, with no "natural resources" to speak of, save the human capital of its own people, became a Great Power in less than 40 years. In the Nineties the Japanese economy was in a Tokugawan torpor, but no one was deceived that the frenzy of Japanese life could not most unexpectedly erupt in new achievements and ambitions (even alarming ones).
Fujiwara Chancellors and Imperial Regents, 858-1887; Prime Ministers, 1885-present
Advanced Japanese Destroyers of World War II
A Guadalcanal Chronology, 7 August 1942 - 6 March 1943
Zen and the Art of Divebombing, or The Dark Side of the Tao
History of Philosophy, Buddhist Philosophy
The situation in India in 1780 was with the British poised for conquest. At that point, wars had already been fought with Mysore and with the Marathans. More would come. The Punjab, in the distance, would be a project for some years later. Meanwhile, The French would shortly be down to four cities, which they would surrender to the newly independent India in 1947. The Portuguese, from their former hegemony, were reduced to three possessions, which they would retain until forcibly taken by India in 1961. The two Danish cities were sold to Britain in 1845. The British were unwilling to pay for the Danish Nicobar Islands, but then, after the Danes had left in 1837, they complained about piracy there. The Danes returned 1845-1848. After Denmark renounced sovereignty in 1868, the British occupied the islands.
The map shows the growth of British India from 1805 to the time of the Mutiny in 1858. At first, direct British rule already extends from Bengal all the way up the Ganges to Delhi (where a fiction of Moghul sovereignty persists) and down the East coast to Ceylon. By 1858, extensive areas have been added, notably the Punjab and into Burma. Oudh is also a recent acquisition, distinguished for its importance in the Mutiny. The yellow areas contain Princely States that are British dependents by treaty. Most would remain so until the end of British rule, a reluctance for further annexations having overcome the British after the Mutiny. However, on the eve of Indian Independence, the Princes would be rather bluntly informed that their territories were indeed going to be annexed, either to India or Pakistan. Their existence had become an anachronism. Such government was all that existed in the 18th century, but the British, by leaving them in place, had inadvertently managed to preserve them as living fossils into a very different age. Some people began to think that the British kept them in place just to make fun of them. Fossils or not, their actions were not always without contemporary consequences. The choice of the Hindu ruler of the majority Muslim Kashmir to go with India led to wars, tensions, and terrorism that persist until today.
Much of the enduring interest in Shih-huang-ti is because of his tomb. This is not far from the modern city of Sian (Xian), which was the capital of China, Ch'ang-An, in several periods.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}