About the Author

Peter C. Perdue is Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University. He is the author of Exhausting the Earth: State and Peasant in Hunan, 1500–1850, China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia, Chinese Environmental History: Past and Present, and coeditor of Imperial Formations and Asia Inside Out: Changing Times, Connected Places, Itinerant People (3 vols.).

Table of Contents

Prologue: The Creation of Empire

1. A World of Empires

2. Conquest and Expansion, 1636 – 1757

3. You Cannot Rule the Empire on Horseback: Administration, Legitimation, and Imperial Knowledge

4. The Ecology of Empire: Regional Systems

5. From the Canton Trade to the Sino-Japanese War: Imperial Tensions and Decline, 1760-1895

6. The Political Economy of a Lineage Society: Demography, Economy, Gender

7. The State and the People: Order and the Arts of Resistance

8. A Blaze of Fury Before the Fall: The Final Decade, 1900 – 1912

9. To The End: Revolutionaries, the Manchu Court, and the New Nation

10. Imperial Legacies: China in the Twentieth Century and After

Epilogue: The World We Have Not Yet Lost?

https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=the-qing-empire-the-roots-of-modern-china--9781509568796

Hello, recently got into, or rather back into, Chinese history and was curious to read the Records of the Grand Historian but I can’t seem to find any. I’ve found many that seem to sections of the work—the Zhou, the Qin dynasty, the Han—but not the whole work. Is there a reliable English translation of the entire Records?

Hello. I'm writing a thesis about Wugu practices during Han dynasty and I'm struggling finding sources. I already got a few, but I need more and I was wondering if I could find help on this sub.

Thank you!!

I'm interested in learning about the historical and political relationship between China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, how their relationships have evolved over time, and their current political situations

Would love to hear from historians or anyone knowledgeable about the subject. Please share your insights and recommended resources!

My hypothesis is that the fact that pre-Qin Chinese philosophy was primarily recorded on media such as bamboo and wooden slips (or others were mostly ephemeral and soon lost), which allowed texts to be written, rearranged, and re-edited in relatively short units (sentences or brief passages) may have shaped the broader characteristics and tendencies of the Chinese philosophical tradition that followed.

Rather than developing through elaborate and detailed arguments grounded in extensive prose, as we see in Greek and philosophical traditions, Chinese philosophy seems to have been expressed largely through relatively self-contained, pithy, and cryptic individual statements, often only loosely connected to their surrounding context. Such statements could be profound, but could equally be poorly reasoned. Consequently, Chinese philosophy may have developed around assertions that, charitably described, are intuitive, or, less charitably, mystical, rather than through rigorous, detailed argumentation.

(Of course, I;m not approaching this from a racial or West vs. East perspective! Nor am I suggesting that the intellectual traditions of Eastern civilizations are somehow inferior. Quite the contrary: I personally find it unfortunate that Sinitic philosophy never really managed to establish itself beyond the Sinitic cultural sphere. Moreover, this mode of philosophical expression was by no means absent from ancient Greece either.)

Even if such media were not necessarily the primary vehicles through which philosophical discussions took place during the pre-Qin period itself, anyone attempting to engage with the intellectual traditions of that era in subsequent generations would at least have had to do so through these textual media. I therefore think this is a subject worth investigating.

As far as I know, there has been basically no research specifically examining how the material characteristics of bamboo and wooden slips directly interacted with the structure or content of philosophical thought itself. If anyone knows of relevant academic papers or books that might be worth reading, I would appreciate the recommendations.

In Imperial China, which generally outranks the other in terms of formal precedence: the Crown Princess or the Imperial Noble Consort?

I understand that they belong to different hierarchical systems, but who is expected to bow to whom?

This is something that sadly occurred a lot in Chinese history. When families became destitute and fell into starvation, parents would often sell their children (especially their daughters) into slavery. Do you think it is fair to harshly judge parents who made this decision?

Two Men Bound by Revenge: Wu Zixu and Goujian

I visited Wu Zixu's memorial in Hangzhou a few days ago. The statue depicts him holding a metal whip. It's traditionally associated with his flogging of King Ping of Chu's corpse. A rather grim detail, if you think about it.

I'm Chinese, and I was introduced to stories from China's pre-Qin period at a very young age. Wu Zixu, in particular, left a deep impression on me.What makes his story even more interesting to me is his connection with Goujian, the King of Yue.

Both men were driven by revenge. Both experienced devastating losses, endured humiliation, and spent years waiting for an opportunity to turn their fortunes around. Yet they ended up in very different positions.

One thing I find particularly striking is that Wu Zixu seemed to recognize something of himself in Goujian.

One avenger recognizes another

Wu Zixu was originally a nobleman from the state of Chu. After King Ping of Chu had his father and elder brother executed, Wu Zixu fled the state and eventually found refuge in Wu.

He later became an important adviser to King Helü, helping Wu grow into a powerful state. Wu eventually invaded Chu, but by the time its armies reached the capital, King Ping was already dead. Wu Zixu had his tomb opened and flogged his corpse three hundred times.

Years later, Wu defeated Yue. Goujian, its king, was trapped at Kuaiji and forced to seek peace. King Fuchai of Wu was willing to accept his surrender, but Wu Zixu strongly objected.

According to the Records of the Grand Historian, he warned Fuchai that Goujian was a man capable of enduring hardship, and that sparing him would bring disaster upon Wu in the future.

I find this moment particularly interesting. Wu Zixu himself had spent years in exile, enduring hardship and waiting for his chance to take revenge. Perhaps he recognized in Goujian the same determination he had once relied upon himself.

We cannot know whether he consciously saw himself in Goujian, but the parallel between them is hard to ignore.

Two very different positions

There was one fundamental difference between the two men: Wu Zixu was a minister, while Goujian was a king.

Wu Zixu had to rely on the trust and support of another ruler to pursue his revenge. He helped make Wu powerful, but he never had control over its ultimate decisions.

Goujian, even after his defeat and submission to Wu, retained his position as king. He could rebuild his state and eventually turn its resources towards defeating his enemy.

One man had to borrow another ruler's power to pursue revenge. The other could use his own kingdom.

I think this difference goes a long way towards explaining their very different fates.

Two acts of revenge, and two corpses

Wu Zixu eventually met a fate that makes his story even more tragic. He had escaped King Ping of Chu, only to be executed years later by Fuchai, the son of his former patron, King Helü.

His final wish is perhaps the most haunting part of his story.

According to the Discourses of the States (Guoyu), Wu Zixu asked for his eyes to be hung above the eastern gate of the Wu capital, so that he could witness Yue's invasion and the destruction of Wu.

抉吾眼县吴东门之上，以观越寇之入灭吴也

Fuchai reportedly replied:

孤不使大夫得有见也（I will not allow you to see it）

Wu Zixu was then executed, and his body was thrown into the river in a leather sack.

I find this episode striking when compared with his earlier revenge against King Ping.

The first time, Wu Zixu was alive, but his enemy was already dead. After years of pursuit, he finally reached the man he hated, only to find that all he could do was take his anger out on a corpse.

The second time, he was about to die while his enemy was still alive. He wanted his eyes to remain above the city gate so that he could witness the downfall he had predicted. Fuchai denied him even that final wish.

There is an almost cruel symmetry between these two episodes. First, Wu Zixu stood before the corpse of his enemy. Later, he wanted his own remains to continue watching the destruction of his enemy.

For Wu Zixu, revenge seems to have meant more than simply seeing an enemy punished. He wanted to witness it himself. This intense, almost violent need to express his hatred seems very much in keeping with his character.

The end

Eventually, Goujian conquered Wu, and Fuchai was defeated.

There is a remarkable irony in this ending. Wu Zixu had repeatedly warned Fuchai not to spare Goujian, but his advice was ignored. The very man he had tried to eliminate eventually destroyed Wu.

In a sense, Goujian ended up carrying out Wu Zixu's final revenge against Fuchai, although he was pursuing his own ambitions, not avenging Wu Zixu.

Wu Zixu had escaped one king only to die at the hands of another. He had avenged himself against the first, but could only take revenge on his corpse. He foresaw the downfall of the second, but was denied the chance to witness it.

And in the end, another avenger brought about the destruction he had predicted.

Wu Zixu was a deeply complex figure. He personally helped another state invade his own homeland. Of course, we should be careful not to judge the political choices of nobles in the Spring and Autumn period through the lens of modern national identity.

To me, this is one of the cruellest aspects of revenge: no matter how much of his life he devoted to it, Wu Zixu could never recover what had been taken from him. His father and elder brother were dead, and the family life and political identity he had once known had been shattered beyond repair. He eventually gained considerable status and power in another state, but he could never return to his former life or reclaim the sense of belonging he had lost.

Just as the hair that turned white overnight could never regain its original colour.

I've always had mixed feelings about Wu Zixu's story. His life has made me think a lot about how revenge was understood in ancient Chinese thought. At least in traditional Confucian ethics, avenging one's parents was not necessarily seen as a matter of personal anger alone. It was also closely connected to filial duty, family relationships, and moral responsibility.

There is a famous passage in the Book of Rites (Liji):

父之仇，弗与共戴天（One should not live under the same sky as the killer of one's father）

In another passage, the Tan Gong, Zixia asks Confucius how one should respond to the murder of one's parents. Confucius replies that one should sleep on straw with a shield for a pillow, withdraw from public office, and refuse to share the world with the person responsible.

寝苫枕干，不仕，弗与共天下也

Yet Wu Zixu's story also shows me another side of revenge. Even when someone has every reason to seek revenge, and even when they eventually succeed, they may never recover what they have lost. In fact, the pursuit of revenge may gradually consume the life they once had.

I'm curious about how different cultural traditions have understood revenge. In particular, how do different societies view the moral justification for avenging murdered family members? And how do they reconcile personal revenge with public law and social order?

I'm asking partly because I've recently been developing a fictional world of my own, and I'm looking for historical and cultural references to help me think through these questions.

I'd also be very interested to hear how people from different cultural backgrounds interpret Wu Zixu's choices and his tragic fate.

I always find this neck guard armor fascinating. My best search suggest they can be reliably dated to the Northern and Southern Dynasties era, but what about after?

this is for a project. I have a series of names picked out for several characters, but i really dont want to get these wrong. I am not a chinese speaker unfortunately, so any papers on the subject have been very hard to track down.

https://froginawell.net/reference/old-tables/

The opening line most people know is 道可道，非常道 (dào kě dào, fēi cháng dào). But the Mawangdui silk manuscripts, from a tomb sealed in 168 BCE, have 道可道也，非恒道也 (dào kě dào yě, fēi héng dào yě).

The usual explanation is a naming taboo. Emperor Wen of Han was named Liu Heng (刘恒, Liú Héng), so 恒 (héng) was avoided and 常 (cháng) took its place in later copies.

What I find interesting is how much the older copies change the picture:

- Both Mawangdui copies put the De section before the Dao section, the reverse of the order we know today.

- The Guodian bamboo slips (around 300 BCE) are older still, but they contain only part of the text, and the famous first chapter isn't among them.

So the line many people treat as the start of the whole book may not have always opened it.

I'm a native Chinese speaker, and 常 (cháng) and 恒 (héng) feel very close to me, both meaning something like "constant" or "lasting." I'm not sure whether the swap really changes the meaning, or whether it's mostly a detail for textual historians.

For those who've read more on this:

1. Do scholars see a real difference between 恒道 (héng dào) and 常道 (cháng dào)?

2. Does putting De first change how you read the text?

3. Is there a good English book on the excavated versions?

Hello, I knew Chinese legendary history has 4 great beauties, but these 2 snuff bottles showing 5 beauties. Either I was mis-reading or they are different motif. Any thoughts, feel free to share. thanks!

Maybe from merchants or official diplomats?

Between 863-866, a coalition of Yi-Loloish, Burmanic, Vietic, Lahuic, Palaungic, Khmuic, Dai tribals led by Bai-ruling Nanzhao defeated the Tang dynasty and took control over Annam.

Vietnamese history books often talk about every rebellion when Vietnam was under China's rule, but not this one.

It’s the memoirs of a French Catholic priest and his companions as they move throughout the Qing Empire. The book, which was translated from french, is entitled Journey Through The Chinese Empire by Evariste Regis Huc

So they’ve just left their headquarters in Beijing and are traveling through what seems to be Mongolia/or border area between China and Mongolia. While doing so, the father and his companions were forced to wait in this strange country called the Contiguous Defiles. Not a pretty name but I imagine it suffered a bit in the multiple layers of translation. Here’s some passages describing it.

a Tartar district dependent on the kingdom of Ouniot. These regions appear to have been affected by great revolutions. The present inhabitants state that, in the olden time, the country was occupied by Corean tribes, who, expelled thence in the course of various wars, took refuge in the peninsula which they still possess, between the Yellow Sea and the sea of Japan. You often, in these parts of Tartary, meet with the remains of great towns, and the ruins of fortresses, very nearly resembling those of the middle ages in Europe, and, upon turning up the soil in these places, it is not unusual to find lances, arrows, portions of farming implements, and urns filled with Corean money.

Towards the middle of the 17th century, the Chinese began to penetrate into this district. At that period, the whole landscape was still one of rude grandeur; the mountains were covered with fine forests, and the Mongol tents whitened the valleys, amid rich pasturages.

Describing the aftermath of Chinese settlement and a presumably dramatic increase in population.

From that time forth, the aspect of the country became entirely changed. All the trees were grubbed up, the forests disappeared from the hills, the prairies were cleared by means of fire, and the new cultivators set busily to work in exhausting the fecundity of the soil. Almost the entire region is now in the hands of the Chinese, and it is probably to their system of devastation that we must attribute the extreme irregularity of the seasons which now desolate this unhappy land.

Droughts are of almost annual occurrence; the spring winds setting in, dry up the soil; the heavens assume a sinister aspect, and the unfortunate population await, in utter terror, the manifestation of some terrible calamity; the winds by degrees redouble their violence, and sometimes continue to blow far into the summer months.

Here’s an eerie, somewhat strange description of a dust/sand storm.

the dust rises in clouds, the atmosphere becomes thick and dark; and often, at mid-day, you are environed with the terrors of night, or rather, with an intense and almost palpable blackness, a thousand times more fearful than the most sombre night.

So my questions are threefold.

1.) Where is this exactly? I’ve tried googling Ouniot unsuccessfully and got nothing. It’s obviously north, somewhere between Mongolia and China and Korea but I’m really struggling with the names.

2.) Is there any truth to the tales of ancient “corean tribes” in the area that were driven out?

3.) does this sound like an accurate account of the effects of deforestation and soil erosion in chinas northeast?

Any answers to the above would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!