Ian_Lee Posted February 18, 2004 at 06:31 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2004 at 06:31 PM I would not say that Genghis Khan was a Chinese Emperor. But in some aspects, Kublai Khan was. Kublai Khan established Yuan Dynasty, had a lot of Chinese as his court officials, and used Chinese as Yuan's official language. The two correspondences sent by Kublai Khan to Japan before Yuan launched the invasion were all written in Chinese. In fact, Yuan even wrote its history in Chinese characters but actually based on Mongolian pronounciation. Only recently was the book "Mongolia's Secret History" being deciphered. Moreover, Mongol's dominance in the world arena did not vanish after they were ousted by Ming China. Even though their rule in China lasted for only about 90 years, other Khanates lasted for centuries. In fact, the Mongols established the Mogul Empire in India after they were pushed out from China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_Lee Posted February 18, 2004 at 06:59 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2004 at 06:59 PM Actually we have to differentiate between good leader and good ruler. Good leader may not be good ruler while good ruler may not be good leaders. I would say Chiang et al were lousy leaders but regional competent rulers (I got to emphasize based on performance after '49). Let's be objective. There have been at least 120+ newly independent countries/territories that strived for economic prosperity after WWII. So after 60 years, let's look at the report card. How many countries/territories actually made it? Only Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. When Chiang retreated to Taiwan in '49, Taiwan's GDP/capita was just about US$200 -- much lower than that of Philippines. But when the Chiang Dynasty ended in '88, Taiwan's GDP/capita has already been about US$7,000. I would not argue that Chiang was nuts in many aspects. But judged by his performance in Taiwan, his rule was much better (albeit high-handed) than his peers like Marcos, Sukarno or Sygnman Rhee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XiangYu Posted February 18, 2004 at 09:39 PM Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2004 at 09:39 PM obviously conquering other countries have killing ruthlessly involved. Pillaging was a very common event to the people back then. The Mongols often burnt and robbed people from Han people near the boarder, and the Han people did the same. It is no that big of a deal. In 4000 years there are no one that was capable of establishing such a big empire in such a short time other than Ghengis Khan. Alexander the great only conquered Europe, and that is not ALL of Europe, and he couldn't even get to India before he was forced to retreat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaMo Posted February 19, 2004 at 01:33 AM Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 at 01:33 AM obviously conquering other countries have killing ruthlessly involved. Pillaging was a very common event to the people back then. The Mongols often burnt and robbed people from Han people near the boarder' date=' and the Han people did the same. It is no that big of a deal. In 4000 years there are no one that was capable of establishing such a big empire in such a short time other than Ghengis Khan. Alexander the great only conquered Europe, and that is not ALL of Europe, and he couldn't even get to India before he was forced to retreat.[/quote'] Actually, the great majority of his empire was in the Middle East and Near East, not Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XiangYu Posted February 19, 2004 at 03:43 AM Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 at 03:43 AM oops .. i learned about Alexander the Great when i was grade 7, so i forgot exactly where his empire was... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wuliao Posted February 19, 2004 at 05:05 AM Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 at 05:05 AM Actually we have to differentiate between good leader and good ruler.Good leader may not be good ruler while good ruler may not be good leaders. I would say Chiang et al were lousy leaders but regional competent rulers (I got to emphasize based on performance after '49). Let's be objective. There have been at least 120+ newly independent countries/territories that strived for economic prosperity after WWII. So after 60 years' date=' let's look at the report card. How many countries/territories actually made it? Only Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. When Chiang retreated to Taiwan in '49, Taiwan's GDP/capita was just about US$200 -- much lower than that of Philippines. But when the Chiang Dynasty ended in '88, Taiwan's GDP/capita has already been about US$7,000. I would not argue that Chiang was nuts in many aspects. But judged by his performance in Taiwan, his rule was much better (albeit high-handed) than his peers like Marcos, Sukarno or Sygnman Rhee.[/quote'] Economic prosperity is a relative thing. Whats the point of being wealthy if you cannot buy the things you want? According to GDP per capita, every Singaporean should be a least a millionaire and own their own house - but this is far from the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wushijiao Posted February 19, 2004 at 08:47 AM Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 at 08:47 AM Greatest Chinese leader....Jiang Zemin. I say that only half-jokingly. He lead China forward after 6/4, he improved the economy, and has at least partly transfered power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_Lee Posted February 19, 2004 at 07:56 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 at 07:56 PM I agree that Deng Xiaoping was one of the few greatest rulers (but not leader) in Chinese history. What was Deng great in? Deng was great in "Myself of today villifing myself of yesterday". Considering that Deng was one of the veteran Communist movement pioneers whom deeply believed in Marxism and promoted its thought as early as teenage when he was a student/newspaper printer in Paris in 1920s, his belief in Communism should have been deeply based and unshakable. But what happened when Deng was 70+ years old? Deng repudiated wholly his belief in Communism and advanced the "Black Cat White Cat" theory. Can any old folks, who usually became stubborn in their golden years and stuck to their thoughts nurtured in the younger years, made such 180 degree U-turn like Deng did? Hardly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Meandering Posted March 15, 2004 at 01:49 PM Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 at 01:49 PM For me, I would say, though many others disagree that Mao Tse Tung was the greatest leaders of China. He was the one who lifted them out of a trough, when European powers, even a tiny country like Belgium were quibbling over which part of China would belong to them. After being ravaged for so long by corrupted officials, moronic emperors, scheming eunuchs and maniac concubines, Mao Tse Tung was the one who gave the chinese people back their pride. Remember, that if it weren't for him, men like Zhou En Lai and Deng Xiao Ping might never have become powerful. True, that Moa did instigate the Cultural Revolution, and the Anti Rightist campaigns that purged China of it's intellectuals and valuable heritage, but he was the one that gave China two firm feet to stand on, and made her a force to be reckoned with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_Lee Posted March 15, 2004 at 06:50 PM Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 at 06:50 PM Mao was great in certain aspect. But he was not great in lifting China from the status of being a victim under imperialist aggression by countries like Belgium. Three years before Mao established PRC in 1949, China had already become a permanent member in the Security Council of UN. All leased territories possessed by foreign powers on Chinese soil had been relinquished in 1943. China, as a victorious nation in WWII, had dispatched mission to station in foreign capitals like Tokyo and Berlin to dictate their postwar fate. Of course, small countries like Belgium were still licking their wounds after traumatized by Nazi. How could they salivate over China before Mao established PRC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quest Posted March 15, 2004 at 09:27 PM Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 at 09:27 PM I agree it was the world wars that ended colonialism. watch out for topic SENSITIVITY guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherman Posted March 16, 2004 at 12:42 PM Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 at 12:42 PM 关公。 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yan Posted March 19, 2004 at 01:50 PM Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 at 01:50 PM China, as a victorious nation in WWII, had dispatched mission to station in foreign capitals like Tokyo and Berlin to dictate their postwar fate. I think China's influence on German post-war fate was as strong as Uruguay's - non existent. I really don't think the victory in WWII had made China strong. China had not been able to defeat Japan at all, and the neutralisation of Japan by the US did not mean that China was suddenly a more powerful country. The Soviets were keen enough to renew their influence in Manchuria, and Yalta had given them some privileges in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia. Only the involvement in the Korean War under Mao - after which the CCP could claim to have defeated one of the two superpowers - led to the recognition of China as one of the great powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_Lee Posted March 19, 2004 at 06:43 PM Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 at 06:43 PM Yan: PRC didn't win in Korean War. They were just on a par with US. The armistic line lied at roughly the same 38 degrees when the war broke out in 1950. In the last days of war, Peng De Huai planned a massive offensive to try to recapture Seoul but failed. China sent a mission to Berlin after WWII but of course the significance was nominal. But for post-war Japan, US requested the New 1st Army which General Stilwell led in the Burma Campaign to station in Japan. But Chiang Kai Shek instead dispatched them to the Northeast to fight with Lin Biao. In fact, Stalin proposed to divide Japan into 4 zones after WWII -- Soviet controlled Hokkaido, US controlled Honshu, UK controlled Kyushu and China controlled Shikoku -- But of course MacArthur rejected the scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhchao Posted March 19, 2004 at 06:51 PM Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 at 06:51 PM The greatest ruler is Tang Taizong. He expanded the Chinese empire to what it was during the Han dynasty. His reign, the Zhenguan, made China economically prosperous and militarily strong. He listened to people's advice and acted on good advice. He was a strong ruler who came up with the saying "The waters can both capsize or float a boat", meaning the people form the foundation of the support for the ruler. "Once he loses the support of the people, he will eventually fall." Under his reign, the government tolerated different religions. Changan the capital became the most cosmopolitan city in the world. One time Taitsung used an undercover agent to send false bribes to several goverment officials to test if they would accept the bribes. When one official accepted the "fake" bribe, Taitsung became angry and wanted to execute the official. His advisor advised him not to do so however, saying "You brought about his behavior by testing him with fake bribes. Why not educate this man by setting a good example yourself? If the ruler himself was upright and just, so will the officials under him, and the people as well" Taitsung was pleased with what the advisor said, and saw the wisdom of those words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yan Posted March 21, 2004 at 07:26 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 at 07:26 PM Ian: Of course the PRC did not really win the Korean War. But for them making a stand against the US was almost like a victory, while for the US it was almost like a defeat. And of course the success was much greater than in most other wars China had fought since 1842. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[欧阳江] Posted February 27, 2007 at 02:14 AM Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 at 02:14 AM As a rule of thumb, I consider the 文-guys being better than the 武-guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.