Indo-China War Rhetoric

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,469
Likes
1,199
Country flag
ROC's claims over greater China are a political football meant to protect them. The second they drop claims over the mainland can be considered a unilateral declaration of independence and I believe you know that.
So, you accept that ROC's stance regarding tibet before 1949 was as same as the PRC's of today.



One only needs to review "actual" history. During the Chinese Civil War Tibet gained independence from Chinese control. For 36 years they existed as a free state until the 1950 invasion. If China always had sovereignty over Tibet, why was an invasion needed? Why was the exile of the Dalai Lama necessary?
Could you tell me that any chinese gov's ever acknowledge tibet's independence? Whether a territory can get its final independence is decided by both side. Unilateral independence is meanless to aonther side. The war is the only solustion to this disagreement. Unfortunately, we won.



How could it be integral when you just sent little miltary expeditions and then abandonded it for 36 years? Your hstiroical claims are based on the Mongol conquests, Chinese are not sucessors to the Mongols.
Maybe you should learn the history first. The ROC inberit the rights over tibet from Qing not Mongol. Actually, the Mongoal's invation around 1700, which was caused by power struggle among tibetens, gave the chinese opportunity to finalise the control over tibet. After a series of civial wars, tibetens finally agreed that any Dalai Lama and Panchan Lama must be approved by central gov of Qing before they claim their throne. Their status in tibet was also protected by chinese army after this approval. So, as the sucessor of Qing, as long as ROC had not give up thiese rights, the tibet couldn't get real independence.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,165
Likes
4,324
You're completely missing the point. Just because China or Taiwan claim Tibet does not make Tibet a legitimate part of them.

I will restate why the Chinese argument does not work:

Just as Mongolia cannot claim China as its slave because Mongolia once ruled China, China's claim over Tibet using historical precedent is flawed also for the very same reason: Since Tibet was a free country (from 1912 to 1949) when China invaded it, and the Tibetan people did not want to be a part of China (and they still don't).

The following is from wikipedia (I don't know if this is accessible in China, but here you go):

The 13th Dalai Lama returned to Tibet from India in July 1912 (after the fall of the Qing dynasty), and expelled the Amban and all Chinese troops. In 1913, the Dalai Lama issued a proclamation that stated that the relationship between the Chinese emperor and Tibet "had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other." "We are a small, religious, and independent nation," the proclamation continued.

Source: Tibet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the 14th (current) Dalai Lama (and Tibet's government in exile) has already stated that the Seventeen Point agreement was forced upon Tibet by China at gunpoint. And this is why he and his government had to flee Tibet. Therefore China's brutal rule of Tibet is illegal and a form of imperialism.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,165
Likes
4,324
Could you tell me that any chinese gov's ever acknowledge tibet's independence? Whether a territory can get its final independence is decided by both side. Unilateral independence is meanless to aonther side. The war is the only solustion to this disagreement. Unfortunately, we won.
That is the most absurd argument. Tibet was already independent for 36 years when the Chinese army attacked it. Otherwise, why did the Republic of China not try the annexation of Tibet in 1912?

The argument is also absurd because if sovereignty of countries was decided strictly by who was more powerful, all more powerful countries would attack and take over their weaker neighbors. If it worked that way, then any country could keep on claiming their neighbor country's land (based on historical empires), and then just keep fighting war after war to see who is stronger, and the stronger would just take over. Then what is the point of United Nations and international law? All nations of the world would be constantly at war.

But you make one valid point: That the Chinese takeover of Tibet is just based on military strength, and without any legitimacy. And all Chinese claims should be seen in this light, including Chinese claims on Indian land.

All Chinese claims should be viewed as completely absurd and without any basis (since their takeover of Tibet is also without any legitimate basis; i.e. without the consent of the Tibetan people or Tibetan government).

Sovereignty and independence are decided by the people of the region, even against stronger adversaries.

This is how India was formed, in spite of England being militarily stronger at the time. England did not acknowledge India's independence, but ultimately they had no choice but to leave when the entire country mobilized in a non-violent non-cooperation movement.

Mark my words: China may have won the battle in Tibet, but they have not won the war. And the day is not far when Tibet will regain independence from imperialist China.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,644
Country flag
So, you accept that ROC's stance regarding tibet before 1949 was as same as the PRC's of today.
Sure considering ROC before 1949 was the government of mainland China.

Could you tell me that any chinese gov's ever acknowledge tibet's independence? Whether a territory can get its final independence is decided by both side. Unilateral independence is meanless to aonther side. The war is the only solustion to this disagreement. Unfortunately, we won.
If final independence is decided by both sides, then the issue is still in contention.

Maybe you should learn the history first. The ROC inberit the rights over tibet from Qing not Mongol. Actually, the Mongoal's invation around 1700, which was caused by power struggle among tibetens, gave the chinese opportunity to finalise the control over tibet. After a series of civial wars, tibetens finally agreed that any Dalai Lama and Panchan Lama must be approved by central gov of Qing before they claim their throne. Their status in tibet was also protected by chinese army after this approval. So, as the sucessor of Qing, as long as ROC had not give up thiese rights, the tibet couldn't get real independence.
If you want to base your claim on ROC, then you are recognising their legitamacy. The Qing and the Dalai Lama had a laissez faire relationship where he did his own thing. Once the CCP exiled him that longstanding agreement became void as well as any legitamate claim you ever had on Tibet. If the Dalai Lama was still there, it would be a totally different story.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
992
China was really never under direct rulership by Mongols. As soon as Kublai Kahn took over and unified China once more, the other Khanates rejected him and saw him as being too "sino-fied." It can only be said that the Yuan dynasty (a Chinese name he took to replace his Mongolian one) was ruled by a Mongolian but never really by the Mongol empire.
False.

If you're replying to me don't hesitate to hit the "Quote" button.

You evidently don't know your history too well.

Here is something by Prof R. Marks, BA (London), MA, PhD (Courtauld Institute, London), FSA and Professor Emeritus in history and Byzantine and Gothic art at the University of York, UK.

Whether a ruler rules by proxy, or by himself, it is under his direct rulership nevertheless, as long as the proxy is a slave and a pawn to his judgment, which is what the Chinese were at the time of the 'Yuan' dynasty,

Kublai Khan & Mongol Dominance

The Mongol rule over china and their infamous leader Kublai Khan started well before this ruthless leader invaded southern china and brought a reign of terror upon the Chinese people. It began before he occupied the entire empire. It began before his life span of 1215 and 1294 where he achieved greatness that will never be forgotten. Kublai’s beginning of power began with Genghis Khan and his conquering of northern and most of the southwestern territories of the Asian continent. Kublai was Genghis Khans grandson and fearsome warfare was bread in the Genes of the family. Kublai’s life as a leader began upon following his brother (Saunders 120) Great Khan Mongke. Kublai and his brother Arik-Boke were Mongke’s successors and after a brief civil war between the two brothers Kublai’s reign began. The disagreement between Kublai and his brother mainly had to do with Mongol policies. Kublai believed the future of the Mongol empire would only be successful if partnership with the ruled could be successfully achieved, where his brother sought after the more traditional Mongol conservatism. Arik-Boke looked inward at the Mongol traditions and did not wish to include foreigners in the reign of the war like Mongol people.

The start of Kublai Khan’s rule and creation of the Yuan Empire in china began with his conquering of south china. This precise dominance over the southern Song dynasty was carried out with patience and the exact cutting of supplies to the Song dynasties troops (Hansen 347). Supply routes were a key focus of Kublai Khan and his campaign to rule southern china. As he swiftly moved south he cut trade, food, and supply routes to the Song military which led to success in battle for the dominant Mongol military. Even in naval battles Kublai proved dominant as he exercised patience rather than sheer craze as a barbarian would be expected. It was not anticipated that the Mongol military would have success with naval warfare but with Kublai’s great leadership qualities he learned the graceful tactics of war at sea, emulating his siege warfare tactics used on land.

The main focus on the Mongols conquests and the leadership of the Khans was horse back. With use of, “myriads structure for their military (armies of ten thousand, thousands, etc.)” (Farmer 386) they showed their dominance. Their skill and sheer numbers on horseback let the Mongol military move swiftly and rapidly through China and the other nations they sacked. Cutting the Song dynasties horse trade routes limiting them to ten thousand horses per year was a key action that gave the Mongols an advantage in the domination over the southern Song. The Chinese were in a position where they shared a horse for every two men whereas the Mongols had as many as five horses for every man. The great number of horses gave the Mongols rapid movement ability that dominated the Chinese. Even during battles on the rivers of China the Mongols used horses combine with ships to overwhelm the Chinese. They would ride their horses along the side of the rivers and rain a barrage of arrows upon the ships. In one battle the Chinese were so fearful of troops fleeing that they used anchored ships to clash the Mongols. The Mongols, using a combine attack method, barraged the ships with arrows from horsemen while engaging the sedentary ships with large naval vessels of their own (Hansen 349).

The tactics employed by Kublai and his grandeur military forces were numerous. Well known for adapting and overcoming, Kublai’s military was superior to the Chinese despite the fact they had fewer troops. In such battles as Siang-yang he bombarded the Chinese with heavy catapults after completely surrounding them, demolishing their military and their morale (Praeger 105). The final battle to overcome the southern Song, just outside of Gunagzhou, would be a naval struggle:

The last Song emperor, a boy of nine, and his mother boarded one of the ships. With their ships outnumbering those of the Mongols three to one, the Chinese anticipated victory and mistakenly believed the Mongols would attack quickly. Instead the Mongol navy adopted siege warfare strategy that had served it so well on land. After cutting off the navy’s supply routes and waiting two weeks so that the Chinese fell short of both food and water, the Mongols attacked on a rainy, foggy morning. Sources report that one hundred thousand Chinese died in the battle. Only one hundred Chinese surrendered at the end of the battle; the rest were dead (Hansen 349).

The complete obliteration of the Song military to capture the empire was Mongol in every facet. They were ruthless and showed it through their entire campaign, including their final victory.

Upon the completion of his military campaign in china Kublai’s true test of leadership began. Governing china was a feat that was nearly impossible and few dynasties were successful at uniting the entire empire under one rule. Kublai and the Yuan dynasty were successful in doing so for ninety years and they employed numerous methods to promote success in their rule. Learning to tax the people at low levels rather than collect booty from them upon sheer domination of a city was a learned trade Mongols employed. Writing was a learned trade of the Mongols under Genghis Khan and was adopted by Mongke and his brother Kublai. They adopted Uighur script due to its ease of learning compared to Chinese.

Kublai’s governing of the Yuan dynasty attempted to replicate that of previous Chinese dynasties while still encompassing Mongol traditions. Though many rituals were similar to that of the Song and previous dynasties the Mongols enforced their ways through several functions. First they eliminated the civil service examination system which heavily affected Chinese families. The Mongols did not agree with the route to power of the civil service examination they choose to elect the rulers. In lieu of the civil service examinations the Mongol rule presented the study of medicine. This was a significant career during the Yuan dynasty and was fairly prestigious due to the elimination of the civil service exams.

The study of medicine and becoming a doctor gave Chinese families a different set of goals for their children. This study gave students another trade to earn formidable wages and a reputable career. Replacing that of the civil service examination was crucial, and the placement into high wage earning jobs helped educated Chinese achieve wages that were acceptable to their class system. Other occupations that were offered during the Yuan dynasty were “religious specialists, farmers, merchants, or craftsmen” (Hansen 352). Under the Mongol reign government jobs received less pay thus it was a less desired job. In government jobs such as a clerk, they would serve twelve and a half years but the pay was such that this was not desired as it had been in the Song and the dynasties prior to the Yuan.

Religion among the Mongols of the Yuan dynasty turned toward the teachings of Buddhism. This preference of Kublai Khan was not his only acceptance. He accepted all religions except Taoism and Muslimism. Buddhism and the ceremonies that it encompassed were banal for Kublai and his court. His main focus of acceptance was underscored by his push to suppress the teachings of Taoism and to keep the Muslim faith from the west in its place. Not letting the spread of the Muslim religion was a focus for Kublai which was unsuccessful only in the western part of the empire. Christianity spread in the Yuan dynasty due to trade with Europe and the west. There was even Mass held occasionally, according to Marco Polo. The western influence was numerous and Marco Polo attested that Kublai “requested holy oil from the lamp which burned in the church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem and professed his belief in the divinity of Christ” (Saunders 126). Kublai’s versatility when pertaining to other religions showed his state of open mind. He knew running the largest empire in the history of the world took acceptance of others beliefs. The Great Khans acceptance was that of a balance to accept the people but not to let them overwhelm the conquests of the people of the steppe.

In his thirty four year reign as Emperor Kublai Khan divided the population into four groups’ ethnic/ geographic census groups. On top of the ethnic ladder were the Mongols; followed by so called miscellaneous categories (mostly west Asian Muslims); third was the people of the Chin stats or the “Han people.” Finally the fourth group was people ruled by the southern Song or the “southern people” (Farmer 386). The division of people showed the preference the Mongols had toward non Chinese people. Obvious favoritism toward Mongols was evident but through their struggles with the Song built a strong dislike of this dynasty and put them at the bottom of the barrel ethnically. The two top groups, the Mongols and the ‘west Asian Muslims,’ were considered the elite of the empire where the Han and the southern people were the lower class which provided taxes, labor, and tribute to the conquering Mongol peoples.

The expansion of the Mongol empire beginning with Genghis Khan and lasting long after Kublai Khan was that of sheer dominance over the continent of Asia. Starting in 1260 Kublai Khan ruled the Chinese people under the single dynasty of Yuan and gave them a unity that had since been lost after the collapse of the Tang. The Great Khan (Kublai), after uniting the entire Chinese empire was considered a ‘Son of Heaven’ and was one of the historic Emperors of China (Phillips 106) (LMAO). The achievements of this expert warrior turned Emperor were justified even further with his ability to adapt. His transformation from a supreme general with a quest to conquer, to an understanding Emperor uniting the largest Empire in the history of the world, showed his true versatility. Kublai Khan demonstrated through Mongol doctrines and the will of the steppe people that domination combined with acceptance leads to a successful dynasty in the eyes of foreigners and locals alike.
The Mongol rule over china and their infamous leader Kubilai Khan started well before this ruthless leader invaded <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff9999">china</b> and brought a reign of terror upon the Chinese people that did not stop until


China from Mongol rule to the Ming


The Mongols in China were ruling with a great variety of administrators, military personnel and hangers on -- Turks, Arabs, a few Europeans, Jurchen and Persians. The Mongols were following their tradition of supporting a variety of faiths -- not only Buddhism but Islam, Taoism and the Christianity that was practiced by some of the Mongols in China. And under Mongol rule Confucian influence at the royal court declined.

China's Mongol emperor, Kubilai Khan, died in 1294 at the age of seventy-nine. His grandson, Temur Oljeitu, succeeded him, made peace with Japan and maintained reasonable prosperity. Temur Oljeitu was a conscientious and energetic emperor, but the emperors who followed him after his early death in 1307 were of lesser quality than he or Kubilai Khan. In the twenty-six years between 1307 and 1333 seven emperors ruled.

Temur Oljeitu's nephew, Khaishan, ruled from 1308. He appointed people without talent to positions of government, including Buddhist and Taoist clergy, and he spent money lavishly on palaces and temples and tripled the supply of paper money. Following his death in 1311 his brother, Ayrubarwada, took power at age twenty-six. However competent Ayrubarwada was as a ruler, opposition rose against him at court by those who saw him as too sympathetic with the Chinese (laying bare your claim that the 'opposition' by other khanates against Mongol rule being too "sino-fied" was ever of any significance before Ayrubarwada). He died in 1320, and his eldest son, Shidebala, succeeded him at the age of eighteen. Shidebala initiated anti-corruption reforms, sided with Tibetan Buddhists against Muslims and was assassinated in 1323. He was succeeded by Yesun Temur, who was most oriented toward Mongol traditions. His supporters had been involved in the assassination of Shidebala, and he distanced himself from them and returned to the Mongol tradition of treating religions impartially. Yesun Temur died in 1328 and the youngest son of Khaishan, Tugh Temur, 24-years-old, ruled for a month before he abdicated in favor of an elder brother, Khoshila, and returned to power within a year after Koshila's death -- possibly a murder. Tugh Temur was skilled in Chinese. He was a painter, supported education, lived modestly and dismissed over 10,000 from the imperial staff. Tugh Temur died in 1332.

Following Tugh Temur as emperor in 1333 was the thirteen-year-old, Toghun Temur, reputed to be the son of Koshila. From the beginning of his reign Toghan Temur's ministers ran state affairs. His first minister was concerned with what he saw as Mongol weakness in China. He re-imposed segregation between the Mongols and Chinese; decreed that Chinese were not to learn Mongolian; confiscated weapons and iron tools from the Chinese; outlawed Chinese opera and storytelling; and he considered their extermination.
China from Mongol rule to the Ming
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
992
Here is some research from the Staples High School, to be considered ancillary to the sources mentioned above.

The Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368)

History of the dynasty as a whole

The Mongols were an obscure peoples who lived in the outer reaches of the Gobi Desert in what is now Outer Mongolia. They were a pastoral and tribal people that did not really seem to be of any consequence to neighboring peoples. By the mid-thirteenth century however, the Mongols were a force to be reckoned with! They had overpowered Korea and the Muslim kingdoms of Central Asia and had twice penetrated Europe. In 1234, they defeated the Jin dynasty of northern China. They then focused on subjugating the Song dynasty, which governed the regions south of the Yangtze River. The Song's military vulnerability and political instability allowed the Mongols, who had adopted the Chinese dynastic title of "Yuan" (meaning "first") in 1271, to move on in. They captured Hangzhou in 1276, and thus defeated the last Song emperor in 1279. The Mongols now held what proved to be the largest contiguous land empire in world history. Under the leadership of Genghis Khan (also known as "Chinggis") and then of his descendants, the Mongols in the 13th century carved out an empire stretching from what is now Korea and western Russia in the north to Myanmar and Iraq in the south. The Mongol Empire linked Europe and East Asia, initiating the first direct contacts between China and the West. Chinese silks and ceramics arrived in Europe and stimulated European demand for these products, inspiring the search for a sea route to East Asia.

With the defeat of the Song dynasty though, Mongol leader and grandson of the great Genghis, Kublai Khan realized that he had to establish political and administrative institutions similar to those native to China in order to attract the support of his subjects. After all, why should the people obey him and not oust him like he just did the previous dynasty? So, Kublai assumed the Chinese title of emperor and reestablished a Secretariat to advise him on policy. He and the later Yuan rulers wished to portray themselves as supporting the Chinese ideology of Confucianism (among many other traditions soon to be discussed), so they restored many Confucian rituals and recruited prominent Confucian scholars to advise the emperor and to perform the important task of writing the histories of the immediately preceding dynasties. The most obvious evidence of Mongol integration into China was Kublai's shift of the capital from Karakorum in Mongolia to Khanbalik (what we now know as Beijing) in China for better governance. In 1266 Kublai ordered the construction of the new capital based on Chinese models.

Despite Kublai's efforts to stay relatively "Chinese," the Mongols did deviate from some Chinese patterns. Kublai abolished the traditional Chinese civil service examinations, which had been the age-old traditional basis for entry into the bureaucracy that administered China. Instead, he recruited an international group of advisors and administrators to assist him in ruling China. Also differing from traditional practices was the power that he allocated to censors: they spied on the bureaucracy and reported abuses in the government and the military! Perhaps this has its advantages though in that Kublai could thus have eyes and ears through out China in addition to a much more authoritarian style of control. I find it hard to see any faults with these changes in policy. Although they were radical, Kublai did have a rather successful period as a ruler.

Also unlike previous dynasties, the Yuan rulers fostered trade and bestowed merchants a higher social status. Anybody who studies China can tell you, social status was everything and the merchants never had it! They were the lowest of the low. Also moving up in terms of social scale were the artisans, physicians, scientists, and engineers. They were all granted higher status and greater rewards. In an even greater change of pace though was the status of the scholar-official class, the traditional Chinese elite. They were often excluded from positions of authority and thus were generally hostile toward Mongol rule. For instance, the court divided the population into classes: the Mongols at the top, and the Chinese scholar-official class at the bottom. The army was divided into a Mongol force, composed principally of cavalry, and a solely Chinese division of infantry. This sort of division contributed to general Chinese dissatisfaction with Yuan rule.

The Yuan court also initiated the project of extending the Grand Canal (this canal was built primarily for linking up sections of China, namely to make transport of goods easier and on top of that, possible.) connecting the Yangtze and Yellow rivers to Khanbalik. Such government support for merchants, together with the peace imposed on much of Asia by the Mongols, resulted in the greatest expansion of commerce in Eurasian history, so we can certainly say, they weren't all bad.

On the topic of commerce though, the economic policies were somewhat in accordance with previous traditions. The Yuan rulers did not try to convert China into the Mongol-style nomadic economy; instead, they fostered agriculture as they did the merchants. Early Yuan emperors sought to protect the peasants by devising a regular, fixed system of taxation.

In 1291 the Mongols enacted a new legal code that was based primarily on Chinese legal traditions. However, one must note that the Yuan regime was generally authoritarian.

The Yuan was the shortest lived of the major dynasties. From the time that Kublai occupied Beijing in 1264 to the fall of the dynasty in 1368, a mere hundred years had passed, relatively short in comparison to previous dynasties. Kublai was a highly successful emperor as was his son, but the later Yuan emperors could not stop the slide into powerlessness. For one thing, the Beijing Khans lost legitimacy among the Mongols still in Mongolia who thought they had become too Chinese (further corroborating the fact that the 'opposition' of the western khaganates began with the reign of Ayrubarwada in the 14th century, when the subsequent mongol emperors were already experiencing a 'reign of powerlessness', and was one of the, and not the principal cause of, the decline of the Yuan empire). The fourteenth century is accentuated by Mongolian rebellions against the Yuan. On the other hand, the Chinese never accepted the Yuan as a legitimate dynasty but regarded them rather as bandits or an occupying army. Now you see the problem. The failure to learn Chinese (translators were often required for Mongol/Chinese communication) and integrate themselves into Chinese culture greatly undermined the Mongol rulers. After all, the Chinese weren't even ruling China!

As with all Chinese dynasties, nature conspired in the downfall; the Yellow River changed course and flooded irrigation canals and so brought on massive famine in the 1340's (partially attributable to the lack of maintenance). The decline of the Yuan coincided with similar declines in all the other Khanates throughout Asia. Finally, a peasant, Chu Yuan-chang (a.k.a. "Zhu Yuanzhang"), led a rebel army against the Yuan. He had lost most of his family in the famine, and had spent part of his life as a monk and then as a bandit leader. He took Beijing in 1368 and the Yuan emperor fled to Shangtu. When he drove the Yuan from Shangtu back to Mongolia, he declared himself the founder of a new dynasty: the Ming (1369-1644).
Your theory of the "Yuan dynasty" being ruled by a "Mongolian but never really the mongol empire" is obviously derived from here:

Previous History: The Rise of the Mongol Empire

The so-called "Mongols" are actually a heterogenous group of different nomad peoples of Turkic and "Tartar" origin. The word "Mongol" is derived from the name of a tribe called Manghol. Although the cultural stage of these ethnical groups was quite different, they had a common language that allowed a unification under the hand of the strongest clan. The strongest ethnics were the Naiman, Kereyid, Kirghiz, Oirat, Buryat, Merkit and Tatar, socially divided into aristocracy, common people, slaves and prisoners of war. Except animism, the higher religions of Nestorian Christianity, Manicheism and Buddhism had won followers among the "Mongols". The economical base of these nomad people was cattle-breeding, hunting and the trade with different Inner Asian kingdoms and the empires of China (Jin 金 and Southern Song 南宋). The unifier of the nomad peoples, Činggis Qan (Genghis Khan, Gengghis Khan, Chinggis Khan), was a vasall of the Kereyid people that was employed by the Jin rulers to subdue the Kereyid Tatars (NOTE THE CONVENIENT AND SELECTIVE 'LEAVING OUT' OF HISTORY TO FURTHER THE PAN-CHINESE NARRATIVE: For Genghis Khan may have been a vassal of Ong Khan, titular head of the 'Kereyid people that was "employed" by the Jin rulers to subdue the Kereyid Tatars', but he was also his adoptive heir, as the following will show:

From his late teens to age thirty-eight in 1200, a Mongol named Temujin (Temüjin) rose as khan over various families. He was a good manager, collecting people of talent. He was vassal to Ong Khan, titular head of a confederacy better organized than other Mongol clans. Temujin joined Ong Khan in a military campaign against Tatars to their east, and following the success of this campaign Ong Khan declared Temujin his adoptive son and heir. Ong Khan's natural son, Senggum (Senggüm), had been expecting to succeed his father and plotted to assassinate Temujin. Temujin learned of this, and those loyal to Temujin defeated those loyal to Senggum. Temujin was now established as the head of what had been Ong Khan's coalition.

Genghis Khan and the Great Mongol Empire


More on kinship ties between Temüjin and Ong Khan, and the "perpetual making and breaking of alliances" between the three tribes can be found here:

Genghis Khan and the making of the ... - Google Books
Most campaigns and battles took place far in the west and destroyed the territory and economic base of the Ili khanate. Only in 1264 Ariq-Böke submitted to the stonger khan in the east. Khubilai was accepted as the Great Khan, but the western khanates began to indulge in a fratricidal war that should end the unity of the Mongol world. Khubilai and his descendants became rulers of China and Mongolia. Under the influence of Chinese and Jurchen officials, Khubilai went on to regularize the administration of China's north without depriving the Mongol nobility of their privileges. Yanjing 燕京 (modern Beijing) became "Central Capital" (Zhongdu 中都), and an imperial palace was constructed on the traces of the old buildings. In 1271 Khubilai proclaimed the Yuan Dynasty 元, the Central Capital was made main capital with the title of "Great Capital" (Dadu 大都), in Mongolian-Turkic "Khanbalik" ("City of the Khan").

Furthermore, and interestingly, from that same source:

The dissolution of the Great Khanate

Marxist historians often overstress the significance of further wars of resistance against the Mongol government or - in their eyes - occupation. Much of these popular uprisings in the 1280es were mere small-scale rebellions against high taxation, like the rebellions of Huang Hua 黃華 and Zhong Mingliang 鐘明亮. Such peasant uprisings were quite "normal" through all ages of Chinese history and were almost naturally occurring through the Yuan period.
Chinese History -Yuan Dynasty ? event history (www.chinaknowledge.de)

A note on the etymology of the word 'Yuan':

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,469
Likes
1,199
Country flag
If you want to base your claim on ROC, then you are recognising their legitamacy.
Why not? Even CCP doesn't deny ROC's legitamacy before 1946.

The Qing and the Dalai Lama had a laissez faire relationship where he did his own thing.
Wrong. Dalai Lama could do his own thing because Qing allowed him to do his own thing after Qing authorised him by acknowledge his throne.

Once the CCP exiled him that longstanding agreement became void as well as any legitamate claim you ever had on Tibet. If the Dalai Lama was still there, it would be a totally different story.
Wrong again. CCP didn't exiled him. He just run before CCP's army reach him. And there was no official statement that PLA was coming to arrest him. So, technically, CCP didn't violate the agreement. By contrast, Dalai Lama's flee gave CCP the excuse to terminate the agreement.

Yes, it would be a totally differenct story if he stayed there. But his cowardice scared shit out of him. He run out of his palace when there was RUMOR that he would be in dangers.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,644
Country flag
Why not? Even CCP doesn't deny ROC's legitamacy before 1946.
Because your argument is based on inheritance of claims. You can't inherit something unless it is dead. Since CCP never destroyed ROC, they can't inherit their claims while they still exist. Recognising the ROC's current claim is de facto recognition of Taiwan.

Wrong. Dalai Lama could do his own thing because Qing allowed him to do his own thing after Qing authorised him by acknowledge his throne.
It doesn't matter if the Qing "allowed" it or not. They "authorised" it which gave the Dalai Lama legitamacy over Tibet.


Wrong again. CCP didn't exiled him. He just run before CCP's army reach him. And there was no official statement that PLA was coming to arrest him. So, technically, CCP didn't violate the agreement. By contrast, Dalai Lama's flee gave CCP the excuse to terminate the agreement.
I think you can come up with a better excuse than that. :sarcastic:

Yes, it would be a totally differenct story if he stayed there. But his cowardice scared shit out of him. He run out of his palace when there was RUMOR that he would be in dangers.
He couldn't stay there when even the PRC called it the "liberation of Tibet." His right hand man Apei was sent to Chamdo to meet the PLA and the answer was war. As the Dalai Lama said about the surrender "it was imposed by the bayonet." It doesn't matter if he ran or not when CCP waited for his surrender to occupy Lhasa. Once the Tibetan Army was wiped out at Chamdo, that was it.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,469
Likes
1,199
Country flag
Because your argument is based on inheritance of claims. You can't inherit something unless it is dead. Since CCP never destroyed ROC, they can't inherit their claims while they still exist. Recognising the ROC's current claim is de facto recognition of Taiwan. .
You make a wrong point. The problem argued between PRC and ROC is the legitmacy over the whole CHINA. Both of them have no problem about that taiwan and tibet should be a part of CHINA.



It doesn't matter if the Qing "allowed" it or not. They "authorised" it which gave the Dalai Lama legitamacy over Tibet. .
No, it does matter. Is there any independent country has to ask the authorisation from another country PUBLICLY for its every top leader?




He couldn't stay there when even the PRC called it the "liberation of Tibet." His right hand man Apei was sent to Chamdo to meet the PLA and the answer was war. As the Dalai Lama said about the surrender "it was imposed by the bayonet." It doesn't matter if he ran or not when CCP waited for his surrender to occupy Lhasa. Once the Tibetan Army was wiped out at Chamdo, that was it.
I think you need to re-view your knowledge about this period history. He did stayed for 8 or 9 years in Lhasa after this "liberation of Tibet" which is signed by him eventually.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,644
Country flag
You make a wrong point. The problem argued between PRC and ROC is the legitmacy over the whole CHINA. Both of them have no problem about that taiwan and tibet should be a part of CHINA.
No, you miss the point. You claim based on inheritance of ROC claims. Since ROC still exists, your claims based on their claims are moot.

No, it does matter. Is there any independent country has to ask the authorisation from another country PUBLICLY for its every top leader?
Publicly asked? More like publicly given. Every Warsaw Pact government had to publicly acknowledge Soviet supremacy the same as the Qing made Tibet do. Reason why Yugoslavia was expelled. USSR had no soveriegn claims on member states, but they still dictated their governments. Independent is a loose term when under the heel of constant threat, but it doesn't mean the government isn't legitamate when the bigger power recognises it.

I think you need to re-view your knowledge about this period history. He did stayed for 8 or 9 years in Lhasa after this "liberation of Tibet" which is signed by him eventually.
I never said he didn't return. You said it mattered that he ran. I say it didn't. My OP was stating if he was still there TODAY.
 

Sridhar

House keeper
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,474
Likes
1,050
Country flag
India-China war unlikely, says expert Kanti Bajpai

Bajpai said though war is always a possibility, it seems unlikely between India and China. There are least four reasons that will hold back the either side. They are: Both sides are equipped with nuclear weapons, meaning thereby that they will have to exercise extreme caution; Both sides have air power that will make a conventional war of any duration and decisiveness very difficult; China has the advantage of the heights on the Tibetan plateau, but its ability to send large forces into India in this sector is limited by geographical constraints and China will not be able to hold back a counter attack by the IAF as its supply routes can be easily interdicted. Lastly, Tibetan instability will prevent China from opting for warfare against India.


The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Main News
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top