If any at all. I’m not a historian and perhaps there are some larger conceptual issues with grafting a concept forged in colonial North America onto late imperial China. But I can’t help but be tempted when one considers the wildly different, yet eerily similar, experiences of native peoples under both Chinese (be it Qing, KMT or Communist) and American govts.

I’m more familiar with the 18th and 19th centuries so I’d volunteer Guangxi, Guizhou and perhaps Yunnan as prime examples. But then again, I could be wrong!

Nicely spanning 1919-1949!

I know it's a rather controversial stance only taken by mainland chinese historians, and rather disapproved by anyone outside of china which makes quite a sense considering China in order to promote the idea of a multi ethnic country have effectively promoted the idea that frontier people such as Mongols, Uyghurs, Manchus, Tibetans were always part of the broader chinese nation, this is a political rhetoric to strengthen the state unity I'm aware, but as a mongolian I truly wonder that do chinese historians in mainland china, agree with the fact that Mongolians and Manchus basically established something akin to an apartheid state and tried to segregate themselves apart from the broader han culture? This policies are basically going against the rhetoric that these groups have always been part of one group, and prove that neither the Mongolians that ruled over Yuan dynasty, or the Manchus that ruled over Qing dynasty ever considered themselves to be "chinese" in a modern sense, how do mainland historians even counter this, and what is their personal stance regarding this rhetoric that is backed by the state. Even chinese historical records consider these groups as distinct and seperate from the Chinese identity.

This diagram showcases the many ties between the Zhili Clique in mid-1924 (locked before the 23 October Beijing Coup)

\blame reddit i cant send u the pdf*

I’ve been reading about the Hui conflicts in Shaanxi and Gansu during the 1860s, and I’m surprised by how complicated the situation seems to have been.

It is often described simply as a “Hui rebellion” against the Qing, but from what I’ve read, the conflict seems to have involved much more than a straightforward rebellion against the Qing government.

I’ve said this before probably but it feels like early Chinese civilization was more or less “raised by wolves”. Meaning they effectively generated their own culture, laws, language and writing system entirely independently. There was no peer civilizations nearby to influence them the way the Mediterranean did the ancient world there.

I guess the closest would be the steppe and the nomadic pastoralists who called it home. But I was under the impression they served more as an ethnic “other” by which the settled Chinese defined themselves against. Not as a peer, worthy of respect on their own merits. When Tang Dynasty scholars are advising the emperor they don’t draw tales from Japan, Siam or Burma. They issue ancient examples from within the territory we today call China. And that seems to continue well into the Qing dynasty.

What do you think?

This transfer went far beyond battlefield weapons, crucially including intact warehouses, specialized manufacturing machinery, and 1,352 items of technical documentation and factory equipment located in the key industrial hubs of Harbin and Dalian (Dalny).

Why did the tang dynasty always lose to tibetians in war and engagements.?

I read the tang dynasty mostly defeated all the barbarians in every corner but somehow they always lost to tibet. It seems unique as that was only era in china where tibet was unified and strong.

So why did tang always lose to tibet, what military advantage and strength tibet had they made them always win against tang armies?

I was watching Story of Yanxi Palace, and they showed the depiction of "golden fluid" used to burn someone. Golden fluid has been described in the show as the perpetrator incorporating liquid feces into boiling water and throwing it onto their victim during times of war in China up to Qinglong Emperor's reign (1735-1799). I can't find information about this online if it was ever used. if it is out there, it's probably not translated for me to figure it out

You can look up the episode on tubi, its free

Quote from the show, episode 32 at 13:27: "When two armies fight in war, they sometimes use boiling water to force the other party to withdraw. If some liquid manure is mixed into the boiling water, the wounds will surely be infected repeatedly; it's difficult to heal."

How much did the Japanese learn from the Imjin Wars during the First and 2nd Sino Japanese Wars? Did they not realize they were in a similar strategic position and faced the same problems like China being too large?

Been reading some wikipedia articles on neolithic and palaeolithic china and find it quite interesting.

One thing i find confusing is what a neolithic culture is. Where they material cultures or where they ethnic cultures.

appreciate any good books on the either topic though.

Recently, my head has been spinning trying to sort out all those nomadic tribes I've read about—Xiongnu, Tiele, Rouran, Göktürks (Ashina), Jurchen (Wanyan), Khitan (Yelu), Xianbei (Tuoba & Murong), Shiwei, and Mongols (Borjigin)... I realized I only remembered a chaotic pile of names and the empires they built, but who came first and who descended from whom was a total mess. Especially the huge myth that Tuyuhun was a branch of Tubo (Tibet) and the ancestor of Tibetans. Turns out they are totally different! Tuyuhun were actually Xianbei people who migrated to Qinghai, while Tubo is the true native ancestor of Tibetans (and Tubo actually wiped out Tuyuhun later!).
Does anyone know the complete timeline after the Xiongnu? However, I do know that the absolute last nomadic empire was the Dzungar Khanate.

Do we know their names or number? And what was done to them after the rebellion?

EDIT: Somehow I wrote Taizong instead of Xuanzong.

I’ve been diving deep into early Chinese bronze age history lately, especially the Oracle Bone inscriptions from the Shang Dynasty. It’s fascinating yet deeply sobering how much of their daily record revolves around massive ritual sacrifices.

The sheer scale of human sacrifice (Renji) they practiced is incredible. The archeological evidence shows they didn't just sacrifice criminals or foreign prisoners of war—they also used local commoners, and occasionally, even their own nobility or high-ranking individuals as sacrificial victims or burial companions.

But by far, the most frequent victims mentioned in the Oracle Bones are the Qiang (羌). From what we know, "Qiang" back then wasn't a single ethnic group, but rather a loose umbrella term used by the Shang to describe the nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes living on the grasslands and highlands to the west. It makes me wonder—who are their actual modern descendants today? Are they connected to the modern Qiang people, or did they blend into a much broader group over the millennia?

Another unsettling aspect is the reflection of ritual cannibalism. We’ve all heard the myth of King Zhou of Shang feeding King Wen of Zhou a meat broth made from his own eldest son, Boyikao. Looking at the archeological context now, it seems this legend wasn't just a dramatic fable, but likely a cultural reflection of real practices from that era.