DSMyers1 said:
Hulaoguan, you posted a good list of pertinant Chinese generals. Could you please consider all of them and make a recommendation? The English sources are so scanty for them; I don't really have enough information to have a good feel. I'd like to know how tough their opposition was, whether they were inferior or superior in numbers in most of their battles, and whether they were in any way innovative in their techniques. Also, of course, an idea of their record in terms of success in the campaigns, and also on the battlefield. The difficulty for the Chinese is that most of their opposition is inferior or uncivilized, like the Xiongnu. Of course, there were also the civil wars.
Which of those that you recommended do you think was really a better general than, say, Chandragupta Maurya?
I will need abit of time to answer these questions about those I listed.
As to your second question on how they compare to Chandragupta Maurya, I can answer that immediately. As a ruler who also led forces in the field, Chandragupta Maurya is better compared to some of the founding emperors of Chinese dynasties.Most of those that I listed were pure field commanders, with the exception of Zhuge Liang who was a very capable prime minister as well/
Amongst those emperors who led troops in battle at least part of the time ( instead of just sending generals here and there from his court) and suceeded in conquery much of China as a founding emperor were :
Zhang Kuang Ying aka Sung Taizu, ( first emperor of Sung dynasty),
Zhu Yuan Zhang aka Ming Taizu aka Hungwu emperor ( first emperor of Ming dynasty)
Yuanxiu Aguda ( first emperor of the non Chinese Jin dynasty),
Li Yuan and Li Shi Min ( first and second emperors of the Tang dynasty). Li Shi Min is in your list.
Liu Xiu aka Han Guangwu emperor ( first emperor of Eastern Han dynasty)
Of these, most would consider Li Shi Min or Zhu Yuan Zhang the best in terms of their military ability.
There are also a couple of other emperors who were military renowned in terms of either their military prowess or their military reforms: inclduing Zhou Shizong of the short life Latter Zhou dynasty, Zhu Di aka Yongle emperor ( third emperor Ming dynasty), Han Wudi, who was closely invovled in planning most of the Han-Xiongnu war during his reign, and Cao Cao of Wei.
Also, I wont consider Xiongnus and other non Han tribes " inferior" or "uncilivised" and think that they were somehow not worthy opponents of the Chinese. While they may not have the numbers, they were militarily more superior than Chinese dynasties in terms of mobility, toughness and unity.The Xiongnus troubled China during the Warring states period, Qin and the first 70 years of the Han dynasty. The Tubo almost sacked Changan. Non Han tribes like Xianbei, Qiang, Turque, Dis etc ruled northern China for about 400 years.
And of course, there are the Khitans, Jins, Mongols and Manchus who actually governed China in whole or in part. There were a few Chinese emperors who were captured by raiding armies from their capital or in battlefield. When the non Han tribes were unified, they were often ruled by great rulers, employed Chinese advisors , recruit Chinese soliders and used Chinese military methods ( of course the dynasties also recruit non Chinese soldiers). There is never any certianly that generals under Chinese dynasties would be able to beat them in the constant wars on the frontiers. So those that did often achieved great renown.
