{"title":"Marking “Men of Iniquity”: Imperial Purpose and Imagined Boundaries in the Qing Processing of Rebel Ringleaders, 1786-1828","authors":"Daniel McMahon","doi":"10.1163/22127453-12341330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis essay explores the administrative and ideological context of Qing borderland pacification through examination of the imperial response to apex rebel ringleaders. Presented are five cases of bureaucratic “discourse” (official description and physical management) processing Lin Shuangwen (1786-1788 Lin Shuangwen Revolt), Shi Sanbao (1795-1797 Miao Revolt), Liu Zhixie (1796-1804 White Lotus Rebellion), Lin Qing (1813 Eight Trigrams Revolt), and Khoja Jahāngīr (1826-1828 Jahāngīr Uprising). Considered comparatively, we find common procedures of identification, deposition, sentencing, and execution that established the challengers as “men of iniquity,” reinforcing imperially preferred understandings of rebel organization, culpability, Qing legitimacy, and martial success. This procedure was also adjusted to fit differing conditions and state goals. As the empire entered its final century, shifting boundaries were asserted between rebel lords and war-zone populations, suggestive of both military efforts to exploit social divisions and expanded embrace of peripheral peoples as compliant and border-defending imperial subjects.","PeriodicalId":38003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chinese Military History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22127453-12341330","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chinese Military History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22127453-12341330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This essay explores the administrative and ideological context of Qing borderland pacification through examination of the imperial response to apex rebel ringleaders. Presented are five cases of bureaucratic “discourse” (official description and physical management) processing Lin Shuangwen (1786-1788 Lin Shuangwen Revolt), Shi Sanbao (1795-1797 Miao Revolt), Liu Zhixie (1796-1804 White Lotus Rebellion), Lin Qing (1813 Eight Trigrams Revolt), and Khoja Jahāngīr (1826-1828 Jahāngīr Uprising). Considered comparatively, we find common procedures of identification, deposition, sentencing, and execution that established the challengers as “men of iniquity,” reinforcing imperially preferred understandings of rebel organization, culpability, Qing legitimacy, and martial success. This procedure was also adjusted to fit differing conditions and state goals. As the empire entered its final century, shifting boundaries were asserted between rebel lords and war-zone populations, suggestive of both military efforts to exploit social divisions and expanded embrace of peripheral peoples as compliant and border-defending imperial subjects.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Chinese Military History (JCMH) is a peer-reviewed semi-annual that publishes research articles and book reviews. It aims to fill the need for a journal devoted specifically to China''s martial past and takes the broadest possible view of military history, embracing both the study of battles and campaigns and the broader, social-history oriented approaches that have become known as "the new military history." It aims to publish a balanced mix of articles representing a variety of approaches to both modern and pre-modern Chinese military history. The journal also welcomes comparative and theoretical work as well as studies of the military interactions between China and other states and peoples, including East Asian neighbors such as Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.