Talk:Sino-Burmese War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title[edit]

Are there any other Qing–Burmese Wars? If not, this article should be renamed to simply "Qing–Burmese Wars" or "Sino–Burmese Wars (1765–1769)". --Wengier (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It could be better with Sino–Burmese Wars (1765–1769) Thanks. Soewinhan (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be renamed Sino-Burmese War (1765–1769) (singular). The four invasions were part of a single war. Hybernator (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently renamed the article to "Sino-Burmese War" without explaination. But I believe there can be more than one "Sino-Burmese War" in history, such as the one happened in the 1580s between Ming Dynasty China and Taungoo Dynasty Burma. If this is the case, we cannot simply rename the article to "Sino-Burmese War" without proper disambiguation. --Wengier (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Yes. There is also a war in 1965. Soewinhan (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle map[edit]

I removed the map because it is incorrect. The main route of the third invasion was the northeastern route (via Hsenwi and Hsipaw). The invasion via Bhamo got stuck at Kaungton. It couldn't come down the Irrawaddy and join Mingrui's main army. The diagram shows the opposite--the Bhamo down to Ava. Hybernator (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Thanks. Soewinhan (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Hybernator (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased source[edit]

Some sources or statesments are really biased, and claims for example that "Burmese success probably saved the independence of other Southeast Asian states" and otherwise "it's quite likely that the entire mainland Southeast Asia could have fallen to the Qing". This is obviously a patriotic view and it's easy to counter argue that it was Qing campaign of Burma actually saved the independence of Southeast Asian states such as Thailand under Burmese occupation, not the opposite. Qing did not originally intend to conquer Burma; comparing with Korea, although Qing twice militarily defeated Korea in the 17th century, they just make it a symbolic tributary state, not to annexe it. Similar for the Sino-Burmese War, and most of the Chinese soliders died due to illness and climate, not during the actual battle; on the other hand, Thailand became free of Burmese occupation exactly because Burmese had to withdraw most of its occupation forces in Siam to fight with Qing forces. --Wengier (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. They are all reasonable. Please see below:
  • The source for ""Burmese success probably saved the independence of other Southeast Asian states" is from a historian of Chinese Military History, Marvin Whiting. Not a Burmese patriotic view.
  • "it's quite likely that the entire mainland Southeast Asia could have fallen to the Qing"... is in line with Whiting's point. But it does come from a Burmese historian, Htin Aung. So I've removed that.
  • But your point "it was Qing campaign of Burma actually saved the independence of Southeast Asian states such as Thailand under Burmese occupation" is a good one. I've removed that the Burmese success saving other Southeast Asian states from the lead.
  • Qing intentions: I agree that the war started out as a border dispute. But as you can find in many sources (and I've put citations for) that Qianlong changed his mind starting with the second war, and did plan to annex Burma. The claim that the Qing just wanted tribute isn't credible with their track record in Xinjiang, Tibet, etc.
  • Reason for Chinese loss: the article does state, repeatedly, that the main reason was the Chinese soldiers' inability to cope with disease and weather. It's not claimed otherwise at all. Hybernator (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explaination. Now the article should look fine. BTW, as for the Qing intentions, I agree that Qianlong later changed his mind (did planning to annex Burma especially starting the 3rd invasion I think), but that was probably because he wanted to save his face as the Qing force was repeatedly defeated in the border conflicts. Personally, I think he probably would not continue his campagin when his felt that his face was saved. Of course this is my guess, but this may really be his intention when launching another invasion. --Wengier (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true. He only tried to save his face but the losses became higher and higher and soon his court disapproved for another invasion. Soewinhan (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mogolian army[edit]

Should we remove the painting of Mogolian army? I think it is not directly related to article. Soewinhan (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, because it was painted before the Qing Dynasty, and not directly related to the article. --Wengier (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main pic[edit]

I replaced the pic in info box. I think the new one look better. Soewinhan (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great effort, Ko Soe Win Han. But the map is a bit off.
  • At the beginning of 1765, Burma did not control Arakan, Assam or southern Tenasserim (south of Tavoy). Manipur was a tributary, and annexed only in 1813. Arakan was annexed in 1784, Assam in 1817.
  • But Burma did control Lan Na (which is now Northern Thailand).
  • Siam consisted only of present-day central Thailand down to the peninsula, including Tenasserim south of Tavoy.
  • Even at the peak of Konbaung conquests in Siam in 1767, Burma never controlled south of Ayutthaya in central Siam, or south of Junkceylon in the Malay peninsula.
  • Also don't forget the names: There was no Thailand in 1765. (The name came into being in 1932.) And no Mandalay. (It was founded only in 1857-59.)
  • Instead, you should show Ava, which was the capital of Burma in 1765.
I'm going to remove the map until then. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw more maps inside the article. I removed all of them for the reasons above. Also, the Third Invasion battle map has a minor inaccuracy. Kaungton is to the south of Bhamo not the other way around. Please update and repost. Again, thanks for all your great efforts. Regards, Hybernator (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latest map is good as far as Qing and Burmese territories are concerned. It should be dated 1764. Burma began its invasion of Siam in early 1765. Prior to the start of the Sino-Burmese War in December of 1765, Burma had already begun its invasion. It had already conquered Lan Xang (Laos), Tenasserim, and present-day central Thailand. But I like this map rather than a "just before the war" map.
  • Ava (not Yangon) should have the star, indicating its capital status.
  • It'll be great if you can fix the rest of the map to reflect the situation in 1765. (There was no Bangladesh in 1765; only Bengal under British control, for example.) I think the best way to handle might be to blank out the boundaries of the other countries (except for Burma, Siam, China, Lan Xang and Manipur). Take a look at this as an example:
    Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current main map is a bit off. In addition to what has been already mentioned above, Qing China in 1760s should for example reach Taiwan, Hainan in the southeast, and Lake Balkhash in the northwest, as described in the map here. --Wengier (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated boundaries and redraw border lines. But, there are still some minor errors. (two stars in Korea, Nepal boundaries, etc) But, I think it is clear enough and correct for China and Burma. Soewinhan (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this time it does seem to be much better. But I think Outer Manchuria ruled by the Qing Dynasty in the 1760s should cover more than the regions shown in the map. Further, Tannu_Uriankhai (as part of Outer Mongolia, but not part of present-day Mongolia) was also ruled by Qing Dynasty. --Wengier (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated. Thanks.
  • Redrew Outer Manchuria and Mongolia
  • Deleted N-S Korea, Bingladesh, new capitals, etc.
  • modified Kazakhstan

But, the map still has some minor errors like contemporary Indian-China border disputed lines (I forgot to delete). Thanks for suggestions. Soewinhan (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice map, as it seems to reflect the territories of China and Burma accurately at their heights in the 18th century and the map itself also looks great. By the way, once you are done, can you also upload another map with only China or Burma colored so that it can be also used in China or Burma related articles? Thanks! --Wengier (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded at File:18 century Qing China.png. Soewinhan (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. --Wengier (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: Arakan was readded into the Burmese territory. It was not part of Burma in 1765. Please remove Arakan. Hybernator (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Yes. I forgot to exclude Arakhan again in the last edition. Fixed. Thanks.Soewinhan (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the casulity is really bias,[edit]

according to burmease record? chinese lost 7o,000 ? even it includes the death due to tropical weather, chinese army only lost no more than 20,000, and atucal battle death is just 2,000 in four wars, while burmese lost many more, especially during the third invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markking516 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, first thank you for your contributions. I don't see anything wrong with the causality numbers. Various sources (As you can see in citations, including Chinese, Burmese and Western studies) indicate that Chinese side could have lost by that magnitude. If you want to challenge that fact, you may bring in reliable sources to indicate why it should not be that number. Soewinhan (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 70,000 figure is cited, and is from: Dai, Yingcong (2004). "A Disguised Defeat: The Myanmar Campaign of the Qing Dynasty". Modern Asian Studies (Cambridge University Press), p. 161. Hybernator (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I cited wrongly. Now I added some other references and amended the casualty figures a little bit. SWH talk 05:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"actual figure of 60,000"[edit]

This phrasing involving "actual" would also appear to be speculative, based on the internal evidence presented in the article.
Some rewording is probably necessary here. Varlaam (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shear Strength of the Qing Force by Draft History of Qing[edit]

The Qing-Burmese war (1765-1769) are well documented in the Draft History of Qing and some other primary and secondary Chinese sources. The record details the strength of the Qing force. I report the statistics here as a reference for whom interested in improving the article.

total force Green Standard Army Banner Force Navy invasion force reported casualty chief commander battle loss of commanders non-battle loss of commanders
the first campaign (1765) 9000 9000 0 0 9000 - Liu Zao - Liu Zao (suicide), He Qiongzhao (death penalty), Ming Hao (death penalty)
the second campaign (1766) 14000 14000 0 0 14000 some battle casualty + many died of malaria Yang Yingju - Yang Yingju (death penalty)
the third campaign (1767) 25300 22300 3000 0 25300 several thousands battle casualty + many died of malaria Ming Rui Wang Yuting (KIA), Hu Dayou (KIA), Li Quan (KIA), Guan Yinbao (KIA), Zhala Fenga (KIA), Zhu Luna (suicide), Ming Rui (DOW), Yuan Menglin (MIA) E Er Jingge (malaria), Guo Zhu (malaria), Wu Er Gedeng (death penalty), Tan Wuge (death penalty)
the fourth campaign (1768) 29000 12700 12600 3000 18400 - Fu Heng De Fuzhong (KIA) Fu Heng (malaria), Arigun (abscess)
summary 77300 58000 15600 3000 66700

The total number of invasion force is merely 66700 (including some local sodiers that had fought several times). Therefore it is unlikely that the war "claimed the lives of over 70,000 Chinese soldiers" as the entry said. These numbers are quite credible as the total force of the Banner Army (including Manchus, Mongols, Han and other Manchurian tribes) is about 100,000 and the total force of the Green Standard Army is about 600,000 at that time. Note that about half of the Banner Army served as the royal guard in Beijing. Another quater of the Banner Army guarded Manchuria, the birthplace of the Qing royal family (the Manchus).

As we know in the third invision, Ming Rui led a force about 15000+ to attack Ava. So this paragraph "Hsinbyushin famously did not panic at the prospect of a large Chinese army (about 30,000)" is inconsistent even with the description in its last subsection ("Chinese offensive").

Finally, I want to mension here that the Konbaung Dynasty is an expansionist regime. It's ruler had invaded Siam, Lao (under Siam protection), Manipur, Arakan abd Assam etc. One may well argue that it is its expansionist nature that caused the Qing-Burmese War, the Siam-Burmese war and the Anglo-Burmese wars. In this sense, Konbaung Dynasty was a powerful regime. Qing had certainly greatly underestimated it.

-- aichi Lee 04:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aichilee (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the information. I have a few comments.
  • Is the Draft History, a 1928 publication, based on all contemporary Qing records?
  • What's the difference between the total force and the invasion force? Does the total force include the auxiliary forces? E.g., local conscripts (so-called Tai-Shan militias) from Yunnan, supply troops?
  • For the 3rd invasion, is the northern invasion force (led by E'erdeng'e) included? There were two invasion armies. Was E'erdeng'e the same as "Wu Er Gedeng"?
  • In general, the invasion forces reported by the Draft History are very small--~50% smaller than those reported in the academic books and far, far (at least an order of magnitude) smaller than those in Burmese records. We can disregard the Burmese numbers, certainly inflated to amplify the significance of their victory. Likewise, we ought to recognize that the Draft History's numbers are unusually smaller than the troop figures for other contemporary wars for which we have records. For example, Burma twice sent 40,000 to 50,000 men for 1759–60 and 1765–67 invasions of Siam. The British, with their far superior weaponry, nonetheless sent over 40,000 men in the First Anglo-Burmese War. Surely, the Qing Empire with its enormous resources, especially in the 3rd and 4th invasions, could muster more than 29,000 men. (I personally find even the 50,000 and 60,000 numbers for the 3rd and 4th invasions reported by historians, which I believe are their educated guesses to bridge Chinese and Burmese records, way too low.)
  • Anyway, that the Qing command, which had only built one of the world's largest empires, increased the invasion force by a mere 4000 men to 29,000 after their 3rd invasion force was wiped out and after two years (1767–69) of careful planning seems incredulous. If they did send 29,000 men in the 4th invasion to conquer a country, to which the British sent 40,000+ armed with superior weaponry, the competency of the Qing generals ought to be questioned. I think most people would agree that the Qing generals were more than competent; their overall record proves it. I think most would question the completeness (and bias) of the Draft History, compiled during a time when China was under heavy duress.
  • Now, let's talk about the casualties. The narrative in the article is based on (Dai 2004) and (Myint-U 2006), which is heavily based on (Dai 2004). Both (Dai 2004) and (Myint-U 2006), also (Harvey 1925), basically blame disease for the high casualties by the Qing forces. For a comparison, the British lost 15,000 out of 40,000 plus in the First Anglo-Burmese war, again blamed mostly to disease. According to the cited sources in the article, very, very few of the 2nd and 3rd invasion forces returned to Yunnan. So, when you say "some local sodiers that had fought several times", that "some" must be a very small number. So, even if we use the Draft History's numbers for the 2nd and 3rd invasions, the casualties are already close to 40,000 men. And we haven't even counted the 1st and the 4th.
  • So, back to my first question: Is the Draft History based on all contemporary Qing records? Hybernator (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Konbaung being expansionist...

  • I agree. Early Konbaung was certainly expansionist. So was Qing. I think the article doesn't hide either fact. Hybernator (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Draft History of Qing is the de facto official history of the Qing Dynasity based on first-hand materials (field report, direct command from the Emperor etc). These materials are well preserved. All contemparory academic works are also based on these materials (plus the materials from the Burmese and Siamese). I'm not in a position to comment on those academic works you refered to. The Draft History is an excellent work that has not be well incorporated in the article. The Burmese had no professional armis until the Konbaung Dynasty, which was established only several years before the war. For example, lots of local militas also participated the war. So the Burmese estimate may have included the supportive personnels. I also want to remind you that population is not the sole factor of the military strength. Other factors are also important. On the Qing's side, financial concerns had been raised.
In the fourth campaign, Qing mainly increased the number of Banner Army.
The article does sound Qing was the expansionist. But let's not argue on this point. Because for this war, both sides belived they were defending themselves. - aichi Lee 19:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aichilee (talk • contribs)
I am not in a position to comment on the authoritativeness of the Draft History. But if it's noteworthy, modern historians will cite its figures. As far as I know, all historians whose works I have read are wary of using official figures. For example, Giersch (Harvard) adjusted the figure of fourth invasion to 40,000 Chinese and Mongolian soldiers excluding Tai militias. Dai Yingcong, whose work has been cited by most modern historians, clearly stated the problems with official figures in his paper, A disguised defeat (page 177 and 179), This collection of eight volumes, entitled 'Mian dang (the archives of the Myanmar campaign),' was the only documentation of the war edited by the Qing dynasty, and is now kept in the National Palace Museum in Taipei. Although it is undeniable that this collection of archives is essential for the study of the war, and probably the most important material, to the disappointment of historians it is a work of careful censorship, and does not contain any record that reveals the Qing defeat and surrender...there is a high possibility that some efforts were made to change the figure of the total troops that Fuheng led in his invasion. In an edict that was issued shortly before Fuheng's withdrawal, Qianlong stressed the fact that the expedition was a small one. However, I do agree that some commanders were not battle casualties. I was wrong in using KIA template. Thanks for initiating the discussion. SWH® talk 01:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sino-Burmese_War&oldid=1195095986"