Talk:List of Chinese monarchs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
List This page is a List and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...


What's about dividing this page into several pages according to the dynasty? (Like Table of Chinese monarchs/Qing dynasty) It's really long enough to wait. And using brackets is better than '|', IMO. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 15:07, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

These tables are the original copies and may not be as up-to-date as the current lists in each of the dynasty articles. 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 03:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

When you click on "Zhu" (7th in list), it takes you to Chopsticks. I have no idea what to do about that.

I had an idea. Maybe we could split this page up by having Table of Chinese emperors of the major dynasties, which would basically be the Qin, Han, maybe the Jin for good measure, the Sui, the Tang, the Song, maybe the other Jin, the Yuan, the Ming, and the Qing. Then we could link to other pages for the lists of emperors from the various and sundries. All the stuff in between Jin and Sui is taking up a lot of space and probably distracting readers from more pertinent information. - Nat Krause 14:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. This article is way too long and splitting it into sections would definitely help. And we already have separate articles for the sovereigns of the Ming and Qing Dynasties.
I think this page should be remade into a sort of "contents page", with a list of all the articles listing the sovereigns for each dynasty. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 06:18, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I still feel that there is some utility to having a master list showing the emperors from important dynasties in one place, along with links to minor dynasties. I should have time to get started on shifting things around soon. I'd like to solicit comments, though, on what should be considered major dynasties in this context. My initial thought is to include every dynasty which controlled the whole country, and only those claiming the title of 皇帝 (i.e. Qin and later). The only odd thing about this is that it would include the (Sima-family) Jin Dynasty, in addition to: Qin, Han, Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing. Any thoughts? - Nat Krause 06:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Such a list would have holes in it all over the place... I think a list that's not comprehensive is not a good idea; it's almost like having a list of all the counties of China in every province, except provinces that aren't big enough... -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 02:18, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I what the potential problem is. The history of China's monarchy is itself full of holes, so it's natural that a list of monarchs would have holes. Having a list of the major counties in China doesn't strike me as, perforce, a bad idea, although I don't think that it's warranted in that particular case. But check out, for instance, List of cities in the United States. - Nat Krause 08:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's a difference between having a list of major counties, and having a list of counties in major provinces. The former has some merit, the latter is just strange. Same goes with having a list of major emperors, and having a list of emperors of major dynasties. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 23:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true as a general statement. It would be weird under the current circumstances, where the provinces and counties are divided in a fairly clear-cut way. If there were cases where the division into counties or the status of the provinces were in doubt, then I would think that it would be fairly reasonable to have a list with only some of the provinces. I think the situation with China's monarchs is analagous. - Nat Krause 07:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still think having exhaustive lists for major dynasties only is analogous to having such lists for major provinces. In a list of major Chinese cities, should we leave out major cities in a minor provinces in return for minor cities in major provinces? Similarly, are we going to throw in the emperors of the late Han or Tang Dynasties who lasted a few months each, and exclude major emperors of (say) the Northern and Southern Dynasties? Surely a list of major cities in all provinces (regardless of province), and a list of major emperors in all dynasties (regardless of dynasty), make for a better summary of emperors (or cities), if one is ever needed?
In fact, I still think that the best way is to make this page into an index of emperor lists, by dynasty. Each emperor list can be on its own page.
For comparison, take a look at this:
v • d • e
Lists of county-level divisions of the People's Republic of China
Provinces
Anhui · Fujian · Gansu · Guangdong · Guizhou · Hainan · Hebei · Heilongjiang · Henan · Hubei · Hunan · Jiangsu · Jiangxi · Jilin · Liaoning · Qinghai · Shaanxi · Shandong · Shanxi · Sichuan · Yunnan · Zhejiang
 Flag of the People's Republic of China
Autonomous regions
Municipalities
See also: Districts of Hong Kong · Municipalities of Macau · Administrative divisions of the Republic of China
Which is basically an index of county lists.-- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 17:49, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] What's real and what's not...

Why are the legendary emperors of the Xia Dynasty listed here but not the Three August Ones and Five Emperors? elvenscout742 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I already added 3 august ones(or sovereigns/sages) and five emperors to the table, and finally found that we all don`t know the name of Huang Di`s son who succeeded the throne before Gaoyang A tumiwa 09:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Yuan/Qing emperors

Could someone who knows a bit about the topic please add a note that Genghis etc. only became "emperors" posthumously? Yaan 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, but the Mongolian Khans begore Kubilai could not be Chinese rulers as the conquest of China was completed only by Kubilai. Making somebody "posthumously" Chinese Emperors is far from the real history.

But it was the Yuan dynasty who made them emperors! They are officially counted as emperors, and IMHO this warrants including them in the list. Stating that the Dynasties only really began with Khubilai and Kangxi´and that their predecessors (probably) never knew they were Chinese emperors IMO is better than just culling the list. Yaan 07:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes a person an emperor? What makes a nation empire? I thought the size of the nation does. (please correct me if I am wrong). When it is a small-to-average size nation, it's just a kingdom with a king (if it's a monarchy). When it grows in size and strength it eventually becomes an empire and the monarch becomes an emperor. It does not depend on whether somebody "officially" recognised a person an "emperor" than a "king". So Genghis-to-Munkh kings of Mongolia were actually Mongolian emperors. How come they become Chinese emperors? Did they lead China to conquer other countries? Just it seems to me unfair that histories are frequently interpreted from the point of view of larger nations, depriving the smaller nations of their kings, emperors and histories. That's also the case with the Normans and the Scotts.

Genghis to Mönkh were Mongolian Great Khans, but at some date after their death they were included into official lists of Yuan emperors (probably already in early Ming dynasty, maybe even during yuan dynasty), incl. chinese-style temple or era names (don't know which one, but i'm to lazy to look now). Since they are in the official emperor lists, they should be included in this compilation of official lists as well. This is completely unrelated to the question whether they really were emperors of China (of course they weren't). If someone would continue the list of tributaries of imperial china, he'd experience all kinds of similar irregularities during ming and qing dynasties because the relation of official lists to reality is not always that simple (in the case of ming tributaries: some countries may have never existed, in the case of qing tributaries: there are some confusions between european powers). That doesn't mean those official lists are bad history, they are just sources that need to be properly evaluated. Yaan 11:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the Yuan and Qing emperors for now. First of all, the very first and last entries make it sufficiently clear that the list is more about historiography than about history. second, they were officially regarded as emperors by their successors. third, in the case of qing dynasty, the title Qing was assumed in 1636, and before that the state had gone by the title Jin (Gold) which seems to imply some perception of continuity from the Jin state of the 12th/early 13th century. Yaan 12:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yaan :),

You have included Genghis et al. in the Yuan list anyway. Why not start it from Borte Chinu-a? (Dynasty means a line of kings belonging to the same family.) Why are they not Chinese when they are mere tribal chieftains, and why do they suddenly become Chinese when they are great conquerors. Is it fair? I will include in this table Borte Chinu-a and everybody when I have time. :) Gantuya Eng 24 July 2007
I don't think anyone ever seriously made up a temple name for, say, Dobun mergen, had his portrait painted etc. In short, no-one ever seriously claimed Genghis' ancestors to have been Yuan emperors. If you give a source that at one (or preferably more than one) point in history, Genghis' ancestors were officially recognized as emperors, you should of course add them :) . Of course even them, they still wouldn't be chinese monarchs. They just would be included in this table, as are some people whose mere existence is doubtful.
I' m actually more sceptical about Töregene Khatun and Oghul Ghaimish(?). No temple name, no portraits (?), Yuan dynasty not declared yet = probably doesn't belong into a list of chinese monarchs. On the other hand, most of the Northern Yuan dynasty is missing. Yaan 11:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Historians shouldn't rely on the sources of just one nation. If no other sources are available, the existing sources should be used critically. I'm not specifically against Chinese points of view. In the Russian Wiki, I changed a Russian-biased wording into neutral concerning the Russo-Turkish wars. With the same effort, I may change a text if I think it's Mongolian-biased. Neutrality is a principle of Wiki. Gantuya Eng
That's why there is a note on top of the Yuan list that says that the Great Khans before Khubilai were only declared emperors after 1271. Yaan 14:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
They became emperors by virtue of their conquest, not merely because of recognition by Chinese historians. They were emperors before 1271, but not Chinese emperors. Who declared Napoleon, Peter I, Cesarius emperors? Didn't they become emperors due to the strength of their nations?
Who declared Gendun Drup and Gendun Gyatso Dalai Lamas? Should we only begin to count the Dalai lamas from the one who actually received the title, or wouldn't it be better to include the first two in the list and state that they were only declared Dalai Lamas posthumously? Re. that other emperors: No, emperor is a formal title rather than a colloquial designation. Napoleon crowned himself (though, as in the case of the Holy Roman Empire's Kaisers, pontifical approval seems to have been granted), Julius Caesar was an imperator, but not an emperor, this title is usually reserved for Augustus. Judging from the emperor article, Peter I seems to have adopted the title emperor as a reference to the Bycantinian empire. Yaan 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, you convinced me with the example of the Dalai Lamas.
a) How about the title "Ikh Khaan" vs just "Khan"? They often use "Ikh Khaan" for Genghis through Togoon-Temur. Could "Ikh Khaan" be perceived as translation of "Emperor"?
b) What's the difference between "Imperator" and "Emperor"? The pronlem is that there is no difference between "Imperator" and "Emperor" in the Russian and Italian languages. Gantuya Eng, 26 July 2007
a) I think traditionally emperors had both wordly and some religious authority, and so maybe one could translate Khaan as emperor. But I think translating Khaan to emperor rather than to Khan would be rather unfamiliar to english readers. The relevant chinese, japanese etc titles (Huangdi?) have been translated to emperor long before and therefore are now very familiar.
The emperor article seems to imply that Khaan is somehow a translation of the chinese title, which I have never heard before.
b) according to Imperator, at Caesar's time the title was just honorary, and apparently was held by both Brutus and Cicero, both fierce opponents of monarchy. Yaan 13:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liao Dynasty

It is so sorrowful to realise that this table has made the whole histroy of the Kidan state part of the Chinese histroy and it no longer belongs to the Mongolian history according to this table. Gantuya Eng.

Are there documents that point to their self-identification with Mongolia? Yaan 11:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Yaan :)

They spoke a Mongolic language. Linguists have established the links with the Mongolic languages. Ethnographers identify the Daurians, a Mongolic people in Pri-Amurye, as decendants of the Kidans.
The Kidan empire was independent from the Song Dynasty, which is basically the China of that epoch. While Kidan is one of the successive states/confederations of the Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic nomads beginning from Xiongno through to Mongols and Manchu. Isn't it?
The Kidan Empire included Han population in the result of the conquest. But this shouldn't make Kidan a Chinese state. For example the fact that Golden Horde included some of the Rus's territories doesn't make it a Russian state. The Russians never call the Golden Horde rulers "Russian". But the Chinese do call those who conquered them "Chinese". And the rest of the world seems to agree with them. Why?
Are there documents that point to the Kidan's self-identification with the Chinese?

Gantuya Eng :)

I don't know much about Liao dynasty, esp. it's self-perception. I know what 'Chinese' means in mongolian, though ;). I also tend to think that states (just as persons etc.) can belong to the history of more than one people, e.g. the Golden Horde to both Mongolian and Russian, plus maybe Central Asia's history, Charlemagne to both German and French history etc.
Did anyone compile an official history of the Liao dynasty? If that is so, it would mean that art least the Liao's successors considered them a Chinese dynasty. Yaan 11:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Is the Liao successor the Jin Dynasty of the Jurjens, who are themselves not Chinese but another nomadic people. In the Secret History they are referred to Hyatad, which is China in the modern language. This now creates a perception that Jin (Altan Uls) was a Chinese empire among the Mongolian readers of the Secret History too. However, for the tribes in Mongolia in the XII-XIII centuries, this word still meant the plural of Kidan (Hyatan). For self-perception of the Kidans: many of the Kidan upper class, that had to serve the Jurjen, supported the Mongol conquest of the Jurjen empire. And even some of them came to serve the Mongol Khans (Yelui Chu tsai or Chu mergen). The Mongols referred to the population of the former Kidan/Jurjen empires as Hyatad and to the population of former Song dynasty as Nanhiad.
An "official" Liao history (Liao Shi) as well as "official" histories of the other dynasties are of course invaluable sources, and often the only sources. Nevertheless, they are Chinese sources. They are biased. They are biased not because they are Chinese. Russian/Soviet history books are also biased. Mongolian books are also biased. The irony is that the Chinese sources are often the only sources. They should be studied critically.

Gantuya Eng :)24 July 2007

Of course sources should be studied with care and not taken at face value (lest someone comes to think Chinggis really was a chinese emperor). But if the Liao had their official history created by historians of a successor dynasty, this at least means that their successors considered them sufficiently chinese. Yaan 11:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If we look up Chinese history books, Chinese websites, leaflets for tourists, we see they extensively use the word "minorities" referring to all tribes and ethnic groups that populated nowadays Mongolia, including the Xiongnu and all others. Does this mean they treat the territory of Mongolia as historically part of China? Gantuya Eng
I don't care about tourist websites. History books is another question, though. In any case, I'm strongly for using "traditional use by Chinese historians" (and 'traditional' as predating 1911) as a criteria for inclusion in this list. IMO stating that the Chinese-ness of Liao Dynasty (what about Northern Wei? Or, Northern Yuan?) is doubtful and that Genghis was not really a Chinese emperor is much better than just culling the list. Not the least because otherwise, they're going to be re-added again and again. Yaan 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality is a principle of Wiki. Relying just on Chinese historians will create a biased history. Gantuya Eng
Is Cambridge History of China, Volume six, neutral enough? They call Liao, Xi-Xia, Jin and Yuan 'Alien regimes and border states', but the title of the series makes it sufficiently clear that they still consider them part of Chinese history. Yaan 11:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Cambridge History of China isn't the only example of treating neighbours of China as Chinese. The beauty of Wiki is in the opportunity to look at history free from biased view. Liao are Mongolic (Kidans), Xi-Xia are Tanguts (faction of Tibetans), Jin are Tungusic (Jurchens) and Yuan are Mongols. They are all in no way Chinese. It would be strange to say that the East Goths, West Goths and Vandals are Roman.
OK, maybe it would be far-fetched to call the Vandal state part of Roman history, but what about the Lombards as part of Italian history? Anyway, if a good range of widely-accepted secondary or tertiary sources support the view that Liao, XiXia and Jin are somehow part of Chinese history, than this view can not just simply be ignored. At least, that's what I understand from WP:NPOV. Regards, Yaan 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Look--e.g. today Mongolia has a "good range" of MPRP-biased TVs. This doesn't mean that the information of those "good range" of TVs is the absolute truth, they are only in the interest of MPRP. Similarly and unfortunately, the "good range" of the secondary and tertiary sources of the Asian history are mainly based on a "good range" of Chinese-biased sources. Of course, China is a great nation worth of admiration. But the historical truth (and its neighbours) should not be sacrificed for Zhong Guo's glory. Gantuya Eng
But this is not about glory or truth, it's about what you find in secondary or tertiary sources. Of course most of China's history is written from a Chinese POV, but we can't just ignore the majority of sources on those empires or on China's history in total. Why don't you just add some remarks on the ethnic and linguistic composition of the Liao, Xixia, or Jin states? Yaan 16:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll correct the table when I have time. Gantuya eng

[edit] Tolui, Töregene Khatun, Oghul Ghaimish

According to the Cambridge History of China vol.VI, Appendix (don't remember exact page), from the pre-Khubilai Mongol rulers only Genghis, Ögödei, Güyük and Möngke are treated as Yuan emperors in the Yuan shi. Since the other entries don't have a temple name and (presumably) no official portrait, I'm going to remove them as they were rulers of the Mongol khanate, not of China. (The other four are included because they were posthumously declared to have been emperors of China, not because they were emperors in real life). Yaan 11:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan during early Qing

There was a separate state on Taiwan continuing the Ming traditions during Kanxi. Did that kingdom have a dynastic name before it was conquered by Qing? Gantuya eng 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Yuan

Northern Yuan as such was a name given by Togan-Temur to his state after he lost China. He did so as he hoped to conquer China again. The name Northern Yuan was officially used until the beginning of the 15th century. This state existed in Mongolia and it was Mongolia. It didn't cover any of the Chinese territories. IMHO there's no place for Northern Yuan in this article? Gantuya eng 05:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

They are definitely not Chinese monarchs. But their connection to Yuan dynasty is rather strong. Maybe someone should create an article about Northern Yuan, or Mongolia between 1368 and 1636, and place a link at the bottom of the Yuan emperors' list? Yaan 11:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe we should keep the first three of these khans? Did they continue to claim China or try to re-establish Yuan dynasty? Yaan 10:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Han Dynasty

I just noticed that the first emperor of Han is listed as Gao Zu, but the characters used are Gao Di 高帝. Gao Zu is 高祖. Both are correct, but the name given should match the characters. Bao Pu (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)