Image talk:Qing Dynasty map.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do believe that the Qing had control over Tannu Uriankhai (modern-day Tuva/Tyva) which appears to be missing from this map. Chinese maps of the period also claim control over modern-day Arunachal Pradesh in India and northern Burma, although I've noticed that British maps of the period reflect modern day boundaries. Which claim should take precedent? Good job on the rest of it, though. Pryaltonian 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Affiliated States

Those areas of the map coloured light green are supposed to be what exactly? Affiliated states seems vague to me. Are they what would be called tributary kingdoms? If my understanding is correct, this means they were entirely independent but paid monetary tribute to China and received their military protection as well as a privileged trade relationship. If this is so, I question the inclusion of Nepal and am not certain about other areas either. At the same time, the Ryūkyū Kingdom--regardless of its miniscule size--was certainly tributary until its annexation by Japan, which I thought was a tributary kingdom itself for some period of the Qing Dynasty. Referenced clarifications and consequent map changes would be greatly appreciated. AnthroGael 22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Should take out the other boundaries (I noticed that they are modern boundaries), unless you can recreate the boundaries of other countries at the time of this snapshot. Also the map is missing:

I am not sure if Nepal was under Chinese influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.39.121 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korea? Not true.

I'm Korean and I studied Korean and Chinese history. I'm sure that Korea should be excluded from affiliated nations.

I'm not sure what affiliated means exactly but as long as I know, Korea was independent.

Ah, soon after Qing was established, Qing attacked Chosun(Korea) and Chosun's king (Injong) surrendered.

But after that, there was no struggles between them.

Ah, maybe you're saying Korea's affiliated because the King surrendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimate753 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


The problem still remains of defining what is meant by 'affiliated nation' and of getting appropriate references. I have a book (Fairbank, Reischauer, and Craig. East Asia: Tradition and Transformation. Hougton Mifflin Company: 1973. 0-395-14525-2.) which clearly states in several instances of chapter 12 that the Yi dynasty was tributary to the Ming. Further, on page 317, it says the Manchus "invaded Korea with an army of 100,000 men and early the next year forced the Yi dynasty to switch allegiance from the Ming to their newly formed Ch'ing (Qing) dynasty. Henceforth Korean tribute missions went to the Ch'ing." If affiliated does in fact mean tributary, it would seem from this reference that Korea was in fact 'affiliated'. However, this does not mean Korea was not independent. Moreover, I don't mean to suggest that this one reference is the be all and end all of the story. So, to repeat, let's define what is meant by affiliated and then add references for each of the states included as such on the map. AnthroGael (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)