From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Subject: Re: How Turkic are the "Uygurs" (Was Re: Russian in Xinjiang)
Organization: New York University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:37:20 GMT

rap@news (Ross Paterson) writes:

>From article <92Dec15.145021est.56@orasis.vis.toronto.edu>, by liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu):
>| In article <1ghqusINNlin@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> rap@doc.ic.ac.uk writes:
>|>The Tu"rk ruled over the other tribes, including the Uighur.  The Tang
>|>took advantage of a revolt by the subject tribes (especially the Uighur)
>|>to attack and defeat the Tu"rk, and the Uighur took over the eastern
>|>Turkish empire.
>|
>| Tang attacked East TuJie because it kept on threaten Tang's borders,
>| and Li ShiMin finally decided if he ever going to have peace on the
>| northern borders is that have a total war against East TuJie and wipe
>| it out(the best defense is a good offense). and naturally, all East TuJie's
>| subjects got loose and grab whatever they can at the same time made
>| peace with Tang so that their new possessions are confirmed by Tang
>| and therefore others cannot take it away from them without looking like
>| an agressor & trouble maker in the region, and fight an alliance
>| headed by Tang's army.    

>I think both accounts are valid views of the same events from different
>viewpoints.  But the revolt did happen before the successful Tang attack.
>Nothing wrong with choosing the best moment for an attack you regard as
>necessary.

Yes, LSM did pick a best moment to defeat the Turks. He could have done
it well in advance but history has proved that what he chose to do
was the least costly.

Even before LSM took the throne, Tang was already able to win many regional
battles against the Turks. For instance, shortly before the mass invasion
quoted by Yuanhui Liu, Yuchi Jinde had gobbled up something like a Turkish
regiment in the North. According to LSM's own account, he had a good
chance to defeat the mass invasion headed by Jili Kahn when he was
signing the treaty with the Kahn; however, he held back after careful 
premeditation because

1). the invasion occurred only 1 mo. after his coup-detat against his brothers
    and he was not sure how secure his throne was;
2). he wanted a clean sweep (which he achieved later) rather than a 
    time-consuming all-out war;
3). he was making the Kahn conceited and unprepared as summarized in a
    Chinese saying, "If you want to beat him, you gotta first offer some
    concessions." The Kahn did get a lot of ransoms after the treaty was
    signed.

In the next few yrs, the Turks invaded less frequently. In the mean time,
the country ran into troubles:

1). the Kahn hired a Chinese who wanted to change the country's traditions
    which displeased many tribes;
2). the country was hit bad by a few terrible snow storms and as a result,
    many horses died and people started to starve;
3). Huihu and Xueyantuo claimed independence and defeated the Turkish
    army dispatched by the Kahn to suppress them.

On the other hand, Tang was rising. The economy was thriving and LSM did
have time to train his soldiers. For a long time, he hesitated whether
to give the Kahn a final blow but after consulting his advisers
he decided he would not do so unless he had a good reason. 

The "good reason" was found after the Kahn militarily assisted in vain
Liang Shidu, the last warlord rebel against Tang in China. Previously,
when Qidan had surrendered to Tang, the Kahn had offered to exchange Liang Shidu
for Qidan but LSM refused the deal. 

Consequently Li Jin and Li Shiji were sent to command the Tang army to 
punish the Kahn. It turned out to be a limited war with little
Turkish resistance since the Kahn's power had been considerable weakened
throughout the years.

>|>I was thinking of the battle of Atlach (on the Talas river in Sogdiana,
>|>modern Kirghizia) in 751.
>|
>| okay, i was not aware of that, that was only couple of years before
>| An-shi revolt.  if the civil war did not occur, Tang certainly
>| had the power & resource to hold on to its central asia possessions
>| even with most campaigns against its enemies ended up in defeat.  

>This is a matter of dispute, like all "what if" questions.  There were
>constant revolts, and it is doubtful whether the Tang had the same sort of
>control there that that had in Annam, say.  The army had to operate a long
>way from their supply areas in Gansu -- they were just over-stretched.
>I forget exactly how many pounds of grain were consumed in getting one
>pound to the soldiers out there -- was it 15?  Some people regard the
>Tang defeat at the hands of the Arabs at Atlach as one of the turning
>points of history, because it placed extra strain on a system that
>was only just working, and tipped the scales.  But as you point out,
>the revolt a few years later made the whole question hypothetical.
>(Of course if the Tang had never captured the western regions, maybe
>they wouldn't have had a Sogdian general to rebel -- same problem in
>the Roman and Byzantine empires.)

The supply line probably didn't start from Gansu as Tang had a few cities
in Xinjiang under its effective control (Anxi Du Hu Fu). True, even during
the Anshi revolt when communications between Gansu and Anxi Du Hu Fu were
cut off by the Tibetans, Tang's army was still able to hold Anxi for
15 or 20 yrs without support from China proper. 

The Battle in 751 was really a turning point in the world history because
China lost her monopoly in paper production after that. Chinese who
were captured by the Arabs helped to propagate the technology westward.

>Ross

- Li, Qiang

Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:32803 soc.culture.taiwan:16228 soc.culture.hongkong:16348