Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:00:03.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defining Chinese Warlords and Their Factions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Jerome Ch'en
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“ The warlords of twentieth–century china have received little scholarly attention.”. This omission is due, apart from the reasons viven in Mr. Sheridan's ‘Preface’, to the historical significance of the men and their period not being fully appreciated. What sort of men were they ? How did they rise to such great power? What effect did their abuse of power have on Chinese society ? Why did the May Fourth Movement, the Washington Conference, the founding of the Chinese Communist Party, the reorganization of the Kuomintang, and the May 30th Movement use the misrule of the warlords as their back–drop? How far did the warlords undo the work of the restoration in the 1860“s and 19870”s ? These are but a few pertinent questions. In a period of merely 16 years (1912–28), over 1, 300 warlords had fought more than 140 provincial and interprovincial wars. Such a period is bund to be complicated but should not daunt the curiosity of the historian.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , October 1968 , pp. 563 - 600
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sheridan, James E.Chinese warlord: the career of Feng Yu-hsiang. 13, 386, 4 plates Stanford, calif. Stanford University Press, 1966. $10. (Distributed in G.B. by Oxford University Press, 80s.)Google Scholar

2 Chung– she–hui yu Chung– ke–ming ‘Chinese society and Chiness revolution–, Shanghai, 1929, 86.

3 Cgybg-–kuo wen–t'i ti fen–hsi “ An analysis of China's Probles.' Shanghai, 1935, 49.

4 ibid., 161.

5 ibid., 167

6 The warlords, Liang says, “ differ from bandits only in military strength, not in nature. Big bandit leaders are “promoted” to the rank of warlords while defeated warlords become bandit leaders': Hsiang-ts'un chien-she li-lun 'Theory of rural reconstruction', Tsiyo'ing 1937, 100–1. Comp8are this with Sheridan, 19

7 ibid., 361.

8 The modern brigade of Anhwei, for instance, was demobilized. See Hsin-ke-ming ' The 1911 revolution', Peking, 1956, vii, 170.

9 Liang Ch“i-ch“ Yin-ping-shih ho-chi “ Complete works of the Yinping-shih“shih”, Shanghai, 1926, “ Essays”, chilan 30, 17. Liang disucsses there the rulers of the “tribes”in China.

10 of. Hsin-hai shou-yui-yi hui-yi-lu “Reminiscences of the 1911 uprising', Huper, 1957, i, 68.

11 Tao chu-yin , pei-yang chun-fa i“ ung-chih shih-ch“i shih-hua (a popular history of the period under the rule of the northern warlords), Peking, 1957, i, 27 and 92; Chang Hsi-man , Li-shih hui-yi, Li-shih hui-yi ‘Historical reminiseences’, Shanghai, 1949, 17: Ke-ming wen-hsien ‘'Revolutionary documents‘, v, 35; and Wu t‘ieh-ch‘eng, Hui-yi-lu ‘Memoirs’, Taipei, 1957. 24b.

12 It is interesting to compare Wu P‘ei-fu’s writings before and after the deathe of Chang Ch‘i-huang in 1927. There was a marked difference in style. See wu P‘ei-fu hsien-sheng chi ‘Collected works of Wu p‘ei-fu’, taipei, 1960, 251 and part i.

13 Lu Hsun ch‘uan-chi ‘Complete works of Lu Hsun’, I, 389 and 413; Tu-hsiu wen-ts–un –Collected essays of [Ch‘en] Tu-hsiu‘, II, 355, and IV, 289.

14 Tu-hsiu wen-ts–un, II, 356–7.

15 Lu Hsun Ch‘uan-chi, III, 301–2.

16 Wu-P‘fu hsien-sheng chi, 500–1.

17 Wu-shih hui-yi ‘Reminiscences at fifty’, Shanghai, 1945, i, 135–6

18 Ch‘en T‘ien-his, (comp.), Tai Chi-t‘ao hsien-sheng pien-nien chuan-chi ‘ A chronological biography of Tai Chi-t‘ao’, Taipei, 1958, 37.

19 Yuan ta-tsung-t‘ shu-tu hui-pien ‘President Yuan’s collected letters and official papers’, 1914, Taipei, 1962 ed., II, 17–18.

20 Li Yuan-hung, Li ta-tsung-t‘ung shu-tu hui-pien ‘President Li’s collected letters and official papers‘, Shanghai, 1921, 17–18; the restoration edict of 1917 in Sun Yao , Chung-hua-min-kuo shih-liao ‘Historical documents of the Chinese Republic’, Shanghai, 1929, Iv, 7; President Hsu Shih-ch‘ang‘s worship of Confucius in Hu Shih wen-ts‘ un‘ ‘Collected essays of Hu Shih’, I, 226; Tuan Ch‘i-jui’s essay on domestic affairs, the Nei-kan p‘ien , in the Cheng-fu Kung-pao ‘Government Gazettes’, 18 September 1925, or in HO-fei chih-cheng nien-p‘u ‘ A chronology of Tuan Ch‘i-jui’s administrations’, 1938, Taipei, 1962 ed., II, 18a-19a; and Chang tso-lin‘s decree on the observation of social usages on 22 September 1927 in the Cheng-fu Kung-pao of the same date. Hsu Shih-ch‘ang also founded a middle school in Peking, Ssu-ts‘un chung-hsueh, with overwhelming emphasis on classical training. See Wu-ssu yi-lai han-yu shu-mien yu-yen ti pien-ch‘ien ho fa-chan ‘The changes and development of written Chineso since the May Fourth’, Peking, 1959, 65.

21 Lu Hsun ch‘uan-chi, vI, 252; Ch‘en chi-t‘ang hsien-sheng chi-nien chi ‘In memory of Ch‘en Chi-t‘ang’, 3, 41, 43; Cheng-fu Kung-pao, 5 and 9 December 1916 and 15, 16, 23 February 1917. See also Li Chin-hsi , Kuo-uy yun-tung shik-kang ‘An outline history of the kuo-yu movement’, shanghai, 1935, 155–6.

22 Wu P‘ei-fu hsien-sheng chi, 3 and 153.

23 ibid., 144.

24 ibid., 142–3. See also 390.

25 ibid., 407.

26 Yang‘s memoirs in the magazine Ch‘un-ch‘iu (Hong Kong), xxvI, 5–6.

27 Chow tse-tsung, The May Fourth Movement, Cambridge, Mass., 1960, 62–72.

28 Lu Hsun ch‘uan-chi, vI, 253.

29 Chu Chih-hsin , ‘Ping ti kai-tsao chi ch‘i hsin-li’ ‘The reform of the soldier and his psychology’, in Chu Chik-hsin chi ‘Collected essays of Chu Chih-hsin‘, Shanghai, 1921 II, 363. This is a stimulating study of the psychology of the Chiness soldier, though its views are seldom acceptable.

30 On Chang Tso-lin‘s and Wu P‘s rivalry and tempers, see T‘ao Chu-yin, Pei-yang chun-fa t‘ung-chih shih-ch‘i shih-hua, vI, 47, and chang His-man, Li-shih Hui-yi, 26 and 81; on Chang tsunung-ch‘ang‘s temper, see Chiang Monlin, Tides from the West, New Haven, 1947, 145; on Hsu Ch‘s jealousy of Chiang Kai-shek, see tang Leang-li, Wang Ching-wei, a Political biography, tienstsin, 1931, 106; on T‘ang Sheng-chih’s rivalry with Chiang Kai-sheek, see Wilbur, C. Martin and How, J.L.Y., Documents of Communism, nationalish, and Soviet advisers in China 1918–1927, New york, 1956, 370,Google Scholar 411, and 415; and on Tuan Ch‘i-jui’s temper, see Hsu Tao-lin, Hsu Shu-cheng hsien-sheng wen-chi nien-p‘u ho-k‘an, Taipei, 1962, 1.,

31 Li wen-chih and others, Chung-kuo chin-tai nung-yeh-shih tzu-liao, Peking, 1957, II, 22, and Feng Ho-fa , Chung-kuo nung-ts‘un ching-chi tzu-liao ‘ Source materials on China‘s agricultural economy’, Shanghai, 1933–5, I, 919.

32 stuart, J.Leighton, Fifty years in Chinu, New York, 1954, 110.Google Scholar

33 Ch‘en Ch‘un-sheng , Hsin-hai Shensi Kuany-fu-chi’ ‘The recovery of Shensi in 1911’, in Ke-ming wen-hsien, v, 127; Cheng-fu kung-pao, 16 June 1918; feng Yu-bsiang, Wo-ti-sheng-huo, II, 35 and 63; Li Chien-nung , Tsui-chin san-shih-nien Chung-kuo cheng-chik-shik ‘A history of Chinese politics of the past thirty years’, shanghai, 1930, 366; T‘ao Chuū-yin, op. cit., I, p. 27, n. 9, and Iv, 134; Wo-ch‘iu Chung-tzu , Chin-tai ming-jen hsiao-chuan ‘Short biographies of the famous people of modern times’, Shanghai, 1920, 53–4; and Hsu Tao-lin, op. cit., passim.

34 Feng, , wo-ti sheng-huo, 2, 199 and 201, and III, 456–7 and 498–9.Google Scholar

35 Interview with Marcus Cheng, chaplain-general to Feng‘s forces, Manchester Guardian, 17 June 1925.

36 Fuse Katsuji , Shina kokumun kakumei to Hyo Gyoku-sho ‘ China‘s national revolution and Feng Yu-hsiang’, Tokyo, 1929, 122–3; Mao Ssu-ch‘eng , Min-kuo shik-wu-nien yi-ch‘ien chik Chieh-shih hsien-sheng ‘Chiang Kai-shek before 1926’, Shanghai, 1936, VIIth, 73a. See also Asahi Shibum, Times, and Manchester Guardian, 27 and 28 December 1925.

37 Times, 4 May 1927, and Manchester Guardian, 4 June 1927.

38 In his telegram of 5 July 1917 Chang accused CB‘en Kuang-yuan, Wang Shih-chen, Ts‘as K‘un, and Tuan Ch‘i-jui of bad faith and tried to implicate almost everyone of any importance (see Ke-ming wen-hsien, VII, 57 and 75) Lu Chien-chang accused Tuan Ch‘i-jui of laying a trap for chang Huun (see Feng Yu-hsiang, Wo-ti sheng-huo, II, 49). It seems likely that Chang‘s original plan alson had the support of Lu Jung-t‘C;ing, since these two were sworn-brothers (see Wo-ch‘iu Chung-tau, op. cit., 144). Sir Johnston, R. F., in his Twilight in the Forbidden City, London, 1934 140–6, blamed Chang Tso-lin and others for the fissco of the restoration. He also says that according to the Peking Leader of 6 May 1917 Chang Hsun‘s restoration documents were taken to Paris. In his owen account, P‘u-yi says that Tuan Ch‘i-jui actually agreed to the scheme of restoration (see Wo-ti‘ien-pan-sheng , Peking, 1964, 109–10).Google Scholar

39 The pattern of promotion shown in table II indicates that the commander of an oddnumbered brigade was more senior than that of an even-numbered one. The promotion of Wu P‘fu, instead of Chang Hsueh-yen, was therefore quite unusual.

40 T‘ao Chuū-yin, Wu P‘ei-fu chuan ‘ A biography of Wu P‘ei-fu’, Taipei, 1957, 17–18 and 118, and also his Pei-yang chuū-fa t‘ung-chik shik-ch‘i shik-rua, Iv, 79.

41 These were Sun Tao-jen of Fukien, Li Yuan-huan-hung of Hupei, Li Lieh-chun of Kiangsi, T‘and Chi-yao of Kweiehow, and Ts‘ai O of Yunnan, In the north, there were Yen Hsi-shan of Shansi and Chang Feng-hui of Shensi.

42 They include Chang Feng-hui, Chang K‘ai-ju, Chao Heng-t‘i, Chen Wen-yun, Chou Chun, Fang Sheng-t‘ao, Ku P‘in-chen, Li Lieh-chun, Liu Ts‘un-hou, T‘ang Chi-yao, Yen Ch’uūan, Yen Hsi-shan, and Yuū En-yang.

43 Ke-ming wen-hsien, xvi, 46.

44 Address at an inspection of troops in Nanking, 18 April 1927: Lo Chia-lun in Ke-ming wen-hsien, XIv, Taipei, 1954, 563–4.

45 Tsui-chin san-shik-nien Chung-kuo chun-shik shik ‘A history of the Chinese Army in the past thirty years‘, 1930, taipei, 1962 ed., I, chap. 2, pp.2, 8, 10, and 49, and Tuan Ch‘i-jui, ho-fei crik-cheng nien-p‘u, 36a.

46 LIU Chin-tsao , Ch‘ing-ch‘ao hsuū wen-hsien t‘ung-k‘ao, Shanghai, 1921, chuan 363, 11073a.

47 They were distributed as follows:

The total military strength of China then stood at 1, 400, 000 men: Hua-tzu Jik-pao (Hong Kong), 12 February 1919.

48 At this juncture, Chang Tso-lin came forward to champion the cause of federalism, to ward off any attempt by his victor to interfere in the affairs of Manchuria: Hua-tzu Jik-pao, 23 May 1922.

49 I am unable to offer any criticism on the details about Feng‘s life and activites, partly because I do not know as mucb as Mr.Sheridan and partly because I wrote this review in Hong Kong, away from my files.

50 I have made the same mistake in my book on Yuan Shih-k‘ai.