What do you think?
Rate this book
Defending Heaven: China's Mongol Wars, 1209-1370
“A very readable account of the protracted and ultimately unsuccessful efforts of the Song, Xia, and Jin dynasties to defend China from the Mongols.”—StrategyPage Defending Heaven brings together, for the first time in one volume, the complete histories of the wars the Jin, Song, Xia, and Ming dynasties fought against the Mongols. Lasting nearly two centuries, these wars, fought to defend Chinese civilization against a brutal and unrelenting foe, pitted personal heroics against the inexorable Mongol war machine and involved every part of the Chinese state. The resistance of the Chinese dynasties to the Khans is a complex and rich story of shifting alliances and political scheming, vast armies and navies, bloody battles and an astonishing technological revolution. The great events of China’s Mongol war are described and analyzed, detailing their immediate and later implications for Chinese history. In this excellent new book, James Waterson tackles this fascinating subject with characteristic verve and skill. Setting the Mongol war in the wider context of China’s ancient and almost perpetual conflict with the northern nomads, it sheds light on the evolution of China’s military society and the management, command, and control of the army by the Chinese state. “An excellent contribution not only to the study of the Mongol Empire but also to military history . . . Anyone interested in medieval warfare will find Defending Heaven of interest.”—Professor Timothy May, in De Re Militari
379 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 19, 2013
92 people are currently reading
258 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
September 22, 2019
The Mongols, and their conquest of an exceedingly large chunk of Eurasia is a subject well known in history. Their conquest of China regularly gets good coverage in books talking about this in general, but there's few, if any, books in English about just that. Waterson concentrates especially on the conquest of the Song Dynasty by Kublai Khan. This is looked at largely from the Song point of view, largely to prevent it from just looking like a focused version of those other books.
He starts with the formation of the Song Dynasty, and how it shaped a desire to acquire northern lands that they felt had been 'lost' to the Liao. This becomes part of a pattern of blindness in a fairly dysfunctional government, and the loss of northern China to the Jin. Initial Mongol conquests were against the Xia and the Jin, with the Song helping. The Song regained three important cities... and we enter the biggest focus part of the book
The Mongol campaigns against the Song took twenty years to really break the dynasty, and it was a decidedly hard slog for the Mongols the entire way. Waterson then goes into the Yuan Dynasty (Kublai's effort in becoming a Chinese, rather than outsider, government), and how its various problems turn into a sense of 'everything was better under the Song'. He finishes up with rebellions against Yuan rule and the founding of the Ming Dynasty.
I'll admit that while I found the book well written, argued, and structured, I am at more of a geographical loss. Maps are limited, and on the Kindle app, flipping back to them is inconvenient; my knowledge of Chinese geography is quite limited compared to what I'd like to follow some of the action. Still, I enjoyed it, and plan on looking up his other works as well worth a read.
He starts with the formation of the Song Dynasty, and how it shaped a desire to acquire northern lands that they felt had been 'lost' to the Liao. This becomes part of a pattern of blindness in a fairly dysfunctional government, and the loss of northern China to the Jin. Initial Mongol conquests were against the Xia and the Jin, with the Song helping. The Song regained three important cities... and we enter the biggest focus part of the book
The Mongol campaigns against the Song took twenty years to really break the dynasty, and it was a decidedly hard slog for the Mongols the entire way. Waterson then goes into the Yuan Dynasty (Kublai's effort in becoming a Chinese, rather than outsider, government), and how its various problems turn into a sense of 'everything was better under the Song'. He finishes up with rebellions against Yuan rule and the founding of the Ming Dynasty.
I'll admit that while I found the book well written, argued, and structured, I am at more of a geographical loss. Maps are limited, and on the Kindle app, flipping back to them is inconvenient; my knowledge of Chinese geography is quite limited compared to what I'd like to follow some of the action. Still, I enjoyed it, and plan on looking up his other works as well worth a read.
December 4, 2025
Totally engrossing story of the Song Empire (China) resistance and ultimate demise to the Mongols (1209-1370). I had little to no knowledge of the time and place and this book gave me a great picture. The Song Empire was large (120 million), civilized and had a complex, functional bureaucracy, including somewhat accurate censuses. The author contends that the reason the Song lost was because of petty infighting among the court politicians, combined with an almost complete disconnect between the civil and military branches. Even so, it took about 120 years for the Mongols to win and by then they weren't Mongols any more. They had also killed off about half the population. If this hadn't happened China may have had the Industrial Revolution before Europe did. The book goes until the end of the Mongols (Yuan Dynasty), less than 100 years later.
For an educated adult with little or no knowledge of the topic. People who know the topic may find it repetitive.
4 stars - Very good, even if you aren't interested in the area.
(For comparison England's population was 3 million at its peak in 1300, before the Black Death. The kings went from John to Edward III. Europe's population was from 50 to 100 million (no census).)
For an educated adult with little or no knowledge of the topic. People who know the topic may find it repetitive.
4 stars - Very good, even if you aren't interested in the area.
(For comparison England's population was 3 million at its peak in 1300, before the Black Death. The kings went from John to Edward III. Europe's population was from 50 to 100 million (no census).)
on-hold
March 30, 2020Meh. Reads like a history book. Lots of facts strung together with unsupported assertions.
I love history, but ...
I love history, but ...
December 16, 2024
This is a non-fic history about Mongol 13th century invasion into Chinese kingdoms and the reversal a century later with creation of Ming dynasty. I now decided to read more of the Chinese history to better understand a likely contender for global leadership in the next 20 years.
The history starts a century before the invasion to describe the struggle for dominance between three kingdoms: Liao, Song, and Jin Empires. If Song dynasty (in Chinese history they use as the unit not a state but a dynasty) located on the south to the other two, is the most likely contender to be named proto-China, a agricultural Confucian state with sizable infrastructure projects. Liao dynasty is Khitan imperial dynasty of China (916–1125), Khitans are northern nomads who sinocized and even created out writing based on Chinese hieroglyphics and not fully understood even now. Ukraine’s name of China is Китай, which comes via russia from Khitan. Jin dynasty initially overcame Liao and then fought with Song.
When Mongols came in 1209, they quite quickly overcame Jin (including capturing Beijing in 2015). Song initially hit Jin in the back (just like split of Poland in 1939) but then faced a much mightier foe. Initially Song fight not Mongols themselves, but Mongol-backed Li Quan, the bandit ruler of Shandong and after Song killed Li Quan, Mongols backed his son as a new ruler of Shandong. In 1234 Song where first to attack Mongols but their expedition failed. Mongols took flat northern lands (which Songs took from Jin) relatively quickly but then bogged down in heartland Song, where rivers, dams and other obstacles made it hard to use cavalry.
Meanwhile other Mongol armies attacked Muslim world and Europe and came back with new weapons, like Greek fire and the huihuipao or counterweight trebuchet to the siege walled cities. Songs were usually better in ship battles on rivers, Mongols on land but finally Qubilai Khan overcomes Song and creates a new dynasty, the ‘Great Yuan’.
What follows is that nomads try to rule once efficient settled society taking worst from both worlds, so in 14th century rebellions starts, which finally overthrow Mongols.
There are a lot of interesting details but also some word usage I see as anachronistic, including active usage of China and russia (the later mentioned only passingly like “Perhaps the Song knew of the Mongols’ concurrent entanglements in Russia–they were struggling to subdue Moscow”, which is wrong both on names of a country, instead of Muscovy Princedom or Rus and they sometimes used, and of a city, for Moscow turned important later and wasn’t even a part of campaigns, unlike Kyiv or Smolensk).
The history starts a century before the invasion to describe the struggle for dominance between three kingdoms: Liao, Song, and Jin Empires. If Song dynasty (in Chinese history they use as the unit not a state but a dynasty) located on the south to the other two, is the most likely contender to be named proto-China, a agricultural Confucian state with sizable infrastructure projects. Liao dynasty is Khitan imperial dynasty of China (916–1125), Khitans are northern nomads who sinocized and even created out writing based on Chinese hieroglyphics and not fully understood even now. Ukraine’s name of China is Китай, which comes via russia from Khitan. Jin dynasty initially overcame Liao and then fought with Song.
When Mongols came in 1209, they quite quickly overcame Jin (including capturing Beijing in 2015). Song initially hit Jin in the back (just like split of Poland in 1939) but then faced a much mightier foe. Initially Song fight not Mongols themselves, but Mongol-backed Li Quan, the bandit ruler of Shandong and after Song killed Li Quan, Mongols backed his son as a new ruler of Shandong. In 1234 Song where first to attack Mongols but their expedition failed. Mongols took flat northern lands (which Songs took from Jin) relatively quickly but then bogged down in heartland Song, where rivers, dams and other obstacles made it hard to use cavalry.
Meanwhile other Mongol armies attacked Muslim world and Europe and came back with new weapons, like Greek fire and the huihuipao or counterweight trebuchet to the siege walled cities. Songs were usually better in ship battles on rivers, Mongols on land but finally Qubilai Khan overcomes Song and creates a new dynasty, the ‘Great Yuan’.
What follows is that nomads try to rule once efficient settled society taking worst from both worlds, so in 14th century rebellions starts, which finally overthrow Mongols.
There are a lot of interesting details but also some word usage I see as anachronistic, including active usage of China and russia (the later mentioned only passingly like “Perhaps the Song knew of the Mongols’ concurrent entanglements in Russia–they were struggling to subdue Moscow”, which is wrong both on names of a country, instead of Muscovy Princedom or Rus and they sometimes used, and of a city, for Moscow turned important later and wasn’t even a part of campaigns, unlike Kyiv or Smolensk).
June 28, 2020
A good book dealing with Chinese resistance to the Mongols and Northern "barbarians" throughout the Song/Liao/Jin, Yuan and early Ming periods. However, the flurry of names and places did not help with my comprehension, and, since I listened to the audiobook version, the subpar pronunciations did not help. I should probably re-read this with a physical copy.
August 22, 2024
A decent, but brief, history of the yuan dynasty. It's interesting but feels a little light on detail
March 27, 2022
This is an excellent text that summarizes the military struggle between the forces of the Mongol World Empire, in Centra/East Asia and the Chinese dynasties of the Song and the lesser dynasties of the Jin, which led to the ultimate collapse of Han rule and transitioned to a Han-supported, but Mongol ruled Yuan dynasty which itself lasted less than a 100 years, and saw the restoration of Han rule with the ascension of the Ming dynasty of the 1400s. The author’s central thesis is that the Mongol invasions of the various Eurasian nations during the almost 100 years of expansion which saw it assemble the largest land empire in human history, was fundamentally negative for the various nations/tribes/empires/kingdoms that happened to encounter (and fall under) the Mongol yoke.
This thesis is somewhat contrary to more recent scholarship which seeks to understand how various standardization and cultural/technology/scientific exchanges facilitated and secured by the arms of the Mongol World Empire ignited innovations across various regions of Eurasia, and are in some circles linked to the start of the great synthesis of ideas in Europe during the late medieval era, which ultimately ignites the Renaissance of Western Europe. The author doesn’t comment much on Europe in this matter, but instead states that in both the regions of Western and Eastern Asia, conflict with the armies of the Mongol World Empire led to a retarding of institutional reforms in favor of a hardening of medieval structures, specifically a strengthening of centralization to maintain large standing armies to defend and strike against Mongol armies by the peoples of those regions, which siphoned resources away from other potentially more productive activities towards a constant mustering martial power. I am less certain on the merits of this thesis, though it seems plausible, not all plausible theses are actually true (in fact by definition only one plausible thing ends up ever being true, and sometimes the true thing ends up coming outside of the set of things we accept to being plausible!).
Still, it’s a cohesive narrative, and one that serves the author well as he describes the nature of mass mobilization, and how vast numbers of individuals were thrown at Mongol invaders, and how a largely infantry army dealt with a highly mobile steppe force. The Song often fielding multiple armies of men in the hundreds of thousands (an organizational and logistical feat not matched until the era of the Napoleonic wars in Western Europe), and thus one can see how the stress of constantly being engaged in such a titanic conflict would eventually retard societies output in other venues of human activity, such as the arts, sciences, industry etc. This later dimension is relevant, as it’s been hypothesized that the Song may have been the closest of the medieval civilizations across the world to achieving industrialization. Though this is a facet that is not dwelt on much by the author. Instead, the focus here is really the ebb/flow of the various Mongol / Song / Jin campaigns, and even the nature of the war fighting technology deployed on the field, which was very interesting, but far too little of it in the text (with the meat of this content focused towards the middle of the text).
Among these technologies include rapid-fire-reload crossbows, various explosive bombs, and even imported technologies such as the counter-weight trebuchet, which Song engineers refined from Muslim craftsman and siege-mongers. Also within these wars, was a significant naval component, with river navies playing a major part with both Song and Mongol forces. Here, some of the campaigns reminded me of the river battles fought between the Union and Confederacy many centuries later during the American Civil War. This leads to the question, how should we understand this war of conquest? One of the Mongol World Empire invading another sovereign, or as modern Chinese narratives have characterized it, as a Chinese civil war?
The author seems to come on the side of the later, if only because as the war matured, not only were an increasing number of Han generals and troops abandoning their posts in the Song and joining the Mongol forces, but Mongol forces themselves found their steppe cavalry tactics were just less effective in the Southern Song lands for many reasons the authors detailed, and quickly realized that only fielding armies of the style deployed by the various Han dynasties/petty kingdoms were they able to strike successfully and eventually overwhelm Song positions. Further Khubelai Khan eventually declared himself wielding the ‘mandate of heaven’, and he sets up court in the Han/Chinese style in Beijing, a lesser city in the era, but would eventually become the capital of subsequent dynasties and obviously remain the capital in all iterations of modern China outside of the Warlord era of the early 20th-century).
An interesting fact about the Song, not only was it one of China’s most advanced dynasty, it may have been one of it’s most cosmopolitan, and yet the author points out, despite the “merits” of the cosmopolitan ruling class, the collapse of the Song from Mongol pressure was far swifter than one would think given the “legitimacy” endowed by it’s good and “rational” governance. Perhaps a lesson for our modern era as well.
Overall, I enjoyed this book, it outlines an era ill-understood by your general Chinese history reader, as much of the focus seems to be the Ming or the older empires, There just doesn’t seem to be much books on the Song in the popular nonfiction/generalist press in the United States. So this text definitely fills a need. Conditional recommendation for those interested in better integrating their knowledge of medieval warfare in Asia, with respect to campaigns that involved the Mongol World Empire in East Asia, as well as generalists in Chinese history.
This thesis is somewhat contrary to more recent scholarship which seeks to understand how various standardization and cultural/technology/scientific exchanges facilitated and secured by the arms of the Mongol World Empire ignited innovations across various regions of Eurasia, and are in some circles linked to the start of the great synthesis of ideas in Europe during the late medieval era, which ultimately ignites the Renaissance of Western Europe. The author doesn’t comment much on Europe in this matter, but instead states that in both the regions of Western and Eastern Asia, conflict with the armies of the Mongol World Empire led to a retarding of institutional reforms in favor of a hardening of medieval structures, specifically a strengthening of centralization to maintain large standing armies to defend and strike against Mongol armies by the peoples of those regions, which siphoned resources away from other potentially more productive activities towards a constant mustering martial power. I am less certain on the merits of this thesis, though it seems plausible, not all plausible theses are actually true (in fact by definition only one plausible thing ends up ever being true, and sometimes the true thing ends up coming outside of the set of things we accept to being plausible!).
Still, it’s a cohesive narrative, and one that serves the author well as he describes the nature of mass mobilization, and how vast numbers of individuals were thrown at Mongol invaders, and how a largely infantry army dealt with a highly mobile steppe force. The Song often fielding multiple armies of men in the hundreds of thousands (an organizational and logistical feat not matched until the era of the Napoleonic wars in Western Europe), and thus one can see how the stress of constantly being engaged in such a titanic conflict would eventually retard societies output in other venues of human activity, such as the arts, sciences, industry etc. This later dimension is relevant, as it’s been hypothesized that the Song may have been the closest of the medieval civilizations across the world to achieving industrialization. Though this is a facet that is not dwelt on much by the author. Instead, the focus here is really the ebb/flow of the various Mongol / Song / Jin campaigns, and even the nature of the war fighting technology deployed on the field, which was very interesting, but far too little of it in the text (with the meat of this content focused towards the middle of the text).
Among these technologies include rapid-fire-reload crossbows, various explosive bombs, and even imported technologies such as the counter-weight trebuchet, which Song engineers refined from Muslim craftsman and siege-mongers. Also within these wars, was a significant naval component, with river navies playing a major part with both Song and Mongol forces. Here, some of the campaigns reminded me of the river battles fought between the Union and Confederacy many centuries later during the American Civil War. This leads to the question, how should we understand this war of conquest? One of the Mongol World Empire invading another sovereign, or as modern Chinese narratives have characterized it, as a Chinese civil war?
The author seems to come on the side of the later, if only because as the war matured, not only were an increasing number of Han generals and troops abandoning their posts in the Song and joining the Mongol forces, but Mongol forces themselves found their steppe cavalry tactics were just less effective in the Southern Song lands for many reasons the authors detailed, and quickly realized that only fielding armies of the style deployed by the various Han dynasties/petty kingdoms were they able to strike successfully and eventually overwhelm Song positions. Further Khubelai Khan eventually declared himself wielding the ‘mandate of heaven’, and he sets up court in the Han/Chinese style in Beijing, a lesser city in the era, but would eventually become the capital of subsequent dynasties and obviously remain the capital in all iterations of modern China outside of the Warlord era of the early 20th-century).
An interesting fact about the Song, not only was it one of China’s most advanced dynasty, it may have been one of it’s most cosmopolitan, and yet the author points out, despite the “merits” of the cosmopolitan ruling class, the collapse of the Song from Mongol pressure was far swifter than one would think given the “legitimacy” endowed by it’s good and “rational” governance. Perhaps a lesson for our modern era as well.
Overall, I enjoyed this book, it outlines an era ill-understood by your general Chinese history reader, as much of the focus seems to be the Ming or the older empires, There just doesn’t seem to be much books on the Song in the popular nonfiction/generalist press in the United States. So this text definitely fills a need. Conditional recommendation for those interested in better integrating their knowledge of medieval warfare in Asia, with respect to campaigns that involved the Mongol World Empire in East Asia, as well as generalists in Chinese history.
April 29, 2014
I found this confusing--a blur of names and events. I have a tendency to assume that things like that are just a deficiency in my reading but I felt there was a problem in organization. The one thing that was definitely my fault is that I should have read a general history of China first. So, I started on Tanner's first volume of his 2-volume history of China.
August 11, 2024
James Waterson’s Defending Heaven is about the Mongols' conquest of Song China. Sadly, I don’t think this book deliver an interesting narrative of what should’ve been an interesting topic. The narrative is disjointed. Sometimes it’s a rapid political history where Waterson threw a lot of names and their courtly titles without explaining further their role and influence (a lot of those historical figures mentioned didn’t last for more than three pages) and some other times it’s a militaristic history where Waterson discussed the individual weapons used but not necessarily connecting with the particular war being discussed. It feels like Wikipedia being summarised in a book (and you can learn more from Wikipedia and other sites than this book which shows that Defending Heaven isn’t worthy to be read again).
This was an era where China was divided by a lot of interesting polities such as Song China with its academic-scholar-centric value, the Liao dynasty of Khitan who sought to exploit the weakness of Song China’s military by raiding them in order to gain tribute, the Xi Xia Tangut kingdom and Jin dynasty of the Jurchen people who hailed from the region called Manchuria. On top of those, obviously, the Mongols who seek to conquer them. Yet, it didn’t help when Waterson didn’t distinguish those rulers from each other because the Liao Khitan, Jin Jurchen, and Tangut Xi Xia used Chinese imperial regnal names as well. Waterson, as a historian, should distinguish the Taizu of Jurchen Jin from the Taizu of other Chinese dynasties. It doesn’t help when he wrote: “Taizu was wary of the Song” knowing that there was another Taizu emperor in Song China.
While I understood that historians must be neutral when discussing the figure of war victims, I think I’m not fond of Waterson’s sarcastic tone when describing a particular event when the aftermath of losing a war was written like this : “The siege of Kaifeng only lasted thirty-three days and ended on 5 March 1126, when the Jin’s second assault smashed all Song resistance. Emperor Qinzong gave them free entrance to the city and ensured that they were provided with loot, horses and young women.” Where was the source of this and why it wasn’t explained further? I didn’t think any sane ruler “ensured” the conqueror’s safe passage to loot the capital city knowing that Emperor Qinzong also became a hostage. Waterson’s choice of words (many times in this book) was borderline sarcastic.
Readers should read other books discussing the Mongol conquest before taking up this one because James Waterson treats the readers as if they already know the history and just want to brush up their knowledge casually.
This was an era where China was divided by a lot of interesting polities such as Song China with its academic-scholar-centric value, the Liao dynasty of Khitan who sought to exploit the weakness of Song China’s military by raiding them in order to gain tribute, the Xi Xia Tangut kingdom and Jin dynasty of the Jurchen people who hailed from the region called Manchuria. On top of those, obviously, the Mongols who seek to conquer them. Yet, it didn’t help when Waterson didn’t distinguish those rulers from each other because the Liao Khitan, Jin Jurchen, and Tangut Xi Xia used Chinese imperial regnal names as well. Waterson, as a historian, should distinguish the Taizu of Jurchen Jin from the Taizu of other Chinese dynasties. It doesn’t help when he wrote: “Taizu was wary of the Song” knowing that there was another Taizu emperor in Song China.
While I understood that historians must be neutral when discussing the figure of war victims, I think I’m not fond of Waterson’s sarcastic tone when describing a particular event when the aftermath of losing a war was written like this : “The siege of Kaifeng only lasted thirty-three days and ended on 5 March 1126, when the Jin’s second assault smashed all Song resistance. Emperor Qinzong gave them free entrance to the city and ensured that they were provided with loot, horses and young women.” Where was the source of this and why it wasn’t explained further? I didn’t think any sane ruler “ensured” the conqueror’s safe passage to loot the capital city knowing that Emperor Qinzong also became a hostage. Waterson’s choice of words (many times in this book) was borderline sarcastic.
Readers should read other books discussing the Mongol conquest before taking up this one because James Waterson treats the readers as if they already know the history and just want to brush up their knowledge casually.
June 3, 2024
It's.... interesting.
I think my biggest issue is with myself as opposed to the book. It reads well, it's not dry or the like but I feel my ignorance prevented me from really getting into it. Which is ironic as you'd imagine ignorance being the type of thing that would diminish as you read about a subject.
Not so much ignorance of subject matter (it's why I'm reading it in the first place) but a lack of familiarity of the culture. As a middle aged white dude I sometimes found it quite difficult to follow the narrative when a lot of names and places sounded similar. I suspect a better base understanding of some of the geography and how Chinese names are structured would put me in good stead but as I don't have that I was limited to following the book from a higher level than I'm comfortable with.
But as a starter for 10 book it's interesting, it doesn't deep dive into any real subject too much to get bogged down. I suspect reading it again, after being more familiar with the Song dynasty or the Mongolians, would probably make me feel better about the book but as it is, it's a book on a subject I know very little. I know a BIT more than I did, but I think i'd need a cheat sheet to understand who the players were.
I think my biggest issue is with myself as opposed to the book. It reads well, it's not dry or the like but I feel my ignorance prevented me from really getting into it. Which is ironic as you'd imagine ignorance being the type of thing that would diminish as you read about a subject.
Not so much ignorance of subject matter (it's why I'm reading it in the first place) but a lack of familiarity of the culture. As a middle aged white dude I sometimes found it quite difficult to follow the narrative when a lot of names and places sounded similar. I suspect a better base understanding of some of the geography and how Chinese names are structured would put me in good stead but as I don't have that I was limited to following the book from a higher level than I'm comfortable with.
But as a starter for 10 book it's interesting, it doesn't deep dive into any real subject too much to get bogged down. I suspect reading it again, after being more familiar with the Song dynasty or the Mongolians, would probably make me feel better about the book but as it is, it's a book on a subject I know very little. I know a BIT more than I did, but I think i'd need a cheat sheet to understand who the players were.
November 10, 2025
I know virtually nothing about the history of China, especially any part prior to widespread European exposure. I was surprised how generalized the book is given that, to me, it begins around 1209. That is not ancient history. There are books focused on Europe or nation in Europe that are more specific than this one. This point is especially true with regards to military conflicts. The battles and campaigns are not well explained.
Given I have no other information source, I feel a 4.5 star rating is more appropriate. I did learn a lot about China at this time. I was surprised in two aspects. One, China was more advanced than anywhere else in the world in terms of ship design and building. The second was when actual numbers are given for military campaigns, the numbers are often in the hundreds of thousands. One does not encounter those types of numbers in Europe until the Napoleonic era. I did find the maps lacking in detail. A map with most if not all the major cities and rivers would have been immensely helpful.
Given I have no other information source, I feel a 4.5 star rating is more appropriate. I did learn a lot about China at this time. I was surprised in two aspects. One, China was more advanced than anywhere else in the world in terms of ship design and building. The second was when actual numbers are given for military campaigns, the numbers are often in the hundreds of thousands. One does not encounter those types of numbers in Europe until the Napoleonic era. I did find the maps lacking in detail. A map with most if not all the major cities and rivers would have been immensely helpful.
April 6, 2018
It is easy to imagine that the Song dynasty wasn’t up to much. This Chinese state fell to the Mongols in spite of its superior technology and its vastly superior resources. Egypt, Japan and Burma beat the Mongols, so why not China?
But none of these three states had to fight the full weight of the Mongol forces, nor did they have to keep fighting year after year. To the Mongols, all those campaigns were peripheral, the main purpose being to keep the army busy abroad so they wouldn’t rebel or split off at home.
Song China fought the main Mongol army pretty much continuously for forty years. Nobody else fought the Mongols for anything like that long. And what European state held out for forty years against anyone?
But none of these three states had to fight the full weight of the Mongol forces, nor did they have to keep fighting year after year. To the Mongols, all those campaigns were peripheral, the main purpose being to keep the army busy abroad so they wouldn’t rebel or split off at home.
Song China fought the main Mongol army pretty much continuously for forty years. Nobody else fought the Mongols for anything like that long. And what European state held out for forty years against anyone?
June 21, 2018
mastery of primary and interpretive historiography
All the analytic approaches were blended for a highly readable and, to my eye, reliable interpretation of the complex story of China’s formation of a unified state. Highly recommended For western readers. Most impressed with the author’s balanced narrative, which subordinates traditional functionalism and structural schools, resonates with authentic respect for the subject. He also strongly refutes the posits which ground the recent advocates of mongol/steppe revisionism.
All the analytic approaches were blended for a highly readable and, to my eye, reliable interpretation of the complex story of China’s formation of a unified state. Highly recommended For western readers. Most impressed with the author’s balanced narrative, which subordinates traditional functionalism and structural schools, resonates with authentic respect for the subject. He also strongly refutes the posits which ground the recent advocates of mongol/steppe revisionism.
June 10, 2021
Decent overview of an oft-neglected (in the West) part of world history.
Waterson's problems are the poor maps and his tendency to jump around and go on tangents that distract from the main narrative. Part of this is due to the dearth of sources - Chinese sources were written by non-military types, and so the campaign descriptions are vague, sometimes confusing, and the numbers involved probably have no real relation to what was actually present.
Nevertheless, this is a useful, if sometimes scattered and baffling, history of the Mongol conquest of China from the Chinese perspective.
Waterson's problems are the poor maps and his tendency to jump around and go on tangents that distract from the main narrative. Part of this is due to the dearth of sources - Chinese sources were written by non-military types, and so the campaign descriptions are vague, sometimes confusing, and the numbers involved probably have no real relation to what was actually present.
Nevertheless, this is a useful, if sometimes scattered and baffling, history of the Mongol conquest of China from the Chinese perspective.
September 22, 2019
Sweeping complete history of the Mongols and China
It is hard to cover hundreds of years of history in one book. This book tells the tale with both large scale descriptions of empires at war together with personal takes of the people who led armies and ruled kingdoms. Many of these generals and rulers deserve a large place in history for controlling armies larger than any contemporary army i.e European and for issues of grand strategy that affected Asia and Europe to this day.
It is hard to cover hundreds of years of history in one book. This book tells the tale with both large scale descriptions of empires at war together with personal takes of the people who led armies and ruled kingdoms. Many of these generals and rulers deserve a large place in history for controlling armies larger than any contemporary army i.e European and for issues of grand strategy that affected Asia and Europe to this day.
August 14, 2019
Very comprehensive, informative and easy to read with good introduction and conclusion parts.
Minor lack in the absence of physical maps with mountain ranges and passes that is important for the understanding some motion of the armies in these wars.
Minor lack in the absence of physical maps with mountain ranges and passes that is important for the understanding some motion of the armies in these wars.
October 15, 2023
It's always helpful to be reminded that even though there are a lot of awful things in the world right now, you could have been a 14th century Chinese peasant dealing with both the Mongols *and* the Bubonic Plague, so....
April 17, 2020
A great overview of the conflicts, but his conclusions on the long-term effects of Mongol rule in China strike me as overly deterministic and broad.
May 7, 2020
This book was well researched and developed its material well. That being said, I was not overwhelmed with it.
December 6, 2022
You can safely say the mongols set the tune for the communists
Chinese civilization ended in ad1279
Chinese civilization ended in ad1279
January 1, 2024
Impressive historical research. Read by someone who took time to learn proper pronunciation of the names.
August 25, 2024
Interesting detail on a bit of history i knew loosely
January 21, 2025
It's ok, but the author does believe in the crazy Chinese army sizes that no serious historian believes anymore.
September 18, 2025
I didn't like this book at all. This topic was so interesting and the author did not know how to express it in words. It was just names and dates, the same thing that as a teacher I never do.
January 11, 2026
Good book. Millions of people died. The Mandate of Heaven was passed around. It was not a good time to be alive.
November 10, 2024
I struggled to keep track of all the names, but I enjoyed the book a lot.
This could easily be a dry history, but it is instead fascinating and informative, although it does start with list of events and their dates, helpful for putting things in context but dull as a brick to listen to. Once the story gets started the book gets good. Derek Perkins, the narrator of the audiobook is excellent and James Waterson, the writer, is superb, vibrant and personable.
This could easily be a dry history, but it is instead fascinating and informative, although it does start with list of events and their dates, helpful for putting things in context but dull as a brick to listen to. Once the story gets started the book gets good. Derek Perkins, the narrator of the audiobook is excellent and James Waterson, the writer, is superb, vibrant and personable.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews