What do you think?
Rate this book
The Manchus (The Peoples of Asia)
This book relates the history of the Manchus, the rise and fall of their vast empire and their legacy today.
- GenresHistoryChinaNonfiction
239 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1997
About the author
Pamela Kyle Crossley
66 books18 followersPamela Kyle Crossley is an historian who specializes in the history of modern China and northern Asia. Currently, she is Professor of History at Dartmouth College. She is a founding appointment of the Dartmouth Society of Fellows.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 15, 2014
As a Chinese history lover, I thought I knew a lot about the Manchus already: its rise, conquest and the Qing empire in general. Raised in Hong Kong, the standard Chinese history narrative portrays Qing as a dynasty of the ever lasting Chinese empire. The Manchus were quickly sinicized after their conquest, like all other "barbarians" in Chinese history. Manchus simply becomes Chinese, the Chinese culture prevails.
When I bought this book from a second-hand bookstore, I was expecting a casual reading about the Manchus. I want to learn about interactions between Manchus and non-Chinese, like the Mongols, Russians and other Central Asians. I didn't realize this book is written by a pioneer of a revisionist narrative of the Manchus (and the Qing empire). This book opens my eyes.
This book gives detailed account about the Manchus before the conquest of China in 1644, its origin, constituents, social structure and its evolution, relationship with neighboring regimes, especially the Ming, the Korean court and the Mongols. This part of the Manchu history is much richer than I previously learnt (which only looked at Chinese sources). Many myths broken. The progress of conquest and expansion of the Qing empire is also very interesting. More myths broken.
The chapter on emperor Qianlong is the high point of the book. Qianlong exemplifies the Qing rule: a universal empire with multiple nationality. Rather than being sinicized, as popular artworks often portray him to be, Qianlong is a strong defender of the Manchu culture who happens to be interested in other cultures as well, Chinese, Mongolian in particular.
After that, the book's narrative is close to the traditional one, other than that about the Manchu identity in the nationalistic sense. Therefore, it brings less stimulation but still well written a narrative. The comparison between Qing and other Eurasian land empires (Romanov in Russia, Ottoman, Monguls in India) is very insightful.
When I bought this book from a second-hand bookstore, I was expecting a casual reading about the Manchus. I want to learn about interactions between Manchus and non-Chinese, like the Mongols, Russians and other Central Asians. I didn't realize this book is written by a pioneer of a revisionist narrative of the Manchus (and the Qing empire). This book opens my eyes.
This book gives detailed account about the Manchus before the conquest of China in 1644, its origin, constituents, social structure and its evolution, relationship with neighboring regimes, especially the Ming, the Korean court and the Mongols. This part of the Manchu history is much richer than I previously learnt (which only looked at Chinese sources). Many myths broken. The progress of conquest and expansion of the Qing empire is also very interesting. More myths broken.
The chapter on emperor Qianlong is the high point of the book. Qianlong exemplifies the Qing rule: a universal empire with multiple nationality. Rather than being sinicized, as popular artworks often portray him to be, Qianlong is a strong defender of the Manchu culture who happens to be interested in other cultures as well, Chinese, Mongolian in particular.
After that, the book's narrative is close to the traditional one, other than that about the Manchu identity in the nationalistic sense. Therefore, it brings less stimulation but still well written a narrative. The comparison between Qing and other Eurasian land empires (Romanov in Russia, Ottoman, Monguls in India) is very insightful.
January 24, 2009
This book is quite good through about 1800: the author seems sure of herself and her knowledge of the Kangxi and Qianlong reigns seems more surefooted. Afterwards though it starts becoming more and more general and any post-1911 analysis is, shall we say, not very useful.
Her description of the founding of the Qing is quite good though, giving an idea of how the Manchus saw themselves as different and separate from the Han and then how they were able to consolidate and legitimate their rule.
Her description of the founding of the Qing is quite good though, giving an idea of how the Manchus saw themselves as different and separate from the Han and then how they were able to consolidate and legitimate their rule.
January 23, 2023
Fond memories of taking modern chinese history with professor Crossley freshman year. Her depth of interest and expertise in Manchu/Qing history was inspirational for me to better understand my own Manchu roots.
This relatively short history is punchy with professor Crossley's distinctive voice. This is not a dead rote history, Crossley comments on the mercurial subject of how a "people" emerges, as cultural construction, as shared identity, as sociological tool for control and rule. She never stoops to rote recitation of events, but dwells on the messy origins of the Manchu, emerging from a patchwork group of semi-nomadic northern steppe cultures (various Mongol tribes as well as Jurchens).
I learned that Jurchens, the primary ethnic and linguistic stock from which Manchus arose, is actually not nomadic, but sedentary and agricultural, but nonetheless preserving the characteristic horseback martial character shared with the earlier prominent Xiongnu and Mongols.
Crossley's comfort zone is the early formation of Manchu from Jurchens. Lots of interesting biographical details on Nurhaci and anthropological color on Jurchen life in the 1600s straddled between a dying Ming empire and the Korean dynasty of the time.
The story gets a bit more formulaic as we cross over to the late Qing, and the action speeds up. I wish she dwelled more on the Taiping War, although that would admittedly be a deviation on a Han Chinese civil war for a book nominally about the Manchus.
This relatively short history is punchy with professor Crossley's distinctive voice. This is not a dead rote history, Crossley comments on the mercurial subject of how a "people" emerges, as cultural construction, as shared identity, as sociological tool for control and rule. She never stoops to rote recitation of events, but dwells on the messy origins of the Manchu, emerging from a patchwork group of semi-nomadic northern steppe cultures (various Mongol tribes as well as Jurchens).
I learned that Jurchens, the primary ethnic and linguistic stock from which Manchus arose, is actually not nomadic, but sedentary and agricultural, but nonetheless preserving the characteristic horseback martial character shared with the earlier prominent Xiongnu and Mongols.
Crossley's comfort zone is the early formation of Manchu from Jurchens. Lots of interesting biographical details on Nurhaci and anthropological color on Jurchen life in the 1600s straddled between a dying Ming empire and the Korean dynasty of the time.
The story gets a bit more formulaic as we cross over to the late Qing, and the action speeds up. I wish she dwelled more on the Taiping War, although that would admittedly be a deviation on a Han Chinese civil war for a book nominally about the Manchus.
January 19, 2024
The shifting sands of historiography
Dr. Crossley wrote this first book in a proposed series on Asian peoples. I don’t know how many others were finished. But this one definitely falls between the cracks. Why? Because it loses its direction. The Manchus were not originally a single people, but, from what she says, a group of peoples inhabiting the area of what came to be known as southern Manchuria. Though they were not Mongolians, their lifestyle might have resembled that of their neighbors to some extent, though the people further north would have been living in forests rather than on steppes. A people known as Jurchens made up a large part of the “Manchus”. A coalition of Jurchen, Chinese, and Tungusic peoples under a khanate turned into an empire in 1635-36 and overthrew the Ming a few years later. There is an interesting chapter on the life of Nurgaci, the putative founder of the Manchu Dynasty or the Qing who, after the founder’s death took over China in 1644 and the name “Manchu” came into common usage.
While it is true that the Chinese felt that the Qing Dynasty was a foreign one, over the years those “foreign” rulers became very integrated into Chinese culture, despite desperate efforts to retain their vigorous energy and the Manchu language. It is simplistic to place the label “Manchu” on the Qing. We lose track totally of what was happening to any “Manchu” people except those who fit into the Chinese system at one level or another. These latter people were called “bannermen”, but as time went by it seems to me that this was a political category rather than an ethnic one. Instead of concentrating on the Manchus, the author gets sucked into the history of the Qing Dynasty that was, after a century or so, really just an overlay on China. The author claims that she describes how the two categories “Manchu” and “Chinese” wind around each other over time, but I would say she went off the rails somewhere along the line and wound up with a short history of the Qing Dynasty and its relationship to the foreign encroachments on China—for example the British East India Company and its trading patterns with China. By the time I finished I was questioning if this book could at all be considered to be “on the Manchus”. It is not ethnographic, but strictly historical, but British colonial enterprises are a long way from Manchuria and its peoples.
While I found some interesting information on the Qing connections to Tibet and Mongolia, I must also note that there were a larger number of typos and actual mistakes than usual in such a book, and the two maps were very rudimentary for readers who may not have Chinese/Manchurian geography firmly in mind. I still feel as though I read a book which was more about a dynasty than a people, if a Manchu people really existed as such.
Dr. Crossley wrote this first book in a proposed series on Asian peoples. I don’t know how many others were finished. But this one definitely falls between the cracks. Why? Because it loses its direction. The Manchus were not originally a single people, but, from what she says, a group of peoples inhabiting the area of what came to be known as southern Manchuria. Though they were not Mongolians, their lifestyle might have resembled that of their neighbors to some extent, though the people further north would have been living in forests rather than on steppes. A people known as Jurchens made up a large part of the “Manchus”. A coalition of Jurchen, Chinese, and Tungusic peoples under a khanate turned into an empire in 1635-36 and overthrew the Ming a few years later. There is an interesting chapter on the life of Nurgaci, the putative founder of the Manchu Dynasty or the Qing who, after the founder’s death took over China in 1644 and the name “Manchu” came into common usage.
While it is true that the Chinese felt that the Qing Dynasty was a foreign one, over the years those “foreign” rulers became very integrated into Chinese culture, despite desperate efforts to retain their vigorous energy and the Manchu language. It is simplistic to place the label “Manchu” on the Qing. We lose track totally of what was happening to any “Manchu” people except those who fit into the Chinese system at one level or another. These latter people were called “bannermen”, but as time went by it seems to me that this was a political category rather than an ethnic one. Instead of concentrating on the Manchus, the author gets sucked into the history of the Qing Dynasty that was, after a century or so, really just an overlay on China. The author claims that she describes how the two categories “Manchu” and “Chinese” wind around each other over time, but I would say she went off the rails somewhere along the line and wound up with a short history of the Qing Dynasty and its relationship to the foreign encroachments on China—for example the British East India Company and its trading patterns with China. By the time I finished I was questioning if this book could at all be considered to be “on the Manchus”. It is not ethnographic, but strictly historical, but British colonial enterprises are a long way from Manchuria and its peoples.
While I found some interesting information on the Qing connections to Tibet and Mongolia, I must also note that there were a larger number of typos and actual mistakes than usual in such a book, and the two maps were very rudimentary for readers who may not have Chinese/Manchurian geography firmly in mind. I still feel as though I read a book which was more about a dynasty than a people, if a Manchu people really existed as such.
June 18, 2021
Early part of the book pertaining to pre-Qing history was the most valuable and interesting to me. Some parts of the book didn't really seem all that relevant or necessary, and I found a few errors throughout the book.
May 21, 2016
This book came out in the 90s, and I have been meaning to read it since the oughts when I was in undergrad. Its a very strong cultural and political survey of the Manchu/Jurchens which includes a fair amount of information on the pre-Qing experience-which is what I was most interested in as I already know my Qing history quite thoroughly.
The only downside is the last two chapters are a bit basic and rote compared to what comes before. But I imagine most people will not be getting the book for the modern sections.
The only downside is the last two chapters are a bit basic and rote compared to what comes before. But I imagine most people will not be getting the book for the modern sections.
April 8, 2013
Couldn't finish it. Dropped the class it was for. Enough said.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews