Hubbry Logo
Protectorate General to Pacify the WestProtectorate General to Pacify the WestMain
Open search
Protectorate General to Pacify the West
Community hub
Protectorate General to Pacify the West
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Protectorate General to Pacify the West
Protectorate General to Pacify the West
Protectorate General to Pacify the West
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Protectorate General to Pacify the West
Traditional Chinese安西大都護府
Simplified Chinese安西大都护府
Literal meaningPacify-West Grand Metropolitan-Protection Prefecture/Office
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu PinyinĀnxī Dàdūhù Fǔ
Protectorate to Pacify the West
Traditional Chinese安西都護府
Simplified Chinese安西都护府
Literal meaningPacify-West Metropolitan-Protection Prefecture/Office
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu PinyinĀnxī Dūhù Fǔ
Wade–GilesAnhsi Tuhu Fu
Part of a series on the
History of Xinjiang
Prehistoric and ancient period
Medieval and early modern period
Modern period

The Protectorate General to Pacify the West (Anxi Grand Protectorate), initially the Protectorate to Pacify the West (Anxi Protectorate), was a protectorate (640 – c. 790) established by the Chinese Tang dynasty in 640 to control the Tarim Basin.[1] The head office was first established at the prefecture of Xi, now known as Turpan, but was later shifted to Qiuci (Kucha) and situated there for most of the period.[2]

The Four Garrisons of Anxi in Kucha, Khotan, Kashgar, and Karashahr were installed between 648 and 658 as garrisons under the western protectorate. In 659, Sogdia, Ferghana, Tashkent, Bukhara, Samarkand, Balkh, Herat, Kashmir, the Pamirs, Tokharistan, and Kabul all submitted to the protectorate under Emperor Gaozong of Tang.[3][4][5][6][7]

After the An Lushan Rebellion (755–763) was suppressed, the office of Protector General was given to Guo Xin, who defended the area and the four garrisons even after communication had been cut off from Chang'an by the Tibetan Empire. The last five years of the protectorate are regarded as an uncertain period in its history, but most sources agree that the last vestiges of the protectorate and its garrisons were defeated by Tibetan forces by 790, ending nearly 150 years of Tang influence in Central Asia.

History

[edit]

7th century

[edit]
See also: Timeline of the Tang dynasty
Map of the major protectorates of the Tang dynasty c. 660, following the campaigns against the Eastern Turks (629), the Western city-states (640-648) and the Western Turks (657). The Protectorate General to Pacify the West is marked as "Anxi Protectorate".[8][9]
Emperor Taizong's campaign against Xiyu states
Historical cities of the Tarim Basin

The Western Regions during the Tang era were known as Qixi (磧西). Qi refers to the Gobi Desert while Xi refers to the west. In 632 the oasis kingdoms of Khotan (Yutian) and Shule (Kashgar) submitted to the Tang dynasty as vassals.[10] In 635 Yarkand (Shache) submitted to the Tang dynasty.[10]

On 19 September 640 Hou Junji of Tang conquered Gaochang and set up Xi Prefecture (西州) in its place.[11][12] Xi Prefecture became the seat of the Anxi Protectorate on 11 October. Qiao Shiwang became the first protector general of the Anxi and served from 640 to 642. Guo Xiaoke received the next post and served from 640 to 648. By 644 Karasahr was also conquered, and was known to the Chinese as Yanqi. Aksu (Gumo) was garrisoned by Tang troops.[13]

In 648, the Tang conquered Kucha, known to the Chinese as Qiuci, and made it the new seat of Anxi under the governance of Chai Zhewei from 649 to 651.[12] By 650 the entire Western Region had submitted to Tang authority.[13] In 651 the seat was moved back to Xi Prefecture where it remained under the governance of Qu Zhizhan from 651 to 658.[12] In 656 the Tibetan Empire attacked Lesser Bolü in Gilgit southwest of the protectorate.[14]

In 658 the seat was moved back to Qiuci after Su Dingfang defeated the Western Turkic Khaganate. Its title was changed to "Grand Protectorate" and granted governorship of former Western Turkic territories, which were further separated into the Mengchi and Kunling protectorates.[12] In 660 the Tibetan Empire and their Turkic allies attacked Shule. The Tibetan Empire also attacked Wakhan to the protectorate's southwest.[14] When the Tang general boasted of the size of his army, Gar Tongtsen Yulsung's son responded in the following manner:

There is no disputing the matter of numbers. But many small birds are the food of a single hawk, and many small fish are the food of a single otter. A pine tree has been growing for a hundred years, but a single axe is its enemy. Although a river runs ceaselessly, it can be crossed in a moment by a boat six feet long. Although barley and rice grow over a whole plain, it is all the grist of a single mill. Although the sky is filled with stars, in the light of a single sun they are nothing.[15]

In 663 the Tibetan Empire conquered Tuyuhun southeast of the protectorate.[14] They also attacked Yutian but were repelled.[16] In 665 the Tibetan Empire and Turkic allies attacked Yutian.[14] The conflict between the Tang and Tibetans was the primary context under which the story of a Khotanese princess striving to rescue Khotan from destruction was formulated. One passage of the story in prayer form reads:

When the red-faced ones and the Chinese battle each other, may Khotan not be destroyed. When monks come from other countries to Khotan, may they not be treated dishonourably. May those who flee here from other countries find a place to stay here and help to rebuild the great stupas and monastic gardens that have been burned by the red-faced ones.[17]

In 670 the Tibetan Empire routed a Tang army at the Battle of Dafei River and attacked Gumo as well as captured Qiuci. The protectorate's seat was moved to Suyab, known as Suiye to the Chinese, in modern Kyrgyzstan.[12][14] In 673 the Tang consolidated control over the Wuduolu Turks living in the area that came to be known as Dzungaria. The Tang also captured Qiuci and established control over the Western Regions in the same year.[18] In 677 the Tibetan Empire captured Qiuci. In the same year Ashina Duzhi, previously a Tang general tasked with controlling the Wuduolu Turks, rebelled and declared himself Onoq Khagan, ruler of all Turks.[19] In 679 the Tang general, Pei Xingjian, defeated Ashina Duzhi as well as the Tibetans and established control over the Western Regions.[20]

In 686 Tang troops withdrew from the Four Garrisons after elements within the court argued for the decrease of military expenditures.[21] In 687 the Tibetan Empire established control over the Western Regions.[22] In 690 the Tibetan Empire defeated a Tang army at Issyk-Kul.[22]

In 692 Tang troops under Wang Xiaojie pacified the Western Regions and established the Anxi Protectorate at Qiuci, where it would remain until the protectorate's demise around 790.[13][22][12][23] The importance of the Western Regions was well understood by the Tang court at this point. Its strategic significance is summarized by Cui Rong, an Imperial Diarist of the court,

If we cannot defend these garrisons, barbarians will surely come to destabilize the Western Regions. And various tribes south of the Nanshan Mountain [i.e., the Qilian and the Kunlun Mountains] would feel threatened. If they link up with one another, they would pose a threat to regions west of the Yellow River [i.e., present-day Gansu and Qinghai provinces]. Moreover, if they get in touch with the Turks in the north, our soldiers will be unable to crush them by crossing the Moheyan Desert [the desert northwest of Dunhuang] that extends over 2,000 li, where neither water nor grass can be found. The tribes [loyal to China] in Yizhou, Xiyzhou, Beiting [Beshbalik], and Anxi protectorates will all be eliminated.[22]

— Cui Rong

In 694 the Tibetan Empire attacked the Stone City (Charklik).[24]

8th century

[edit]
Hephthalite envoys 6th century AD.
Tributary envoys from Qiemo, 6-7th centuries AD.

In 702 Wu Zetian set up the Beiting Protectorate in Ting Prefecture (Jimsar County) and granted it governorship over Yi Prefecture (Hami) and Xi Prefecture.[25] In 708 the Turgesh attacked Qiuci.[26] In 710 the Tibetan Empire conquered Lesser Bolü.[27]

Arab sources claim Qutayba ibn Muslim briefly took Kashgar from China and withdrew after an agreement[28] but modern historians entirely dismiss this claim.[29][30][31]

In 715 the Tibetan Empire attacked Fergana, a Tang vassal.[26] In 717 the Tibetan Empire attacked Gumo and the Stone City.[32][33]

The Arab Umayyad Caliphate in 715 AD deposed Ikhshid, the king the Fergana Valley, and installed a new king Alutar on the throne. The deposed king fled to Kucha (seat of Anxi Protectorate) and sought Chinese intervention. The Chinese sent 10,000 troops under Zhang Xiaosong to Ferghana. He defeated Alutar and the Arab occupation force at Namangan and reinstalled Ikhshid on the throne.[34]

General Tang Jiahui led the Chinese to defeat the following Arab-Tibetan attack in the Battle of Aksu (717).[35] The attack on Aksu was joined by Turgesh Khan Suluk.[7] Both Uch Turfan and Aksu were attacked by the Turgesh, Arab, and Tibetan force on 15 August 717. Qarluqs serving under Chinese command, under Arsila Xian, a Western Turkic Qaghan serving under the Chinese Assistant Grand Protector General Tang Jiahui defeated the attack. Al-Yashkuri, the Arab commander and his army fled to Tashkent after they were defeated.[36][37]

In 719 the Turgesh captured Suiye.[26] In 720 the Tibetan Empire seized the Stone City.[38] In the same year Tang bestowed titles upon the kings of Khuttal, Chitral, and Oddiyana[39] In 722 Tang restored the king of Lesser Bolü to his throne.[38] In 725 the king of Khotan (Yutian) rebelled but was immediately replaced with a Tang puppet by protectorate forces.[38]

In 726 the Turgesh attempted to engage in horse trade at Qiuci without prior authorization. The Turgesh Khagan Suluk used his marital relation with Princess Jiaohe to issue a decree ordering the Protector-General to engage in trade. However Princess Jiaohe was actually the daughter of Ashina Huaidao, and the Protector-General retorted: "How can an Ashina woman proclaim a decree to me, a military commissioner?!"[40] In response Suluk attacked Qiuci.[26]

In 727 and 728 the Tibetan Empire attacked Qiuci.[26] In 737 the Tibetan Empire conquered Lesser Bolü.[32] In 741 the Tibetan Empire sacked the Stone City.[41] In 745 the Tang general Huangfu Weiming attacked the Stone City but suffered a major defeat.[42] According to Huangfu, the Stone City was one of the most heavily defended bastions of the Tibetan Empire,

Shih-pao is strongly defended. The whole Tibetan nation is guarding it. Now if we array our troops below it, we cannot capture it without several tens of thousands of [our] men being killed. I am afraid that what would be gained is not comparable to what would be lost.[43]

— Huangfu Weiming

class=notpageimage|
The Anxi Protectorate and main contemporary Asian polities, circa 720

In 747 the Tang general Gao Xianzhi captured Lesser Bolü.[26] In 748 the Tang recaptured Suiye and destroyed it.[26] In 749 Tang recovered the Stone City.[41] In 750 the Tang intervened in a dispute between their vassal Fergana and the neighboring kingdom of Chach, located in modern Tashkent. The kingdom of Chach was sacked and their king was taken back to Chang'an, where he was executed.[26] In the same year Tang also defeated Qieshi in Chitral and the Turgesh.[44]

In 751 Tang forces suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Talas against Abbasid and Karluk forces.[26] Although the Battle of Talas saw the limit of Tang expansion to the west, the importance of the defeat at the Battle of Talas has sometimes been exaggerated. Although the Tang army was defeated, the Arabs did not extend their influence into Xinjiang, and the Karluks remained amiable to the Tang. Some Karluks converted to Islam, but the vast majority did not until the mid 10th century under Sultan Satuq Bughra Khan of the Kara-Khanid Khanate. The long-term strategic importance of Talas was overshadowed later on by the An Lushan Rebellion, which devastated the Tang homeland. It is now understood as the primary cause for the Tang retreat from Central Asia.[45][46]

My relative Huan followed Go Seonji [Tang general of Goguryeo (Korean) descent; Gao Xianzhi in Chinese, died 755], the military commissioner of Zhenxi (modern Xinjiang), to go on a western expedition. In the tenth year of Tianbao (751) he reached the Western Sea . At the beginning of the Baoying reign (761) he boarded a merchant ship and returned [to China] through Guangzhou, and wrote his Travel Record .[47]

— Du You (735–812), a relative of Du Huan

In 754 Tang forces defeated Baltistan (Greater Bolü) and Tibetan forces.[44] In 755 the An Lushan Rebellion occurred and the Tang dynasty withdrew 200,000 soldiers from the Western Regions to protect the capital.[44] In 763 the Tibetan Empire conquered Yanqi.[48] In the same year the Tang capital was briefly taken by the Tibetans before they were forced to retreat.[49]

Dignitary seized by soldiers. Kumtura painting, 8th–9th century CE.

In 764 the Tibetan Empire invaded the Hexi Corridor and conquered Liang Prefecture,[50] cutting off the Anxi and Beiting protectorates from the Tang dynasty. However Anxi and Beiting were left relatively unmolested under the leadership of Guo Xin and Li Yuanzhong.[51]

In 780 Guo Xin and Li Yuanzhong were officially made protectorate generals after sending secret messages to Emperor Dezong of Tang.[52]

In 787 the Tibetan Empire conquered Qiuci.[48] In 789 the monk Wukong passed through Shule, Yutian, Gumo, Qiuci, Yanqi, and Ting Prefecture and found that they all had Chinese commanders and were free from Tibetan or Uyghur control. This contradicts the previous conquests of Yanqi and Qiuci by the Tibetan Empire in 763 and 787, assertions made by Yuri Bregel in his An Historical Atlas of Central Asia.[53]

In 792 the Tibetan Empire conquered Yutian.[48] It is unclear what happened to Shule (Kashgar), Shache (Yarkand), or Gumo (Aksu).[48] According to O. Pritsak, Kashgar came under Karluk domination around this time, but this is disputed by Christopher I. Beckwith.[54]

Post-Tibetan domination

[edit]
Qocho, Guiyi Circuit, and the Ganzhou Uyghur Kingdom post-Tibetan Empire.

Regarding Khurasan and its proximity to the land of China, between the latter and Sogdiana there is a journey of two months. The way, however, is via a forbidding desert of unbroken sand dunes in which there are no water sources and no river valleys, with no habitation nearby. That is what prevents the people of Khurasan from launching an assault on China. Turning to the part of China lying in the direction of the setting sun, namely the place known as Bamdhu, this is located on the borders of Tibet, and fighting never ceases there between the Chinese and the Tibetans.[55]

— Abu Zayd al-Sirafi

Of the four garrisons that made up the defunct Anxi Protectorate, all eventually ended up freeing themselves or coming under the dominion of other powers by the mid-9th century. Karasahr and Kucha were occupied by the Kingdom of Qocho in 843.[56] Kashgar came under the dominion of the Kara-Khanid Khanate. The earliest approximate date of around the late 8th or early 9th century is disputed, but it was likely before 980.[57] Khotan regained its independence in 851.[58] By 1006 it was also conquered by the Kara-Khanid Khanate.[59]

List of protector generals

[edit]

List of grand and assistant protector generals of the Protectorate General to Pacify the West (Anxi):[60]

Protectorate:

  • Qiao Shiwang (喬師望) 640–642
  • Guo Xiaoke (郭孝恪) 642–649
  • Chai Zhewei (柴哲威) 649–651
  • Qu Zhizhan (麴智湛) 651–658

Grand Protectorate:

  • Yang Zhou (楊胄) 658–662
  • Su Haizheng (蘇海政) 662
  • Gao Xian (高賢) 663
  • Pilou Shiche (匹婁武徹) 664
  • Pei Xingjian (裴行儉) 665–667

Protectorate:

  • Tao Dayou (陶大有) 667–669
  • Dong Baoliang (董寶亮) 669–671
  • Yuan Gongyu (袁公瑜) 671–677
  • Du Huanbao (杜懷寶) 677–679,
  • Wang Fangyi (王方翼) 679–681
  • Du Huanbao (杜懷寶) 681–682
  • Li Zulong (李祖隆) 683–685

Grand Protectorate:

  • Wang Shiguo (王世果) 686–687
  • Yan Wengu (閻溫古) 687–689

Protectorate:

  • Jiu Bin (咎斌) 689–690
  • Tang Xiujing (唐休璟) 690–693

Grand Protectorate:

  • Xu Qinming (許欽明) 693–695
  • Gongsun Yajing (公孫雅靖) 696–698
  • Tian Yangming (田揚名) 698–704
  • Guo Yuanzhen (郭元振) 705–708,
  • Zhou Yiti (周以悌) 708–709
  • Guo Yuanzhen (郭元振) 709–710
  • Zhang Xuanbiao (張玄表) 710–711
  • Lu Xuanjing (呂玄璟) 712–716
  • Guo Qianguan (郭虔瓘) 715–717,
  • Li Cong (李琮) 716
  • Tang Jiahui (湯嘉惠) 717–719,
  • Guo Qianguan (郭虔瓘) 720–721
  • Zhang Xiaosong (張孝嵩) 721–724
  • Du Xian (杜暹) 724–726
  • Zhao Yizhen (趙頤貞) 726–728
  • Xie Zhixin (謝知信) 728
  • Li Fen (李玢) 727–735
  • Zhao Hanzhang (趙含章) 728–729
  • Lu Xiulin (吕休琳) 729–730
  • Tang Jiahui (湯嘉惠) 730
  • Lai Yao (萊曜) 730–731
  • Xu Qinshi (徐欽識) 731–733
  • Wang Husi (王斛斯) 733–738
  • Ge Jiayun (蓋嘉運) 738–739
  • Tian Renwan (田仁琬) 740–741
  • Fumeng Lingcha (夫蒙靈詧) 741–747
  • Gao Xianzhi (高仙芝) 747–751
  • Wang Zhengjian (王正見) 751–752

Protectorate:

  • Feng Changqing (封常清) 752–755
  • Liang Zai (梁宰) 755–756
  • Li Siye (李嗣業) 756–759
  • Lifei Yuanli (荔非元禮) 759–761
  • Bai Xiaode (白孝德) 761–762
  • Sun Zhizhi (孫志直) 762–765
  • Zhu Mou (朱某) 765–?
  • Er Zhumou (爾朱某) 765–778
  • Guo Xin (郭昕) 762–808

Legacy

[edit]
An 8th-century Tang dynasty Chinese clay figurine of a Sogdian man (an Eastern Iranian person) wearing a distinctive cap and face veil, possibly a camel rider or even a Zoroastrian priest engaging in a ritual at a fire temple, since face veils were used to avoid contaminating the holy fire with breath or saliva; Museum of Oriental Art (Turin), Italy.[61]
A painting of Yelü Bei, eldest son of Abaoji, the founder of the Liao dynasty.

Physical remains

[edit]

In Xinjiang and the Chu valley in Central Asia, Tang era Chinese coins continued to be copied and minted after the Chinese left the area.[62][63] Coins with both Chinese and Karoshthi inscriptions have been found in the southern Tarim Basin.[64]

Linguistic influence

[edit]

The military dominance of the Tang in Central Asia has been used as an explanation for the Turkic word for China, "Tamghaj", possibly derived from the "House of Tang" (Tangjia) instead of Tabgatch.[65]

Cultural influence

[edit]

Chinese arts and crafts such as the sancai "three color" glaze left a long lasting impression in Central Asia and Western Eurasia.[63]

In the Persian epic Shahnameh the Chin refers to China or Chinese Turkestan which was under Tang control. The Khan of Turkestan was referred to as the Khan of Chin.[66][67][68]

Aladdin, an Arabic Islamic story which is set in China, may have been referring to Central Asia under Tang influence.[69]

Political influence

[edit]

Steppe empires often utilized the prestige of the Tang by connecting themselves to the defunct dynasty. The Qara Khitan khans used the title of "Chinese emperor" while the Khara-Khanid khans called themselves Tabgach.[70] Tabgach Khan, or "Khan of China" was a common appellation among Khara-Khanid rulers.[71] Persian, Arab and other western Asian writers came to call China by the name "Tamghaj".[72]

In 1124 the westward migration of the Khitans under Yelü Dashi also consisted of a large population of Han Chinese, Balhae, Jurchen, Mongols, Khitan, in addition to the Xiao consort clan and the Yelü royal family[73] In the 12th century, the Qara Khitai defeated the Kara-Khanid Khanate and conquered their territory in Central Asia. The Khitan rulers, called "the Chinese" by Muslims, governed using Chinese as their official language as well as the Chinese style of imperial government. The effect of their administration was seen with respect and esteem due in part to China's status in Central Asia at the time.[74][75][76][77] The Chinese characteristics appealed to the Muslim Central Asians and helped validate Qara Khitai rule. Han Chinese population among them was comparatively small so it is unlikely that the Chinese characteristics were kept to appease them. Later the Mongols moved more Chinese into Beshbalik, Almaliq and Samarqand in Central Asia to work as artisans and farmers.[78]

The "image of China" played a key role in legitimizing the Khitan rule to the Central Asian Muslims. Prior to the Mongol invasions, the perception of China among Central Asian Muslims was an extremely civilized society, known for its unique script, its expert artisans, justice and religious tolerance. The Chinese, Turk, Arab, Byzantine, and Indian rulers were known as the world's "five great kings". The historical memory of Tang China was powerful enough that anachronistic expressions appeared in Muslim writings long after the end of the Tang. China was known as chīn (چين) in Persian and as ṣīn (صين) in Arabic while the Tang dynasty capital Changan was known as Ḥumdān (خُمدان).[79]

Some Muslim writers like Marwazī, Mahmud Kashghārī and Kashgari viewed Kashgar as part of China. Ṣīn [i.e., China] is originally threefold; Upper, in the east which is called Tawjāch; middle which is Khitāy, lower which is Barkhān in the vicinity of Kashgar. But know Tawjāch is known as Maṣīn and Khitai as Ṣīn" China was called after the Tuoba rulers of the Northern Wei by the Turks, pronounced by them as Tamghāj, Tabghāj, Tafghāj or Tawjāch. India introduced the name Maha Chin (greater China) which influenced the two different names for China in Persian as chīn and māchīn (چين ماچين) and Arabic ṣīn and māṣīn (صين ماصين), Southern China at Guangzhou was known as Chin while Northern China's Chang'an was known as Machin, but the definition switched and the south was referred to as Machin and the north as Chin after the Tang dynasty. As a result of Tang China's control over Kashgar, some Kashghārī placed Kashgar within the definition of China, Ṣīn, whose emperor was titled as Tafghāj or Tamghāj, Yugur (yellow Uighurs or Western Yugur) and Khitai or Qitai were all classified as "China" by Marwazī while he wrote that Ṣīnwas was bordered by placed SNQU and Maṣīn.[80] Machin, Mahachin, Chin, and Sin were all names of China.[81] According to Fakhr al-Dīn Mubārak Shāh, "Turkestan", Balasagun, and Kashghar were identified with where Chīn (China) was located.[82]

Marwazī considered Transoxania to be a former part of China, retaining the legacy of Tang Chinese rule over Transoxania in Muslim writings, In ancient times all the districts of Transoxania had belonged to the kingdom of China [Ṣīn], with the district of Samarqand as its centre. When Islam appeared and God delivered the said district to the Muslims, the Chinese migrated to their [original] centers, but there remained in Samarqand, as a vestige of them, the art of making paper of high quality. And when they migrated to Eastern parts their lands became disjoined and their provinces divided, and there was a king in China and a king in Qitai and a king in Yugur. Some Muslim writers considered the Qara Khitai, the Ganzhou Uighur Kingdom and Kashgar as all parts of "China".[83][84] After Yusuf Qadir Khan's conquest of new land in Altishahr towards the east, he adopted the title "King of the East and China".[85]

Qocho

[edit]

The Tang era of Gaochang, later Qocho and Turpan, left a lasting legacy upon the Buddhist Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho. Tang names appear on more than 50 Buddhist temples. Emperor Taizong's edicts were stored in the "Imperial Writings Tower" and Chinese dictionaries like the Jingyun, Yuian, Tang yun, and da zang jing (Buddhist scriptures) were also stored inside the Buddhist temples. Persian monks also maintained a Manichaean temple in the Qocho. The Persian Hudud al-'Alam referred to Qocho as the "Chinese town".[86]

The Turpan Buddhist Uyghurs of the Kingdom of Qocho continued to produce the Chinese Qieyun rime dictionary and developed their own pronunciations of Chinese characters, left over from the Tang influence over the area.[87]

In Central Asia the Uyghurs viewed the Chinese script as "very prestigious" so when they developed the Old Uyghur alphabet, based on the Syriac script, they deliberately wrote it vertically like with Chinese writing.[88]

Modern culture

[edit]

The Anxi Protectorate is featured in the Jade Dragon expansion for the grand strategy game Crusader Kings II.[89]

[edit]
  • A feitian playing pipa, wall painting from Kizil, pigment on stucco, Tang dynasty, 600–800.
    A feitian playing pipa, wall painting from Kizil, pigment on stucco, Tang dynasty, 600–800.
  • A Buddha statue from Shorchuk.
    A Buddha statue from Shorchuk.
  • Tang figurine from Kucha.
    Tang figurine from Kucha.
  • Tang armored horse rider.
    Tang armored horse rider.
  • Tang pottery cavalry.
    Tang pottery cavalry.
  • Tang pottery soldier.
    Tang pottery soldier.
  • Tang pottery soldier.
    Tang pottery soldier.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Protectorate General to Pacify the West

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The (Chinese: 安西都護府; pinyin: Ānxī Dūhùfǔ), commonly known as the Anxi Protectorate, was a military and created by the in 640 CE following the conquest of the Kingdom to assert control over the and adjacent Central Asian territories. Initially headquartered at (later renamed Xizhou or Turfan), it administered the strategically vital Four Garrisons—Qiuci (), Shule (), Yutian (Khotan), and Yanqi (Karashahr)—to secure the trade corridors against nomadic incursions from Turkic and other groups. Under the command of a protector-general (都護 dūhù), supported by vice-protectors and regional commanders, the protectorate handled both civil functions such as taxation and household registration and military operations to pacify local kingdoms and khaganates, enabling Tang expansion that reached its zenith in the 660s with influence extending to and . Key achievements included the subjugation of the and facilitation of cross-cultural exchanges along overland routes, bolstering economic prosperity through safeguarded commerce in silk, horses, and spices. The headquarters shifted to Qiuci in 648 CE for better tactical positioning, though it relocated amid rebellions, and the protectorate was formally divided in 702 CE into northern and southern branches separated by the Tian Shan mountains. Its decline accelerated in the mid-8th century due to Tibetan advances, the Arab victory at the Battle of Talas in 751 CE, and the disruptive An Lushan Rebellion of 755–763 CE, culminating in the loss of garrisons and effective dissolution around 790 CE as Tang authority waned in the west.

Establishment

Background and Founding

The Tang dynasty's defeat of the in 630 weakened the broader Turkic confederation and opened avenues for southward expansion into . This victory, achieved through alliances with disaffected Turkic tribes and direct military action, removed a major northern threat and shifted Tang attention westward, where the under Tong Yabgu Qaghan (r. 618–630) contended with internal divisions and external conflicts, including wars with the Sassanid Empire. The ensuing leadership vacuum after Tong Yabgu's death exacerbated fragmentation, creating opportunities for Tang intervention in the oases states of the , which served as gateways to these nomadic powers. In 640, Emperor Taizong responded to disruptions in tribute from the Kingdom—an oasis state in the that had aligned with Western Turkic interests—by dispatching General Hou Junji with an army of approximately 100,000 troops. The campaign culminated in the rapid conquest of 's capital at Jiaohe, the capture of its king Bosiong, and the kingdom's annexation, averting threats to eastern segments. Taizong then formalized direct imperial oversight by establishing the Protectorate General to Pacify the West (Anxi Daduhufu) at Xi Prefecture (modern area), initially headquartered in Jiaohe, to administer the newly subdued territories and project power against remaining Turkic khaganates. This founding reflected Taizong's strategic calculus prioritizing causal security over the Tarim Basin's irrigated oases, which anchored caravan routes vital for silk exports, importation of Central Asian warhorses, and collection of in horses and jewels. Control over these nodes not only mitigated nomadic raids that had previously interdicted trade but also enabled sustained economic inflows and , underpinning Tang frontier stability amid opportunistic expansion. Without such direct governance, intermediary kingdoms like had leveraged their position to extract tolls and favor rival powers, undermining Tang sovereignty and revenue streams.

Initial Campaigns and Organization

The initial campaigns of the Protectorate General to Pacify the West began with the Tang conquest of Gaochang in 640, when General Hou Junji led an expeditionary force that captured the kingdom's ruler, King Bosiong, and annexed the oasis state without prolonged resistance. This victory enabled Emperor Taizong to establish the protectorate formally that year, with its headquarters initially placed at the newly secured Turfan (Gaochang's capital) to oversee the eastern Tarim Basin routes. Khotan, recognizing Tang military superiority, promptly submitted tribute and aligned as a tributary state, avoiding direct conquest and allowing its local monarchy to persist under imperial suzerainty. Under the first Protector General, Qiao Shiwang (serving 640–642), the administration focused on consolidating control through garrison deployments in , laying the groundwork for a prototype military outpost system. His successor, Guo Xiaoke (642–649), expanded operations with a 644 campaign against , defeating its forces and compelling submission to prevent alliances with hostile neighbors. These actions emphasized pragmatic stabilization over extensive , integrating oasis polities via enforced tributary obligations that secured loyalty and facilitated commerce without the administrative burden of full incorporation. The pivotal 648 campaign against , led by Turkic general Ashina She'er under Tang command, culminated in the siege and surrender of its king, Hariprajna, after which the protectorate's headquarters relocated to for better strategic oversight of the central . This shift, combined with initial garrisons in conquered territories like and emerging outposts in compliant states such as Khotan, formed the embryonic Four Garrisons framework—comprising fortified military presences at key nodes to deter rebellion and monitor nomadic threats—prioritizing defensible control of vital passes and water sources essential for regional dominance. By 648, these efforts had secured core western territories through a blend of decisive warfare and alliance-building, establishing Tang authority without overextending resources into every minor polity.

Administrative Structure

Protector Generals and Governance

The Protector General (dūhù 都護) functioned as the paramount authority in the Protectorate General to Pacify the West (Ānxī Dūhùfǔ 安西都護府), embodying a hybrid military-civil role that integrated oversight of prefectures such as Xīzhōu 西州 (), Yīzhōu 夷州, and later Tīngzhōu 庭州 with direct command over defense operations and administrative enforcement. Appointed directly by the Tang emperor from among seasoned military commanders or high-ranking officials capable of navigating nomadic alliances and oasis polities, the position emphasized pragmatic control over ideological conformity, with selections prioritizing logistical acumen for sustaining supply lines across the . Subordinate staff included vice Protectors General (chéngdūhù 成都護), aides (chángshǐ 長史), and specialized secretaries for civil registries and military logistics, forming a hierarchical apparatus modeled on inner prefectural bureaucracies but adapted for frontier volatility. Governance operated through a fused system of centralized Tang directives and localized tribal integration, wherein native chieftains of Western Turkic or oasis extraction were co-opted via the jīmì 羈縻 indirect rule framework, granting them nominal titles like subordinate protectors while subordinating their forces to imperial levies. This approach conferred fiscal and judicial autonomy akin to later jiedushi 節度使 commands, allowing Protectors General to allocate tribute revenues—primarily horses, jade, and agricultural yields from controlled prefectures—for local maintenance without constant metropolitan approval, thereby minimizing administrative overhead in remote terrains. Judicial mechanisms enforced Tang legal codes selectively, prioritizing suppression of intertribal feuds or defection to rivals like the Tibetans to preserve causal chains of loyalty and resource flow. Tang historical annals, including the Old Tang History (Jiù Tángshū 舊唐書), record systematic tribute extraction, with annual submissions from integrated polities funding the protectorate's operations; for instance, quotas from and Khotan supplied cavalry reinforcements, verifiable through edicts dated to Emperor Taizong's reign (r. 626–649). drew on fúbīng 府兵 peasant-soldier rosters augmented by local nomadic levies, enabling rapid mobilization against rebellions—such as those by disaffected Türks in the 640s—while extracting labor for irrigation and waystations to stabilize nomadic-pastoral economies under imperial . This evidentiary pattern underscores the protectorate's efficacy in converting volatility into taxable stability, though reliant on the Protector General's personal enforcement to counter endemic chieftain opportunism.

Military Garrisons and Infrastructure

The Four Garrisons of Anxi, established by the Tang dynasty between 648 and 658, formed the core military presence in the Tarim Basin, with bases at Kucha (Qiuci), Khotan (Yutian), Kashgar (Shule), and Karashahr (Yanqi). These fortified outposts served as strategic hubs for projecting Tang power across the Western Regions, enabling rapid response to nomadic threats and local unrest while securing key oases along the northern and southern Silk Road routes. Rather than relying on large-scale Han Chinese settlement, which was logistically challenging in the arid terrain, the garrisons integrated local infrastructure and demographics, minimizing the need for extensive colonization. Supporting these garrisons were networks of beacon towers and enhanced road systems, which facilitated communication and troop mobility over vast distances. Beacon chains along the Silk Road corridors allowed for swift signaling of incursions, forming defensive lines that extended from the Tarim Basin toward the Pamirs. Irrigation improvements, often building on pre-existing qanat systems, sustained garrison agriculture and reduced dependence on overland supply lines from the east, adapting Tang logistics to the region's environmental constraints. Tang forces in the Anxi garrisons supplemented core troops with allied Turkic and Sogdian auxiliaries, leveraging nomadic cavalry expertise for reconnaissance and border patrols suited to the steppe-desert landscape. This pragmatic incorporation of local warriors, drawn from subjugated tribes and tributary states, enhanced operational flexibility without the full burdens of conscripting and rotating fubing from interior . Such alliances underscored a causal to demographic realities, where enlisting familiar terrain experts proved more effective for sustained control than uniform imperial imposition.

Expansion and Operations

Seventh-Century Conquests

The seventh-century conquests marked the zenith of Tang military expansion into , building on the initial establishment of the Anxi Protectorate in 640 following the annexation of . In 648, General Ashina She'er, a Turkic noble loyal to the Tang, led a campaign with 100,000 Tiele cavalry against , a key oasis state allied with the Western Turks; after a siege, surrendered in early 649, allowing Tang forces to consolidate control over the Tarim Basin's northern route. These operations subdued resistant polities like , integrating them under protector-general oversight and facilitating the extension of Tang administrative garrisons eastward from . The decisive phase against the unfolded from 655 to 659 under Emperor Gaozong. In spring 657, Su Dingfang commanded a Tang army that routed Ashina Helu's 100,000 cavalry at the Battle of Irtysh River in the Altai region, pursuing remnants westward and capturing vast territories including tribes in the Dzungarian Basin. This victory enabled the installation of puppet khagans from the Ashina clan, such as Ashina Yuanqing, to govern nominally independent but Tang-vassalized steppe confederations, extending to Ferghana and bases near the Pamirs by 659. Tang forces thereby secured transoxianan corridors, channeling tribute in horses, furs, and jewels that bolstered imperial revenues and cavalry strength. These conquests yielded causal advantages in border stabilization against nomadic incursions and economic gains from tolls, yet incurred high logistical costs from sustaining distant expeditions across arid steppes, fostering local resentments among subjugated tribes that sporadically erupted in revolts against Tang-appointed rulers. Overextension strained metropolitan resources, as garrisons required continuous reinforcements from , though short-term influxes of allied Turkic troops mitigated immediate fiscal burdens. Empirical records indicate that while tribute volumes peaked, the administrative overhead of regimes often diluted net benefits, presaging vulnerabilities without yet precipitating collapse.

Eighth-Century Engagements and Alliances

During the early eighth century, the Tang dynasty under Emperor Xuanzong (r. 712–756) focused on reinforcing the Anxi Protectorate's garrisons in the Tarim Basin to counter Tibetan encroachments. In 717, Tang general Tang Jiahui repelled a joint Arab-Tibetan assault at the Battle of Aksu, securing key western outposts against coordinated threats from the expanding Tibetan Empire and Muslim forces. Over the subsequent decades from 722 to 747, Tibet launched repeated campaigns targeting Anxi's Four Garrisons, aiming to sever Tang control over Central Asian trade routes, yet Tang forces, bolstered by periodic reinforcements from the metropolitan armies, managed to defend core holdings like Kucha and Khotan despite logistical strains from over 2,000 kilometers of supply lines. Xuanzong's Kaiyuan era (713–741) saw investments in professional long-service troops for the western frontiers, replacing short-term conscripts to sustain garrison strength amid ongoing Tibetan pressure, which included raids on Shule (Kashgar) and Anxi's administrative centers. These reinforcements, numbering in the tens of thousands dispatched intermittently, temporarily stabilized the protectorate but highlighted strategic vulnerabilities: dependence on vulnerable Hexi Corridor supply routes exposed forces to ambushes and attrition, undermining sustained projection of power beyond the Tarim Basin. The 751 Battle of Talas marked a pivotal defeat for Tang ambitions further west, where General Gao Xianzhi's army of approximately 10,000–30,000 clashed with Abbasid forces led by Ziyad ibn Salih near the Talas River; Karluk Turkic defection turned the tide, resulting in heavy Tang losses and halting expansion into without immediate Arab conquest of Tarim territories. Despite this setback, Tang retained influence in the western protectorates through nascent alliances with emerging Uighur Khaganate powers, established post-744, which deterred further nomadic incursions and preserved garrisons until internal crises eroded capabilities—alliances that pragmatically substituted for direct control amid fiscal overextension and rival pressures, rather than signaling enduring resilience.

Decline and Collapse

Internal Tang Weaknesses

The An Lushan Rebellion, erupting in December 755 when the general An Lushan declared himself emperor and marched on the Tang capitals, compelled the imperial court to recall substantial forces from frontier commands, including the western protectorate, to bolster defenses in the north-central heartland. This diversion undermined the Anxi Protectorate's operational capacity, as garrisons in the Tarim Basin and beyond were depleted to counter the rebel armies that had seized Luoyang by early 756 and Chang'an shortly thereafter. Tang annals record that by 757, the urgent need to reclaim the capitals from Yan forces—An Lushan's short-lived dynasty—prioritized internal reconquest over peripheral sustainment, with troop numbers in the west dropping precipitously as reinforcements flowed eastward. Fiscal pressures exacerbated this retrenchment, as the rebellion's devastation—estimated to have halved the empire's registered population from 53 million in 755 to around 17 million by 764—coupled with the pre-existing costs of subsidizing remote garrisons and infrastructure in , strained the central treasury. Annual expenditures on the western commands, including grain shipments and fort maintenance, had already represented a significant fiscal burden under Emperor Xuanzong's expansionist policies, but post-rebellion recovery demands, including debt to Uighur allies who aided in suppressing the revolt by 763, rendered sustained frontier commitments untenable. This overextension, rooted in the causal mismatch between imperial ambitions and finite agrarian revenues, manifested not as isolated moral lapses but as systemic vulnerabilities in resource allocation, with Tang fiscal records indicating a sharp decline in yields from disrupted heartland provinces. Further corroding command efficacy, the rebellion's aftermath elevated influence at court, where figures like Li Fuguo manipulated appointments to posts, prioritizing loyalty over competence and fragmenting military cohesion. By the late 750s, eunuch-mediated selections for protector generals often installed officials detached from local realities, as documented in Tang histories critiquing this interference for sowing distrust among field commanders and diluting strategic directives from . Such internal fractures, empirically linked to higher rates of mutinies and delayed responses in the west, accelerated the protectorate's devolution, independent of external aggressions.

Tibetan Invasions and Losses

The , under King (r. 755–797), capitalized on Tang vulnerabilities following the (755–763) to launch opportunistic incursions mirroring earlier Tang expansionist tactics into contested border regions. In 763, Tibetan armies advanced eastward, briefly occupying the Tang capital and installing a puppet for twelve days before withdrawing amid logistical strains and Tang-Uyghur counterpressure. This raid disrupted Tang command structures and emboldened further western probes, as evidenced in Old Tibetan Annals and Tang chronicles like the , which document Tibetan forces exploiting fragmented loyalties among local Turkic groups. Subsequent campaigns isolated the Anxi Protectorate by severing supply lines through the , conquered by Tibetans in 764, which effectively cut off garrisons in the from core Tang territories. Building on earlier gains in the 670s—when Tibetan-allied forces under minister Tongtsen initially overran key oases like Khotan and Aksu, prompting Tang loss of the Four Garrisons before a 692 reconquest— renewed pressure in the 760s–780s, progressively absorbing Anxi outposts through sieges and alliances with disaffected locals. , a linchpin , fell to Tibetan control amid these waves, with archaeological inscriptions from the region corroborating shifts in overlordship by the late . Tang counteroffensives, such as attempts to rally Uyghur auxiliaries for reclamation drives in the 780s, faltered due to the allies' opportunistic priorities—Uyghurs prioritized their own steppe dominance over full commitment to Tang restoration efforts—and Tibetan fortifications in the oases. The decisive phase unfolded between 787 and 790, when Tibet consolidated the remaining Tarim Basin strongholds, including final seizures of Kucha and surrounding prefectures, marking the protectorate's effective dissolution as Tibetan administrative pillars replaced Tang ones, per contemporary edicts and pillar inscriptions. These losses stemmed from Tibet's strategic mimicry of Tang divide-and-rule methods, leveraging cavalry mobility and matrimonial ties with oasis rulers against Tang overextension.

Withdrawal and Aftermath

By 790, amid escalating Tibetan incursions and Tang internal strife following the , the Protectorate General to Pacify the West was formally dissolved, with surviving Tang garrisons and administrative officials ordered to evacuate westward outposts and consolidate in eastern bastions such as (Shazhou). This retreat marked the effective abandonment of direct imperial oversight over the oases, as Emperor Dezong redirected scarce resources to fortify the against ongoing threats rather than sustain remote commands strained by severed supply lines. Contemporary accounts, including those from Tang court annals, record the relocation of approximately 10,000 troops and civilians from Anxi's remnants to by the late 780s, highlighting the pragmatic recognition of logistical overextension. The immediate aftermath unleashed a regional power vacuum, as fragmented oasis polities—previously integrated via tribute and garrisons—fragmented further, with many submitting to Tibetan suzerainty after the empire's conquests peaked in 763 by seizing the and key passes like the Iron Gate. Local warlords in sites such as and Karakhoja exploited the chaos to assert autonomy, while Tibetan forces imposed garrisons and extracted tribute from at least nine Tarim states by the 780s, as evidenced by bilingual Tibetan-Tang inscriptions from the period. Population displacements were widespread, with settlers and Sogdian merchants fleeing abandoned forts, corroborated by manuscript records of refugee influxes numbering in the thousands during the 790s. This dissolution exposed the causal limits of Tang dominion, where overreliance on allied nomads like the Uighurs proved insufficient against coordinated Tibetan assaults, paving the way for subsequent Uighur influxes into depopulated eastern fringes of the former protectorate without restoring centralized authority. The evacuation underscored imperial realism: perpetual control of distant peripheries demanded unsustainable commitments, as Tang annals note the strategic pivot to defensive consolidation over expansionist revival.

Legacy

Archaeological Evidence

Excavations at the Subashi Temple ruins near , a key site in the , have uncovered coins alongside artifacts from earlier periods, such as Han and Northern Dynasties currency, confirming Chinese economic and military penetration into the region during the protectorate's active phase from the mid-7th century onward. These finds, dated through associated , align with Kucha's role as a administrative hub under the Anxi Protectorate established in 640 CE. In 's Astana Cemetery, over 10,000 artifacts have been recovered from Tang-era tombs dating primarily to the 7th-8th centuries, including coins, figurines, and wooden documents detailing local governance and taxation under Tang oversight. These materials, excavated since the 1950s, illustrate routine administrative operations involving both officials and indigenous elites, with inscriptions in Chinese script evidencing direct influence without indications of wholesale cultural replacement. Beacon tower and garrison ruins across the , particularly in , feature adobe and stone structures dated via radiocarbon analysis and coin finds to the late 7th and early 8th centuries, such as issues from Emperor Xuanzong's reign (712-756 CE). Over 700 wooden tablets and paper fragments from these sites record soldier rations, rotations, and signaling protocols, empirically verifying the scale of Tang defensive infrastructure spanning hundreds of kilometers. Such underscores operational rather than speculative ethnic integration, with artifacts like iron tools and arrowheads pointing to sustained military readiness amid nomadic threats.

Cultural Exchanges and Linguistic Traces

Tang administrative presence in the oases introduced Chinese script for official records, as seen in wooden slips and documents from sites like Turfan and dating to the 7th-8th centuries, which facilitated amid diverse local languages such as Tocharian and Khotanese. These records, often bilingual or accompanied by translations, reflect pragmatic adaptations for taxation, , and diplomacy rather than widespread , with Chinese usage confined largely to garrisons and interactions. Local scripts persisted, indicating limited cultural imposition, as archaeological evidence shows continued dominance of indigenous writing systems in private and religious contexts. Buddhist art in the Western Regions during Tang oversight blended Central Asian motifs with Chinese stylistic elements, evident in Kizil and Kumtura cave murals from circa 650-750 CE, where flying apsaras and donor figures incorporate Tang-era drapery and facial features alongside Indo-Iranian iconography. Such fusions arose from itinerant artisans and pilgrim exchanges along garrison-protected routes, prioritizing for devotional purposes over linguistic uniformity. Sogdian merchants and Tocharian monks adapted Chinese narrative techniques in frescoes, yet retained local color palettes and compositions, underscoring exchanges driven by shared religious imperatives rather than unidirectional diffusion. Linguistic traces include Turkic loanwords entering Tang military vocabulary, such as kinship terms like njaŋ (from Old Turkic eňe, mother) appearing in 7th-century Chinese texts, reflecting interactions with Turkic auxiliaries in Anxi forces. Titles like kèhán (khan) were borrowed for designating steppe leaders, evidenced in Tang annals and fragments, highlighting pragmatic assimilation for command structures amid multicultural troops. These borrowings remained peripheral, confined to parlance without altering core Chinese syntax, as broader sinicization claims overstate impact given the persistence of Turkic, Sogdian, and Indo-European tongues in daily oasis life.

Political and Economic Influences

The Anxi Protectorate enhanced trade by stationing garrisons at key oases, which secured caravans against banditry and rival incursions, thereby enabling smaller, more efficient merchant groups. Turfan documents from the protectorate's tenure as administrative seat (670–679 CE) reveal scale-fee tax receipts documenting 37 transactions in one year circa 600 CE, alongside travel passes for caravans of approximately 12 individuals and animals, occasionally aggregating to groups of 50 by 733 CE. This security framework reduced transport risks, promoting steady commerce across the . Trade volumes included vital commodities flowing eastward to , with merchants such as Li Shaojin and Cao Lushan hauling over 2,500 kilometers from the capital to western markets. Records highlight disputes involving 275 bolts of in 670 CE, a 640 CE enumerating 4,300 , and gem transactions featuring and silver six times each in ledgers. payments to Tang troops further circulated as currency, amplifying local economic activity and underscoring the protectorate's role in channeling resources like and gems to imperial centers. Politically, exemplified loose , wherein local oasis rulers maintained internal autonomy under nominal Tang allegiance, enforced via envoys bearing gifts and periodic inspections rather than pervasive direct governance. This administrative precedent emphasized oversight for strategic ends, integrating frontier economies through diplomatic exchanges over costly assimilation. The model persisted in influencing Yuan and Qing frontier policies, evident in their adoption of analogous mechanisms to manage peripheral regions via networks and nominal hierarchies. The protectorate's longevity stemmed from profit-driven imperatives, including revenue from secured trade routes and military provisioning, as high monthly interest rates of 10% on Turfan loans attest to robust commercial incentives. Such causal factors prioritized economic gains—facilitating , , and gem inflows—over altruistic expansion, countering interpretations of purely prestige-motivated control amid the logistical strains of distant administration.

Successor States and Long-Term Impacts

The Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho, established in the Turpan Basin following the collapse of the in 840, directly inherited and adapted Tang administrative structures from the former protectorate, including prefectural divisions and garrison systems to manage oasis settlements along the . These Tang-style prefectures facilitated centralized control over agricultural and trade hubs, with Uyghur rulers employing Chinese-influenced bureaucratic titles and fortification techniques evident in sites like Por-Bajin, which incorporated Tang building methods until the kingdom's destruction by Kyrgyz forces in 840. Later steppe empires drew on these oasis-control tactics, with the Mongol (successor to Yuan oversight in the ) deploying garrisons and appointed overseers to dominate dispersed settlements, mirroring Tang strategies of supplemented by military posts. The Timurid regime in the 14th–15th centuries similarly utilized fortified outposts and networks in eastern to secure routes, perpetuating the protectorate's model of leveraging local elites under imperial supervision for economic extraction. Chinese dynastic annals, such as the Old Tang History and New Tang History, preserved detailed records of the protectorate's boundaries and governance, informing subsequent imperial maps and claims to the Western Regions as core territory, as seen in Yuan and Ming historiography that referenced Tang precedents to assert legitimacy over Xinjiang despite intermittent control. This continuity counters interpretations minimizing Tang authority as peripheral suzerainty, as primary records document over 700 military colonies and appointed officials exerting fiscal and judicial oversight from 640 to 750.

References

  1. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Terms/duhu.html
  2. https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/ChinaProtectorateAnxi.htm
  3. http://english.scio.gov.cn/2019-07/22/content_75017992_3.htm
  4. https://kipchaks.com/what-happened-to-the-western-turkic-khaganate-after-the-collapse-of-the-unified-state-of-the-ancient-turks/
  5. https://webofproceedings.org/proceedings_series/ESSP/CSTSS%25202019/CSTSS110433.pdf
  6. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/xiyu.html
  7. https://www.nouahsark.com/en/infocenter/spotlight/silk_road/history/tang-dynasty.php
  8. https://www.chinahighlights.com/silkroad/history.htm
  9. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldcivilization/chapter/trade-under-the-tang-dynasty/
  10. https://www.academia.edu/4333611/Khotan_Pre_Islamic_History
  11. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Tang/tang-admin.html
  12. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004512597/BP000012.xml
  13. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Terms/fubing.html
  14. https://www.bjreview.com/Xinjiang_Today/202506/t20250604_800403669.html
  15. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-royal-asiatic-society/article/tang-legacy-on-the-silk-road-during-the-uighur-era-urbanisation-in-the-eastern-tianshan-region-during-the-ninth-to-thirteenth-centuries/D1C28E4E56AF58DBD26C06FA8B0CFAB9
  16. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/xinwen/files/western_regions_english_translation.pdf
  17. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004523722/BP000013.xml
  18. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khotan-i-pre-islamic-history/
  19. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/tibet.html
  20. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004512597/BP000012.pdf
  21. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-battle-of-talas-195186
  22. https://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/198205/the.battle.of.talas.htm
  23. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Tang/tang-event-anlushanrebellion.html
  24. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-worldhistory/chapter/decline-of-the-tang-dynasty/
  25. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Tang/tang-event.html
  26. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-worldcivilization/chapter/decline-of-the-tang-dynasty/
  27. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/power-emasculated-eunuchs-great-clans-and-political-reproduction-
  28. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/tibetans-capture-changan
  29. https://places.kmaps.virginia.edu/features/15483
  30. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2184&context=ccr
  31. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004482944/B9789004482944_s006.pdf
  32. https://silkroadresearch.blog/2018/09/19/protectorate-general-to-pacify-the-west/
  33. https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat6/sub32/entry-4422.html
  34. https://historyguild.org/the-tang-dynasty/
  35. http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/dunhuang/dhhistory.html
  36. http://www.silkroads.org.cn/portal.php?mod=view&aid=2478
  37. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004512597/BP000023.xml
  38. https://www.farwestchina.com/travel/turpan/astana-tombs/
  39. http://www.ecns.cn/hd/2019-08-01/detail-ifzmsrxe1260845.shtml
  40. https://www.koreaherald.com/article/2913693
  41. https://deepchina.substack.com/p/what-did-the-archaeological-findings
  42. http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202008/06/WS5f2b44f1a31083481725e77c_2.html
  43. https://www.nature.com/articles/s40494-025-01684-0
  44. http://en.chinaculture.org/2020-07/31/content_1482726.htm
  45. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khotan-i-pre-islamic-history
  46. https://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp181_buddhist_art_sogdiana.pdf
  47. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/buddhist-art-styles-and-cultural-exchange-along-the-silk-road/
  48. https://elib.sfu-kras.ru/bitstream/handle/2311/157525/18_Burkitbayeva.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  49. https://www.academia.edu/30567986/OLD_TURKIC_KINSHIP_TERMS_IN_EARLY_MIDDLE_CHINESE_by_Alexander_Vovin_and_David_McCraw
  50. https://history.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/hansen-silk-road-trade.pdf
  51. https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-576
  52. https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-53
  53. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-mongol-empire/mongol-central-asia/D4970E08F6EAD86F9BF503BDDE2692BD
  54. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=138636
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335925258_Historical-Sociological_Background_of_the_Relationship_between_China_and_Xinjiang_Region
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.