Community hub
0 subscribers7 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Taksi.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Taksi
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2015) |
Taksi (Manchu: ᡨᠠᡴᠰᡳ; Chinese: 塔克世; pinyin: Tǎkèshì; 1543–1583), or posthumously titled as Emperor Xuan, was a Jurchen chieftain and father of Nurhaci, founder of the Later Jin dynasty, and the fourth son of Giocangga.[1][2] A member of the House of Aisin-Gioro, he was killed in an attack on Gure (古哷 Gǔlè) by a rival Jurchen chieftain Nikan Wailan in 1583.
Taksi had nine recorded children. Nurhaci was the first born son and also the most highly achieved. It seems like several of Nurhaci's brothers had names that closely resembled his phonetically.
The Seven Grievances issued by Nurhaci claimed that the Ming dynasty killed Taksi for no reason. This caused Nurhaci to declare war on the Ming, which eventually led to the destruction of the Ming and rise of the Qing dynasty.
During the reign of the Shunzhi Emperor, the court of the Qing dynasty retroactively gave Taksi the temple name Xianzu (顯祖) and the posthumous name Emperor Xuan (宣皇帝).
See also
[edit]References
[edit]_%E7%92%A7_disc.jpg){kind=small} | This Chinese royalty–related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information. |
Taksi
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
The fourth son of the tribal leader Giocangga, Taksi inherited command of the Jianzhou Left Guard and maintained alliances with the Ming dynasty while navigating rivalries among Jurchen clans.[3][4]
In 1583, he and his father were killed during a Ming-led military expedition against the rival Jurchen chieftain Nikan Wailan at Gure, an event that Ming general Li Chengliang sanctioned and that Nurhaci later cited as a primary grievance fueling his rebellion against Ming authority.[3][5][1]
Taksi fathered nine children, with Nurhaci as his eldest son and most prominent heir, establishing the Aisin Gioro lineage that would rule China for nearly three centuries.[1][6]
Early Life and Background
Birth and Parentage
Taksi was the fourth son of Giocangga (覺昌安), a prominent Jianzhou Jurchen chieftain who held hereditary command under Ming dynasty oversight and allied with Ming forces against rival tribes in the border regions.[3] Giocangga's position reflected the Ming strategy of incorporating Jurchen leaders through titles and tribute arrangements to secure the northeastern frontier.[3] As a member of the Aisin Gioro clan, Taksi's lineage traced to Jurchen tribal nobility in the Jianzhou region, a group that maintained semi-autonomous tribal structures while nominally submitting to Ming suzerainty in the late 16th century.[7] This clan would later ascend to imperial status under the Qing dynasty founded by Taksi's son Nurhaci. The Jianzhou Jurchens, including Giocangga's kin, engaged in ginseng trade, fur tribute, and occasional military service to the Ming, amidst inter-tribal rivalries and pressures from neighboring powers like Korea.[8]Upbringing Among the Jianzhou Jurchens
Taksi grew up in the Jianzhou region of northeastern China, a frontier area characterized by dense forests, rivers, and abundant natural resources like ginseng, which the Jurchens processed and traded under the Ming dynasty's oversight through the guard-post system established in the early 15th century.[9] The Jianzhou Jurchens, including Taksi's clan, maintained semi-autonomous tribal structures while nominally submitting to Ming suzerainty, paying tribute in horses, furs, and pearls in exchange for titles and protection against rivals. This environment fostered constant tensions, as Ming demands for tribute often clashed with Jurchen interests, leading to sporadic raids and diplomatic maneuvering amid broader intertribal rivalries with groups like the Haixi and Ula Jurchens. As the son of Giocangga, a mid-level Jurchen leader, Taksi was raised within a nobility accustomed to subordination under more powerful confederators, notably Wang Gao, who sought to unite Jianzhou tribes against Ming encroachments in the 1560s and 1570s. Wang Gao's raids on Ming frontiers, including the killing of a commander at Fushun in 1573, exemplified the precarious balance of defiance and survival that shaped young Jurchen elites like Taksi, whose family secretly cultivated ties with Ming generals such as Li Chengliang to bolster their position.[10] This early exposure to shifting alliances highlighted the familial power plays inherent in Jurchen politics, where loyalty to overlords like Wang Gao was pragmatic rather than absolute, setting the context for later realignments without Taksi yet assuming independent command. Jurchen tribal life emphasized martial skills, with nobility training in horsemanship and archery from youth to enable raiding for slaves, livestock, and prestige—practices central to maintaining clan strength amid resource scarcity and competition.[11] Shamanistic rituals, involving spirit invocation for guidance in hunts, wars, and decisions, permeated daily and ceremonial life, reinforcing social cohesion through beliefs in ancestral and natural forces that influenced leadership legitimacy.[12] Taksi's formative years thus immersed him in this warrior-shamanic culture, where empirical survival depended on adept navigation of Ming pressures and internal hierarchies, distinct from the more settled agrarian influences in Ming core territories.[9]Rise to Power
Inheritance of Chieftainship
Taksi ascended to the chieftainship of his Jianzhou Jurchen clan through a process reflective of the fluid succession practices among 16th-century Jurchen tribes, where leadership transitioned via kinship preference, noble consensus, and demonstrated capability rather than strict primogeniture or election by ballot. Lacking codified rules, inheritance often favored able sons or relatives who could maintain military cohesion and navigate rivalries, as seen in earlier Jurchen polities where chieftainships passed irregularly among kin to preserve tribal stability. Taksi, as the fourth son of Giocangga, exemplified this pragmatism by leveraging familial bonds and internal power dynamics to secure his position. Giocangga's strategic opposition to superiors, particularly the dominant chieftain Wang Gao, positioned the clan for elevation in the tribal hierarchy during the 1570s. Resenting subordination to Wang Gao, Giocangga orchestrated maneuvers that undermined his rival's authority, culminating in Wang Gao's defeat and death in 1574–1575 through coordinated efforts involving Taksi. These actions fragmented rival coalitions and enhanced Giocangga's clan's prestige, paving the way for Taksi's assumption of leadership around 1571, as he actively participated in consolidating control over local beile (chiefly) networks.[13] To fortify his inheritance against internal challengers, Taksi emphasized kinship alliances, drawing on extended family loyalties to unify disparate Jurchen lineages under his command, while maintaining military readiness through routine border patrols and fortifications. This approach mirrored causal patterns in Jurchen society, where chieftains retained power by balancing paternal authority with merit-based delegation to kin, ensuring resilience amid frequent inter-clan disputes. Discreet coordination with Ming general Li Chengliang provided auxiliary leverage against domestic foes, though such ties were secondary to Taksi's core reliance on hereditary claims and tribal pragmatism.[14][15]Alliances with the Ming Dynasty
Taksi forged strategic alliances with Ming Dynasty authorities to bolster his position among the Jianzhou Jurchens, leveraging military cooperation against rival factions to secure official recognition and material benefits.[9] Primarily, he collaborated with Ming general Li Chengliang (1526–1615), who commanded forces in the Liaodong region, in campaigns targeting hostile Jurchen leaders such as Nikan Wailan.[9] [16] This partnership, initiated in the context of Ming efforts to stabilize the northern frontier against fragmented Jurchen threats, positioned Taksi as a reliable intermediary, enabling him to undermine competitors like the followers of Wang Gao while advancing his own influence.[9] In recognition of his support, Ming records document Taksi's appointment as Assistant Commissioner-in-Chief in 1583, a title reflecting his status as a vassal chieftain tasked with frontier defense and intelligence provision.[9] He was later promoted to Commander-in-Chief in 1591, underscoring the pragmatic Ming policy of empowering cooperative local leaders to maintain order without direct imperial control.[9] These titles came with tangible advantages, including grants of land and authority over subordinate Jurchen groups, which enhanced Taksi's autonomy and resource base.[16] The alliances facilitated access to the Ming tribute system, where Taksi's group exchanged local products like ginseng and furs for silk, silver, and trade permits at markets such as Fushun, yielding economic gains estimated at 21,000 to 24,000 liang of silver annually in related Jurchen trade.[9] Military aid from Li Chengliang's forces provided additional leverage, allowing Taksi to conduct operations against adversaries with imperial backing, though this relationship remained transactional, driven by mutual interests in frontier security rather than enduring loyalty.[16] Ming verbiage in official annals portrayed Taksi as a subordinate enforcer of imperial will, yet the arrangement empirically served his expansion of influence within Jurchen hierarchies.[9]Military and Political Activities
Conflicts with Rival Jurchen Leaders
Taksi participated in military campaigns against rival Jurchen chieftain Wang Gao (also known as Wang Kao), whose forces rebelled against Ming oversight in the Liaodong region during the 1570s.[17] Alongside his father Giocangga, Taksi broke allegiance with Wang Gao and aligned with Ming general Li Chengliang, contributing to the suppression of the uprising; Ming forces decisively defeated and killed Wang Gao in 1574.[17] This engagement exemplified the intra-Jurchen rivalries fueled by competition for tribute rights, grazing lands, and Ming patronage amid the tribes' political fragmentation into groups such as the Jianzhou, Haixi, and Hulun branches. Such conflicts typically involved small-scale raids and defensive skirmishes, leveraging Jurchen proficiency in mounted archery and rapid cavalry maneuvers to conduct hit-and-run attacks that disrupted enemy herds and supply lines while minimizing direct confrontations. These tactics, rooted in the steppe-derived warfare adapted to the forested and riverine terrain of northeastern China, allowed Taksi's warriors to target vulnerable rival encampments, capturing livestock and dependents to bolster their own resources. Victories in these encounters enabled Taksi to attract defectors from weaker clans, thereby expanding his following and consolidating control over additional territories in the Jianzhou area. Taksi also contended with encroachments from Hulun Jurchen leaders, including Nikan Wailan, whose groups conducted predatory raids into Jianzhou domains, prompting retaliatory defenses that underscored the persistent tribal disunity and resource scarcity driving Jurchen internecine strife.[18] Through sustained success in these localized battles, Taksi increased his clan's herd sizes—primarily horses and cattle essential for mobility and sustenance—and asserted broader claims to hunting grounds and trade routes, laying groundwork for Jianzhou cohesion without relying on Ming arbitration.[17]Expansion of Influence in the Region
Taksi consolidated authority over the Jianzhou hinterlands by securing dominance over resource-rich forested areas, which provided essential commodities like sable furs and ginseng for tribute to the Ming dynasty.[9] These goods, gathered from northern tributaries and wild territories, flowed through controlled routes under his oversight, yielding substantial returns in Ming-issued silver, cloth, and official patents that reinforced his chieftain status.[19] This economic control created causal incentives for allegiance, as Taksi redistributed trade gains to kin and retainers, fostering a network dependent on sustained access to Ming markets amid rising demand for northeastern pelts and medicinals.[8] To maintain these gains, Taksi developed fortified stockades in strategic hinterland locations, leveraging timber-abundant terrain for defensive palisades that protected trade convoys and resource extraction sites from intermittent raids. Complementing this, he instituted levy mechanisms on subordinate households, mobilizing labor and warriors for patrols and resource procurement, which enabled persistent campaigns without depleting core forces. Historical annals record his command encompassing several hundred followers, including armed retainers drawn from affiliated clans, sufficient for regional assertion yet constrained by Ming oversight on tribal patents. Such systems linked territorial security directly to economic viability, positioning Taksi as a pivotal intermediary in Ming-Jurchen exchanges.Family and Kinship
Marriage and Household
Taksi's household exemplified the polygamous structure prevalent among Jurchen chieftains, where elite males typically maintained multiple consorts to forge and reinforce intertribal alliances through kinship networks.[20] His primary consort, Emeci of the Hitara clan, embodied this practice; as a second cousin, her union likely consolidated ties within the Jianzhou Jurchens, a common strategy evidenced in tribal marriage records prioritizing clan compatibility over strict exogamy.[21] A secondary wife from the Hada Nara clan further extended these networks to Haixi Jurchen groups, underscoring marriages' role as diplomatic instruments amid fragmented tribal politics.[22] Jurchen customs permitted such polygyny among leaders to ensure lineage continuity and resource pooling, with consorts often drawn from allied or subordinate clans to mitigate rivalries.[20] Taksi adhered to this, managing a household that integrated consorts, kin, and dependents in a boo (household unit) typical of the era, where domestic authority rested with the chieftain. Empirical accounts of Jianzhou elites describe these arrangements as pragmatic adaptations to nomadic-agricultural economies, balancing reproduction with political leverage. Beyond consorts, Taksi's household encompassed slaves acquired through warfare or tribute, alongside artisans and warriors who handled labor, crafting, and defense.[11] These elements formed a self-sustaining unit, with slaves—often war captives—performing menial tasks, reflecting broader Jurchen reliance on coerced labor for elite households prior to centralized dynastic reforms.[23] Such management ensured operational resilience, distinct from mere familial bonds, and aligned with chieftains' need for loyal retainers in volatile border regions.Children and Immediate Descendants
Taksi fathered five sons and four daughters, totaling nine recorded offspring, according to Manchu genealogical compilations derived from clan records.[24] These children were borne primarily by his first wife, Sitala-chi (died 1568), with the youngest son from his third wife, Hota Fei.[24] The sons, in order of birth, were Nurhaci (born 1559), Murhaci (born 1561, died 1620), Šurhaci (born 1564, died 1611), Yarhaci (died in the early 17th century), and Bayara (born 1582, died 1624).[24] The daughters, whose names are not preserved in surviving records, were married into allied Jurchen families, including those of Eidu Baturu, Hurgan, Cingiha, and Puhaha, thereby extending Taksi's kinship networks and securing patrilineal ties across clans.[24] In accordance with Jianzhou Jurchen patrilineal succession practices, Taksi's estate and authority were divided among his sons following his death in 1583, reflecting customary norms where elder sons often received primacy in leadership while younger siblings gained territorial allotments, followers, and economic resources to maintain household autonomy.[24] Nurhaci, as the eldest son, inherited the chieftainship, ensuring continuity of the Aisin Gioro clan's headmanship, while his brothers like Šurhaci and Murhaci established parallel branches that perpetuated the lineage's influence in regional affairs.[24] This fragmentation of inheritance, typical of tribal confederations, supported clan resilience but required coordination to avoid internal rivalries.[24] Manchu genealogies, such as those preserved in Qing-era compilations, provide the primary basis for these lineages, though potential omissions exist due to the destruction of early records during conflicts and the selective emphasis on male heirs in patrilineal documentation.[24] No daughters are noted as assuming independent leadership roles, consistent with gender norms in Jurchen society where female offspring primarily facilitated alliances through marriage.[24] The verifiable descent through Taksi's sons underscores the clan's foundational role in subsequent Jurchen unification efforts, with each branch contributing to the perpetuation of Aisin Gioro heritage.[24]Death and Immediate Aftermath
The Attack at Gure in 1583
In 1583, Taksi joined a Ming Dynasty military expedition commanded by General Li Chengliang targeting the stronghold of the Jurchen leader Atai at Gure (古哷), located in present-day Xinbin County, Liaoning Province.[18] Taksi's father, Giocangga, had been detained within the fortress by Atai, leading Taksi to enter Gure in an attempt to secure his release amid the ongoing siege.[18] As Ming forces breached the defenses—reportedly by setting fire to the stockade—Nikan Wailan, a rival Jurchen chieftain allied with the expedition, seized the opportunity to betray Taksi and Giocangga.[25] Nikan Wailan orchestrated their slaughter, either by urging Ming troops to execute them or directly under a fabricated charge of treason, resulting in the simultaneous deaths of both leaders shortly after the fort's fall.[18][25] Ming official records portrayed the incident as an unintended consequence of combat or an accident during the chaos of victory, while contemporaneous Jurchen oral traditions and later Qing historiography emphasized Nikan Wailan's deliberate ambush as the causal factor, underscoring the precarious alliances among Jurchen chieftains under Ming oversight.[25] This event exposed the tactical fragilities of such coalitions, where miscommunications or opportunistic betrayals could swiftly eliminate key figures without broader Ming intervention.[18]Ming Involvement and Diplomatic Fallout
Following the deaths of Giocangga and Taksi in the 1583 attack at Gure, Ming general Li Chengliang, who had directed the joint campaign against the rival Jurchen leader Atai, initially portrayed the incident as an unintended mishap amid allied forces, with Nikan Wailan—another Ming-aligned Jurchen chieftain—responsible for the killings during the assault.[25] However, contemporary accounts indicate that Li's forces had mobilized both Taksi's group and Nikan Wailan as proxies in a divide-and-rule approach to suppress Jurchen unification threats and secure the northeastern border, suggesting negligence or tactical expediency rather than pure accident, as the Ming avoided accountability by sheltering Nikan despite Jurchen protests.[26] Nurhaci repeatedly demanded Nikan Wailan's extradition from Ming territory starting in 1583, but Li Chengliang refused, granting Nikan sanctuary near the border to maintain him as a counterweight against emerging Jurchen leaders like Nurhaci, prioritizing short-term stability over vassal obligations.[27] This protection persisted until 1587, when Nurhaci's growing military pressure on Nikan's stronghold at Erhun forced Li to relent and hand over the perpetrator, allowing Nurhaci to execute him—only after Ming calculations shifted due to Nurhaci's demonstrated strength.[26] In lieu of justice, the Ming offered material and symbolic compensation to Taksi's heirs, including the return of the remains of Giocangga and Taksi, recognition of Nurhaci as hereditary successor to Taksi's command over local Jurchen levies, issuance of an official seal of authority, and trade patents permitting silk and other goods exchanges to bolster Nurhaci's position.[25] These gestures, while integrating Nurhaci into Ming tributary structures, were viewed by Jurchen accounts as inadequate redress for the betrayal, failing to address the underlying complicity and instead serving Ming interests in fragmenting Jurchen alliances through selective patronage.[26] The episode underscored Ming realpolitik in the Liaodong region, where border security trumped loyalty to individual vassals; by initially shielding Nikan and compensating without extradition, Li Chengliang aimed to prevent any single Jurchen faction from dominating, even at the cost of alienating Taksi's kin and sowing long-term resentment that eroded Ming-Jurchen trust.[25] Diplomatic fallout was contained in the short term through Nurhaci's pragmatic acceptance of the overtures, but it planted seeds of grievance, later articulated in Nurhaci's critiques of Ming duplicity, without immediate rupture in relations.[27]Legacy and Historical Assessment
Posthumous Titles and Honors
Following the formal establishment of the Qing dynasty in 1636 by Hong Taiji, Taksi's grandson, the court bestowed upon him the posthumous title of Emperor Xuan (宣皇帝), accompanied by the temple name Xianzu (顯祖).[28] This honor integrated Taksi into the imperial ancestor cult, a practice adopted to emulate Han Chinese dynastic rituals of venerating forebears as divine protectors of the ruling line.[28] Taksi was enshrined in the Qing imperial genealogy as part of this post-1636 ritual codification, which retroactively elevated early Aisin Gioro leaders to emperor status within the Zhao Shrine (昭廟), the dedicated space for ancestral tablets.[29] Such enshrinement emphasized filial piety and dynastic continuity, with annual sacrifices performed to invoke blessings from these ancestors. These titles and honors, conferred generations after Taksi's death, functioned more as mechanisms of legitimacy than reflections of his contemporary stature as a regional Jurchen chieftain; they constructed an imperial pedigree to bolster the clan's claim to the Mandate of Heaven, distinct from Taksi's documented involvement in tribal disputes rather than foundational conquests.[29]Influence on Nurhaci's Unification Efforts
Taksi's death in 1583, alongside his father Giocangga during the Ming-led assault on Atai's stronghold at Fort Gure, directly propelled Nurhaci into leadership and ignited his initial military campaigns. Nurhaci, then aged 25, petitioned Ming general Li Chengliang for redress, framing the request as filial vengeance against Nikan Wailan—Atai's successor and perceived instigator through his alignment with Ming forces—while seeking formal recognition of his succession. The Ming response, including indemnity payments, return of the remains, and conferral of the title "Dragon-Tiger General" with associated trade patents, effectively transferred Taksi's chieftainship to Nurhaci, granting him authority over the family's core followers from the Suksuhu River tribe.[3][30] This sanctioned vengeance culminated in Nurhaci's 1583 attack on Nikan Wailan, defeating him and reclaiming hereditary command seals previously held by his grandfather, symbols of Ming-endorsed Jurchen authority that bolstered Nurhaci's legitimacy among Taksi's inherited kin and allies. With only 13 suits of armor as a starting resource—likely remnants of Taksi's household—Nurhaci absorbed Nikan's followers, expanding his base from Taksi's established networks within the Jianzhou Jurchens. These early gains disrupted rival confederations like the Hulun, whose internal fractures following Taksi's demise created opportunities for Nurhaci to forge marital alliances by 1588, laying the groundwork for tribal consolidation.[3][30] Nurhaci's strategic invocation of Confucian filial piety in the Ming petition masked ambitions to exploit Taksi's alliances for autonomy, enabling resource accumulation and territorial expansion that proved essential for subsequent unification steps, such as the Eight Banner system's formation by 1601. Without the catalytic authority and momentum from avenging Taksi, Nurhaci's ability to unite disparate Jianzhou groups against larger foes like the Hada (conquered 1599–1601) would have been severely constrained, as Taksi's death simultaneously weakened competing Hulun elements and elevated the Gioro clan's position.[3][30]Scholarly Views on Taksi's Role
Qing official annals, such as those compiled in the early dynasty, depict Taksi as a pivotal early leader who consolidated Jurchen authority in the Jianzhou Left Guard through alliances and military actions, positioning his lineage as inheritors of a heroic tradition tracing back to figures like Möngke Temür. These sources emphasize his role in elevating the family's status under Ming suzerainty, portraying him as a foundational enabler of later unification efforts by Nurhaci, with events like the ambush of rival Jurchen leaders framed as astute power plays.[31] Modern scholarship, however, highlights the scarcity of contemporaneous records independent of Ming tributary documents and later Qing compilations, which exhibit dynastic bias toward hagiographic reconstruction to legitimize imperial origins. Historians like Mark C. Elliott argue that Taksi's maneuvers, including conspiracies with Ming officials to eliminate competitors like those in the Right Jianzhou, demonstrate heavy dependence on imperial patronage rather than autonomous strategic genius, underscoring the Jurchens' position as fragmented vassals rather than nascent unifiers.[32] Debates persist on Taksi's long-term significance: some analyses view him as a minor chieftain whose retrospective amplification in Qing historiography served to mythologize a linear path to conquest, while others credit his maintenance of Ming alliances and internal consolidation as indirectly enabling Nurhaci's rise by securing hereditary claims and resources amid tribal rivalries. Archival evidence from Ming wei (guard) appointments supports the latter but reveals no evidence of independent military innovations beyond routine border skirmishes. Critical assessments caution against overreliance on Qing annals due to their ideological imperatives, favoring cross-verification with Korean and Ming border reports that portray early Jianzhou leaders as opportunistic subordinates rather than visionary architects.[33][34]References
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eminent_Chinese_of_the_Ch%27ing_Period/Nurhaci
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eminent_Chinese_of_the_Ch%27ing_Period/Nikan_Wailan