In the history of China, a conquest dynasty () is a dynasty established by non-Han ethnicities who ruled parts or all of China proper – the traditional heartlands of the Han people – via military invasion and conquest. The ruling sovereigns and aristocracy of such dynasties may or may not have assimilated into the dominant Han culture, and may or may not even acknowledged themselves as Chinese. The term was coined in 1949 by German-American sinologist Karl August Wittfogel (1896–1988), who described four major dynasties as what traditionally would have been considered "conquest dynasties": The Liao dynasty (916–1125), established by the Yelü Khitans, who ruled over the Northeast China Plain and northern parts of the North China Plain after conquering the Later Jin dynasty; The Jin dynasty (1115–1234), established by the Wanyan Jurchens, who overthrew the Liao dynasty and ended the Northern Song dynasty; The Yuan dynasty (1271–1368), established by the Borjigin Mongols, who rules over all of China after conquering the Southern Song. It was originally a division of the Mongol Empire (1206–1368), who once conquered all of Northeast and North China plains after defeating the Western Xia and Jin dynasties, and; The Qing dynasty (1644–1912), established by the Aisin Gioro Manchus, who exploited the collapse of the Ming dynasty and conquered all of China after defeating the Shun, Xi and Southern Ming regimes.
An alternative concept to "conquest dynasty", also coined by Wittfogel, is the "infiltration dynasty", which describes dynastic regimes established by non-Han peoples who had already partly assimilated into the court politics and social hierarchy of Han-dominated dynasties before seizing power via coup d'état or rebellion. Examples of such dynasties include the various Northern dynasties (mostly founded by Xianbei rulers), the short-lived Yan dynasty (founded by Sogdian rebels) and three of the Five dynasties (i.e. Later Tang, Later Jin and Later Han, which were ruled by fully sinicized Shatuo sovereigns).
Concept Karl August Wittfogel coined the term "conquest dynasty" in his 1949 revisionist history of the Liao dynasty. He argued that the Khitan-ruled Liao, as well as the Jurchen-ruled Jin, the Mongol-ruled Yuan and the Manchu-ruled Qing dynasties were not really "Chinese", but are foreign regimes whose primary association with China was the result of short-term invasive conquests and their ruling families did not fully commit to assimilating into the dominant Han Chinese culture. Meanwhile, not all non-Han regimes were seen as "conquest dynasties" by Wittfogel: he considered some of these regimes, such as the Northern Wei, to be "infiltration dynasties".
The "conquest dynasty" concept was warmly received by mostly Japanese scholars such as Otagi Matsuo, who preferred to view these dynasties in the context of a "history of Asia" rather than a "history of China". Alternative views to the "conquest dynasty" concept include American sinologist Owen Lattimore's idea of the Eurasian Steppe as a "reservoir", Wolfram Eberhard's concept of a "superstratification" of Chinese society with nomadic peoples, and Mary C. Wright's thesis of sinicization. Among historians, the labelling of "conquest dynasties" has proven to be controversial, especially when using such characterization on dynasties such as the Jin.
Scope of China (Zhongguo)
In the English language, "Zhongguo ren" (; "People of China") is frequently confused and conflated with "Han ren" (; "Han people").Liu 2004, p. 266.
The term Zhongguo was used initially around the tenth century BCE and did not refer to any specific ethnicity. This ambiguity allowed different interchangeable definitions to come into existence later on. Dynasties of ethnic Han origin used "Zhongguo" (; "Middle Kingdom") to refer to Han areas of their empire. Non-Han founders of dynasties used the term to refer to a combined state of Hans and non-Hans.Zhao 2006, p. 4. The Ming dynasty used Zhongguo politically to refer to the entire country but culturally to refer to only Han areas of the empire.Jiang 2011, p. 103.
The Xianbei-led Northern Wei referred to itself as "Zhongguo" and claimed yogurt as a food of Zhongguo. Similarly, the Jurchen-led Jin dynasty referred to itself as "Zhongguo".
In 1271, Kublai Khan proclaimed the Yuan dynasty with the official name "Great Yuan" () and claimed succession from former Chinese dynasties from the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors up to the Tang dynasty. Han Chinese literati during the Mongol period thought that China, after a few centuries of division and dissension, was finally reunified by the Yuan dynasty. Their view was not shared by all contemporaries, especially the Mongols and other non-Han people (Semu) who had quite different ideas about China, and the latter considered several different kingdoms or countries as having been conquered and brought under the control of the Mongols. But similar to the development in Mongol Iran, native intellectuals interested in their own history interpreted the unification by the Mongols as a revival of their dynastic tradition, and the concept of Zhongguo was considered an important ideology and was further developed by the subsequent Ming dynasty. The revival of the concept of territorial unity, although not intended by the Mongols, became a lasting legacy of Mongol rule in China (and Iran).
Qing emperors referred to all subjects of the Qing dynasty regardless of their ethnicity as "Chinese" (), and used the term "Zhongguo" as a synonym for the entire Qing Empire while using "neidi" (; "inner regions") to refer only to the core area (or China proper) of the empire. The Qing Empire was viewed as a single multi-ethnic entity.
The Qing emperors governed frontier non-Han areas in a separate administrative system under the Lifan Yuan. Nonetheless, it was the Qing emperors who expanded the definition of Zhongguo and made it "flexible" by using that term to refer to the entire empire. Zhongguo was also used by the Qing Empire as an endonym in diplomatic correspondence. However, some Han subjects criticized their usage of the term and used Zhongguo only to refer to the seventeen provinces of China and three provinces of the east (Manchuria), excluding other frontier areas.Esherick 2006, p. 232. Han literati who remained loyal to the Ming dynasty held to defining the old Ming borders as "China" and used the term "foreigner" to describe ethnic minorities under Qing rule, such as the Mongols, as part of their anti-Qing ideology. As the territorial borders of the Qing Empire were fixed through a series of treaties with neighboring foreign powers, it was able to inculcate in the Qing subjects a sense that China included areas such as Mongolia and Tibet due to educational reforms. Specifically, the educational reform made it clear where the borders of the Qing Empire were, even if Han subjects did not understand how the Chinese identity included Mongols and Tibetans or understand what the connotations of being "Chinese" were.Esherick 2006, p. 251.
In an attempt to portray different ethnicities as part of one family ruled by the Qing dynasty, the phrase "Zhongwai yijia" (; "interior and exterior as one family") was used to convey the idea of the "unification" of different ethnic groups. After conquering China proper, the Manchus identified their state as "China" (; ; "Middle Kingdom"), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in the Manchu language (Dulimbai means "central" or "middle", while gurun means "nation" or "state"). The emperors labelled the lands of the Qing Empire (including present-day Northeast China, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet, and other areas) as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages. This effectively defined China as a multi-ethnic state, thereby rejecting the idea that "China" only meant Han-populated areas. The Qing emperors proclaimed that both Han and non-Han ethnic groups were part of "China". They also used both "China" and "Qing" to refer to their state in official documents, international treaties (the Qing Empire was known internationally as "China"Treaty of Nanking. 1842. or the "Chinese Empire"McKinley, William. "Second State of the Union Address". 5 Dec. 1898.), and foreign affairs. The "Chinese language" (Dulimbai gurun i bithe) included Chinese, Manchu, Mongol, and Tibetan languages, while the "Chinese people" (; ; Manchu: Dulimbai gurun i niyalma) referred to all subjects of the Qing Empire.
In the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk, the term "China" (Dulimbai Gurun; Zhongguo) was used to refer to the Qing territories in Manchuria in both the Manchu and Chinese language versions of the treaty. Additionally, the term "the wise Emperor of China" was also used in the Manchu version of the treaty.
The Qianlong Emperor rejected the earlier idea that only the Han people could be subjects of China and only Han lands could be considered as part of China. Instead, he redefined China as being multi-ethnic, saying in 1755 that "there exists a view of China (Zhongxia; ), according to which non-Han peoples cannot become China's subjects and their lands cannot be integrated into the territory of China. This does not represent our dynasty's understanding of China, but is instead a view of the earlier Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties." The Qianlong Emperor rejected the views of ethnic Han officials who claimed that Xinjiang was not part of China and that he should not annex it, putting forth the argument that China was multi-ethnic and did not just refer to Han areas.Zhao 2006, pp. 11-12.
When the Qing conquered Dzungaria, they proclaimed that the new land which formerly belonged to the Oirat-led Dzungar Khanate was now absorbed into China (Dulimbai Gurun) in a Manchu language memorial.Dunnell 2004 , p. 77.Dunnell 2004 , p. 83.Elliott 2001 , p. 503.
The Yongzheng Emperor spoke out against the claim by anti-Qing rebels that the Qing dynasty were only the rulers of the Manchus and not of China, saying "The seditious rebels claim that we are the rulers of Manchus and only later penetrated central China to become its rulers. Their prejudices concerning the division of their and our country have caused many vitriolic falsehoods. What these rebels have not understood is the fact that it is for the Manchus the same as the birthplace is for the people of the Central Plain. Shun belonged to the Eastern Yi, and King Wen to the Western Yi. Does this fact diminish their virtues?"Yongzheng Emperor. 大義覺迷錄 [Record of how great righteousness awakens the misguided], 近代中國史料叢刊 [Collection of materials on modern Chinese history] (Taipei: 文海出版社, 1966), vol. 36, 351–2, 1: 2b–3a.