The Military Collapse of the Ming

 Fear not, gentle reader, or at least those who are thinking ‘Not another 1600 – Something post’. No, indeed, I have been reading, albeit slowly, a book which has been on my road map for a while, but which I have only just finished.

The said tome is The Military Collapse of China’s Ming Dynasty, 1618-1644, by Kenneth M. Swope (Routledge, 2014). Swope is, of course, the author of another book reviewed here, about the Japanese invasion of Korea in the 1590s, and, to some extent, this is a follow-up to that book. Swope asks the question of how, in the first half of the next century, the Chinese military machine could have collapsed so far. After all, in the 1590s, it was capable of defeating the Japanese military, rated by many people as being particularly good. But by the 1640s, it went down to a bunch of peasant rebels and barbarians from beyond the Great Wall.

The normal account of the collapse of the Ming empire is of increasing corruption and lethargy. The old empire, it says, lost the Mandate of Heaven, its officials were either incompetent or corrupt, and, in many cases, treasonous. Its leadership had drifted so far from the people that they did not know how to handle rebellion, and it only needed a shove from outside to implode. All very reasonable.

Swope, of course, has a slightly different account. His book starts with the failed Liadong campaign of 1619, where the Ming did not manage to bring the Jin to heel. This was for a variety of reasons, including incompetent military leadership, logistic difficulties and the possession, by the Jin, of internal lines of communication which allowed them to defeat the columns in detail. Closer inspection of the circumstances yields a picture of overlapping lines of command, conflicts between civil and military officers, and a near-fatal lack of decision-making at the centre.

The result was a fascinating, albeit gory, slide into the destruction of the Ming Empire, although, as Swope observes in the conclusion, the Little Ice Age certainly did not help. After all, many other polities suffered from starvation and rebellion in the middle of the Seventeenth Century – most of Europe and Britain were engulfed in warfare, for example, and the Eastern Europeans did not fare much better.

For the wargamer, there are a few set pieces to consider. The Liaodong campaign of 1619 is detailed, and there is a final section on the Battle of Shanhaiguan, 1644, which led to the overthrow of the newly declared Shun dynasty and the advent of the Manchu Qing. I believe that the latter battle is occasionally referred to as the Chinese Hastings, although the forces engaged in Hastings were paltry compared to Shanhaiguan. The final Manchu cavalry attack was carried out by 20000 men.

That fact underpins a lot of the problems and wargame opportunities with Early Modern China. China is big, very big. The mere fact that the Ming lasted so long is testimony to the fact that, firstly, the Ming were not widely regarded as incompetent or having lost the Mandate of Heaven at least until 1644, and were reasonably popular, as far as it went in a very large country indeed.

It is a shame that the activities in Asia are not more widely known and wargamed. There is a bit of a dearth of information (Swope’s book is academic, and its cost was commensurate with that), and even this book, combined with the available Ospreys, gives only a flavour of the forces. Still, there are some interesting snippets to take away and ponder.

Firstly, artillery was important. The Chinese made their own and also imported foreign cannon, some with Portuguese gunsmiths and crew. Until the Manchu got their artillery act together, they did not make all that much progress against Chinese fortresses. Once they did, the Chinese had to withdraw their artillery into the fortresses themselves. Yes, you read that right, in the early days, the Chinese artillery was deployed outside the walls. It seems to me that the idea was that a few salvoes from the guns and the barbarians would run away. This was probably true until the more disciplined Manchu arrived.

The other thing to garner from the book is the peasant rebellions and the Ming attempts to contain them and put them down. Again, the numbers are huge, and the operations are on a vast scale. In fact, that was part of the problem. The Ming had real logistical problems in supplying their forces, and frequently, the peasants feared the arrival of government forces more than they did rebels. Again, as the rebels advanced, they gained numbers, arms and equipment, including gunpowder weapons, and confidence.

The book details a couple of sieges. One a fairly local affair where a country town held out against rebel forces. With the cooperation of officials, local gentry and the townspeople, the town survived. Swope observes that the Ming polity was not doomed from the outset, but let down by infighting between officials, attempts to gain office and take down one’s rivals, and a fatal lack of understanding between civilian and military commanders, exacerbated by the Emperor’s habit of sending eunuchs from court to take control. When officials objected, he pointed out that he could not trust anyone else to carry out his orders!

There are some maps, mostly useful, in the book as well. One of the key areas was the Bohai Gulf in the north-east, where China, Korea and Manchuria meet. There was quite a lot of naval activity in the Gulf, which was a bit of a surprise to me, as I thought the Chinese had abandoned naval action. In the Korean war, there was a lot of transport, but they did not really, so far as I can recall, get involved in the naval action. I will have to recheck that.

Still, a fascinating book on an under-appreciated part of wargaming, I think. In 1600 – Something, the Chinese are currently rich and fairly inactive. I suspect that might change.

1600 – Something: Khmer Against Siam

Anyone who has read this blog for any length of time will know that I am a bit partial to getting elephants onto the wargames table. Even in 6 mm scale, and with my painting, there is something noble and dangerous about a large animal charging around a battlefield. Of course, with the advent of firearms, elephants were much less used, as they cannot be trained to tolerate loud bangs (very wise, elephants), but around 1600, firearms had not made major inroads into South-East Asia.

Which brings us to the next action in the 1600 Something saga. In South-East Asia, the Khmer invaded Siam, and both armies had support. So the game was fixed at eighteen bases a side. After a bit of calculation, each side had 2 elephant bases, one of which was the general, 12 tribal foot bases, 2 cavalry and 2 bows. Each side could have dropped a cavalry base and added another bow, but both ‘decided’ to go for the extra horses.

Now, immediately, I had a problem. An investigation of the box containing South-East Asians indicated that only 9 bases of tribal foot were available. This is, of course, a legacy of the rebasing project, where the number of infantry bases was halved, and the number of figures on a base doubled. Even so, I could not have fielded two augmented armies under the old system.

While I may well obtain some more Siamese / Khmer / Burmese foot at some point in the near future, I do not want to bog the campaign down too badly, so some innovation was required. I have sufficient tribal foot for three-quarters of one side, and that was made up with Chinese blades, which are close enough. For the Siamese, I ranged a bit further afield, and the trusty Aztec foot was deployed. As you may recall, even after rebasing them (again), I have a fair few of them, and a dozen bases barely made a dent in the box contents.

The terrain was a bit of a pain, to be honest. The table, as seen above, was bisected by a river. In order for there to be a game at all, I decided that my usual view of rivers, that they be uncrossable except at a ford, needed to be modified, and so bases were permitted to ford the river under usual stream conditions, that is, not rolling a six and taking two terrain shaken markers upon emerging.

The Khmer are deployed to the left above, the cavalry on the far side, then the bulk of the tribal foot, the elephants, the bows and then the right flanking force of tribal foot. The plan was for the right to cross the river, reform, and then support the centre in crossing, and so on. The Siamese plan was, essentially, to fight on the riverbank, taking all possible advantage of the effect of the terrain.

The picture shows the plans developing. The Khmer right have forded the river and reformed, and are now facing some Siamese tribal foot who have moved over from the centre. In the distance, you can see the Khmer archers and elephants attempting to cross the river, while the Siamese archers and elephants have moved up to oppose them.

The Khmer right got the drop on their opponents in the foreground and routed half the Siamese tribal foot. However, the other half have staved off the assault, leaving the Khmer right only sort of victorious. In the centre, the archers are reforming after crossing the river, while the Siamese archers are busy disrupting the rest of the tribal foot.

The action in the centre was complex and confusing. You can see the Siamese have moved up some tribal foot to oppose the Khmer archers, while the Khmer elephants have attempted to cross the river. The general has driven back the Siamese archers, but the other base has been held on the riverbank. Meanwhile, more Khmer tribal foot are attempting to cross the river.

It did not get much more straightforward. In the foreground, you can see the rallied Khmer tribal foot and the sub-general about to take the remaining Siamese in the rear. This did not go well for the Siamese, of course. In the centre, the Khmer general has routed some archers, but the other elephants have been dispatched by the Siamese archers. The Siamese sub-general has brought up some more tribal foot to oppose the Khmer crossing, while the Siamese elephants lurk in the centre, looking menacing.

The next turn was a busy one. On the Khmer right (out of shot), the remaining Siamese tribal foot were eliminated. The Khmer archers stalled the advance of some more tribal foot. The Siamese sub-general charged his troops into the Khmer who had crossed the river and routed them. He was then taken in flank by the Khmer general on his elephant. Remarkably, however, the elephant was bounced as the Siamese foot rushed past in pursuit. At this point, Khmer morale turned a bit dodgy, so the army had to fall back (which is why the archers are in the middle of the river). On the far side, the rest of the Siamese foot has been bounced by the Khmer. As I said, there was a lot going on….

The end for the Khmer came when I realised that the Siamese general was within range of the rear of the Khmer general. While everyone else was busy running away, wondering what was going on, rallying, or, in the case of the Khmer right, desperately trying to get into the fight, the Khmer general was routed, and the Khmer army followed suit.

That was great fun as a wargame. With no firearms on the table, the action felt much like an ancients wargame, and, finally, the rebased Aztecs got a victory. I think, given the terrain, the Siamese got their tactics right. The Khmer should have waited longer before attempting to cross the river, so their right could have supported the centre. But the Khmer right was delayed by the Siamese right refusing to collapse as quickly as they would have liked.

Strategically, of course, the Khmer now have a problem, with no army left and a war with Siam to deal with. They will have to hope that the campaign gods have mercy on them, I think.

1600 – Something: Mongol Civil War

Those of you (is there anyone?) who have been following this campaign closely will recall that in Summer 1605 there were to be some ructions among the Mongol tribes, whose territories run along the northern edge of the map from Persia to the Jurchen. After some dice rolling and suitable pondering (and counting of territories) it was determined that the specific ruction was a Mongol civil war between two tribes in the province of Khalkha. If you do not know where Khalkha is, you can join the club. On my map, it is to the north-west of Mongolistan.

Now, as I observed before, my knowledge of political geography in early seventeenth-century Mongol territory is sadly lacking, so what follows is even more made up than usual. However, the region seems to have been really rather unstable, although, of course, the glory days of Mongols conquering everything, everywhere, from China to the Near East and Western Europe were long gone.

As this was a civil war, both sides were card drawn. I allotted Ace – 6 as light cavalry, 7 – Q as heavy cavalry and a King would be either militia or skirmishers. The defenders (side one) got 4 light cavalry, 6 heavy cavalry (hereafter simply cavalry) and two militia. I think their leader should give up on the fighting and take up poker, myself. The attackers (side two) got a standard army of 6 light cavalry bases and 6 cavalry bases.

The terrain is above, with the initial deployments. The defenders, who were dubbed the ‘White Sheep’ after their dice, are on the left. The camp is top left, on the top of a hill, defended by the militia. You’ll notice that the bases of these nomads are green. This is because I do not have sufficient Mongol figures for both sides, so the defenders got a hotchpotch of Chinese, Ottoman and Tartar figures. After some whining and a check that the footprint of the armies would not increase (i.e. that I have room in the boxes for some more), permission has been granted to obtain some more Mongols. But I think they will be on green bases to differentiate them from the others, as well as because the campaign rules permit hiring Mongols as mercenaries.

The attackers, the Black Sheep, are to the right, of course. The only other item of interest is the rough ground behind their centre. I realised the last time I had a wargame in a semi-arid region that I do not have any rough ground terrain, and so produced some just in time for this action. It is all polyfiller except for the scrub, and in my view, turned out quite nicely. It will certainly do the job. Anyway, the plan for the Black Sheep was to mask the centre and right and attack on the left.

The Black Sheep plan was implemented, as seen. It did not go quite as well as hoped, as the White Sheep light cavalry administered a bit of a thumping to their opposite number, even though they were outnumbered. On the far side, you can see the Black Sheep light cavalry in some disarray, while on the near side, while things are a little better, one base has been both shaken and recoiled.

I should note that the White Sheep tempo rolling was superb. They only lost the tempo once in the entire game, which does seem to give a bit of an edge in the light cavalry combat. Still, the Black Sheep kept on going, and on their left have started to force the White Sheep light cavalry back, while bringing the central cavalry into charge range of the White Sheep cavalry.

The point at which the White Sheep lost the tempo was, of course, the time the Black Sheep needed to win it to charge home. They did this successfully on the charge roll, but, as you can see, not initially as successfully on the first combat round. On the far side, you can see the light cavalry on both sides still plugging away, incidentally.

The cavalry combat nearest the camera eventually went the Black Sheep’s way, and the result is two Black Sheep bases rallying on the table edge while the third, which had a tougher fight, is about to pursue off said edge. The White Sheep survived the subsequent morale throw quite handsomely, and have turned their remaining light cavalry onto propping up the flank. I did wonder if the light cavalry could have been better occupied in harassing the victorious Black Sheep cavalry and preventing them from rallying, but I was also concerned that the Black Sheep light cavalry could disrupt the central cavalry block and open them to a disadvantageous charge.

After a bit of reorganisation, the Black Sheep left-wing cavalry returned to the fray. One base took out a light cavalry base, while on the far side, the Black Sheep lights scored their first success, routing another light cavalry base. The White Sheep morale slumped at this, and they fell back, which left their central cavalry to be flanked by the victorious Black Sheep cavalry, but which saved another light cavalry base from an untimely demise.

It could not go on much longer, of course. The first base of the central White Sheep cavalry was routed, although the heroic general turned the next base to stem the flow. However, although the morale throw indicated only another fallback result, the White Sheep general felt that the game was up, having lost 6 bases against none. He therefore gave the order to withdraw and sent out an offer of peace to the Black Sheep, along with a suggestion that they settle their differences over a game of cards.

That was a good game between slightly unequal sides. I expected the White Sheep to do a bit worse than they did, but the militia were hardly in action, and their light horse did very well considering they were outnumbered. The White Sheep were helped by their tempo rolling, which meant that the Black Sheep only rarely got sufficient tempo to move, let alone control the light cavalry battle. But in the end, the charge of the Black Sheep left wing clinched the day.

Next up is a supported Cambodian army against a supported Siamese army. Eighteen bases a side, and guess what, I do not have sufficient bases for this one, either.

Figure Substitution - The Reckoning

 Aside from all the tabletop action relating to the 1600 Something campaign, I have been pondering and, occasionally, doing other things wargame-related. The pondering is really further consideration of how far I am prepared to go to substitute figures for the ones I actually need to fulfil an army list requirements for an army.

Now, I am not an army list aficionado, although as my loyal reader will be aware, I do find them fairly useful on occasion. I have perpetrated a few army lists in my time, I admit, but I tend to treat them more as a guide than as a requirement. And, occasionally, I do suspect that they can simply be in error. This is inevitable, I think. History is like that, and the chroniclers of ancient wars were not writing for the Twenty-First Century wargamer.

Still, there are a few categories here which I can find in the substitution ranks. The first is where the figures simply do not exist. In this case, I think, anything which vaguely looks the part will do. In my case, as documented, Siberian tribes were played by Aztecs. I do not have a problem with this, and, if the situation arises again, I imagine the Aztecs will be deployed.

The second category is perhaps the more interesting, and I am facing it now in the campaign. I have on hand a Mongol civil war. Now, in my collection, I have a box carefully labelled ‘Central Asia’, and I know it contains Tibetans and Mongols. A quick base count revealed eight bases of light cavalry, ten bases of cavalry, two bases of militia, one base of skirmishing slings, and one base of Nepalese archers.

A delve back into my archives or the original 1618-Something army lists did show that, in fact, I do not seem to have had independent Mongol tribes. I am not sure exactly why not, but there you go. However, I did have a Tibetan army in the list, which consists of 8 cavalry, 4 militia, 2 archers and 2 skirmishers. Checking back with the DBR lists, this seems not unreasonable for a Tibetan 100 AP army.

Considering that the foot has been rebased to halve the number of bases, I can now see that the bulk of the cavalry, at least, are Tibetan, and a check of the Irregular 2 & 6 mm catalogue suggests that this is the case, except that some Mongol cavalry have been used for a bit of variety. After a bit of rejigging to actually conform a bit more closely to the DBR list and to my 12 base per army requirements, I came up with a list which reads: Tibetan: 8 Cv, 2 Mi, 1 Bw, 1 Sk or Bw.

Forgive the shorthand, but this indicates I have an army of 8 cavalry, 2 militia, an archer, and another archer or a skirmisher base. This fits with what is in the box, at least. How accurate it might be, I am really not sure, but it seems to be reasonable. Attempting to find out anything much about Tibet in the Seventeenth Century is a bit tricky, even with the Internet.

So, on to the Mongols. Looking back, I found a blog post here from several years ago, which was a one-off Tibetan against Mongols bash. The Tibetans were as per my original army list, while the Mongols had, of course, the light horse and some cavalry. From looking at the pictures and re-reading the text, I found that the cavalry on this occasion was Ming Chinese.

I had to confess to the Estimable Mrs P. that I had cheated with the Mongols the last time they were out. She looked with compassion on her temporarily deranged husband and pointed out that it was a hobby, and therefore did not matter that much. Fair enough. But my detective work still leaves me with a dilemma. Do I ‘need’ more Mongols?

The scare quotes are, of course, because a wargamer’s need is not the same as most of the population's need for food, housing and so on. With the ancients, I eventually decided on being able to put two armies on the table for each nation. This led to some fairly large armies, as we are talking 20 bases a side forces here, but it did work. I could then have Sarmatian civil wars and so on.

I am slowly starting to implement the same policy for the Early Moderns. For example, I am currently very slowly painting up another 6 bases of Japanese, so I can, in fact, deploy 24. I have also built up the Ming a bit, as well as the Koreans. The Western armies are already at and beyond the threshold, although some of the Eastern European forces, such as the Poles, might need a bit of reinforcement.

In the campaign, I have already had a Jurchen civil war action, with substitute forces, and now I am faced with a Mongol one. I can probably scrape together the forces; the basic army is 6 light cavalry and 6 cavalry, but I might be feeling a bit guilty about it. Is this rational?

Still, I suppose as a final flourish, you might be aware of a ‘why we write wargame blogs’ thing going around. Very interesting and varied reasons, I think. But the foregoing indicates another reason, and one which is partially why I started to write. The blog is a record of my activities, and I can look back to find out how I solved problems in the past. The Mongols and Tibetans is a case in point.

There is also, of course, the comment Donald Featherstone makes in Solo Wargaming, that a discouraged wargamer can look back at their journal (he was writing in a pre-Internet ages, of course) and recall the wargames of the past with a smile. I do not do this all the time, of course, but as I might have demonstrated above, it can be occasionally, and unexpectedly, useful.