Talk:Sino-French War
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 9, 2005, June 9, 2006, June 9, 2009, and June 9, 2010. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Where is this "Spanish and Filipino volunteers" business coming from?--143.213.132.69 07:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don’t know Uk5056547 (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Winner and Loser
editThis page[1] is certainly more accurate about the winners and losers of this war:
"While neither side could be considered to have a military victory in the Sino-French War, China was considered the actual loser. China had entered the war to prevent France from destroying the relationship of a protectorate that existed between China and Annam. The Chinese were also eager to avoid having France as a neighbor. China obviously failed in both of these goals. The relationship between China and Annam was severed as the treaties establishing Annam as a French colonial possession were recognized by China. France became China's newest neighbor."
- What is the difference between a "de facto victory" and a "victory"? You might say that the first is assumed to be a victory while the second is declared to be a victory (or something else), but that is irrelevant and smacks of semantics. Even this article you gave basically says the French won, though I'm not sure about the part of military victory. After Foochow, French victory in the war was certain. The Chinese had success on the ground, but it was not decisive at all. The fact that they could not fully defeat the French on land, and Foochow of course, brought them to the table.UberCryxic 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Another user is trying to change the result again. I think it has been established that the French came out ahead in this struggle. They practically accomplished all of their objectives, especially politically. China essentially agreed to leave the area under French influence. It would not make sense to call the outcome anything but a French victory.UberCryxic 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The last user trying to change the result pointed out that a cease-fire favorable to the French does not mean that the French won the war. Ok, that alone does not prove that the French won the war, but the French won in spite of the cease-fire. They had full control of the seas as a result of Foochow and were holding on the ground despite being outnumbered overwhelmingly. Unless your definition of victory includes a French march to Bejing, which would have been logistically insane, then even militarily this is a French victory. However, that the cease-fire was favorable to the French reinforces the notion that this was, in fact, a victory for France.
Something else: normally we don't put diplomatic outcomes in the Result box. Writing "negotiated cease-fire" in this article is equivalent to writing "Versailles Treaty" in the World War I article. But as you can see for yourself, the first thing it says is "Allied victory," and then it proceeds to explain some things. In principle, I would be fine if for this article it read "French victory; negotiated cease-fire."UberCryxic 15:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Based on the current disputes and discussion, I have for now changed the wording to: "negotiated cease-fire; French victory considered by some people" for NPOV reasons. If everyone agrees French was indeed victorious in the war after the discussion, the phrase "considered by .." will be dropped.--64.231.79.66 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Saying if "everyone agrees" is almost certainly geared towards wanting or ensuring the failure of your proposition. Obviously not everyone will agree that this was a French victory. According to another user (or you maybe, I don't remember), the Chinese Wikipedia had a conflict precisely about this issue. In the French Wikipedia, it says this was a French victory. There is a conflict here, no need to deny it. But the majority view, at least in the West (and certainly in France), is that it was a French victory. In China I wouldn't be surprised if they thought something else.UberCryxic 04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear all, That my very first 'contribution' to Wikipedia so I am sorry if I am not doing thing properly... When I read the article, it is written: 'Result: Chinese military victory, French diplomatic victory' Reading this, it is clearly imply that France somewhat sneaky 'stole' Tonkin instead of 'winning' it. It is really seems like 'Chinese victory' (written in first). But I would argue that: - France reached all its strategic objectives - France won 'Final engagements' cf: (French) 'Formosa expeditionary corps won two spectacular victories in March 1885.' - France won more battles cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_France_in_modern_history Wikipedia page, looking at 'Sino–French War (1884–1886)' section - Military point of view, reading the article, some might think that Chinese have been more help by the political struggle in Paris than a decisive military victory on the field (see end of the article) - Last but not least, France had less 'Casualties and losses' (cf: '2,100 killed or wounded' [for France] / '10,000 killed or wounded' [for China] with less forces engaged (cf: '15,000 to 20,000 soldiers' [for France] / '25,000 to 35,000 soldiers' [for China]) So, even in military side, some peoples would 'claim' a French victory. Of course Chinese/Taiwanese will not agree with this statement. So why making, at 'any cost', a comment on military side with a —'Winner'— that will be in every cases disputed either by Chinese/Taiwanese or by French? 1st suggestion: Would it be more historically accurate to consider the military point of view as: 'Negotiated cease fire' or 'Stalemate'? Result: Negotiated cease fire (or Military stalemate) France maintains control over territories conquered during Tonkin Campaign before June 1884 French political* victory Treaty of Tientsin
- Since France politically rules this territory after those events, 'political' seems more appropriate than 'diplomatic'
2nd suggestion: If the statement of the 1st suggestion stills issuing problems, would it be more easy/peaceful to not make any comment on military point of view? - Indeed for many articles about battles/wars, there is no detail on the result. It is just overall 'X victory' with a comment on the current dispute - There is no military clear cut in this war, this 2nd suggestion might especially apply for this case. Result: French victory disputed by some Chinese and Taiwanese historians Treaty of Tientsin Does anyone more experimented care to make the change for one of those 2 suggestions? In any cases, thank you guys for all your work. ~~Phil4242~~
- I would like to weigh in and say that is far closer to the truth. From a strict military standpoint, the French won the war for Indochina militarily and politically. To call this a Chinese military victory involves full disregard of what military science defines as a victory, and previous Qing Imperial history. There have been several events where the Qing Empire faced the invasion of a traditional tributary ally to the Chinese Dynastic system, including both where they won like Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea and the Russo-Manchu border conflicts., and ones where they lost. Simply put, the French invaded a traditional tributary ally of the Chinese Empire, and the Chinese-led alliance failed to drive them from the territory (like they helped do with the Japanese invasions of Korea in the 16th century), or where they inflicted enough losses to force the French to withdraw due to pressure at home (like the Viet Minh would do close to a century later). Indeed, in failing to do so they sustained heavy losses (about a sixth of the total forces mustered by the alliance) and faced being driven into the Northern border territories or Southern China. That is essentially all that matters, and none of it can be constituted as a Chinese military victory, even localized French defeats near the Northern border and forced withdrawals South into territory they had all but securely taken. Whatever we wish to discuss about the Chinese doing well against Western arms or training, or the French failing in allegedly more ambitious aims (like possible seizures of Taiwan or more of South China) are another matter, but they do not change the bare military facts. 75.37.2.123 (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Whilst the French did not win every single battle during the war, I must say that this War was a French victory because the French destroyed the Chinese navy in Foochow. Without that navy, the Qing government realized that if they did not cease the fighting, then the island of Taiwan would become a French colony (the French had already controlled the Pescadores Islands and successfully Occupied Keelung during the war) and there was no evidence to suggest that the Qing forces would be able to win against the French in Vietnam. The French would simply ask Russia and Japan to start invading Manchuria, Korea and Northern China which would ultimately bring an end to the Qing dynasty itself. --A-eng (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to weigh in and say that is far closer to the truth. From a strict military standpoint, the French won the war for Indochina militarily and politically. To call this a Chinese military victory involves full disregard of what military science defines as a victory, and previous Qing Imperial history. There have been several events where the Qing Empire faced the invasion of a traditional tributary ally to the Chinese Dynastic system, including both where they won like Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea and the Russo-Manchu border conflicts., and ones where they lost. Simply put, the French invaded a traditional tributary ally of the Chinese Empire, and the Chinese-led alliance failed to drive them from the territory (like they helped do with the Japanese invasions of Korea in the 16th century), or where they inflicted enough losses to force the French to withdraw due to pressure at home (like the Viet Minh would do close to a century later). Indeed, in failing to do so they sustained heavy losses (about a sixth of the total forces mustered by the alliance) and faced being driven into the Northern border territories or Southern China. That is essentially all that matters, and none of it can be constituted as a Chinese military victory, even localized French defeats near the Northern border and forced withdrawals South into territory they had all but securely taken. Whatever we wish to discuss about the Chinese doing well against Western arms or training, or the French failing in allegedly more ambitious aims (like possible seizures of Taiwan or more of South China) are another matter, but they do not change the bare military facts. 75.37.2.123 (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Phrasing
editRex, the phrasing you want makes the sentence read awkwardly. What's wrong with the way I rephrased it?UberCryxic 17:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, so if that's the case as you identified, Chinese believe Chinese victory while French and most of westerns believe it is a French one, then why not put indecisive.
The truth is China, precisely Qing Dynasty, has a huge army equiped with limited bows, spear and sword. Please note that is limited spear and sword, and basically they are short of supply all the time. You cite the French source which of course minimize the loss and exaggerate the kills. Many people can give you some number 10 times more loss than the one you raise. Clearly in land China is the winner, as French retreated which is a fact and there is nothing you can argue about. The retreat is not a tactical maneuver, not a trap, not under the political pressure, it is a retreat! I have no idea how you judge the result of the war, but a retreat under military offense will by no means called a tie.
In sea, you do not need to address that as virtually Chinese has no navy, no marines and no training on modern warfare. So what French blocked the sea? China then was a agriculture country and did not rely on any other import.
By comparison, you can do some research on sino-Japan war in 1890, or 1900 war, or 1840/1856 war UK/France vs. Qing. That's the "victory" by UK/JP/France, not this one, with modern army, riffles, cannons and battleships, France did not take an inch from China. That is clearly a failure.
- French took control of Tonkin from China, which China always claimed was theirs. Is Tonkin not an inch ? The French achieved their aim of taking over Vietnam, and they succeeded in their war aim. The Chinese tried to stop them, and failed. The French clearly won this war.122.106.205.74 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
However, I partially agree with you regarding the end of the war, politically China is a loser, militarily, China can not win over long term if France send more troops. A indecisive is a fair answer for this question. Not sure if you agree to save more arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.59.15 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- What anybody believes is immaterial from the view of military science. For the same reason it matters not a whit that Americans, Canadians, and Britishmen still argue over who "won" the War of 1812 without looking at the overall picture. You allege that the casualty counts are from a "French source" that is supposedly biased and supposedly minimizes the losses they suffered while exaggerating those of the enemies beyond them, but you provide not a whit of evidence to justify this statement and yet expect us to take it uncritically. That is simply not how it works, and given that it is- to the best of our knowledge- the most accurate count means that it will be kept. Furthermore, the idea that the French retreat from the North (in relatively good order, all things considered) brought about by genuine but not crippling defeats constitutes a "Chinese victory" ignores that in order to get that far, the Chinese had to abandon their entire protectorate in Annam to effective French control. Considering that the stated reason for the Chinese involvement was to secure a traditional tributary ally/colony against foreign invasion, this can only be taken as a failure of their stated intent, meaning that not only did the French "take an inch" from China, they took all of French Indochina from China! As for the statement regarding the blockade, it espouses such a considerable naivety or willful ignorance of Chinese maritime trade in the South China Sea (including to territories like Taiwan) and at the river mouths that were (and are) an essential part of Chinese infrastructure in the region. *That* is precisely what the French blockaded (as can be proven by accounts from both sides at the time), and the idea that the Chinese had no fleet requires you ignore events like the Battle of Fuzhou. And finally, the idea that the French withdrawal represents a concrete Chinese ability to repulse the French rather than local French forces simply being repelled and there being no stomach for trying to advance further can be bellied by the Second Opium War and the Boxer Rebellion coming two decades before and after the war, when the French military showed itself capable of cutting into the Chinese heartland with ease when it chose and political factors favored it. So in summary, it is not even remotely fair or reasonable to call this "indecisive." This represented a Qing defeat and retreat from Southeastern Asia, fair and simple. 75.37.2.123 (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
A Work in Progress
editI have recently completely overhauled the article on the Sino-French War. I will shortly be publishing a full-length book on this subject, which has drawn on a substantial number of original sources in both French and Chinese, and I have worked on the (perhaps mistaken) assumption that I am one of the few people in the world who either knows (or cares) enough about the Sino-French War to be able to write authoritatively on it. If there are other enthusiasts out there, please get in touch. I would be delighted to hear from you.
Apologies to previous contributors whose work was overwritten. My only excuse is that I had a complete text ready to paste in, and it would have been an extremely time-consuming task to try to integrate it with existing material, much of which was inaccurate. Since contributing my text several days ago I have noticed that it has attracted a number of amendments, which I welcome wholeheartedly. I have occasionally made minor stylistic changes to these amendments (I am a professional historian and academic editor by trade), but I have kept their substance. Recent amendments that have improved my own text include background comments on Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Gustave Herbinger and Jules Ferry.
I am hoping in the next few months to contribute substantial articles on the senior French military and naval commanders in the Sino-French War, and also pieces on the Beiyang and Nanyang fleets. Eventually, I intend to contribute articles on each of the battles highlighted in bold type in my main article. This labour of love, however, might take some time. I will, of course, link all these articles to the main article.
In the meantime, I wonder if anybody could help me with a piece of information. Despite researching the Sino-French War for six years and establishing the French and Chinese orders of battle in exhaustive detail, I have been completely unable to find out the Christian name and date of death of General Bouët, who briefly commanded the Tonkin expeditionary corps in the summer and autumn of 1883. Does anybody know? If it helps, he was born in 1833.
Djwilms (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
On the Black Flag Army, how about replacing
'which had carved out a virtually-independent kingdom in upper Tonkin, astride the course of the Red River around Lao Kay on the Annam-Yunnan border'
with
'which was levying exorbitant dues on trade on the Red River between Son Tay and the town of Lao Kay on the Yunnan border'?
As for the second debatable sentence, how about the following replacement?
Vietnam had long been a tributary of China, and China agreed to arm and support the Black Flags and to covertly oppose French operations in Tonkin. In the summer of 1882 troops of the Chinese Yunnan and Guangxi armies also crossed the border into Tonkin, occupying Lang Son, Bac Ninh, Hung Hoa and other towns.
--Djwilms (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Black Flag Army Flags
editI've temporarily added a Jolly Roger flag for the Black Flag Army in the infobox of this and related articles, having seen a French illustration of a Black Flag soldier carrying just that flag (the only difference being that the skull and crossbones was on a triangular, rather than a rectangular, flag. I would love to replace it with a more authentic flag. The Wikipedia article Black Flag Army states that the Black Flags displayed the seven stars of the Great Bear on a black flag. I'm not sure where that comes from, as I've never come across any reference to such a flag in the French sources I have read, but if anyone could verify it and do a neat little image, it would be great.
My own feeling is that the Black Flag Army used a variety of standards of all colours. I'll try to collect the evidence from various French accounts of battles against the Black Flags and contribute a paragraph on the subject to the article Black Flag Army.
Djwilms (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Djwilms. I've been puzzled by this issue myself, especially since a "Black Fag army" banner I photographed at the Musée de l'Armée is not black at all... It does seem however that the kind of black flag you are alluding to exists: please check the following link: [2]. This would indeed be "the seven stars of the Great Bear on a black flag". Best regards PHG (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
![[2]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://travman.gxtravel.com/images3/liufeng/7.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.gxsky.com/blog_view.asp%3Fbid%3D175651&h=354&w=500&sz=186&hl=en&start=1&um=1&usg=__5q1Dka3EF6qzWS21AImaOnimPvE=&tbnid=2SiKoezjAAy-ZM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%25E9%25BB%2591%25E6%2597%2597%25E8%25BB%258D%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN){kind=link}
Hi PHG,
Interesting. I love the triangular Great Bear flag. Maybe we could use that for the Black Flag Army until someone comes up with a better idea.
To tell the truth, I suspect the one you photographed in Paris is not a Black Flag flag at all, but a battalion flag of the Chinese regular army. The photo of the soldier with a similar flag (with the Chinese character ling, 'Obey!') that I contributed to the article Black Flag Army is probably of a Chinese regular also, and I was intending to revisit it, as also my statement that it was captured at the Battle of Hoa Moc (the likeliest opportunity). I guess it was taken by Hocquard in April 1885, when a delegation of Chinese military commissioners came to Hanoi to travel upriver to Hung Hoa to tell the Yunnan Army that the Sino-French War had ended. That would be the most suitable occasion I can think of for the photograph.
I've got a lot of French stuff on flags displayed at various battles by the Black Flag Army (Paper Bridge, Phu Hoai, Palan, Son Tay), so I'll put it all together and see what emerges.
Djwilms (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi PHG,
During the Battle of Palan Liu Yongfu's headquarters was marked by seven identical rectangular plain black flags, bordered with silver.
At Son Tay Liu Yongfu displayed three large rectangular black flags, inscribed with one or more (it's not clear) Chinese characters in white.
Individual units flew flags of all the colours of the rainbow.
We therefore need a flag icon that is (a) rectangular; (b) basically black; and (c) either bordered or containing one or more Chinese characters. I think I'll do one that looks like the one you photographed, black with the Chinese character ling on it in white, to put in the infoboxes.
Djwilms (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Djwilms. I went to the Musée de l'Armée again to double-check what the notice about the above flag says. It says that the flag was captured in 1885 from the Blag Flags during the Tonkin campaign, and that it is the flag of the commanders of the Black Flag. They also describe the character ling 令 'Obey!'. For what it's worth... Cheers PHG (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi PHG,
If that's right, then it must have been captured either at Tuyen Quang or at Hoa Moc. But that still leaves open the possibility that it is, say, a company flag rather than an army flag. I'll need to do more work on this ...
Technically, the Black Flag Army was a division of the Yunnan Army by 1885, so maybe they were issued with Chinese regular army flags, like the one in Hocquard's photograph ...
Result of Sino-French War
editDear User:Alex Needham
Do you have any reason to dispute that the Sino-French War ended in a French victory, or are you just being difficult? France ousted China as the suzerain power in Vietnam, repeatedly defeated the Chinese armies, and inflicted serious damage on China's navy. That counts as a victory as far as I, and most serious scholars of this period in Chinese history, are concerned. The Cambridge History of China declares baldly, 'France won the Sino-French War'.
I appreciate that not all Chinese scholars would agree, which is why I have generously given space to Lung Chang's views in the lead paragraph. But I do not agree with his claim that China won.
This issue has been thrashed out over and over again. Please provide evidence for your claim that the war did not result in a French victory.
Djwilms (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. You may be interested to read the following paragraph from my forthcoming book on the Sino-French War, which discusses its outcome:
By all the conventional yardsticks of military victory and defeat, China lost the Sino-French War. The French could be justifiably proud of the performance their soldiers and sailors had given against an enemy greatly superior in numbers. They had beaten the Chinese in nearly every battle they had fought. In December 1883, at Son Tay, Courbet broke the power of Liu Yung-fu’s Black Flags and swept aside the Chinese troops who were fighting alongside them. In March 1884, at Bac Ninh, Millot inflicted a humiliating defeat upon the Kwangsi Army that profoundly embarrassed China in the eyes of the world. In August 1884, at Foochow, Courbet won a spectacular naval victory, and the ascendancy of the Far East squadron was never seriously challenged during the eight-month war that followed. In October 1884 Brière de l’Isle mauled the Kwangsi Army at Lam, Kep and Chu, and in January 1885 de Négrier defeated it at Nui Bop. In February 1885 the French exploited these defensive victories by mounting a major campaign to capture Lang Son and advance up to the Chinese border, while a small French garrison sustained the siege of Tuyen Quang against a much larger enemy force. Although March 1885 was marked by French defeats at Phu Lam Tao and Bang Bo and by Herbinger’s disastrous decision to abandon Lang Son, it also saw Giovanninelli’s victory at Hoa Moc and the relief of Tuyen Quang, Duchesne’s flank march in Formosa that broke the Chinese encirclement of Keelung, de Négrier’s victory at Ky Lua, and Courbet’s capture of the Pescadores. In nearly all of the land battles small French forces routed far-stronger Chinese armies in well-prepared positions. Despite the egregious reverses in the final month of the war, the efforts of the Tonkin and Formosa expeditionary corps were ultimately crowned by a peace treaty that excluded China from Tonkin and paved the way for its colonial exploitation by France.
I totally agreed with User:Djwilms, France successfully formed its protectorate over Vietnam and put an end to Chinese influence in the region, China also was uble to interfere in Vietnam. So it was a French victory. 207.233.71.107 (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No.1, "not all the Chinese scholars would agree" is wrong. "Not a single Chinese Scholar will agree" that is more sound than your statement.
No.2, are there many scholars in UK and France studying Sino-France war? I have no proof but I guess there are only a few. And where did they get their source? I will argue they get France source. That will answer lots of question regarding France won numerous land war etc. Minimize the loss and exaggerate the kills, that is the way every country does.
No.3, with mordern weapons to fight against spears and arrows without occupying any Chinese land (attack Taiwan a couple of times but repelled repeatedly), France is the only country which fought into a stalmate with China between 1840 and 1900. Please consider the victory of UK, Japan, Russia and alliance in 1900 and you will agree this is just a indecisive war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.2 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Number one amounts to nationalist chest thumping, and is unworthy of consideration. Not only would it in and of itself not matter even if it were, true, it verfiably is not.
Number Two: There are actually a VERY great number of them, as you would know if you bothered to check the citations. Your "guess" has no evidenciary or proof value, and should not be adhered to. As for their sources, primarily the Western records (which are acknowledged by just about everybody to be the most accurate) and the Chinese and Indochinese sources that are available. We do not give a flying farq what you argue unless you have actual evidence or logic to argue with, which you have shown you do not. Even if there were exaggerations and underplays, the broad contours of the French sources are agreed to be accurate, and in many cases the French actually exaggerated the risks, as shown by the much-vaunted and mythologized decision to retreat because of a telegram made in the heat of the moment and using exaggerated estimates of enemy numbers, resources, and ability. You're trying an Ad Hominem against an entire body of evidence for what amounts to nationalist fetishizing when even the aforementioned "Chinese Scholars" do largely base their research off of that same corpus.
Number Three: The French did indeed occupy Chinese land multiple times by any definition. Not only was Indochina- like other tributary states- viewed at *best* as an autonomous part of the Emperor of All Under Heaven's patrimony according to the traditional Imperial reckoning (and thus making the distinction between "Chinese" land and "Tonkinese" land more of a modern invention), but the French did succeed in launching several raids and minor occupations along the Chinese coast. Furthermore, the French were hardly repelled from Taiwan; they retreated in good order. The bottom line is that the French primarily cared about severing Indochina from Chinese control, and they accomplished that goal; the armaments of the two sides do not wave away that key result. The War of 1900 (which included the French, which you omit) was designed not to conquer China, but to liberate the Concessions that were under siege and crush the Boxers and their Imperial allies, which was likewise the result. The French did not invade China primarily because they were not interested in doing so, and secondarily because it was not what the French people signed up for in a relatively unpopular colonial war. Finally, the idea that France was the only country the Chinese fought to a stalemate in this period ignores the far more successful resistance they mounted against the Russians along the Northeastern border in Manchuria throughout the later 19th century. In short: this is a monumentally uninformed opinion with little value, and so should be discarded. 75.37.2.123 (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Mistakes?
editI think this artile till now 's full of mistakes (probably some museums or authorities made so in purpose or lack basic knowledge???).
One example: let's check those 2 pics: File:Chinese Prisoners.jpg with the title "Chinese prisoners captured by the French at Tuyen Quang" From their costumes (call for common sense in East Asia/China/Vietnam), the right one can not be a Qing Chinese, but most probbly a Vietnamese (civilian/anti-French activist/collaborator...?) (the left-one most likely is Chinese, but also possible not a regular Qing soldier (anti-french activist maybe, pls also check the Qing China soldier's dress: File:Qing army Sino-French war.jpg titled as "Chinese regular soldiers photographed during the Sino-French war")). (OsacA-Kanzai (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
Can anyone give out the offical treaty (final, better english/chinese version) of the war? from Jap source the result (based on the treaty) 's (simply spkin): End military actions, French tookover AnNam but troops retreated from Taiwan, China kept its territorial integrity but gave tax cut to business & goods transport from AnNam into Yun-Gui (? western provinces of china) ... But i'm mainly interested in the Taiwan affair 'coz left the "vacuum" or "advance" to later Japanese..., . (OsacA-Kanzai (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
1 doubt even sounds funny: the pic File:1841JiangxiChineseCannonCapturedByFrance.jpg titled "Chinese cannon captured by the French, founded in Jiangxi in April 1841." The s-f war happened in 1890s, the cannon was founded more than 50 yrs ago! did Qing china just used a half-century antique? think about Qing went through Tongzhi Restoration more about 20 yrs after the KungHsu Era (Guangxu) and 20 yrs before the s-f war, china's weaponry/stockpile increased/enlarged also imported/manufacured by many more "modern" westernized factories e.g. in Shanghai/Wuhan/Canton etc. So tht's most likely a cannon buit by china (/Jiangxi?) but "exported"/supported to/used by AnNam (/its army), since before the war AnNam was an "attachment" (/tributary, dominated by ch), like today's "made in china" allover the world, but hardly can say "chinese blablabla" ... ppl just doubt tht, sounds fun, isnt it? (OsacA-Kanzai (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
I'v checked those free phtos & free museum/library sources/materials. It kinda let ppl feel that some french museums/authorities lack basic knowledge of east asian cultures (thus made mistakes en recognize wrongly), and they kinda try to "compose" the history. My advice would be: rename or re-title those pics with proper headlines, esp. any warmheart expert pls give out the full text of the "final treaty" anyway within this article or create a new one/entity elsewhere! (OsacA-Kanzai (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
- Dear User:OsacA-Kanzai,
- Thanks for that. I agree with you about the cannon. The Chinese armies in Tonkin during the Sino-French War didn't have much artillery, because of the difficulty in getting it up to the front, but their field guns included modern Krupp, Voruz and Vavaseur cannon. On occasions, both their artillery and infantry rifles were technically of higher quality than those of the French. I'm inclined simply to delete the cannon image from the article, as it doesn't add much.
- The title 'Chinese prisoners' was given by Hocquard, the French officer who took the photo in 1885. You are probably right about the one on the right being Vietnamese, though the one on the left is definitely a Chinese regular soldier. I am perfectly happy to change the caption to say 'prisoners' instead of 'Chinese prisoners'.
- I have often wondered whether the two prisoners in question were shot seconds after this photograph was taken. According to Edouard Huguet, a French marine infantry officer, there were a number of attempted desertions from the Yunnan Army in March 1885, after the relief of Tuyen Quang, and the deserters were invariably shot by the French:
- In other respects, the Yunnan Army seemed to be quite demoralised. Deserters would often present themselves in front of our lines. They were immediately shot, an inhuman proceeding which the cruelties of this 'war of reprisals' justified. Two lihns would seize the condemned man, drag him to the river bank and toss him into the water with a bullet in his skull. One day two fine fellows were brought to the officer in charge of the marine infantry cantonment. One of them had a scholarly appearance and carried himself quite elegantly, and the officer asked him why he had deserted. 'Because I didn’t like the company I was forced to keep.' It was a flattering reply, but it did not save this malcontent. We fed him to the fishes all the same. (Huguet, En colonne, 99)
- Re your request for an article dealing with the final peace treaty, I've just done one on the 11 May 1884 Tientsin Accord. I'll move onto the 1885 treaty in a few days' time.
Notice that the treaty of 11 May 1884 was not the final treaty between Qing and France (it has another name: The Second Treaty of Huế). The final one sould be signed on 9 June 1885, and it includes totally 10 items/acts. Both sides exchanged their signed treaty in Beijing on 28th Nov 1885.
Traditional Chinese version (text):
- 一八八五年六月九日，光绪十一年四月二十七日，天津。
大清国大皇帝、大法民主国大伯理玺天德，前因两国同时有事于越南，渐致龃龉，今彼此愿为了结，并欲修明两国交好通商之旧谊，订立新约，期于两国均有利益，即以光绪十年四月十七日在天津商订简明条约，光绪十一年二月二十八日奉旨允准者作为底本，为此两国特派全权大臣会商办理：大清国大皇帝钦差全权大臣文华殿大学士太子太傅北洋通商大臣直隶总督一等肃毅伯爵李，钦差总理各国事务大臣刑部尚书管理户部三库左翼世职官学事务镶黄旗汉军都统锡，钦差总理各国事务大臣鸿胪寺卿邓；大法民主国大伯理玺天德钦差全权大臣赏给佩带四等荣光宝星并瑞典国头等北斗宝星驻扎中国京都总理本国事务巴特纳；各将所奉全权文凭互相校阅，均属妥协，立定条约如左：
第一款 一、越南诸省与中国边界毗连者，其境内，法国约明自行弭乱安抚。其扰害百姓之匪党及无业流氓，悉由法国妥为设法，或应解散，或当驱逐出境，并禁其复聚为乱。惟无论遇有何事，法兵永不得过北圻与中国边界，法国并约明必不自侵此界，且保他人必不犯之。其中国与北圻交界各省境内，凡遇匪党逃匿，即由中国设法，或应解散，或当驱逐出境。倘有匪党在中国境内会合，意图往扰法国所保护之民者，亦由中国设法解散。法国既担保边界无事，中国约明亦不派兵前赴北圻。至于中国与越南如何互交逃犯之事，中、法两国应另行议定专条。凡中国侨居人民乃散勇等在越南安分守业者，无论农夫、工匠、商贾，若无可责备之处，其身家产业均得安稳，与法国所保护之人无异。
第二款 一、中国既订明于法国所办弭乱安抚各事无所掣肘，凡有法国与越南自立之条约、章程，或已定者，或续立者，现时并日后均听办理。至中、越往来，言明必不致有碍中国威望体面，亦不致有违此次之约。
第三款 一、自此次订约画押之后起，限六个月期内，应由中、法两国各派官员，亲赴中国与北圻交界处所，会同勘定界限。倘或于界限难与辨认之处，即于其地设立标记，以明界限之所在。若因立标处所，或因北圻现在之界，稍有改正，以期两国公同有益，如彼此意见不合，应各请示于本国。
第四款 一、边界勘定之后，凡有法国人民及法国所保护人民与别国居住北圻人等，欲行过界入中国者，须俟法国官员请中国边界官员发给护照，方得执持前往。倘由北圻入中国者，系中国人民，只由中国边界官员自发凭单可也。至有中国人民欲从陆路由中国入北圻者，应由中国官请法国官发给护照，以便执持前往。
第五款 一、中国与北圻陆路交界，允准法国商人及法国保护之商人并中国商人运货进出。其贸易应限定若干处，及在何处，俟日后体察两国生意多寡及往来道路定夺。须照中国内地现有章程酌核办理。总之，通商处所在中国边界者，应指定两处：一在保胜以上，一在谅山以北。法国商人均可在此居住，应得利益应遵章程，均与通商各口无异。中国应在此设关收税，法国亦得在此设立领事官，其领事官应得权利，与法国在通商各口之领事官无异。中国亦得与法国商酌，在北圻各大城镇拣派领事官驻扎。
第六款 一、北圻与中国之云南、广西、广东各省陆路通商章程，应于此约画押后三个月内，两国派员会议，另定条款，附在本约之后。所运货物进出云南、广西边界，应纳各税，照现在通商税则较减。惟由陆路运过北圻及广东边界者，不得照此减轻税则纳税；其减轻税则亦与现在通商各口无涉。其贩运枪炮、军械、军粮、军火等，应各照两国界内所行之章程办理。至洋药进口、出口一事，应于通商章程内定一专条。其中，越海路通商，亦应议定专条，此条未定之先，仍照现章办理。
第七款 一、中法现立此约，其意系为邻邦益敦和睦、推广互市，现欲善体此意，由法国在北圻一带开辟道路，鼓励建设铁路。彼此言明，日后若中国酌拟创造铁路时，中国自向法国业此之人商办；其招募人工，法国无不尽力劝助。惟彼此言明，不得视此条系为法国一国独受之利益。
第八款 一、此次所订之条约内所载之通商各款，以及将订各项章程，应俟换约后十年之期满，方可续修。若期将满六个月以前，议约之两国彼此不预先将拟欲修约之意声明，则通商各条约、章程仍应遵照行之，以十年为期，以后仿此。
第九款 一、此约一经彼此画押，法军立即奉命退出基隆，并除去在海面搜查等事。画押后一个月内，法兵必当从台湾、澎湖全行退尽。
第十款 一、中、法两国前立各条约、章程，除由现议更张外，其余仍应一体遵守。至此次条约，现由大清国大皇帝批准及大法国大伯理玺天德批准后，即在中国京都互换。
光绪十一年四月二十七日
西历一千八百八十五年六月初九日
大清国钦差全权大臣李
钦差总理各国事务大臣锡
钦差总理各国事务大臣邓
大法民主国钦差全权大臣巴
一八八五年十一月二十八日在北京交换批准。 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanWon (talk • contribs) 12:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Result of the war
editAccording to the final treaty it was "cease fire". The French army had to withdraw from Taiwan.
Similar to the Korean War, although UN army won much more battles, the result came out as "cease fire". (AmericanWon (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC))
Wrong citation
editIn the article you cited "The Taiwanese scholar Lung Chang, whose 1993 study of the Sino-French War scrupulously examined both the French and Chinese sources, hailed it as 'the Qing Dynasty's sole victory in arms against a foreign opponent' ('清朝對外用兵唯一以勝利結束之戰爭')." which is totally wrong, you should check the book carefully.
Qing Dynasty won several wars against foreign opponents, including the Russian–Manchu border conflicts (series of battles, against Russian), and the Xinjiang (Re-)Occupancy (establishment of current Xinjiang, against Russian and Muslim forces, see Dungan revolt) (AmericanWon (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC))
Also see the Ten Great Campaigns. So, the so-called "the Qing Dynasty's sole victory in arms against a foreign opponent" is a lie, a wrong/misleading citation, or, an amateur's "research". (AmericanWon (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC))
- I'm going to ask for your latest edits to be reverted. The Sino-French war clearly resulted in a French victory. It was fought by the French to get China out of Vietnam and it ended with China losing its suzerainty over Vietnam. China also lost nearly every battle and a quarter of its navy. If that doesn't count as defeat, I don't know what does.
- Seizing Chinese territory was never a French war aim, so of course the French left Taiwan at the end of the war. It's quite irrelevant that China lost no territory.
- As for Lung Chang, I'm just quoting what he says. But before you get too upset with his conclusion, you should note that he distinguishes between foreign and internal wars. The Xinjiang campaign doesn't count as a foreign war. I don't know much about these border skirmishes with the Russians, but I doubt if they were important. Certainly not as important as China's catastrophic defeats in the First and Second Opium Wars and the Sino-Japanese War.
- You should read Lung Chang. He was a professional scholar (hardly an 'amateur'). He also thought for himself, and did not simply parrot Chinese propaganda. I don't myself agree with his conclusion - in my view the Qing dynasty lost every war it fought against a foreign opponent - but I can see why he might have thought so.
- On a lighter note, I'm delighted that the Sino-French War can still stir emotions. When my book on the subject comes out in a few months, there's a chance that it might find some readers.
- P.S. By the way, the second Treaty of Hue, signed on 6 June 1884, and the Tientsin Accord, signed on 11 May 1884, are two completely different treaties. One was a treaty between France and Vietnam, the other a treaty between France and China. I've recently finished writing long articles about both treaties (plus another on the 1883 Treaty of Hue, and I intend to write a further article on the treaty of 9 June 1885 in due course.
Riots in Hong Kong
editI found this link [3] which may be useful for development for people familiar with the article. olivier (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link, though the information provided is not entirely accurate. The best account of the Hong Kong riots was written by Lewis Chere three decades ago: 'The Hong Kong Riots of October 1884: Evidence for Chinese Nationalism?’, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 20 (1980), 54–65. The article was later recycled and reproduced with only minor changes in his 1988 book The Diplomacy of the Sino-French War (pp. 108–15). When I've got time I'll do a separate Wikipedia article on the riots.
- Djwilms (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your answer and the details. As you certainly know, the article that you are mentioning is available as pdf download here. Maybe it would be useful to give this link in the article, so that interested readers could go there for more information. The book that is given as reference in the article may have a similar content, but is much less convenient to find. Thanks again! olivier (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, as I hadn't realised Chere's 1980 article was available as a pdf download. I've got the relevant volume of the JHKBRAS, so have never bothered to look for the article on the internet. I've now added this article to the bibliography for the article Sino-French War and attached your link to it. Wikipedia gets better by the day!
- In fact, pretty much all past articles of the JHKBRAS are available to the general public as pdf download from the same source. olivier (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
French overtures to Japan, 1883-5
editHi PHG,
Thanks for that interesting stuff you have dug out on French attempts to cosy up to Japan against China before and during the Sino-French War. I'm going to search Albert Billot's L'affaire du Tonkin, the standard French diplomatic history of the Sino-French War, to see if he can add anything to your research.
What I would like to do eventually is merge your new section into the existing section 'China's fear of Japan', and probably cut it down a bit. At the end of the day, France and Japan did not become allies, and I think it unbalances the main article to devote so much space to something that never happened. On the other hand, I've long been wanting to create a new article, Diplomacy of the Sino-French War, and that would be the natural home for a discussion of French overtures to Japan. I'll try to get round to it before long.
I'll get back to you after I've seen what Billot has to say on the subject.
Djwilms (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Nice photo you uploaded of French soldiers in Tonkin in 1888.
P.P.S Can you spare a couple of minutes to do me another 'dioceses' template, 'Dioceses of the Syrian Orthodox Church'? Just change the title from the present 'Dioceses of the Church of the East template and scrap the illustrations, and I'll do the rest. I know how to edit existing templates but I haven't yet worked out how to create new ones.
French Indochina
editThe territorial changes state that: French protectorate over Tonkin and Annam within French Indochina. This's not ok, because French Indochina didn't exist until 1887. 207.233.70.197 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Indecisive indeed - Win or Lose
editI read the discussion above regarding win or lose, but clearly it is a tie. One more thing to mention is please do not speak most of westerns etc....you Chinese etc.... You are yourself and you can not not stand for westerns, nor Chinese! The judgment is yours. And do not apprear to be superior like westerns believe what....So what!
OK, so if that's the case as you identified, Chinese believe Chinese victory while French and most of westerns believe it is a French one, then why not put indecisive.
The truth is China, precisely Qing Dynasty, had a huge army equiped with limited bows, spear and sword. Please note that was limited spear and sword, and basically they were short of supply all the time. You cited the French source which of course minimized the loss and exaggerated the kills. Many people can give you some number 10 times more loss than the one you raised. Clearly in land China was the winner, as French retreated which is a fact and there is nothing you can argue about. The retreat is not a tactical maneuver, not a trap, not under the political pressure. I have no idea how you judge the result of the war, but a retreat under military offense will by no means called a tie.
In sea, you do not need to address that as virtually Chinese has no navy (or ships just shipped from Europe), no marines and no training on modern warfare. So what French blocked the sea? China then was a agriculture country and did not rely on any other import.
By comparison, you can do some research on sino-Japan war in 1890, or 1900 war, or 1840/1856 war UK/France vs. Qing. That's the "victory" by UK/JP/France, not this one, with modern army, riffles, cannons and battleships, France did not take an inch from China. That is clearly a failure.
The purpose of France, at the beginning, was not to invade China of course. But if France winned in Zhen Nan gate, they would have simply moved forward. The fact that UK took away Hong Kong, JP occupied Taiwan, Russia took a fraction of northwest and northeast territory of China is the fact that they won the war.
However, I partially agree with you regarding the end of the war, politically China is a loser, militarily, China can not win over long term if France send more troops. A indecisive is a fair answer for this question. Not sure if you agree to save more arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.59.15 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
warnings needed over non neutral language and French sources
editGo read wikipedia policy. Stating things like the french "amply avenge", and "if general negrier was there the french would have won", are extreme violations of wikipedia policy on neutral language and original research. secondly, all of the sources that mentions these "spectacular" french victories with thousands of chinese dead, are french sources (i'm taling about the tonkin campaign), appear to be nationalistic and aiming to be revisionist, to brush over France's extremely poor performance in the war for a supposedly first rate western power. The fact that an author needs to include words like "avenge", and speculate (fantasize) about the french holding on to lang son and the war not ending in their retreat probably shows that the sources in this article need seriously cleaning up. Since the French were forced to retreat, its impossible that they managed to count the exact number of "1,500" corpses on the battlefield. No one is showing where these numbers are coming from
France also succeeded in the naval war, because the northern Chinese Beiyan fleet had zero participation in the conflict, and they only faced a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in all the chinese regional armies which were not even sent in the war. The article is trying to portray this as a case where the western power overran the primitive natives with their spear chuckers, swords, and sailboats.Meamdul (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't concur.If you were Chinese and if you had viewed some modern Chinese research(like 中法战争诸役考) into 19th century's Qing warfare you would easily find out Qing forces hadn't the slightest sense of casualties statistics,at least there is hardly any document left regarding the Qing casualties.Also Qing generals are extremely,at least no less exaggerating than any foreigner about their actions.They claimed at least 100 kills of French out of six-hundred detachment in the first Keelung contact.They claimed they wounded Courbet in Zhenhai and finally caused his death.And about the "had someone been in charge" issue,you can easily find a lot of such words in wikipedia.For example,you can find"Had Yamamoto's dispositions not denied Nagumo adequate pre-attack reconnaissance assets".If you can find source,you can anytime add "had someone been in charge" to Chinese actions.?(talk) 20:13, 17 Junes 2012 (UTC)
The war casualties
editAnyone knows the figure of Chinese and French casualties' sources?(talk) 20:22, 17 Junes 2012 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, and ..., Volume 23 edited by Thomas Spencer Baynes
edithttp://books.google.com/books?id=ezZKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA441#v=onepage&q&f=false
Chinese cartography of vietnam, pre war (1883)
editTitle 越南地輿圖說: 5卷 越南地輿圖說: 5卷, 盛慶紱 Author 盛慶紱 Published 1883 Original from Harvard University Digitized Sep 9, 2008
War dead
editA western eyewitness saw French heads exhibited at a market in Taiwan, after being cut from the corpses. Westerners in Taiwan contacted the Chinese officers to remind them of conduct regarding war dead after the incident. The paragraph may be quoted verbatim as an introduction to a section on Taiwan, but not used as an independent source.
Page 229
http://books.google.com/books?id=jAMxFLcYU4sC&pg=RA229#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=KZZDAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA229#v=onepage&q&f=false
Hui Commanders in the Qing army who fought against France
edit马维琪 Ma Weiqi
马廷秀 Ma Tingxiu
李辉山 Li Huishan
白金柱 Bai Jinzhu
Not all french goal were achieved
editNot all french goal were achieved: no indemnity paid to France, french army evacuate Pescadores + fall of french governement + military defeat on land (bang bo, dong dang...) Also it is considered that Qing empire achieved a limited regional tactical victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.173.250 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Article protected
editThe dispute referred to above has been the center of a ludicrously protracted edit war. I have protected the article for two weeks, and both parties are "encouraged" to discuss the issue on this talk page. Blocks will be forthcoming in case of renewed fighting after the protection expires! Favonian (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Blaue Max and 93.9.173.250: The protection of the article will expire tomorrow. I had expected to see some discussion on this talk page, but apparently I have to remind the two combatants that further edit warring will in all likelihood lead to temporary blocks. Favonian (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictures of killed French officers
edit
PFH1173797: Vietnam: French Foreign Legion sniper during the Siege of Tuyen Quang, November 1884 to March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173797 Vietnam: French Foreign Legion sniper during the Siege of Tuyen Quang, November 1884 to March 1885
PFH1173796: Vietnam / France: Engraving of Lieutenant-Colonel Alphonse Dugenne (1841-87) / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173796 Vietnam / France: Engraving of Lieutenant-Colonel Alphonse Dugenne (1841-87)
PFH1173795: Vietnam: Doctor Raynaud, 111th Line Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173795 Vietnam: Doctor Raynaud, 111th Line Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885
PFH1173794: Vietnam: The French capture of Nam Dinh, 27 March 1883 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173794 Vietnam: The French capture of Nam Dinh, 27 March 1883
PFH1173793: Vietnam: The French assault on Nam Dinh, 27 March 1883 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173793 Vietnam: The French assault on Nam Dinh, 27 March 1883
PFH1173792: Vietnam: Captain Tailland, a marine infantry officer who distinguished himself at the Battle of Nui Bop, 4 January 1885, and was killed at the Battle of Hoa Moc, 2 March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173792 Vietnam: Captain Tailland, a marine infantry officer who distinguished himself at the Battle of Nui Bop, 4 January 1885, and was killed at the Battle of Hoa Moc, 2 March 1885
PFH1173791: Vietnam: Captain Laperrine, chasseurs d'Afrique, who distinguished himself in the Bac Le ambush, 24 June 1884 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173791 Vietnam: Captain Laperrine, chasseurs d'Afrique, who distinguished himself in the Bac Le ambush, 24 June 1884
PFH1173790: Vietnam: Captain Gravereau, 2nd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Tay Hoa, 4 February 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173790 Vietnam: Captain Gravereau, 2nd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Tay Hoa, 4 February 1885
PFH1173789: Vietnam: Captain Cotter, 2nd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173789 Vietnam: Captain Cotter, 2nd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885
PFH1173788: Vietnam: Captain Brunet, 3rd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173788 Vietnam: Captain Brunet, 3rd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885
PFH1173787: China: Admiral Courbet acknowledges the acclamation of his troops after the capture of Makung, 31 March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173787 China: Admiral Courbet acknowledges the acclamation of his troops after the capture of Makung, 31 March 1885
PFH1173786: Vietnam: A victorious French sailor poses with a tricolour at the capture of the Thuan An forts, 20 August 1883 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173786 Vietnam: A victorious French sailor poses with a tricolour at the capture of the Thuan An forts, 20 August 1883
PFH1173785: Vietnam: Artist's impression of the French storming of Son Tay, 16 December 1883 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173785 Vietnam: Artist's impression of the French storming of Son Tay, 16 December 1883
PFH1173784: Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Emile Portier, 111th Line Battalion, killed in action at Dong Dang, 23 February 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173784 Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Emile Portier, 111th Line Battalion, killed in action at Dong Dang, 23 February 1885
PFH1173783: Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Bossant, marine infantry, killed in action in the Battle of Bac Vie, 12 February 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173783 Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Bossant, marine infantry, killed in action in the Battle of Bac Vie, 12 February 1885
PFH1173779: Vietnam: Vietnam Peoples' Air Force MIG17 pilots examining film of a dogfight with USAF planes, Hanoi, c. 1966 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173779 Vietnam: Vietnam Peoples' Air Force MIG17 pilots examining film of a dogfight with USAF planes, Hanoi, c. 1966
PFH1173769: Vietnam: 'Only the Mad would think of Resistance to the Japanese', Japanese / Vichy propaganda leaflet c. 1941 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173769 Vietnam: 'Only the Mad would think of Resistance to the Japanese', Japanese / Vichy propaganda leaflet c. 1941
PFH1173756: Vietnam: Political propaganda poster, with the French and South Vietnamese flags signposted 'To Independence' and the Communist skull-and-cross bones signposted 'To Death', 1948 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173756 Vietnam: Political propaganda poster, with the French and South Vietnamese flags signposted 'To Independence' and the Communist skull-and-cross bones signposted 'To Death', 1948
PFH1173755: Vietnam: 'A Pocket Guide to Vietnam', for US forces serving in Vietnam, Second Indochina War, c.1962 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173755 Vietnam: 'A Pocket Guide to Vietnam', for US forces serving in Vietnam, Second Indochina War, c.1962
PFH1173701: Vietnam: Poster of Nguyen Van Thieu, President of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) 1965-1975 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173701 Vietnam: Poster of Nguyen Van Thieu, President of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) 1965-1975
PFH1173699: Vietnam: President Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969) / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173699 Vietnam: President Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969)
PFH1173617: Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Bossant, marine infantry, killed in action in the Battle of Bac Vie, 12 February 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173617 Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Bossant, marine infantry, killed in action in the Battle of Bac Vie, 12 February 1885
PFH1173797: Vietnam: French Foreign Legion sniper during the Siege of Tuyen Quang, November 1884 to March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173797 Vietnam: French Foreign Legion sniper during the Siege of Tuyen Quang, November 1884 to March 1885
PFH1173796: Vietnam / France: Engraving of Lieutenant-Colonel Alphonse Dugenne (1841-87) / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173796 Vietnam / France: Engraving of Lieutenant-Colonel Alphonse Dugenne (1841-87)
PFH1173795: Vietnam: Doctor Raynaud, 111th Line Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173795 Vietnam: Doctor Raynaud, 111th Line Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885
PFH1173794: Vietnam: The French capture of Nam Dinh, 27 March 1883 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173794 Vietnam: The French capture of Nam Dinh, 27 March 1883
PFH1173793: Vietnam: The French assault on Nam Dinh, 27 March 1883 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173793 Vietnam: The French assault on Nam Dinh, 27 March 1883
PFH1173792: Vietnam: Captain Tailland, a marine infantry officer who distinguished himself at the Battle of Nui Bop, 4 January 1885, and was killed at the Battle of Hoa Moc, 2 March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173792 Vietnam: Captain Tailland, a marine infantry officer who distinguished himself at the Battle of Nui Bop, 4 January 1885, and was killed at the Battle of Hoa Moc, 2 March 1885
PFH1173791: Vietnam: Captain Laperrine, chasseurs d'Afrique, who distinguished himself in the Bac Le ambush, 24 June 1884 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173791 Vietnam: Captain Laperrine, chasseurs d'Afrique, who distinguished himself in the Bac Le ambush, 24 June 1884
PFH1173790: Vietnam: Captain Gravereau, 2nd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Tay Hoa, 4 February 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173790 Vietnam: Captain Gravereau, 2nd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Tay Hoa, 4 February 1885
PFH1173789: Vietnam: Captain Cotter, 2nd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173789 Vietnam: Captain Cotter, 2nd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885
PFH1173788: Vietnam: Captain Brunet, 3rd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173788 Vietnam: Captain Brunet, 3rd Foreign Legion Battalion, killed in action at Bang Bo, 24 March 1885
PFH1173787: China: Admiral Courbet acknowledges the acclamation of his troops after the capture of Makung, 31 March 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173787 China: Admiral Courbet acknowledges the acclamation of his troops after the capture of Makung, 31 March 1885
PFH1173786: Vietnam: A victorious French sailor poses with a tricolour at the capture of the Thuan An forts, 20 August 1883 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173786 Vietnam: A victorious French sailor poses with a tricolour at the capture of the Thuan An forts, 20 August 1883
PFH1173785: Vietnam: Artist's impression of the French storming of Son Tay, 16 December 1883 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173785 Vietnam: Artist's impression of the French storming of Son Tay, 16 December 1883
PFH1173784: Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Emile Portier, 111th Line Battalion, killed in action at Dong Dang, 23 February 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173784 Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Emile Portier, 111th Line Battalion, killed in action at Dong Dang, 23 February 1885
PFH1173783: Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Bossant, marine infantry, killed in action in the Battle of Bac Vie, 12 February 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173783 Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Bossant, marine infantry, killed in action in the Battle of Bac Vie, 12 February 1885
PFH1173779: Vietnam: Vietnam Peoples' Air Force MIG17 pilots examining film of a dogfight with USAF planes, Hanoi, c. 1966 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173779 Vietnam: Vietnam Peoples' Air Force MIG17 pilots examining film of a dogfight with USAF planes, Hanoi, c. 1966
PFH1173769: Vietnam: 'Only the Mad would think of Resistance to the Japanese', Japanese / Vichy propaganda leaflet c. 1941 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173769 Vietnam: 'Only the Mad would think of Resistance to the Japanese', Japanese / Vichy propaganda leaflet c. 1941
PFH1173756: Vietnam: Political propaganda poster, with the French and South Vietnamese flags signposted 'To Independence' and the Communist skull-and-cross bones signposted 'To Death', 1948 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173756 Vietnam: Political propaganda poster, with the French and South Vietnamese flags signposted 'To Independence' and the Communist skull-and-cross bones signposted 'To Death', 1948
PFH1173755: Vietnam: 'A Pocket Guide to Vietnam', for US forces serving in Vietnam, Second Indochina War, c.1962 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173755 Vietnam: 'A Pocket Guide to Vietnam', for US forces serving in Vietnam, Second Indochina War, c.1962
PFH1173701: Vietnam: Poster of Nguyen Van Thieu, President of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) 1965-1975 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173701 Vietnam: Poster of Nguyen Van Thieu, President of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) 1965-1975
PFH1173699: Vietnam: President Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969) / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173699 Vietnam: President Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969)
PFH1173617: Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Bossant, marine infantry, killed in action in the Battle of Bac Vie, 12 February 1885 / Pictures from History / Bridgeman Images
Select
PFH1173617 Vietnam: 2nd Lieutenant Bossant, marine infantry, killed in action in the Battle of Bac Vie, 12 February 1885
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_of_the_Sino-French_War
alive ones
Chinese defences
Chinese Black Flags
Arrival of French
French arms dealer
Japanese Vichy propaganda
French drawings of battles
http://galleryplus.ebayimg.com/ws/web/301883257913_1_0_1.jpg
"Localized Qing Military Victory On Land??"
editThe article and result box have serious issues, but by and large the rest are understandable. This one isn't, and the reason it was included boggles the mind when just leaving it off would be less contentious and probably closer to the truth.
It all rides on a single source, and- good as that may be- it's a pretty slender reed to base an entire article headline off of, especially when opposing viewpoints and sources have been debated on the Talk page *and* the battle boxes this article links to beg to differ.
Simply put, the Qing viewed the Indochinese kingdoms as their Heaven-given vassals and tributaries. The French viewed them as valuable overseas territories they knew a decent amount about and ripe new potential conquests. The French went to war to subjugate them, and the Qing intervened following the long- long long long- Chinese imperial tradition of the "Son of Heaven" protecting his tributaries (see: Hideyoshi's attempt to conquer Korea, and the latter Qing military buildup in response to Japanese troop transports to Korea in the leadup to the first Sino-Japanese War).
The French by and large succeeded. That is why French Indochina existed, as opposed to a political settlement the Chinese court would have favored. The main campaigns ran into some trouble in the South and had to play bush fire for a great deal of time, but ultimately came out on top. Coming North they managed to consolidate the old territories of Annam, but when they neared the border with China proper they overstretched themselves, suffered a few defeats and retreats, and otherwise fought to an unproductive stalemate where both sides retained control of the broadly pre-existing frontiers.
In the South China Sea the French launched various expeditionary forces to target Qing interests, sometimes successfully (Fuzhu). sometimes not (Taiwan), but while seriously damaging Chinese coastal trade and Southern Qing naval strength.
All in all, the Chinese failed in the stated objective they had going in to the war: to preserve their tributary empire in Southeast Asia. Before the war, there were several quasi-independent kingdoms (most notably Da Nam) owing at least nominal fealty to the Chinese Imperium. Afterwards you had French colonies. The idea that "Limited regional Qing military victory on land" adequately reflects that or is simply *not misleading* does not fly. 09:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.166.105 (talk)
- The main campaigns ran into some trouble in the South and had to play bush fire for a great deal of time, but ultimately came out on top. Coming North they managed to consolidate the old territories of Annam
- When the French conquered South Vietnam and conquered Annam, they were fighting against the Vietnamese only. They managed to defeat and overrun all important Vietnamese cities in Tonkin when only the Vietnamese were resisting. The Vietnamese first called in Chinese Black Flag mercenaries who inflicted some defeats on the French, and after the French suprise attack on Fuzhou the Chinese army finally intervened itself when the French were about to win in Vietnam and that was when the Sino-French war started. It was then the Chinese troops came over the Vietnam-China border and started military engagements against the French. The French by and large succeeded against Vietnamese soldiers when they were fighting alone. France wanted to annex and keep the Pescadores but had to return it to China. Japan threatened to enter the war against China after the French retreat from Lang Son which played a role in the negotiations. France expected a conquest of Taiwan and to hold it as a bargaining chip to be a walk in the park but instead were pinned down at Keelung for eight monthsRajmaan (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- "When the French conquered South Vietnam and conquered Annam, they were fighting against the Vietnamese only. They managed to defeat and overrun all important Vietnamese cities in Tonkin when only the Vietnamese were resisting. "
Neither true nor relevant. The emergence of the "Colored Flags"- especially the Black ones- well predated that, as shown by how their leadership made contact with the monarchical court in Hanoi before the French took over. And support by the Imperial government to the Black Flags in particular started not long after that, including Imperial authorities canvassing for volunteers to fight in Indochina. The actual deployment of "proper" Chinese and Imperial troops to Indochina (where- again- they preformed slightly better than their allies but *not by that much)- would wait a while longer. And was generally both underwhelming and embarrassing for those involved. Which was a reason for the Taiping expansion into the areas of the South that had been affected.
What makes this not relevant is the fact that this is willfully ignoring the Manchu court's stated ideology and propaganda. As tributary states- and historically directly ruled imperial territory- Tonkin and Annam were vassals of the Son of Heaven and more or less autonomous parts of his patrimony. The fact that some of these subjects of the Son of Heaven happened to speak a different language from the Manchu and Han majority (and in fact had a long history of fighting direct Chinese hegemony) did not change that. And it certainly wasn't changing the fact that by any sane measure the Qing Court was acting as an ally, patron, and supporter to the local monarchies in resisting the French. Support and patronage that included Chinese volunteers and imperial money and supplies long before Fuzhou.
This included the Chinese refusal to remove the Imperial troops from their "subject", and their active involvement against the French over a full year before Fuzhou. See the reduction and siege of Son Tay, the Battle of Bac Le, and the Battle of Bac Ninh. All three of which have articles on this Wiki, and all of which deal with Chinese Imperial presence in the Indochinese War before the Fuzhou. Are you claiming they are not accurate?
"The Vietnamese first called in Chinese Black Flag mercenaries who inflicted some defeats on the French, and after the French surprise attack on Fuzhou the Chinese army finally intervened itself when the French were about to win in Vietnam and that was when the Sino-French war started. "
Once again, this is not how the Qing looked at it at All. While the Black Flags did start out as rogue operators, they did not stay that way for long as they were seen as a nice, deniable conduit for Qing resources to the war without openly escalating. Before the escalation ultimately happened with the decision to retain the Chinese garrisons throughout Indochina and ultimately have them confront the French in battle, which they had been doing for a full year before the Naval Attack.
So this attempt to portray Fuzhou as some kind of Pearl Harbor sneak attack against an uncommitted party does not cut water. Chinese Imperial troops (not intermediaries like the Black Flags or Vassal Subjects like the Vietnamese kingdoms) had been engaged in a state of war with the French in Indochina- and been receiving clear aid and direction from their home government during that time- for nearly half a year before the French Navy sank the Qing fleet at Fuzhou. This represents an escalation in the war, but not the start of one that both sides more or less regarded as already present.
"It was then the Chinese troops came over the Vietnam-China border and started military engagements against the French. "
Again, you're conveniently omitting that Chinese troops were present on Both sides of the border and were already involved in military engagements. And by most counts had already been coming across months before the official commitment after Fuzhou.
"The French by and large succeeded against Vietnamese soldiers when they were fighting alone. "
True but misleading. You're ignoring that they largely succeeded against Vietnamese soldiers when they were fighting alone, but also with the help of the Black Flags (who again, ultimately failed to stem the onslaught) and ultimately Chinese Imperial soldiers (such as those that were present at Son Tay and Bac Ninh).
"France wanted to annex and keep the Pescadores but had to return it to China."
Firstoff: You use "France" as if there were one united French government answerable to no one. This is not true. The main party in France that sought to keep the Pescadores was the Ferry government. Which fell as a result of the tactical Chinese victories and the embarassing French withdrawal to the South, and whose fall marks one of the genuine Chinese successes in the war. It was replaced by a French government that was clearly looking to get out of the war with Indochina and to cut down on colonial adventuring. And it was willing to give the Pescadores back if that meant it would happen sooner, not because they were somehow unable to maintain them against a near nonexistent Chinese naval threat.
Secondly: The fact is that they successfully took it in the first place, and thus ensured a sizable base in the South China Sea for the duration of the war. One that the Chinese military proved utterly unable to seriously close in to, let alone threaten. It was given back as part of a quick peace that was-again- decided mostly along French lines, in which the French abandoned some of the advantages they had gained in the war in order to end it and acquire Chinese recognition of French control of Indochina faster.
Paraphrasing this as "had" to give it back is misleading, given what we know of the actual talks.
"Japan threatened to enter the war against China after the French retreat from Lang Son which played a role in the negotiations."
Agreed. But that does not change the fundamentals; that half the reason the Japanese were emboldened to do this was because the Chinese military had come out the worst in the engagements. And in fact by the end of the war the Japanese were desperately trying to cement an alliance with a dovish, war weary French government that was not interested any more.
"France expected a conquest of Taiwan and to hold it as a bargaining chip to be a walk in the park"
This reads more like sensationalist, triumphalist "original research." The fact of the matter is that the French were never committed extensively to the Taiwanese campaign, and the failed landing in August disabused the people in command of the campaign that it would be- as you say- a "walk in the park."
"but instead were pinned down at Keelung for eight months."
Which does not change the fact that by the end of the campaign they had in fact expanded their beachhead in the face of Chinese resistance, in spite of both serious troop shortages and the Chinese numerical superiority and defenses. All in all leaving Keelung as what the French intended: a bargaining chip at the peace negotiations. The fact that it was a smaller bargaining chip than the entire island and probably less than what the French wanted should not be ignored and is a credit to the defenders, but that does not change the fact that it still was.
So I'm going to be blunt. It seems like you are applying double standards that give the Chinese military any possible benefit of the doubt, and at the same time hold the French up to impossible standards. The great argument you seem to be putting foreward- beyond those that are flat out contradicted by other articles on this Wiki and other, notable sources- is that the French sought to obtain bargaining chips by their campaigning in the South China Sea and the China-Indochina border (which is fair enough). They managed by any account to secure many of those bargaining chips (Keelung, Pescadores, et cetera) and deal material defeats to the Chinese military (the destruction of the fleet at Fuzhou ending Chinese naval strength in the South China Sea for nearly a century) and wound up winning recognition for their main goal: the annexation of Indochina. But since they didn't accomplish *all* of their objectives, this constitutes a Chinese victory.
This is not supportable. The Chinese military certainly did not lie down and die, but resisted admirably and limited the scope of both the French victories and French territorial gains, up to bringing down a French government. But this is not what the Qing Court had been seeking in the first place. In exchange for peace and the return of those bargaining chips, it had to suffer the abandonment of some of China's oldest tributary states (which were of vastly greater strategic value than frontier zones like Taiwan or marginal islands like the Pescadores) and thus write off the contributions of both a Chinese proxy army and actual Chinese armies. Which did nothing to improve Chinese or Qing prestige. All in all, a strategic defeat, and one that happened- contrary to your arguments- in the face of direct involvement from Imperial troops. So again: are you arguing that the articles for Son Tay, Bac Linh, and the Tonkin Campaign (that the Sino-French War is somehow treated as a sub-article of...) are wrong? And if so, where? 75.36.166.105 (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Chinese rule over Spratly and Paracel islands???
editThe article provide information about affirms Chinese rule over Spratly and Paracel islands, which is a serious affirm while dispute is happening in South China Sea right now, but the references are not reliable. In this study of US Government [4], the appendixes show all convention between French and Qing Chinese Government. They mentioned nothing about "Spratly and Paracel islands". Another source also show the CONVENTION CONCERNING THE DELIMITATION OF THE BORDER BETWEEN CHINA AND TONKIN, 1887 and again there is not anything about "Spratly and Paracel islands".
While the references [5] for above affirm only state that: China' claims to the islands are based on historic usage by China fishermen as early as 200 B.C.E and on the 1887 Chinese- Vietnamese Boundary Convention. As we can see in the full text of the Convention, there isn't a piece of information related to "Spratly and Paracel islands". I hope that "affirms Chinese rule over Spratly and Paracel islands" should be removed from the article as proved it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoangkid (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sino-French War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624202542/http://www.365lishi.com/qingchao/qingchaomr/3373.html to http://www.365lishi.com/qingchao/qingchaomr/3373.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
"Both sides claim victory"
editI think it's time to end this utter non-sense. There's the same thing on the Sino-Vietnamese War article. The only times I ever see this line is on articles about wars China lost
Why does wikipedia indulge in blatant Chinese jingoistic revisionism? France achieved its war goals, French victory period. Just because the Chinese performed less terribly than usual in a few ambushes doesn't mean that can claim victory in the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.241.174.178 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- In every chinese related article about war, they will always "claim victory". Complete delusion and are attempts made by ultranationalistic chinese (50 cent, wumao) trying to change and distort history because they still feel humiliated and insecure, so they have to reinvent and fake history to feel less shameful about their defeats. This is despite on record that the chinese have always outnumbered their opponents and still lost terribly countless times. And here on wikipedia, quora, and various wIki forums; their descendants have continued their legacy of shameful lying and unfaithful editing. Let's not forget that some chinese got to wikipedia admin level and were banned for CCP propaganda. 49.190.240.37 (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
.svg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Can we have an actual discussion on the Result section?
editInstead of just having a few confirmed users blindly cancelling and banning anyone who changes the result under "sockpuppet" accustions even though no consensus has been reached in the talk page yet? Can we discuss why we should take in consideration the Chinese claim of "victory" in this war they obviously lost, just because they had some success in one non-"game-changing" battle right before suing for peace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.150.152.202 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- The only people that get called sockpuppets are sockpuppets, you were called plain old disruptive. And no, we're not having a debate about what text should say based on the opinions of editors about the result. FDW777 (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Primary sources
editThis article's body depends overwhelmingly on French primary sources authored by living persons during the war. Maurice Loir was working in the French navy at the time of the war. Lecomte was also a captain in the French forces. Marolles was a vice-admiral. Auguste Bonifacy was a lieutenant-colonel. Huard, Armengaud, Garnot, Harmant, and Thomazi were all French people living at the time of the war. One source, La Dernière Campagne du Commandant Rivière by Marolles, was originally published before the war had even ended. The only Chinese source cited is Lung Chang and secondary sources are mostly relegated to the beginning and ending of the article. Qiushufang (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Result
editWhile the French appeared to be the overall winner of the war, there is no need for "French victory" and "French naval victory" to both appear as result(s) in the infobox. Instead, "French victory (especially in the naval campaign)" should state it all. --Wengier (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Favourable Peace for France result
editI've read the edit of why 'French Victory' has been removed and have been asked to go to talk page. While Tonkin and Annam were not Chinese pre-war both sides were contesting for the regions during the conflict and ultimately France achieved the main aim of the war. It was not merely 'diplomatic pressure' that led to China entering what was an unfavourable peace for them but its total defeat in the naval campaign that ultimately threatened its trade links. This is even included in the aftermath section and sourced. Even if it was case that the argument of achieving war aims just through diplomatic means does not constitute victory was true it is a poor one. If you achieve your war aims in a war through any means you have won. Even in the most extreme case of if a nation won every battle in a war but failed to achieve any of their aims at its conclusion and the other side did, that would constitute a defeat. I will leave this for a few days to gain a response before changing the box again to enable discussion.
Any statement must be based on reliable secondary sources. The outcome of war does not depend solely on the results of land or sea battles, so regardless of how you see it, the outcome of France cannot be considered as the outcome of the war; this requires secondary source references.In the aftermath section, four or five historians present entirely different conclusions. Therefore, I suggest directing readers to the aftermath section, allowing them to make their own judgments based on the varying conclusions of different historians. We see some sources claimed French victories but most of them are the first hand French source during the war. However, we also see many sources claimed a Chinese vicotry such as Jane E. Elliott, Chung-yam Po and Katherine Hui-yi Tseng. While someone considered it as a land Chinese victory and naval French vicoty.
The conclusion that the northern pressure from Japan and Russia was a key factor in China's acceptance of negotiations in terms of diplomatic pressure, as mentioned earlier, is provided by historians and not a random discussion on Wikipedia. According to Loyd Eastman，fear of conflict with Japan was the deciding factor in the Qing court's decision to sue for peace. This is the conclusion by historian.As said, northern threats posed by Russia and Japan forced China to enter negotiations not because of the war. If there is no war, China would be still in negotiations in the same way with history. Tonkin and Annam were not Chinese territories before the war, and China had no intention of participating in the conflict before France approached its borders. Vietnam was not significant to China. Faced with pressure from Japan and Russia in the north, China was satisfied with any agreement that did not involve the loss of its own territory.
I'm not suggesting to write any conclusion in the information box, nor do I intend to state victory for either France or China. I'm just suggesting changing it to "see aftermath." This is a very neutral statement that doesn't favor either side. The result is intricate and multifaceted, not easily encapsulated in brief statements. In the aftermath section, several historians offer divergent conclusions, highlighting the complexity of the situation. As such, I propose directing readers to this section, enabling them to form their own assessments based on the varied perspectives presented by different historians. Do not impose judgments to influence readers' thinking, but rather faithfully present the conclusions of various historians, allowing readers to interpret them on their own.
- You two need to sign and indent when making comments. Qiushufang (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Good afternoon, I appreciate your response so we can have an open discussion.
- While I appreciate your argument about the different sources on 'Victory on land' and 'Naval Victory' is less debated my suggestion is a middle ground, again not stating 'Victory' for either side as to define the military debate aspect but to put 'Favourable Peace for France' or 'Unfavourable Peace for China' this is sourced by Chung-Yam PO at the end of the aftermath section as unfavourable peace for China (due to seeking peace due to the naval defeats) so naturally the opposite can be concluded.
- The sources you have discussed are about the land campaign and not the overall result of the war and a war can be won in many ways. The unfavourable peace for china source is the only one in the aftermath that provides an overall result for the war.
- The overall result of the war which is sourced is a peace that benefited France more than China, the reader can then explore the different political and military debates in the article and does not then lessen the debate elsewhere with a definitive victory statement. FR1917 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to explicitly mention the peace negotiations in the above section. The Aftermath section already provides a detailed analysis, and the unfavorable peace for China, as mentioned by Chung-Yam PO, is clearly discussed in this section. Directing readers to the Aftermath is not about omitting or deleting any content; on the contrary, it offers a more comprehensive and detailed discussion that avoids any potential misunderstandings. War and peace negotiations are two separate processes, with various factors influencing the latter. The idea of seeking peace due to naval defeats is contested; historians like Jane E. Elliott and Chung-Yam PO argue that the Qing dynasty sought peace to address the military pressure from Japan in the north so that Qing need to end the southern war quickly. At the time, the Qing dynasty still retained two-thirds of its naval forces, including the nearly completed (probably building 2/3 process for this fleet) Beiyang Fleet, while the main forces of the Nanyang Fleet kept with some battleship loss and the Guangdong Fleet remained intact. Then the Fujian Fleet was totally destroyed, The Qing Dynasty still had fleets available for naval warfare, and whether the outcome of naval battles could decisively determine the outcome of the war when there was an advantage in land battles is a matter of contention. Moreover, even after France blockaded Taiwan at sea, they were unable to occupy it. As Jane E. Elliott and Chung-Yam PO have pointed out, the Qing dynasty was simultaneously facing two major power Japan and Russia in the north, This implies immense defensive pressure in the northern regions, both on land and at sea. This was the core reason for the Qing dynasty's decision to seek peace. China needed to quickly mobilize and preserve its navy and army to defend against Japan in the north. At the time, the Qing Dynasty was satisfied with the outcome of the war. This was because the Qing Dynasty did not lose any territory, which was its sole objective at the time. The Qing aimed to end the war while defending the northern territories against Japan and Russia's intentions to occupy its northern territories. Furthermore, the outbreak of the First Sino-Japanese War less than a decade after the end of the Sino-French War validates the inevitability of the Qing dynasty's choice. During the First Sino-Japanese War, the Qing dynasty still maintained a formidable fleet. Referring to the Russo-Japanese War, after Russia's naval defeat against Japan, it lost its naval capability in the First World War ten years later.
- However, I don't think those are the main points I want to make. I believe the core issue lies in the fact that the aftermath section is already very detailed and clear. Reading this section directly would eliminate any misunderstandings. In a war with so much controversy, summarizing the outcome in a single sentence could bias towards the conclusion of a particular historian. However, in this war, the conclusions of several historians are already inconsistent. 2400:56A0:3C1:3E05:93B4:E0F6:A65B:2A35 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)