Those statements are complete nonsense.
That's a very biased opinion against Han Chinese in general. The same as those praising the Mongols while bashing the Han Chinese.
Early Qing emperors did pretty well, those in the middle era are mediocre ones and those in the late era are simply incompetent.
Ok. Let's get it started. I would only include the dynasty that can rule a united or half united China, or not too short (like Qin or Sui)
Han: Basically not too bad.. few of them very good.. but those in East Han after first 2 are atrocious.. all of them died very young and have their power controlled by relatives/ eunuchs, the last controlled by different warlords.
Jin: Basically horrible except the first, maybe, got one famous idiot.
Tang: Got a few very good one... though one of them damn the empire.. and a lot of them are just agents of the eunuchs.
Song: From the tradtional Chinese point of view they are not too good, as the Chinese always get bullied by neighbors. Economically they may do quite good..got a famous calligrapher that cost the empire. Those in South Song are content with having only half of the land.
Yuan: Those after kublai khan are basically crap.
Ming: Got a a few good one, but also a lot of unsuitable candidates. One should be a fighter instead... one should be an alchemist.. one should be a carpenter.. one should be a sleeper as he is too lazy and the last killed his best general that can defend the empire.
The reason that I said Qing has the highest average as they have quite a few good candidates... and the rest may be mediocre.. but they do not have some very unsuitable one like those in Ming that should not be an emperor in the first place. And they do not change their emperor too often. The worst is probably the last..a kid.
Last edited: