Question:Is Xiangyang a suitable capital for pre-modern China?

I've recently came across statements claiming that after environmental destruction of Guanzhong during the Tang Dynasty,the city of Xiangyang is actually most viable as capital because of several points:

1.It lies in the crossroad between northern and southern China.

2.It's connected to the Han River,a tributary of the Yangtze River, and as a result can be supplied easily.

3.The region surrounding the city is to a large extent surrounded by mountain ranges and rivers--thus can be much easily defended than a place like Kaifeng which is located in a plain.

So,in the opinion of the knowledgeable individuals of this forum,how true are these statements and how suitable is the city of Xiangyang as the capital of the Chinese Empire?
 
Last edited:
I see, I confused it with Xianyang.:p
But wouldnt somewheremmore developed and more connected like Jiankang be better?
Folks claim Jiankang is too far to the south-east and that once the enemy got across the Yangtze,there's no natural barriers to defend it.
 
Last edited:
There was a city even less appropriate as a capital, namely Kaifeng in Henan, that was made capital of Song Dynasty despite Emperor Taizu's preference for Chang'an. Its terrain was so indefensible that trees had to be planted at its north so slow the movement of Khitan horsemen.

At least Xiangyang behaves better at sieges. During the fall of Song, it held five years against the Mongols, better than many historical capitals.
 
There was a city even less appropriate as a capital, namely Kaifeng in Henan, that was made capital of Song Dynasty despite Emperor Taizu's preference for Chang'an. Its terrain was so indefensible that trees had to be planted at its north so slow the movement of Khitan horsemen.

At least Xiangyang behaves better at sieges. During the fall of Song, it held five years against the Mongols, better than many historical capitals.
Unfortunately,the region around Chang'an,Guanzhong, was destroyed environmentally during the Tang Dynasty.The excessive logging and farming in the region caused the region to become a semi-desert by the start of the Five Dynasties,Ten Kingdoms period.This meant that supplying the capital would be a highly inefficient task.More importantly,the decline of Guanzhong as an economic center was contrasted by the rise of South China as the new economic center.From what I've read,the rise of warlordism during the later stages of Tang was by no means disconnected by the fact that the central government no longer dominated the economic center of the empire.

Kaifeng isn't a bad capital per se,given it's at the junction of the four major canals.It was a great economic center.Problem like you mentioned is that it's utterly indefensible.The nearest natural defenses against the northern nomads,the sixteen prefectures were actually in the hands of said enemies already.

The thing about Xiangyang is that it seems to be much defensible geographically given the region around it is surrounded by rivers and mountains.IIRC,some people claimed that it's the third most defensible region after Guanzhong and Sichuan.Now the problem is can it function as an economic center?From what being said,it was actually the crossroads between different parts of China,especially between the North and the South.It's also connected to the Yangtze via the Han River and can transport goods in and out much more efficiently than a place like Chang'an.

By the way,wasn't Luoyang the place Zhao Guangyi wants to move the capital to?
 

nomisma

Donor
Xiangyang wasn't an important crossroads (or not important enough) between north and south after Tang dynasty, as you already said the decline of Guanzhong. After the economic toward shift to lower Yangtzu region, Henan or Yangtze-Huaihe Region simple become a better place as capital than Xiangyang.

Xiangyang could be a capital, but it would not be a good one.
 
Xiangyang is not a suitable capital for China and was never a suitable capital, even during the Southern Dynasties where Jingzhou/Jiangling, a city on the Yangtze directly to the south, tended to be the alternate center of power to Jiankang.

1) Xiangyang might be an important military point but it is not an important economic point. Goods shipped across water are generally cheaper than those shipped across land, and Guanzhong merchants would have used the Wei River to access the commercial hubs of the Yellow River and through the Grand Canal to Jiangnan, rather than some overland route to Xiangyang (whose military importance comes from it being one of the northernmost non-canal access points to the Yangtze basin).

This is important because economic power tends to create political power of its own - a capital at Xiangyang would create rival centers of power at Kaifeng and Jiangnan, dangerous given the economic strength of the latter two.

2) This is true, but in and of itself is not a reason to create a capital there. Kaifeng, Luoyang and all the various other capitals were also easily supplied. Xiangyang also tends to rely heavily on Han River supply, unlike the aforementioned cities which have large agricultural hinterlands - and once that is blocked (like Kublai Khan building his own Han River navy and denying access to Song reinforcements through counterweight trebuchets), Xiangyang would be in trouble.

3) Easily defended terrain tends not to be accessible terrain, which is always troubling for an imperial capital. It segregates the country and creates alternate centers of power, especially in distant cities that are home to rich and powerful people.

Guanzhong was a suitable capital initially because the economic power was concentrated either there or in the North China Plain, which was accessible through the Yellow River; its decline was not only the result of deforestation but also because economic power had shifted increasingly to cities like Jiankang and Yangzhou, whose remoteness from Chang'an created incentives for autonomy - dangerous especially when you rely on said region for tax and supply (remember that the powerful 10 Kingdoms states of Wu and Southern Tang had their bases in the Yangzhou/Jiankang region).

Kaifeng was much more connected to Jiangnan, both in terms of sheer distance and also through the Grand Canal, and therefore it was a more effective point for exerting control over that lucrative region. In addition, by the time of the 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms the city had already been an imperial capital several times over (of course, the dynasties were brief) as well as a jiedushi capital for much longer, so all the infrastructure was in place, unlike Xiangyang which was not a capital (again, unlike Jiangling, which was the capital of Nanping).

The indefensibility of Kaifeng is an issue, but it's not a tremendous one - strongpoints along the route from Beijing could delay nomadic advances long enough for an effective military response. The problem was Song inferiority due to its military system, and even that was rectified through diplomacy and tribute with the Liao. Without the Song foreign policy debacle in the Jin alliance, Kaifeng would have been perfectly OK as a Song capital.
 
Last edited:
Top