The Taiping Crisis and the Desperate Defense of Nanjing

By late 1862, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom—once a formidable rebel state controlling much of southern China—faced existential collapse. Its capital, Nanjing (then called Tianjing or “Heavenly Capital”), had been under siege by Qing forces led by the formidable Zeng Guofan and his brother Zeng Guoquan for months. The city’s fall seemed imminent until the Taiping’s most capable general, Li Xiucheng (nicknamed “The Loyal King”), launched a dramatic relief campaign.

Li’s approach followed a classic pattern of military deception—claiming a 600,000-strong army with “half armed with Western rifles” and 1,000 cannons, though his actual force numbered barely 100,000 with limited firearms. This exaggeration mirrored ancient Chinese stratagems from The Art of War, where appearing stronger than reality could deter opponents. Yet Zeng Guoquan, commanding just 20,000 Xiang Army troops (boastfully inflated to 300,000), saw through the ruse. The stage was set for a brutal showdown outside Nanjing’s walls.

The Bloody Stalemate: Tactics and Tenacity

Li Xiucheng arrived in November 1862, encircling Zeng’s positions with a two-pronged assault. The Taiping forces initially relied on overwhelming firepower—Western-style rifles and cannons—but their undisciplined volleys often missed trenches. Zeng’s defenders, hardened veterans of the Xiang Army, exploited this with layered earthworks. As one soldier recounted:

> “Their shells burst like blooming flowers in our trenches… Had we not dug double-layered fortifications, we’d have perished.”

When frontal attacks failed, Li turned to tunneling—a tactic both sides employed with gruesome creativity. Underground clashes erupted in narrow passages, where Xiang troops threw explosives at Taiping diggers. Above ground, Taiping suicide squads charged with makeshift shields, only to be mowed down or driven back by their own commanders executing deserters.

A pivotal moment came when Zeng Guoquan was shot through the face mid-battle. With half his jaw shattered, he continued directing troops while spitting blood—a moment immortalized in Qing propaganda. His resilience galvanized defenders, who repelled wave after wave despite being outnumbered 5-to-1.

The Psychology of Warfare: Motivation and Morale

The contrasting leadership styles of Zeng and Li revealed much about their armies’ effectiveness. Zeng incentivized his troops with promises of Nanjing’s riches:

> “Gold, grain, and women await inside the city! The Emperor will reward us beyond dreams!”

His men roared back: “Loot money! Loot food! Loot women!”—a crude but potent motivator for peasant soldiers.

Li, meanwhile, appealed to religious fervor, urging troops to “rescue the Heavenly King” (Hong Xiuquan) for divine rewards. His speech met silence until veterans grudgingly echoed material demands. This disconnect highlighted the Taiping’s waning ideological cohesion after a decade of war.

The Withdrawal and Strategic Consequences

After two months of fruitless assaults, Li—starving and outmaneuvered—proposed abandoning Nanjing to strike northward (“relieving Wei to save Zhao”). Hong Xiuquan reluctantly agreed but ominously reminded Li that his family remained in the capital as hostages.

Li’s 70,000-strong northern campaign initially succeeded, capturing counties like Chaohu, but failed to divert Qing forces. By mid-1863, with Nanjing still besieged and Taiping morale broken, the rebellion’s fate was sealed. The city fell in July 1864, ending one of history’s bloodiest civil wars.

Legacy: Why the Relief Failed

Three key factors doomed Li’s campaign:
1. Logistical Limits: Taiping supply lines collapsed, leaving troops famished.
2. Discipline Divide: Xiang troops fought cohesively; Taiping forces fractured under pressure.
3. Strategic Inflexibility: Li’s tunnel tactics became predictable, while Zeng adapted dynamically.

Modern historians view this siege as the Taiping’s last gasp—a microcosm of their movement’s strengths (initial zeal, adaptability) and fatal flaws (poor logistics, erratic leadership). For the Qing, it showcased the Xiang Army’s professionalism, foreshadowing regional militarization that would later weaken central authority.

The human cost was staggering: tens of thousands perished in the trenches, their bones later piled into “victory monuments” by the Qing. Yet the battle also birthed legends, like Zeng Guoquan’s bloodied defiance—a symbol of the brutal determination that reshaped 19th-century China.