The Fractured Landscape of Southern Ming Loyalism

The mid-17th century witnessed one of China’s most turbulent periods as the Ming dynasty collapsed under peasant rebellions and Manchu invasions. Following the fall of Beijing in 1644, Ming loyalists established a series of short-lived regimes collectively termed the Southern Ming. Among these, the Yongli Emperor’s court—nominally supported by warlords like Li Chengdong and Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga)—represented the last credible resistance against the Qing conquest.

Chaozhou, a fertile prefecture in Guangdong province, became an unexpected flashpoint in 1649. This resource-rich region, strategically positioned between Zheng-controlled Fujian and Li Chengdong’s Guangdong territories, exposed the fatal divisions within the Southern Ming coalition. The conflict pitted Zheng Chenggong’s maritime-focused forces against Hao Shangjiu, a former Li Chengdong subordinate governing Chaozhou under Yongli’s authority.

Seeds of Conflict: Grain, Grievances, and Geopolitics

The roots of the Chaozhou confrontation lay in three combustible factors:

1. Resource Scarcity: Zheng’s maritime empire, centered on Xiamen and Kinmen, struggled to feed its growing army. Chaozhou’s rice-producing plains offered a solution.
2. Northern-Southern Tensions: Former Zheng Zhilong officers like Shi Tianfu resented Li Chengdong’s “northern” faction, fueling revanchist ambitions.
3. Strategic Myopia: Despite Li Chengdong’s 1648 defection to the Ming, Zheng forces had already begun encroaching on Chaozhou under pretexts of “grain collection.”

Contemporary records reveal Zheng Chenggong’s moral quandary. As advisor Pan Haiyou noted: “Chaozhou’s fertile lands could sustain our armies, but how can we seize Ming territory?” The proposed solution—seeking retrospective Yongli approval—was clearly disingenuous given the court’s dependence on Li Chengdong’s faction.

The Campaign Unfolds: From Grain Raids to Open Warfare

The conflict escalated through distinct phases:

1648-1649: Provocations and Standoffs
– Zheng Hongkui (Chenggong’s uncle) leads 3,000 troops to Chaozhou’s Jieyang County
– Envoy Yang Qiansheng’s diplomatic overture rejected by Hao Shangjiu
– Zheng forces attack semi-independent warlords like Xu Long and Zhang Li

Late 1649: Full-Scale Invasion
– December: Zheng Chenggong arrives with 24 brigades (~12,000 troops)
– Systematic occupation of Chaozhou’s counties (Haiyang, Jieyang, etc.)
– Propaganda frames Hao as “Qing collaborator” to justify attacks

1650: Qing Intervention and Aftermath
– June: Hao, isolated after Huang Yingjie’s defection to Qing, requests Manchu aid
– Qing general Wang Bangjun relieves Chaozhou, forcing Zheng’s retreat
– Strategic consequence: Qing gains foothold in eastern Guangdong

Cultural and Organizational Fault Lines

This conflict exposed deeper fractures within anti-Qing resistance:

Clashing Loyalist Visions
– Zheng’s maritime-centric strategy vs. Li Chengdong’s land-based operations
– Regional parochialism overriding unified command

The “Ming Loyalist” Paradox
Hao’s eventual defection to Qing—triggered by Zheng’s attacks—highlighted how internecine strife eroded moral authority. As Lu Kezao’s chronicle dryly noted, Hao’s resistance against Zheng was merely “a fight in the burrow” rather than anti-Qing heroism.

Logistics vs. Ideology
Zheng’s focus on securing Chaozhou’s harvests—while tactically understandable—undermined the broader resistance. The campaign diverted resources from more critical fronts like the defense of Guangzhou, which fell to Qing forces that same year.

Legacy: A Cautionary Tale of Divided Resistance

The Chaozhou debacle offers enduring lessons:

1. The Cost of Fragmentation: Zheng’s territorial ambitions compromised the Southern Ming’s survival. By 1651, the Yongli court had fled to Guangxi, its authority irreparably damaged.
2. Qing Strategic Gains: The conflict enabled Qing consolidation in Guangdong, foreshadowing their eventual conquest of Taiwan in 1683.
3. Historiographical Reassessment: Modern scholarship increasingly views this episode as civil conflict rather than anti-Qing resistance, challenging romanticized Zheng Chenggong narratives.

As the Taiwan Waiji and Xianwang Shilu records demonstrate, even revered figures like Zheng Chenggong could prioritize factional interests over collective survival. The Battle for Chaozhou remains a sobering case study in how resource competition and personal grievances can unravel coalitions facing existential threats—a dynamic echoing across military history from the Reconquista to modern insurgencies.