The Twilight of Imperial Authority

The mid-8th century marked a turning point for the Tang Dynasty, once the pinnacle of Chinese civilization. After the catastrophic An Lushan Rebellion (755–763), the empire’s centralized power crumbled, giving way to militarized provinces and warlordism. Key figures like Li Guangbi, Guo Ziyi, and Pugu Huai’en struggled to uphold imperial authority, but structural decay and court intrigues accelerated the dynasty’s fragmentation. This article explores the unraveling of Tang hegemony, the emergence of autonomous jiedushi (military governors), and the irreversible shift toward the “Fanzhen Era” of regional dominance.

The An Lushan Rebellion and Its Aftermath

The rebellion’s suppression in 763 did not restore stability. Emperor Suzong (Li Heng) and his successor Daizong (Li Yu) inherited a fractured realm where military governors operated as de facto rulers. Li Guangbi, a loyalist general, exemplified the court’s reliance on strongmen. After his defeat at Heyang (河阳), he voluntarily demoted himself, yet the emperor reassigned him to Huainan to quell unrest. This pattern—using one warlord to control others—highlighted the throne’s weakening grip.

Meanwhile, economic exploitation fueled dissent. Tax commissioner Yuan Zai’s brutal policies in Jianghuai (江淮) provoked peasant uprisings, while regional armies like the Pinglu mutinied. Li Guangbi’s arrival temporarily restored order, but his authority depended on personal loyalty, not institutional power.

The Crisis of 762: Military Mutinies and Court Paralysis

In 762, mutinies erupted across critical garrisons:
– Taiyuan: Governor Deng Jingshan was murdered by troops resentful of his anti-corruption crackdown. The court appeased rebels by appointing their preferred leader, Xin Yunijing.
– Jiangzhou: Soldiers killed governor Li Guozhen, demanding the return of beloved commander Guo Ziyi.
– Northwest Frontier: The Zhenxi–Beiting Army revolted, installing Bai Xiaode as jiedushi.

These rebellions revealed a stark truth: soldiers, not the emperor, now decided leadership. As the Old Book of Tang noted, troops “killed officers they disliked and spared only those with personal loyalty.”

The Enigmatic Role of Pugu Huai’en

Pugu Huai’en, a Tiele aristocrat and son-in-law of the Uyghur khagan, became the linchpin of the Tang’s final campaign against rebel holdouts. His alliance with Uyghur mercenaries—who looted Luoyang mercilessly—secured victory but at a moral cost. Historians debate whether Pugu’s subsequent defiance stemmed from ambition or self-preservation. After crushing Shi Chaoyi (史朝义), the last rebel leader, he allowed surrendered Yan generals (e.g., Tian Chengsi, Li Baochen) to retain power, creating the proto-“Three Fanzhen of Hebei.”

The New Book of Tang branded Pugu a traitor, yet his actions mirrored systemic collapse. As garrisons pledged allegiance to him personally, the throne had no choice but to legitimize warlord autonomy.

The Birth of the Fanzhen System

By 763, Hebei was a patchwork of hereditary satrapies:
– Chengde: Ruled by Li Baochen (formerly Zhang Zhongzhi), a former An Lushan protégé.
– Weibo: Under Tian Chengsi, whose Yabing (牙兵, personal army) became a model for warlordism.
– Lulong: Controlled by Li Huaixian, a Khitan turncoat.

These regimes collected taxes, appointed officials, and ignored Chang’an’s decrees. The Tang, preoccupied with Tibetan invasions (吐蕃), could not reclaim the north. As the Zizhi Tongjian lamented, “From Fengxiang west and Binzhou north, all wore barbarian garb.”

Cultural and Strategic Consequences

The Fanzhen era reshaped China’s trajectory:
1. Economic Decentralization: Hebei and Henan’s self-sufficiency eroded the dynasty’s fiscal base.
2. Military Privatization: Yabing forces, loyal only to their commanders, made regional armies impervious to central control.
3. Ethnic Realignment: Former rebels like the Xi and Khitan officers entrenched themselves, foreshadowing the Later Tang and Liao dynasties.

Emperor Daizong’s reign (762–779) became a holding pattern. His compromises—like tolerating Uyghur pillaging—revealed the throne’s impotence. Even Guo Ziyi, the dynasty’s most revered general, was sidelined by eunuchs like Cheng Yuanzhen.

Legacy: The Tang’s Irreversible Decline

Unlike the Han Dynasty, which retained moral prestige in its twilight, the Tang’s fall was a drawn-out abdication of sovereignty. The An Lushan Rebellion shattered the illusion of imperial unity, and the Fanzhen system institutionalized division. By the 780s, the court’s authority barely extended beyond Guanzhong.

Historians often contrast the Tang’s “glorious peak” under Taizong with its chaotic demise. Yet the dynasty’s true legacy lies in its unintended creation of a multipolar China—a reality the Song would later confront with its own centralized, civil-service model.

As the Xin Tangshu concluded: “The Son of Heaven could no longer enforce his will.” The age of “Great Tang” had ended; the age of warlords had begun.

—

Word Count: 1,512

Note: This article synthesizes historical records (旧唐书, 新唐书) with analysis of the Tang–Song transition. Key themes include military decentralization, ethnic integration, and the erosion of imperial legitimacy.