A Province at the Crossroads of Dynasties

The summer of 1644 marked a pivotal moment in Chinese history, as the collapse of the Ming Dynasty created a power vacuum that three competing forces sought to fill: the remnants of the Ming loyalists, the emerging Qing Dynasty from Manchuria, and the peasant rebel Shun regime led by Li Zicheng. Nowhere was this triangular contest more vividly demonstrated than in Henan province, where shifting allegiances, local warlords, and ideological claims turned the region into a microcosm of China’s broader dynastic transition.

Henan’s strategic location—situated at the heart of China’s Central Plains—made it a coveted prize. Traditionally known as “Zhongzhou” (the Central Province), it had long been an agricultural and cultural hub. By mid-1644, however, the Shun regime’s control over Henan was unraveling. After Li Zicheng’s defeat at Beijing in late April, his forces withdrew westward, leaving behind a patchwork of loyalists, opportunists, and Qing infiltrators.

The Collapse of Shun Authority

With the Shun military retreating to Shaanxi, their hastily established administration in Henan began to crumble. Local Ming loyalists seized the opportunity to strike back. In May 1644, Ming prefect Sang Kaidi of Guide Prefecture, upon hearing of Li Zicheng’s defeat, orchestrated a rebellion with Ding Qiguang, brother of former Ming commander Ding Qirui. They arrested Shun-appointed officials across six counties—Shangqiu, Zhecheng, Luyi, Ningling, Kaocheng, and Xiayi—and sent them as prisoners to the newly established Southern Ming court in Nanjing.

Meanwhile, former Ming military officers like Xu Dingguo regrouped in Suizhou, while Zhang Jinyan, a Ming defector to the Shun who later defected back, mobilized gentry and local bandits in Xinxiang. The Shun’s authority was further undermined by regional warlords:

– Liu Hongqi dominated Runing
– Han Jiadai controlled Xuzhou
– Li Jiyu held Dengfeng
– Li Hao ruled Yuzhou
– Liu Xuan governed Xiangcheng

These warlords, many of whom had started as anti-Ming rebels before aligning with local elites, now commanded private armies numbering in the tens of thousands. Their loyalty was transactional—shifting between the Ming, Shun, and eventually the Qing based on perceived advantage.

The Southern Ming’s Faltering Response

The Hongguang Emperor’s regime in Nanjing, though nominally the Ming successor, proved ineffective in consolidating Henan. Despite appointing officials like Chen Qianfu (as Inspector) and Liu Hongqi (as Military Commissioner), their efforts were disjointed. Key issues plagued the Southern Ming:

1. Factional Infighting: The court prioritized internal power struggles over unified military action.
2. Warlord Dependence: Reliance on figures like Liu Hongqi, who had his own ambitions.
3. Strategic Paralysis: Major Ming armies, including Zuo Liangyu’s forces in Hubei, remained passive.

A telling example was the Ming’s failure to capitalize on Liu Hongqi’s temporary victories against Shun forces near Kaifeng. Despite winning at Liuyuan (north of Kaifeng) against Shun general Chen De (son of the turncoat Chen Yongfu), the Southern Ming lacked the resources to press further.

The Qing’s Calculated Advance

While the Ming and Shun remnants clashed, the Qing adopted a methodical strategy. By July 1644, they had appointed key administrators for northern Henan:

– Yang Fangxing (Director-General of Waterways)
– Su Hongzu (Regional Inspector of Hebei Circuit)
– Shen Chaoji (Defense Commissioner of Hebei Circuit)

Military appointments followed in August, with Zu Kefa as Weihui Garrison Commander and Jin Yuhe as Huaiqing Deputy Commander (later promoted). Unlike the chaotic Ming-Shun contest, the Qing focused on institutional control—establishing tax systems, restoring infrastructure, and co-opting local elites.

The Human Toll and Social Breakdown

Contemporary accounts paint a harrowing picture of Henan in late 1644:

– Economic Collapse: Fields lay fallow; irrigation systems (like those along the Yellow River) fell into disrepair.
– Refugee Crises: Displaced populations clustered around walled cities or fled to mountainous regions.
– Dual Administrations: In some counties like Yanling, both Ming and Shun officials claimed authority, creating parallel governments.

A report by Qing official Li Qifeng in September 1644 noted: “Everywhere in Henan, there is either soldier or bandit… nowhere is peaceful.”

Legacy: Why Henan Mattered

The 1644 struggle for Henan foreshadowed broader trends in the Ming-Qing transition:

1. Localism Over Loyalty: The rise of warlords like Liu Hongqi demonstrated how provincial interests often outweighed dynastic allegiance.
2. Qing Administrative Superiority: Their systematic approach contrasted with the Ming’s reliance on ad hoc militias.
3. The Cost of Vacillation: Regions that frequently switched hands (e.g., Xuzhou) suffered disproportionately, delaying post-war recovery.

Modern historians view Henan’s fragmentation as emblematic of why the Qing ultimately prevailed—while others fought over territory, the Manchus built institutions. The province’s agony in 1644 was not just a military contest, but a test of governance that would shape China’s next three centuries.

(Word count: 1,587)