The Road to the Throne: A Calculated Rise

In the tenth year of the Tiancong era (1636), Hong Taiji, the second ruler of the Later Jin dynasty, made a pivotal decision that would reshape East Asian history: he abandoned the title of “Great Khan” and proclaimed himself emperor of the newly declared Qing dynasty. The elaborate ceremonies on April 11, 1636, presented an image of unanimous support—Mongol nobles, Han defectors, and Manchu aristocrats all offered petitions urging his imperial elevation. Yet beneath this spectacle lay layers of political theater and deliberate historical revisionism that raise questions about the legitimacy of his claims.

Hong Taiji’s ascension was no spontaneous event but the culmination of years of strategic maneuvering. His father, Nurhaci, had established the Later Jin in 1616, positioning himself as a successor to the Jurchen Jin dynasty (1115–1234). By inheriting this legacy, Hong Taiji faced both opportunities and challenges—particularly the need to distance himself from the Jurchen Jin’s controversial history while consolidating multiethnic support for his expanding empire.

The Suspicious Imperial Title: “Benevolent, Gentle, and Sagely”

The most glaring contradiction emerged in Hong Taiji’s chosen imperial title: Kuanwen Rensheng Huangdi (“Broadly Benevolent, Gentle, and Sagely Emperor”). This grandiose epithet starkly contrasted with his military campaigns—brutal invasions of Korea (1627, 1636), relentless attacks on Ming China, and the subjugation of Mongol tribes. Contemporary observers, including later historians like Xiao Yishan, noted the irony: a ruler who employed scorched-earth tactics against Ming border towns and imposed harsh terms on surrendered Korean royalty could hardly embody “gentleness.”

This performative titling served a clear purpose. By adopting Confucian-inspired virtues, Hong Taiji sought to appeal to Han Chinese literati and legitimize his rule within the traditional Chinese imperial framework. The title was less a reflection of his governance than a calculated rebranding effort aimed at easing the Qing’s eventual conquest of China proper.

Reinventing the State: From “Later Jin” to “Great Qing”

One of Hong Taiji’s most consequential acts was the erasure of the “Later Jin” identity. Historical records show deliberate efforts to obscure references to Nurhaci’s dynasty, including altering inscriptions and official documents. This revisionism stemmed from the problematic associations of the Jin name—particularly its connection to the Jurchen Jin dynasty, which had humiliated the Song Chinese during the Jingkang Incident (1127).

The new name “Qing” (清, meaning “pure” or “clear”) carried multilayered symbolism:
– Cosmological Significance: The Qianlong Emperor later claimed it represented the “great east” (大东), linking it to the color blue-green in Chinese cosmology.
– Militaristic Undertones: The term evoked “pacification” (廓清), aligning with Hong Taiji’s expansionist agenda.
– Phonetic Manipulation: Scholars note that “Qing” may have been a deliberate homophonic shift from “Jin” (金), allowing continuity while discarding historical baggage.

Fabricating Ethnic Identity: The Invention of “Manchu”

Perhaps Hong Taiji’s most audacious act was the creation of the “Manchu” ethnicity. In 1635, he issued an edict forbidding the use of “Jurchen” (女真) or “Juchen” (诸申), insisting his people had always been called “Manju” (满洲). This was a radical departure from historical reality—Nurhaci’s own documents identified as “Jurchen,” and Ming records consistently used this term.

The motivations were geopolitical:
1. Severing Ties to the Jurchen Jin: By denying this lineage, Hong Taiji distanced himself from the Jin dynasty’s atrocities against Han Chinese.
2. Buddhist Legitimacy: Some theories suggest “Manju” derived from “Manjushri” (the Bodhisattva of Wisdom), granting divine sanction.
3. Unifying a Multiethnic Empire: The new identity helped assimilate Mongols, Han, and other groups under a shared banner.

Even the Qianlong Emperor later admitted the ruse, acknowledging in 1777 that “Manju” was a politicized adaptation of “Jurchen.”

Legacy: The Foundations of Qing Hegemony

Hong Taiji’s reforms had lasting consequences:
– Imperial Blueprint: His Sinicized bureaucracy and Confucian posturing set precedents for the Qing’s eventual rule over China after 1644.
– Ethnic Policy: The artificial “Manchu” identity became a cornerstone of Qing ethnic hierarchy, though it required constant reinforcement (e.g., the Eight Banners system).
– Historical Manipulation: The systematic rewriting of early Qing history created enduring ambiguities, as seen in debates among 20th-century historians like Xiao Yishan and Meng Sen.

Modern scholarship continues to unravel these fabrications. Archaeological finds—such as unaltered Nurhaci-era stele bearing “Later Jin”—confirm the extent of Hong Taiji’s revisions. His reign exemplifies how empires construct legitimacy through selective memory, demonstrating that history is often shaped not just by events, but by their subsequent erasure and reinterpretation.

In the end, Hong Taiji’s “Great Qing” was as much a propaganda triumph as a military one. By masking conquests behind benevolent titles, burying controversial lineages, and inventing unifying identities, he crafted an empire capable of ruling China for 268 years—but not without leaving behind traces of the deception.