The Rise and Fall of Yang Xian

In the seventh lunar month of 1370, Emperor Hongwu (Zhu Yuanzhang) ordered the execution of Yang Xian, marking the first time the Ming founder purged a high-ranking official from his inner circle. Yang Xian, once a trusted intelligence operative, had overstepped his authority—a fatal mistake in Zhu Yuanzhang’s ruthlessly centralized regime. His death sent shockwaves through the “Zhejiang Faction,” with former subordinates scrambling to resign or retreat from public life. The emperor, however, strategically appealed to their emotions, framing Yang’s demise not as punishment for incompetence but as a warning against political overreach.

This episode reveals Zhu Yuanzhang’s early reign dilemma: having eliminated rivals to claim the throne, he now faced the challenge of controlling the very factions that helped him seize power.

The Unintended Consequences of Purge Politics

Zhu Yuanzhang assumed Yang Xian’s elimination would placate his chancellor, Li Shanchang, leader of the rival “Anhui Faction.” Instead, Li privately warned allies: “Even the emperor’s most loyal hound can be slaughtered—we must tread carefully.” Recognizing the destabilizing effect, Zhu moved swiftly to restore equilibrium. That November, following general Xu Da’s triumphant northern campaign, he announced an unprecedented enfeoffment: six dukes and twenty-eight marquises received titles, deliberately balancing factions like Li Shanchang’s Anhui group, the Zhejiang clique, and even the lesser-known “Chao Lake Faction.”

Notably absent from the honors was Liu Bowen, the brilliant strategist whose lack of political ambition unnerved the emperor. Zhu later “relented,” granting Liu a belated title with calculated humiliation: “Only when the emperor recognizes merit does it become merit.” This psychological manipulation underscored Zhu’s growing autocracy.

The Chessboard of Power: Factionalism and Paranoia

The 1370 enfeoffment, while appearing generous, functioned as Zhu Yuanzhang’s kill list—many recipients would later be purged. Li Shanchang, though elevated to Duke of Korea, grew increasingly uneasy as Zhu reinstated Liu Bowen and other potential checks on his power. When Li stacked ministries with Anhui allies, Zhu initially approved every appointment—until Liu Bowen publicly objected, revealing the emperor’s orchestrated opposition.

By 1371, Zhu forced Li Shanchang’s resignation under the pretense of illness, installing protégé Hu Weiyong as chancellor. This move, seemingly a compromise, actually marked Zhu’s deeper entrenchment in absolutism. Li’s political demise—like Yang Xian’s—demonstrated that in Zhu’s court, survival depended not on loyalty or achievement, but on perpetual usefulness and submission.

Cultural Impact: The Psychology of Autocracy

The Yang Xian affair and its aftermath crystallized three defining features of Ming political culture:

1. Factional Paranoia: Provincial networks (Anhui vs. Zhejiang) became both organizational tools and existential threats, as Zhu deliberately stoked rivalries to prevent consolidation against him.
2. Performance of Loyalty: Officials like Liu Bowen, who resisted sycophancy, faced isolation, while survivors like Hu Weiyong mastered the art of visible subservience.
3. The Theater of Power: Zhu’s staged “debates” and selective punishments created an atmosphere where every action was scrutinized for hidden meanings, breeding widespread anxiety.

Legacy: The Blueprint for Ming Authoritarianism

Zhu Yuanzhang’s handling of the Yang Xian crisis established patterns that would define his 30-year reign:

– Institutionalized Distrust: The 1380 abolition of the Chancellery centralized power directly under the emperor, a direct consequence of these early factional wars.
– Purge as Policy: The 1370 enfeoffment recipients were systematically eliminated over the next two decades, proving Zhu’s rewards were often delayed death sentences.
– Psychological Governance: By keeping elites perpetually off-balance—elevating then humiliating Liu Bowen, feigning ignorance during factional disputes—Zhu pioneered a form of rule through controlled instability.

Modern parallels abound, from Stalin’s Great Purge to corporate leadership cults. Zhu’s reign remains a masterclass in how autocrats consolidate power by weaponizing gratitude, fear, and the human need for security—lessons as relevant today as in 14th-century Nanjing.