The An Lushan Rebellion and the Collapse of Tang Authority

The mid-8th century marked one of the most catastrophic periods in Tang Dynasty history—the An Lushan Rebellion (755–763). What began as a regional mutiny under the Turkic-Sogdian general An Lushan soon spiraled into a full-scale civil war, devastating China’s heartland and permanently weakening central authority. By 759, An Lushan was dead, but the rebellion found new leadership in his former lieutenant, Shi Siming, a cunning strategist who sought to replicate An’s initial successes by striking at the Tang’s logistical lifelines.

The rebellion’s second phase reached a critical juncture when Shi Siming marched southward, mirroring An Lushan’s earlier campaign route. His first target was Bianzhou (modern Kaifeng), the vital hub of the Grand Canal’s Tongji segment. Control of Bianzhou meant severing grain shipments from the fertile Yangtze Delta to the starving Tang capital. With this strategic chokehold secured, Shi turned westward toward Luoyang, the Tang eastern capital, where an equally formidable opponent awaited—Li Guangbi, the Tang’s newly appointed supreme commander.

Li Guangbi’s Strategic Dilemma: Defending the Undefendable

Upon returning to Luoyang from an eastern inspection tour, Li Guangbi confronted a dire situation. Shi Siming’s forces advanced rapidly, exploiting their momentum. The Tang court’s appointed Luoyang garrison commander, Wei Zhi, proposed a conventional defensive strategy: retreat to the natural fortress of Tong Pass, abandoning 500 li (about 250 km) of territory. Li Guangbi rejected this outright, recognizing its political and military folly.

“To abandon land without cause is to invite irreversible defeat,” Li argued. Instead, he advocated holding Heyang (河阳), a tripartite fortress complex guarding the Yellow River crossings. This position offered flexibility—linking Tang forces to Shangdang in the north while threatening Shi’s flanks. Li’s reasoning revealed his grasp of asymmetric warfare:

1. Political Peril: Retreating to Tong Pass risked repeating the disastrous fate of generals Feng Changqing and Gao Xianzhi, executed there in 756 for “cowardice.” Li, lacking political allies in the eunuch-dominated court, couldn’t afford such vulnerability.
2. Logistical Reality: Shi’s vanguard had already breached key defenses at Hulao Pass, rendering static defense impossible.
3. Cohesion Crisis: Many Tang regional commanders, like Xu Shuji (who reneged on a promised relief force), prioritized self-preservation over coordinated action.

Li ordered the evacuation of Luoyang’s civilians and officials, stripping the city of supplies to deny resources to Shi. In a masterstroke of psychological warfare, he staged a deliberate nighttime withdrawal—500 cavalry marching torchlit in perfect formation—daring Shi’s scouts to attack. None did.

The Battle of Heyang: Tactical Genius on Display

Shi Siming arrived at Luoyang on September 27, 759, to find an empty city. Denied plunder and unable to advance westward without exposing his rear to Li’s forces, Shi encamped south of Luoyang, initiating a protracted siege at Heyang. What followed was a campaign showcasing Li Guangbi’s brilliance in defensive warfare:

### The Duel of White Virtue
When Shi’s champion Liu Longxian taunted Tang forces by resting his foot on his horse’s mane, Li called for volunteers. The Turkic general Bai Xiaode (白孝德), later a famed Jiedushi, answered. Armed with twin spears, he crossed the shallow Yellow River alone, lulled Liu into complacency with feigned passivity, then decapitated him in a sudden assault—a morale-shattering spectacle for Shi’s troops.

### The Mare Gambit
Shi flaunted 1,000 prized stallions bathing daily along the river. Li countered by releasing 500 Tang mares; the stallions, driven by instinct, swam across the river en masse—a humiliating loss of prestige and breeding stock for Shi.

### The Fireboat Fiasco
Shi’s attempt to burn Heyang’s pontoon bridges using fireboats failed when Li deployed fireproofed poles to block and capsize the vessels—a tactic borrowed from Heyang’s defensive playbook dating back to the Northern Dynasties.

### The Desertion Trap
Li’s psychological manipulation reached its zenith when he baited Shi into sending elite generals Li Riyue and Gao Tinghui on a night raid. Knowing Shi’s reputation for executing failed commanders, Li left only minor officers at the targeted outpost. Facing certain death upon returning empty-handed, both generals defected—a devastating blow to Shi’s leadership.

The Pyrrhic Victory and Its Aftermath

Despite these successes, political fractures undid Li’s achievements. In 761, eunuch commander Yu Chao’en and the resentful general Pugu Huai’en (仆固怀恩) pressured Emperor Suzong into ordering a premature assault on Luoyang. Against Li’s objections, Tang forces abandoned Heyang’s defenses for an ill-fated open battle at Mangshan (邙山). Pugu’s insubordination—ignoring Li’s orders to hold elevated terrain—led to a crushing defeat. The Tang lost Heyang, and Shi regained the initiative.

Yet Shi’s triumph proved fleeting. His own brutality backfired when his son Shi Chaoyi, fearing execution after minor battlefield setbacks, orchestrated his assassination in 761. The rebellion fractured into warlordism, setting the stage for the Tang’s eventual—but costly—reconquest.

Legacy: The Art of Asymmetric Defense

Li Guangbi’s Heyang campaign remains a textbook example of leveraging terrain, psychology, and disciplined troops to offset numerical inferiority. His innovations—denial strategies, targeted deception, and mobile defense—contrasted sharply with the Tang court’s obsession with static fortresses like Tong Pass.

Historically, Heyang underscored the Tang’s fatal reliance on mercenary armies and warlord-governors (Jiedushi), a system that would plague China for the next 150 years. Ironically, Li’s tactical triumphs couldn’t compensate for the empire’s eroded political cohesion—a lesson in how institutional decay undermines even the most brilliant generalship.

For modern readers, this episode resonates as a timeless study in leadership under pressure, where adaptability and understanding of human nature (both allies and enemies) prove decisive against overwhelming odds.