A General’s Frustration and the Illusions of Power

In the sweltering summer of 1900, as the Boxer Rebellion tightened its grip on North China, General Ma Yukun found himself caught between duty and disillusionment. A seasoned military commander recently arrived from beyond the Great Wall, Ma had witnessed firsthand the chaotic theater playing out in Tianjin. After yet another encounter with Boxer representatives whose claims he found utterly fantastical, he stormed away in frustration, his mind racing with the desire to confront Governor Yu Lu. He wished to expose what he saw as the dangerous deception of the Boxer movement—their exaggerated claims of military prowess, their mystical invincibility rituals, and their inflated reports of thousands of foreigners slain.

Yet his aides cautioned him against such a confrontation. Governor Yu Lu, they warned, had already fallen deeply under the Boxers’ spell. He had repeatedly memorialized the throne praising the Boxers’ loyalty and supernatural abilities, even recommending their leaders—Zhang Decheng and Cao Futian—as men “worthy of great employment.” These Boxer chieftains moved freely through the governor’s yamen, treated with near-divine reverence. In this atmosphere of collective delusion, Ma Yukun realized the futility of his intended protest. With despair settling in his heart, he whispered the grim prognosis: “Tianjin cannot be held.”

The Collapse of Civil Administration

As the Boxer movement intensified, the normal functioning of government in Beijing began to disintegrate. Officials either fled the capital or went into hiding. Government offices stood destroyed or inaccessible, and the machinery of administration ground to a halt. No ministry head bothered to maintain proper attendance records or enforce bureaucratic discipline—with one notable exception: the Hanlin Academy.

The Hanlin Academy, China’s prestigious imperial academy and repository of scholarly excellence, had been set ablaze by Gansu Army troops. While numerous distinguished scholars mourned the loss of priceless literary collections, the academy’s chancellor, Xu Tong, appeared remarkably unconcerned. He simply relocated operations to a temporary facility at the Bordered Yellow Banner official school on Zujia Street in the Inner City and issued notices demanding all academicians return to duty.

The response proved disappointing—fewer than one in ten scholars answered the summons. Xu Tong, furious at this disobedience, ordered the registry brought forth and began questioning each absence. His eyes immediately fell upon the name of Huang Siyong of the 1880 imperial examinations and a man Xu particularly despised.

The Scholar Versus the Ideologue

Huang Siyong represented everything Xu Tong detested in a scholar. Though a distinguished Hanlin academician, Huang engaged in commercial enterprises—a practice frowned upon by neo-Confucian traditionalists who considered profit-seeking beneath scholarly dignity. Worse still, Huang openly advocated for learning from the West, making him particularly suspect during the anti-foreign fervor of the Boxer movement.

When Xu Tong discovered Huang’s absence, he demanded explanations. Colleagues revealed that Huang had returned from escorting his family to safety in Tongzhou but had been abducted the previous evening by Boxers claiming to “take Huang Zhuangyuan for talks with Prince Zhuang.” His whereabouts remained unknown.

At this point, another academician, Yan Xiu , intervened. A native of Tianjin and Xu Tong’s own former student, Yan boldly defended his absent colleague and raised a more alarming pattern: another Xu protégé, Luo Chengxiang—the Zhuangyuan of 1895—had been recently robbed of all possessions by Boxers while traveling to his provincial examination assignment. Yan warned that such lawlessness would destroy the empire from within before any foreign enemy could.

Xu Tong dismissed these concerns with ideological certainty. He insisted that genuine Boxers were virtuous patriots who would never engage in theft, attributing such behavior to imposters. When Yan mentioned that Luo Chengxiang—handpicked by the emperor himself for his famous examination essay containing the loyal phrase “When the ruler worries, ministers feel shame; when the ruler is humiliated, ministers should die”—had been reduced to destitution, Xu remained unmoved.

The Tragedy of Superstition and Scholarship

The conversation then turned to another grim tale—that of Liu Baozhen on the examination results posted throughout Beijing.

For eight years, Liu had avoided any official assignment that might carry capital punishment risk, particularly examination supervision roles historically associated with corruption scandals. When the Boxer movement reached Beijing, Liu sought permission to return to his hometown, hoping to avoid the gathering storm.

Tragically, he encountered a former servant he had dismissed a decade earlier for misconduct. This man had since become a Boxer leader and immediately seized his chance for revenge. Liu was taken away and never seen again, his superstitious fears tragically realized.

Historical Context: The Boxer Rebellion in Crisis

The Boxer Rebellion emerged from complex socioeconomic conditions: drought-induced famine, economic disruption caused by foreign imperialism, and resentment toward Christian missionaries and Chinese converts. The movement gained official endorsement from conservative factions at court, including Empress Dowager Cixi, who saw the Boxers as potential allies against foreign powers.

By summer 1900, Boxer forces had besieged the foreign legations in Beijing while anti-foreign violence spread throughout northern China. The Qing court found itself divided between pragmatists who recognized the movement’s dangers and conservatives like Xu Tong who genuinely believed Boxer magic could defeat Western military technology.

The incidents described here reveal the administration’s collapse under the weight of this ideological conflict. Governor Yu Lu’s unquestioning acceptance of Boxer claims, the abduction of officials like Huang Siyong, the robbery of imperial envoys like Luo Chengxiang, and the murder of scholars like Liu Keyi all demonstrate how the state had effectively lost control to militia forces it could neither fully direct nor disarm.

Cultural and Social Impacts

The Boxer Rebellion exposed deep fractures within Chinese society and governance. The educated elite found themselves torn between nationalist sentiment and pragmatic recognition of China’s military weakness. The movement’s anti-intellectual tendencies threatened the scholar-official class itself, as demonstrated by the Hanlin Academy’s burning and the targeting of individuals like Huang Siyong for their “foreign-friendly” views.

The incidents also reveal the complex relationship between superstition and power. Boxer claims of supernatural protection found receptive ears among high officials, while educated men like Liu Keyi found their fates entangled with superstitious beliefs. The printing error that transformed “Liu Keyi” into “Liu Ke Sha” became a dark omen that reflected the collective anxiety of a society undergoing traumatic transformation.

The differential treatment of officials—with Boxers robbing some while revering others—illustrates the movement’s contradictory nature. While claiming to purify China from foreign influence, Boxer bands often pursued personal vendettas and material gain, undermining their professed moral purpose.

Legacy and Historical Reflection

The Boxer Rebellion’s aftermath brought devastating consequences: foreign occupation of Beijing, massive indemnities, and increased foreign intervention in Chinese affairs. Yet these events also catalyzed reforms that would eventually lead to the Qing dynasty’s collapse and China’s modern transformation.

The figures described here represent different responses to China’s crisis. Xu Tong embodied reactionary traditionalism that rejected any accommodation with modernity. Huang Siyong represented progressive elements willing to learn from foreign examples. Ma Yukun exemplified professional military officers frustrated by ideological interference. Yan Xiu demonstrated moral courage in speaking truth to power.

Their stories remind us that historical crises are experienced not as abstract forces but as personal dilemmas. The Boxer period forced officials and scholars to make impossible choices between personal safety and professional duty, between critical thinking and ideological conformity.

The Rebellion’s legacy remains contested in historical memory. For some, it represents patriotic resistance against imperialism. For others, it exemplifies the dangers of xenophobia and superstition. What remains undeniable is its impact on China’s trajectory—accelerating the decline of the imperial system while highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive reform.

The personal tragedies witnessed in the summer of 1900—the abductions, the robberies, the murders—were microcosms of a larger national tragedy. They revealed a government losing control, a society descending into violence, and a civilization struggling to find its footing in a rapidly changing world. These individual stories, preserved in historical records, give human dimension to one of modern China’s most tumultuous periods, reminding us that history is ultimately the sum of countless personal experiences amid great historical forces.