“
Exactly contrary to Knollys’ and Wolseley’s thinking, however, it was only during the plundering and burning of the imperial gardens that Prince Gong, Guiliang, and Wenxiang were seriously contemplating to give up the peace effort altogether. Hearing of the plundering on October 8, for instance, they recommended to the emperor a postponement of the ongoing peace talks. As they put it, no matter how much China was willing to stoop to the conquerors out of consideration for the general interest, the foreigners seemed to have no interest in restraining their behavior. They reiterated their position in a memorial to the emperor in Rehe as follows 去书内
”

  • 林勇辉 林勇辉

    This section offers a counterpoint to Western perspectives from Knollys and Wolseley by revealing Qing leaders’ shattered willingness to continue peace negotiations amid the looting and burning of imperial gardens. Contrary to the two Western figures’ assumptions, Prince Gong, Guiliang and Wenxiang nearly abandoned all diplomatic reconciliation entirely once the ransacking began. Upon receiving word of the plunder on October 8, the three key Qing negotiators submitted a proposal to the Xianfeng Emperor to suspend the ongoing peace talks. Their core grievance was that the Qing court had already prepared to make substantial concessions to the invaders for the sake of national stability. Even with such compromise on China’s side, Anglo-French forces showed no intention of curbing their destructive and lawless conduct. They restated this stance formally in an official memorial sent to the emperor sheltered in Rehe. This record effectively dismantles one-sided Western narratives that frame Qing officials as uncooperative negotiators. Instead, it demonstrates that the imperial garden arson directly undermined the Qing court’s trust in foreign goodwill, pushing peace diplomacy to the brink of collapse.

    2026-06-20 喜欢(0) 回复(0)

相关话题

  • 久久     回复：0

收藏了本书的圈子