The Northern Han are a direct continuation of the Later Han, after the Later Zhou kicked them out of the capital, and presumably if anything more Shatuo than them, because they lost most of their Chinese subjects while holding on to the core Shatuo area. So I definitely think they should count as a Shatuo dynasty.David Kuijt wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:05 pmNow reading about the Shatuo Chinese Dynasties, I'm wondering if the Northern Han ought to be considered as a Shatuo Chinese Dynasty rather than a Northern Five Dynasties -- the difference is primarily whether it (N.Han) is a Shatuo Chinese Dynasty army (Elite Cav, Horsebow, with lots of Northern Chinese foot troops as well) or a Northern Five Dynasties army (smaller contingents of Elite Cav and Horsebow; more and better Chinese foot). Any thoughts?
Sounds like an excellent idea - the Late/Later distinction is very confusing.Note that I decided to rename the Late Tang (which was intended to represent the Tang armies after the start of the An Lushan series of rebellions) as Post Rebellion Tang -- because calling them Late Tang is confusing given the existence of the Later Tang as a Shatuo (non-Chinese) dynasty within a few generations.
They did - perhaps most notably, the Later Tang conquered the Former Shu in 925. About a decade later the place rebelled and remained independent as the Later Shu until conquered by the Song.I've linked up the Shatuo Chin.Dyn. with an enemies link to the Northern Five Dynasties -- do you have any idea whether they ever fought battles against the Ten Kingdoms down in the south?
I don't think there's any particular reason to single out the Southern Han in the list name - they're a southern Ten Kingdom state among the others, and "Post-Rebellion Tang and Ten Kingdoms Southern States" is a bit of a mouthful already.
(The Northern Han is the only fo the Ten Kingdoms located in the North.)