I think history is a very interesting thing, and the historical evaluation of a thing or a person will change with the changes of the times, because the needs of people in each era are different, so people's views on history are different. However, some things are absolutely not allowed to be tampered with, because they involve the most basic issue of right and wrong, and the so-called "new views" on them cannot and must not be allowed because of the changes of the times.
The change in the evaluation of Zeng Guofan and his Xiang army in recent decades is the best example. In the past, we said that Zeng Guofan was a reactionary landlord and gentry, the ancestor of China's modern feudal warlords, and now, some of us call him "Zeng Wenzhenggong" and call him a saint, and some people still want him to be juxtaposed with Confucius, just because we have inherited peace for a long time and have a heavy interest in our interests, we need to invite an ancient person to guide us how to get along with others, how to talk, how to control subordinates, how to look at people, so someone brought out Zeng Guofan, who had been dead for nearly 150 years. So Zeng Guofan completed his magnificent transformation in this way, and the Xiang Army, which was extremely vicious and viciously "reactionary landlord armed forces", also became a powerful force in modern China.
But is the Xiang Army's combat effectiveness really that strong? It is better to first look at the organizational form of the Xiang Army. The organizational form of the Xiang Army is absolutely unique in Chinese history. Zeng Guofan appointed some Confucian students as battalion officers, and then the soldiers (mainly some peasants in Hunan) were actually recruited by these battalion officers themselves, which formed a de facto feudal relationship, from which I was reminded of a sentence about the feudal society of medieval Europe: The vassals of my vassals are not my vassals. Because once the battalion officers died or resigned, the soldiers at the bottom would actually scatter. Zeng Guofan used Confucianism to restrain the troops, and some people said that this made Zeng Guofan's Xiang army a powerful force to suppress peasant uprisings and maintain the feudal system, in fact, what Old Man Zeng and his troops did afterwards was enough to kill Kong Lao'er several times. Such a deformed force actually appeared in the mid-19th century, which also determined that the Xiang Army would not last long.
Speaking of whether the Xiang army could defeat the Taiping Army, the first battle of the Xiang army sent by the old man Zeng was a big joke - the Battle of Jinggang, in which Zeng Guofan's Xiang Army Marine Division suffered a big defeat, so angry that Zeng Guofan almost wanted to commit suicide by throwing himself into the water, fortunately, he was finally fished up by his subordinates, which rectified the remnants of the army and fled to Changsha. In October of the following year (1855), the Xiang army counterattacked Jiujiang, Shi Dakai attacked the enemy's rescue, the army entered Jiangxi to defeat the Qing army, the whole province of Jiangxi suddenly boiled up, and all places submitted to the Taiping Army, and even Zeng Guofan himself was trapped in Nanchang, almost unable to escape. Before foreigners were involved in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom War, examples of Zeng Guofan's Xiang Army's fiasco defeated by the Taiping Army abounded, of course, the Taiping Army did not suffer losses, but in terms of overall form, if foreigners were not involved in the war, the Qing Dynasty would never be able to save the southern half of the country even if it would not perish.
Why? Because the foreigners did have a very important position in the whole war, we take the second attack of the Taiping Army on Shanghai as an example, before the foreigners' army was officially involved in the battle, the strongholds around Shanghai were swept away by the Taiping Army like autumn winds sweeping away the leaves, and when the foreigners entered the war, the powerful firepower instantly suppressed the Taiping Army, but the Taiping Army still carried out heroic resistance, and even the Western invaders themselves said: Without the support of powerful artillery forces, it is difficult for the Qing Army and the foreigners to drive the Taiping Army out of the position. Therefore, we can see that the convergence of Chinese and foreign reactionary forces was the trend from the second half of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century.
Speaking of the military discipline of the Xiang Army, Zeng Guofan claimed to rule the army with Confucianism, but the behavior of his officers and soldiers, as well as Zeng Guofan's own attitude towards it, were enough to make all the famous people in Confucianism angry. Needless to say, before the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement, there were more than 1 million residents in and outside Nanjing, and by the time Guangxu ascended the throne, there were only less than 500,000 people left in nanjing, most of whom died in the massacre of the Xiang army. In 1858, Li Xubin attacked Jiujiang, and almost no one in the city was spared, and a large number of people died under the sword of the Xiang Army. Zeng Guofan himself said: "I am far more afraid of the people than the thieves" It can be seen that in Zeng Guofan's eyes, slaughter is the only way to deal with the rebellious people at the lower levels. As far as the Xiang Army itself is concerned, if they are not allowed to rob and do not let them vent their animal lust, then these people will lose the motivation to fight, of course, if these people are full of food and have enough money to grab, then simply refuse to fight, Zeng Guofan will disband these people, and then re-recruit.
From this point of view, can the Xiang Army really be regarded as an army? I saw a bunch of bandits, bandits in uniform. To this day, this group of bandits is still praised as the "powerhouse" of modern China.
That is why I say that those who talk about history must not only keep up with the trend of the times and the development of society to change the perspective of looking at history, but at the same time must also have their own moral bottom line, if only for some purpose, the black is said to be white, the white is said to be black, then I see no need to study this history.