In China, many writers and screenwriters once made a funny slip of the pen "Eight-Nation Alliance burned Yuanmingyuan". Fortunately, after all, there are historians in our country, who turn the tide and defend the historical fact that "the British and French allied forces burned the Yuanmingyuan" with a straight face.

But in my opinion, even the statement that "the British and French allied forces burned the Yuanmingyuan" is still inaccurate. ...

Who set fire to Yuanmingyuan?

/kloc-For more than 0/00 years, anyone with a little knowledge of modern history in China will tell you without hesitation: "The British and French allied forces burned the Yuanmingyuan".

There seems to be nothing wrong with this statement in principle. However, if we go deep into historical materials and start with details, we will find that this statement is still too general.

The fact that I read from various historical materials is that it was not the "British and French allied forces" that burned Yuanmingyuan, but the "British invaders". In the raging fire that lasted for two days, the French invaders seemed to be just a bystander and didn't play any substantive role.

First of all, I want to explain the background of this story.

During the Second Opium War, the British and French allied forces entered Beijing, and the allied forces mistakenly thought that Emperor Xianfeng lived in Yuanmingyuan (in fact, Emperor Xianfeng took refuge in Chengde, Jehol). This is the original motive of the British and French allied forces to slaughter Yuanmingyuan-to capture the Qing emperor alive.

In the process of marching into Yuanmingyuan, the French invaders arrived at Yuanmingyuan first and began to rob the property in the park, while the British invaders lost their way and arrived one day late.

The American Marquis, who had been an official for a long time in the late Qing Dynasty, believed that the French invaders took the lead in looting the Yuanmingyuan. Since then, it was the British invaders who set fire to Yuanmingyuan, while the French invaders did not actually participate in the arson.

Mars said this in his book The History of Foreign Relations of the Chinese Empire:

"... Finally, Count Erkin (the British plenipotentiary) wanted to destroy the building of Yuanmingyuan Palace, and regarded it as a place where some prisoners were abused, as a way to plan to damage the personal dignity of the (Qing) emperor ... But Baron Gregorian (of the French army) thought that this was only a kind of destruction of rural places and villas, and he had no resistance. He would rather destroy the palace in Beijing. Because that's where the supreme power lies ... General Meng (French army) saw that Yuanmingyuan was looted by his own army and thought that destroying Yuanmingyuan was an atrocity that destroyed culture and could not produce the expected effect. He refused to cooperate in this destruction, and General Grant (British army) objected that it was treachery ... So he (Grant) proceeded to execute Earl Elgin (British plenipotentiary). This order was issued on June 10, 2008 ... The army under the command of General Grant (Britain) set fire to more than 200 buildings ... The French looted the palace and the British destroyed it ... "

To sum up, Mars' statement has the following meanings:

1. The French army looted the property of Yuanmingyuan, while the British army offered to burn it.

The French army didn't agree to burn the Yuanmingyuan. The French army said: If you want to burn, burn the Forbidden City.

The British army insisted on burning Yuanmingyuan, but the French army objected and refused to participate.

The British army went its own way and ordered its own troops to burn Yuanmingyuan alone.

Let's listen to the Swiss scholar Eric Ringmar:

"... finally, on1October 8th18th, British commander James Bruce, the son of the 7th Earl of Elgin, a notorious Greek marble collector, ordered the Yuanmingyuan to be burned. In the next two days, groups of soldiers were sent everywhere and set fire to palaces and other buildings ... "

Erik Ringmar's narrative is translated into Chinese, meaning as follows:

"... finally, on (1860) 10 June 18, Elgin, commander-in-chief of the British army, ordered the Yuanmingyuan to be burned. In the next two days, hordes of soldiers were sent to various parts of the garden and set fire to various palaces, towers, pavilions and other buildings. ...

Erik Ringmar, a Swiss scholar, said this from his book "Liberalism Savagery and the Sublime of the East: Europeans' Destruction of the Emperor's Summer Palace", which can be translated into "Liberalism Savagery and Oriental Solemnity: The Story of Europeans' Destruction of Yuanmingyuan".

It can be seen that the statement of Swiss scholar ErikRingmar is also very clear: the British army set fire to Yuanmingyuan, and the French army did not participate.

In addition, Jiang Tingfu, a famous historian of the Republic of China, also believes that the British invaders burned down the Yuanmingyuan.

In the appendix of Jiang Tingfu's "Modern History of China", there is a chapter called "Comment on the Qing Dynasty Draft: the History of Diplomatic Relations", which contains the following words:

"... Tianjin Treaty, Beijing Treaty, Guangdong Governor Ye was arrested, the literati retreated from Jehol, and the British burned Yuanmingyuan, * * * only accounted for a quarter of the Tibet negotiations ... Later, Parkes tried to help French translators argue with Zai Yuan, and the wording was rude. Zai Yuan encouraged it, but plotted to hurt it. The next morning, the English and French translators returned to the camp and reported that they had met Sangrinqin's cavalry. 26 Britons were arrested, and 13 was a legal person. After 20 days of imprisonment and abuse, half of the British people were released, and only five were legal persons. Later, the people who burned the Yuanmingyuan were retaliated. Write the history of diplomatic relations, if that's why you keep your secret ... "

Jiang Tingfu's classical Chinese, translated into modern Chinese, means as follows:

"The Tianjin Treaty, the Beijing Treaty, the arrest of Ye, the Governor of Guangdong and Guangxi, the temporary refuge of Emperor Xianfeng from Chengde and Jehol, and the burning of Yuanmingyuan by the British only accounted for a quarter of Tibet's involvement ... When Parkes, a British negotiator, tried to assist French translators and Prince Zai Yuan in the debate, he made rude remarks. Zai Yuan promised Parkes on the surface, but secretly planned to murder them. The next morning, the English and French translators were arrested by the cavalry of Sengqin (the Qing army) on their way back to camp. Twenty-six British negotiators were arrested, and one third of French negotiators/kloc-0 were arrested. These people were detained by monks for 20 days and were ill-treated. Among them, only half of the British negotiators survived, while only five French negotiators survived. Later, the British set fire to Yuanmingyuan, which was revenge for this incident. Write a draft of Qing history? Diplomatic relations, why hide this paragraph? ……"

It can be seen that Jiang Tingfu, a famous historian in China during the Republic of China, also said the same thing: the British (or British) burned the Yuanmingyuan, and there was no French (or military) thing at all.

Let's take a look at the French poet Hugo (Victor-Marie Hugo) in his "Reply to Captain Butler":

"... one day, two robbers from Europe broke into the Yuanmingyuan. One robber robbed property, and the other set fire ... Two robbers who will be punished by history, one is French and the other is British ... "

(Hugo's letter is quoted from Bernard? Brice, 1860: The Disaster of Yuanmingyuan, Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House, August 2005, 1, p. 383. )

Obviously Hugo said the same thing: the French looted and the British set fire. The division of labor is clear and unambiguous. It was the British who set fire to Yuanmingyuan, while the French only looted property and did not take part in the fire.

Coincidentally, armand, a member of the French army who witnessed the incident of "burning Yuanmingyuan"? Lu also believes that the Yuanmingyuan, which was set on fire by the British invaders, was not set on fire by the French army.

Are we going to study armand? Lu's testimony:

"... the eighth wonder of the world (the Yuanmingyuan), we (the French army) just looted it, and the British just set it on fire. Yuanmingyuan, the masterpiece of several generations, is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen, and I will never see it again in my life ... "

(The French personnel "armand? Lu's testimony is quoted from Bernard briza's book 1860: The Disaster of Yuanmingyuan, Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House, August 2005, 1 edition, pp. 285-286. )

Let's take a look at what Ellison, an army interpreter of the French army at that time, said in the translator's note-Ellison also believed that the British invaders set fire to Yuanmingyuan alone despite the opposition of the French army.

"... (British and French armies) sent three people to form a six-member committee, which was responsible for distributing goods (stolen goods) according to their respective values or artistic values ... so that China people in Haidian (the Great Qing Dynasty) crossed the fence and entered the park (Yuanmingyuan) ... Greed suddenly sprouted patriotic seeds on them (Haidian villagers), and they rushed to tell each other. It is said that God wanted the Qing Dynasty to perish ... The peasants and proletarians in Haidian colluded with the coolies of China (the Great Qing Dynasty) who helped the invading army and entered the palace in the garden ... People shouted "put out the fire" from time to time. They hurried there and threw things all over the floor. They used silk ... worksheets ... to put out the flames that burned to the rare wooden siding ... The British sent a single column regardless of the restraint of their allies (referring to the French army) and burned everything left in the Yuanmingyuan in an orderly way ... The palace was burned, and the cabinets of temples, treasure halls and libraries were also burned ... All turned into black ashes. ...

French scholar Bernard? In his book 1860: The Disaster of Yuanmingyuan, Brisser also referred to and quoted the testimony of Ellison, a French army translator, as follows:

"... the villagers in Haidian village (Daqing) nearby, as well as some coolies recruited by the French army (Daqing), have set up ladders, climbed the wall and started to rob them simply. They set fire to several halls, so they began to cause panic ... In this way, the British and the French ... rushed into the Yuanmingyuan in large numbers, not only them, but also those in China.

It can be seen that the translation points of Ellison's statement by the French invaders are as follows:

1. Residents of Daqing in Haidian Village and French troops looted Yuanmingyuan.

2. The residents of Qing Dynasty in Haidian Village set fire to Yuanmingyuan, and the French army put out the fire.

The French army opposed the burning of Yuanmingyuan, but the British army set fire to it alone.

Montauban, commander of the French army, was very dissatisfied with the British army setting fire to Yuanmingyuan.

Let's take a look at the French soldier De Kailule who invaded China at that time:

"... the robbery lasted all day ... before the evacuation, the British set fire to the palace they had been to and the surrounding gardens. They also said that the night scene must be beautiful tonight ... At night, as the British said in advance ... a red light lit up the branch of Tatar Mountain ... and a fire rose from time to time.

(For the testimony of the Japanese invaders De Kailule, see the Second Opium War in China's Modern History Series (VI), pp. 367-368, edited by the Archives Department of the Palace Museum in Ming and Qing Dynasties, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1979, 1 version. )

De Kailule, the Japanese invaders, said: The real large-scale burning of Yuanmingyuan was done by the British army, and the French army was just a bystander.

French scholar Bernard? Brice made a very detailed textual research on the main forces of the British army who set fire to the Garden, which was also included in the book 1860: The Disaster of Yuanmingyuan. This is what he said:

"... 65438+1October 18 ... The British posted notices everywhere, announcing that General Grant had ordered the destruction of Yuanmingyuan in retaliation for the mistreatment of British prisoners. It's a clear autumn day in Wan Li, John? General Mitchell led the 60th Rifle Regiment and the15th Punjab Regiment of the British 1st Division, together with about 3,500 cavalry brigades, to the Yuanmingyuan ... Groups of soldiers, holding torches, set fires everywhere in the Yuanmingyuan. Most of the buildings in Yuanmingyuan are made of cedar, which is easy to ignite ... Captain Charles, engineer? Gordon participated in the looting of Yuanmingyuan a few days ago, and now he has come back to set fire to it ... For two days in a row, the dark clouds formed by smoke have been floating over the prosperous and wealthy hometown in the past ... The French refused to burn Yuanmingyuan with them (the British) ... "

You can see the foreign soldiers who set fire to Yuanmingyuan. Their numbers, numbers, and names of generals are very clear-they are all British invaders.

So, did the French army not let go of the fire at all? I'm afraid not. Let's listen to the testimony of British personnel and witness Swinhoe:

"... when the French destroyed Yuanmingyuan, they burned the emperor's bedroom, withdrew from the quadrangle and moved to a village outside Andingmen ..."

(For Swinhoe's testimony here, please refer to China's Modern and Contemporary History Data Series The Second Opium War (VI) compiled by the Archives Department of the Palace Museum in Ming and Qing Dynasties, page 35 1, published by Shanghai People's Publishing House in June, 1979. )

Swinhoe's testimony proves that in the previous looting, the French army set fire to the bedroom of Emperor Xianfeng, but this was only a small-scale arson.

A few days ago, the French army set fire to a small area. On the British side, there is another witness. He is Lieutenant Colonel Wu Shili of the British Army.

Lieutenant Colonel Wu Shili said this in the same volume of information:

"... our allies (referring to the French army) robbed and burned many palaces, but in turn protested against us ... They thought that the complete destruction of Yuanmingyuan was just a barbaric act of the Goths. Surprisingly, when our Gaul allies (referring to the French army) looted all the treasures there ... This evaluation did not flash in their keen minds ... "

So much for today's material. Actually, there is a lot of relevant information.

According to the above historical data and various statements, please allow me to summarize the ins and outs of the incident as follows:

1.18601kloc-0/0 On 5 October, the British and French allied forces attacked Beijing, mistakenly thinking that Emperor Xianfeng lived in Yuanmingyuan, so they marched into Yuanmingyuan.

2.1860101October 6, the French army first arrived and occupied the Yuanmingyuan in the suburbs of Beijing.

3. At this time, the Qing residents of Haidian Village climbed over the wall and entered Yuanmingyuan to start robbery, and the French army also started robbery almost at the same time. During this period, residents of the Great Qing Dynasty and the French in Haidian Village set fire to Yuanmingyuan on a small scale. However, these small-scale fires have been controlled and have not caused substantial damage to the entire Yuanmingyuan.

4.18601017 October, British troops arrived in Yuanmingyuan and joined the looting of property.

108, Parkes and others, representatives of the British peace talks, were released. The British army later learned that some British negotiators were killed by the Qing army.

6. The British army decided to retaliate and proposed to burn the Yuanmingyuan. The French army opposed and refused to participate in arson.

7. 1860 18 10/8, the British army went its own way, decided to burn down Yuanmingyuan without authorization, and started a large-scale arson operation.

8. 1860 10 06 19, Yuanmingyuan was burned by British invaders.

In other words, it was not the "Anglo-French Allied Forces" but the "British Invaders" who eventually burned the Yuanmingyuan.

I think this statement is closer to the historical facts at that time.

Excerpted from Feng Xuerong's Sidelights of China History 2 published by Jilin Literature and History Publishing House.