Bloody Christians - 20-30 millions killed in 14 years

[Anomalocaris]

Hong Xiuquan is better seen as just 19th century manifestation of a vicious cycle which has plagued China since China was first unified into an Empire. Basically, every dynasties that started strong has seen high rate of initial economic growth, which led to large scale population growth that outstripped agriculture development, leading to misery, corruption, and end up being toppled by large scale bloody peasant rebellions after a few centuries. Hong Xiuquan is just one in a series of such malthusian reapers in Chinese history.

I agree on this part of the wider context, and of course Hong's was not the only rebellion at this time (the Muslims also rebelled for example). But this doesn't remove the Christian agenda from Hong's specific rebellion.

None of his predecessors were christian.

He was a convert, and sought to spread Christianity. In the end his kingdom was totally destroyed so that was the end of the road for that specific Christian stain strain.

His immediate successor, Mao, was communist and atheist. So the fact that he had something to do which christianity was incidental.

No. Mao was not really 'immediate' or a direct successor. There were other rebellions after (boxer rebellion probably most famous) and of course the Qings were pretty much finished by the Wuchang rebellion not Mao's subsequent communist one.

thanks for the thought-out view. I don't agree that Hong's attempt to create a Christian China can be breezed over so easily as coincidental to his motivations.

Other peasant rebellions that came near the end of strong dynasties have also been characterized by dominance by cults, philosophies and creeds that are way outside of mainstream Chinese culture. For example the yellow turban rebellion that effectively ended the central authority of the Han dynasty during second century AD. Most cult inspired rebellions were notably bloody. Most pushed an utopian vision to succeed the current dynasty, led by some allegedly semi-divine personage such as the leader of the rebellion himself. Hong's rebellion fits exactly into this mold.


There is little to distinguish Hong from his predecessors in Chinese history. The only differences are:
1. His strange cult happen to be Christianity, previous rebels have also championed bastard versions other foreign cults.
2. His rebellion happen to be witnessed close up by the west.

I have to disagree about your interpretation of boxer rebellion. I don't think it is fundamentally similar to the hong rebellion or mao's communist rebellion

Hong, Mao and their predecessors fundamentally aim to topple existing central power and replace it with a phillosophically substantially different regime under their own personal rule. The boxer rebellion aimed not to topple the central government, but to remake the world and restore existing order to its idealistically rightful place.

If boxer rebellion had succeeded, what would follow would not have been a fundamental reordering of society as envisage by Mao, or hong, or their predecessors. Instead it would be a continuation of the existing imperial system, but with a new power behind the throne selected by the boxers.