Under the glorious banner of the Party, all that is greatest and most
worthy of pride in our people has been brought together over the last forty
years. This is the time when our people… have leapt ahead with the bold
strength of a new era, with all the glorious traditions of our nation, and with
the full consciousness of their destiny and their future.
historians of the Vietnamese Communist Party, in attempting to legitimise their
party’s rule, have evoked the “glorious traditions” of the Vietnamese
nation, so as to instil in their people a strong sense of unity. This was to
enable their countrymen to tide over the current difficult circumstances and
look instead towards the rosy future. Consequently, many of these historians
have argued that their nation’s roots were entrenched in the distant past,
which provided the beginnings for the continual evolution of such a Vietnamese
“nation”. The study of the Trinh-Nguyen era, from the 17th to the
18th Centuries, has been an issue among contemporary historians, in
the sense that the period entailed the division of Vietnam into two opposing
entities, but both professing to represent the entire “nation” of Vietnam.
In examining the political, economic and cultural factors of the Trinh-Nguyen
era, this paper proposes that there was no one Vietnamese “nation”, but
instead two distinct entities and indeed two distinct “Vietnamese” nations.
political aspects of 17th to 18th Century Vietnam, both
the Trinh and Nguyen governments developed different policies and governing
structures due to their political isolation. This can be seen in the
bureaucracy, in that both the Trinh and the Nguyen developed parallel governing
structures in their separate regions, so as to perform the administrative roles
necessary for effective governance.
Both states also subscribed to different ideas of recruiting the numerous
personnel needed to run an expanding bureaucracy. For instance, the Nguyen state
opened examinations to all inhabitants regardless of class or nationality. This
was a break from the traditional Confucian model, in which officials were only
recruited from socially acceptable classes.
For the Trinh state, meritocracy in the examination system remained
unacceptable, but the government instead resorted to abandoning the system
completely so as to cope with rising 18th Century problems of
monetary deficiency. This resulted in state offices being sold to the highest
bidder, and a weakening of central government power.
In addition to
governing policies, the issue of distinct political sovereignty is also
important towards arguing that 17th to 18th Century
Vietnam was divided into two nations. This can be seen in the territorial
sovereignty of both the Trinh and Nguyen states, which possessed distinct
political control. Although both regimes acknowledged the Le Emperor as their
titular ruler, neither government accorded him the required political authority
for total and absolute sovereign control. Moreover, the Nguyens, had by the year
1620, refused to send any further taxes to the royal court, implying a desire to
break with the continued political authority of the Le court.
Consequently, both the Trinh and the Nguyen administrations were politically
distinct as sovereign control rested with their respective lords, and not with
the Le ruler.
towards the existence of two Vietnamese nations, it is important to examine the
political recognition of the Vietnamese territories and how society regarded the
Trinh and Nguyen states. As historians Li Tana and Anthony Reid argue, both
foreigner and Vietnamese alike considered the two entities to be distinct
regions. For instance, the Portuguese, French and English referred to the
southern entity as “Cochinchina”, in distinction to their recognition of the
northern entity as “Tongking”.
For the Vietnamese, they were similarly reluctant to accept the Trinh and Nguyen
states as one legitimate empire, choosing to name the southern entity Dang
Trong or “inner region”, as opposed to the northern entity as Dang
Ngoai or “outer region”. By designating different
names to the two different Vietnamese entities, it can be argued that society in
general viewed the Trinh and the Nguyen polities as separate “nations”,
documenting their observations by reflecting this in the prevailing
from an economic perspective, 17th to 18th Century Vietnam
was evidently divided into two nations. This can be seen especially from the
nature of the economic system and its relationship with trade. For instance, the
Trinh economy in the north was heavily centred on its thriving handicraft
industry and significantly involved in the development of specialisation in
commerce, with whole streets devoted to a single type of commerce such as
pottery or silk.
In the south, however, the Nguyen economy was heavily dependent on foreign
trade, which gave rise to a merchant bourgeoisie.
In addition, its economy was appreciably enlarged because of a corresponding
increase in the size of cultivated land, especially in the Mekong Delta.
factor” was also a key element in the divergent economic circumstances of the
Trinh-Nguyen era. This was because of the value of the West in its scientific
and technological influences, which helped to shape the Vietnamese economies in
the north and the south.
This, in addition to the divergence of the Western powers in choosing which side
to ally with, resulted in differing economic circumstances for the Trinh and
Nguyen principalities. For instance, the Dutch decided to side with the Trinh,
while the Portuguese chose the Nguyen.
can be argued that the Trinh and the Nguyen states were distinct entities
dissimilar from each other. While the Trinh in the north retained much of their
practises and customs, this was not the same for the Nguyen in the south. For
instance, the southern assimilation of non-ethnic Vietnamese had significantly
affected the cultural composition of its people. Historian Ellen Hammer argues
that towards the end of the 18th Century, at least half of the twelve
Nguyen provinces had been conquered from other countries.
Accordingly, the general cultural practises of the Nguyen peoples differed
considerably from those of the Trinh peoples, not least because of the strong
Indian and Islamic influences of the newly assimilated southern peoples.
divergence between northern and southern Vietnam can be seen in the declining
influence of Confucianism, especially in the south. In the Trinh principality,
Confucianism retained its strong influence on Vietnamese society, although this
was not as pervasive due to a simultaneous Trinh support of Buddhism. Likewise,
the Nguyen support of Buddhism enabled a decline of Confucianism. This was
despite the Nguyen building a Temple of Literature to honour Confucius. Instead,
a number of Confucianist scholars turned to Buddhism, and a number of pagodas
also sprang up throughout Hue.
To account for the decline of Confucianism in the south, one can attribute this
to the lack of long-term settlements, which resulted in weaker Confucianist
roots. Moreover, the increased openness of the Nguyen principality to the West
also enabled Catholicism to gain a foothold in its territory.
As can be seen,
the political, economic and cultural circumstances surrounding 17th
to 18th Century Vietnam point distinctly towards the divergence of
the country into two separate nations. Indeed, if one were to examine the common
thread enabling such a divergence, he or she would inevitably be directed
towards the nam tien or southern expansion of Vietnam. This is because
the nam tien process was essential towards the 17th to 18th
Century development of Vietnam into two nations.
tien enlarged the territorial size of Vietnam, increasing the need for a
large bureaucracy, which led to the Nguyen policy of liberalising the
examination system to include people of all classes and nationalities. This has
a significant impact on creating a distinct political culture disparate from the
Trinh. Economically, the nam tien process resulted in the addition of the
Mekong Delta, which served as the rice bowl of the Nguyen and aided to increase
the territory’s size of cultivated land. There was also the extension of
Vietnam’s coastline, adding more ports to the southern regions, thereby
increasing trade and exposure to Western influence, and consequently
contributing significantly towards distinguishing the Nguyen from the Trinh.
Culturally, the nam tien process transformed the south into a
“frontier area”, with a “pioneering” spirit of expansion, resulting in
looser administration and increased landlordism.
There was also the idea that a lack of long-term settlement resulted in weaker
Confucian roots and hence weaker Confucian influence. More significantly, the
assimilation of different cultures and peoples into Nguyen territory implied
that the cultural practises of Nguyen society at large were to change to such an
extent that these practises differed considerably from Trinh practises in the
the “Vietnam” of the Trinh-Nguyen era existed not as one nation, but as two
disparate nations distinct in their political, economic and cultural
circumstances. Although the country was later reunified as one under the Tay
Son, and remained united for about a century under the Nguyen Dynasty, this
legacy of Vietnamese disunity remained to haunt its people under the French and
again in the North-South civil war. Contemporary Marxist historians, in
attempting to consolidate their party rule, and in their efforts to mend the
divisive forces within society, have purposefully neglected to mention the
Trinh-Nguyen era in their depiction of a “glorious” Vietnamese nation.
However, if one were to trace the evolution of Vietnam as a nation, it would be
essential to study the Trinh-Nguyen era and how the divergence of nationhood
during this period affected the country in later ages.
The above essay was written by Mark Lim Shan-Loong on 2nd October 2000. It was reproduced by the VietNamJournal (Vol. 3/2002) and can be found at http://www.vietnamjournal.org/article.php?sid=65
Jean, The Vietnamese Nation: Contribution
to a History, Trans. Malcolm Salmon, 2nd ed., Sydney: Current
Book Distributors, 1966.
Ellen, Vietnam: Yesterday and
Today, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc, 1966.
Alastair, The Mandarin Road to Hue, London: Chatto and Windus Ltd, 1970.
Quy Don, “Miscellaneous Nguyen Records Seized in 1775-6”, Trans. Li Tana, Southern
Vietnam under the Nguyen, Eds. Li Tana and Anthony Reid, Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993, 98-126.
Tana and Anthony Reid, “Introduction: The
Vietnamese Southern Frontier”, Southern Vietnam under the Nguyen, Eds.
Li Tana and Anthony Reid, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993,
Khac Vien, Vietnam: A Long
History, Hanoi: Gioi Publishers, 1993.
Dang Que et al., “The Nguyen Chronicle up to 1777”, Trans. Li Tana, Southern
Vietnam under the Nguyen, Eds. Li Tana and Anthony Reid, Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993, 127-34.
 See Annex A below. Le Duan, former Vietnamese Communist Party Secretary, quoted in Vietnamese history textbook published in Hanoi in 1971, translated by Bruce Lockhart and reproduced in a tutorial handout.
 Ellen Hammer, Vietnam: Yesterday and Today, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc, 1966, p. 86.
 Ibid., p. 83.
 Ibid., p. 82.
 Li Tana and Anthony Reid, “Introduction: The Vietnamese Southern Frontier”, Southern Vietnam under the Nguyen, Eds. Li Tana and Anthony Reid, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993, p. 2.
 Ellen Hammer, Vietnam: Yesterday and Today, p. 83.
 Jean Chesneaux, The Vietnamese Nation: Contribution to a History, Trans. Malcolm Salmon, 2nd ed., Sydney: Current Book Distributors, 1966, p.38.
 Ibid., p. 33.
 Ellen Hammer, Vietnam: Yesterday and Today, p. 86. Hammer notes that of the twelve Nguyen provinces, excluding Ha Tien which was still under a separate regime, three had been conquered from Champa and another three from the Khmer.
 Derived from a history lecture by Bruce Lockhart on the 22nd August 2000.
Comments? Email firstname.lastname@example.org to share your thoughts.
The Writing Page
“All the peoples of the world were born equal; every one of them has the right to live, to be happy, and to be free.” That is the first sentence of the introduction to Chairman Ho Chi Minh’s Proclamation of Independence, read in Ba Dinh Square [in Hanoi] on 2 September 1945, the day when the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was born.
The Vietnamese nation rose up
to fulfill their sacred right, which they reclaimed after nearly a century
of determined struggle for Independence and Freedom.
This was also a warm fraternal greeting to the peoples of the whole
world, for their effort and their victory were part of the historic victory
of the Vietnamese people. Vietnam
is happy and proud to have been the first colony to carry out a great
revolution: The August
Revolution. Vietnam liberated
itself from the shackles of imperialism:
the country was independent, and the people were free.
Although this was only a first step, this victory was very
fundamental in the long and difficult struggle to obtain the right for the
nation to take its destiny into its own hands.
On the ridge of Mt. Nghia, at the temple
dedicated to the Hung rulers, Chairman Ho [Chi Minh] met with fighters from
the People’s Army preparing to liberate the Capital [Hanoi] after the
renowned victory at Dien Bien Phu [in 1954]. He said:
“The Hung Kings had the merit of building the country, now you
and I must protect the country together.”
[He also wrote that] “We have the right to be proud of the glorious
pages of history from the period of the Trung Sisters, Lady Trieu, Tran Hung
Dao [who defeated the Mongols in the 13th Century], Le Loi [who drove out
the Ming in the 15th Century], Quang Trung [who defeated the Qing in the
18th Century], etc. We must remember the meritorious efforts of our national
heroes because they represent a heroic people.”
Particularly since 1930 [the founding of the Indochinese Communist Party], under the leadership of our Party, headed by the great Chairman Ho, the people of our whole country have written the most glorious pages of our Fatherland’s history. Under the glorious banner of the Party, “all that is greatest and most worthy of pride in our people has been brought together over the last forty years. This is the time when our people, within the greater movement of progressive people [everywhere], have leapt ahead with the bold strength of a new era, with all the glorious traditions of our nation, and with a full consciousness of their destiny and their future” [quote by former Party Secretary Le Duan, writing in 1971].
From the period of the Hung Kings to the
time of Ho Chi Minh, through 4000 years of history, the life of our nation
has been full of sacrifice and hardship, but it has also been full of a
heroic spirit; at times there has been mourning and shame, but there have
also been many glorious, shining moments as well.
The most recent scientific findings have shown that Vietnam is in one of the earliest areas to have had human life, one of the cradles of humankind. Vietnam is very rich in natural resources, but it is also a place where nature has placed many obstacles which are difficult to overcome: rain, floods, storms, humidity, drought. Having been born in such an environment, people have the necessary conditions to live and for their family lines to prosper, but they must go through a period of long and lasting, bitter, complicated struggle before they can gradually conquer nature. Our ancestors’ spirit of patient struggle against nature has been popularized through the myth of the Mountain Spirit and the Water Spirit, one of the oldest stories [in Vietnamese culture], which may have appeared as early as the time of the Hung Kings, the beginning of Vietnamese history. Every time that the Water Spirit raised the level of the water, the Mountain Spirit would build mountains even higher, determined to defeat the Water Spirit [in their competition to win the hand of a princess] and
to protect the people from
being flooded. Once the Viet
people no longer lived only by slash-and-burn and by hunting and gathering
in the hills and mountains and had come down to the delta or else moved
inland from the coast, they gathered together and settled over a wide area
near big rivers—digging channels [for irrigation], building dams, planting
mulberries, raising silkworms, farming, and raising animals on a large
scale. Among the fraternal
tribes in these two regions—the mountains and the lowlands—mountain
and river had been harmonized in the context of unifying the country,
and the first nation of the Viet people took shape in embryonic form:
the country of Van Lang.
Our country occupies a strategic
position relative to the rest of Southeast Asia, and it is rich, so it has
often been threatened with invasion. During
the period of the Hung Kings our people began to build the country, so they
also had to begin protecting it, resisting the plots of foreign feudal
powers to invade and occupy it, along with other fierce tribes.
Our ancestors also had to band together in solidarity to protect
their native land. One myth
which is strange but also very much in the style of the people—the story
of Thanh Giong—demonstrates the people’s powerful spirit of resisting
foreign aggression; it is the manifestation of the tremendously rapid growth
of our nation. Giong was three
years old but did not yet know how to talk; he would just lie around in a
hammock. Suddenly he heard that
there were foreign invaders; he jumped up and grew immediately.
With the sacred call of the nation, he was fed by the people—only
with rice, brinjal, and unboiled water—until he became a giant, and he
received the mandate to defeat the invaders.
His weapons—an iron whip and iron horse—were forged for him by
the people. When he went
into battle, the iron whip broke, so Giong used bamboo shavings to make a
weapon to use against the enemy. When
Giong went into battle, he was followed by all the working people of
all ages and occupations, including even the young buffalo boys.
When the enemy had been defeated, and the nation and people were once
more at peace, Giong disappeared.
These two legends emphasize the fighting spirit of solidarity of our people in their struggle against natural disasters and human enemies for the national cause of protecting their lives and the survival of the Fatherland as well as to utilize the legacy bequeathed by their ancestors. Very early on, the Vietnamese people were able to link the interests of their country, their Fatherland with the interests of each family and individual, binding the country to the home and the village to the country in a very close relationship. It was this environment that forged a national character which was industrious, intelligent, and flexible yet strong and determined not to be overcome by adverse circumstances. The character of the
Vietnamese is founded upon two
precious ideas: loyalty (trung,
Chinese zhong) toward the country and filial piety (hieu, Ch. xiao)
toward the people. For the
Vietnamese, the country is the mother, and the people are the father.
When they have been born and nurtured, the highest principles in the
hearts of the Vietnamese are to repay their debt to the people and to the
country and to achieve independence for the nation; these are their duties.
because of this that four thousand years ago, on the land where we are now
living, building, and fighting, a relatively advanced culture appeared which
is the pride of our nation and which was a contribution to the ancient
civilization of humanity. This
represented a great victory by the ancient Viet against the forces of nature
and aggression to stabilize their lives and to live according to established
rules and customs. That was the
result of the creative labor of an entire large community, within which
there were elements whose lifestyles and levels of development were quite
different from each other. However,
during the long process of struggling shoulder-to-shoulder and sharing good
and bad times, they drew closer and integrated with each other like branches
on the same tree, living and dying in the same place [literally, sharing one
place to be buried and to cut the umbilical cord]; all of them were people
of the land of Viet.
Ho Chi Minh upheld the solidarity among
different parts of the Vietnamese nation:
“Whether Kinh [ethnic Vietnamese] or Tay, Muong or Dao, Jarai or
Rhade, Sedang or Bahnar or members of other ethnic groups, everyone is a
child of Vietnam, all are blood brothers and sisters.
We live and die together, we share joy and misery, and we help each
other in times of plenty and in times of want.” That
is the voice of the Fatherland echoing from the distant past.
Very early on our ancestors were able to
join together in solidarity to preserve the country and victoriously oppose
outside aggression. When this
principle was violated, the country was lost.
[When someone] turned the country into the private property of a
clan, a lineage, or a family and failed to rely on the people to resist
invasion, the consequences were even more tragic and disastrous:
families and lineages were wiped out.
This is the first major history lesson to be learned from the myth of
My Chau and Trong Thuy. King
Thuc An Duong was the ruler of Au Lac, which had succeeded the country Van
Lang of the Hung Kings; he built the strong citadel at Co Loa and knew how
to use dangerous weapon technology: the
crossbow and bronze arrows (the sacred crossbow).
The Qin Dynasty was defeated when it sent troops, and the Qin general
Zhao Tuo (Trieu Da) used the stratagem of “asking for peace”, asking for
his son Trong Thuy to be able to marry Princess My Chau, the daughter of
King An Duong, who fell for the trick.
King An Duong failed to rely on the people; he only depended on high
walls, the precious crossbow, and a regular army. He treated the kingdom as
his private property and thought that by marrying his daughter to the enemy,
he would be able to hold on to his throne—he placed family sentiments
and the interests of his lineage above his duty to the nation and above the
interests of the people. Unexpectedly
defeated by the enemy, he fled and was forced to kill his unfortunate
daughter—the victim of his selfish miscalculations, and he himself
committed suicide by jumping into the sea.
addition to the strong national spirit of the Viet people during An
Duong’s time, the story of My Chau and Trong Thuy also shows us something
else: within Vietnamese society
at the time there was a clear class distinction.
When King An Duong took the throne and replaced the Hung Kings, he
transformed the patriarchal country of Van Lang—basically [governed] by
chiefs—into a relatively structured nation—the country of Au Lac.
The capital was moved down to the lowland area.
The large-scale construction of dikes and walls and the development
of artisanry, especially the production of weapons, required a centralized
state apparatus in order to mobilize and control a growing labor force.
Under such conditions the ruling class could only be an aristocracy tied to
the power of a monarchy with an absolutist orientation; this was the first
stage of the relatively early emergence of feudal relations with an Asian
character. Naturally, this ruling class was increasingly removed from the
community of the people and came to the point of being cut off from
them, in terms of its style of governing as well as its lifestyle. The boundary [between ruler and ruled] is shown fairly
clearly in the architecture of the citadel at Co Loa.
Military matters were the main priority, and the design of Co Loa
shows a change in defense strategy. It
was no longer leaders from the people like Giong who led troops into battle,
but rather professional officers commanding a standing army. Such changes
did not take place overnight; they were the result of a long process within
Van Lang society, linked to the gradual break-up of the patriarchal
relations of the original communal society and the development of tools used
for production, especially the knowledge of bronze technology. Each threat of foreign invasion—beginning in the 3rd Century
BCE, after a fierce feudal clique in the North [meaning the Qin Dynasty] had
achieved hegemony in the plains [of China]—exerted pressure to accelerate
this process of transformation in Vietnamese society. Objectively speaking, this was inevitable; it represented a
step forward for ancient Vietnamese society and [caused it] to gradually
make the transition to a feudal system.
However, if [rulers] only depended on
developments in technology and did not rely on the people, if they were not
able to mobilize the entire people to stand up and defend the nation as
happened in Giong’s time, and if a ruling minority actually heightened its
oppression of the people, then it became difficult to effectively resist the
growing pressure of Northern feudalism [i.e., China]. Thus, from an
independent country, Vietnam was turned into provinces and districts of
foreign feudalism. This did not mean that the Vietnamese people were wiped
out, however; this was only the first act of a huge challenge to the vital
force of our nation. History would show just how heroically our people were able
to overcome this challenge.
The policy of assimilation which was pursued after the Han Dynasty
replaced the Qin, along with countless incidences of shame and suffering
under the cruel and corrupt yoke of [local and Chinese] governors, served to
strengthen the national spirit and the will of the Viet people to regain
independence and freedom. The
uprising of the Trung girls was the first manifestation, extremely
courageous and unique, of this spirit; it demonstrated a powerful force of
great historical significance. It
showed the miraculous force of a people who for thousands of years had been
the master of an area of land and who were proud of the advanced culture
which they had created.
This culture was built through the hard work, industriousness, and
creativity of the Vietnamese people before they lost their independence.
That civilization had unique forms and very distinctive features,
most notably the bronze drum. The emergence of this civilization was a major
step forward in the progress of the Vietnamese nation from its primordial
stage to the time of civilization. The
powerful vitality of the nation began at this point.
It is rare, particularly in ancient
times, to see a small people—the nation of Vietnam numbered only around a
million people in the early Common Era when it was absorbed by feudal
invaders from the North—able to preserve and develop their own character
and identity even when under harsh foreign rule for thousands of years.
Even more special is the fact that that nation never gave up the
will to regain its independence and sovereignty.
The close sense of solidarity in shared suffering of the nation and
race, with the idea that “[We] live and die together, we share joy and
misery, and we help each other in times of plenty and in times of want”;
the deep sense of patriotism and an unbreakable will, nurtured by the
essence of an ancient and unique culture; the determination to achieve
independence combined with an unusual degree of flexibility in adopting good
elements from outsiders in order to strengthen their own ability to liberate
themselves—these were the fundamental elements which forged our nation’s
Without such conditions it would be hard
to explain the nation’s incredible strength and ability to leap forward
after escaping from the yoke of northern feudal rule.
That liberation was also a shining page in history, one verse in the
4000-year heroic epic of the nation. The
glorious victory of Ngo Quyen [in the 10th Century] opened a period of
flourishing development for the national culture which lasted nearly five
centuries—from the 10th through the 15th Centuries, under the
Dinh, Early Le, Ly, Tran, and Later Le Dynasties.
Of course, having just cast off the yoke of foreign rule in the 10th
Century, Vietnam could take no other path than that of development according
to the laws of the feudal mode of production.
For most East Asian countries at the time, Chinese-style feudalism
was the model. It is also
natural that the organizational structure of the feudal Vietnamese nation in
many ways absorbed the experiences and influences of the North in terms of form.
In terms of the nature [of these structures], however, we
demonstrated our sense of independence, sovereignty, and equality vis-à-vis
foreign countries. With this
idea in mind, the country was now known as Dai Viet (Ch. Dayue,
After winning back independence, the national sentiment and national pride, along with strong determination, developed tremendously. Even though Vietnam had regained its independence, the plots of conquest and the pressure from Northern feudal forces remained a long-term threat. In order to preserve that independence, it would be necessary to build the country, to make it strong, rich, and solid in every way.
“Like our country Dai Viet in the past,
Which has long been known as civilized
It has its own borders, rivers, and
Northern and Southern customs are
The Dinh, Ly, and Tran [Dynasties]
succeeded each other in building the country
They and the Han, Tang, Song, and Yuan
Dynasties were each masters of their own area
Although there were periods of strength
and periods of weakness
[Vietnam] has never lacked heroes”
It is difficult to imagine the grief and suffering piled upon this small country by three horrible invasions by the Mongol-Yuan troops over a thirty-year period in the second half of the 13th Century, as well as the brutal invasion and occupation by Ming forces for two decades in the early 15th Century. Determined not to be defeated and holding high the banner of the righteous cause of independence and freedom, our people produced, built, and struggled at the same time. Mainly because of this intelligent and heroic integration of the two tasks of building the country and preserving the country, the heroic spirit and creative strength of our people grew and were toughened, demonstrating the nation’s unusual vitality, pride, and ability to keep moving forward. It was this that pushed our nation a great distance forward in protecting their right to live and to determine their own [fate]; all three Mongol invasions were crushed, and the evil rule of the Ming forces was broken and swept away.