OCR Specification focus:
‘Attacks on legations met Southeast China’s refusal to join war as foreign forces intervened.’
The Boxer Uprising (1899–1901) escalated into violent attacks on foreign legations, resistance in parts of China such as the southeast, and decisive intervention by foreign powers that reshaped China’s sovereignty and international standing.
Escalation of Boxer Violence and Attacks on Legations
Rising Hostility and Anti-Foreign Sentiment
By 1900, the I-ho ch’uan, known as the Boxers, had grown from a regional movement into a widespread force targeting foreign influence and Christianity. Fueled by resentment of foreign economic dominance, missionary expansion, and natural disasters blamed on outsiders, the Boxers channelled popular anger into direct action.
I-ho ch’uan (Boxers): A secret society blending martial traditions and anti-foreign, anti-Christian nationalism in late Qing China.
Their attacks, initially directed at Chinese Christian converts and missionaries, soon broadened into a general assault on foreign presence. Villages and railway lines associated with foreign interests were destroyed. Qing officials sympathetic to the Boxers allowed this escalation to continue, creating a volatile situation by mid-1900.
Siege of the Beijing Legation Quarter
The most dramatic expression of Boxer hostility was the siege of the foreign legation quarter in Beijing, which began in June 1900.
Plan of the Peking (Beijing) Legation Quarter, showing legation compounds and the defensive lines established during the 1900 siege. The map helps visualise the compact area that sheltered foreign nationals and Chinese Christian converts under sustained attack. Labels are concise and legible, keeping attention on the siege’s geography. Source
Around 900 foreign nationals, including diplomats, soldiers, missionaries, and civilians, as well as approximately 3,000 Chinese Christian converts, were trapped in the legation quarter.
The Boxers, now openly supported by parts of the imperial army loyal to the Qing court, besieged the compound, cutting off supplies and launching repeated assaults.
Artillery fire and close combat characterised the siege, which lasted for approximately 55 days.
Reports of brutal killings, looting, and desecration of churches and property further inflamed international outrage.
The siege demonstrated both the depth of anti-foreign sentiment and the weakening of Qing authority. While some Manchu officials sought to restrain the violence, others, particularly conservative elements within the court, viewed the Boxers as useful allies against foreign encroachment.
Southeast China’s Refusal to Join the Conflict
Provincial Autonomy and the Mutual Protection Movement
A striking feature of the Boxer crisis was the refusal of many southern and southeastern provincial authorities to join the anti-foreign campaign. Led by influential governors such as Li Hongzhang in Guangdong and Zhang Zhidong in Hubei, these officials prioritised order and international trade over imperial loyalty.
This stance crystallised in the Mutual Protection of Southeast China Agreement (1900), an informal pact among several provincial governors to:
Reject imperial orders calling for mobilisation against foreign powers.
Protect foreign nationals and property within their jurisdictions.
Maintain local stability and continue economic activity, particularly maritime trade vital to their regions.
Their decision reflected both pragmatism and a recognition of China’s military inferiority. Many feared that further conflict would invite devastating reprisals and jeopardise vital treaty port revenues.
Impact of Southeast Non-Participation
The refusal of southeastern provinces to participate significantly shaped the course of the conflict:
It prevented the Boxer uprising from spreading nationwide, confining much of the violence to northern China, particularly around Beijing and Tianjin.
It ensured continued foreign access to key ports like Shanghai, mitigating the economic impact and preserving channels for negotiation.
It revealed deep fragmentation within the Qing state, exposing the limits of imperial authority over provincial officials.
This regional divergence also foreshadowed the increasing autonomy of provincial leaders, a theme that would recur in the late Qing and early Republican era.
Foreign Intervention and the Eight-Nation Alliance
Formation and Composition of the Alliance
The siege of the legations and widespread anti-foreign violence prompted a swift and coordinated response from the major powers. In June 1900, the Eight-Nation Alliance formed to protect their nationals and enforce treaty rights. The alliance comprised:
Britain
France
Germany
Russia
United States
Japan
Italy
Austria-Hungary
This coalition represented unprecedented cooperation among competing imperial powers in China, unified by a shared interest in safeguarding their privileges and punishing Boxer violence.
Military Campaign and Relief of Beijing
The alliance initially launched a small expeditionary force under Admiral Seymour in June 1900, which was repelled before reaching Beijing. A larger, better-prepared force of approximately 20,000 troops advanced in August, capturing Tianjin and then marching on Beijing.
Map showing routes of the multinational relief forces during the 1900 campaign to lift the Beijing siege. It highlights key approach lines from the Taku/Tanggu area through Tianjin en route to the capital, clarifying the scale and direction of allied intervention. Labels are concise, focusing on movement rather than extraneous detail. Source
Key features of the campaign included:
Intense fighting with Boxer forces and Qing troops, who often fought alongside them.
Occupation of Beijing in August 1900, ending the legation siege.
Looting and reprisals, including executions of suspected Boxers and severe punishments imposed on local populations.
The intervention decisively ended Boxer resistance and forced the Qing court into negotiations under humiliating conditions.
Consequences of the Foreign Intervention
Boxer Protocol and Qing Humiliation
The foreign victory culminated in the Boxer Protocol (1901), an agreement that imposed severe terms on the Qing dynasty:
A massive indemnity of 450 million taels of silver, payable over 39 years.
Execution or exile of officials implicated in supporting the Boxers.
Permanent foreign military garrisons stationed in Beijing and control over key routes.
Formal apologies and diplomatic concessions to the foreign powers.
This treaty deepened China’s semi-colonial status and exposed the fragility of the Qing regime. The intervention also emboldened foreign powers to extend their spheres of influence, further undermining Chinese sovereignty.
Shifts in Internal Power and Foreign Relations
The crisis accelerated internal debates about reform versus conservatism within the Qing court. While the Empress Dowager Cixi had initially vacillated between suppressing and supporting the Boxers, the disaster of foreign occupation demonstrated the costs of resistance without modernisation.
The conduct of the southeastern provinces gained significance in later reform discussions. Their successful avoidance of devastation through cooperation with foreigners suggested a new model of regional governance and diplomacy, contrasting sharply with the imperial court’s approach.
Moreover, the international cooperation during the intervention marked a new phase in China’s foreign relations. Even as rivalries persisted among imperial powers, the Boxer crisis highlighted China’s vulnerability in the face of coordinated foreign military action.
Legacy of the Attacks, Regional Resistance, and Intervention
The events surrounding the attacks on foreign legations, the refusal of southeastern provinces to join the conflict, and the foreign intervention profoundly influenced China’s political trajectory. They demonstrated the erosion of Qing central authority, the complexities of regional power dynamics, and the reality of China’s subordination to foreign interests. These developments laid the groundwork for renewed reform efforts and contributed to the conditions that would culminate in the 1911 Revolution and the end of imperial rule.
FAQ
The Qing court was divided over how to respond to the Boxer attacks. Conservative factions, including influential figures around Empress Dowager Cixi, initially supported the Boxers as a means of driving out foreign influence. Some elements of the imperial army even fought alongside Boxer forces during the siege.
However, other officials urged caution, fearing international retaliation. This internal division led to inconsistent policies, alternating between tacit support for the uprising and attempts to restrain the violence. Ultimately, Qing involvement in the siege contributed to the harsh terms imposed by the Boxer Protocol.
Communication with the outside world was severely limited during the 55-day siege, isolating those trapped inside.
Telegraph lines were cut, preventing messages from being sent to foreign governments.
Couriers attempting to break through Boxer lines faced capture or execution.
The lack of reliable information led to uncertainty over whether relief forces were coming and when they might arrive.
Despite these challenges, some coded messages were successfully smuggled out, enabling the coordination of the eventual relief expedition.
The alliance’s success stemmed from several key advantages:
Superior weaponry and tactics: Modern rifles, artillery, and coordinated infantry manoeuvres outmatched the largely outdated Qing arsenal.
Naval dominance: Control of coastal ports like Tianjin allowed for rapid landing of troops and supplies.
International cooperation: Despite rivalries, the powers united around a common goal, sharing intelligence and resources.
Qing forces, by contrast, were fragmented, poorly trained, and often reluctant to fight decisively, especially in regions where officials opposed the war.
By avoiding hostilities, southeastern provinces preserved vital economic structures:
Treaty ports such as Shanghai remained operational, sustaining trade flows and tax revenues crucial for local governance.
Foreign merchants continued business relatively undisturbed, maintaining confidence in China’s coastal economy.
The absence of destruction and occupation in the southeast allowed faster post-crisis recovery compared with devastated northern regions.
This economic stability helped demonstrate the potential benefits of regional autonomy and pragmatism, influencing later debates on governance and reform.
The Boxer crisis deeply shook Chinese views of national sovereignty. The inability to defend Beijing from foreign occupation revealed the Qing state’s weakness and dependence.
The Boxer Protocol’s terms, including foreign garrisons in Beijing and indemnity payments, were widely seen as humiliating infringements on China’s independence.
This experience intensified demands for political and military reform. Many scholars and officials concluded that China needed to modernise its institutions to restore sovereignty and resist future foreign encroachments — a conviction that would shape reform movements in the early 20th century.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Identify two ways in which foreign powers responded to the Boxer attacks on legations in 1900.
Mark scheme:
Award 1 mark for each correct response, up to 2 marks.
Formation of the Eight-Nation Alliance to coordinate intervention. (1)
Dispatch of military forces to relieve the siege of the legations in Beijing. (1)
Occupation of Beijing and punishment of Boxer supporters. (1)
Imposition of the Boxer Protocol (1901) with severe terms on the Qing dynasty. (1)
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain why some provinces in Southeast China refused to support the anti-foreign campaign during the Boxer Uprising.
Mark scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks):
Simple statements with limited explanation, e.g., “They wanted to protect trade” or “They did not want to fight foreigners.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks):
Developed explanation with some supporting detail, showing understanding of provincial motivations.
Examples:
Governors like Li Hongzhang prioritised maintaining order and trade. (1)
They feared that fighting foreign powers would bring devastating reprisals. (1)
Agreements such as the Mutual Protection of Southeast China (1900) aimed to protect foreign nationals and property. (1)
Level 3 (5–6 marks):
Fully explained answer with clear, well-supported reasons and evidence.
Points may include:
Provincial leaders sought to preserve economic stability and treaty port revenues, vital for their regions. (1)
They recognised China’s military weakness and saw resistance as futile. (1)
Their refusal highlighted fragmentation of Qing authority and a more pragmatic approach to foreign powers. (1)
Their stance helped limit the spread of violence and kept key ports like Shanghai open. (1)
