CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

Battle of Tieling

1619 battle

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 20, 2026
Entity authorityQ30595518 ↗
Source-derived summary

The Battle of Tieling was a military conflict between the Later Jin and Ming dynasty. In the summer of 1619 Nurhaci invaded the town of Tieling, the ancestral home of the Li clan. Ming had fortified the town with cannons, but many of their soldiers defected to the Jin, and they were unable to reload their cannons before the walls were taken. Li Ruzhen, one of the last scions of the Tieling Li, fled the battle.

References

Bibliography

Swope, Kenneth (2014), The Military Collapse of China's Ming Dynasty, Routledge

Wakeman, Frederic (1985), The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial Order in Seventeenth-Century China, vol.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Battle of Tieling” as 1619 battle. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1619, 2014, 1985—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Battle, Tieling and battle can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the history & society register because the source frames it as 1619 battle. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 20, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q30595518. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1619, 2014 and 1985.

Critical limits

Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Battle of Tieling”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Battle of Tieling primary sources, Battle of Tieling archive and Battle research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Battle of Tieling”?
  2. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
  3. Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Battle of Tieling” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.