CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

Long March

1934–1936 Red Army retreat during the Chinese Civil War

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 revisionSep 9, 2026
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

The Long March was a military retreat by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Chinese Red Army from advancing Kuomintang (KMT) National Revolutionary Army during the Chinese Civil War, occurring between October 1934 and October 1935. About 100,000 troops retreated from the Jiangxi Soviet and other bases to a new headquarters in Yan'an, Shaanxi, travelling approximately 10,000 kilometres. About 8,000 troops ultimately survived the Long March.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Long March” as 1934–1936 Red Army retreat during the Chinese Civil War. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Long, March and Army.

Editorial reviewMost valuable as an event-and-institution map that identifies actors, dates and record creators for deeper historical inquiry. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1934, 1935—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Long, March and Army providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Long March”, the useful work is to connect “1934–1936 Red Army retreat during the Chinese Civil War” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

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 Sep 9, 2026. The first chronological checks are 1934 and 1935.

Critical limits

Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. 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 “Long March”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Long March primary sources, Long March archive and Long 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 “Long March”?
  2. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
  3. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Long March” 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.