Historical analysis reveals changing defense tactics in Jin Dynasty settlements, highlighting site selection and ethnic composition.
Settlements are the fundamental structural components of the Northwest and Southwest Routes, which were important defensive sectors of the Jin Dynasty’s Great Wall defense system. Under the Jurchen rule, these settlements function as special conduits for investigating border defense tactics. However, historical document analysis is the main method used in present study on the Northwest and Southwest Roads, and comprehensive quantitative empirical data about the geographical organization of settlements are absent. As a result, research on the unique defense tactics of the Jin Dynasty is still not fully understood. This study establishes a dual “historical-spatial” analytical paradigm by examining settlement remnants from the Northwest and Southwest Roads in modern-day Inner Mongolia. In order to thoroughly examine defensive tactics within their distinct historical and geographical settings, it clarifies the building procedures, spatial distribution, and site selection features of these settlements using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The results show: (1) The Southwest Road defense zone was continuously reinforced, whereas the Northwest Road defense zone steadily shrank inward from the standpoint of settlement construction. This illustrates how the Jin Dynasty’s macro-level defensive strategy changed from “military deterrence” to “tactical defense”. (2) In terms of military administration systems, ethnic composition differences and settlement defense functions were the main factors influencing the settlement patterns formed in the Northwest and Southwest Roads. (3) In terms of spatial distribution and site selection features, the Zhaotaosi settlements functioned as the core settlements integrating “command-troop garrison-combat operations,” in contrast to the conventional method of using the highest-level settlement as the rear command center.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xie et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: