Talk:Southern Ming

On Li Zicheng
重建明王朝

明崇禎十七年(1644年)正月， 李自成在西安稱帝 ，建國「大順」，之後向北京進兵，三月十九(lunar)攻克北京，崇禎皇帝emperorChongzhen自盡，明朝宗室(royal families)及遺留大臣(imperial court ministers)多輾轉向南走. 此時李自成(Li Zicheng)的「大順」政權Shun Dynasty大體據有淮河Huai river以北原明朝故地，張獻忠Zhang Xianzhong於八月成立的「大西」政權則據四川Sichuan一帶，清朝政權Qing則據有山海關Shanhai Pass外的現今東北地區，且控制蒙古Mongol諸部落(tribes)，而明朝的殘餘勢remnants 力則據有淮河Huai river以南的半壁江山.

此時明朝留都南京的一些文臣(bureaucrates)武將(military commanders)決計擁立朱家王室的藩王(princes from the royal families)，重建明朝，然後揮師北上. 但具體擁立何人則發生爭議，錢謙益等東林黨Donglin movement人以立賢為名擁潞王朱常淓Zhū Changfang，而史可法Shi kefa則主張擁立桂王Prince of Gui(Ch:朱常瀛)(alias Ch:朱由榔). 但福王Prince of Fu朱由崧Zhū Yousong最終在盧九德的幫助下，成功獲得了南京Nangjing政權主要武裝力量(ex-government military force)江北四鎮高傑、黃得功、劉良佐和劉澤清，以及中都鳳陽總督馬士英的支持，成為最終的勝利者(became successor to the throne.). 五月初三(lunar) ，朱由崧Zhu Yousong 監國于南京Nangjing ，五月十五日(lunar)即皇帝位，次年改元弘光Hongguang，史稱南明Southern Ming Dynasty. 福王Prince of Fu政權的基本國策以「聯虜平寇」(To unite with Manchu, to squash the rebels)為主，謀求與清軍連合，一起消滅以李自成Li Zicheng 、張獻忠Zhang Xianzhong為代表的農民軍(peasant militia).

On January 1644(the seventeen year of Chongzhen. Li Zicheng  proclaimed himself as emperor of China in Xian under the name of Shun Dynasty. On the third month of the lunar calander, Li Zicheng took Beijing


 * As far as I know, Li Zicheng did not proclaim himself emperor until June 3 (I think) of 1644, when it became clear he would have to leave Beijing because Wu Sangui and Dorgon were pursuing him from Shanhai Pass. Could this be a mistake on Chinese Wikipedia? Also, Li Zicheng's forces entered Beijing on April 24, 1644. (Ref.: Frederic W. Mote (1999), Imperial China, 900-1800 [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press], p. 809.) The emperor committed suicide the next day. --Madalibi (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take into consideration the 'Lunar calander', which is different from Western calander. But I notice the vast difference between the dates. I can verify them by reading up on 南明史. Arilang   talk  08:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * zh:大順 (政權)

崇禎十七年（1644年）李闖在西安建國，國號大順，年號永昌. 三月，李闖陷大同、宣府、居庸關，十七日(lunar)兵臨北京城下. 十八日(lunar)克北京外城. 三月十九(lunar)晨(1644年4月25日)（崇祯十七年三月十九日(lunar)）：自尽殉国. ，崇禎帝自縊於北京煤山，明朝滅亡.

@Madalibi, Quote:Li Zicheng did not proclaim himself emperor until June 3 (I think) of 1644,unquoted is incorrect. But 三月 should be April 1644, so Mote was right this time. I will check 南明史 when I have more time. Arilang   talk  09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Chinese Wikipedia does not say that Li Zicheng proclaimed himself "emperor" in Xi'an. The precise dates are missing: on February 8 (the very first day of Chongzheng 17 [or Shunzhi 1]), Li proclaimed the founding of the Shun dynasty and the reign period Yongchang, but he only called himself King. Only on June 3 (lunar calendar: 29th day of the 5th month) did he organize an enthronement ceremony in Beijing where he titled himself Emperor. This was just after he returned from his defeat at Shanhai Pass, and the day before he left Beijing for good. I have confirmed this account from three different English-language books by renowned scholars, as well as a Chinese book on the history of the Qing, so I strongly doubt there is a mistake. If you want to convert dates from the lunar calendar to the Julian or Gregorian calendar, there is a convenient date converter here. Cheers, --Madalibi (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For reference's sake, the relevant passage from the Chinese Wikipedia page on the "Great Shun" (see link above) is this:
 * 1644年四月廿一日，李闖親征吳三桂，大敗. 四月廿九日，李闖在武英殿匆匆即帝位，深夜便焚燒宮殿與九門城樓，向西撤退，闖軍僅駐北京四十一日.
 * --Madalibi (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 四月二十一日，李自成与驻守山海关将领吴三桂进行一片石战役. 战至四月二十二日，吴军渐渐不支. 吴三桂乃降于清朝摄政王多尔衮，两军联手击溃李自成，主将刘宗敏受伤，急令撤退. 二十六日李自成逃到京城，仅三万余人，二十九日李自成在北京称帝. Extract from http://baike.baidu.com/view/9761.htm

I think you are right. If 四月二十六日 is lunar calender, then Gregorian calendar should be June or late May. Because this is en:wiki, we have to convert all the dates into Gregorian calendar. Arilang   talk  20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From the calender converter:明思宗崇禎年間 西元1628年2月5日(星期六) ～ 1644年6月4日(星期六),a bit confusing to me. If (1644年4月25日)（崇祯十七年三月十九日(lunar)）：自尽殉国. ，崇禎帝自縊於北京煤山，明朝滅亡. If he died on (1644年4月25日)(Gregorian), why did the calender converter's date finished at 1644年6月4日(星期六)(Gregorian)? I shall let you to decide on the Gregorian date.  Arilang   talk  20:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang. I just realized I had forgotten to answer your question! First, the date of the death of the Chongzhen emperor is uncontroversial: you can cite April 25, 1644 with 100% confidence. But I'm not completely sure I understand the decision of the compilers of the date-converting site to extend the Chongzhen reign to June 4. As you surely know, in the Ming and Qing, even after an emperor had died the name of his reign period (年號) kept being used in official documents until the first day of the following lunar year. The case of the Chongzhen emperor was a bit unique, though, because no new Ming emperor really replaced him, so the "Chongzhen reign period" should have stopped on the day the emperor died. My guess: the compilers of the date converter chose June 4 as the last day of the Chongzhen reign because this was the day before the Prince of Fu entered Nanjing to become the leader of a loyalist Ming government in the south (though he was named Regent 監國 only on June 7, and became emperor on the 19th). One related question would be what reign name the Nanjing court used in official documents between the day the Prince of Fu became Regent and the first day of the following lunar year (when his Hongguang 弘光 reign started). It must have been Chongzhen. This means that for Ming loyalists, the Chongzhen reign stopped on the very last day of that lunar new year, that is, January 27, 1645 in the Gregorian calendar. To summarize: the compilers of the date converter made a strange "in-between" choice that fits neither with historians' choice of ending it on 25 April 1644, nor with the decision of Ming loyalists to extend it until the end of the lunar year. Cheers, --Madalibi (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Madalibi, I can see you are a very serious student, I hope one day you will publish a few books on Ming Dynasty. With new perspectives.

朝鲜“不忍背弃大明，凡祭祝之文及公家藏置文书皆书崇祯年号”. 青原府院君沈器远准备起事反清，试图事成后“用崇祯年号，书示八方”，但事败被杀，其中另一个为首的权斗昌被捕受刑后说，“国事艰危，为清国所侵辱，百姓皆思中国，欲趁此时内清朝廷，外攘夷虏”.

南有容(1698一1773)<<明书纂要正纲>>...将明史从明太祖写到永历十三年(1659);赵徹永《续明史》也纪载明 神宗万历十一年(1583，即清军最初犯境年代)至南明永历十六年(1662)的历史，在序中看出，他相当重视华夷之说，并站在南明的立场上，以南明为“ 我朝 ”，以清朝为“奴”.

吴金成《朝鲜学者之明史研究》一文指出，“在朝鲜奉清正朔百余年后，在十八世纪中叶以后，仍照样记载明朝为‘皇朝’，有关明朝的时代史，几乎大部分以南明 的年号为基准，甚至连南明时代也论及，以此来认定南明为正统王朝”，这种激烈的华夷观念，恰恰是朝鲜学者修明史的重要特点.

道光十二年(1832)出使清朝的金景善就直截了当地对着众人说: 自生民以来，未有薙发之天子也，虽有陆陇其、李光地之学问，魏禧、汪琬、王士禛之文章，顾炎武、朱彝尊之博识，一薙发则胡虏也，胡虏则犬羊也，吾于犬羊也何观焉?此乃第一等义理论也.

May be the the compilers of the date converters share similar POV with those Koreans? Arilang   talk  11:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ma Shiying
zh:馬士英

弘光元年（1645年），鎮守武昌的左良玉，發兵南下，要「清君側」、「除馬阮」[2]. 馬士英提出：「寧可君臣皆死於大清，不可死於左良玉之手」[3]. 竟命史可法盡撤江防之兵以防左良玉，最後揚州失守，史可法壯烈殉國，南京政權被滅. 福王被虜，馬士英逃至浙江，投靠同鄉總兵方國安，後被清軍俘殺. 《明史》謂馬士英「為人貪鄙無遠略，復引用大鋮，日事報復，招權罔利，以迄于亡」

郑芝龙
在明朝官方的支持下发展成为拥有三千多艘海洋贸易船只，超级庞大的海上贸易集团. 根据当时书籍记载，当时郑芝龙集团势力已经达到“凡海舶不得郑氏令 旗，不能来往，每舶例入二千金，岁入以千万计，以此富敌国” 　 　在王春瑜《闽南海商势力的扩张》一文中说，崇祯元年，荷兰人，和许心素联手在东山岛海面上向他发动攻击，郑芝龙盛怒之下出动千艘船只捕获荷兰人的两艘大 船和85名荷兰船员. 不久又攻入厦门港，把许心素抓获处死并再捕获一艘荷兰船和一艘快艇. 等到强大的中国海盗集团刘香势力崛起之后，“荷兰人与刘香勾结， 在1633年7月12日突袭厦门，把港内郑芝龙水师的二、三十艘战船击沉或烧毁，这些被破坏的船只每艘上面配备有16门、20甚至36门的大炮，可见郑芝 龙的明军水师实力强大到什么程度. 而在短短两三个月内，郑芝龙竟能连续对荷兰人发动两次庞大的海上反攻. 出动包括五十艘特大战船在内的150艘战船，使刘 香海盗集团和荷兰人遭受到重创. 最后彻底消灭了强大的刘香海盗集团，并使荷兰殖民强盗受到沉重打击. 这种战果在中外交锋的历史上是罕见的. 也奠定了郑芝龙 的明军海上力量在这片海域上的霸主地位. 荷兰人在见识了他的厉害之后，改变了对他敌对的态度，与他合作，以求在几乎完全由他垄断的贸易中得到一些好处” 　　 　 　　　荷兰的东印度公司根本无法和郑芝龙集团竞争，无论在军事上，还是在贸易上，都是如此. 德国学者Aldree he wiltn说“他除靠那一项强暴的营业税收（每舶例入二千金），又靠本身的投机生意，而终于积攒起一笔莫大资产，他的船只计有三千，他令其船主们巡航到暹 罗、马尼拉、马六甲等地，就豪华以及财富而论，他凌驾在他君主之上”. 当时就连郑氏家族手下其他成员，都富可敌国，如户官郑泰“守金门，资以百万计”“富至千万”“少者百万”.

明末中国的私人海上贸易
http://bbs.gxsd.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=63316&extra=page%3D17 【作　者】林仁川著 【出版项】 华东师范大学出版社, 1987 【ISBN号】 11135.24 / F552.9

Extract:《明末中国的私人海上贸易》中说“崇祯元年，台湾荷兰长官与郑芝龙订立为期三年 的购货合同，议定郑芝龙每年向荷兰交付生丝一千四百担，糖五千担，糖姜一千担，绢绫五千担，荷兰人支付29万9700元，这项合同后因荷兰东印度公司缺乏 现金作罢. ” 　　　　接替郑芝龙的郑成功集团，虽然实力至少缩水一大半，但仍旧拥有惊人的财力. 郑成功为了抗清，筹集资金，发展海上贸易，设立“ 裕国库”和“利民库”，相当于现在的大银行，为海商们提供资金进行贸易，顺治十一年，海商曾定老一次就领出25万两白银，进行出海贸易；顺治十二年领出5 万两商贩日本，十一月又领出10万两”

Sections on Zheng Zhilong and Koxinga
Hi everybody. I propose to move all detailed discussions of Zheng Zhilong and Koxinga to their respective pages, and to keep on this page only the parts of their activities that had to do with the Southern Ming. Right now the wiki discusses events that took place as much as 20 years before the fall of the Ming: I don't think they belong here, even as background. What do you think? --Madalibi (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What should belong here is a discussion of Zheng raids on Qing-controlled Jiangnan, claims by different members of the Zheng family (including Koxinga) to be loyal to the Ming, and Zheng activities in Fujian when the fleeing Ming regime was based there. Details unrelated to the Southern Ming should go into other wikis. The page on Zheng Zhilong happens to need a lot of work anyway, so all the information about pirates and trade would fit in there very well.--Madalibi (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

@Madalibi, up to you to decide what go where, I have no objection. Arilang   talk  04:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 沿途招降浙江(Zhejiang平阳 Pingyang,瑞安Ruian(官府，取温州(Wenzhou)，抵舟山(Zhousan)，与南明兵部侍郎(military commander)张煌言(Zhang Huanyan)部会师. 八月初九，抵羊山岛(Yangsan Island)（今上海东南海中），遇飓风(hurricane)，漂没将上8000余人(lost 8,000 personel)、沉没 战船40余艘(40 warships sunk)，其余战船多有损坏(all the warships had various degree of damages). 郑成功暂停进军(temporary halting of the military advance), ，在舟山沿海修船repair and refurbishing,练兵，休整待机(waiting for the right monent to attack.. 清两江总督郎廷佐获悉，即在崇明岛(Chongmin Island)以及沿江的福山(Fu mountain)、瓜洲(Quazhou)、镇江(Zhengjiang)等处加强防务(strengthening its defence)，江中横贯铁索(lay long iron chians across the river) ，名曰“滚江龙”；在水上构筑木栅，置兵设炮(built wooden rafts stationed with soldiers and cannons)，名曰“木浮营 ”，以阻郑军.

Defeated in Nanjing
隔年，鄭成功再次率領大軍北伐，會同張煌言部隊順利進入長江，勢如破竹，接連攻克鎮江、瓜洲，包圍南京. 張煌言部亦收復蕪湖一帶十數府縣，江東一時震動. 後因鄭成功中清軍緩兵之計，意外遭到清軍突襲，致使鄭軍大敗，損兵折將，包括甘輝、萬禮、林勝、陳魁、張英等大將皆死於是役. 鄭成功兵敗後，試圖攻取崇明縣，做為再次進攻長江的陣地，卻久攻不克，只好全軍退回廈門. 南京之戰可說是鄭成功生涯當中最重要的一役，卻是先盛後衰，以大敗收場，使鄭成功的反清大業受到致命挫折.

永曆十四年，在福建海門港（今龍海東）殲滅清將達素所率水師四萬餘人，聲威復振[8

郑成功的叔父郑鸿逵引其子郑肇基去见南明隆武帝. 隆武帝赐肇基姓"朱". 郑芝龙知道这件事情后，第二天也领着郑成功去见皇帝. 隆武帝见郑成功长得十分可 爱，且对答如流，便抚摸着郑成功的脊背说："可惜我没有女儿嫁给你做妻子！"于是，赐郑成功国姓"朱"，赐名"成功"，暗示郑芝龙积极抗清，取得成功. 从 此以后朝廷内外都称郑成功为"国姓". 在清朝不断用兵东南的关键时刻，郑芝龙公开降清. 郑成功跪哭力阻无效，毅然与其决裂，举起了抗清大旗. 此后，郑成功以金门、厦门两岛为根据地，建立了一支 精锐的水陆两栖作战部队. 在巩固福建的同时，数次举兵北伐，准备收复南京，恢复明朝的统治，结果由于多种多样的原因，均以失败而告终. 而后郑成功当机立 断，实施战略转移，把目标对准了台湾. 当时台湾被荷兰殖民者所侵占，台湾人民不断起义反抗. 永历十五年(1661年)，郑成功率领将士数万人，自厦门出发，经澎湖，在台湾禾寮港登陆，围攻荷兰 总督盘踞的赤嵌城，击溃敌人从巴达维亚派来的援兵. 经过8个月的战斗，康熙元年(1662年)二月一日，荷兰总督揆一投降，台湾重回祖国怀抱.

Gallery on Ming arsenal
Hello everyone. The gallery on Ming arsenal is full of interesting material, but the latest picture in it is of a cannon that was cast in 1592, more than 50 years before the fall of the Ming. Some pictures are of objects from more than a century before the Southern Ming even appeared. Therefore I don't think the gallery belongs on this page: should we just remove it? In the mean time I've added a picture of a cannon cast in 1650 by the Southern Ming. --Madalibi (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Later Zhou Dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Defining the dynasty
The official history classifies only the Nanjing regime (1644-1645) as "Southern Ming." Subsequent Ming leaders are treated as pretenders. Almost the entire Southern Ming leadership surrendered at Nanjing. The pretender regimes represent other loyalists who became active in response to the fall of Nanjing. The Clever Boy (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi,, and thanks for caring about the article! I'm not sure I agree with your definition, though. The page you link to in Achim Mittag's article on "Chinese Official History Writing under the Ming and Qing" (in The Oxford History of Historical Writing, 1400–1800) only mentions the opinion of the Qianlong emperor. His opinion was very important at the time, but it is not the kind of reliable source we can rely on to define our topic. In the modern secondary literature (i.e., in reliable sources), the Southern Ming is consistently defined as going from 1644 to 1662. The main pieces of scholarship is Lynn Struve's book The Southern Ming, 1644–1622 and her article in the Cambridge History of China, volume 7, The Ming Dynasty. For more sources that place the end of the southern Ming in 1662, see also this Google Books search for "Southern Ming" and "1662". The Hongguang court in Nanjing was definitely the Southern Ming regime that gathered the most support from legit officials and other loyalists, but it was definitely not the only reign of the Southern Ming! Madalibi (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * could you tell me what you think of the above? Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By 1662, the prince of Gui had already fled to Burma. The dynasty was over and done. Cambridge uses “Southern Ming" for the dynasty in Nanjing and “southern Ming" (note capitalization) for the loyalist courts collectively. To resolve the contradiction, I recommended that this article be retitled “Southern Ming" over at this RM. The standard "13 dynasty" structure of Chinese history is from Yupi lidai tongjian jilan, which was issued during Qianlong's reign and follows his pet theories. The Clever Boy (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about that discussion, but I agree that "southern Ming" (which will display as "Southern Ming") would be a reasonable title. I would also wholeheartedly support decapitalizing "dynasty" throughout articles on Chinese history!!! I proposed that change some time ago (see "On removing capitalization from 'dynasty' in wiki titles" and "Would everyone agree to this method for solving this discussion?", but a few editors were reluctant and the discussion was taking me too much time, so I just gave up. I'd be glad to take part in a new discussion on that if you started one, though. (Maybe a formal request for move?)
 * As for this page, I must say I see no difference between "Southern Ming", "southern Ming", and "southern Ming dynasty" as far as content is concerned, so moving to southern Ming will not solve our problem. I don't think Lynn Struve sees a difference either, since she calls the topic "southern Ming" (no "dynasty"), but she still defines it as going from 1644 to 1662. Wikipedia editors must define the topics of Wikipedia articles on the basis of modern reliable sources like Struve and all the scholars who agree with her. This point (my point) rests very solidly on Wikipedia's core content policies of "verifiability", "no original research", and "neutral point of view". By relying on Qianlong's concept of zhengtong 正統 to argue that the southern Ming should be restricted to the Hongguang regime, you're going against pretty much all of these at the same time. Madalibi (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that Cambridge uses "Southern Sung" (capitalized). This suggests that the editors made a decision to capitalize "southern" when its is part of the proper name of a dynasty, but not otherwise. In other words, the “Southern Ming dynasty" is the Nanjing regime, while the “southern Ming" is the loyalist resistance movement up to 1662, 1683, or whatever date you want to use. No dynasty ended in 1662. The prince of Gui in Burma is no more dynastic than the prince of Ningjing in Taiwan. The dates used in the title of Struve’s book merely tell the reader what period of time her book covers. Any work on this period will use the term “Ming pretenders” to refer to this group of princes. If just one modern source uses the term “Southern Ming" to refer to the Nanjing regime, then the usage isn't original, is it?
 * ” Nanjing was again made the capital of the short-lived Southern Ming regime”
 * "the short-lived Southern Ming...to...the seventh month of 1645."
 * ”In 1645 when Southern Ming was vanquished by the Manchus” The Clever Boy (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for citing these reliable sources! They are more helpful than what the History of Ming or the Qianlong emperor said. We agree on a lot, actually. We agree that these southern Ming regimes were not really "dynastic" in the usual sense of the term. We also agree that the southern Ming just consisted of a series of unsuccessful loyalist regimes led by princes of the Zhu family, and not much more. Actually, even Lynn Struve agrees on this! Here's what she says in the very first paragraph of her book The Southern Ming 1644–1662 (and let me quote it at length, because there's no online snippet and she makes a crucial point): "As far as anyone knows, the Southern Ming was not called the "Southern Ming" by a Chinese writer until the middle of the nineteenth century... This late appearance of the term Southern Ming is understandable because, paralleling the long-accepted designations of other dynasties in Chinese history, especially the Southern Sung, it implied respect and legitimacy for a series of political regimes that the Ch'ing officially had striven to dismiss as benighted and insignificant... [W]ith the downfall of the Ch'ing in the first decade of the twentieth century and the consequent venting of anti-Manchu sentiment in the republican period, those who had resisted the Ch'ing in times past were extolled, and the term Southern Ming came into general use. In this book, however, it is used simply as a terminological convenience, not as a means of ascribing any particular status to the period in question—except, perhaps, one of respectability as an object of historical study."

Struve doesn't want to engage in a philosophical discussion of when the Ming really ended and which "Southern Ming" regimes were more legitimate than others. And neither do I. My humble goal is just to find the most common definition of the "Southern Ming" in the scholarly literature. Struve is by far the leading scholar in that field, and she uses "Southern Ming" as a convenient term to refer to a series of short-lived regimes led by members of the Ming imperial family in southern China after the fall of Beijing in 1644. I think we should adopt that definition (because it's dominant in reliable sources), and by that definition the "Southern Ming" (not a dynasty, just a convenient label) ends in 1662 when a tight bowstring ended the life of the so-called "Yongli Emperor". The sources you cite are not enough to overturn Struve's influential approach, especially since Zeitlin's book (the first source you cite) speaks of "the Southern Ming's eradication in 1662", the Cambridge History of Chinese Literature of "the Southern Ming Yongli court", and the biographical dictionary of "the Ming Yongli in the far southern provinces". Finally, it's great to see you take care of the article like this. This article hasn't attracted much attention, so it's good to see someone who's serious about improving the article's content like you do. Keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Grand Empress Dowager Helena Wang
孝正太后 was Empress Dowager not Grand Empress Dowager. She seems to be the Yongli Emperor's stepmother and had the same rank as his birth mother the Empress Dowager Ma.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=tyhT9SZRLS8C&pg=PR25#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=tyhT9SZRLS8C&q=koxinga#v=snippet&q=cheng%20ch%27eng-kung&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=tyhT9SZRLS8C&q=cheng+chih+lung#v=snippet&q=cheng%20chih%20lung&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)