在这封信件诸多值得注意的内容中，最有趣的或许是对建康商品诱惑力的直白陈述。自青铜时代以来，华夏世界就是独特的商品制造中心，生产与流通在汉朝操纵控制竞争对手及边境族群时发挥了重要作用。随着这一时期华夏世界经济重心开始向长江流域转移，太武帝无疑不仅考虑到建康对争议边境地区人口的物质诱惑，更在思考控制长江沿岸新兴生产中心（而非将俘获的工匠迁往平城）将带来多大利益。48
这封粗鲁的信件当然也是蓄意挑衅，展现了太武帝在羞辱对手时流露的傲慢。南朝以总兵力约二十万人的军队北上作为回应。但在此我们可见北魏与建康政权间关键差异之一在于动员与维持大规模常备军的能力。此时长江下游地区已是东亚——或许也是全世界——最富庶之地。但财富的存在与榨取财富的能力是两回事：建康的税收方法（与北魏类似）并不完善，因此征兵行动使国库严重吃紧。筹措军费的方式之一是将宋朝官员俸禄削减三分之一。49
尽管面临这些困难，宋军此时已推进至黄河，围攻虎牢关要塞。面对平城方面要求派军保护"沿河粮帛"的呼声，太武帝却推诿道："战马尚未养肥，南方气候仍炎热。立即出征于我不利。"他继而夸张宣称："我国人原着羊皮裤"——当时仍作此装扮者恐已不多——"何需丝绸衣物？"50从更实际的角度看，皇帝此时注意力可能还分散于他刚做出的艰难决定：处决大臣崔浩。
随着秋季来临，他的战马已然膘肥体壮。尽管存在国库消耗问题，他仍能毫不费力地从踊跃应征的国民中征募庞大军队。通过在鄂尔多斯地区组织狩猎进行练兵，随后在平城西郊重新集结后，太武帝率军南下，核心部队之外还加入了平原地区征召的辅兵。51虽可能带有夸张成分，史载他"率百万之师渡过黄河，战鼓轰鸣震动天地"。守军溃逃，沿途遗弃武器与战友堆积如山。52北魏军队沿多条战线南进，基本未遇抵抗。行军途中，太武帝抵达邹山（今山东济宁以东）。公元前219年——即秦始皇统一中原两年后——这位始皇帝曾登临此山并树立纪念石碑。太武帝此时亲自登山，命士卒推倒这位前朝君主的纪念碑。更具礼仪意味的是，他派遣使者前往仅约15英里外的孔子故里进行祭祀。53
自邹山继续南进，451年2月中旬抵达长江北岸，与建康隔江相望。太武帝的营帐设于山丘之巅，俯瞰麾下约六十万大军，营寨连绵数里。54当日沿平行路线推进的其他北魏军队亦抵达长江沿岸东西各点，不仅展现了北魏的协同作战能力，更暴露出宋朝防务的薄弱——至少江北地区如此。江南方面已实施戒严，沿南岸数百里布防。55北岸的拓跋军队正捆扎芦苇制作筏具准备大规模渡江。惊恐万分的刘义隆此时进贡求和，据《魏书》记载至少还提议两国皇室联姻。56虽未实现联姻，但三天后——按中国历法正值元旦——北魏皇帝为将领举行盛大宴会，按爵位等级封赏超过200人。继而宣布停止军事行动。次日，集结全军北返。虽未渡江完成全面入侵，但北魏军队途经地区已遭严重破坏，撤军时太武帝携获五万余户俘虏返回桑干河高地。57宋朝政权虽得以幸存，但实力大损。
关于太武帝未继续南进的原因，很可能受制于物质条件限制。就攻防态势而言，长江本身是道巨型护城河，在建康段宽度超过半英里。南岸防御依托精良的水军力量；尚不清楚芦苇筏能对此形成多大威胁。另一问题在于后勤补给。北返途中，"人饥马疲"，愈发需要劫掠途经城池的粮仓。58尽管许多设防城镇已被遗弃，仍有不少据点留有守军。59北魏军队可能从秩序井然的行军队列瞬间沦为困兽。此外，回想皇帝此前未更早南下的原因，或许可理解为众多内亚出身将士对南方暑热的抱怨——春季已近在咫尺，酷夏随后将至。明元帝可能正是因染病于黄河南岸而亡，而太武帝本人据称拒绝饮用当地水源，所需饮水皆由骆驼背负自北方运来。这些毕竟是真实的人类在陌生地域行军，其抱怨与牢骚至今仍能引起共鸣。60最后，如前所述，皇帝在战前数月刚处决大臣崔浩，必然导致平城陷入动荡。综合上述原因（或许更多考虑），这位务实的最高统帅率军北归，携数十万新附人口为奴。或许此次战役的初衷正在于此，加之震慑宋朝并扼制其收复豫北企图——随着453年刘义隆遭亲子弑杀后宋朝内部持续的权力斗争，此类企图终未再现。
* * *
这位"狼主"既在战场上与敌人搏杀，也在意识形态领域与各类符号信仰体系角力——根据其判断这些体系是强化还是削弱君主制来决定支持或打压。审视这些问题时，必须铭记这个国家的新生特质：若以完整形态计算，仅可追溯至道武帝以来的两三代人。虽然特定群体可能存在诸多小传统，但整个国家——或许类似近年"大不列颠"的处境——尽管存在战利品分配、狩猎活动、腾格里信仰与可汗体制等统一要素，仍可能令人感觉危险地脆弱。此处我们不仅要关注现存事物，还需注意缺失部分：尽管代地存在众多《魏书》所称"小神"崇拜，但未出现类似铁木真对手蒙古萨满阔阔出般具有影响力的宗教领袖。61尽管可能存在共享的歌曲与史诗——或许包含早期"木兰"的国语版本——但至少没有游吟诗人传统将这些文化元素传播至各群体以唤起全体同胞共鸣的记载。
佛教此时传入东亚社会已有数世纪，在长江流域、东部满洲地区以及鸠摩罗什早年活动的西北地区根基稳固。62但在五世纪中叶，佛教方才开始在代地扎根，主要推动力来自新征服西北地区输入的大量传教僧尼。63平城居民生活在新创世界的不确定性中，其信仰内容与形式仍显粗糙，这为传教者提供了大量可争取对象。皈依者中包括皇帝自己的储君——拓跋晃。
但皇帝本人对佛教传教者日渐增长的影响力、寺院机构的潜在力量及宗教本身深感不安。64 446年发生在渭河流域的事件使其猜疑获得新焦点：镇压盖吴叛乱后巡视长安期间，部属在某寺院发现军械库。65太武帝宣称"此非沙门所用，必与盖吴通谋！"，随即采取残酷镇压：该寺全体僧侣处决，寺庙夷平，宗教圣物摧毁。不久后颁布诏令将灭佛行动推行全国。66事实上，此举遭到朝中众多反对，包括太子晃——他作为监国推迟诏令执行，使平城僧侣得以藏匿。不过多数寺庙似乎仍遭毁坏。
对太武帝而言，佛教在国内外都构成了一个具有威胁性的另类联盟体系。这种威胁还源于其新异性——尽管年轻一代（其子嗣）在信仰中寻求慰藉，但对太武帝而言这仍是外来事物。因此，正如先祖建造平城那样，太武帝如今试图通过其他方式引导平城民众的轻信倾向为己所用。如前所述，443年首次尝试是派遣乌洛侯使团出使平城。但除了在境外培植势力的努力外，更大规模的举措是通过采用古代中华帝国的象征与制度，来确立该政权在较近地域范围内的地位与重要性。上文已提及构建将拓跋君主谱系追溯至传说中黄帝的世系。67中国经典文献——这些典籍本身当然也是被创造的传统——也被加以利用，起初是零散的，但自北魏孝文帝时期开始系统化应用。作为这一进程的相对早期阶段，444年（颁布禁佛令后立即）太武帝下诏令所有王公大臣之子入太学研习经典。68崔浩在这些发展中扮演关键角色，试图通过自身对经典的阐释，将拓跋君主与拓跋军队纳入其提炼的理想国家社会蓝图中。69
崔浩在确立中国本土宗教道教某学派为国教的努力中也起到关键作用。424年，崔浩引荐道士寇谦之觐见皇帝。这位道教先知在圣山嵩山（位于黄河南岸，处于北魏与南朝宋之间仍有争议的边境地带）隐居期间，曾获得被神格化的老子（即太上老君）启示。70太武帝被寇氏道派吸引，部分因其方术与长生之术，部分因寇谦之自称受神明之命北上平城辅佐太武帝。440年达到高潮，太武帝采用寇谦之建议的"太平真君"称号，并将其定为新年号（440-451年）。71
尽管太武帝努力推广这种新宗教——他希望该宗教能从都城向外辐射，将新近征服地区内分裂且屡叛的各族群凝聚在新的世界秩序中——但民众对寇谦之的理论似乎鲜有兴趣。实际上，随着时间的推移，皇帝本人似乎也失去了兴趣。448年寇谦之去世后，其道教领袖地位再未补缺。451年皇帝南征归来数月后，年号即被更改。72在太武帝继任者统治时期，佛教将被指定为维系政权的核心纽带。
或许太武帝对寇氏信仰的厌倦正如他对寇氏导师（指崔浩）的厌倦。作为显赫汉人家族中受过高等教育的子弟，崔浩数十年间担任朝廷重要谋臣。450年他遭太武帝下令处决，震动北魏朝野。《魏书》记载的罪名是对崔氏《国记》内容的不满。如第二章所述，此书系奉皇命编纂，成书后被刻碑立于平城外城西门通往王朝腾格里祭坛的御道旁进行公开展示。不久即有投诉称书中段落"不典"并泄露"国恶"，这些投诉随即成为正式指控。73
关于崔浩450年被处决存在多种解释，许多强调族群矛盾。74但《国记》无疑至少是直接诱因。尽管我们不知道"不典"段落的具体内容，但可以有把握推测：在描述拓跋民族及其在崔氏理想帝国中的定位时，崔浩写下了至少某些国人不悦的内容。建康史书《南齐书》提出一个可信解释：崔浩暗示拓跋氏并非黄帝后裔，而是叛汉投匈奴的将领后代。75无论原因为何，有人准确预见了后果：参与编修《国记》的史官高允听闻公开展示计划时预言，这将"为崔氏万世祸，吾辈无类矣"76——"吾辈"此处指汉人文士。高允本人幸免于难，因太子晃介入保全其师性命。但高允的预言基本应验：总计死亡逾百人。崔浩被装入囚车押往刑场，地点在宫城南门外广场——约四十年前王子绍被凌迟处死的同一场所。77行刑前奏是数十名国人禁卫对其撒尿；据载其凄厉哀号途人为之侧目。作为《国记》案重要性的佐证，除高允外所有编纂助理皆遭处决。78
崔浩在魏廷培植紧密权力集团似为另一深层死因：被处决者包括其近亲及大量提拔的汉族姻亲家族。崔氏还与南朝人士通婚，这可能解释其反对南征而热衷西北战事的态度。79值得注意的是，处决崔浩后太武帝才率大军直抵长江北岸。80
更普遍而言，崔浩似乎如常人般经数十年日渐骄矜自满。81或可换言：他逐渐自视非仅为王朝臣仆，更是受天命（若非腾格里）改造帝国之人。太武帝十五岁即位时或需可靠导师——被描述为"智弱书生"的崔浩——以制衡宿将与权戚。82但若说崔浩渐成傲慢之人，太武帝似亦随年岁增长渐显此态。或许他意识到自己这个所谓君主，不过是他者棋局中的卒子——至多是骑士。因此即便真为曾祖私生活曝光或"不典"内容震怒，太武帝此刻实是借机清盘重组。
若此乃帝王谋算，则未奏效：新棋子更难遂其意。崔浩灭族后不久，太子晃先薨，太武帝本人亦崩。朝廷随即陷入混乱。
1. WS 3.64.
2. WS 3.62; Zhang, Bei Wei zheng zhi shi, 2: 530–31; WS 3.63.
3. See Sagawa Eiji 佐川 英治, “Tō Gi Hoku Sei kakumei to ‘Gisho’ no hensen” 东魏北齐革命と『魏书』の编纂, Tōyōshi kenkyū 64.1 (2006): 37–64, on changing definitions of when the regime began, under Northern Wei and then the eastern successors under which Wei Shou finally compiled Wei shu.
4. WS 3.61, 62. This is the well-argued thesis of Li Ping, Bei Wei Pingcheng shidai, Chapter 2. See also discussion in Eisenberg, Kingship in Early Medieval China, Chapter 2. In this arrangement, the senior emperor retained authority over the army.
5. Pearce, “Nurses, Nurslings, and New Shapes of Power,” 293; Yao, Bei chao hu xing kao, 219; BS 13.493 (WS 13.326).
6. In 425 she was made “nurse empress dowager”: WS 4A.70; seven years later, she was given the more conventional title huang tai hou: WS 4A.80. For more detail, see Pearce, “Nurses, Nurslings, and New Shapes of Power.” Though this was a Chinese title, see Cheng Ya-ju, “Han zhi yu Hu feng,” 15–19, as to how this was an ad hoc invention, drawing together parts of the institutions of the old empire as well as practices used among the Taghbach people from the time of Madam Wei (see Chapter 5), if not before.
7. See the history of this regime by Wu Honglin 吴洪琳, Tiefu Xiongnu yu Xia guo shi yan jiu 铁弗匈奴与夏国史研究 (Beijing: Zhongguo she hui ke xue chu ban she, 2011).
8. WS 95.2057; ZZTJ 120.3789–91. The walled complex took up something on the order of a quarter of a square mile. An appreciable share of the ruins survive; standing on the edge of desert, there has not been much reason over the last 1,500 years to build over.
9. WS 4A.72
10. For city as storehouse, see Chapter 5 note 36.
11. WS 4A.72–73; 95.2058–59.
12. WS 110.2857; see also Müller, “Horses of the Xianbei,” 184. On the horse ranches of Tang two centuries later, see Skaff, Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors, 259–62.
13. ZZTJ 121.3798–3801
14. ZZTJ 121.3807ff. It will be noted that discussion of the Rouran campaign elicited a fierce debate of the kind seen 14 years later, as described in Chapter 1.
15. Uchida, Kita Ajia shi kenkyū, 2: 34, estimates the luo 落 as generally made up of 2–3 tents, and containing 10–20 individuals. If the number given for the number of High Carts taken in 429 is correct, this would have been at least 5 million individuals settled in the band of grassland north of the Yinshan.
16. WS 4A.75, 103.2293; ZZTJ 121.3811–12.
17. WS 103.2289, and see also the modern editors’ comments on p. 2314 note 3. On Rouran use of scribes to record in Chinese, see SoS 95.2357.
18. WS 95.2059.
19. ZZTJ 121.3826. For Kumārajīva, see Valerie Hansen, The Silk Road: A New History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), Chapter 2; and his biography in the Gao seng zhuan, T. 2059, 50: 330a-333a. Translation of these texts into Chinese may, of course, have reinforced the dominance of this writing system in East Asia.
20. See JS 125.3127, where it is asserted that the family went back to Eastern Zhou’s Spring and Autumn period (771–476 bce). The former monarch, Feng Hong’s elder brother, had however had a “cognomen,” Qizhifa 乞直伐, that was clearly transcription from another language, presumably Inner Asian. See description of the tomb of another brother, Feng Sufu, with strong Inner Asian elements: Dien, Six Dynasties Civilization, 104–5. Questions of origin are raised by Holmgren, “Social Mobility in the Northern Dynasties,” 19–32; Stanley Abe, Ordinary Images (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 181–82; and Kubozoe, Boshi o mochiita Hokugi-shi kenkyū, 524–25.
21. WS 4A.81.
22. ZZTJ 123.3861–62. Feng Hong, it should be noted, was subsequently killed by the Kogury· king. For more on Wei relations with Kogury·, see Li Ping 李凭, Bei chao yan jiu cun gao 北朝研究存稿 (Beijing: Shang wu yin shu guan, 2006), 63–135, and for the flight of Feng Hong, 78–83. For a more general overview on Kogury·, see also The History and Archaeology of the Kogury· Kingdom, ed. Mark E. Byington (Cambridge, MA: Early Korea Project, Korea Institute, Harvard University, 2016); and Christopher I. Beckwith, Koguryo: The Language of Japan’s Continental Relatives (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
23. Zhang, Bei Wei zheng zhi shi, 3: 137–46.
24. Although, as pointed out by Armin Selbitschka, “Tribute, Hostages and Marriage Alliances: A Close Reading of Diplomatic Strategies in the Northern Wei Period,” EMC 25 (2019): 74–75, ties were also maintained with Jiankang.
25. ZZTJ 122.3848; WS 99.2206, 36.832.
26. Yu Taishan 余太山, A History of the Relationships between the Western and Eastern Han, Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern Dynasties and the Western Regions (Philadelphia: Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Pennsylvania, 2004), 263–69; the book is a partial English translation of Yu’s Liang Han Wei Jin Nan bei chao yu Xi yu guan xi shi yan jiu 两汉魏晋南北朝与西域关系史硏究 (Beijing: Zhongguo she hui ke xue chu ban she, 1995). See also the table of Central Asian envoys to Wei (alongside those of Song) in Itagaki Akira 板垣明, “Hokugi no Sei-iki tōbatsu o megutte” 北魏の西域讨伐をめぐって, Chuō daigaku Ajia shi kenkyū 20 (1996): 104.
27. Nicholas Sims-Williams, “The Sogdian Merchants in China and India,” in Cina e Iran da Alessandro Magno alla dinastia Tang, ed. Alfredo Cadonna and Lionello Lanciotti (Florence: Casa Editrice Leo S. Olschki, 1996), 57.
28. ZZTJ 123.3870–71.
29. ZZTJ 123.3871–72; WS 36.832; 28.690; 35.822–23.
30. HS 26B.1644–45. For a general overview of the physical conditions of the Gansu Corridor during this period, which though increasingly arid in the fourth and fifth centuries still had more vegetation than it does today, see Maeda Masana 前田正名, Kasei no rekishi-chirigakuteki kenkyū 河西の历史地理学的硏究 (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1964), 1–13.
31. For Cui Hao’s comment, see WS 35.823; for Yi Ba’s, WS 44.989–90.
32. WS 99.2207.
33. ZZTJ 123.3873–74;WS 99.2207.
34. WS 114.3032; Leon Hurvitz, tr., Wei Shou: Treatise on Buddhism and Taoism; An English Translation of the Original Chinese Text of Wei-shu CXIV and the Japanese Annotation of Tsukamoto Zenryū (Kyoto: Jimbunkagaku Kenkyusho, Kyoto University, 1956), 61; Liu Shufen 刘淑芬, Zhong gu de Fo jiao yu she hui 中古的佛教与社会 (Shanghai: Shanghai gu ji chu ban she, 2008), 30–32.
35. WS 44.990.
36. See Yu, The Western Regions, Chapter 7.
37. Rong, “The Rouran Qaghanate and the Western Regions,” 77. A decade later, a request from Khotan for Wei help against Rouran raids was met with a diffident “we’ll look into the possibilities,” from which little real effort came: ZZTJ 132.4155. For a general discussion of the at times underestimated power of the Rouran, see also S·ren Stark, “A ‘Rouran Perspective’ on the Northern Chinese Frontier during the Northern Wei Period,” forthcoming in Mounted Warriors in Europe and Central Asia, ed. F. Daim, H. Meller, and W. Pohl.
38. Liu Xinru, “The Silk Road: Overland Trade and Cultural Interactions in Eurasia,” in Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History, ed. Michael Adas (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001), 161–62; and for a Wei mission that in 520 made it all the way to Gandhāra (parts of mod. Afghanistan and Pakistan), see Jenner, Memories of Loyang, 265–66.
39. WS 65.1438; tr. Yu, Western Regions, 306, with modifications. See also discussion of “tribute” and Wei diplomacy in Selbitschka, “Tribute, Hostages and Marriage Alliances.”
40. Chen, Multicultural China, 90–92, quoting Tang Zhangru 唐长孺, “Wei Jin za hu kao” 魏晋杂胡考, in his Wei Jin Nan bei chao shi lun cong, 382–450.
41. JS 116.2964; ZZTJ 100.3161, 106.3363, 106.3369, 117.3677; WS 2.32. Zhang, Bei Wei zheng zhi shi, 4: 132–68, gives detailed information on Gai Wu and his rebellious predecessors.
42. Liu, Zhong gu de Fo jiao yu she hui, 10; Zhang, Bei Wei zheng zhi shi, 4: 147. For the immediately preceding events, see WS 4B.98–101; ZZTJ 124.3914–16.
43. WS 30.727–28; SoS 95.2339–40 gives copies of letters to the Song court.
44. WS 40.902–3; ZZTJ 124.3926–29.
45. ZZTJ 124.3922.
46. ZZTJ 125.3937. For the location of the grounds on which the hunt was conducted, see Zhang, Bei Wei zheng zhi shi, 3: 210.
47. SoS 95.2346; ZZTJ 125.3938–40.
48. See discussion of the early development of mass manufacture in Lothar Ledderose’s Ten Thousand Things. For the economic development of the south during this period, see Liu Shufen 刘淑芬, “Jiankang yu Liu chao li shi de fa zhan” 建康与六朝历史的发展, in her Liu chao de cheng shi yu she hui (Taibei: Taiwan xue sheng shu ju, 1992), 3–34; and Shufen Liu, “Jiankang and the Commercial Empire of the Southern Dynasties: Change and Continuity in Medieval Chinese Economic History,” in Culture and Power in the Reconstitution of the Chinese Realm, 200–600, ed. Scott Pearce, Audrey Spiro, and Patricia Ebrey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 35–52.
49. SoS 5.98, 95.2349; ZZTJ 125.3938.
50. ZZTJ 125.3948.
51. WS 4B.104.
52. SoS 95.2350.
53. SoS 95.2350; WS 4B.104.
54. WS 4B.104–5, 105C.2406; ZZTJ 125.3960.
55. Described at length in Zhang, Bei Wei zheng zhi shi, 3: 268–95.
56. WS 4B.105, 95.2139, which go on to state that it was Taiwu who considered that marriage between the two dynasties would be “incorrect” 不礼. SoS 95.2352, 71.1849, state instead that it was Taiwu who asked for marriage (and also claims that earlier requests had been made as well, before the invasion: SoS 95.2334). ZZTJ 125.3961 takes the side of the latter. For further discussion of different perspectives on some of these events seen in different histories from this age, see Albert Dien, “The Disputation at Pengcheng: Accounts from the Wei shu and the Song shu,” in Early Medieval China: A Sourcebook, ed. Wendy Swartz et al. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), 32–59.
57. WS 4B.105, 95.2140, 105C.2406.
58. WS 95.2140; SoS 74.1912.
59. In SoS 74.1913, we are told of one who challenged Taiwu by asking how he measured up to Fu Jian, to whom the enraged Taghbach khaghan responded by making a nail bed and saying when the city fell the defender would be lying on it.
60. SoS 95.2352. Discussion and complaint were often heard about the different cuisines of the Yellow River as opposed to the Yangtze regions: see Scott Pearce, Audrey Spiro, and Patricia Ebrey, “Introduction,” in Culture and Power in the Reconstitution of the Chinese Realm, 200–600, ed. Scott Pearce, Audrey Spiro, and Patricia Ebrey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 22.
61. WS 108A.2739. ZZTJ 124.3906 calls them “barbarian gods” 胡神, which in later times came to be applied to gods deriving from Central Asian religions. For the place of K·k··ü Teb Tenggeri in the Mongol community, and his death by order of Temujin, see Rachewiltz, Secret History of the Mongols, 1: 168–74, and analytical discussion on 2: 869ff., including discussion of whether or not he should properly be called a “shaman”; “prophet” may be the more proper term. According to Rachewiltz (2: 870–72), “Teb Tenggeri” can be taken to mean “The Very Lord[-like],” here translating tenggeri (≈ tengri) not as “celestial” or “heaven,” but by the derivative “lord.” For discussion of the rivalry between K·k··ü and Temujin, see the notes on 2: 878–79.
