Asia | A silent struggle for one’s identity and autonomy during the Warlord Era. (1916-1928)

Each period in a nation’s history can be told through it’s built environment. Architecture has always been a visual stage, allowing for all other aspects of countries culture and life to dance, showcasing a reflection of their political profile, economic footprint and social standing. Each nation’s built environment and it’s series of changes mark resistance, a reflection on diplomatic, political, economic, social, philosophical, aesthetic, demographic, technological, ecological, and other pressures associated with society. Style and form signify a society in transformation as well as an economy in transition - in this case haphazardly controlled. In this article we will be looking China’s War Lord Era and what influenced its Architecture: Architecture was used as a symbol of wealth for the upper class men although this was still dependent on logistics - the availability of imported materials. This period being ripened with war, saw a constant neglect towards repair and maintaining traditional and historic structures. 

The Warlord Era in Chinese history (1916-1928) marked an extended period of great political instability and military conflict when the central government was too weak to rule the entire country. The country was divided among former military cliques of the Beiyang Army and other regional factions from 1916 to 1928. The event which sparked this was the death of Yuan Shikai, after his service as the first president of the Republic of China beginning in 1912. Shikai’s Power was derived from his “mob style” leadership within the Military (Beiyang Army). His leadership created an atmosphere of contentious, domineering military personal.

 War Lords not only pushed backed central leadership this defiance can also be found in their architecture. Building traditions, (combined with religion and ideology) which had been practiced by the central authority through various organisation for thousands of years, significantly differed during the Warlord period. Many built on innovative forms of early modern times because of a lack of respect towards time-honoured traditions and a lack of appropriate resources. At that time, fragmented political power led to many thousands of Chinese communities consisting of potentially distinct and often opposing classes, ethnicities, and other groups. These fragmented groups all had unique approaches to Architecture. This created a landscape which could be verse in a multitude of practices.

•  The Race towards a Western Reflection. 

Higher classes of society often times invest in finer quality of materials, their version of architecture then becomes a display of wealth and accessibility. Thereby creating a subtext of classism in a tangible form. Higher classes and those in positions of power often have the financial ability to mimic foreign architectural language, this is an attempt to legitimise their position of power on the global stage by mirroring the Western Architectural Styles or in theory any region which would be at the top of the global political poll. This misguided aim to separate themselves and their descendants from the “average common folk” unfortunately is far to common throughout history, perhaps this need arose from self-rejection or self hate. One that I hope to explore in later articles. For now, I believe this was a defiance against the given context - one born from the pressures of the outside. An intense desire to assimilate, in the hopes of wider acceptance - legitimising ones power.

This transition within the built environment was at times ways strategic and others haphazard. The Architectural practices of the “new world” began being adopted. In my opinion, this parallels the transgressions against the Caribbean Arcihicepelego. Additionally, large scale infrastructure projects and urban projects designed to mimic the modern progressive systems explored in the west began to pop up. All this in the hopes of securing an environment for political acceptance and a stable rule. While the intentions behind these implemented strategies may not be clear to those of the period, blinded by their obsession with western ideals, it has left a political statement behind. Nationalist values and actions remain and integral part of this period’s story. 

On the haphazard front, The Chinese War Lord period saw many historic structures damaged and in many cases destroyed.  While the destruction of historic structures was not always intentional, frequent battles and conflicts led to the loss of buildings, temples, and monuments. Warlord armies often used such structures for military purposes, in the hopes that its historical value would offer some level of protection, however this still resulted in significant damage to the regions cultural footprint. Constant warfare then led to a continued unstable central  government. As a result many historic building could not be maintained despite their shared historic and cultural value. These sites fell into disrepair as spending among leaders was heavily focused on military. With limited resources, paired with a lack of political will for preservation during this chaotic period. 

•  Our Case Study: The Shaolin Temple, Henan Province (Pictured above).

 The famed Shaolin Temple, known for its martial arts and Buddhist heritage, was attacked and partially burned in 1928 by warlord Shi Yousan’s forces. Many ancient scriptures, relics, and parts of the temple were lost. However, this particular structure was able to recover today “The Shaolin Monastery represents a strong symbol for the martial arts community, especially for those who follow Chinese styles” - Nico, & Nico. (2024, April 22). A brief history of Shaolin Monastery in Henan. 

• Tension within the Urban Fabric.

The presence of western influence was not only present in the form of “puppet masters” engaged in Proxy War Games at the expensive of their own native people and by extension their communities. But its imposing presence also created a tension within the urban fabric. A struggle for one’s identity and autonomy set against the influx of Western styles and techniques, all set against the backdrop of Violence. This caused a shrift between traditional Chinese architectural styles and western architectural styles. Some warlords, seeking to “modernise” their territories, embraced Western styles and techniques, leading to the construction of new buildings that blended Chinese and Western architectural elements. Earlier I discussed the underline motivations of these warlords, while at the surface level it may appear that one is taking a pragmatic approach to their built territory, It is my personal belief that this came from their insecurities and their need for global recognition and acceptance. Hence the race towards a western reflection. As a refutation and attempt to  discuss overall influences; I offer the argument of economics and logistics. New materials and construction methods architect and builders felt the need to adapt leading to hybrid styles that reflected the era's complex cultural dynamics. Inflationary monetary and fiscal policies generated much wider profit margins and substantial resources, facilitating commissions of buildings and infrastructures that could be used for self-glorification, force, and prestige among rivals. Conversely, it created significant constraints on inventors by favoring off-the-shelf designs and materials because of the low concentration suitable for novelties and innovation. The establishment of monopolistic enterprises in the late 1920s ceased the opportunity for minorities in the old and new economy. Architecture and other cultural production were used as a social force for propaganda in what we now call visual culture due to the rise of the promising era of mass media and photojournalism. Using examples of Nanjing, Beijing, and Guangzhou architecture, ample evidence of the relationship between architecture, patron, user, and political power was provided. 

When we reflect on the urban landscape we can see how development was controlled, leading to uneven urban development. This was done directly - based on the decisions of various warlords and indirectly - via proximity to the wealthy and upper class. Some warlords invested in the construction of new buildings and infrastructure to showcase their power and modernise their cities, while others neglected urban planning, resulting in chaotic and haphazard urban growth. During my urban mapping I also noticed that decisions to initiate large scale infrastructure projects coincided with plans to support their military campaigns and administrative needs, mainly serving the purpose of expanding their military might, with healthy urban growth being an unplanned benefit. These projects included roads, bridges, and railways etc. Warlord decisions were made based on economics, yes, but make no mistake - every decision was strategic warfare. This period effectively quashed any hopes for centralised political stabilisation and economic recovery. The economic turmoil and demoralised business environment limited the resources for sustainable development during this period; hence, the scale and delicacy of architectural projects were reduced, and even inspirational project ideas after the May 4th movement were hard to realise as a result of ruin at the hands of war. 

War lord’s implications on Chinese architecture were powerful enough that it shaped new dispositions for architectural knowledge and character during a time when culture itself was undergoing radical upheaval. This article has attempted to image, to some extent, the intertwining of political, economic, and social transformations that led to the Warlord era's new concerns and aesthetic inclinations.