The reaction of countries in East Asia under the rise of China has been a topic of widespread concern in recent years, while the reaction of China’s border areas has been relatively ignored. For multi-nation empires throughout human history, foreign territories can be included, and owned territories may also be lost. The degree of control changes from time to time. From the perspective of international relations theories that seek general explanations over a wide range of times and spaces, what exactly are the key factors accounting for the expansion/retraction of empires? Realism focuses on the distribution of material power. However, in the context of constructivism, whether foreign peoples have cultural identity with the empire is also important. In addition to the studies about Roman Empire in the West, existing researches focused on the Qing Empire, exploring whether the Qing, which had both Confucianism and Inner Asian character, could more firmly control the border areas. From then on, a further question was extended. In contrast to Qing Empire’s successful control of today’s Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, the Ming Empire, which was only Confucian and Han-Chinese in character, also succeeded in maintaining Tibet’s royalty. Was there any cultural identity between Tibet and the Ming? This article will survey Tibet in the Ming archives and provide a reference for the rise of China in contemporary world.