The Qiang rebellion of 185 and Ma Chao's supposed folly.

Join the Romance of the Three Kingdoms discussion with our resident Scholars. Topics relating to the novel and history are both welcome. Don't forget to check the Forum Rules before posting.
Kongming’s Archives: Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Three Kingdoms Officer Biographies
Three Kingdoms Officer Encyclopedia
Scholars of Shen Zhou Search Tool

Unread postby PrimeMinister Bu Zhi » Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:48 pm

Wasn't Cao Cao overstepping authority in killing a fellow ranking Han official, when that official had done no wrong? My view on the matter is that Cao Cao is the traitor here, not Ma Chao. He displayed again his blatant abuse of power to murder those whom he wanted.


If I were Cao Cao, I would kill Ma Teng too. Look at Guan Yu, when Liu Bei was around, he would go to him no matter what. Ma Teng is his father. And I don't think Teng would fight his own son or even serve a court that is agianst his son. He would probably defect and it is very common in that time to do something like this. Not just Cao Cao, but everyone. When Shi Hui rebelled in Wu, Sun Quan killed two of his relatives and demoted the rest. It happens all the time. Ma Chao was the idiot here.


1) He honestly underestimated Cao Cao's tyranny in the Han courts, and was too trusting that loyal men would protect his father.


So everything is ok, he thought that rebelling is ok. He thought that if you rebel, then your family will not want to rebel too. Ma Chao just decided to rebel because he knew it won't effect his father in any way? Makes no sense. His SGZ says exactly why he rebelled.

2) Ma Teng himself was plotting something secretive, so Ma Chao was going to aid the plot by rebellion. Ma Teng may have not realized Cao would kill him, or a plan of escape could have fallen through.


If Ma Teng was plotting something, which he wasn't, then Cao Cao had an even better reason to kill him, and Ma Chao was even dumber to rebel because now there was more a stake.

For you, it's all about what ifs. What if Cao Cao never existed, what if it's all fake? Who knows, we have to go by the records we are given, and Chen Shou's records say exactly why he rebelled. If Chen Shou says that's why he rebelled, we have no possible way of disproving it, so you might as well go along with it. Stop questioning every peice of info recorded on Ma Chao. Maybe Chen Shou had a reason to be baised agianst him, maybe it's because he really did suck.
Lu Xun- "After much observation of how Liu Bei had been leading troops in his career, I see that he had more failures than success; hence, he is not much of a threat."
PrimeMinister Bu Zhi
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:22 pm
Location: Jiao

Unread postby Mithel » Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:42 am

PrimeMinister Bu Zhi wrote:For you, it's all about what ifs. What if Cao Cao never existed, what if it's all fake? Who knows, we have to go by the records we are given, and Chen Shou's records say exactly why he rebelled. If Chen Shou says that's why he rebelled, we have no possible way of disproving it, so you might as well go along with it. Stop questioning every peice of info recorded on Ma Chao.


We should all stop arguing because there is no way to strictly and completely disprove your view point on Ma Chao. :roll:

There is no reason anyone should "go along" with Chen Shou. Spirited debate is an important part of the study of history, and nothing should be accepted simply by virtue of it being the only piece of information extant.
User avatar
Mithel
Initiate
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:47 am
Location: Canada

Unread postby Shield of Rohan » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:01 pm

PrimeMinister Bu Zhi wrote:If I were Cao Cao, I would kill Ma Teng too. Look at Guan Yu, when Liu Bei was around, he would go to him no matter what. Ma Teng is his father. And I don't think Teng would fight his own son or even serve a court that is agianst his son. He would probably defect and it is very common in that time to do something like this. Not just Cao Cao, but everyone. When Shi Hui rebelled in Wu, Sun Quan killed two of his relatives and demoted the rest. It happens all the time. Ma Chao was the idiot here.


I see the point you are trying to make, and I will go along with it for now, so we can focus on the more important arguments

So everything is ok, he thought that rebelling is ok. He thought that if you rebel, then your family will not want to rebel too. Ma Chao just decided to rebel because he knew it won't effect his father in any way? Makes no sense. His SGZ says exactly why he rebelled.


It says exactly why he rebelled? Actually it goes straight from the war in Pingyang with Guo Yuan (during which Ma Chao distinguished himself for bravery, see the numbered notes in bio), to saying that Ma Chao and Han Sui gathered their men and seized the Tong Pass. No direct mention whatsoever of a rebellion, and no mention at all of any reasons for one. Even you must admit Chen Shou was terribly incomplete.

And did you read my notes on Cao Cao and rebellion? How can Ma Chao's be unjustified then? And didn't Sun Quan backstab his ally, Shu, with a desire to expand his power into Jing? If Ma Chao is unjustified, then he certainly must be too. However, we know for a fact that Cao Cao and Sun Quan's treacherous/rebellious actions were done out of greed. Ma Chao we do not have enough information on to judge, and you choose to attack him over the other two? It could be as Jimayo said, and done for the sake of the Qiang. We simply do not know.

If Ma Teng was plotting something, which he wasn't, then Cao Cao had an even better reason to kill him, and Ma Chao was even dumber to rebel because now there was more a stake.


How would you (or Chen Shou) know if Ma Teng wasn't plotting something? Cao Cao may have killed him when Ma Chao rebelled with or without knowledge that Teng was plotting. If he was indeed plotting, which we cannot say for certain, then Ma Chao has all the justification he needed. He was fulfilling his duty to his father, not betraying him, in this scenario.

For you, it's all about what ifs. What if Cao Cao never existed, what if it's all fake? Who knows, we have to go by the records we are given, and Chen Shou's records say exactly why he rebelled. If Chen Shou says that's why he rebelled, we have no possible way of disproving it, so you might as well go along with it. Stop questioning every peice of info recorded on Ma Chao. Maybe Chen Shou had a reason to be baised agianst him, maybe it's because he really did suck.


Well, we can see that Chen Shou had an opinion about Ma Chao (and Guan Yu for that matter) that slipped into his records at least once. And he didn't even mention supposed betrayal of his father. He said he betrayed the tribes (which surprises me because Ma Chao lived in comraderie with the Qiang most of his life and later under Liu Bei was sent to convince them to aid Shu before his untimely death, not to mention Chen Shou would be one of the first Chinese of that era to favor the non-Han Chinese so vocally as to put it in a historical record). He also said he lacked courage, which is an entirely subjective statement and one that can only be justified on very shaky grounds.

Chen Shou does not say why Ma Chao rebelled, because he probably didn't know for himself. He only indirectly mentions that he rebelled at all. You cannot make assumptions based on historical evidence, just as I cannot say Luo's novel is 100% accurate.

Stop making unjustified assumptions about Ma Chao. Maybe Ma Chao was only half-decent, or maybe he was the greatest general of the era, or maybe he was somewhere in between (my view). We only have limited information about him, which says that he was no slouch in battle (records regarding the war in Pingyang), and that he commanded plenty of respect from Liu Bei, who most would argue was a good judge of character.

Mithel wrote:We should all stop arguing because there is no way to strictly and completely disprove your view point on Ma Chao. :roll:

There is no reason anyone should "go along" with Chen Shou. Spirited debate is an important part of the study of history, and nothing should be accepted simply by virtue of it being the only piece of information extant.


Thank you. I have been trying to get this point across unsuccessfully for ages now.
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded, what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
User avatar
Shield of Rohan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:48 pm
Location: Atlanta. No, scratch that: Utah.

Unread postby PrimeMinister Bu Zhi » Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:27 pm

And did you read my notes on Cao Cao and rebellion? How can Ma Chao's be unjustified then? And didn't Sun Quan backstab his ally, Shu, with a desire to expand his power into Jing? If Ma Chao is unjustified, then he certainly must be too. However, we know for a fact that Cao Cao and Sun Quan's treacherous/rebellious actions were done out of greed. Ma Chao we do not have enough information on to judge, and you choose to attack him over the other two? It could be as Jimayo said, and done for the sake of the Qiang. We simply do not know.


I am attacking Ma Chao because the topic is about him. And how did Cao Cao rebel? The Han was weak and I think he was right to usurp it, it was done for the people. I'd rather live in Wei then later Han. Sun Quan betrayed Liu Bei because Bei never gave him Jingzhou back, which Lu Su loaned to him.

How would you (or Chen Shou) know if Ma Teng wasn't plotting something? Cao Cao may have killed him when Ma Chao rebelled with or without knowledge that Teng was plotting. If he was indeed plotting, which we cannot say for certain, then Ma Chao has all the justification he needed. He was fulfilling his duty to his father, not betraying him, in this scenario.


If Teng was plotting something, then maybe Chao was right to rebel. But that would mean that his father is a dirty traitor and Cao Cao had every right to kill Chao, Teng and the entire family.
Lu Xun- "After much observation of how Liu Bei had been leading troops in his career, I see that he had more failures than success; hence, he is not much of a threat."
PrimeMinister Bu Zhi
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:22 pm
Location: Jiao

Unread postby Sima Hui » Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:37 pm

Actually Bu Zhi, in history, there never was an agreement for Jingzhou, only Jiangling.

And about Cao Cao not rebelling, that's not true. He murdered the Emperor's unborn child, had two of his children poisoned, harassed the Emperor, imprisoned him in Xuchang and forced him to make his daughter Empress. What is that if not rebellion? And even if the Han was weak, Cao Cao's duty as a man of Han was to help it thrive. Don't say that there's no evidence for it, because we could say the same about Ma Chao, and that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Anyway, I think that Chen Shou might have made Ma Chao seem less great, because he was an important anti-Wei figure. Jin derived from Wei and was the dynasty under which Chen Shou served. He might have done it to help glorify Jin.
This topic is an affront to both The Man and The Son of the Man.

-Ts'aoist

Ssuma I sucks.
He was okay when he was an obedient slave of The Man.


-Ts'aoist

Join the Cult and receive the True and Holy Word of The Man.
Sima Hui
Cult of Ts'aoist
 
Posts: 1670
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Serving the Most Sacred Disciple of the Man

Unread postby Shield of Rohan » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:52 pm

PrimeMinister Bu Zhi wrote:I am attacking Ma Chao because the topic is about him. And how did Cao Cao rebel? The Han was weak and I think he was right to usurp it, it was done for the people. I'd rather live in Wei then later Han. Sun Quan betrayed Liu Bei because Bei never gave him Jingzhou back, which Lu Su loaned to him.


Cao Cao rebelled against the rightful lord Dong Zhuo. Dong Zhuo was a top-ranking Han official who had every right to manipulate the weak Han for his own power. Cao Cao is nothing but an opportunistic unjustified rebel, and should be heavily slandered (these are your arguments not mine :wink: ). Please, apply your logic fairly. Now for Sun Quan...

He betrayed Liu Bei and the alliance against Cao Cao, thus destroying any hope of soon defeating the power of Wei. Lu Su himself insisted on friendly relations with Guan Yu, and Lu Meng, Su's successor, chose to ignore that policy as he saw only what would benefit Wu. Long before Guan Yu had insulted Sun Quan, Lu Meng had designs on Jing, throwing away a greater victory for a minor territorial gain. Ma Chao is nothing as an example of treachery for personal gain (an unconfirmed argument) compared to Sun Quan, Lu Meng, and the betrayal that sealed China's fate for centuries.

If Teng was plotting something, then maybe Chao was right to rebel. But that would mean that his father is a dirty traitor and Cao Cao had every right to kill Chao, Teng and the entire family.


Uh-huh. Dirty traitor. So what was Cao Cao (and I don't believe that he is a traitor for rebelling against corrupt Dong Zhuo and initially helping the Emperor, just that Ma Teng/Chao situation is quite similar and your opinion of each is very different)? What was Sun Quan? If Ma Teng wanted to rebel against a man who manipulated and betrayed the Emperor, could you blame him?

Ma Chao's name had the potential of bringing some heavy shame to the Wei-Jin Dynasties, if he was even half as great as he was in SGYY. I believe Sima Hui is right regarding potential bias on Chen Shou's part. We already know for sure that he did not care much for Chao, even going as far to put subjective statements in a historical record.
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded, what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
User avatar
Shield of Rohan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:48 pm
Location: Atlanta. No, scratch that: Utah.

Unread postby Separation Anxiety » Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:54 pm

Ma Chao was not smart. He does not think things through. He never had a decent strategist in his battles against Cao Cao, he was beaten and went to Liu Bei where he was never used. He didn't think that Cao Cao would kill Teng. He was stupid and sadly his father, a loyal subject of Cao Cao, was killed because of his sons stupidity and acts of filial defiance.
Oh my my, oh hell yes, your gettin buried in your party dress.
Separation Anxiety
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:40 pm
Location: The search party never came...

Unread postby harshbarge » Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:58 am

Im having flashbacks to the Ma Chao haters thread. How come the picture of Chao is so incomplete?
You've been chosen as an extra in the movie adaptation of the sequel to your life
User avatar
harshbarge
Master
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Battling the pink robots with Yoshimi

Unread postby PrimeMinister Bu Zhi » Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:10 am

Uh-huh. Dirty traitor. So what was Cao Cao (and I don't believe that he is a traitor for rebelling against corrupt Dong Zhuo and initially helping the Emperor, just that Ma Teng/Chao situation is quite similar and your opinion of each is very different)? What was Sun Quan? If Ma Teng wanted to rebel against a man who manipulated and betrayed the Emperor, could you blame him?


Ma Teng was not loyal to Han, only Cao Cao. He rebelled agianst Han in 185. Why would he be loyal to them?

You are right on the Cao Cao and Sun Quan part.
But though rebellion may not be so bad, to rebel and have your family killed for it, and then whine about it the rest of your life is stupid. I don't hate Chao for rebelling as much as I do for the part mentioned above. I guess I just hate him for being really unintelligent.
Lu Xun- "After much observation of how Liu Bei had been leading troops in his career, I see that he had more failures than success; hence, he is not much of a threat."
PrimeMinister Bu Zhi
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:22 pm
Location: Jiao

Unread postby Jimayo » Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:01 am

PrimeMinister Bu Zhi wrote:Ma Teng was not loyal to Han, only Cao Cao. He rebelled agianst Han in 185. Why would he be loyal to them?

You are right on the Cao Cao and Sun Quan part.
But though rebellion may not be so bad, to rebel and have your family killed for it, and then whine about it the rest of your life is stupid. I don't hate Chao for rebelling as much as I do for the part mentioned above. I guess I just hate him for being really unintelligent.


He made an accomadation with a powerful and intelligent lord who saved the emperor from Li Ju and Guo Si(that would be the two rebels he earlier invaded).
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Jimayo
Lord of the Thirteen Hells
 
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 1:38 am
Location: Nothingness. And that's where I'll be returning in oh, about 15 minutes.

PreviousNext

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved