Cao Cao is So Over-Rated

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

Is Cao Cao over rated?

YES!
10
15%
Sometimes.
7
11%
a little.
8
12%
No.
41
62%
 
Total votes : 66

Cao Cao is So Over-Rated

Unread postby Shi Tong » Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:20 pm

I knew that would get your attention.

I'm not trying to suggest that Cao Cao is, in any way, incapable or low in quality, but I would like to put it to you all that Cao Cao is really over rated in all the discussions here.

I'd like to put a case in point to you:

In a discussion about "Ceasar Vs. Cao Cao, who would win?", 63% of people say Cao Cao.

I think that's rediculous.

Cao Cao was defeated on many occasions, quite often barely escaping by the skin of his teeth, he lost a battle which had 1,000,000 men against 50,000.

This is one of the biggest defeats I've ever heard, it's like the French at Agincourt!

Cao Cao didn't unite the whole of China- there's been plenty of other generals in Chinese history who have- and against strong opposition.

Cao Cao couldn't beat Sun Quan of the Southlands or Liu Bei in the West, which isn't as good as someone like Qin Shi Huang Di who beat all 5 other nations in China to become the first emperor.

Ceasar on the other hand-

Beat the Gauls, Beat the Germans, occupying most of Europe.

Then he beat Pompey in a civil war and made himself after a while, the First Emperor of Rome with a huge empire.

Sorry, but next thing you lot'll be saying is that Cao Cao is better than Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, and he just isn't.
User avatar
Shi Tong
Stupid Egg of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: London, England

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:30 pm

Cao Cao was defeated on many occasions, quite often barely escaping by the skin of his teeth, he lost a battle which had 1,000,000 men against 50,000.


250,000 with many of them sick vs 50,000.

Beat the Gauls, Beat the Germans, occupying most of Europe.


Didn't he have a superior army with superior equipment whereas Cao Cao didn't?

Cao Cao, for me, was the greatest man of the threekingdom era but he flaws which stopped him being a true great, he suffered a few bad defeats but could survive them but what, for me the biggest thing I have against him is that after Guan Du he would make a vital error that denied him the chance to conquer the land, two or three times he managed to chuck away conquest by one bad choice.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14308
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Unread postby Zeche » Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:35 pm

Let me get this straight... Your comparing one of the most influential men in world history with Cao Cao to prove that Cao Cao is overrated?
User avatar
Zeche
Academic
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:39 pm

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:57 pm

He uses that man because
n a discussion about "Ceasar Vs. Cao Cao, who would win?", 63% of people say Cao Cao.
so it seems fair enough to do so
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14308
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Unread postby Shi Tong » Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:42 pm

mm thanks Dong Zhou. :)

Granted Ceasar beat the Gauls with a superior army- they were better equipped and had better training than the Gauls did.

Was this Julius Ceasars' fault though? I mean- I would have thought we should be praising the guy because he's trained his men so well and they have such good equipment.

It's like Qin Shi Huang winning in the warring states because he has better equipment- I say "yay" Qin Shi Huang, you were smart enough to develop better equipment.

Pompey, who Ceasar beat in a civil war also had an incredibly well trained army, not only that but one of Ceasars best generals defected to Pompey before the civil war broke out.

Pompey also had the Senate on his side because they didn't want Ceasar to walk into Rome as King, but they were not strong enough to defeat Ceasar, regardless of his lack of support.

Amazing feats I say- and against an opponent equally well equiped and strong.

I agree with your assesment of Cao Cao though- just one short of getting the whole jigsaw right, and that's why I say people saying he's better than Ceasar, or whoever they want to compare him to, he still cant really be the best because he didn't quite get his job done. *sigh*
User avatar
Shi Tong
Stupid Egg of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Cao Cao is so over rated

Unread postby James » Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:57 pm

Shi Tong wrote:I knew that would get your attention.

Indeed! Them’s fightin’ words!

It would be difficult for me to compare Cao Cao to Caesar. Caesar had a vastly superior army, fueled with victory after victory, whereas Cao Cao’s soldiers were not equipped on the same level. Cao Cao also built his army from the ground up in a war-torn era.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17928
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:18 pm

James sort of covers this but
Was this Julius Ceasars' fault though? I mean- I would have thought we should be praising the guy because he's trained his men so well and they have such good equipment.


The Roman system had been established for awhile and the army training and equipment was from them if I remember rightly. What Ceaser did with them and how he won their loyalty was his greatness but not sure he should get credit for how good the Roman army was
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14308
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Unread postby Tarrot » Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:41 pm

I've long held the view that Cao Cao, at least in these parts, is over-rated. I don't discredit what he did, or his ability to lead men or take advantage of situations, I just felt that quite a few people gave Cao Cao a lot more credit than I thought he deserved, specifically militarily. Most of his victories came in situations where the cards were in his favor, most of his defeats came when it was an even battle. One can argue Cao Cao's great for almost always having all the cards, but I still feel he is over-rated by many.
Tarrot
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:35 am

Unread postby Lu Kang » Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:46 pm

I'm going to go out on a limb and agree here.

Cao Cao was a good general. He was a good leader. He could spot talent very well and thus was able to surround himself with the cast to attempt to unite China. However, he is not as good as everyone likes to believe.

While Cao Cao was an able tactician, he was actually quite poor when it came to strategy. For every coup of strategy he had (Gongsun Yuan => Behead Yuan brothers; Take Hanzhong from Zhang Lu), he had several terrible examples of underestimating or overestimating his opponents force (Han Zhong with Liu Bei, Chi Bi, Ru Xu [twice], fearing Yuan Shang, fearing Guan Yu, thinking Tao Qian was an easy conquer, Zhang Miao, Lu Bu at times)

Cao Cao got lucky that his poor strategic mind did not cost him too much when he couldn't afford it. Later when his misjudgements cost him far more, he had enough to sustain himself.

Needless to say, people overrate the man.
无口为天,有口为吴,君临万邦,天子之都
Historical Post
Lu Kang
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 1:04 am

Unread postby man_on_the_pot » Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:39 pm

Cao Cao in my mind was by far the greatest man in this era. Yeah, sure he made a few mistakes, but compared to the other warlords, he had a pretty clean record. As for the underestimating and overestimating, i agree that Cao Cao more than once underestimated Liu Bei, but i dont think overestimating an opponent is all that bad.

I think of it kind of like a basketball game. My coach wont walk in and say we're going to beat them by 30, he's going to say that if we don't bring our best game, we'll get beat. Yuan Shang still had a lot of men, the support of the Wuwan, and a great leader in Shen Pei. Lu Bu proved he could fight against Cao Cao and proved that he could have the chance to defeat him.
man_on_the_pot
Initiate
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:55 am

Next

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

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