Is Dong Zhuo all that bad???

[Shah Muhammad III]

I mean c'mon at least he tried to help the country, and the book is biased against him it's not even funny, they never metion his Qiang campians or the fact that he was active and back then a decent person. Now emperor Ling on the other hand just did not care and makes Louis XVI look good, becuase all he really did was let Zhang Rang and the other nine eunuchs run the country,who more or less let there friend's or family have goverment posts,but back on topic aside from buring down Luo Yang, building a massive harlem and killing emperor shao is he really that bad p.s sry for the wall of text if i try to space it might delete my post and force me to retype it

[LiuBeiwasGreat]

Yeah he really is that bad, he butchered innocent people, he order imperial tombs to be dug up, he had prisoners beaten to death, he was quite bad. I am sure other members can elaborate much better then i can though.

[Kong Wen]

It depends on which Dong Zhuo you're talking about. The historical Dong Zhuo of course had many great political and military accomplishments in the northwest, so if you're asking whether the historical DZ is as bad as the novel DZ, then no, I suppose not, if only because there are some "virtues" that are dismissed/ignored.

But you also say that the novel is "biased against him" and that makes your question a little more ambiguous. The novel is not biased against him in any practical way, since DZ had been dead for centuries by the time the novel was written. Its "bias" is simply a narrative storytelling decision by the artist. DZ's military accomplishments against the Qiang are not highlighted for the same reason that Luke Skywalker doesn't appear in the book—they are not important to the novel's internal fictional universe. So if you're asking if the novel's DZ has some overlooked merits, then the answer is no, what you see is what you get.

I suspect you're simply seeking a reevaluation of the historical DZ, though, and interpreting the novel's characterization of a figure based on the historical DZ as an injustice, but it's more helpful to maintain the two as distinct entities.

[Lord Lu Xun]

He did do some cruel acts, but he had his merits and wasnt really ALL that bad. Still, not many people could call him a man of virtue. I mean, most of the warlords in the land mobilised against him for his deposition and murder of emperor Shao. By the way, change your title so it doesn't say Dong Zhou.

[James]

Well, yeah... I'll submit that he was all that bad. His actions in Luoyang alone (even historically) qualify him for that award, I would have to say. I wouldn't be surprised if they are somewhat reflective of his habits elsewhere as well.

[Antiochus]

Also, he is widely responsible for pushing the chaos even further, allowing the Three Kingdom era to take place much easier by weakening the imperial power to the breaking point.

After the Dong Zhuo regency, the Han had lost any illusion of power it still had and Cao Cao simply took itfor what it became, a purely simbolic figurehead.

[Cao Ah Man]

Had Dong Zhuo actually ACCOMPLISHED anything, then perhaps he would not be "all that bad." Yes, it's true that Emperor Ling had allowed the situation to degenerate. And yes, it's true that Dong Zhuo may have had the good of the state originally at heart. But whether or not power corrupts, his actions hardly were those to keep the Empire stable. Rather, as we've seen in history, they have done quite the opposite and only brought the dynasty down lower, and that's not even mentioning some of his more crueler acts which he did in both the novel AND history, i.e. the slaughtering of peasants, deposition and murder of the Emperor, and the oppression of loyal ministers.

So yes, he most certainly was "all that bad."

[Dong Zhou]

The novel Dong though isn't even allowed to be a good general, everything he fights is defeat and cowardly. I was somewhat surprised he was allowed to be strong and not needed to be rescued by girl scouts

[Shi Tong]

If your definition of bad means that these things are ok:

aside from buring down Luo Yang, building a massive harlem and killing emperor shao is he really that bad

Then that's ok, he was a great man.

The above alone can constitute a pretty bad person. Even with his military campaigns, burning Luo Yang and desecrating the Han tombs and deposing the rightful emperor probably destroyed the Han on those two alone.

[Shah Muhammad III]

I only say it is biased becuase it make's ZGL seem like the best commander in that book, except at chen chang anyway, but also the Han and Shu-Han in general only becuase it makes them seem so just when Emperor ling wasn't and didn't Liu Bei depose,Liu Yan a distant relative of his, and Shi Tong those reasons do not constitue being ok nor do i think they are ok, and Dong Zhuo i know is not a saint, but he can't be that evil who makes Fred Phleps seem sane [puts on flame retardent suit and hides]