Han Xin wrote: Xiao He wrote:
Han Xin wrote:
Yeah, Sun Quan never betrayed anyone too, the attack on Guan Yu in 219AD was a situation that Sun Quan had no choice.
Not sure what Sun Quan has to do with it.
In Liu Bei case, he was not being force to betray Liu Zhang by circumstances. If you called that Liu Bei betrayal of Liu Zhang was force by the circumstances at the time, then all the betrayal in the history of mankind were force by circumstances.
I don't agree that is an accurate generalisation. First he was forced to betray Liu Zhang because Yizhou's lands were in danger of being taken by Cao Cao. Sun Quan's letter also pointed to the same prediction and that only when Yizhou taken, together with Chu (Jingzhou) and Wu would withstand even ten Cao Cao's. That was also the argument put forward by Pang Tong after Liu Bei could not decide.
Sun Quan's situation barely correlates to this one. His reasoning was that the Jingzhou region somehow belonged to him and he was claiming it back by force. But did Liu Bei claim he lent Yizhou to Liu Zhang and it was time to get it back?
There is no correlation in claiming a region is yours with taking a territory for safety. Jingzhou was controlled by an strong ally and acted as a buffer region, thus Lu Su was wise in ceding Nanjun and Jiangxia to Liu Bei. It cannot compare to Yizhou which was led by a weak and incapable Liu Zhang who cant even sleep easy with Zhang Lu in the north, let alone a Cao Cao.
Thus I dismiss the Sun Quan comparison since it has little relevance.
Xiao He wrote:
Tao Qian and Yuan Shu was not one called the best of friend, and far from it. Liu Bei don't accepted the first time, however he still rule over JingZhou later, its just a show that he put up to show that he was righteousness.
What does friendship have to do with it? Jingzhou?
Sorry, I mean XuZhou. Tao Qian and Yuan Shu were best of enemy. Liu Bei suggested to give XuZhou to Yuan Shu was more of a trick to force Tao Qian and his cohort's hands rather than been humble.
Tao Qian was already dead when Liu Bei suggested giving it to Yuan Gonglu. It is only with hindsight that we know Yuan Shu's character. But at the time, he was from the influential Yuan family and with such a strong army in the South with many generals, advisors, etc. Liu Bei considered himself unfit to undertake this position.
Xiao He wrote:
You mean THE YUAN SHAO? The Yuan Shao that wanted to make Liu Yu emperor so he could have his own puppet to play with? Hmm... I don't think it was RESPECT that made Yuan Shao travelled that far.
What does Liu Yu have to do with Liu Bei? And what do you propose was the reason why he went out 200 miles to meet him? What do you propose was Yu Huan's reason to write in Dian Lue that both Yuan Shao and his son respected
Liu Bei? The sources are there for you to read.
The problem was Yuan BenChu already wanted to have a royal to replaced Liu Xie, so I doubt it was respect that made him travelled 200 miles, it more like that Yuan BenChu wanted Liu Bei to replace Liu Yu as puppet.
Speculation, to say the very least. Where are the indications that Yuan Benchu had such intentions when Liu Bei was with him? Why would Benchu send his puppet away to Runan twice?
Liu Yu rejected the intended offer long ago before this and Han Fu was already dead. I doubt Benchu would even think about it again.
As it stands, SGZ says Yuan Shao came out 200 miles to welcome Liu Bei. Dian Lue says that both Yuan Shao and his son respected him. That is as clear as it can get, my friend.
Xiao He wrote:
Hmm... Taken a group of refugee to take JiangLing showed that he got no care for their safety. It was after his defeated at DangYang that force him to abandon plan to take JiangLing by force. So much for the regard for the people.
The people were following him I believe. They were the ones who werent caring for their own safety. Liu Bei let them slow him down and didn't run away. Plus what does Jiangling have to do with it?
I didn't say that these people were force to follow him. Liu Bei's target after abandon Xin Ye was to take JiangLing by force. With such a great mass of civilian followed him, you would expected that any benevolent ruler would abandon any military attempts on JiangLing and bring the civilian to safety first. However, Liu Bei never did such thing and his column of civilians and troops were destroyed by Cao Cao. I don't find Liu Bei's action as a benevolent ruler but more of a person who tried to manipulate the civilian support for him to his full advantages.
Bring his civilians to safety? But to where?
Secondly, I have no idea where you get this idea of taking Jiangling by force.
From SGZ-Shu-Liu Bei:
Someone said, "Yi Shu Xing Bao Jiang Ling" or defend Jiangling. How is 'defending' Jiangling mean taking it by force?
But I admire your persistence.
Xiao He wrote:
That is why Liu Bei was the biggest hypocrite in Chinese history. I mean he did already had plan to take YiZhou even before he arrived there. Later he use Sun Quan's request for reinforcement to extort troops and supplied from poor old Liu Zhang. When Liu Zhang only gives him half of what he had demanded, Liu Bei cried betrayal and attacked his own kinsmen. I found no action of righteousness in what you describe up their.
Well if you cant see the forest as well as the trees, then that's you.
Don't understand what this comments suppose to mean.
Let me correct the statement. I was running late and typed it quickly. I should have said, "You dont see the forest, but only the trees". Hope that makes better sense.
It means that if someone betrays once, then that is all one is concerned about. It is like a person who tells one lie, and he is labelled as the biggest liar and most untrustworthy in history. Simply focusing one instance does not generalise the whole person. Liu Bei did betray Liu Zhang. But is it a consistent trend? It would appear not unless I have the usual 'betraying of Cao Cao' claim. To that, I dismiss it simply because Liu Bei was serving the Emperor, not Cao Cao. He was loyal to the Han, not Cao Cao. Thus how does following orders constitute as betrayal? He did not betray Tao Qian. He did not betray Yuan Shao. He did not betray Liu Biao. Thus one bad tree in a forest doesnt mean the forest is all bad.
Xiao He wrote:
The problem with Pang Tong was that he is just a field strategist, not a great overall strategist like Zhuge Liang (don't be so happy Zhuge Liang's fan, I am not saying that Zhuge Liang was a good military stategist). Pang Tong's strategy might work in giving Liu Bei quick controlled of YiZhou, but how could Liu Bei gained the trust of the people of YiZhou when he so quick to betray his own kinsmen?
How do you know Pang Tong was just a field strategist? Tell me where in SGZ it actually says that.
Pang Tong was mainly used by Liu Bei as a field strategist. It was never mention anywhere in his bio that he gives Liu Bei advise regarding kingdom administration matter. So I felt it was safe to conclude that he was mainly good as a field strategist.
Field strategist? Not a kingdom administrator? You read his bio?
Let's see what Shiyuan says here:
There we go. Shiyuan considers himself able in 'lun di wang zhi mi ce'.