Guan Yun Chang (Film) 關雲長 (電影)

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

Re: Guan Yun Chang (Film) 關雲長 (電影)

Unread postby Hyper90 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:33 am

Zhao Yun '87 wrote:As for Sun Quan I highly disagree. Wu attacked into Wei several times. Plus, there's that little thing in Jing province.


yes, and the bloody hell happened in He Fei for several years. heavy casualties on both sides for this damn fortress.
"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die. " Sima Yi

take a look please
User avatar
Hyper90
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: Guan Yun Chang (Film) 關雲長 (電影)

Unread postby Zhao Yun '87 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:01 am

Shen Ai wrote:His attacks on Wei were nothing compared to the assaults Shu did. Sun Quan was ambitious but seemed to shrewd to attack like Zhuge Liang and Jiang Wei did. Yuan Shao was ambitious but he lacked the foresight needed to win. Lu Bu was wiling to sacrifice his own life to spare his men. Not really the decision of an ambitious man. Yuan Shu had high expectations but really, he was a tool.

Cao Cao isn't anymore ambitious than the ones you mentioned so you are right in that sense. But he was one of the few capable of making a change in China.


We weren't discussing capability, simply the strength of their ambition.

Lu Bu willing to sacrifice his own life to save his men?
The problem was I was on fire.
Zhao Yun '87
Master
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:22 am
Location: Nanjing

Re: Guan Yun Chang (Film) 關雲長 (電影)

Unread postby Shi Tong » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:09 pm

What would we think of people saying that Hitler was a good man in 1800 years time because he reformed Germany? Cao Cao sent 870,000 men to their deaths at Chi Bi, I hardly see this as a betterment of China's predicament.

Liu Bei wanted to reunite China under the Han dynasty, and why not? It was Cao Cao's brutality and using the emperor as a puppet which lead to the wars. If Cao Cao had never (pretty much) usurped the power of the throne in the first place, he'd not have had so many challengers, therefore more peace in China, surely?

Anyway, this is a discussion about how in The Lost Swordsman (or whatever it's called in English.. haha),
they portray Cao Cao as a wonderful reformer who.. ONLY just managed to "reunify" China under his rule (hardly, he had tons of people out to cut his throat cos he was a nasty piece of work!), to find Yuan Shu attacking him. Personally, I think rightly so, because Cao was out to take the whole country under his control.

That's not to say that Cao Cao never did any good, but I fail to see how we have a CLEARER view of Cao Cao now than they/ people did BEFORE us.. I mean.. surely the further away we are from an event, the less clear we see it?

Take my point about Hitler above.. are we going to hear in 1800 years time "well, he reformed Germany and did loads of public service, he was even a vegetarian" added into the mix, with films about how wonderful he was, and he was trying to defend his country against those pesky allies? No, sorry, he wasn't a "good" man, and using excuses like "Dong Zhuo was just as bad, is really not an excuse. Two wrongs don't make a right. ;D
User avatar
Shi Tong
Stupid Egg of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: London, England

Previous

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

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