Lets Discuss Liu Bei forces and Cao vs Yuan!

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: Lets Discuss Liu Bei forces and Cao vs Yuan!

Unread postby DragonAtma » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:58 am

There are two possibilities I wish to add:

(1) Some guy falsely claimed they were Yu Ji; for reference, Russia's Time of Troubles had not one, not two, but three False Dmitrys claiming to Ivan the Terrible's son and, therefore, heir; the first one actually took the throne and reigned for a bit under a year.
(2) There was a guy who really WAS named Yu Ji, but weren't THAT Yu Ji (the one 200-ish years earlier). Keep in mind that Lu Bu was bribed by a guy named Li Su 李肅 (Weigong 偉恭), but Wu also had a different Li Su 李肅 (Weigong). Or, for modern people, there's a guy in Connecticut who sells fences and is named Bill Gates; obviously he's not THE Bill Gates.
Unless I specifically say otherwise, assume I am talking about historical Three Kingdoms, and not the novel.
Scholar of Shen Zhou
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:19 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Lets Discuss Liu Bei forces and Cao vs Yuan!

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:01 pm

Wiki states: He eventually withdrew after Wei reinforcements arrived, but instead of returning to the capital Jianye and apologise for his erroneous strategies, he remained from the capital for some time and never apologised to the people for the heavy losses suffered.

He didn't apologize, Zhuge Ke's handling of the defeat aftermath was disastrously bad politically. That isn't to say he didn't care about the losses, that is someone putting their own reading as fact

Cao Shuang appointed Deng Yang and buddies to power who were all removed by Cao Rui...

Zhuge Dan was appointed as inspector of Yang Zhou. The wiki source(Sgz) states: 會帝崩,正始初,玄等並在職。復以誕為御史中丞尚書,出為揚州刺史,加昭武將軍。) Sanguozhi vol. 28.

揚州 is Yang Province according to google translate.

How do you know that source SPECIFICALLY states that Dan waa fired by behaviour. Can you translate Chinese? I tend to use google translate... cause Im not Chinese...

He did.

Yep, Zhuge Dan was Yang under Shuang, removed for Wen Qin, brought back by Sima's after Guanqui revolt.

On the wiki you cited:
Cao Rui that Zhuge Dan and his friends, along with other "celebrities",[a] were engaging in superficial and fame-seeking behaviour. Cao Rui felt disgusted and wanted to discourage such behaviour among his subjects, so he removed Zhuge Dan from office.
according to the quote you gave me

Whats GOS4?


According to this guy: From when Liú Biǎo occupied Jīngzhōu, the people were repeatedly robbed, but from when Zhāng was appointed, robbers could not enter the borders.

The way I look at it, when Liu Biao pacified Jing, the bandits aka COMMONERS NOT PROFESSIONAL ARMIES, decided to harass Yang people.

Xu Sheng Sgz states: Huang Zu often sent his son, Huang She, with about 1000 men down to attack Xu Sheng. During then, Xu Sheng’s troops numbered not more than 200 and he engaged the enemies, wounding more than a thousand of the enemies' troops. Following which, he opened the castle's gate for an open battle and served a major defeat to Huang She. The defeat forced Huang She into hiding and he did not return to Huang Zu but instead turned to banditry.

No raiding. The translator use the word ATTACK not RAID, PILLAGE, PLUNDER OR RAVAGE.

When Huang She turned to banditry he was no longer a professional soldier or receive any orders to raid as he did not return to his father in the first place.

Europe and China is so different.. in fact, West Europe and East Europe is also quite different...

If you want to compare, then feel free to use other histories of China( SnA, WS, C-H).

Tao Qian, Liaodong Gongsun, Liu Zhang, Zhang Lu, Kong Rong never pillaged other enemies during a campaign(aka while using professional troops). They also never directly ordered their professional troops to pillage...

Cao Cao pillage as a form of revenge plus lacking of supplies.
Sun Quan pillage as a form of revenge plus human resources.
However, during the Jianan Era ALONE, they had tens of campaigns and only pillaged a few times.
So yes, they pillage, but it was not an active thing but a once in a while thing.
Source on the foraging?

Sad factor yes lol. Often factor? Nah...

Generals of South chapter 4

The kongming Pan Zhang bio has
At that time Liu Biao was in Jingzhou and the people [living near the border] were frequently attacked [by him]; but once Pan Zhang took command of the region, the enemy did not cross the border again.
. I looked at Rafe's encyclopaedia and it goes for Huang Zu
In the early 200s Pan Zhang was sent as a magistrate to Yuzhang, on the border of Liu Biao's territory in Jing province. He put a stop to raiding by Huang Zu's forces, and was promoted to be a colonel with command over a neighbouring county which suffered from banditry. He put down the trouble and collected eight hundred men for service on the eastern front.

Rafe's encyclopaedia describes Huang She's attack as a raid
He was then a magistrate in the frontier territory of Yuzhang, on the western flank against Huang Zu, and he defeated a heavy raid down the Yangzi by Huang Zu's son She.
so should have double sourced you on that one which is my bad. What is slightly weird about Xu Sheng's claim is that Huang She died in Huang Zu's service so clearly he did return

Europe and China are different, trouble feeding men and routes people restored to doing that are the same. I am no expert on era's of China outside of 3kingdoms (bar the dying days of the Han)

Tao Qian probably allowed Que Xuan to raid Yan and he rarely went outside his own disordered provinces, my knowledge of Gongsun's miliatry camapigns are limited other then being highly successful, we have little info on when Liu Zhang fought outside Yi (we know he warred with Liu Biao and Zhang Lu yes but details of them are lacking) but frankly his grips on the army was so limited that I wouldn't blame him for what they did bar failure to assert control. We have little detail of Zhang Lu's miliatry adventures (not counting his support for Ma Chao's), Kong Rong seemed to have no issue with Wei or He Jin pillaging and when in Beihai, his interest in miliatry matter was such he was accused of ignoring it while under siege by Yuan Tan.

I agree that pillaging wasn't done when the kingdoms were stable and strong enough to supply properly and where raiding became negligible use.

Forage from Man from Margin
In the great campaigns, those which decided the fortunes of a state, there was a limited, but vital, role for high command. A major force, thirty thousand menor more, occupied a vast area of ground and placed heavy demands on the resources of an even wider territory. It was composed of disparate units with individual leaders, much of whose time was spent in foraging, while poor techniques of communication restricted all attempts at control and manoeuvre. The real requirement was not for a brilliant strategy: the essential thing was to maintain the army in being _ and frequently this was more than the generals could manage.

Link? Anyways yes. Liu Bei raid Cao Cao. And as I repeatedly said before, pillaging have negative consequences.

Negative consequences only works if one thinks Cao Cao would leave an enemy force left in his own borders. I'm going to skip the battle part of the quote Liu Biao sent Liu Bei to make raids in the north. He came to She,17 and Cao Cao sent Xiahou Dun, Yu Jin and other generals to oppose him. link here

Looks like Im only partially correct...
Your source specifically stated: The matter of controlling and maintaining an army in being was central to the success of Cao Cao and the failure of Yuan Shao
Here, Rafe notes that Cao Cao was superior to Yuan in terms of controlling and maintaining an army. Last I check, the only way to attain both is to actually train your soldiers...

Yes during wartime there was no time... however, fighting wasnt an all the time thing. Sometimes it take weeks or maybe months for people to recruit fresh troops or transfer supplies, thus logically speaking, troops will usually be trained during these small periods of peace time.

And here, the word used is proper training, so yes, no proper training, but they were still given some form of training one way or a other...
Agreed. But just because someone hope to do something does not mean they do it. Also doesnt mean they are ALLOWED to do it.

And: The heart of each unit was the commander himself, supported by his Companions, skilled soldiers who owed him personal allegiance and served as a body-guard, and the most important tactic was expressed in the phrase "to break the enemy line".
Last I check, to be skilled at something, especially fighting, you need training. Note that the word here used is SKILLED(something that needs to be honed.) NOT STRENGTH(something that can be at times gifted.).
Also, Rafe considers breaking the enemy line a TACTIC that is used extremely oftened, and thus something that need to be trained.

It was. Cao Cao was one of the first to get his logistics into place and able to wield forces across several fronts during Guan Du and I would very much imagine at some point, the armies did get more professional, proper equipment and so on though they still needed the brave commanders to punch through.

Until kingdoms get a breathing space, recruitment will be who you can gather/press gang at short notice, supplies what you have around and can take at short notice so you can get into field quickly, training for a lot of the soldiers will be "stick pointy end into the other guy", hope they don't break while you and your bodyguards try to break the enemy. Once they had the administrative backup to do things properly, the space and the time then something more akin to the Han armies I'm sure emerged. Not during the early days

Where plundering soldiers allowed (unless against own side) to do it? Yes. Scholars didn't object, commanders didn't punish, kingdoms used it as deliberate policy when the didn't feel they could "take city" invade.

The majority of the army have training? No. Does that mean every single solider didn't? No. Yes small groups of elite units, the bodyguard as it were, were trained, very likely given the best equipment and sent to the front to try to make the difference. However the larger army was ragtag unequipped, bunch due to needs of the time.

Black mark yes lol... But no one criticise Cao Cao for this...

Sun Quan was drunk, and his ministers were desperate to stop him from comitting a rash act. So they intentionally demonize Cao Cao who were already their enemies at that time...

Cao Pi admired Kong Rong scholarship, but never criticise Cao Cao.

I think it is quite clear in the histories it was not Cao Cao's most "example of virtue" move. Sima Guang doesn't seem sympathetic to Kong Rong but

Well quite happy to beat Cao Cao and Kong Rong was friends with a few in Wu court, none the less the black mark to his reputation and that Wu considered that as the bad example rather then choose something from history indicates it did nothing for Cao Cao's rep.

Cao Pi can't attack his father for reasons of 1) filial or at least needing to seem it, 2) you found a dynasty and then attack the guy who built it up seems very bad idea. Cao Pi however did take measures to distance himself in areas he knew his father was not popular with the gentry and making someone your father executed one of the Seven Masters (though Pi seems a genuine fan) seems like a delibrate correction by Pi.

Source on two years?
Because they only pillaged twice. Out of tens of campaigns, ONLY TWICE. Once because famine.

Not most. I answered it aboved.

Great people adapt to Great changes. During Cao Cao military campaigns, he received more help than the other Legends and accomplished less(military speaking).
His victories were not as impressive and his failures are straight up laughable.

I acknowledge that half of the warlords pillaged a few times. I disagree that they pillage ACTIVELY.

From Cao Cao rise to Guandu he had 8 campaigns. They were the two invasions of Xü, his two battles against Zhang Xiu, his battles with Yuan Shu, his two battles with Lü Bu and his securing Emperor Xian.
During these canpaigns he pillage only thrice. Thats Half of his campaigns. They are his battles against Xu and his battles against Yuan Shu. Once was for revenge for his father. Thats 3/8

From Sun Ce unification of Jiangdong to his death, he had 5 campaigns. They were his battles against Liu Yao, his battle against Wang Lang, his battle against Yan Yu, his battles against Liu Yao remnants, his battle against Huang Zu.
During these campaigns, he pillage only once against Huang Zu who murdered his dad. Thats 1/5

From Liu Bei gaining Xü to him fleeing to Liu Biao( end of Guandu) he had 7 campaigns. They were his stalemate against Yuan Shu, his battle against Gao Shun, his invasion of Xü, his two defense of Xü against Cao, his battle against Cao under Yuan and his Runan pillage. Thats 1/7

Feel free to use my nice list.

I quoted it earlier but here Yuan Shao and Tian Kai, the Inspector of Qing province appointed by Gongsun Zan, had been fighting continually for two years. Both sides were exhausted, their supplies were finished, and they had plundered each
other's people till the land was a wilderness without one blade of grass.
Only recorded as pillaging in two camapigns and the passage (as I read it) is about "this camapign has gone on so long, it has led to famine" rather then due to famine

Yes, losing to accomplished and famed generals is laughable for you, I know. That doesn't answer my question about why not being experts on other era's means one shouldn't listen to them about 3kingdoms which is their area of interest

and how many camapigns listed use of bows//crossbows, horses, swords, spears, shields? Because if they don't mention it, judging by the logic your using, they weren't used and that clearly can't be the case.

Except that he and his sons had a great relationship with Qin Lang. Qin Lang did not protest unlike Zhang Xiu for example...

Sword point is an overexaggeartion...

Qin Yilu, the husband, left Wei over the marriage. Till Zhang Fei mocked him a lot and then killed him.

In Zhen Ji's case, literal sword point. In others "I have taken this city and want you as a my wife" is more hidden metaphorical sword

I know. Im just saying its more likely he retired because of his Wife death compared to sickness.

2) Ah I see. My point is, Shuang and Co had more military authority compared to Guo at that point... who will thus be unlikely to oppose Shuang to prevent a cause of civil war. She never directly opposed Shuang after all.

3) Wen camapign was too fast to make a conclusion lol...(small sample size).

A better once will be Sima Shi campaign as thus:

The Minister of the Household [guanluxun] Zheng Mao suggested that Sima Shi adopt a defensive posture, and Sima Shi agreed.[54] On the advice of the accomplished general Wang Ji, he advanced the army to the Yin River, halting at Yinqiao.[55] While Sima Shi was there, Shi Zhao and Li Xu, both of whom were generals under Guanqiu Jian, fled from Xiang and surrendered to Sima Shi.[56]


Sima Shi reasoned that Guanqiu Jian retained control over his forces by deception and threat of violence. Given this, he believed that if Guanqiu Jian’s officers and soldiers were left to their own devices, they would realize their error and lay down their arms. However, he believed that if his army attacked swiftly, it would only bind the rebels more tightly together. In light of these assumptions, Sima Shi determined that the best way to quell the rebellion was to isolate Guanqiu Jian’s army and let it tear itself apart.


Their soldiers and officers grew disillusioned and nearly all of them defected to Sima Shi. Guanqiu Jian conscripted the farmers of the region to fill his ranks. In short order, the rebel forces were rendered nearly harmless without Sima Shi fighting a single battle.[59]

7) And Shuang incompetence.

From that Wei-Jin essay
Sima Yi pretended illness and ostensibly retired from public life

2) Guo got suddenly moved out of Palace and then Sima's struck. We have very little details of her post-Rui life but if she wasn't opposing Shuang, why did she suddenly get moved?

3) As soon as Wang Ling (sorry, got wrong chap but you seem to have known the one I meant) started, his soldiers could have revolted, they didn't. In the start of the camapign according to ZZTJ, Guanqiu's troops are constantly noted as keen-edge and thus a problem, they lost support as they began to dither and soldiers wished to return home. He completely lost support when he fled at night and seemed to leave his troops behind

7) His incompetence by the problem not being his fault, at the very least agreeing that there was a problem and not blocking the Deng Ai/Sima plan?

So do you have any other sources that show or at least hinted that Shuang cabal was going to institute reforms?
A wiki is actually fine, I dont mine... but Xiahou Xuan wiki make zero mention of reforms...

The one Sima Yi blocked?

As for attempted reforms, the ZZTJ which I have posted before, one of the specific (beyond the usual "traitors, corrupt" one gets with internal victories) complaints is too many reforms. What we lack, for whatever reason, is details of the actual reforms, most have been lost to time as far as I understand it

Because whenever Sima Yi does something that help, Shuang seems to be nowhere at all.

And what exactly are the reforms did Shuang make that bring it up to the level?

I see. You are right.

Nah Im surprise that there were a lack of MULTIPLE revolts under Xü(revolt once only) when factoring in Cao Cao cruelty TWICE massacring Xü.

However, GongSun reign was not long. The Han rebellions were a multitude of things(famines, corruption, incompetency) that all slowly accumulated to one clusterf*ck. Elaborate on Jiang Wei and dying days of Shu?
I know its all spectaculation, but I still believe the ordinary people hated Shuang. The fact the most of the gentry sided with Sima immediately after 5 years or so can serve as fact that even those loyal to the Caos for decades decided to side with Sima Yi in the end due to Shuang incompetency and corruption, much less the ordinary people.

But who knows for sure?? Once again, all spectaculation.

Was not Cao Shuang part of the Wei court in regards Deng Ai reforms?

Not recorded. I merely note that Wei's forces seem up to scratch when Sima Yi takes over

I think Cao Cao only massacred Xu once.

Yes, it wasn't long becuase Gongsun Zan's people rose up. Yes, the Han lost support to the extent people revolted for a lot of reasons. Jiang Wei near the end had basically lost all support, court wanted him replaced with Yan Yu, the people rose up after heavy defeat at Shanggui, his constant camapigns exhausted state, refused to deal with corruption, loss of men

The gentry and the general populace interests didn't always align. I fully agree Cao Shuang lost the gentry but again, look at what Professor Rafe says about why the gentry switched to Sima's. Nothing about corruption or Shuang being incompetent, about philosophical, some longer term disagreements with Wei and self interest

No wait... people accuse Rui neglected affairs of state because of his extravagence, his harem, him not reparing the great wall and him not taking proper control of military affairs...

Last I check, Cao Rui himself ACTIVELY worked hard to root out corruption and incompetency(exams, legal cases, telling his retainers not to recommend people who only have popularity and etc) and was a great judge of talent.

Saying history is written by winners is borderline retarded. That stuff has been disputed so many times already...

And your comparison to Europe and UK(?) Is laughable considering the facts that the two situations are so different, and thus incomparable.

No, according to wiki: After He Yan presented it to the imperial court, the Collected Explanations was quickly recognised as authoritative and remained the principal text used by Chinese readers to interpret the Analects for nearly 1,000 years, until it was displaced by Zhu Xi's commentary in the 14th century.[9]

The source is Gardner.

Please don't use mental disabilities to insult someone's point in future please.

Yes, they accuse him of neglecting state affairs, including for those reasons.

I also agree Rui was a strong judge of talent, did a lot of good things in civil affairs when he was concentrating on work but even in the best of regimes, there can be things that get missed. Let alone when work-life balance of ruler is wrong

I don't recall saying that. I was talking about the specifics of who wrote the histories we are using

As you wish. Good thing I included plenty of 3kingdom examples then.

So one text that was accepted vs his entire philosophy which, as mentioned by Rafe, was not accepted at that time?

Your source make ZERO claim on any achievement of Shuang cabal EXCLUDING his scholarly ones.

It also makes no claim of corruption and incompetence but accuses the Sima's of outright slander

Wiki supports cappnefere: In 243, Zhuge Ke planned a major attack on the Wei-controlled garrison of Shouchun and he put his army in an attack posture.

wiki vs ZZTJ?

Ok. At max, a few hundreds. Maybe. We dont know how big their families are and how many servants they have. But a few hundreds dont really mean "flock" considering the territory size of Cao Cao compared to other Warlords.

You dont have to look through the Zztj lol. Just show me a source(ANY) where people actively flocked to Cao.

But I would have to do so. We don't get a (unless I have missed one) convenient line to quote but people coming and joining Wei with their groups (rather then just families and servants) again and again, so while there is no statement, there is a pattern of such groups returning.

I would hate to believe your statement that "Rafe mentions that Yu Ji first appeared in chinese historical records about 150 years prior to the three k."

I recall saying Rafe believes Gan Ji existed, I don't recall saying that particular line. I'm with Lady Wu in option 4 seems best (you needed to separate your option 5 as your own rather then hers a tad better), I'm not surprised at contradictions and tall tales in texts becuase we are talking about a mystic/faith-healer and they tend to have such tales while his followers would have sought to built up his legacy.
“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
Posts: 14883
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"


Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot] and 1 guest

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