Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

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: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri May 25, 2018 6:28 pm

Han wrote:No, the conversation was about Hua Xin Yuzhang commandery vs Yu Fan Huiji commandery. Yu Fan was basically saying is your commandery better than mine? We got rekt by the Suns. And then Hua Xin agreed that his commandery in terms of troops, provisions, arms etc were inferior to Yu Fan commandery and he would thus stand no chance against Sun Ce enroaching army like how Wang Lang couldnt.

Still possible for spywork reconnaissance.


Your almost there on reading the context beneath the lines.

Still miles away

And you would rather believe Zhang Yu decade prediction using unscientific methods( I guess because Zhang Yu provided no reasons) than Cao Pi days prediction using a widely respected military record.


Just in case I haven't made clear my feeling on soothsayers, I think becuase of soothsayers that if anything remotely matches the thrust of their argument, it gets rewritten after the event. Or the prediction is vague enough that anything can be fitted in. So I believe Zhang Yu predicted something bad, I don't 100% believe the exact wording or that he actually foresaw Liu Bei's death but that "Liu Bei is dead. Zhang Yu predicted something bad ergo this is what he predicted" happened after his death.

Who respects Cao Pi's miliatry record? Or do you mean the Art of War? Using Art of War, no issue with that. Nobody else used to make predictions of timing of defeat from court is the issue.

In the autumn, in the seventh month Cao Cao led the attack on Ma Chao and the others. Many of his advisers said, "The soldiers west of the passes are skilled in the long lance. Unless we train our advance guard and choose them carefully we shall not be able to cope with them." "I am the one to plan this campaign," replied Cao Cao, "not the enemy. The bandits may be expert with long lances, but I can arrange things so yhey will not be able to use them. Just watch!"


So Cao Cao basically says I can plan around the immediate foe we are facing. I wouldn't call that as such a prediction, more a boast/reassurance

Cao Pi had spies to record Liu Bei encampments in a campaign lasting more than a year. Cao Pi thus also knew the geography due to the reports. Cao Pi prediction was also tactical hence the AOW quote.

Cao Pi being able to use his knowledge and memory to identify Liu Bei weakness and Sun Quan taking advantage of it makes sense too. Zhang He was miles away and not involved too.


First bit I believe, second bit is reasonable as we saw at Hanzhong (Cao Cao's first invasion) there were such attempts to collect information though that one went bad. Cao Pi being the sole person able to make such a prediction, no

It would if others were able to do it. I have listed reasons why Zhang He doing so makes far more sense then Cao Pi and why it is different

Cao Pi identified Liu Bei weakness on information about flawed encampments and that Sun Quan would take advantage of them.


I would be less sceptical if that was all that happened. That "Wu will likely win this war becuase" is reasonable, that Cao Pi was the only one outside of Lu Xun to see it would leave some questions (more on the "he made the prediction but elements of it got... tidied up" which happens to other predictions) but it would still be reasonable. Cao Pi foreseeing the timing of the defeat is the issue

None recorded? Yeah.


So there is no patten for you to base it off that this happened regularly.

Not in reciting a book.

Considering that Guan Yu bio was 1/5 of Liu Bei one even though they had the same career... Im going to go with the latter. The Chinese are not some gods of record keeping. There is a reason why most military predictions are made by Rulers and CICs.

There is of course also the possibility that

1) Predictions were made but only privately

2) They were false and so not recorded.

3) The officials of Cao Wei would not even bother making predictions in the first place because of more urgent needs to attend to.

Or some combination of all of above.


But we are talking about propaganda here so it highly relevant.

Shu has bad records, if something happens regularly in Wei and Wu that isn't recorded in Shu then it is reasonable to go "ok this sort of thing probably happened in Shu but wasn't recorded" (ditto other kingdoms) due to bad records. Wei and Wu (bar the last few years) don't have bad records, neither did the Han before it and yet these things didn't happen.

Your relying on a lot of factors that manages to hide something from every historian since as well. Why not the simple solution: Such "within days" predictions were not a part of court life, there is no pattern.

Its in the main text AFAIK. There is no 日 excluding the conversation one. Its in the SGZ so at least Pei believes it. Since no annontation is mentioned, its more likely than not likely that its main text.


If in the main text, it would mean Chen Shou (since he didn't often contradict his texts) very likely backs it, we would have no idea if Pei challenged or not.

Yep. Thanks to spies information and knowledge on AOW.


You do see the difference between the two positions though?

Sure.

Thats my explanation. You dont have to like it or agree with it but thats my explanation. Yeah those other factors were important too.

Ok? Losing tens of generals and tens of thousands of troops when you only have half a province thus dooming your State isnt bottled?


Ok that's fair and a good way to end that part of the disagreement. Can I, out of curiosity (I won't try to counter unless you put something like "and Liu Bei sent his troops out with pom pom's" :P), why you view such defeats as an automatic bottle? Or why (if not an auto thing), why you don't view it as auto bottling rather then other heavy defeats?

No. That is simply losing really badly and at a key battle. I'm not expecting a counter here but simply giving an explanation so you see where I'm coming from. Bottled for me would be where the sgz or something says Liu Bei acted oddly, cracked under pressure or indicated he froze at key moment or (when that might not be in the text) where his actions felt out of character and strange. Liu Bei displays none of that, the camapign lines up with his cautoius but slow tactics we see in Yi and Hanzhong, there is no indicator he acted oddly or froze. I know some also use "bottled it" it for "and he surely should have won" situations (ala Guan Du) but not me. I'm probably shaped from being a country where bottle, or the equivalence, is used way too often to explain sporting defeats.
“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: 15758
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Han » Tue May 29, 2018 9:10 pm

Your almost there on reading the context beneath the lines.

Still miles away


Convincing argument.

Just in case I haven't made clear my feeling on soothsayers, I think becuase of soothsayers that if anything remotely matches the thrust of their argument, it gets rewritten after the event. Or the prediction is vague enough that anything can be fitted in. So I believe Zhang Yu predicted something bad, I don't 100% believe the exact wording or that he actually foresaw Liu Bei's death but that "Liu Bei is dead. Zhang Yu predicted something bad ergo this is what he predicted" happened after his death.

Who respects Cao Pi's miliatry record? Or do you mean the Art of War? Using Art of War, no issue with that. Nobody else used to make predictions of timing of defeat from court is the issue.


Ahhhh. This works for me too. So you can believe Zhang Yu predicting that Liu Bei will die but not Cao Pi predicting Liu Bei will lose.

Obviously AOW. I covered this already.

There is the possibility that

1) Predictions were made but only privately

2) They were false and so not recorded.

3) The officials of Cao Wei would not even bother making predictions in the first place because of more urgent needs to attend to.

Or some combination of all of above.


So Cao Cao basically says I can plan around the immediate foe we are facing. I wouldn't call that as such a prediction, more a boast/reassurance


Using this logic, Liu Bei was just boasting when he said Duke Cao will come but he cant do anything.

Zhang He was just reassuring Cao Rui when he pointed out that Zhuge Liang will retreat due to lack of supplies.

And so on and so forth. Oh nothing to do with predictions! Just boasts and reassuring! Like these two are mutually exclusive!

First bit I believe, second bit is reasonable as we saw at Hanzhong (Cao Cao's first invasion) there were such attempts to collect information though that one went bad. Cao Pi being the sole person able to make such a prediction, no

It would if others were able to do it. I have listed reasons why Zhang He doing so makes far more sense then Cao Pi and why it is different


Again,

There is the possibility that

1) Predictions were made but only privately

2) They were false and so not recorded.

3) The officials of Cao Wei would not even bother making predictions in the first place because of more urgent needs to attend to.

Or some combination of all of above.


I have listed reasons why Cao Pi prediction is roughly the same as Zhang He and why it makes sense.

I would be less sceptical if that was all that happened. That "Wu will likely win this war becuase" is reasonable, that Cao Pi was the only one outside of Lu Xun to see it would leave some questions (more on the "he made the prediction but elements of it got... tidied up" which happens to other predictions) but it would still be reasonable. Cao Pi foreseeing the timing of the defeat is the issue


Maybe Cao Pi knew that Sun Quan forces would immediately take advantage of weakness and the severity of said weakness( due to AOW) hence the confidence.

So there is no patten for you to base it off that this happened regularly.


What? You are the one asking where is Zhuge Ke predictions. I was just trying to offer up a possibility that he may or may not. Im not basing anything off.

But we are talking about propaganda here so it highly relevant.

Shu has bad records, if something happens regularly in Wei and Wu that isn't recorded in Shu then it is reasonable to go "ok this sort of thing probably happened in Shu but wasn't recorded" (ditto other kingdoms) due to bad records. Wei and Wu (bar the last few years) don't have bad records, neither did the Han before it and yet these things didn't happen.

Your relying on a lot of factors that manages to hide something from every historian since as well. Why not the simple solution: Such "within days" predictions were not a part of court life, there is no pattern.


Not really.

Yes. Rulers and generals prediction are rare. Not dont happen.

Errr no. Im pointing out that the Chinese did not record anything written or heard. When is a false or private prediction even recorded? Rarely. Im thus offering up possiblities why there are so few predictions recorded. Cao Pi said 'soon' not within days.

If in the main text, it would mean Chen Shou (since he didn't often contradict his texts) very likely backs it, we would have no idea if Pei challenged or not.


Sure? Again, I dont see any 日 excluding the conversation part.

You do see the difference between the two positions though?


Sure.

Ok that's fair and a good way to end that part of the disagreement. Can I, out of curiosity (I won't try to counter unless you put something like "and Liu Bei sent his troops out with pom pom's" :P), why you view such defeats as an automatic bottle? Or why (if not an auto thing), why you don't view it as auto bottling rather then other heavy defeats?

No. That is simply losing really badly and at a key battle. I'm not expecting a counter here but simply giving an explanation so you see where I'm coming from. Bottled for me would be where the sgz or something says Liu Bei acted oddly, cracked under pressure or indicated he froze at key moment or (when that might not be in the text) where his actions felt out of character and strange. Liu Bei displays none of that, the camapign lines up with his cautoius but slow tactics we see in Yi and Hanzhong, there is no indicator he acted oddly or froze. I know some also use "bottled it" it for "and he surely should have won" situations (ala Guan Du) but not me. I'm probably shaped from being a country where bottle, or the equivalence, is used way too often to explain sporting defeats.


Its not an automatic bottle. I have no problem saying its a heavy defeat and not a choke if only troops were lost. But tens or generals and many administrators including Huang Quan and Ma Liang were lost in one campaign. Shu Han had very limited resources and manpower in comparison to the other two. They simply couldnt afford such a devastating defeat plus the lost of important people. Also, many within Shu Han did argue against the campaign, Huang Quan offered an alternative strategem, and even Cao Pi could point out Liu Bei weakness. Due to this one campaign, Shu Han was doomed for the rest of her history.

Rightttt. Thats you though.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Han » Thu May 31, 2018 1:49 am

I need help.

I remember reading once that one of the Sun boys massacred a city to avenge Sun Jian death.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=23792&p=602485&hilit=massacre+Sun#p602485

In this thread Zyzyfer pointed out that Sun Quan did order a massacre.

Is there a source?
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Han » Thu May 31, 2018 1:53 am

Ok wait! I found a discussion about it!

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4030&hilit=Empress+Cao&start=5310
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm


Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby DaoLunOfShiji » Thu May 31, 2018 2:21 am

The SGZ translation I have gone off of, as well as the the Biographical Dictionary of the Later Han to Three Kingdoms and To Establish Peace don't mention a massacre though. It's all capturing people or no mention at all.

Sun Quan's SGZ from Empiredivided
In the 13th year [208], [Sun] Quan again attacked Huang Zu. At first [Huang] Zu sent his navy to resist the army, but Chief Commandant Lu Meng broke his front. Ling Tong and Dong Xi attacked him and took his city. [Huang] Zu, rather than die, fled. Riders pursued him and took his head. They took captive several tens of thousands people


Dong Xi's SGZ translation from 3kfrontier
In the thirteenth year of Jianan [CE 208], Sun Quan led a punitive expedition against Huang Zu. Huang Zu set two ships covered with ox-hide to guard the channel across Miankou, and he had a great rope of coir-palm fibre, with stones attached as anchors. Above all this were a thousand crossbow men to give covering fire. The arrows poured down like rain and the army could not get forward. Dong Xi along with Ling Tong were together in the Van, each in command of a hundred volunteers in double armour. They boarded a great barge, charged the covered ships, and Dong Xi cut the two ropes with his sword. (RdeC) The main body of the army then advanced. Huang Zu escaped through a gate but was pursued and beheaded by enemy troops. At a great gathering the next day, Sun Quan raised his goblet to Dong Xi saying, “Today’s gathering is to celebrate the achievement of the one who cut the two ropes!”


Ling Tong's SGZ from here
In later times, Sun Quan went again to campaign against Jiangxia, and Ling Tong served as the leader of the van. He rode in the same boat with tens of his closest fighters, and would often sail ahead of the main force by tens of li. They sailed into the western part of the river, and beheaded Huang Zu’s general Zhang Shuo , and captured all his mariners. He returned to report to Sun Quan, and at that they regrouped their men and marched forth, marines and infantrymen together. In time, Lü Meng defeated [Huang Zu’s] navy, and Ling Tong was first to take the city. Therefore they won a great victory.


To Establish Peace
Huang Zu had ordered his Chief Controller Chen Jiu to lead his fleet into battle, but Lü Meng, Chief Commandant Who Pacifies the North, urged on the van and himself cut off Chen Jiu's head. Following up this success, the men went forward by land and water. They came to the walls, attacked them with all their might, and so they stormed the fortress. Huang Zu fled and they chased him and cut off his head. Several ten thousand men and women were taken prisoner.


Biographical Dictionary of the Later Han to Three Kingdoms
Dong Xi's bio only mentions Huang Zu dying.
Ling Tong's bio only mentions taking the city.
Sun Quan's bio only states Huang Zu was destroyed
Huang Zu's bio mentions storming the city and Huang Zu fleeing, then dying.

It is nice to find out where that came from though. I knew I absolutely remembered reading somewhere that Sun Quan massacred a city.
"I take Heaven and Earth to be my dwelling, and my rooms are my coat and pants; so what are you gentlemen doing in my pants?"
User avatar
DaoLunOfShiji
Academic
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:26 pm
Location: "A genius like Cao Zhi, as martial as Cao Cao."

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Sun Fin » Thu May 31, 2018 10:28 am

For the most part these threads are all self-referential in terms of sources. The interesting conversation occurs in this thread.

This post claims it was in Sun Quan's SGZ itself:

Lu Kang wrote:The mention of a massacre is actually in Chen Shuo's own text. From Sun Quan's SGZ:

In the spring of the 13th year [208], [Sun] Quan again attacked Huang Zu. At first [Huang] Zu sent his navy to resist the army, but Chief Commandant Lu Meng broke his vanguard. Ling Tong and Dong Xi attacked him and then massacred his city. [Huang] Zu fled. Riders pursued him and took his head. Several tens of thousands people were taken captive.


and this former, much respected member backs it up:

Crazedmongoose wrote:What? NO.

Chen Shou was quite clear about this. And I read it in the original chinese.

He massacred Xiakou, and then whomever survived was taken captive. It was sequential. Or else he wouldn't have used the phrase "massacred his city" (tu qi cheng)


The problem is we don't know what translation Lu Kang used. We might need to wait for xuesanguo to translate Sun Quan's biography to get a final answer. :lol:
Interested in the history behind the novel? Find a list of english language Three Kingdom sources here.
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7214
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby DaoLunOfShiji » Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:05 am

Jiuyangda on tumblr also agrees with the posts references on SOSZ,
Thirteenth year, spring, [Sun] Quan again campaigned against Huang Zu, [Huang] Zu first sent boats and troops to resist the army, Commandant Lü Meng broke their front lines, and Ling Tong and Dong Xi and others with utmost elite forces attacked them, and therefore slaughtered their city. [Huang] Zu got up and fled, cavalry soldier Feng Ze pursued and took his head, and their captured men and women were several tens of thousands.

十三年春,權復征黃祖,祖先遣舟兵拒軍,都尉呂蒙破其前鋒,而淩統、董襲等盡銳攻之,遂屠其城。祖挺身亡走,騎士馮則追梟其首,虜其男女數萬口。
"I take Heaven and Earth to be my dwelling, and my rooms are my coat and pants; so what are you gentlemen doing in my pants?"
User avatar
DaoLunOfShiji
Academic
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:26 pm
Location: "A genius like Cao Zhi, as martial as Cao Cao."

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Han » Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:23 am

Yep saw it.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Ziyu » Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:43 am

Hello all.

I am asking if anyone has a copy of ‘Zhuge Liang and the Northern Campaign of 228-234’ by John Killigrew. It seems it was once available on the University of Florida website, but the link provided in the Zhuge Liang biography and in threads here on KMA (http://clasnews.clas.ufl.edu/webtemps/m ... ligrew.pdf) is broken now because the UF website was restructured. It is available through Taylor and Francis, but behind a prohibitive paywall. If a working download could be provided, that would be much appreciated.
Ziyu
Tyro
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest

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