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 greencactaur » Thu May 10, 2018 9:29 pm

As always thank you everyone for answering my questions :D. This is a bit off topic would someone be kind enough to DM me some good books on the era?
User avatar
greencactaur
Master
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:50 pm

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

Unread postby Sun Fin » Fri May 11, 2018 7:03 am

Well, I mean, this is a whole thread of them with reviews! Feel free to ask in there for specific recommendations. :D
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: 7145
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

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

Unread postby greencactaur » Sat May 12, 2018 12:50 am

Oh thank you!
User avatar
greencactaur
Master
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:50 pm

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

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Wed May 16, 2018 2:07 pm

Han wrote:
Information. Ok look, 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 and he would thus stand no chance against Sun Ce enroaching army. THATS the contect. But was where Wei borders were.


In practise the conversation was Yu Fan building an argument of "How does your army compare to Sun Ce's which has smashed the stronger armies of your last lord Wang Lang and of which you barely command a remnant of it? Not as good? Why make a stand?" Which is different from Cao Pi who has not the same personal expirence and connections as either man

so still miles and miles and miles away from Cao Pi

I can only think of 4 recorded military predictions that did not involve direct military confrontations IE battles between troops yet. Cao Cao on Xiliang warlords. Liu Bei on Cao Cao. Zhang He on Zhuge Liang and of course Cao Pi on Liu Bei. As you can see, all predictions excluding Zhang was from rulers. Even Zhang He prediction was a conversation with his ruler. So its not coincidence but simply normal.

Both were and are predictions. Same game same rules.


Same game same rules. Liu Bei predicting that he will win against Cao Cao in Hanzhong even though Cao Cao just arrived. Zhang He predicting that Zhuge Liang will retreat based on supplies even though he was not involved in the campaign and so could not know Zhuge exact supplies nor his army movements. Cao Zhen predicting that Zhuge Liang will attack Chencang just after the first NE was over.


There were too little predictions in that era for me to make a comparison for you really. And those said predictions may have some similarities but still had differences here and there

Example, Zhang He prediction was notably similar to Cao Pi in terms of timing. Zhang He with days and Cao Pi with soon.

Zhang He prediction also came as a conversation with his ruler while Cao Pi was a declaration to his surbodinates.

However, the reasoning was different with Zhang He being supplies and Cao Pi being AOW.

This is why I needed to break things down one by one to answer them hence the Hua Xin vs Wang Lang/ Yu Fan and Fu Jia petition and Zhuge Ke actions and Tian Feng advising Yuan Shao.



I don't think, at least in China and by western historians on the era, soothsaying has ever been treated as the same as miliatry predictions. Been treated as a bit mystic with it's own rules and method.

The only one I see is Cao Cao explaining his tactics afterwards, sorry I seem to have missed the prediction? Liu Bei was in a strong tactical position and based on his expirence, knowing of the territory he has been in for a year (so again all unlike Cao Pi), was able to predict he could hold it. He didn't predict the timing. Zhang He's is a timing one so fair play but this is a an accomplished general and tactician who knew Hanzhong having been stationed there for a fair bit so the limits of supply lines (which is what he is calculating, who long Shu army can keep supplied), presiumbly had some understanding of logistics as a highly experienced general, knew the western area which is nothing Cao Pi can claim. Cao Zhen made a tactical prediction

Tactical predictions, yep those happened and I'm not arguing against them, Zhang He being able to use his expirence and local knowledge to asses supply issues also makes sense. The exact timing of a defeat from miles and miles and miles away in a war not involved in=nobody other then Cao Pi.

Breaking them down one by one is fine

Im breaking it down part by part. Im talking about taking advantage of weak points. Nothing to do with spies. Reciting from a book does not require military accomplishments nor is a person status relevant.


But Tian Feng is directly preparing a plan based on information about a direct openanant. If Cao Pi was doing that, that makes sense.

What Tian Feng didn't do was predict the timing of Cao Cao beating Liu Bei. Which is what is claimed about Cao Pi
Im not Zhuge Ke so I wouldnt know really. Zhuge Ke may or may not have made predictions but unfortunately none are recorded down or translated for me to read.


So none.

Status is irrelevant when it came to reciting from a book. Cao Pi simply was fortunate enough to be able to shout his prediction to everyone for the historians to know it and thus record it while others probably did not have that luxury. Or maybe there were predictions for other campaigns but no historians knew of it so not recorded.


Status has importance in propaganda.

Which is more likely, propaganda on this one occasion or that even the well stored history departments missed every single other such prediction in over 100 years?

You requested a SGZ evidence of Cao Pi claim. I cant find anywhere for an english version of Cao Pi bio. What I did was showed you Achilles Fang notes where it was claimed that the prediction was in Cao Pi SGZ. You demanded a better source and so I showed you the Chinese version of Cao Pi SGZ. What more do you want?


Actual proof Chen Shou and Pei both back Cao Pi saying it. Which is what you keep claiming. You could be right, it could be in the main text with Pei saying it happened. Or it could be in a questioned annotation. All I have proof if is Sima Guang backs it and De Crespigny questions it, as I have said before I have no proof either way about Chen Shou or Pei Songzhi's feelings on the matter. You keep claiming you do which I don't see how if you don't have a translation

Cao Pi claimed it. Chen Shou wrote it. Pei Song Zhi was fine with it. Sima Guang rewrote it. Its located in the SGZ AND ZZTJ. If all four believe it and not a single ancient Chinese rebutt it, provide another account, append a contradictory annontation or dismiss it. Then that means they were fine with Cao Pi prediction. And the claims that it was swamps.


Thank you though for future reference, 1) an easier answer would have been "Cao Pi's speech", 2) even more helpful would have been that answer when I first started asking where swamps came from

The ZZTJ one doesn't mention swamps though "Liu Bei is ignorant of conducting war. Have you ever heard of any one resisting the enemy by means of encampments strewn along a distance of seven hundred li? One who encamps in grassy, damp open country or in steep places will be captured by the enemy; hence such terrain is avoided in war. Sun Quan's letter to me announcing his victory is soon to come." It mentions grass+open country and steep places (which I assume is the gorges)

There were better predictions really. Lu Xun also did predict it IIRC and since it was on a note to Sun Quan, it was fortunately recorded down.


Your comparing the CiC, a proven and experienced tactician, about to launch the attack sensing the moment of victory to the guy miles and miles away

1) It was not just a devastating defeat. It was a defeat that forever changed the landscape of the 3K. Possibly the worst defeat of that era.

2) No other campaign foresaw the loss of that many generals and gentries. Huang Quan defection and Ma Liang death was notably a brutal blow to Shu Han. Thats why he choked. It was not just devasting defeat. It cost Shu Han the loss of many talented and famous people. And thats not to mention the tens of thousands of soldiers that died
.

1 and 2 make an excellent argument for why it so bad a defeat for Shu and your case for it being the most devastating defeat of the era.

Still not for choking. You explain the defeat was horrendous. Then "what's why he choked" which is not an explanation. Heavy scale defeats can come down to a whole list of things sure, that can and sometimes does include choking. Sometimes it does not include choking, it is not an automatic "well it was a heavy defeat, ergo he choked" (unless your an English football journalist at a world cup :wink: ). Why is this particular defeat down to choking rather then (or added to) all the other factors that can be attributed to it (conditions, the effectiveness of Zhu Ran with the charge to break the attempt to rally, Lu Xun's tactics, Liu Bei's traditional caution, soldiers getting sloppy during long sieges)?

Ma Su at Jie Ting, Cao Shuang during the coup, those are good examples of choking. Nothing in the accounts of the battle seems to suggest Liu Bei bottled it

Google panic synonyms were those words that I mentioned. I couldnt care less what you agree with really.


A politer, less likely to aggravate way of doing that is, "Ok we clearly don't see eye to eye, let us agree to disagree." Which I'm perfectly happy to do, your the one who has kept pressing on the matter and if your content with leaving the matter alone then I'm happy
“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: 15630
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 » Sun May 20, 2018 1:33 pm

In practise the conversation was Yu Fan building an argument of "How does your army compare to Sun Ce's which has smashed the stronger armies of your last lord Wang Lang and of which you barely command a remnant of it? Not as good? Why make a stand?" Which is different from Cao Pi who has not the same personal expirence and connections as either man

so still miles and miles and miles away from Cao Pi


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.

I don't think, at least in China and by western historians on the era, soothsaying has ever been treated as the same as miliatry predictions. Been treated as a bit mystic with it's own rules and method.

The only one I see is Cao Cao explaining his tactics afterwards, sorry I seem to have missed the prediction? Liu Bei was in a strong tactical position and based on his expirence, knowing of the territory he has been in for a year (so again all unlike Cao Pi), was able to predict he could hold it. He didn't predict the timing. Zhang He's is a timing one so fair play but this is a an accomplished general and tactician who knew Hanzhong having been stationed there for a fair bit so the limits of supply lines (which is what he is calculating, who long Shu army can keep supplied), presiumbly had some understanding of logistics as a highly experienced general, knew the western area which is nothing Cao Pi can claim. Cao Zhen made a tactical prediction

Tactical predictions, yep those happened and I'm not arguing against them, Zhang He being able to use his expirence and local knowledge to asses supply issues also makes sense. The exact timing of a defeat from miles and miles and miles away in a war not involved in=nobody other then Cao Pi.

Breaking them down one by one is fine


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.

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!"


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.

Sure.

But Tian Feng is directly preparing a plan based on information about a direct openanant. If Cao Pi was doing that, that makes sense.

What Tian Feng didn't do was predict the timing of Cao Cao beating Liu Bei. Which is what is claimed about Cao Pi


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

Sure.

So none.


None recorded? Yeah.

Status has importance in propaganda.

Which is more likely, propaganda on this one occasion or that even the well stored history departments missed every single other such prediction in over 100 years?


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.

Actual proof Chen Shou and Pei both back Cao Pi saying it. Which is what you keep claiming. You could be right, it could be in the main text with Pei saying it happened. Or it could be in a questioned annotation. All I have proof if is Sima Guang backs it and De Crespigny questions it, as I have said before I have no proof either way about Chen Shou or Pei Songzhi's feelings on the matter. You keep claiming you do which I don't see how if you don't have a translation


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.

Thank you though for future reference, 1) an easier answer would have been "Cao Pi's speech", 2) even more helpful would have been that answer when I first started asking where swamps came from

The ZZTJ one doesn't mention swamps though "Liu Bei is ignorant of conducting war. Have you ever heard of any one resisting the enemy by means of encampments strewn along a distance of seven hundred li? One who encamps in grassy, damp open country or in steep places will be captured by the enemy; hence such terrain is avoided in war. Sun Quan's letter to me announcing his victory is soon to come." It mentions grass+open country and steep places (which I assume is the gorges)


Ok? I did say initially:

And so did Cao Pi who actually lived in 3K China.


Ah yeah. You are correct. I remember reading somewhere that stated 'swamps' as part of Cao Pi speech.

Your comparing the CiC, a proven and experienced tactician, about to launch the attack sensing the moment of victory to the guy miles and miles away


Yep. Thanks to spies information and knowledge on AOW.

1 and 2 make an excellent argument for why it so bad a defeat for Shu and your case for it being the most devastating defeat of the era.

Still not for choking. You explain the defeat was horrendous. Then "what's why he choked" which is not an explanation. Heavy scale defeats can come down to a whole list of things sure, that can and sometimes does include choking. Sometimes it does not include choking, it is not an automatic "well it was a heavy defeat, ergo he choked" (unless your an English football journalist at a world cup :wink: ). Why is this particular defeat down to choking rather then (or added to) all the other factors that can be attributed to it (conditions, the effectiveness of Zhu Ran with the charge to break the attempt to rally, Lu Xun's tactics, Liu Bei's traditional caution, soldiers getting sloppy during long sieges)?

Ma Su at Jie Ting, Cao Shuang during the coup, those are good examples of choking. Nothing in the accounts of the battle seems to suggest Liu Bei bottled it


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?

A politer, less likely to aggravate way of doing that is, "Ok we clearly don't see eye to eye, let us agree to disagree." Which I'm perfectly happy to do, your the one who has kept pressing on the matter and if your content with leaving the matter alone then I'm happy


Stop, Im not trying to aggravate anyone. Im using google synonyms to support my stand. Im not interested in pleasing anyone tbh.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

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

Unread postby Jia Shengde » Tue May 22, 2018 7:22 pm

Is there any information regarding the storing capacity or size of granaries?
User avatar
Jia Shengde
Initiate
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:21 pm

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

Unread postby Havie » Wed May 23, 2018 1:31 am

Hello all,

I am reading the Three Kingdoms Luo Guanzhong novel and I was a bit confused about something.

When CaoCao asks the emperor to go on a royal hunt together, the emperor misses 3 shots at a stag, the emperor asks cao cao to take a shot, Cao Cao kills it with the emperors golden bow and golden arrows.
After seeing the arrow the troops think the emperor killed the stag and begin to cheer, but Cao Cao takes the credit.
This apparently gets everyone so upset in the pages to come, and Guan Yu even wanted to kill Cao Cao on the spot..

Why is this such a big ordeal? I don/t understand. Cao Cao did kill the stag.. so who cares?
Havie
Apprentice
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:11 pm

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

Unread postby Sun Fin » Wed May 23, 2018 12:46 pm

I believe it's his use of the Emperor's bow and arrow. It's kind of like him sitting in the Emperor's throne or wearing his crown.
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: 7145
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

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

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Wed May 23, 2018 3:21 pm

Cao Cao was asked to use the bow, so I don’t think that’s it. (Though he certainly wasn’t asked to keep it, which he did.)

The problem was him taking credit for the kill. The whole point of using the Emperor’s bow was so one of his arrows was found on the stag, implying it was he who shot it. Naturally most officers think very highly of the Emperor, and furthermore want reasons to do so; Cao Cao taking credit was defiant to that aspect of the culture, and worse yet, it was paramount to Cao Cao claiming he himself was better than the Son of Heaven. Culturally, Cao Cao’s behavior was inappropriate.

As for Guan Yu, keep in mind he and his friends were dedicated to the Emperor. Liu Bei, in that scene, had to keep everyone cool because Cao Cao was too close to the Emperor and any retaliation may accidentally strike the latter instead.
Have a question about a book or academic article before you buy it? Maybe I have it!
Check out my library here for a list of Chinese history resources I have on hand!
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Student
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

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

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Wed May 23, 2018 6:22 pm

I think it is seen as a signal of Cao Cao's ill-intent. A loyal subject would apparently allow Xian to take credit as it enhances the Emperor (and then maybe Xian say it is Cao Cao which boosts both of them), that he refuses perhaps seen as holding the emperor in contempt and wanting glory for himself.
“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: 15630
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

PreviousNext

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

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