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 » Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:06 pm

Tumbler

Lastly, whenever the 3k tumblr community claims something, they very very rarely post their sources. Of course, they do not need to, but it simply speaks about their character and credibility especially when they claim something completely different from the official histories.


Not sure it says anything of their character.

The same "not posting sources" goes on this forum and every 3k forum I have been on. Bear in mind, the amount of time you demand sources is unusual and your attitude is the rarity on the community. That isn't a bad thing that you do. Why is tumblr/forums not posting sources? It is a heck of a lot quicker, readability, that it is a casual rather then academic thing. This can lead to mistakes where misremembering or outdated information, people don't tend to post information that they are aware of the offical histories (unless posting a theory, however rare or common, which they should then make clear)

The general rule of thumb is you source when asked. If they don't do that then that becomes an issue.

Jia Nanfeng wrote:Tangential question: I follow a few people on tumblr who write about 3K stuff, and you aren't the first I've seen here to call the tumblr 3K community into question, so to speak. Are there particular popular folk there that I should not be learning from?


I'm unaware of the 3kingdom tumbler community as a whole so can't comment on who is good or who is bad, it does seem to give people information and get people engaged in the era though.

Archlich is infamous and his/her work I have read: entertaining writer, goes into area's not always covered and can come up with intresting alternate views/theories. Ignorance of the novel leads to some issues with how fact/fiction sections are addressed or leads to puzzlement on things like why Huang Zhong is portrayed as old by DW, some odd claims (Cao Cao's cavalry innovations come to mind), tendency to go over the top with being wowed and utter utter bias. If Archlich likes a character (Cao Rui and other Wei figures) then they spent every day looking after orphan puppies (made homeless by Liu Bei), were super super super amazing talented and ignores or tries to explain away bad points. If your a Shu figure (particularly Liu Bei or Guan Yu or Zhuge Liang) then the work takes an extremely hostile attitude, twisting everything into the worst possible angle on character and ability. Some of this is possibly due to work being dated but even now, Archlich comments indicate willing bias

Edit: I should add Archlich misunderstands how history of the era was written, it had nothing to do with Zhuge Liang.

=====

Cao Cao

People back then were misogynistic. The Confucian gentry were not particulary special in that regard.


Agreed but it means they aren't going to go male death=fine, female death=how dare that happen

Yes. Its understandable to kill a Dowager(and more reasonable) as Dowagers are usually more powerful than Empress.


Shouldn't it depend less on the rank of Dowager and non-Dowager, more on the actual person (or persons) involved?

Plently of imperial women killed? No. A few? Yes. Empresses? Only 2.


from the last two adult Han emperors. So bit of a pattern emerging

Copy paste: I do not know why you are talking about Dowages when we are debating about Empresses.


Because I don't buy the distinction your making, that one day killing her is a no no as she isn't Dowager but if next day she became a dowager, that one title change makes her fair game

By the way killing Emperors were not a " normal activity". And yes killing Emperors and Dowagers are not "ok". But thats not what we are debating now...


Had become one if your a gentry controller for more then five minutes which was a major problem for the Han. It shows the pattern that had been building for decades before Cao Cao even became a warlord, what had become the new normal. It also shows that Cao Cao, by "merely" killing the Empress is (though far behind the eunuchs) by miles the best long term gentry controller the Han had for a long time.

Maybe because she wasnt just some random " internal attempted killer"? She was the literal Han Empress. If Cao Cao can spare his son and nephew killer, I dont see why he cant do the same for the Empress.


Because executing Zhang Xiu has far more negatives then positives (vice versa for keeping him), keeping Fu Shou alive has way more negatives then positives

In terms of Zhang Xiu, he killed Cao Ang and Anmin in battle, one that had been inadvertently provoked by Cao Cao who took the blame on himself for that battle. Cao Cao could only have mishandled the situation at Wan more if he had done your Momma jokes at the banquet. In battles, death of those fighting alongside you is a risk and all that.

If Zhang Xiu joins, Cao Cao has a threat taken from his flank before a major camapign, he gains troops, two very able and experienced officers and, as Jia Xu notes, it looks good. It also sends a message to the world that Cao Cao is willing to let bygones by bygones to former foes in battle, feel free to surrender in future rather then fight on so and so forth.

If Cao Cao accepts the surrender then kill Zhang Xiu, I suspect Jia Xu and co will not be pleased so that is them rebelling and being a problem while your fighting at Guan Du, it could be seen as provocation to Liu Biao or at least provides an excuse for those pro attacking Cao Cao in Jing, it sends the wrong message to the world about your willingness (or lack of it) to accept surrenders.

Han wrote:If he despose and jail her and spread propaganda - think Kong Rong execution - than there would be literally zero legitimacy issues and she would not be able to plot against his regime. Han loyalist who would rebel would already rebel regardless of Cao actions.

By desposing and jailing her, he can already create a new open space. Thats literally the purpose of desposing.


Usually what happens with deposed is they die.

As for depose and jail, I'm not sure what propaganda can do to prevent the practical problems, simply proclaiming "new lady is legitimate, old lady isn't" works well enough when old lady is dead since it is hard to use a corpse so deed is done, an alive predecessor on the other hand....

It is now clear to the entire country that there is an empress jailed which hasn't happened for a long long time (well jailed and not killed), her children are possible heirs to the Han throne, the new Empress will face "well the last one is still alive and is legitimate, not Cao Cao's daughter", he has big Han loyalists around who could act against his son or use that jailed Empress as a pawn in their plans. Another problems with potential alternatives for legitimacy is, as Sima's discovered with Dowager Guo and others throughout history, they became an excuse for those that may not have Han loyalty utmost in mind. Don't give people an excuse to rebel, don't provide an alternative power-base

When Cao Cao was working to ensure a smooth succession and safety of his family, why would he create something to endanger his family? It is not going to be a complication Cao Pi is going to need when Cao Cao died. Cao Cao has no advantage in keeping Fu alive

Right. Last two... or 3/9 to 13. At best a 33% rate. The Cao family ... as in 2/5...


So in recent decades, when Cao Cao grew up and the life Cao Cao knew, adult Emperor's did that. The only two "in control" Wei emperors killed their wives. The last 4 adult in control Emperor's before Jin came along killed their wives. A pattern

Sima Shi was never Emperor.

All the ladies that you mention are Concubines...


In all but name he was, he considered need for quiet killing rather then the Jia Chong route

Some were main wives

The Lady Pan think is not 100% factual. Only a commentator support that argument.

Sun Hao was a tyrant who was frequently opposed by the gentry... Sun Hao also weakened the gentry already before considering desposing his Empress.

Anyway, the point about Sun Hao I was trying to make was that the first decision Sun Hao considered when he fell out of favour with his Empress was desposing instead of execution.


So how do you think Pan died?

The sgz says he couldn't due to the support Teng had from gentry while as Professor Rafe notes in his Wei-Jin essay, the gentry were strong
In its later years, therefore, the state of Wu was no longer an ambitious warlord enterprise, but a group of magnates concerned to maintain their wealth and authority. Faced with such a collection of family interests, operating at every level, the Sun rulers were never able to establish strong instruments for the control and development of agriculture and the machinery of war, with which they might compete efficiently against their rivals. In the end, though the government of Wu held power through its past military success, it failed to mobilise its resources to the full and it lacked authority against local interests within the state.


Why are you assuming Sun Hao would depose and not follow the pattern of killing deposed wife?
“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: 15500
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 Dec 10, 2017 6:23 pm

Of course when discussing general things citing sources is not a need. However, when discussing and writing about biographies, most people would always cite sources. Just read any of the translated works on this site on kongming.net . Likewise, on quora and reddit people regularly cite their sources when discussing about history. Now the problem lies in the fact that many people on tumblr write new 3k biographies and occasionally even write stuff that are straight up nonsensical.

Two out of how many Emperors again? Its a recent pattern sure, but not a set pattern. Furthermore, it does not change my argument that Empress force suicide throughout the history of East Han is still extremely rare and that no ministers murdered any Empress.

The distinction here is that government and the imperial harem are never suppose to interfere with each other. Therefore, ministers killing Empress is very rare. Meanwhile, Dowagers usually act as regents and hold very powerful political power. As a result, the gentry, eunuchs and Dowager will frequently resort into political infighting making the killing of Dowagers more frequent.
The role of Dowager and Empress is very different in terms of role and power so there is zero comparison to be made.

The Imperial family getting into disputes with gentry in East Han was not common until about the midpoint. But yes, it was a major problem. Once again, killing Emperors were not a common pattern. The only ones that did it before Cao Cao was Wang Mang and Dong Zhuo if I remember correctly.

Cao Cao murdering the Empress is not a good reason why he was the best controller. The reason why he was the "best" was because of his military accomplishments and administrative policies.

Killing the Empress also sends the message that his a Han traitor. While jailing her allows him to send a message that his a benevolent Han loyalist.

Going by the numbers its not a usual that they despose and then die.

The new lady legitimate old one not would have worked also considering that the alive predecessor would be jailed.

Desposing an Empress will considerably weaken her children claim to the throne. A desposed Empress would not be legitimate over the Empress. Guangwu literally showed us that.

As mentioned previously, those would rebel would eventually rebel regardless of reasons. Furthermore, a jailed Empress would not provide a power base for plotters to work with. Which is a stronger execuse to rebel: killing or desposing and then jailing.

Huan and Ling were also contolled by the gentries and even eunuchs like the last few Rui emperors(minus the eunuchs part) so I dont see why you concentrate on only Huan and Ling and Pi and Rui. You either mention all, or you remain consistent and mention all Emperors that were controlled by their respective gentries which means the Wei Emperors.

Just to confirm, are you talking about Shi desposing the Empress or killing his wife.

Were any of them Empress? And yes theres a difference, for example Zhen was Pi main wife but never his Empress.

Idk how Pan died. Just pointing out the contradictions.

Im not assuming anything I just pointed out that according to the official histories Hao first option was desposing, and not despose then kill. The histories used "despose" and not "forced suicide" or "die of grief" or "poison". Feel free to post your sources that contradicts the above.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Sage
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

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

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:19 am

Dong Zhou wrote:
Jia Nanfeng wrote:Tangential question: I follow a few people on tumblr who write about 3K stuff, and you aren't the first I've seen here to call the tumblr 3K community into question, so to speak. Are there particular popular folk there that I should not be learning from?


I'm unaware of the 3kingdom tumbler community as a whole so can't comment on who is good or who is bad, it does seem to give people information and get people engaged in the era though.

Archlich is infamous and his/her work I have read: entertaining writer, goes into area's not always covered and can come up with intresting alternate views/theories. Ignorance of the novel leads to some issues with how fact/fiction sections are addressed or leads to puzzlement on things like why Huang Zhong is portrayed as old by DW, some odd claims (Cao Cao's cavalry innovations come to mind), tendency to go over the top with being wowed and utter utter bias. If Archlich likes a character (Cao Rui and other Wei figures) then they spent every day looking after orphan puppies (made homeless by Liu Bei), were super super super amazing talented and ignores or tries to explain away bad points. If your a Shu figure (particularly Liu Bei or Guan Yu or Zhuge Liang) then the work takes an extremely hostile attitude, twisting everything into the worst possible angle on character and ability. Some of this is possibly due to work being dated but even now, Archlich comments indicate willing bias

Edit: I should add Archlich misunderstands how history of the era was written, it had nothing to do with Zhuge Liang.

Thanks for the answer. I've followed archlich for a while (found him back when he was going through DW8 character reviews) and I picked up on his anti-Shu bias early on. I've also definitely noticed he doesn't differentiate between reality and the novel much.

I think I'll add several more grains of salt when reading his site, especially regarding Shu. :P I will say I appreciate his work reaching a wider audience though (seriously, when Googling 3K figures, his site comes up very early in the results -- heck, he's the second result for Jia Nanfeng!). I should publish my essays on Jia Nanfeng and Sun Hao sometime to push him down to number three. :P
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Initiate
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

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

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:41 pm

I will say I appreciate his work reaching a wider audience though (seriously, when Googling 3K figures, his site comes up very early in the results -- heck, he's the second result for Jia Nanfeng!). I should publish my essays on Jia Nanfeng and Sun Hao sometime to push him down to number three. :P


Please do, would love to read about Sun Hao

I do think Archlich does get people interested (his work is a good read) and he does cover lesser known areas like Shi Xie and the Wu infighting that many will not be aware of.


=====

Of course when discussing general things citing sources is not a need. However, when discussing and writing about biographies, most people would always cite sources. Just read any of the translated works on this site on kongming.net . Likewise, on quora and reddit people regularly cite their sources when discussing about history. Now the problem lies in the fact that many people on tumblr write new 3k biographies and occasionally even write stuff that are straight up nonsensical.


Fair point. I think one of the differences the kongming bio's are either a straight out sgz bio so if writing about Cao Cao (for example) and another bio has an intresting segment, you can't just slip it in. Something like archlich's tends to be what we call a a comprehensive so will collect from all sorts of sgz's, zztj and from Rafe's work which makes it more complicated and for him/her, it is a "DW character analysis" rather then perhaps what might be seen as more academic here

Two out of how many Emperors again? Its a recent pattern sure, but not a set pattern. Furthermore, it does not change my argument that Empress force suicide throughout the history of East Han is still extremely rare and that no ministers murdered any Empress.


It's a pattern that has gone on longer then Cao Cao has been alive. That last Emperor not to murder his wife died in 144, when Cao Cao's grandfather was in office, 6 emperor's before Xian (yes many were children who were murdered) but it gives a sense of how long since non-murdering Empresses was the pattern. There had been three regicides since there had been a non-murdered wife.

The distinction here is that government and the imperial harem are never suppose to interfere with each other. Therefore, ministers killing Empress is very rare. Meanwhile, Dowagers usually act as regents and hold very powerful political power. As a result, the gentry, eunuchs and Dowager will frequently resort into political infighting making the killing of Dowagers more frequent.
The role of Dowager and Empress is very different in terms of role and power so there is zero comparison to be made.


Does that work for "why do more Dowagers die then Empresses"? Sure.

Does that work for Fu Shou's case? I don't see how. Fu Shou's rank may have meant to be non touching the government/political world but she attempted to murder the chief minister, I don't think anyone could argue that isn't interfering. Surely we can't go "well this person was cuaght redhanded but their position says they would never be in this situation so let them off"?

The Imperial family getting into disputes with gentry in East Han was not common until about the midpoint. But yes, it was a major problem. Once again, killing Emperors were not a common pattern. The only ones that did it before Cao Cao was Wang Mang and Dong Zhuo if I remember correctly.


Liang Ji twice. He might have got a hatrick with Emperor Huan hadn't been so mean as to decide he wanted to live and launch a coup :wink:

Cao Cao murdering the Empress is not a good reason why he was the best controller. The reason why he was the "best" was because of his military accomplishments and administrative policies.


It is true Cao Cao was the most able controller Han had for some time but while that was great for the country, possibly wasn't so great for the Han.

I'm pointing out how bad things had got for the Han that Cao Cao was the best in terms of loyalty they had for awhile which is a damning indication of how bad the gentry controllers had been

Killing the Empress also sends the message that his a Han traitor. While jailing her allows him to send a message that his a benevolent Han loyalist.


Either route sends out questions about Han loyalty. As you said, Cao Cao's act was highly unusual and since he can't leave her in power, he takes the PR hit either way and killing her brings more positives then negatives.

Going by the numbers its not a usual that they despose and then die.


Sorry, not sure what you mean with this? The usual "dead Empresses wasn't the usual pattern" or that death wasn't the usual pattern following deposing. I'm guessing the first?

The new lady legitimate old one not would have worked also considering that the alive predecessor would be jailed.


Because nobody would have used the equivalent of "wrongly jailed" and argue the new one was usurping the legitimate older one? Plus Fu's kids.

Desposing an Empress will considerably weaken her children claim to the throne. A desposed Empress would not be legitimate over the Empress. Guangwu literally showed us that.


Weaken to an extent, end it no. I think Guangwu (whose decision to depose only was noted for it's rarity?) the ruling and conquering emperor is going to have a bit more leeway (a whole lot) on legitimacy of succession over Cao Cao, controller of the Han. That and I imagine things changed rather a lot in the 173 years before Guo Shengtong being deposed and Fu Shou's death

Three kingdom warlords, facing alternate powerbases that could damage succession were ruthless, they did not go for jails.

As mentioned previously, those would rebel would eventually rebel regardless of reasons. Furthermore, a jailed Empress would not provide a power base for plotters to work with. Which is a stronger execuse to rebel: killing or desposing and then jailing.


Some would, some get inspired by an alternative powerbase or figure they can rally behind.

While "killing=turns them into martyr" can happen, I don't see that working here. Jailing does becuase one is helping Xian reunite with his legitimate wife against the usurping Cao clan and restoring the Fu children to the succession.

Edit: I would also add that responding strongly to an attempt on his own life will likely have also been a message not to try that again.

Huan and Ling were also contolled by the gentries and even eunuchs like the last few Rui emperors(minus the eunuchs part) so I dont see why you concentrate on only Huan and Ling and Pi and Rui. You either mention all, or you remain consistent and mention all Emperors that were controlled by their respective gentries which means the Wei Emperors.


I mention the 4 becuase they were the 2 in recent Han decades and 2 for Wei overall that had control of their own lives (ok Huan wasn't for a small time due to Liang Ji but once he killed Liang Ji, Huan was in control). What they said went. They were not under threat of murder if they displeased a controller, they were Emperor's rather then puppet Emperors.

Huan was controlled by the gentry when he first came to throne but with eunuchs help, saved himself. Ling was never in gentry control. The eunuchs were the chief powers under Huan and Ling but they were never Liang Ji/Dong/Cao Cao type control, eunuch era (and Xian's five minutes after fleeing Li Jue) were the only times after Emperor Shun that Han emperor's had control.

Just to confirm, are you talking about Shi desposing the Empress or killing his wife.

Were any of them Empress? And yes theres a difference, for example Zhen was Pi main wife but never his Empress.

Idk how Pan died. Just pointing out the contradictions.

Im not assuming anything I just pointed out that according to the official histories Hao first option was desposing, and not despose then kill. The histories used "despose" and not "forced suicide" or "die of grief" or "poison". Feel free to post your sources that contradicts the above.


Wife.

Yet you include Zhen Ji's death. Or do you do that becuase of the timing of the death?

Fair enough. Thought I would check, for record, Pan being murdered by court is direct SGZ (there is a alternative but not widely believed that shifts blame on attendants) and Empress and Consorts opening chapters twice outright claim Pan was killed by court members. Sima Guang and Hu Sanxing had disagreement as former blamed attendants, Sanxing blames officials while there were other histories/annotations that blamed attendants (and claimed Pan was a soothsayer)

So Sun Hao was going to depose and either

1) be very kind (so not exactly his nature by this point) and do something last done over two centuries ago rather then the usual pattern

2) follow the usual pattern set over a century and ruthlessly ensure there is no legitimacy, the paranoid emperor potential threat coming from his well supported ex-wife by ending her life as per pattern.

Empress who were deposed got killed, I don't see why Sun Hao would break the pattern.
“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: 15500
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 greencactaur » Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:52 pm

Does anyone know anything about Zhu Ling? I read up on him, and he seemed like a solid general.He participated against Yuan Shu alongside Liu Bei, Fought in Chi bi, Tong Gate, and the Han Zhong invasion. According to Wikipedia some of the generals even compared him to Xu Huangs level. That being said at the same time it's also said that Cao Cao either didn't care for him, or flat out says he despised Zhu Ling. Zhu Ling served Cao Cao for 20 years, and Cao Pi for about 10. He apparently never made it that far in rank either, as he was placed under Yu Jin I believe.
User avatar
greencactaur
Academic
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:50 pm

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

Unread postby DragonAtma » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:12 am

Archlich does some humorous stuff, but one look at the character analysis index makes it clear he's not fond of Shu.

On a random note, a couple months back I checked to see if Archlich had anything to say about Jian Yong. He did.
Unless I specifically say otherwise, assume I am talking about historical Three Kingdoms, and not the novel.

In memory of my beloved cats, Anastasia (9/30/06-9/18/17, illness) and Josephine (1/19/06-9/23/17, cancer).
DragonAtma
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:19 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

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

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:47 pm

greencactaur wrote:Does anyone know anything about Zhu Ling? I read up on him, and he seemed like a solid general.He participated against Yuan Shu alongside Liu Bei, Fought in Chi bi, Tong Gate, and the Han Zhong invasion. According to Wikipedia some of the generals even compared him to Xu Huangs level. That being said at the same time it's also said that Cao Cao either didn't care for him, or flat out says he despised Zhu Ling. Zhu Ling served Cao Cao for 20 years, and Cao Pi for about 10. He apparently never made it that far in rank either, as he was placed under Yu Jin I believe.


Yu Jin's SGZ has
Cao Cao often bore a grudge against Zhu Ling and he intended to stripped the latter’s military powers. As Zhu Ling was in awe of Yu Jin’s reputation, he did not dare to revolt. Thus, Cao Cao assigned Zhu Ling to serve under Yu Jin. All respected the decision. This clearly shows the awe in which Yu Jin was held by people in general..


and SGZ here (scroll below Xu Huang section). Rafe's tome mentions he was sent to stop Yuan Shu reaching Yuan Shao, worked with Xu Huang against Liang warlords
“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: 15500
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 greencactaur » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:02 am

Interesting, everything i read on zhu ling seemed to indicate he was very happy under cao, yet the sgz says otherwise. Is there any more information as to why he felt or could have revolted? Unhappy with rank I assume? Was he instantly met with hostility when he joined cao cao or was it over time?
User avatar
greencactaur
Academic
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:50 pm

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

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:17 pm

It isn't that Zhu Ling was unhappy but that Cao Cao simply took against him for reasons unknown
“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: 15500
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 Cyan » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:48 pm

Hi There,

years ago I recall reading on a DW game, Liu Biao missed several opportunities to unite the land due to his indecisive nature.

My question is, is there any proof that Liu Biao was historically indecisive and if so what opportunities did he miss?
Cyan
Tyro
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:43 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

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