The "What If" Thread

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: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:06 pm

VinnyYooo wrote:Hi all,

Crap, sorry, Christmas shit with family. Dayum, I missed a whole page. So, in conclusion, ... Liu Bei was ok but not extraordinary ... And Yuan Shao was pretty awesome ... and Wu was the best all around. I think we can agree on these at least.

Anyway, continue on with where you're up to. I'll be back to pay out Shu after the holidays.

:lol:


Sorry you had a bad Christmas

Yeah that wasn't the conclusion being drawn :wink: Look forward to your return
“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: 15246
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:56 pm

If I start saying Liu Bei is a vampire, blame this cold


It does not contradict everything. How does it contradict?


I have mentioned this repeatedly?

Section 12 fits the second paragraph nicely. Although I admit, its probably a huge exaggeration like you mentioned.

Also, Sun Sheng seems to support this:

Sūn Shèng states: Wèi Wǔ [Cáo Cāo] therefore failed in governing punishments. The Yì says “Enlighten and decide imprisonment” and the [Zuó] Zhuàn has “Raise the upright to manage the crooked.” When imprisonment is enlightened then the state has no complaining people, when the crooked are straightened then the people have no disobedience, there will be no wish for the false noise of blue-green files, or trust in spreading slander and complaints. The one able to fairly govern the Four Seas, is only the one who is pure and splendid. In the past Hàn Gāo [Liú Bāng] imprisoned Xiāo Hé, but released him and again made him Chancellor. Jiè for one fault, was forever expelled. These two rulers in their magnanimity, how different they were!


I didn't cross out the Bian Rang ability bit, his name, rank (or former rank), his literature ability and the killed along with family were the bits I didn't cross out

See if (baring all of those were alive at the time) Chen Lin said something like "look at Cao Cao's treatment of Yang Biao, Bian Rang" and built a case around that, he could have created a good work of propaganda. Take the truth and build on it with slightly less truthful or exaggerated (his entry on Bian Rang was more a hagiography). He went with generic bad guy terms and went so far over the top that if true, Yuan Shao should have just waited five minutes and Wei would have collapsed. Heck, there would be no Wei becuase Cheng Yu would never dared give Cao Cao a telling off when Cao Cao was about to surrender years earlier. Also generally if historians later use terms abusive, you got it wrong.

Next time, could you put the quote in context? I did manage to track down it was Mao Jie (which refers to state of things way after Chen Lin). Not a huge fan of Sun Sheng (he had a thing for no surrenders even if would have meant slaughter of thousands and for woman being of proper family) but I would agree that Cao Cao handled Mao Jie badly (though "forever expelled" when Mao Jie dies very soon after being sent home seems a bit off? Unless Sheng believes Mao Jie committed suicide?). Cao Cao neither did one thing or the other when the accusations of treason came out, whatever his motives that was as good as passing guilt. I think it is fair to criticize Cao Cao for allowing slandering to go on near the end of his reign, his refusal to investigate, his treatment of Cui Yan, the strictness went into "hey I can get someone punished here" which is when law turns bad. Sun Sheng "didn't match up to the saints" is not exactly Chen Lin level either

I'm not going to argue Cao Cao's justice system was perfect even before 219, I would have hated some of the laws, I'm more towards softer laws on a personal level while Cao Cao's regime was famed for being strict, there was bias in the system (Cao Hong says hello), and there is a wider debate on how it could have been better or things like Chen Qun's proposals. Even with those flaws, it doesn't fit Chen Lin's dystopia description

Wikipedia: He went about providing detailed explanations to some of the geography and other elements mentioned in the original. More importantly, he made corrections to the work, in consultation with records he collected of the period. In regard to historical events and figures, as well as Chen Shou's opinions, he added his own commentary. From his broad research, he was able to create a history which was relatively complete, without many of the loose ends of the original.

Pei Song Zhi does point out when a source has flaws or contradict. The Guan Yu complaining thing comes to my mind and others obviously.

Other than Rafe who else?

Shi Xie was never Wu enemy. If anything he immediately submitted to Sun Quan without any resistance at all.

I dont see how it contradicts?

Fair enough.


Same one as you I imagine. :wink:

Yes he did comment sometimes. Note I said didn't always, not never commented. He didn't comment on Cao Pi's wife Guo's fate, he didn't comment on Yuan Zhong's two conflicting death stories, he doesn't on two wildly different tales of Liu Ping

Professor Miranda Brown and no idea if Dominik Declercq is a professor but wrote work on propaganda in China

Shi Xie allies to Wu in 211 (became vassalage in 217), years after being ally to Cao Cao when Shi family was still something of a southern power. A Shi powerbase that would be killed off after Xie's death

Well on one hand you have "Left his post due to civil war and went south, moved further south due to Sun family. Dies on long journey to capital". The written by Cao Cao's enemy account (as well as all the additions they make and skipping out parts of his travels+job offer) declares he left Pei due to Cao Cao not civil war then Cao Cao killed him with Shi Xie's help rather then died on trip home to take up job offer from Cao Cao.

Because Liu Bei never mass murder gentry. When he murdered his adopted son he expressed grieve. That makes it slightly better too. Personally, I feel like Cao Cao not killing Zhang Xiu ranks up there with his display of occassional kindness towards gentry. Couldnt it be Cao Cao was aware and virtuous?( When it comes to Zhang Xiu)

What is Rafe opinion on Yuan Zhong?


So mass murder is all you to avoid to say "sometimes he can be a jerk"? Bit of a low bar. I would think worse of a man who not grieve for their child dying though that may not be fair from me. Self awareness I agree with, going "yeah, I led to the situation, the blame for Ang's death is on me" is a good thing, I just don't see self awareness and practicality being virtuous personally. I would say Cao Cao giving Ding a divorce, freedom to marry and she was still able to visit was the kindest thing Cao Cao did in the whole Wan situation if I had to pick one.

He doesn't give one. It is not in ZZTJ or for his other works (unless in imperial warlord which I don't have, maybe we can ask Sun Fin?), in encyclopaedia he uses the non murder for the main story of Yuan Zhong's life then mentions "another account" with the murder one.

Whats GOS?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhu_Ju

Source on Zhu Ju? Wikipedia doesnt mention this supposed sacking that you mention.

So two instances and its normal?


Generals of the South. Turns out I was thinking of something else so just the one Wu moment.

Sure ZZTJ search Yin Fang

Is it a normal crime? Certainly not. There was one I vaguely recall in the last adult Han Emperor's, one in Wei, one in Wu, none in Shu so it very rarely happened. Which probably says something good about the systems. The consequences for the crime/error are normal for that and there are no protests at the time or following that about the punishment for senior ministers

Yes. And Cao Cao also killed Han loyalists that are not mentioned in SanGuoZhi 12. Im also sure that Cao Wei and Sun Wu had historians writing about Liu Bei. Isnt it more likely that Liu Bei was more kind than his rivals as noted by the official histories that constantly mentioned this?

Hold up. The official reason for both is: Liu Bei killed Zhang Yu because Zhang Yu claimed that the reign of the Liu( Han Dynasty) would be over aka treason while Cao Cao killed Kong Rong because Róng met Sūn Quán’s envoy, said mocking and slanderous words [about Tàizǔ], and met with execution. How is the latter better than the former?


What kind of histories are we talking about? Stuff that possibly Chen Shou incorporated into sgz? Maybe and of course he does get mentioned in other people's bios. The Wu book of anti-Cao Cao? I can't recall ever seeing one for Liu Bei (from Wu or Wei) which isn't surprising given Liu Bei's short reign. That Wei didn't do one against Sun Quan is more of a surprise.

The kindness that I have noted repeatedly to Vinny and yourself?

If your asking which offical excuse was the bigger lie, the Kong Rong one by a mile, it is a pretty bad constructed lie. If your asking which is the wronger execution? Zhang Yu. Zhang Yu was not the only soothsayer in Yi to predict Shu would fall, just the only one executed, the sgz (and professor Rafe) has it down at least partly for the grudge. Possibly Liu Bei's response to Zhuge Liang's protests not helping Liu Bei's reputation.

Lmao. If you are going to dismiss Sun Wu slanders on Cao Cao then Im sure as hell not listening to a Jin Dynasty historian on Liu Shan. And unlike the Cao Man Zhuan, this dude isnt backed by anything at all, just pure opinions without any EXAMPLES.


The reason I'm less sceptical of the Jing historian on Liu Shan then the Cao book is, using the four likely objections I listed about Wu's work

1) Liu Shan was no longer part of an enemy state 2) Jin doesn't seem to have had a policy (probably for a few reasons) of having a go at Liu Shan, the turning against Liu Shan that became a cultural thing came well after 3) the passage is not meant as an insult but about Liu Shan's kindly, gentle nature, 4) It doesn't contradict anything as far as I can tell.

I'm also not aware of any historians questioning the credibility of the passage quoted/guy who said it while Farmer, who includes it as part of how views changed on Shu's surrender and Qiao Zhou, didn't mention it as propaganda or untrustworthy.

Cao Man Zhuan isn't backed by anything, just it's own claims and comes from a hostile source. However sure, it is fair enough to go "sorry, I'm not going to trust a Jin historian's personal comment" on this, that is a perfectly reasonable position.

If Zhang Yu was smarter, he should not have slandered the Han Dynasty. Than maybe he could live longer.

Yeah. He just had more recorded gentry murder than Liu Bei and pretty much everyone else bar Dong Zhuo... maybe.

Liu Bei defeated many of Liu Zhang gentry. Other than the initial two, those who he fought, he allowed them to surrender to him after the war with zero troubles and gave them proper ranks. No mutiliations...
Those who wanted to surrender was received warmly and was also given ranks.


I'm really not sure you quite understand the meaning of the word slander? You seem to have misused it a few times now. I do agree private soothsaying when your lord is known to hold a bitter grudge for when you stood up for yourself is not the best way to preserve your life. That still doesn't make Liu Bei 1) insulting a guy, 2) having a hissy fit that the guy gave as good as he got back, 3) holding it as a grudge, 4) executing person for said grudge started by Liu Bei insulting the guy, any better.

You can keep saying that

So kindness is now defined by not suicide your new kingdom? Liu Bei was an experienced and able warlord, what he did showed his skill at PR, winning people over, common sense "hey let's not have my new base hate me". Not kindness. You have given plenty examples of Liu Bei's kindness, this isn't one of them
“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: 15246
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Han » Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:24 pm

I have mentioned this repeatedly?


Where again?

I didn't cross out the Bian Rang ability bit, his name, rank (or former rank), his literature ability and the killed along with family were the bits I didn't cross out

See if (baring all of those were alive at the time) Chen Lin said something like "look at Cao Cao's treatment of Yang Biao, Bian Rang" and built a case around that, he could have created a good work of propaganda. Take the truth and build on it with slightly less truthful or exaggerated (his entry on Bian Rang was more a hagiography). He went with generic bad guy terms and went so far over the top that if true, Yuan Shao should have just waited five minutes and Wei would have collapsed. Heck, there would be no Wei becuase Cheng Yu would never dared give Cao Cao a telling off when Cao Cao was about to surrender years earlier. Also generally if historians later use terms abusive, you got it wrong.

Next time, could you put the quote in context? I did manage to track down it was Mao Jie (which refers to state of things way after Chen Lin). Not a huge fan of Sun Sheng (he had a thing for no surrenders even if would have meant slaughter of thousands and for woman being of proper family) but I would agree that Cao Cao handled Mao Jie badly (though "forever expelled" when Mao Jie dies very soon after being sent home seems a bit off? Unless Sheng believes Mao Jie committed suicide?). Cao Cao neither did one thing or the other when the accusations of treason came out, whatever his motives that was as good as passing guilt. I think it is fair to criticize Cao Cao for allowing slandering to go on near the end of his reign, his refusal to investigate, his treatment of Cui Yan, the strictness went into "hey I can get someone punished here" which is when law turns bad. Sun Sheng "didn't match up to the saints" is not exactly Chen Lin level either

I'm not going to argue Cao Cao's justice system was perfect even before 219, I would have hated some of the laws, I'm more towards softer laws on a personal level while Cao Cao's regime was famed for being strict, there was bias in the system (Cao Hong says hello), and there is a wider debate on how it could have been better or things like Chen Qun's proposals. Even with those flaws, it doesn't fit Chen Lin's dystopia description


So you dont refute that the murder of Bian Rang was a great fault of Cao Cao?

Just because Chen Lin exaggerate stuff here and there doesnt mean his completely wrong. Furthermore, abuvsive doesnt meant false or wrong it just means extremely offensive and insulting.

Right. Apologies my bad.
Sun Sheng seems to be a respected historian considering that the SanGuoZhiZhu and Zztj use him actively so your opinion on him is kinda irrelevant. More importantly, Sun Sheng does praise all sides even Cao Cao which shows objectivity.

Agreed. Chen Lin exaggerated. But Cao Cao trying to kill Cui Lin is kinda horrible:

Tàizǔ ordered: “Though Yǎn met with punishment, yet he still communicated with his retainers, acting as if with market people, to his retainers blew his beard and glared [i.e. fumed in anger], as if in resentment.” Therefore he ordered Yǎn to suicide. (2)

(2) Wèilüè states: Someone obtained Yǎn’s letter, bound it to his head-cloth, and walked through the capital’s streets. At the time there was someone who by nature had grievances with Yǎn, from afar saw Yǎn’s name on the head-cloth, followed and read it, and therefore reported it. Tàizǔ believed Yǎn had secret resentment and slander, therefore arrested him, shaving his head and assigning him to penal labor. The one who reported Yǎn again reported on him saying: “Yǎn as a laborer blew his beard and glared [in anger]. His heart seems to be upset.” At the time Tàizǔ also agreed with this, and therefore wished to kill him. Therefore he sent a great official who understood his intentions to go communicate with Yǎn, ordering the official: “After three days there will be news.” Yǎn did not understand. After several days, the official therefore reported the Yǎn was alright. The Excellency [Cáo Cāo] angrily replied: “Does Cuī Yǎn certainly wish to force me to use blade on him?” The official informed Yǎn of this, and Yǎn apologized to the official and said: “I truly am foolish, and did not know the Excellency’s intentions had come to this!” Then he killed himself.

Previously, Tàizǔ by nature was envious, and those he could not bear, Lǔ-guó’s Kǒng Róng (1), Nányáng’s Xǔ Yōu (2) and Lóu Guī, all relied on old relations to not act with reverence and were executed. (3) But Yǎn was the most lamented for at the time, and to today it is considered an injustice. (4)

Same one as you I imagine. :wink:

Yes he did comment sometimes. Note I said didn't always, not never commented. He didn't comment on Cao Pi's wife Guo's fate, he didn't comment on Yuan Zhong's two conflicting death stories, he doesn't on two wildly different tales of Liu Ping

Professor Miranda Brown and no idea if Dominik Declercq is a professor but wrote work on propaganda in China

Shi Xie allies to Wu in 211 (became vassalage in 217), years after being ally to Cao Cao when Shi family was still something of a southern power. A Shi powerbase that would be killed off after Xie's death

Well on one hand you have "Left his post due to civil war and went south, moved further south due to Sun family. Dies on long journey to capital". The written by Cao Cao's enemy account (as well as all the additions they make and skipping out parts of his travels+job offer) declares he left Pei due to Cao Cao not civil war then Cao Cao killed him with Shi Xie's help rather then died on trip home to take up job offer from Cao Cao.


What does your first paragraph mean?

I think Zhen death is widely accepted to be forced suicide. Other than Wei documents of course. Also, are you talking about Liu Ping of Wu? Whats the wildly different tales?

Ok and source?

Shi Xie was allied to Han Court in name only. By appointing various family members to important parts of JiaoZhi he was actually actively working against Han interest. Meanwhile, Sun Quan seemed to trust him highly and got along with him well. Cao Cao alliance with Shi Xie seem to be mostly on the part of the former while Shi Xie alliance with Sun Quan seem to be more close and intimate with a hostage and Yong Kai. His sons actions doesnt change that. I just dont see how or why the Wu historians would defame Shi Xie.

Agreed. But it seems kongming.net seems to agree that Cao Cao played a role in Bian Rang death:

http://kongming.net/encyclopedia/Bian-Rang

Biography
Historic (Confirmed)
Bian Rang was a distinguished composer of fu rhapsodies, who served a short term in Jiujiang commandery as Grand Administrator, with limited success during the early 190s. When he returned to his home in Chenliu, Cao Cao heard of Bian Rang’s criticism so he killed Bian Rang and his family.

So there you go.

So mass murder is all you to avoid to say "sometimes he can be a jerk"? Bit of a low bar. I would think worse of a man who not grieve for their child dying though that may not be fair from me. Self awareness I agree with, going "yeah, I led to the situation, the blame for Ang's death is on me" is a good thing, I just don't see self awareness and practicality being virtuous personally. I would say Cao Cao giving Ding a divorce, freedom to marry and she was still able to visit was the kindest thing Cao Cao did in the whole Wan situation if I had to pick one.

He doesn't give one. It is not in ZZTJ or for his other works (unless in imperial warlord which I don't have, maybe we can ask Sun Fin?), in encyclopaedia he uses the non murder for the main story of Yuan Zhong's life then mentions "another account" with the murder one.


Yes, that and the numerous historical records that say Liu Bei is benevolent and not once mention him a jerk?

I think forgiving someone for murdering your heir is definitely a benevolent behaviour.

Rafe did a biography of the Later Han didnt he?

Generals of the South. Turns out I was thinking of something else so just the one Wu moment.

Sure ZZTJ search Yin Fang

Is it a normal crime? Certainly not. There was one I vaguely recall in the last adult Han Emperor's, one in Wei, one in Wu, none in Shu so it very rarely happened. Which probably says something good about the systems. The consequences for the crime/error are normal for that and there are no protests at the time or following that about the punishment for senior ministers


God. Cant you at the least tell me which post Im suppose to find?

I see. I withdraw my statement of calling Cao Cao the C word for sacking. But it still doesn change that his a C word to me.

What kind of histories are we talking about? Stuff that possibly Chen Shou incorporated into sgz? Maybe and of course he does get mentioned in other people's bios. The Wu book of anti-Cao Cao? I can't recall ever seeing one for Liu Bei (from Wu or Wei) which isn't surprising given Liu Bei's short reign. That Wei didn't do one against Sun Quan is more of a surprise.

The kindness that I have noted repeatedly to Vinny and yourself?

If your asking which offical excuse was the bigger lie, the Kong Rong one by a mile, it is a pretty bad constructed lie. If your asking which is the wronger execution? Zhang Yu. Zhang Yu was not the only soothsayer in Yi to predict Shu would fall, just the only one executed, the sgz (and professor Rafe) has it down at least partly for the grudge. Possibly Liu Bei's response to Zhuge Liang's protests not helping Liu Bei's reputation.


Liu Bei short reign? Or the fact that he was noted to be more benevolent than his rivals and never mass murder gentry?

Who else said the Han Dynasty would end. Thats LITERALLY TREASON in the imperial eras of China. If Zhang Yu said that privately and no higher up found out, thats understandable. But point is Liu Bei found out. A Han Loyalist. Did Zhang Yu insults play a role? Yes. But the Main reason was definitely comitting treason. Its like Kong Rong. Him being an ass to Cao Cao was why he eventually die. But the Main reason was slandering Cao Cao in front of an envoy.

The reason I'm less sceptical of the Jing historian on Liu Shan then the Cao book is, using the four likely objections I listed about Wu's work

1) Liu Shan was no longer part of an enemy state 2) Jin doesn't seem to have had a policy (probably for a few reasons) of having a go at Liu Shan, the turning against Liu Shan that became a cultural thing came well after 3) the passage is not meant as an insult but about Liu Shan's kindly, gentle nature, 4) It doesn't contradict anything as far as I can tell.

I'm also not aware of any historians questioning the credibility of the passage quoted/guy who said it while Farmer, who includes it as part of how views changed on Shu's surrender and Qiao Zhou, didn't mention it as propaganda or untrustworthy.

Cao Man Zhuan isn't backed by anything, just it's own claims and comes from a hostile source. However sure, it is fair enough to go "sorry, I'm not going to trust a Jin historian's personal comment" on this, that is a perfectly reasonable position.


Explain to me how does: Sometimes he was angry and would rashly put a person to death, establishing for a time, fear.

Means Liu Shan was kind.

It does? That appraisal did not give any examples to back their claim. As far as I know, the criticisms against Liu Shan is incompetence and indulging in eunuchs and ministers corruption. Not temper. Feel free to give two examples to support that claim if you truly believe it.

And how many Western historians talk about the Late 3k period( After Zhuge Liang death)? Especially Shu Han? Does Farmer support this claim or provide sources or reasons for why he support that claim?

The Cao Man Zhuan seems to be supported by other sources when it comes to Bian Rang death? Meanwhile, that statement is just an appraisal with zero reasoning, support, logic or sources.

I'm really not sure you quite understand the meaning of the word slander? You seem to have misused it a few times now. I do agree private soothsaying when your lord is known to hold a bitter grudge for when you stood up for yourself is not the best way to preserve your life. That still doesn't make Liu Bei 1) insulting a guy, 2) having a hissy fit that the guy gave as good as he got back, 3) holding it as a grudge, 4) executing person for said grudge started by Liu Bei insulting the guy, any better.

You can keep saying that

So kindness is now defined by not suicide your new kingdom? Liu Bei was an experienced and able warlord, what he did showed his skill at PR, winning people over, common sense "hey let's not have my new base hate me". Not kindness. You have given plenty examples of Liu Bei's kindness, this isn't one of them


Apologies. I thought Slander could be use to apply to stuff other than people too. How about treason?

Liu Bei never throwed a fit at all unlike Cao Cao with Cui Lin. The official reasoning for Zhang Yu and Kong Rong death was treason. One insulting the Han, other insulting Cao Cao.

So do you agree, disagree, or dismiss?

Then why did Cao Cao mutiliate opposing generals? Granted its only once but still...

Why must things be black or white and not shades of grey? Liu Bei can be a skillful warlord, capable of PR and display benevolence by forgiving those who fought against him.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Assistant
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Sun Fin » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:56 am

Dong Zhou wrote:

He doesn't give one. It is not in ZZTJ or for his other works (unless in imperial warlord which I don't have, maybe we can ask Sun Fin?), in encyclopaedia he uses the non murder for the main story of Yuan Zhong's life then mentions "another account" with the murder one.


Sorry guys, I don't own Imperial Warlord, I've skimmed through some chapters in SOAS's library but that's it. Might be Carl Leban's book, I'll try and check later!
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: 6861
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:20 pm

My bad. Thank Sun Fin

Where again?


This thread during our discussion, a few times

So you dont refute that the murder of Bian Rang was a great fault of Cao Cao?

Just because Chen Lin exaggerate stuff here and there doesnt mean his completely wrong. Furthermore, abuvsive doesnt meant false or wrong it just means extremely offensive and insulting.

Right. Apologies my bad.
Sun Sheng seems to be a respected historian considering that the SanGuoZhiZhu and Zztj use him actively so your opinion on him is kinda irrelevant. More importantly, Sun Sheng does praise all sides even Cao Cao which shows objectivity.

Agreed. Chen Lin exaggerated. But Cao Cao trying to kill Cui Lin is kinda horrible:


Show me when I have said it wasn't Cao Cao's fault? I don't know the exact words used by Bian Rang but unless he was advocating murder or something on that level of bad, I don't see how Cao Cao was justified to kill him for a private comment

Usually with that, things like "while exaggerate" caveat or something might get used. Here it is described as slander, extreme, let alone abusive, that is not people going "well it is mostly accurate". Note no historian calls it accurate and ZTTJ unusually goes to attack it's accuracy.

I was making a personal comment about Sun Sheng, nothing more. I also said I agreed with him about Mao Jie (I just felt one thing was strange) and I made no attack on his objectivity on this case

Not sure why your quoting Cui Yan's death when we have already discussed that and I agreed Cao Cao was wrong on that execution?

What does your first paragraph mean?

I think Zhen death is widely accepted to be forced suicide. Other than Wei documents of course. Also, are you talking about Liu Ping of Wu? Whats the wildly different tales?

Ok and source?

Shi Xie was allied to Han Court in name only. By appointing various family members to important parts of JiaoZhi he was actually actively working against Han interest. Meanwhile, Sun Quan seemed to trust him highly and got along with him well. Cao Cao alliance with Shi Xie seem to be mostly on the part of the former while Shi Xie alliance with Sun Quan seem to be more close and intimate with a hostage and Yong Kai. His sons actions doesnt change that. I just dont see how or why the Wu historians would defame Shi Xie.

Agreed. But it seems kongming.net seems to agree that Cao Cao played a role in Bian Rang death:

http://kongming.net/encyclopedia/Bian-Rang

Biography
Historic (Confirmed)
Bian Rang was a distinguished composer of fu rhapsodies, who served a short term in Jiujiang commandery as Grand Administrator, with limited success during the early 190s. When he returned to his home in Chenliu, Cao Cao heard of Bian Rang’s criticism so he killed Bian Rang and his family.

So there you go.


You said you didn't know what sgz I was reading so I made a joke of it

I made no mention of Zhen Ji's death at all. Liu Ping has essentially two tales: Yu Huan has him recommending Liu Bei to help fight against Zhang Chun's revolt, other sources say Liu Ping sent assassins against Liu Bei but would be killer was so charmed on meeting Liu Bei he refused.

Earlier in thread when you mentioned Huan Shao here

If he wasn't that close to Cao Cao, why would he carry out murders :wink: As Generals of the south chapter 5 notes, it a warlord alliance rather then "Shi Xie pays tribute to Han" thus why I said Cao Cao allied rather then Han allied while your perhaps overselling how close/friendly Wu and Shi Xie were. Before Sun Quan lied and committed murdering of his family of course. As for why Wu scholars would drag Shi Xie's name into the mud and undermine his reputation for accepting scholars and refugees, depends on when exactly the work was written

I have at no point said Cao Cao wasn't involved in Bian Rang's death so thank you but not sure why you felt that was needed?

Yes, that and the numerous historical records that say Liu Bei is benevolent and not once mention him a jerk?

I think forgiving someone for murdering your heir is definitely a benevolent behaviour.

Rafe did a biography of the Later Han didnt he?


Have you read the way Chen Shou phrased the Zhang Yu incident? Kind people sometimes do bad things, people are fallible and all that

Killing in battle is not the same as murder. I'm not saying it didn't hurt and plague Cao Cao any less but in fairness to Zhang Xiu, that isn't murder

Are you referring to the encyclopaedia with all the little biographies or something else?

God. Cant you at the least tell me which post Im suppose to find?


Do you not know how to use the "search within thread"? Anyway go to section 22a

Liu Bei short reign? Or the fact that he was noted to be more benevolent than his rivals and never mass murder gentry?

Who else said the Han Dynasty would end. Thats LITERALLY TREASON in the imperial eras of China. If Zhang Yu said that privately and no higher up found out, thats understandable. But point is Liu Bei found out. A Han Loyalist. Did Zhang Yu insults play a role? Yes. But the Main reason was definitely comitting treason. Its like Kong Rong. Him being an ass to Cao Cao was why he eventually die. But the Main reason was slandering Cao Cao in front of an envoy.


Because the purpose of writing a hatchet biography is for truth to get in the way? It would make no sense for Wu to do one against Liu Bei given they were mostly allied and if Wei didn't with Sun Quan, unlikely they would do so for the smaller threat

Qiao Zhou for one. It was not the main reason Liu Bei gave to Zhuge Liang and it is not the main reason that seems accepted by others like Chen Shou. On the charges against Kong Rong, one is clear slander (raised army to overthrow Han) and the others as Professor Rafe notes
This attack by Chi Lü, referring to actions and associations of Kong Rong from ten years and more earlier, scraped the barrel to find causes for accusation, then categorised them overall as a pattern of treason.


Explain to me how does: Sometimes he was angry and would rashly put a person to death, establishing for a time, fear.

Means Liu Shan was kind.

It does? That appraisal did not give any examples to back their claim. As far as I know, the criticisms against Liu Shan is incompetence and indulging in eunuchs and ministers corruption. Not temper. Feel free to give two examples to support that claim if you truly believe it.

And how many Western historians talk about the Late 3k period( After Zhuge Liang death)? Especially Shu Han? Does Farmer support this claim or provide sources or reasons for why he support that claim?

The Cao Man Zhuan seems to be supported by other sources when it comes to Bian Rang death? Meanwhile, that statement is just an appraisal with zero reasoning, support, logic or sources.


Well the entire passage is about Liu Shan's gentle, kind nature role in Shu's surrender. The temper thing is one sentence. As Farmer says, the passage is about Liu Shan accepting the surrender plan due to his compassion and talks of how Fan's reaction fitted in (or not) those of his time.

Possibly blame Pei for lack of citation from Fan. The passage isn't from Zhang Fan's own work but from Pei himself paraphrasing Zhang Fan. I merely cite a person a lot closer to the era then I was who Pei quoted rather then took from written records and is backed by Farmer. Farmer talks more of the view of Fan's generation on the surrender

Post the fall of the Han, we don't have a Professor Rafe like big overview from a western historian. We get individual works like Farmer on Qiao Zhou or someone's work on Xun Xu

Why are you switching from Yang Zhong's death, where Cao Man Zhuan is the only one to accuse it of being murder, to the undisputed Bian Rang death? :? Every source that covers it says Bian Rang got killed and for someone to deny that would then have to explain a lot of events that happened due to his death.

Like I said, your free to choose to decide the Jin historian was wrong or at least it can't be confirmed with the sources we have today. I do think a guy who is accepting "an enemy state writing about Cao Cao and contradicting mainstream sources in way that makes Cao Cao look bad" as a trustworthy source shouldn't go in so strong on professional historians work and who they cite.

Apologies. I thought Slander could be use to apply to stuff other than people too. How about treason?

Liu Bei never throwed a fit at all unlike Cao Cao with Cui Lin. The official reasoning for Zhang Yu and Kong Rong death was treason. One insulting the Han, other insulting Cao Cao.

So do you agree, disagree, or dismiss?

Then why did Cao Cao mutiliate opposing generals? Granted its only once but still...

Why must things be black or white and not shades of grey? Liu Bei can be a skillful warlord, capable of PR and display benevolence by forgiving those who fought against him.


It can do but it usually about people. Treason can be done

That goes against the sources who describe Liu Bei holding a grudge. Just a heads up, your saying Cui Lin when you probably mean Cui Yan. Nobody buys those two offical reasons for a reason, nobody says Kong Rong was executed for his comments to Wu envoy becuase though the offical Wei line spins a story, people look beyond that.

I have told you my stance on that a few times

The accusation of mutilation is disputed. I do suspect Cao Cao's forces were not looking for prisoners though given the situation they were in (behind Yuan lines with a Yuan force closing in rapidly).

Who says there can't be shades of grey? Like Liu Bei being kind but having moments of being a jerk, of Cao Cao being cruel but also sometimes kind, so and so so forth. Just "not setting one's house on fire" type decision isn't what I define as kind
“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: 15246
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Han » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:23 pm

This thread during our discussion, a few times


Which is? It would be awsome if you can sum up your argument in one single post instead of me looking through the pasts posts.

Show me when I have said it wasn't Cao Cao's fault? I don't know the exact words used by Bian Rang but unless he was advocating murder or something on that level of bad, I don't see how Cao Cao was justified to kill him for a private comment

Usually with that, things like "while exaggerate" caveat or something might get used. Here it is described as slander, extreme, let alone abusive, that is not people going "well it is mostly accurate". Note no historian calls it accurate and ZTTJ unusually goes to attack it's accuracy.

I was making a personal comment about Sun Sheng, nothing more. I also said I agreed with him about Mao Jie (I just felt one thing was strange) and I made no attack on his objectivity on this case

Not sure why your quoting Cui Yan's death when we have already discussed that and I agreed Cao Cao was wrong on that execution?


I was just double checking. Relax homie.

Im not saying its accurate. Im just saying that its wrong to dismiss a source entirely. The Cao Man Zhuan probably has a degree of accuracy if not Pei SongZhi and Sima Guang would not use it. Also, Pei and Sima occassionally attack and criticise a source, that doesnt mean they wont rely or dismiss it. The Han Jin Chun Qiu is a good example.

Fair enough.

Because I cant think of a single think Bei did that was as bad as Cao.

You said you didn't know what sgz I was reading so I made a joke of it

I made no mention of Zhen Ji's death at all. Liu Ping has essentially two tales: Yu Huan has him recommending Liu Bei to help fight against Zhang Chun's revolt, other sources say Liu Ping sent assassins against Liu Bei but would be killer was so charmed on meeting Liu Bei he refused.

Earlier in thread when you mentioned Huan Shao here

If he wasn't that close to Cao Cao, why would he carry out murders :wink: As Generals of the south chapter 5 notes, it a warlord alliance rather then "Shi Xie pays tribute to Han" thus why I said Cao Cao allied rather then Han allied while your perhaps overselling how close/friendly Wu and Shi Xie were. Before Sun Quan lied and committed murdering of his family of course. As for why Wu scholars would drag Shi Xie's name into the mud and undermine his reputation for accepting scholars and refugees, depends on when exactly the work was written

I have at no point said Cao Cao wasn't involved in Bian Rang's death so thank you but not sure why you felt that was needed?


Lmao I see. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Right, I was rushing with my replies and mistook Guo for Zhen. As for Liu Ping of Wu, http://xuesanguo.tumblr.com/post/146388872676/643-sūn-jùn-孫峻-zǐyuàn-子遠#li%C3%BA-z%C3%A0n

: His two sons Lüè and Píng both became leading Generals.

This was all that was mentioned.

The source of the link you post is about adoption? Did you source wrongly?

Yes a warlord alliance of the Han Court under Cao Cao and Shi Xie. I didnt dismiss their alliance as tribute. Im just pointing out that Shi Xie alliance with Sun Quan was more intimate than Cao Cao. He sent a hostage(son) to Sun Quan, regularly paid him tribute, allowed him to take over 1/2 of his territory with zero resistance and informed him about Yong Kai 24/7. This is why I doubt that Wu scholars would slander Shi Xie just because of his sons revolt. Shi Xie after all has nothing to do with his sons rebellion.

Reminding you how Cao Cao was a C word.

Have you read the way Chen Shou phrased the Zhang Yu incident? Kind people sometimes do bad things, people are fallible and all that

Killing in battle is not the same as murder. I'm not saying it didn't hurt and plague Cao Cao any less but in fairness to Zhang Xiu, that isn't murder

Are you referring to the encyclopaedia with all the little biographies or something else?


I only read the kongming.net section. True true.

Lmao what. Zhang Xiu rebelled and Cao Cao son died because of the rebellion. Zhang Xiu set the events for his sons death and played the biggest role in it. Cao Ang literally died because of Zhang Xiu rebellion.

Yep.

Do you not know how to use the "search within thread"? Anyway go to section 22a


Oh right.

Because the purpose of writing a hatchet biography is for truth to get in the way? It would make no sense for Wu to do one against Liu Bei given they were mostly allied and if Wei didn't with Sun Quan, unlikely they would do so for the smaller threat

Qiao Zhou for one. It was not the main reason Liu Bei gave to Zhuge Liang and it is not the main reason that seems accepted by others like Chen Shou. On the charges against Kong Rong, one is clear slander (raised army to overthrow Han) and the others as Professor Rafe notes
This attack by Chi Lü, referring to actions and associations of Kong Rong from ten years and more earlier, scraped the barrel to find causes for accusation, then categorised them overall as a pattern of treason.


Or maybe, just maybe, Liu Bei short reign and the fact that he was noted to be more benevolent than his rivals was the reason why all of Cao Wei/ Sima Jin/ Sun Wu could not slander him?

Source? Liu Bei called Zhang Yu a pretentious weed because Zhang Yu said that the Lius will not last long. Yes, Kong Rong is clear slander, and so was Zhang Yu. Them insulting their lords however did play a role in their deaths. Like I said if Liu Bei was executed ONLY because he was salty, Zhang Yu would have immediately died.

Well the entire passage is about Liu Shan's gentle, kind nature role in Shu's surrender. The temper thing is one sentence. As Farmer says, the passage is about Liu Shan accepting the surrender plan due to his compassion and talks of how Fan's reaction fitted in (or not) those of his time.

Possibly blame Pei for lack of citation from Fan. The passage isn't from Zhang Fan's own work but from Pei himself paraphrasing Zhang Fan. I merely cite a person a lot closer to the era then I was who Pei quoted rather then took from written records and is backed by Farmer. Farmer talks more of the view of Fan's generation on the surrender

Post the fall of the Han, we don't have a Professor Rafe like big overview from a western historian. We get individual works like Farmer on Qiao Zhou or someone's work on Xun Xu

Why are you switching from Yang Zhong's death, where Cao Man Zhuan is the only one to accuse it of being murder, to the undisputed Bian Rang death? :? Every source that covers it says Bian Rang got killed and for someone to deny that would then have to explain a lot of events that happened due to his death.

Like I said, your free to choose to decide the Jin historian was wrong or at least it can't be confirmed with the sources we have today. I do think a guy who is accepting "an enemy state writing about Cao Cao and contradicting mainstream sources in way that makes Cao Cao look bad" as a trustworthy source shouldn't go in so strong on professional historians work and who they cite.


Right. So there are zero sources supporting Fan. And judging by the histories we are given, Fan is probably wrong. Farmer also doesnt state why he put it in his book and does not provide any source. Shan killing because temper also makes zero sense logically and historically speaking.

Fine. I withdraw my statement on Yuan Zhong.

I didnt accept shit. I just dont dismiss it entirely. The Cao Cao killed Bian Rang is supported by history. Cao Cao being murderous is supported by history with the numerous Han rebellions and mass murders. Cao Cao showing favourtism is also supported by history with Xiahou Dun and Cao Hong. But Fan doesnt state his reasons, and going by todays sources, none support his appraisal.

It can do but it usually about people. Treason can be done

That goes against the sources who describe Liu Bei holding a grudge. Just a heads up, your saying Cui Lin when you probably mean Cui Yan. Nobody buys those two offical reasons for a reason, nobody says Kong Rong was executed for his comments to Wu envoy becuase though the offical Wei line spins a story, people look beyond that.

I have told you my stance on that a few times

The accusation of mutilation is disputed. I do suspect Cao Cao's forces were not looking for prisoners though given the situation they were in (behind Yuan lines with a Yuan force closing in rapidly).

Who says there can't be shades of grey? Like Liu Bei being kind but having moments of being a jerk, of Cao Cao being cruel but also sometimes kind, so and so so forth. Just "not setting one's house on fire" type decision isn't what I define as kind


Right.

Right. Its Cui Yan. I was rushing. But two mistakes is kinda bad, so my bad there. Zhang Yu death was a combination of Liu Bei salty and him slandering. If Liu Bei killed him ONLY because he was salty, he did not have to wait until Zhang insulted Han. Likewise, Kong Rong died because he worked against Cao Cao interest and because he slandered him.

So do you agree, disagree, or dismiss?

Mass murder is disputed. Source for muitilation?

Except thats my argument from the very beginning? :D
Not alienating them is not a definition of kind. However, happily accepting their surrender with no *ahem* conditions like muitilation and sexing their female relative is. Further rewarding them and all of them being "pleased" is also another definition of kindness.

Also, the confucian ideal of kindness is *spoiler alert* treating gentries with kindness.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Assistant
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:47 pm

Which is? It would be awsome if you can sum up your argument in one single post instead of me looking through the pasts posts.


I'm going to assume I don't need to repeat the "cross out the bits that are inaccurate" that left very things left.

One of the things Cao Cao's Wei had a reputation for was strict law and order, it was the reason some joined him, when the records describe the administration it is strict laws and not no laws Chen Lin paints it as. We have Cao Cao not killing people he disliked (and some in some cases, being blocked), we have constant advice to Cao Cao, we even have rebukes like Cheng Yu's to Cao Cao. Vs Chen Lin who was writing to justify a war and whose work is seen as slanderous, who writes of a state whose inner workings is so bad it would have collapsed if it was actually like that


Im not saying its accurate. Im just saying that its wrong to dismiss a source entirely. The Cao Man Zhuan probably has a degree of accuracy if not Pei SongZhi and Sima Guang would not use it. Also, Pei and Sima occassionally attack and criticise a source, that doesnt mean they wont rely or dismiss it. The Han Jin Chun Qiu is a good example.

Because I cant think of a single think Bei did that was as bad as Cao.


I don't dismiss it entirely, it is an insight into the Wu thinking of the time, propaganda is invaluable for such things, I just dismiss it as a source about Cao Cao. I don't recall Sima Guang using it? I have mentioned why Pei possibly included it. A source can sometimes be wrong or have bits of bias while still being very useful as a source.

That's up to you but bringing up such things randomly during conversation leads to confusion

Right, I was rushing with my replies and mistook Guo for Zhen. As for Liu Ping of Wu, http://xuesanguo.tumblr.com/post/146388872676/643-sūn-jùn-孫峻-zǐyuàn-子遠#li%C3%BA-z%C3%A0n

: His two sons Lüè and Píng both became leading Generals.

This was all that was mentioned.

The source of the link you post is about adoption? Did you source wrongly?

Yes a warlord alliance of the Han Court under Cao Cao and Shi Xie. I didnt dismiss their alliance as tribute. Im just pointing out that Shi Xie alliance with Sun Quan was more intimate than Cao Cao. He sent a hostage(son) to Sun Quan, regularly paid him tribute, allowed him to take over 1/2 of his territory with zero resistance and informed him about Yong Kai 24/7. This is why I doubt that Wu scholars would slander Shi Xie just because of his sons revolt. Shi Xie after all has nothing to do with his sons rebellion.

Reminding you how Cao Cao was a C word.


It is another Liu Ping

No, surprisingly enough the annotation in that article is where I got it from

Yes, you like the cword, I get that

No, Cao Cao. Shi Xie then helped Cao Cao as part of the deal by paying tribute but the alliance was with Cao Cao. I do agree the alliance with Wu was closer though but it was also later then Cao Cao. Again there is an issue with timing, either it was pre-Wu alliance in which case Shi Xie was a local rival allied with Cao Cao or it was after Shi Xie's death at which point Wu needs to justify destroying the Shi clan so taking shots at Shi Xie helps make their action looks less bad

I only read the kongming.net section. True true.

Lmao what. Zhang Xiu rebelled and Cao Cao son died because of the rebellion. Zhang Xiu set the events for his sons death and played the biggest role in it. Cao Ang literally died because of Zhang Xiu rebellion.

Yep.


I linked you in past post to Lady Wu's translation I believe

Cao Cao broke the... traditions as it were of surrender. Just about every act Cao Cao did after the surrender was an inadvertent insult and gave Zhang Xiu reason to fear for his own life (I read it as Cao Cao didn't mean that but I can see why Xiu got skittish). Cao Cao took the entire blame for what happened, learnt a major lesson and blamed himself for Ang's death. If you force a man to battle or die, don't blame them if they kill someone you care about in the resulting battle

Cao Ang died becuase Cao Cao got silly, couldn't keep his pants on and started spraying favours about in a way that raised alarms.

Then I quoted early what it said on Yuan Zhong death. Do you want me that get that for you or the full Yuan Zhong entry?

Or maybe, just maybe, Liu Bei short reign and the fact that he was noted to be more benevolent than his rivals was the reason why all of Cao Wei/ Sima Jin/ Sun Wu could not slander him?

Source? Liu Bei called Zhang Yu a pretentious weed because Zhang Yu said that the Lius will not last long. Yes, Kong Rong is clear slander, and so was Zhang Yu. Them insulting their lords however did play a role in their deaths. Like I said if Liu Bei was executed ONLY because he was salty, Zhang Yu would have immediately died.


I would love to live in a world where slander didn't happen, failing that I would like to take into account people's actual personalities. Or facts. Or location. But it doesn't.

On the Qiao Zhou thing? Farmer's book, quoting Du Qiong's sgz (Qiao Zhou put both of his "Shu will fall" down to following Du Qiong's work), he was widely applauded for his soothsaying. Or becuase of Zhang Yu daring to stand up for himself rather then thanking Liu Bei for insulting him. Zhang Yu never insulted his lord, he was under Liu Zhang at the time and Liu Bei should have grown up and gone "fair play, I was being a jerk by insulting someone and they reversed it." Liu Bei does seem to have had some tendency towards delaying kills into an excuse was provided so sure, he did wait and Zhang Yu gave him half an opportunity. Liu Bei bother to hide that it was for the insult though when Zhuge Liang protested

Right. So there are zero sources supporting Fan. And judging by the histories we are given, Fan is probably wrong. Farmer also doesnt state why he put it in his book and does not provide any source. Shan killing because temper also makes zero sense logically and historically speaking.

I didnt accept shit. I just dont dismiss it entirely. The Cao Cao killed Bian Rang is supported by history. Cao Cao being murderous is supported by history with the numerous Han rebellions and mass murders. Cao Cao showing favourtism is also supported by history with Xiahou Dun and Cao Hong. But Fan doesnt state his reasons, and going by todays sources, none support his appraisal.


Yes, Fan, Pei and Farmer could all be wrong. Not sure why a ruler losing temper and thus executing people makes zero sense

I'm not sure Dun counts as bad favouritism but that aside those are perfectly good reasons to construct an argument for why Cao Cao is a bad guy. Not for accepting the Cao man book

Right. Its Cui Yan. I was rushing. But two mistakes is kinda bad, so my bad there. Zhang Yu death was a combination of Liu Bei salty and him slandering. If Liu Bei killed him ONLY because he was salty, he did not have to wait until Zhang insulted Han. Likewise, Kong Rong died because he worked against Cao Cao interest and because he slandered him.

So do you agree, disagree, or dismiss?

Mass murder is disputed. Source for muitilation?

Except thats my argument from the very beginning? :D
Not alienating them is not a definition of kind. However, happily accepting their surrender with no *ahem* conditions like muitilation and sexing their female relative is. Further rewarding them and all of them being "pleased" is also another definition of kindness.

Also, the confucian ideal of kindness is *spoiler alert* treating gentries with kindness


Don't worry, it was only due to it being twice and once that sort of sticks, can be awfully hard to shake off. When did Zhang Yu slander? Prophecy isn't slander whether it is positive or negative and replying to an insult is not slander. Yes Kong Rong died on those things but not for the reasons Chi Lu gave

In short: I do not have the facts and figures, with the appropriate "size and reign length" taken into account to judge

Rafe comment in ZZTJ note 45 covering that moment
Surely another cliché ( cf. note 43 above.). The mind boggles at the work this would have entailed in the middle of a tight schedule, surrounded still by potentially overwhelming enemy forces; and how does one make a display of the lips and tongues of cattle and horses, let alone a thousand noses?
Note 43 is about Cao Cao's raiders and horses wearing gags and the like

Yet whenever I say Liu Bei did something wrong, you proclaim he didn't becuase he was kind and ergo can't have done a jerk thing. Even now, your not saying Liu Bei was wrong to begrudge a man for being wittier then him. A man Liu Bei insulted in the first place

What Cao Cao did with Zhang Xiu's aunt (or whatever the exact relationship was) was stupid. Failing not to do something stupid is not kindness. Doing something against your own self interest to help another is kind, giving up something for the benefit of another is kind. Not deliberately making life more difficult for yourself in a way that benefits nobody is just being practical.
“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: 15246
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby DaoLunOfShiji » Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:01 am

He doesn't give one. It is not in ZZTJ or for his other works (unless in imperial warlord which I don't have, maybe we can ask Sun Fin?), in encyclopaedia he uses the non murder for the main story of Yuan Zhong's life then mentions "another account" with the murder one.

HOWWWDDDYYYY!
This is from Imperial Warlord by Rafe de Crespigny.

When Yuan Zhong was Chancellor of Pei he wanted to punish Cao Cao in accordance with the law, while Huan Shao, a man of that state, also thought little of him. When Cao Cao was in Yan province, Bian Rang of Chenliu spoke disrespectfully of him, so Cao Cao killed Bian Rang and destroyed his family. Yuan Zhong and Huan Shao took refuge from the troubles in Jiao province, but Cao Cao sent messengers to the Administrator Shi Xie, that he should kill both of them with their families. Huan Shao managed to escape, and he came to present himself and make apologies at Cao Cao's court. Cao Cao said to him "You may kneel, but why should that save your life? And he killed him.


Rafe says
"Though Cao Cao is referred to throughout this passage as "Grand Ancestor", his Imperial Temple name under Wei, we may doubt the original used such a complimentary appellation. This accusation may reflect the unease with which any warlord regarded his formal subordinates, and the dominant position in which he must seek to maintain. Only one officer is recorded as having been killed by Cao Cao in any such circumstances, and that was Xu You, whose real fault was a mistaken appearance of familiarity. As above, this appears exaggerated. Cao Cao could certainly be vindictive but the example of Yuan Zhong below is uncertain, while it is recorded that he forgave Liang Gu and showed great tolerance to Wei Chong.
"Since our eternal parting will come in a few days, I write this in a passion, to reveal my heart and to bid farewell to you, my prince."
User avatar
DaoLunOfShiji
Apprentice
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:26 pm
Location: "A genius like Cao Zhi, as martial as Cao Cao."

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:55 pm

Thanks DaoLun, that was very helpful

I also saw your tumblr mentions
The Cao Man Zhuan is notoriously unreliable. It’s called “Biography of Cao the Concealer“ written by someone from Wu. Pei Songzhi called it a “hostile piece of propaganda“. That would be like if (to use a modern American example) Donald Trump wrote a biography on Hillary Clinton, or vice-versa. You know it’s not going to be trustworthy. The title alone should be enough to make you go “Oh… this isn’t going to be unbiased.”
. Where does Pei say that?
“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: 15246
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby DaoLunOfShiji » Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:58 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:Thanks DaoLun, that was very helpful

I also saw your tumblr mentions
The Cao Man Zhuan is notoriously unreliable. It’s called “Biography of Cao the Concealer“ written by someone from Wu. Pei Songzhi called it a “hostile piece of propaganda“. That would be like if (to use a modern American example) Donald Trump wrote a biography on Hillary Clinton, or vice-versa. You know it’s not going to be trustworthy. The title alone should be enough to make you go “Oh… this isn’t going to be unbiased.”
. Where does Pei say that?


No problem, and I found the quote from Gongjin's Memorials. http://threekingdoms.wikia.com/wiki/Cao_Man_zhuan

EDIT* Reading through Imperial Warlord it appears something similar to this quote is also said by Rafe de Crespigny.
Speaking on the massacre in Xuzhou, Rafe says
"The hostile text Cao Man zhuan places the slaughter of unarmed people and refugees at Pengcheng, in the aftermath of the battle with Tao Qian, while Tao Qian's biography in Hou Han shu attributes it to the march on Xiapi."
"Since our eternal parting will come in a few days, I write this in a passion, to reveal my heart and to bid farewell to you, my prince."
User avatar
DaoLunOfShiji
Apprentice
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:26 pm
Location: "A genius like Cao Zhi, as martial as Cao Cao."

PreviousNext

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 3 guests

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