Cao Cao or Liu Bei: who was the biggest rebel?

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

Cao Cao or Liu Bei: who was the biggest rebel?

Unread postby dengai » Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:40 pm

In RTTK, Luoguan Zhong portrayed Cao Cao as a ambitious and tyranical rebel and Liu Bei as a kind and morale person.
Liu Bei acted as though the wanted to restore the Han dynasty but if so, why did he declare himself as the emporer? Shouldn't he find a decendant of Emporer Xian and make him the emporer? What really happened was userpation of the throne.
However, Cao Cao marely declaired himseld prince of wei, I think he personaly deserved that title because he fought for the land he himself. He never did ANYTHING endangering the throne of Xian.

If you disagree with my opinion, please post.
dengai
Assistant
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Pulled by a dark abyss in space, unable to break free...

Re: Cao Cao and Liu Bei--Who is a bigger rebel?

Unread postby Famed Hero » Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:47 pm

dengai wrote:However, Cao Cao marely declaired himseld prince of wei...


Actually IIRC Emperor Xian bequeathed Cao Cao that title :wink:
Saint Joan of Arc, Pray for us!
User avatar
Famed Hero
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:48 pm
Location: Springfield, IL

Unread postby Kong Wen » Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:11 am

So this is essentially another legitimacy debate? :)

It's really hard to tell who was more rebellious, in all honesty. All three kingdoms had some legitimate claim to the throne, but of course, all three of them also had reasons why they didn't belong there as well. Since the events are so far off in time, and the historical records have a tendency to be abstract or corrupt, it's impossible to make a definitive in-context judgement based on anything more than personal preference. If someone happens to like Liu Bei, it becomes easier to support his claim to the empire. Likewise for someone who is a fan of Cao Cao or of Sun Quan, etc.
"We spread the time as we can, but in the end the world takes it all back."
— Roland Deschain, Wolves of the Calla
User avatar
Kong Wen
The Bronze Age of SoSZ
The Bronze Age of SoSZ
 
Posts: 11838
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:38 pm
Location: Canada

Unread postby Shield of Rohan » Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:32 pm

Obviously Shu would contest Wei's rise and the banishment of the Han. That had been Liu Bei's dream - to restore the Han to full power, free from corrupt lords. Liu Bei was following in the path of Guangwu Di of Later Han, coming to power to destroy the usurpers. Obviously Cao Pi was the one rebelling in definition by installing Wei in the first place (though it can be argued that this was for a good cause). Liu Bei was more of a counter-rebellion.

EDIT: Mistake on my part. Please note that Cao Pi was the actual Han usurper, not Cao Cao.
Last edited by Shield of Rohan on Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded, what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
User avatar
Shield of Rohan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:48 pm
Location: Atlanta. No, scratch that: Utah.

Unread postby Exar Kun » Sat Jul 17, 2004 8:51 pm

Liu Bei.Despite Cao Cao's dominance of the Han court he always stayed in line with Han procedure and so can't be a rebel.
"Two there should be; no more, no less.
One to embody the power, the other to crave it."
-Creed of the New Sith-
User avatar
Exar Kun
Dark Lord of the Sith
 
Posts: 3345
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:18 am
Location: Cruising the Nether

Unread postby Iain » Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:17 pm

Exar Kun wrote:Liu Bei.Despite Cao Cao's dominance of the Han court he always stayed in line with Han procedure and so can't be a rebel.
Ah was it Han procedure to execute the Han Emperors wife? I think Cao Cao overstepped his authority when dealing with his Emperor.
User avatar
Iain
Lord of Nanchang
 
Posts: 4753
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 7:55 am
Location: Lost in the fun world of Vana'diel.

Unread postby robbyjo » Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:19 pm

DynastyIain wrote:Ah was it Han procedure to execute the Han Emperors wife? I think Cao Cao overstepped his authority when dealing with his Emperor.


Agreed. Not to mention the gruelsome death of Consort Dong cum suis, execution of many people that plot against him like Ma Teng...

-- Rob
User avatar
robbyjo
Überducky of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2767
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Heaven

Unread postby Kong Wen » Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:42 pm

robbyjo wrote:
DynastyIain wrote:Ah was it Han procedure to execute the Han Emperors wife? I think Cao Cao overstepped his authority when dealing with his Emperor.

Agreed. Not to mention the gruelsome death of Consort Dong cum suis, execution of many people that plot against him like Ma Teng...

All of these things may make him cruel, maybe even evil, but they don't necessarily make him a worse rebel. Like Exar said, Cao Cao was very careful to align himself with the Han and to portray himself as its supporter. Executing the emperor's wife was the only "evil" act that really comes close to tarnishing that image because it is so close to home, but he still managed to come up with a plausible excuse for it. I'm not trying to justify it, and I'm not saying it was a worthy thing to do, I'm just saying that it doesn't automatically make his intentions suspect.
"We spread the time as we can, but in the end the world takes it all back."
— Roland Deschain, Wolves of the Calla
User avatar
Kong Wen
The Bronze Age of SoSZ
The Bronze Age of SoSZ
 
Posts: 11838
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:38 pm
Location: Canada

Unread postby Exar Kun » Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:44 pm

DynastyIain wrote:Ah was it Han procedure to execute the Han Emperors wife? I think Cao Cao overstepped his authority when dealing with his Emperor.


The beauty of it is that that doesn't even count.Though to his defense,the Empress WAS trying to have him killed.

The Emperor GAVE HIM official mandate and as such Cao Cao is not a rebel.You could call him a dictator if you want or whatever but he most certainly cannot be a rebel as far as the Han is concerned.All his actions were backed by Han decree.
"Two there should be; no more, no less.
One to embody the power, the other to crave it."
-Creed of the New Sith-
User avatar
Exar Kun
Dark Lord of the Sith
 
Posts: 3345
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:18 am
Location: Cruising the Nether

Unread postby robbyjo » Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:48 pm

Kong Wen & Exar Kun are both true. Cao Cao's intentions were well put. Sadly... But then, he was the first to declare "the emperor of Wei", wouldn't that be yet another evidence?

-- Rob
User avatar
robbyjo
Überducky of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2767
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Heaven

Next

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

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