Propganda and Prophecy

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 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!
Have a question about a book or academic article before you buy it? Maybe I have it!
Check out my library here for a list of Chinese history resources I have on hand!
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7253
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: Vicar Factory

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: 15867
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
Scholar
 
Posts: 335
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: 15867
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.
"I take Heaven and Earth to be my dwelling, and my rooms are my coat and pants; so what are you gentlemen doing in my pants?"
User avatar
DaoLunOfShiji
Academic
 
Posts: 179
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: 15867
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."
"I take Heaven and Earth to be my dwelling, and my rooms are my coat and pants; so what are you gentlemen doing in my pants?"
User avatar
DaoLunOfShiji
Academic
 
Posts: 179
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 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:20 pm

I'm not sure that is from Pei himself but Gongjin is a little unclear there, thanks DaoLun
“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: 15867
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 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:05 pm

You could certainly be right on that. It seems more in line with Rafe's comments, though it isn't out of character for Pei for be brutally honest when it comes to his opinion on a source. I can't recall the exact comments, but he certainly did not think highly of the Shiyu.
"I take Heaven and Earth to be my dwelling, and my rooms are my coat and pants; so what are you gentlemen doing in my pants?"
User avatar
DaoLunOfShiji
Academic
 
Posts: 179
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 Han » Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:59 am

Ive been extremely busy doing stuff. Apologies.


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


Yep, by the way thanks for being considerate and lumping your arguments into a single point. By this time I had lost track of the multiple rebuttals due to time and length.

Agreed. Im just saying Im not going to complete dismiss Chen Lin work. And we also have a whole section of SGZ plus the QingZhou pillaging and Cao Cao massacres to counter your second point. Some of it is understandable obviously. Its not black and white of course but its a very dark shade of grey.

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


Its in To Establish Peace peace 2 part 7 pdf file under " Finding List of texts identified as sources for ZZTJ" scroll further to "from other sources"

Whoa. Apologies.

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 see.

Fair enough.

Meh. Not really.

The Shi family were never completely destroyed unlike say the Sima purges. Shi Xie has made large contributions to Sun Quan. I view it as a Zhong Yao vs Zhong Hui think.

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?


Yep I think you did.

Err thats stretching it a little. Cao Cao definitely fd up but I dont see how he wanted Zhang Xiu to "battle him or die" especially when it was an ambush. From Cao Cao point of view he was wrong for sexing Xiu Aunt but at the same time, Xiu did kill Ang, AnMin and Dian Wei. Cao Cao was definitely kind and benevolent to forgive Xiu for rebellion and death of heir.

Yeah. And Zhang Xiu ambush.

Daolun already posted it.

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


Maybe I should phrase myself better. My point is that Liu Bei career left little room for slander in comparison to his rivals. This is due to his benevolent nature "righteous" reputation and bad historical keeping.

May you post a source? Im slighty confused. Wiki states Du Qiong said that East Han falling to Cao Wei was fate during Liu Shan Era where the tripartite was more or less in a stalemate and the East Han was long gone. Meanwhile, Zhang Yu said that Liu Bei will fall after obtaining Sichuan within a decade while the East Han still existed under Xian and Yi under Bei. How is this" Qiao Zhou put both of his "Shu will fall" down to following Du Qiong's work". Furthermore, the two situations are not even comparable when taking in time and political reality. Or Zhang Yu shouldnt insult the Han which would not give Bei an opportunity. Liu Bei isnt Cao Cao. He doesnt have a tendancy to wait to kill. Zhang Yu is only one example. No? He was just stating the reason for execution.

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


Zero sources that support Shan killing people. If anything, the sources are wrong just basing of the histories that are given to us. Basically Shan did not care about governance and only cared about harem.

Its not bad. I was giving examples for the line: "Those whom he favoured were glorified for five generations of ancestors" in Chen Lin declaration of war as an example/source. This is different from Fan which does not give any source or explain his reason for appraisal. Im not accepting the Cao Man Zhuan. Im just not going to completely dismiss it.

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.


Nah. Its still kinda fcking bad by my standards especially when I constantly request sources. But as mentioned previously, I was rushing and as a result did not check sources. By today standards? Maybe. But back then insulting the Han without reasons was probably a nono. Furthermore, someone felt that it was slanderous or at the very least important enough to report to Liu Bei. But " those things" played a vital role in Kong Rong death like Zhang Yu insulting the Lius.

Fair enough. But I dont know any warlord that suffered as much rebellion as Cao Cao.

And once again, why cant Liu Bei be kind and practical especially when Liu Bei SanGuoZhi pointed out that treating the gentry is an act of Confucian kindness or benevolence. Literally stating: Zhen Shi Fu Gan: Liu Bei was a person who was very generous and courteous with everyone, hence many people were willing to fight for him. Zhuge Liang was a very capable person. He was very righteous and resourceful, hence he was most suitable to be his Prime Minister. Guan Yu and Zhang Fei were brave yet righteous, able to withstand ten thousand men, and hence were suitable to be his commanders. These three people together were true talents of the time. And together with Liu Bei’s charisma and vision, how can they not succeed?

Confucianism states that treating people and scholars with courtesy is a basic form of kindness and benevolence. Your opinion on practicality and kindness is kinda irrelavant especially when we are discussing Chinese History.

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.


Sup.

Fair enough. Exaggeration? Sure. But personally Cao Cao definitely had his reasons to kill Yuan Zhong and the situation is obviously uncertain.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

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