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 » 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: 15248
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.
"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 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
Assistant
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:06 am

No problem, hope things ease up

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'm not saying Cao Cao didn't have a cruel, dark side but that Chen Lin's account goes against all accounts of how Cao Cao ran his administration and is described as slanderous that it's main worth is judging it as propaganda and somewhat the areas he sought to attack. Like his mention of Bian Rang, that was clearly a festering issue for Cao Cao's reputation

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.


Some were just reduced to penury :P In terms of why Wu (if writing post Shi family fall) would go for Shi Xie's reputation having once been allies, Shi Xie's sons barely had five minutes on the throne partly but also like the Sima's had to with Wei (I know not an exact comparison), the need to justify it by going "well there was always moral issues with that family so I was right to take over"

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.



SGZ annotation in Zhang Xiu's sgz says Zhang Xiu feared for his life. Was that delibrate by Cao Cao? No but that is what he inadvertently made Zhang Xiu feel. Cao Cao as an idiot at Wan, he wasn't a complete idot when Zhang Xiu offered to surrender at Guan Du, kindness didn't come into either of it

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.


Again would love to live in such a world but we don't. Even Liu Yu got slandered

By Du Qiong's work, I think Qiao Zhou means he was following Du Qiong (who was his teacher) way of prophesy rather then the prophecy itself was from Du Qiong. They were definitely both Qiao Zhou's work. When he foretold Shu would fall, twice. Then not executed. Do you still want the passages?

If I say a football team is going to lose in a predictive game, nobody considers that an insult. Zhang Yu made a prediction, not an insult. Liu Bei made a personal attack on Zhang Yu's beard, that is an insult. If I call someone a jerkface or ugly, that is an insult.

Yong Mao is the other example that comes to mind. Cao Cao doesn't tend to wait to kill, he just does it.

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.


That would contradict the history sources. Liu Shan was by no means a hard working ruler and he was neglectful but he did rule

I can't think of anyone in Cao Cao's regime who got five ancestors glory.

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.

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.


Again, prophecy is not an insult. Unless the prophecy is deeply personal or slagging off which would be highly unusual. Zhang Yu's prophecy gave Liu Bei enough legal headroom for executing Zhang Yu, just about, and someone certainly knew it would please Liu Bei. Because Liu Bei held a grudge over Zhang Yu being witty. At least Zhang Yu made that procphecy so it is more truthful then the Kong Rong ones

Point out where I said Liu Bei wasn't a kind man?

Yes, treating with courtesy. That would be being polite, showing kindness. Not "avoiding being a candidate for 3kingdoms version of the Darwin award"

Fair enough. Exaggeration? Sure. But personally Cao Cao definitely had his reasons to kill Yuan Zhong and the situation is obviously uncertain.


There isn't a definite to be fair. If one goes for the non Cao-man book, Cao Cao has no reason to have had any dislike of Yuan Zhong. If we go for the Cao-man book then it gives a reason Cao Cao dislikes the guy
“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: 15248
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 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:14 pm

I'm not saying Cao Cao didn't have a cruel, dark side but that Chen Lin's account goes against all accounts of how Cao Cao ran his administration and is described as slanderous that it's main worth is judging it as propaganda and somewhat the areas he sought to attack. Like his mention of Bian Rang, that was clearly a festering issue for Cao Cao's reputation


On how Cao ran his territory is definitely an exaggeration. But what does fester mean btw.

Some were just reduced to penury :P In terms of why Wu (if writing post Shi family fall) would go for Shi Xie's reputation having once been allies, Shi Xie's sons barely had five minutes on the throne partly but also like the Sima's had to with Wei (I know not an exact comparison), the need to justify it by going "well there was always moral issues with that family so I was right to take over"


Zhong Hui rebellion was pretty bad but I dont see Wei historians dissing Zhong Yao especially when Cao Wei had a better historian department than Sun Wu.

SGZ annotation in Zhang Xiu's sgz says Zhang Xiu feared for his life. Was that delibrate by Cao Cao? No but that is what he inadvertently made Zhang Xiu feel. Cao Cao as an idiot at Wan, he wasn't a complete idot when Zhang Xiu offered to surrender at Guan Du, kindness didn't come into either of it


Sure Cao Cao was probably not thinking about kindness when accepting Zhang Xiu surrender. However, accepting the surrender of the person who killed his son is pretty benevolent an admirable. If I recall, Confucian theory emphasis the bond between family especially Father and Son so take that for what its worth.

Again would love to live in such a world but we don't. Even Liu Yu got slandered

By Du Qiong's work, I think Qiao Zhou means he was following Du Qiong (who was his teacher) way of prophesy rather then the prophecy itself was from Du Qiong. They were definitely both Qiao Zhou's work. When he foretold Shu would fall, twice. Then not executed. Do you still want the passages?

If I say a football team is going to lose in a predictive game, nobody considers that an insult. Zhang Yu made a prediction, not an insult. Liu Bei made a personal attack on Zhang Yu's beard, that is an insult. If I call someone a jerkface or ugly, that is an insult.

Yong Mao is the other example that comes to mind. Cao Cao doesn't tend to wait to kill, he just does it.


Sure. Liu Bei probably got slandered but those slanders were probably not relevant enough or strong enough to be recorded.

Yes I want the source. If Qiao Zhou "predicted" East Han fall after Xian abdication or Shu Han defeat when near endgame( Jiang-Chen-Huang) reign than thats understandable due to political realities. But what Zhang Yu did was pretty much pointing a middle finger at Liu Bei while the East Han was at its darkest hour.

A sports game is not as important as a Dynasty lol? Zhang Yu was saying that the Han Dynasty would end in front of Han Loyalists. Thats the definition of treason especially in ancient times.

What can you tell me about Yong Mao? A source would be nice since googling didnt help. Kong Rong and Xu You? The former frequently maneuvered against Cao but Cao tolerated and then eventually mass execute his family while giving out notes to calm the situation while the latter called him by his Childhood name and Cao resented and then later executed him when Xu You dissed him.

That would contradict the history sources. Liu Shan was by no means a hard working ruler and he was neglectful but he did rule

I can't think of anyone in Cao Cao's regime who got five ancestors glory.


Fair enough. But there are ZERO that states Shan would occassionally kill out of tantrum.

Obviously an exaggeration. The main point was those whom Cao favoured were treated extremely generously( Xiahou Dun).

Again, prophecy is not an insult. Unless the prophecy is deeply personal or slagging off which would be highly unusual. Zhang Yu's prophecy gave Liu Bei enough legal headroom for executing Zhang Yu, just about, and someone certainly knew it would please Liu Bei. Because Liu Bei held a grudge over Zhang Yu being witty. At least Zhang Yu made that procphecy so it is more truthful then the Kong Rong ones


Claiming that the Han would end infront of a regime whose existence is based on the Han is treason. The reason for the report was not given for all we know the person feared that Zhang Yu actions were wrong. After all Liu Bei biography emphasised that Liu Bei seldom displayed emotions publicly and Zhang Yu biography emphasis that Zhuge Liang, Liu Bei best buddy did not even know the reason. So you need a proper source to support that: " someone certainly knew it would please Liu Bei." Its more likely that Zhang Yu going around bullshitting did not seat well with people.

I didnt say that you said Liu Bei was not kind. My claim was Liu Bei was both kind and practical when treating Gentry with kindness.

Yes, and Liu Bei treating surrendered generals( bar the first two) with courtesy plus surrendered gentry with courtesy is kindness. The fact that he ensured all of the gentries serving him including one who avoided him were satisfied was an act of kindness.

There isn't a definite to be fair. If one goes for the non Cao-man book, Cao Cao has no reason to have had any dislike of Yuan Zhong. If we go for the Cao-man book then it gives a reason Cao Cao dislikes the guy


Rafe states: 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.

Cao Cao could certainly be vindictive
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Assistant
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby DaoLunOfShiji » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:15 pm

Han wrote:
Some were just reduced to penury :P In terms of why Wu (if writing post Shi family fall) would go for Shi Xie's reputation having once been allies, Shi Xie's sons barely had five minutes on the throne partly but also like the Sima's had to with Wei (I know not an exact comparison), the need to justify it by going "well there was always moral issues with that family so I was right to take over"


Zhong Hui rebellion was pretty bad but I dont see Wei historians dissing Zhong Yao especially when Cao Wei had a better historian department than Sun Wu.


There is a reason for that. Wei fell a year after Zhong Hui died in 264, therefor there would be no Wei historian to condemn him. However the Jin ones condemned Zhong Hui, but spared his family as his family was extremely important. Zhong Yao was key in the establishment of Wei, and Zhong Yu was a very able minister that assisted the state in various ways, including speaking to Sima Zhao about his step-brothers untrustworthyness.

Zhong Yao, the grandfather of Zhong Jun et al., served as Highest Minister throughout the reign of the Three Ancestors (Wudi, Wendi and Mingdi). He achieved much by assisting them, and his table is placed in the Ancestral Temple. Their father Zhong Yu served both within and without the palace and achieved excellent results. Of old, the Chu, in remembrance of the good rule of Ziwen, did not exterminate the heirs of the Dou; the Jin, in consideration of the loyalty of the Zhao. I am grieved to exterminate the scions of Zhong Yao and Zhong Yu because of the crimes of Zhong Hui and Zhong Yong. The brothers Zhong Jun and Zhong Qian shall be given a special pardon, retaining their official positions and enfeoffments. But Zhong Yi and Zhong Yong’s children shall be punished by death.


Zhong Hui was slandered horribly by Jin historians, however due to the service of his father and his half-brother Yu, the family barring Zhong Hui's adopted son, his kids and Zhong Yi's kids lived. It was like the Xiahou clan. The Sima had no intention of killing them all because of Xiahou Xuan's "betrayal". The Sima were not going to kill or drag the Zhong clan through the mud. Only Zhong Hui himself.
"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 Han » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:12 pm

Right, and that was a point that I was trying to make. Im not saying Shi Xie was as important as Zhong Yao. To be fair, Zhong Yao achievments is many times that of Shi Xie. However, Shi Xie was a person of considerable influence and prestige who did his utmost to support the Suns especially after the tripartite was firmly set. Him frequently sending tributes, personal letters, his son as a hostage and having unique automony cements that. Furthermore, the Shis rebellion was over pretty quickly and not as chaotic or dangerous unlike other rebellions like Zhong Hui at BaShu or when Guan Yu advanced to Jing.

Thus, I dont see why Wu scholars would go out to slander Shi Xie.
User avatar
Han
Assistant
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:35 pm

On how Cao ran his territory is definitely an exaggeration. But what does fester mean btw.


Becomes infected/worse. In this case, I mean it as something that was around a long time and caused damage

Zhong Hui rebellion was pretty bad but I dont see Wei historians dissing Zhong Yao especially when Cao Wei had a better historian department than Sun Wu.


Note the Cao's and Shi Xie were both rulers whose territory was taken, Zhong family were not rulers so wasn't needed to go after the Zhong family and more likely to annoy the gentry to do damage Zhong Yao's reputation rather then help the Sima cause

Sure Cao Cao was probably not thinking about kindness when accepting Zhang Xiu surrender. However, accepting the surrender of the person who killed his son is pretty benevolent an admirable. If I recall, Confucian theory emphasis the bond between family especially Father and Son so take that for what its worth.


If he refuses Zhang Xiu's surrender, Cao Cao didn't deserve to rule.

Yes there is bond between father and son. It is why Cao Cao was haunted to the end of his days by what happened to Cao Ang becuase, as Ding pointed out, it was his fault. Not Zhang Xiu's.

Sure. Liu Bei probably got slandered but those slanders were probably not relevant enough or strong enough to be recorded.

Yes I want the source. If Qiao Zhou "predicted" East Han fall after Xian abdication or Shu Han defeat when near endgame( Jiang-Chen-Huang) reign than thats understandable due to political realities. But what Zhang Yu did was pretty much pointing a middle finger at Liu Bei while the East Han was at its darkest hour.

A sports game is not as important as a Dynasty lol? Zhang Yu was saying that the Han Dynasty would end in front of Han Loyalists. Thats the definition of treason especially in ancient times.

What can you tell me about Yong Mao? A source would be nice since googling didnt help. Kong Rong and Xu You? The former frequently maneuvered against Cao but Cao tolerated and then eventually mass execute his family while giving out notes to calm the situation while the latter called him by his Childhood name and Cao resented and then later executed him when Xu You dissed him.



Because that is again, not how the world works. Wu and Wei didn't construct a slander biography of Liu Bei, likely for the reasons I said earlier

Ok large passage, quotes are from when Farmer quotes the sgz and italics are me.
Following his account ff Du Qiong's death, Chen noted that Qiao Zhou "followed Du Qiongs words, thereupon analogizing them and expanding them". The two examples cited by Chen Shou of the influence on Du Qiong on Qiao Zhou both related to the fall of the Shu-Han and merit closer consideration here. The first case of Qiao Zhou employing the methodology of Du Qiong reads as follows

lengthy section on unfortunate naming habits then The Former Sovereign's taboo name as Bei meaning "complete". The Later Sovrgien's taboo name is Shan meaning "to give away". It is like saying that the Lius have already completed [their rule] and are going to give it to another. The significance of this is really (then cites the two historical examples earlier)


Long explanation on how the word play works The alternate interpretation of the names of the two sovereigns of Shu-Han as explained by Qiao Zhou are obvious and, ironically, employ the same play on words as the prophesies cited in the memorial urging Liu Bei to claim the throne. In all these examples, Qiao Zhou applied the prophetic techniques learned from Du Qiong to various historical cases with the goal of commenting on the present situation.

A second example of Qiao Zhou's "analogizing and expanding" on Du Qiong's learning is contained in the following Records of the Three States narrative.
Later the eunuch Huang Hao manipulated power at court. In 262 to shorten that passage, a large tree within the palace fell on its own accord without reason. Qiao Zhou was deeply disturbed by this but had no one to tell. So he wrote upon the tree stump saying "Multitudinous and great, the time has come, completed and giving away, how can it be restored"? This is to say, multitudinous means the Caos. Great also refers to a lookout tower. The sub celestial realm should gather under that which is multitudinous and great. "Completed and giving away" how can there againbe a ruler established [of the Han imperial family]? When Shu-Han was about to be destroyed, some took Qiao Zhou's words as proof. Qiao Zhou said "Although what is what I have interpreted, I a but an imitator. I have merely taken the words of Gentleman Du Qiong and expanded about them. I personally have no divine or unique [b]ability]
Farmer then explains the prophey, that Qiao Zhou was referring to was one Du Qiong made him to in conversation and that it seems to have bee widely accepted at the timew
Personally I would have Qiao Zhou's name one as the most potentially offensive of the four(Zhang Yu's, Du Qiong's and Qiao Zhou's 2), based on names which makes it personal and seems to be undermining the omens that helped justify taking the throne. Alas there doesn't seem to be a time frame for the name one bar before Huang Hao

Zhang Yu did a private event and soothsayed. A normal practise. Liu Bei of course went to a banquet as a guest and insulted Zhang Yu but I have can't recall you saying that was wrong. To be honest, I'm sure this is just my memory failing on me here, I don't recall you ever saying "Liu Bei was wrong" in a morality sense (rather then a "that was a tactical error") so if you could please tell me the moments where you think Liu Bei behaved badly?

Sure. If I make a prediction about the Royal Family, or the political parties of my country, I won't be barred from jobs, executed or anything like that. Zhang Yu said it in his home, in private, not in a show for Han loyalists and other such soothsayers were not executed. He was. For what was considered then and now as for being wittier then Liu Bei

You want the Rafe encyclopaedia?
Yong Mao. Registrar to Liu Bei in 221, Yong Mao argued against his intention to take the imperial title. His protests were rejected, and he was executed soon afterwards on some other charge. It is said that as a result many men of quality were discouraged from coming to join Liu Bei's service.
Xu You was killed when Cao Cao felt he had gone too far, Kong Rong ditto after Cao Cao had asked him to play nice. Liu Bei never offered Yong Mao or Zhang Yu such considerations (while letting Fa Zheng murder people of course.)

Obviously an exaggeration. The main point was those whom Cao favoured were treated extremely generously( Xiahou Dun).


Warlords rewarded major officers well? Cao Hong favouritism is an issue though

Claiming that the Han would end infront of a regime whose existence is based on the Han is treason. The reason for the report was not given for all we know the person feared that Zhang Yu actions were wrong. After all Liu Bei biography emphasised that Liu Bei seldom displayed emotions publicly and Zhang Yu biography emphasis that Zhuge Liang, Liu Bei best buddy did not even know the reason. So you need a proper source to support that: " someone certainly knew it would please Liu Bei." Its more likely that Zhang Yu going around bullshitting did not seat well with people.

I didnt say that you said Liu Bei was not kind. My claim was Liu Bei was both kind and practical when treating Gentry with kindness.

Yes, and Liu Bei treating surrendered generals( bar the first two) with courtesy plus surrendered gentry with courtesy is kindness. The fact that he ensured all of the gentries serving him including one who avoided him were satisfied was an act of kindness.


Private is in front of the regime how? True that is possible but Liu Bei's grudge seems well known given Chen Shou made clear it was about the grudge. Zhuge Liang was unsure why Zhang Yu was being executed which suggests he found being executed for prophecy is strange and funnily enough, Liu Bei didn't say "due to prophecy"

Bullshitting based on what? That you don't like it doesn't mean Zhang Yu didn't prophesy and thus believe it (and the people of the time seem to have believed it). We know you can't proepshy but it was a belief of the people of that time

When I eat food to sustain myself, is that kind? Because this seems the same level of "don't do stupid things=kind"

Rafe states: 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.

Cao Cao could certainly be vindictive


and when did I deny he could be vindictive?
“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: 15248
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 16, 2018 5:59 am

Note the Cao's and Shi Xie were both rulers whose territory was taken, Zhong family were not rulers so wasn't needed to go after the Zhong family and more likely to annoy the gentry to do damage Zhong Yao's reputation rather then help the Sima cause


Shi Xie submitted to Sun Quan by personally pledging loyalty to Bu Zhi. Slandering Shi Xie sons for rebellion is fine, but slandering Shi Xie himself will not help the Sun cause.

If he refuses Zhang Xiu's surrender, Cao Cao didn't deserve to rule.

Yes there is bond between father and son. It is why Cao Cao was haunted to the end of his days by what happened to Cao Ang becuase, as Ding pointed out, it was his fault. Not Zhang Xiu's.


Yes.

Who is Ding? And yes, I said Cao played a role in Ang death but Xiu was the main guy.

Because that is again, not how the world works. Wu and Wei didn't construct a slander biography of Liu Bei, likely for the reasons I said earlier

Ok large passage, quotes are from when Farmer quotes the sgz and italics are me.
Hide
Following his account ff Du Qiong's death, Chen noted that Qiao Zhou "followed Du Qiongs words, thereupon analogizing them and expanding them". The two examples cited by Chen Shou of the influence on Du Qiong on Qiao Zhou both related to the fall of the Shu-Han and merit closer consideration here. The first case of Qiao Zhou employing the methodology of Du Qiong reads as follows

lengthy section on unfortunate naming habits then The Former Sovereign's taboo name as Bei meaning "complete". The Later Sovrgien's taboo name is Shan meaning "to give away". It is like saying that the Lius have already completed [their rule] and are going to give it to another. The signifance of this is really (then cites the two historical examples earlier)

Long explanation on how the word play works The alternate interpretation of the names of the two sovereigns of Shu-Han as explained by Qiao Zhou are obvious and, ironically, employ the same play on words as the prophesies cited in the memorial urging Liu Bei to claim the throne. In all these examples, Qiao Zhou applied the prophetic techniques learned from Du Qiong to various historical cases with the goal of commenting on the present situation.


They didnt construct a slander biography because Liu was known for his kindness and the historians will have very little to work with. Even if they did construct, Chen Shou, Pei SongZhi and others will probably dismiss it due to the aforementioned reasons. And which are these reasons again?

This is not posting a source. When posting a source you need to post the complete thing. If you are going to post part of the source, then link the rest for me/us to see.

The issue with this source is when it was composed. If it was done during the later days of Shan reign, than its understandable because Huang Hao an eunuch was dominating the internal court and Jiang Wei the general was wasting external sources. The "source" that you "state" which you remove(?) information implies that it was composed during the Huang-Chen-Jiang alliance period or Liu Shan surrender period which Qiao Zhou was a huge advocate of, stating:" commenting on the present situation." This is however not a proper comparison to Zhang Yu as the political realities were too different with Bei just emerging victorious in HanZhong and Shan Shu Han Empire in huge decline.

A second example of Qiao Zhou's "analogizing and expanding" on Du Qiong's learning is contained in the following Records of the Three States narrative.
Later the eunuch Huang Hao manipulated power at court. In 262 to shorten that passage, a large tree within the palace fell on its own accord without reason. Qiao Zhou was deeply disturbed by this but had no one to tell. So he wrote upon the tree stump saying "Multitudinous and great, the time has come, completed and giving away, how can it be restored"? This is to say, multitudinous means the Caos. Great also refers to a lookout tower. The sub celestial realm should gather under that which is multitudinous and great. "Completed and giving away" how can there againbe a ruler established [of the Han imperial family]? When Shu-Han was about to be destroyed, some took Qiao Zhou's words as proof. Qiao Zhou said "Although what is what I have interpreted, I a but an imitator. I have merely taken the words of Gentleman Du Qiong and expanded about them. I personally have no divine or unique [b]ability]
Farmer then explains the prophey, that Qiao Zhou was referring to was one Du Qiong made him to in conversation and that it seems to have bee widely accepted at the timew


Yes, once again, Qiao said it when Shu Han was in decline which was accepted at that time because everyone was seeking a justification plus reason for Shu Han decline. Meanwhile, Zhang Yu said it while Bei was on the rise just after gaining Sichuan and eventually HanZhong.

Personally I would have Qiao Zhou's name one as the most potentially offensive of the four(Zhang Yu's, Du Qiong's and Qiao Zhou's 2), based on names which makes it personal and seems to be undermining the omens that helped justify taking the throne. Alas there doesn't seem to be a time frame for the name one bar before Huang Hao

Zhang Yu did a private event and soothsayed. A normal practise. Liu Bei of course went to a banquet as a guest and insulted Zhang Yu but I have can't recall you saying that was wrong. To be honest, I'm sure this is just my memory failing on me here, I don't recall you ever saying "Liu Bei was wrong" in a morality sense (rather then a "that was a tactical error") so if you could please tell me the moments where you think Liu Bei behaved badly?

Sure. If I make a prediction about the Royal Family, or the political parties of my country, I won't be barred from jobs, executed or anything like that. Zhang Yu said it in his home, in private, not in a show for Han loyalists and other such soothsayers were not executed. He was. For what was considered then and now as for being wittier then Liu Bei


Not just based on names alone but also the political situation when an Eunuch dominated internally and a general failing and wasting resources externally. Meanwhile, when Zhang said it, Bei was on a winning streak against Liu Zhang various generals plus would eventually attain victory at HanZhong.

Once again, you cant claim things without backing sources. The source here, http://kongming.net/encyclopedia/Zhang-Yu
States:

Now Zhang Yu was also a skilled diviner. Some time later, having advised against Liu Bei campaigning in Hanzhong, he predicted and would tell people, “When the year reaches Geng-zi the realm will change hands. The reign of the Liu house will be over. Although our lord will gain Yizhou he will lose it nine years later during the Yin-Mao time.” Somebody reported this to Liu Bei.

" tell people" does not mean private event.

Also, its not a banquet but a meeting. The previous link state: When Liu Bei met Liu Zhang at Fu Zhang Yu was serving as Liu Zhang’s secretary, and took part in the meeting. Liu Bei, observing Zhang Yu’s great beard, decided to slander him.

Liu Bei was an ass for joking about a secretary beard I guess. And holding a grudge for a witty comeback was wrong. Another moment where Liu Bei behaved badly was when he spank that dudes ass. A slight overreaction.

Err no. Once again, its unknown if he said it privately. If he said it only to his family thats understandable but he said it to various "people". Furthermore, he was a gentry working for a regime which basis for existence was on Han Loyalty. If you work as a government official and said that the UK will definitely fall or US will cease to exist. People will look at you like you are sick in the mind. Now this is ancient China where loyalty to Dynasty was considered of utmost importance. That was why Xun Yu was praised while Dong Zhuo was villified.

You want the Rafe encyclopaedia?
Yong Mao. Registrar to Liu Bei in 221, Yong Mao argued against his intention to take the imperial title. His protests were rejected, and he was executed soon afterwards on some other charge. It is said that as a result many men of quality were discouraged from coming to join Liu Bei's service.
Xu You was killed when Cao Cao felt he had gone too far, Kong Rong ditto after Cao Cao had asked him to play nice. Liu Bei never offered Yong Mao or Zhang Yu such considerations (while letting Fa Zheng murder people of course.)


Not much different from Xun Yu debacle.

We are told that Xu You offended Cao Cao by calling him his courtesy name and Cao Cao "tolerated". Kong Rong died not because he did not play nice but because he frequently maneuvered against Cao Cao and eventually slandered him which caused him his death. Liu Bei did not immediatelly killed them or murder their family. Fa Zheng and Zhang Fei was pretty bad but Cao Cao had Cao Hong too.

Warlords rewarded major officers well? Cao Hong favouritism is an issue though


Yes and yes? Im just using Xiahou Dun as an example for Chen Lin argument that Cao Cao had a tendancy too reward heavily those he deeply favoured, albeit, an exaggerated statement.


Private is in front of the regime how? True that is possible but Liu Bei's grudge seems well known given Chen Shou made clear it was about the grudge. Zhuge Liang was unsure why Zhang Yu was being executed which suggests he found being executed for prophecy is strange and funnily enough, Liu Bei didn't say "due to prophecy"

Bullshitting based on what? That you don't like it doesn't mean Zhang Yu didn't prophesy and thus believe it (and the people of the time seem to have believed it). We know you can't proepshy but it was a belief of the people of that time

When I eat food to sustain myself, is that kind? Because this seems the same level of "don't do stupid things=kind"


Private? Its "people" not "family" or "friends". No? Chen Shou knew it because he was a Shu Han and West Jin historian and thus had access to official documents and records. As for Liang, the source mentioned that Liang did not know why Bei murdered Zhang in the first place, not because he found holding grudges silly. Liu Bei didnt say due to prophecy but he did mention that pretentious weeds growing outside ones door must be eliminated. A person who goes around telling people you will fail sounds like a pretentious weed.

Eating food has nothing to do with the Confucianism definition of benevolence, kindness and courtesy. Lets look however at the Spring and Autumn period. Guan Zhong wikipedia page, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guan_Zhong
States:


Guan Zhong is reported to have advised Duke Huan: 'Summon the wavering with courtesy and cherish the remote with virtuous conduct. So long as your virtuous conduct and courtesy never falter, there will be no one who does not cherish you.'" When Duke Huan was approached to dethrone the ruling clans of his state, Guan Zhong advised him that he had won their adherence through politeness (li) and trustworthiness (xin).

and when did I deny he could be vindictive?


You said that " If one goes for the non Cao-man book, Cao Cao has no reason to have had any dislike of Yuan Zhong. If we go for the Cao-man book then it gives a reason Cao Cao dislikes the guy."

Im saying that even Rafe who dislikes the Cao Man Zhuan states that Cao Cao still could certainly be vindicative and that nothing is certain.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Assistant
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:26 pm

Shi Xie submitted to Sun Quan by personally pledging loyalty to Bu Zhi. Slandering Shi Xie sons for rebellion is fine, but slandering Shi Xie himself will not help the Sun cause.


Yeah and nobody considers Shi Xie a Wu officer for a reason. Wu needed to justify seizing the Shi family lands, saying "the family is a bit of a bad egg" is a way of doing it

Yes.

Who is Ding? And yes, I said Cao played a role in Ang death but Xiu was the main guy.


So Cao Cao rejecting Zhang Xiu would be amazingly dumb and yet you call it kind?

Cao Cao's favoured wife who divorced Cao Cao over getting Ang killed. The fault is Cao Cao's

They didnt construct a slander biography because Liu was known for his kindness and the historians will have very little to work with. Even if they did construct, Chen Shou, Pei SongZhi and others will probably dismiss it due to the aforementioned reasons. And which are these reasons again?

This is not posting a source. When posting a source you need to post the complete thing. If you are going to post part of the source, then link the rest for me/us to see.

The issue with this source is when it was composed. If it was done during the later days of Shan reign, than its understandable because Huang Hao an eunuch was dominating the internal court and Jiang Wei the general was wasting external sources. The "source" that you "state" which you remove(?) information implies that it was composed during the Huang-Chen-Jiang alliance period or Liu Shan surrender period which Qiao Zhou was a huge advocate of, stating:" commenting on the present situation." This is however not a proper comparison to Zhang Yu as the political realities were too different with Bei just emerging victorious in HanZhong and Shan Shu Han Empire in huge decline.


I really love this world you live in where bad things don't happen to good men, lies and slander only happen to bad people, I wish I lived in such a nice world (well not that nice, lies and slander is still unacceptable). In regards posting my past comments, I was going to but then saw rest of post.

It is a book. On paper. I can give you the page numbers but I can not magically turn it into an internet link. :wink: Forgive me for, in my free time, if I want to shorten the irrelevant bits for this discussion rather then type all of it up. Meanwhile it feels like you refuse to ever seem to look up a bit of the debate you have forgotten, it is always "I forgot, go find it for me Dong, no need for me to do it" so I'm doing all the work and you can't even bother to track down bits you forgot. So please, reign in the attitude and don't make insinuations with the quote marks when I have spent a lot of time typing something up for you.

I will however apologize for the formatting error, that was very much my bad

I agree, problem is we have only one of them being dated. The "source" was mentioned to you but it is Farmer's book, in terms of removing information, only further added explanations of how prophecy worked and bits about Emperor Ling and somebody way back in the past that sets up how the naming thing works. I don't see what parts of the other two means the other two prophecies were during the triumvirate, the tree one clearly is but the others (both having to be before the tree and one before 250), I don't see how you can claim it was during that time.

1 prophecy executed, 3 unharmed.

Yes, once again, Qiao said it when Shu Han was in decline which was accepted at that time because everyone was seeking a justification plus reason for Shu Han decline. Meanwhile, Zhang Yu said it while Bei was on the rise just after gaining Sichuan and eventually HanZhong.


So still not executed. Agree it was near the end though not sure courts are even more willing to take that kind of thing when things are bad

Not just based on names alone but also the political situation when an Eunuch dominated internally and a general failing and wasting resources externally. Meanwhile, when Zhang said it, Bei was on a winning streak against Liu Zhang various generals plus would eventually attain victory at HanZhong.

Once again, you cant claim things without backing sources. The source here, http://kongming.net/encyclopedia/Zhang-Yu
States:

Now Zhang Yu was also a skilled diviner. Some time later, having advised against Liu Bei campaigning in Hanzhong, he predicted and would tell people, “When the year reaches Geng-zi the realm will change hands. The reign of the Liu house will be over. Although our lord will gain Yizhou he will lose it nine years later during the Yin-Mao time.” Somebody reported this to Liu Bei.

" tell people" does not mean private event.

Also, its not a banquet but a meeting. The previous link state: When Liu Bei met Liu Zhang at Fu Zhang Yu was serving as Liu Zhang’s secretary, and took part in the meeting. Liu Bei, observing Zhang Yu’s great beard, decided to slander him.

Liu Bei was an ass for joking about a secretary beard I guess. And holding a grudge for a witty comeback was wrong. Another moment where Liu Bei behaved badly was when he spank that dudes ass. A slight overreaction.

Err no. Once again, its unknown if he said it privately. If he said it only to his family thats understandable but he said it to various "people". Furthermore, he was a gentry working for a regime which basis for existence was on Han Loyalty. If you work as a government official and said that the UK will definitely fall or US will cease to exist. People will look at you like you are sick in the mind. Now this is ancient China where loyalty to Dynasty was considered of utmost importance. That was why Xun Yu was praised while Dong Zhuo was villified.


I don't think the timing makes it worse (though I suppose one could argue it was), I see the other two aspects I mentioned as why it was worse. Zhang Yu didn't undermine the legitimacy of Liu Bei's ascension

Yeah it isn't like I provided the link to the sgz passage to Zhang Yu's death... oh wait.

Do I source every single comment I make? No becuase this is a forum, not an academic paper, in my own free time. If asked for source which your always entitled to do so, I will go and try to hunt it down.

SGZ and Rafe use term "in private", my mistake was I mentally put in private to his home. My bad, I hold my hands up on that. Also my bad, sorry Liu Bei was merely a guest at Liu Zhang's meeting and proceeded to insult someone rather then banquet

That's a ringing condemnation :P I'm going to assume you also mean to mention Fa Zheng from what I remember of your past comments but yes, I also think the inspector moment was brutal and wrong

I wouldn't be executed. I might not be put in the foreign office or in charge of defence though! Rest would depend on if I could justify it

Not much different from Xun Yu debacle.

We are told that Xu You offended Cao Cao by calling him his courtesy name and Cao Cao "tolerated". Kong Rong died not because he did not play nice but because he frequently maneuvered against Cao Cao and eventually slandered him which caused him his death. Liu Bei did not immediatelly killed them or murder their family. Fa Zheng and Zhang Fei was pretty bad but Cao Cao had Cao Hong too.


Yeah it is like Xun Yu. Just with delay and surprising backlash

Yep, once Xu You crossed the line he died. Kong Rong died becuase he kept moving against Cao Cao and being an all round jerk, Cao Cao tried to reason with him but when that couldn't be done, Cao Cao went for the kill. Yes, like I said Liu Bei has odd habit of delaying his skills

Indeed, like I said, he had Cao Hong as a negative.

Yes and yes? Im just using Xiahou Dun as an example for Chen Lin argument that Cao Cao had a tendancy too reward heavily those he deeply favoured, albeit, an exaggerated statement.


"rewarded like a lord" is a odd line of attack when he had more legitimate attack route. Maybe Cao Hong's crimes were not known in the north

Private? Its "people" not "family" or "friends". No? Chen Shou knew it because he was a Shu Han and West Jin historian and thus had access to official documents and records. As for Liang, the source mentioned that Liang did not know why Bei murdered Zhang in the first place, not because he found holding grudges silly. Liu Bei didnt say due to prophecy but he did mention that pretentious weeds growing outside ones door must be eliminated. A person who goes around telling people you will fail sounds like a pretentious weed.

Eating food has nothing to do with the Confucianism definition of benevolence, kindness and courtesy. Lets look however at the Spring and Autumn period. Guan Zhong wikipedia page, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guan_Zhong
States:


Guan Zhong is reported to have advised Duke Huan: 'Summon the wavering with courtesy and cherish the remote with virtuous conduct. So long as your virtuous conduct and courtesy never falter, there will be no one who does not cherish you.'" When Duke Huan was approached to dethrone the ruling clans of his state, Guan Zhong advised him that he had won their adherence through politeness (li) and trustworthiness (xin).


The word private is used by Chen Shou and Professor Rafe. Yes Chen Shou knew it was a petty grudge. Yes, Zhuge Liang didn't know why Zhang Yu was being executed and he didn't seem to have any objection to the prophecy, Liu Bei again didn't use the prophecy as the reason when asked by Zhuge Liang. He made clear his personal distaste for the man which is arguably harder to argue against (when it comes to "don't execute) rather then "he made a prophecy"

I think you missed my point? Maybe this will work better: I don't give kindness gold stars for avoiding doing the warlord equivalent of not setting yours on fire through being a complete idiot.

It is good advice from Guan Zhong

ou said that " If one goes for the non Cao-man book, Cao Cao has no reason to have had any dislike of Yuan Zhong. If we go for the Cao-man book then it gives a reason Cao Cao dislikes the guy."

Im saying that even Rafe who dislikes the Cao Man Zhuan states that Cao Cao still could certainly be vindicative and that nothing is certain.


Again, didn't dispute the vindictive part. Rafe spends that paragraph disputing the credibility of that account
“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: 15248
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

PreviousNext

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

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

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