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 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: 16046
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
Changshi
 
Posts: 380
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.
"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?"
Check out my library here for a list of Chinese history resources I have on hand!
User avatar
DaoLunOfShiji
Master
 
Posts: 227
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
Changshi
 
Posts: 380
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: 16046
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
Changshi
 
Posts: 380
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: 16046
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 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:05 pm

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


Nobody considers Shi Xie a Wu officer because He had a high degree of automony rarely seen in 3k period while being an independent warlord before submission. His actions after surrender by all accounts indicate that his loyalty and actions were towards the Sun court. Yes they need to justify taking Shi lands. They can also do so by dissing Shi descendants only and not drag Shi Xie in the mud considering his importance and contributions.

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


Cao rejecting Zhang surrender will make him dumb and not kind. Him accepting surrender showed practiclity and benevolence.

Lady Ding divorced Cao Cao because he got Ang killed in a military campaign. And in ancient China, the CIC always gets blame when they choke and praise when they win. Cao Cao deserves a share of a blame for bedding a widow of a surrendered general but Zhang Xiu was the main factor of Ang death due to him being behind the revolt.

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.


Feel free to counter my point whenever you want to. I didnt say they didnt slander. I literally stated: Even if they did construct, Chen Shou, Pei SongZhi and others will probably dismiss it due to the aforementioned reasons.

Right. Apologies. I didnt know it was a book. I thought it was an internet source. Now can you tell me the book name plus page number so that I can try to google-fu? And you need to calm down. I simply used quotation marks to remind you that what you posted does not in any way, shape, or form constitute as a proper source simply because you removed crucial information in between paragraphs and not before or after the main points but within them. This creates a situation where the source becomes unreliable simply due to missing information and thus cannot be used.

And so would you like to post the full thing without leaving gaps within the sources? Or giving me book name plus page number?

I think this is the source that you are mentioning
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Qion ... e_Kingdoms)
According to wikipedia:

Qiao Zhou used what he learnt from his exchanges with Du Qiong and came up with his own ideas of divination. He once made a prophecy based on Du Qiong's style:

The Spring and Autumn Annals recorded that Marquis Mu of Jin named his elder son and heir apparent "Chou" and his younger son "Chengshi". His adviser Shifu (師服) told him, 'What weird names you have given your sons! A ruler calls his favourite consorts fei (妃) and his less favoured consorts chou (仇). Now, when you name your elder son chou and your younger son chengshi (literally: "form an army"), aren't you sowing the seeds for an internal conflict by instigating your younger son to (form an army and rebel and) replace his brother (a "less favoured" heir apparent)?' The scenario which Shifu described became reality later.

Emperor Ling of Han called his sons "Marquis of Shi" (史侯) and "Marquis of Hou" (董侯). Although both of them were emperors at some point of time in their lives, they ultimately ended up being removed from the throne and reduced to the status of lesser nobles. This resonates with what Shifu talked about.

The Late Emperor's given name was "Bei" (備), which implies "well-furnished"; His Majesty's given name is "Shan" (禪), which implies "giving away". Does this mean that the Liu family is already so "well-furnished" that they should "give away" (their throne)? Their names are even more inauspicious than those of Marquis Mu and Emperor Ling's sons.[14]

The wiki uses SGZ as source.

If this is the source that you are mentioning, than take note that the source mention that Xian Di was demoted to lesser status implying that Xian had abdicated and the East Han was over. Therefore, its understandable why Qiao would say that. Meanwhile, when Zhang Yu made his prophecy, Liu Bei was on a winning streak. The political realities were extremely different.

If one doesnt take into considerations the political realities of the time. Qiao Zhou first prediction was when East Han already end. His second was when Shu Han was in serious decline. Zhang Yu prophecy was made during Liu Bei rise.

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


There needed to be a justification when things are bad. Furthermore, Qiao was more influential than Zhang. As a result, Qiao seemed to have political realities to back his claim while Zhang didnt which makes him come off as a dumb dumb.

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


Yes it was as I mentioned previously? Yeah, all Zhang Yu did was persuade Liu Bei not to war at Hanzhong and tell people that Liu Bei will fail.

Link?

No? Sure and thanks.


Link that it was private? Regardless, someone felt uncomfortable enough to inform Liu Bei about Zhang Yu prophecy.

Sure.

Maybe. In ancient China? No. And it will be difficult to justify a prophecy especially when all indicators at that time show that the prophecy was unlikely.

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.


Agreed.

Not immediately. According to XueSanGuo: When later they obtained Jìzhōu, [Xǔ] Yōu had achievements. [Xǔ] Yōu was overconfident in his services and merits, and at the time would joke with Tàizǔ, every time when they were seated, he had no restraint, even calling Tàizǔ by his childhood name, saying: “So-and-so [note: the historian is observing the taboo on the name unlike Xǔ Yōu], if you had not obtained me, you would not have obtained Jìzhōu.” Tàizǔ laughed and said: “You speak correctly.” However inside he resented him. Later he was traveling out Yè’s Eastern Gate, and turned back and said to his attendants: “If this guy had not obtained me, then he would not be able to go out through this gate.” Someone reported this, and therefore he was arrested.

Xu You first called him by childhood name everytime they were seated and Cao tolerated and then later execute.

Cao Cao never reasoned with Kong Rong as far as I can recall.

XueSanGuo has: Though outside Tàizǔ was lenient, yet inside he could not be at ease. Censorate Chief Secretary Chī Lǜ knew his wishes, and used the law to dismiss Róng from office.

Doing something twice isnt a habit. Especially when the Zhang Yu one was basically Han treason.

"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


I cant think of someone thats more rewarded in Cao camp than Xiahou Dun. Xiahou Dun was special because he was given unique authority in domestic affairs and at the same time had a versatile military career. Was also personally rewarded with performing women by Cao Cao. This shows that Cao Cao treated those he liked with special favour. Of course, Chen Lin was exaggerating his claims.

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


Source that its private? Link I give you does not say private. Regardless, someone felt uncomfortable enough to inform Liu Bei. Because he was an official historian with direct access to both Shu Han and West Jin histories. Considering that Liu Bei did not tell Zhuge Liang why he executed Zhang Yu. Its possible Zhuge Liang did not even know that Zhang Yu had a prophecy. Furthermore, Zhuge Liang was a Han loyalist through and through and had a special relationship with Liu Bei. I find it unlikely he would agree with Zhang prophecy thats basically " Liu Bei will fail" and " The Han will die". And the reason why he had a distaste was because Zhang went around telling people he will fail. That sounds like a pretentious weed.

Im not missing anything? Im saying your point is irrelevant because the Chinese value treating gentries with benevolence and courtesy as kindness as Guan Zhong wiki pointed out.

Again, didn't dispute the vindictive part. Rafe spends that paragraph disputing the credibility of that account


Sure. Yes he does, than he summarises that things are not certain.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Changshi
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: The "What If" Thread

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:38 pm

Nobody considers Shi Xie a Wu officer because He had a high degree of automony rarely seen in 3k period while being an independent warlord before submission. His actions after surrender by all accounts indicate that his loyalty and actions were towards the Sun court. Yes they need to justify taking Shi lands. They can also do so by dissing Shi descendants only and not drag Shi Xie in the mud considering his importance and contributions.


I do think you put a too friendly to Wu interpretation of his allegiance/alliance

When seizing control like that, it does seem like one goes for the lineage and not just "the guys you took over from", one bad egg isn't enough but bad bloodline as it were

ao rejecting Zhang surrender will make him dumb and not kind. Him accepting surrender showed practiclity and benevolence.

Lady Ding divorced Cao Cao because he got Ang killed in a military campaign. And in ancient China, the CIC always gets blame when they choke and praise when they win. Cao Cao deserves a share of a blame for bedding a widow of a surrendered general but Zhang Xiu was the main factor of Ang death due to him being behind the revolt.


If it is practical, how is it benevolent?

Your making an assumption as to exactly why Ding blamed Cao Cao, that she would have blamed him if he died through arrow at Guan Du for example. Zhang Xiu was driven to revolt by Cao Cao via multiple acts

Feel free to counter my point whenever you want to. I didnt say they didnt slander. I literally stated: Even if they did construct, Chen Shou, Pei SongZhi and others will probably dismiss it due to the aforementioned reasons.


I did, I explained why there likely wasn't a book while your making a big assumption about the other scholars

Right. Apologies. I didnt know it was a book. I thought it was an internet source. Now can you tell me the book name plus page number so that I can try to google-fu? And you need to calm down. I simply used quotation marks to remind you that what you posted does not in any way, shape, or form constitute as a proper source simply because you removed crucial information in between paragraphs and not before or after the main points but within them. This creates a situation where the source becomes unreliable simply due to missing information and thus cannot be used.


I have mentioned the source repeatedly at this point. The page numbers are 69-71. Best of luck in googling it or getting someone to fill in passages for you.

In an academic setting? I agree. For writing a sgz bio? I also agree. In a forum where people are doing this out of their own free time? Yes, consideration is taken into account on the writer's time and efforts (and other factors) if it is a long passage. They are expected to say what got cut (which I did) and not omit vital information (which I didn't)

Now if you felt, say, the ruther explanation was needed as you didn't understand it, or you really wanted the two historical naming examples, and asked, that is fair enough. I would have tried to help. Instead you have called me lazy and now it seems your calling me dishonest since you can't trust me and are accusing me of misleading with the way I transcribed it.

You need to decide if you trust me when I quote from something or not and let me know for future reference.

I think this is the source that you are mentioning
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Qion ... e_Kingdoms)
According to wikipedia:


Yes wiki seems to be using Du Qiong's sgz

If this is the source that you are mentioning, than take note that the source mention that Xian Di was demoted to lesser status implying that Xian had abdicated and the East Han was over. Therefore, its understandable why Qiao would say that. Meanwhile, when Zhang Yu made his prophecy, Liu Bei was on a winning streak. The political realities were extremely different.

If one doesnt take into considerations the political realities of the time. Qiao Zhou first prediction was when East Han already end. His second was when Shu Han was in serious decline. Zhang Yu prophecy was made during Liu Bei rise.


I have never got the impression that "oh things aren't so great, you can soothsay our fall as much as you like but don't do it when we are strong" was a thing during the 3kingdoms.

The political reality where Qiao Zhou undermines the memorial justifying Shu's very claim to the throne?

There needed to be a justification when things are bad. Furthermore, Qiao was more influential than Zhang. As a result, Qiao seemed to have political realities to back his claim while Zhang didnt which makes him come off as a dumb dumb.


I'm not sure "your going to fall" is justification.

Name one person in his era (or the commentating historians) who thought Zhang Yu was a "dumb dumb"

Yes it was as I mentioned previously? Yeah, all Zhang Yu did was persuade Liu Bei not to war at Hanzhong and tell people that Liu Bei will fail.

Link?

No? Sure and thanks.


Link that it was private? Regardless, someone felt uncomfortable enough to inform Liu Bei about Zhang Yu prophecy.

Sure.

Maybe. In ancient China? No. And it will be difficult to justify a prophecy especially when all indicators at that time show that the prophecy was unlikely.


The first is honest advice that proved wrong, the second less serious when attacking the legitimacy of the dynasty

I'm too lazy apparently to do so :wink: here

To the private comment, Rafe encyclopaedia and the sgz death extract.

Yet people felt Zhang Yu was vindicated

Not immediately. According to XueSanGuo: When later they obtained Jìzhōu, [Xǔ] Yōu had achievements. [Xǔ] Yōu was overconfident in his services and merits, and at the time would joke with Tàizǔ, every time when they were seated, he had no restraint, even calling Tàizǔ by his childhood name, saying: “So-and-so [note: the historian is observing the taboo on the name unlike Xǔ Yōu], if you had not obtained me, you would not have obtained Jìzhōu.” Tàizǔ laughed and said: “You speak correctly.” However inside he resented him. Later he was traveling out Yè’s Eastern Gate, and turned back and said to his attendants: “If this guy had not obtained me, then he would not be able to go out through this gate.” Someone reported this, and therefore he was arrested.

Xu You first called him by childhood name everytime they were seated and Cao tolerated and then later execute.

Cao Cao never reasoned with Kong Rong as far as I can recall.

XueSanGuo has: Though outside Tàizǔ was lenient, yet inside he could not be at ease. Censorate Chief Secretary Chī Lǜ knew his wishes, and used the law to dismiss Róng from office.

Doing something twice isnt a habit. Especially when the Zhang Yu one was basically Han treason.


Ok fair enough on Xu You

Kong Rong, in essence, got sacked for saying Cao Cao should be sent back to his fief. Cao Cao then wrote what the professor calls a long and carefully composed letter urging Kong Rong to ease off. Fair to say, Kong Rong did not ease off when he returned to court

It's a short reign

I cant think of someone thats more rewarded in Cao camp than Xiahou Dun. Xiahou Dun was special because he was given unique authority in domestic affairs and at the same time had a versatile military career. Was also personally rewarded with performing women by Cao Cao. This shows that Cao Cao treated those he liked with special favour. Of course, Chen Lin was exaggerating his claims.


and the problem with any of what Xiahou Dun got is?

Source that its private? Link I give you does not say private. Regardless, someone felt uncomfortable enough to inform Liu Bei. Because he was an official historian with direct access to both Shu Han and West Jin histories. Considering that Liu Bei did not tell Zhuge Liang why he executed Zhang Yu. Its possible Zhuge Liang did not even know that Zhang Yu had a prophecy. Furthermore, Zhuge Liang was a Han loyalist through and through and had a special relationship with Liu Bei. I find it unlikely he would agree with Zhang prophecy thats basically " Liu Bei will fail" and " The Han will die". And the reason why he had a distaste was because Zhang went around telling people he will fail. That sounds like a pretentious weed.

Im not missing anything? Im saying your point is irrelevant because the Chinese value treating gentries with benevolence and courtesy as kindness as Guan Zhong wiki pointed out.


The Zhang Yu link above and Rafe encyclopaedia. Sure, someone, for whatever reason told Liu Bei. So why didn't Liu Bei just tell Zhuge Liang "he made a prophecy that the Han would fall"? Funnily enough, that is not the reason the histories give for the distaste

and I don't deny Liu Bei also treated gentry with kindness. I just don't think putting one's shirt on correctly should get the noble peace price
“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: 16046
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 20, 2018 10:14 pm

I do think you put a too friendly to Wu interpretation of his allegiance/alliance

When seizing control like that, it does seem like one goes for the lineage and not just "the guys you took over from", one bad egg isn't enough but bad bloodline as it were


Why? There were countless people who were given special autonomy not unlike Shis. Guan Yu, Zhong Yao, Zhou Yu and Zhang Lu comes to mind. Yet none of them frequently sent tribute to their lords barring the usual supplies and men of course. Furthermore, very few Warlords submit to an unofficial regime without putting up a fight. Shi personally did so and even sent a hostage.

If one omits the fact that Progenitor of said bloodline contributed heavily to said regime.

If it is practical, how is it benevolent?

Your making an assumption as to exactly why Ding blamed Cao Cao, that she would have blamed him if he died through arrow at Guan Du for example. Zhang Xiu was driven to revolt by Cao Cao via multiple acts


This then goes back to my argument ; Why cant Cao be practical and benevolent?

And why not? Yes, I agreed? Tell me something new, I literally said Cao did f up and was wrong and played a role in Ang death. But Zhang Xiu was the main instigator behind Ang death due to his revolt.

I did, I explained why there likely wasn't a book while your making a big assumption about the other scholars


No? Copy paste once again: Even if they did construct, Chen Shou, Pei SongZhi and others will probably dismiss it due to the aforementioned reasons.

I have mentioned the source repeatedly at this point. The page numbers are 69-71. Best of luck in googling it or getting someone to fill in passages for you.

In an academic setting? I agree. For writing a sgz bio? I also agree. In a forum where people are doing this out of their own free time? Yes, consideration is taken into account on the writer's time and efforts (and other factors) if it is a long passage. They are expected to say what got cut (which I did) and not omit vital information (which I didn't)

Now if you felt, say, the ruther explanation was needed as you didn't understand it, or you really wanted the two historical naming examples, and asked, that is fair enough. I would have tried to help. Instead you have called me lazy and now it seems your calling me dishonest since you can't trust me and are accusing me of misleading with the way I transcribed it.

You need to decide if you trust me when I quote from something or not and let me know for future reference.


Isnt the words that you omitted the Du Qiong link?

Yes, and I did thank you. Also, you did omit significant information by not mentioning Xian Di abdication within the source. Which was vital.

Dont put words in my mouth. All I did was explain why posting partial sources and omitting words within posted sources are wrong and unacceptable. I said the actions, not you was unacceptable. I even elaborated why its unacceptable. Which it is.

I do?

Yes wiki seems to be using Du Qiong's sgz


Just to confirm, the source that I link was part of the parts that you did not type?

I have never got the impression that "oh things aren't so great, you can soothsay our fall as much as you like but don't do it when we are strong" was a thing during the 3kingdoms.

The political reality where Qiao Zhou undermines the memorial justifying Shu's very claim to the throne?


No. In present day terms, the Brits have Brexit and Muricans have Donald. If one say Democracy is falling and overreact, it would be much more understandable than say if the UK and US were not dealing with any major problems and were winning battles or " trade deals" etc etc. Now mutiply that factor multiple times and put it in Ancient times, particularly Han Era China where loyalty to Dynasty is a literal matter of life and death.

The political reality where the East Han officially ends after 200 years and the political reality that the Shu Han was in serious decline and facing internal turmoil in Eunuch domination plus external pressure in the form of wasting resources in comparison to where the East Han was just barely existing and Liu Bei was on a winning streak in terms of battles.

I'm not sure "your going to fall" is justification.

Name one person in his era (or the commentating historians) who thought Zhang Yu was a "dumb dumb"


Anicent people were suspicious. Ancient Chinese no different. Sensitive names can be a justification for powerless gentry to point to when they feel helpless thus drawing support for Qiao Zhou words.

Liu Bei? Prententious weed and all that jazz.

The first is honest advice that proved wrong, the second less serious when attacking the legitimacy of the dynasty

I'm too lazy apparently to do so :wink: here

To the private comment, Rafe encyclopaedia and the sgz death extract.

Yet people felt Zhang Yu was vindicated


And both times going against Liu Bei with the second being more personal.

Thanks. I withdraw my previous comment that Zhang Yu was telling everyone that Han will fall. But anyway, apparently, Zhang Yu felt that it was sensitive enough to ensure privacy while someone felt it serious enough to inform Liu Bei. 8-)

Yeah thanks by the way.

Zhuge Liang was no inform reasons. Chen Shou does not appraise Zhang.

Ok fair enough on Xu You

Kong Rong, in essence, got sacked for saying Cao Cao should be sent back to his fief. Cao Cao then wrote what the professor calls a long and carefully composed letter urging Kong Rong to ease off. Fair to say, Kong Rong did not ease off when he returned to court

It's a short reign


Right.

The reason given for Kong Rong death is slandee though. Source on your claims?

Liu Bei reign was longer than Sun Quan and only slightly shorter than Cao.

and the problem with any of what Xiahou Dun got is?


Nothing? Slightly excessive I guess. But obviously not as bad as Chen Lin claims.

The Zhang Yu link above and Rafe encyclopaedia. Sure, someone, for whatever reason told Liu Bei. So why didn't Liu Bei just tell Zhuge Liang "he made a prophecy that the Han would fall"? Funnily enough, that is not the reason the histories give for the distaste

and I don't deny Liu Bei also treated gentry with kindness. I just don't think putting one's shirt on correctly should get the noble peace price


According to your source. Because Liu Bei has already charged him. What history are you reading? The source that you link states that Zhang Yu words were misspoken and he gave bad advice for HanZhong.

Guan Zhong begs to differ. Liu Bei receiving surrender and rewarding properly is in line with Confucian example of kindness.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Changshi
 
Posts: 380
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 2 guests

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