During my (sporadic) forays into reading post-Three Kingdoms history, I generally try to find something noteworthy in terms of a trend or development that gives some contrast and more meaning to the Three Kingdoms era, whether that's cultural, military, bureaucracy, "technical", etc.
One of the things I've thought that stands out about the Three Kingdoms is how nearly many of the major "commanders" (or regents) were loyal to their states. Zhuge Liang, Jiang Wei, Lu Xun, Yang Hu, etc. whereas in the Eastern Jin dynasty especially it seemed like many "area commander" types ended up rebelling.
Was it because the Han was still in everyone's memory? Was there a sense that some true restoration could be achieved in the not too distant future - and if so, were all those thoughts bupkis by the time of Eastern Jin. I suppose Sima Yi's actions didn't exactly cultivate loyalty to one's Emperor.
Should TecmoKoei ever make Sima Fu playable, would he belong to Wei or belong to Jin? Reading everything about him, I strongly believe he belonged to Wei despite being of Sima clan.
I have no idea what criteria they use to draw the line between the two. I'd do a lot of things differently, myself.
I would put every Wei character whose biggest moments came after Cao Rui's death into the Jin faction, since I'd consider them to be more a part of Jin's narrative (the rise of the Sima family and reunification of the empire) rather than the Wei story (ending Han and establishing the status quo of the Three Kingdoms).
Given KT's narrative choices I should probably move that goal post to cover anyone who flourished mostly after Cao Cao's death, but I don't have it in me to call any of that "Jin."
I've always been a bit confused with the Wei-Jin division that KT chose. Guanqiu Jian, Wen Qin, Zhuge Dan, Wang Ling and others all went against the Sima clan yet they're lumped with Jin. I'd be rolling in my grave! Even Zhong Hui, despite being an associate of Sima Zhao, was more interested in being his own entity, and clearly didn't think that highly of the Simas.
I think it's got to be a case-by-case basis, and I find the split of historical biographies into SGZ vs JS to be generally accurate (though of course Dong Zhuo, Lu Bu, etc. are in both HHS and SGZ!)
More translations are always welcome! (Though I am not a fan of X, and have to say, not really of "AI" art.)
You've done a massive amount of translation! I have only skim-read parts so far. Just noticed an error where for Liu Kun's older brother Liu Yu, it says "Nephew to both Kun and Guo Yi, his renown was widespread." Kun and Yu were famous brothers, so it seems an obvious oversight. The translation should read more like "Yu, along with Kun, were both nephews of the shangshu Guo Yi."
Over the past few months, I embarked on a little adventure making 3K maps, and now that I have finished everything, I'm pretty excited to share all the maps!
The maps are based on The Historical Atlas of China map collection for the 3rd year of Jingyuan (262), with topography provided by digital elevation models from HydroSHEDS.
The problem with using modern topography on ancient maps is of course that sometimes labelled landforms do not match nicely to the local topography, since measurements may not be so precise in the past. I tried my best to correct when I could, but otherwise, I left them as it is when I couldn't find a clear possible correction (so don't be surprised to see some rivers flowing along mountain peaks!).
Tumblr compresses images quite a bit so for now the full collection (including overall and individual provinces) is on SOSZ here.
Curious to know what happened to the imperial government of Wu after it fell? Chen Shou and Pei Songzhi has got you covered. With translations by me, you can now read what they wrote about Wu. I do not think anyone has translated the entirety of Volume 48, so I consider myself the first. My translations are not perfect, so don't cite this in your school essay. Ask me for anything for clarification and I will try to help you.
I originally wanted to post it as one long Tumblr "essay" but it won't let me so here are the links to where I have them.
Sun Liang
Sun Xiu
Sun Hao
Chen Shou Assessment
I apologize for my hiatus. I don't think I can post content regularly but I felt like this deserved to be shared with you all.
Is it still the case that historians believe Sun Quan lost his mind later in his life?
I'm not sure if anyone other than me thinks that. If someone more respectable has proposed or endorsed the theory, I haven't heard it. As far as I know, it's an idea that begins and ends with me. I certainly wouldn't say "historian think this" especially since talking about "historians" as any kind of homogenous group is misguided.
I do think Sun Quan had some kind of mental degradation later in his life. In his early years he was very active and decisive; he was an excellent judge of talent and character and was very good at putting the right people in the right places, and giving them the resources they needed to succeed. By the end of his life it is impossible to find evidence of these qualities. The chaos that enveloped Wu's court in the final years of Sun Quan's reign strikes me as something that simply couldn't be allowed to happen if a once-competent ruler still had command of all his faculties. I do think I've made too much out of some of Sun Quan personal quirks and odd choices in the past, but the decline in his competence remains very noticable.
This is not something everyone agrees on. Some people insist that Sun Quan was always useless, his court was always a mess, and his behavior didn't change . If you dismiss Sun Quan as having always been an inept ruler, it's easy to say that the end of his life was the same as the beginning. I think this is an incredibly foolish and ignorant opinion no one who has actually studied the time period could actually hold, but people have funny ways of surprising you. It's laughable, but some people are born to be clowns.
There are other, more reasonable arguments, to be made. These accept that Sun Quan was not the same ruler at the end of his life that he was at the beginning but look to other causes. The nature of the Wu court changed, from a warlord state to an imperial one, and Sun Quan was unable to adapt with it. The loss of so many key figures who propped him up wore away at both his authority as a sovereign and his effectiveness as a governor. He got sloppy when he no longer felt that his state and his life were in imminent danger. You can take your pick of any, all, or none of these answers.
Or you can just say Sun Quan was always bad and not have to worry about thinking any thoughts.
In fairness, once we got past Sun Quan the hatrack, Sun Quan's mental health became the go-to reason for the community for some time.
I am number 3, things changed with a dash of one. Sun Quan did suffer a decline, probably more of body than mind, but one that exacerbated existing flaws.
My initial thoughts when reading about Sun Quan’s later life also revolved around some sort of mental breakdown. Nowadays I think it was also a long-term consequence of being thrust into a leadership position early on due to violent deaths of his father and elder brother, and being young and somewhat unprepared when put into a leadership position. All these early deaths - add in say, Zhou Yu, especially Lu Meng who I think Sun Quan connected with, and Sun Deng’s death and you have someone struggling to grasp the concept of human mortality and increasingly turning to truthsayers and mystics, as well as his daughters’ opinions rather than the more Ruist doctrines of Zhang Zhao or Lu Xun. It was lonely at the top.
Do you think you've about exhausted things to talk about with respect to the 3 Kingdoms era?
Not at all.
This got very out of hand but I'm going to leave it as is.
Oh, sure, some subjects have been beaten to death. There's only so much you can say about the particular events that have been told and retold in folktales, opera, novels, and (in the modern age) movies, TV shows, and video games for the last 1800 years. There isn't a lot left to say about the most famous battles and individuals that hasn't been said already.
There's also a lot that is still relatively overlooked, outside of very specific circles. People who didn't get prominent roles in fictionalizations of the period are still pretty obscure. Events that aren't depicted in stories and adaptations don't get much discussion. That's the sort of thing I try to write about, like with my articles on the Crown Prince Affair (Part I | Part II) or my series on Yuan Shao and Gongsun Zan.
But the things I write about are just one very limited facet of the period's history. There's so much more to be said. The stuff I write about is probably the least meaningful. Ultimately it doesn't make much difference who won what battle or what faction took over a government. Individuals varied but all the governments of the time were fundamentally the same. No matter who took power in what region, it was going to be a Han style government, dominated by Han culture. Nothing meaningful was going to change, no matter which of our well-known warlords won. Their battles were largely irrelevant. There's a reason nothing meaningful changed in Shu when it was conquered by Wei, or Wu when conquered by Jin. There's a reason the Sima regime was only superficially different from that of the Cao, and why it really doesn't matter if, say, the Quan family had seized the throne of Wu. Despite individual differences they were all fundamentally the same.
To see what I mean, we don't have to look very far into the future. The collapse of western Jin meant the rise of non-Han polities in significant areas of the former Han/Jin empire. The governments of the Xiongnu, the Xianbei, and and other groups from outside of the Han culture were meaningfully different. Prolonged chaos in the northern portions of the empire resulted in mass movement to the south, into areas previously claimed by the Han people only in name but not in fact. The efforts of Wu and Shu (largely due to He Qi and Ma Zhong) to establish firm control over these regions laid the groundwork for the "sinicization" of southern China, but it was really only with the collapse of Western Jin that the new status quo was established. At the same time, we can also observe the so-called "barbarians" adopting many elements of Han culture to help them rule their new empires.
You could spend your whole career studying something like that.
You could analyze the literature of the period and compare different style and composition across different years and regions. You could dig deep into the economics and study things like government monopolies on key industries, and contrast the different approaches taken by the various rulers of the era. You could study all the material left by civilians who had no part in the "great affairs" of the time. You could study how infrastructure projects meant to support warfare (like the many canals Wei dug) impacted trade and travel for others. You could study the visual arts; paintings, sculptures, miniatures, etc. And all of that gets much more complicated and interesting when you reach beyond the Han culture, into the areas and eras where non-Han influences achieved supremacy and influenced the existing culture.
The era produced some of China's most influential figures whose contributions are far more meaningful than the battles fought by its various generals. Zhong Yao's calligraphy was so influential that we still imitate his writing today. Pei Xiu was one of the most important cartographers in China's extensive history. Hua Tuo's scientific approach to medicine was revolutionary in its time. Du Kui and Xun Xu made extraordinary contributions to music. There are so many others to speak of.
Sociology. Visual arts. Performing arts. Economics. Mathematics. Literature. Technology. The list goes on and on and on. There is absolutely no shortage of new things to study and talk about. A very accessible example is the deep dive @discourseofthethreekingdoms did on the theology of the Yellow Turbans. I don't think I've ever heard that much said about them anywhere. It was a significant and meaningful look at the actual beliefs and ideology of a group usually just dismissed as rebellious malcontents deceived by charismatic opportunists.
Now, none of that is what I generally write about. A big part of that is because that's serious academic work. It's hard, it's complicated, and it requires both resources and training I don't have to get it right. I'm not any kind of real academic. There are people doing this work, and because it doesn't have mass appeal they don't get the kind of credit they deserve, but that's the kind of work that actually matters. People like to read about wars and battles and politics and don't give the same attention to these much more serious and meaningful subjects. It's a damn shame, really, and I can only hope that the ones doing the important work at least receive the respect of their peers.
And if I'm being fully honest, even if I did have the training and resources it takes to do the important work, that's not where my passion is.
I'm a storyteller.
I'm fascinated by these people and their lives. When I get invested in a particular historical era, it's because I find it to be filled with a wide variety of very interesting individuals whose stories I love, and whose stories I want to try to share with others. I like to tell the stories I think don't get told enough; or that get so obscured by fictionalization that the real people involved become unrecognizable. That does end up with me writing about a lot of battles and politicking, because that's where we get a lot of these stories from. When I believe a story is left untold (like with the Crown Prince Affair) I want to tell it. When I believe that a story is being misrepresented, I want to try and correct it. The reason I get so passionate about "history vs. fiction" is because these people were real. Their accomplishments and failures were real. Their triumphs and tragedies were real. Every single name you see was a full human being exactly as complex as you are; and so is every single anonymous soldier and civilian killed in their pointless wars.
Some of these stories have been told and retold so many times that there's nothing interesting left to say. But there are so many others that remain in relative obscurity, and ones where the truth has become obscured over time. That's mostly what I spend my time writing about now.
Did any of the guys who are most well known for being palace favorfites of the 3-Kingdoms era rulers (Zhang Rang and Zhao Zhong for Han, He Yan for Wei, Huang Hao for Shu, Cen Hun for Wu, Zhang Hua for Jin) accomplish anything? Did any of them have actual jobs and responsibilities, or were their jobs just 'goof around with the ruler?'
These are very different groups of people, but all of them had jobs. They can generally be sorted into eunuchs and ministers.
Leading eunuchs like Zhang Rang, Zhao Zhong, and Huang Hao were responsible for overseeing various palace affairs. There were a lot of palace eunuchs who did a lot of tasks (cleaning, weaving, carpentry, menial servants, etc) and they had their own hierarchy of supervisors. Favored eunuchs were in charge of all that.
The others are all government officials of varying ranks. He Yan and Cen Hun were supervisors in the secretariat. They helped oversee the body of advisors and secretaries who attended court meetings and gave the emperor advice. Zhang Hua was one of the Nine Ministers (after serving in the secretariat himself) and was one of the highest-ranked people in the Jin government, with a huge amount of responsibility.
I'll also add that I don't think Cen Hun is in any way comparable to He Yan or Zhang Hua, who are much more important and complex figures. There's a lot more to the two of them.
All of these men had jobs and responsibilities, generally in a supervisory capacity. Their positions also put them in close personal contact with the emperor and the imperial family.
He Yan was literally responsible for securing government offices for talent, and a vast majority of those he appointed were men of supreme importance that ended the era.
Also he attempted to counteract Ding Mi, attempted to steer Cao Fang in a proper direction, managed court affairs while Cao Shuang went west. He was the second most important man next to Cao Shuang.
Yeah He Yan and Zhang Hua really do not fall in the same category as the others. Both are recognised today for their literary output. Even a brief peruse of wikipedia will point one in the direction.
But also as mentioned, this whole question is like apples and oranges, and pears…
Era Names of the Jin Dynasties and Sixteen Kingdoms
I made a spreadsheet of the era names of Western Jin and 16 Kingdoms with their literal meanings. I thought it might be helpful for anyone who is interested in this period of history. Should I make it a Google Sheet?
Yeah, I think that’s what I did with rotk13 except I lasted maybe 120 mins? Same with Total War 3k. And Dynasty Warriors 9 (though to be fair that one could just barely run on my laptop). Maybe I just don’t like games anymore... although I played through all of Warriors Orochi 4 Ultimate fairly recently.
Just finished translating Biographies Ch.64 of the Book of Jin. What’s next?
I’ve just finished translating Biographies Ch.64 of the Book of Jin, all about Hermits and Recluses. You can find the full translation on my Tumblr blog. It’s a whopping 37435 words and 51 pages. Tao Qian is one of my faves, but his poem “Ah! Homeward bound I go” was a real pain to translate. Still, I think it turned out great and I’m gonna post it here.
So, what’s next? I’m open to suggestions! Let me know which chapter of the Book of Jin you’d like me to tackle next. Simply drop me a comment and I’ll take a look. Thanks for your support - I really appreciate it!
Ah! Homeward bound I go!
Ah! Homeward bound I go, should I not return to my rustic home now that the fields are overgrown? Since I treat my own heart as a servant to my mortal body, why should I feel forlorn and alone? I realize there is no point in admonishing the past, and that what is to come can still be pursued. Though I have lost my way, I am not far astray, knowing that today differs from yesterday. My boat is lightly gliding on the distant waves, my clothes are fluttering in the breeze, and I meet a traveling man and ask for the path ahead. I rue the faintness of morning light. I then gaze at my old house, in which I once took delight. Servants and children come to welcome me on sight, the three paths now wild, but pines and chrysanthemums still survive. I take the young ones into the house, with wine to fill our cups. I pour from a jug, admiring the garden trees, lean on the southern window, delighting in my ease. The garden changes its looks with each passing day, though there is a door, it is shut all day. I lean on my staff, and relax and detain, often lifting my head to gaze afar. The clouds drift slowly out of the valley, the tired bird knows its way back home. The landscape is shrouded in mist and shadows, I soothe my lone pine and stay to roam.
Ah! Homeward bound I go, let the world be, and end my wanderings. All they desire is not what pleases me, so why should I chase after what cannot be! I am happy to hear from my kin, and play the qin and read to allay my sorrows. The farmer tells me that spring has nearly gone, and I must attend to the affairs of the Western Hill. Sometimes I am sent by carriage, sometimes by a lone boat, winding through hidden valleys and over rugged hills. The woods arouse my senses, and the springs trickle fresh and clear, they remind me good is born of timing, and that I am due my allotted year.
It is all over now! My days are numbered, how long must I be in this world so lumbered? Why not let my heart freely come and go, instead of feeling aimless, where do I want to go? Riches and pomp hold no sway over me, and to the empire I cannot foresee. I will set forth alone in the dawn to wander afar, at times planting my staff, at times hoeing the ground. I climb Eastern Heights to stretch my throat and sing, overlooking the clear stream and composing my poetry. I shall indulge in this natural cycle of life and travel till the end, for I trust the will of Heaven with no strife!
Just finished translating Biographies Ch.64 of the Book of Jin. What’s next?
I’ve just finished translating Biographies Ch.64 of the Book of Jin, all about Hermits and Recluses. You can find the full translation on my Tumblr blog. It’s a whopping 37435 words and 51 pages. Tao Qian is one of my faves, but his poem “Ah! Homeward bound I go” was a real pain to translate. Still, I think it turned out great and I’m gonna post it here.
So, what’s next? I’m open to suggestions! Let me know which chapter of the Book of Jin you’d like me to tackle next. Simply drop me a comment and I’ll take a look. Thanks for your support - I really appreciate it!
Ah! Homeward bound I go!
Ah! Homeward bound I go, should I not return to my rustic home now that the fields are overgrown? Since I treat my own heart as a servant to my mortal body, why should I feel forlorn and alone? I realize there is no point in admonishing the past, and that what is to come can still be pursued. Though I have lost my way, I am not far astray, knowing that today differs from yesterday. My boat is lightly gliding on the distant waves, my clothes are fluttering in the breeze, and I meet a traveling man and ask for the path ahead. I rue the faintness of morning light. I then gaze at my old house, in which I once took delight. Servants and children come to welcome me on sight, the three paths now wild, but pines and chrysanthemums still survive. I take the young ones into the house, with wine to fill our cups. I pour from a jug, admiring the garden trees, lean on the southern window, delighting in my ease. The garden changes its looks with each passing day, though there is a door, it is shut all day. I lean on my staff, and relax and detain, often lifting my head to gaze afar. The clouds drift slowly out of the valley, the tired bird knows its way back home. The landscape is shrouded in mist and shadows, I soothe my lone pine and stay to roam.
Ah! Homeward bound I go, let the world be, and end my wanderings. All they desire is not what pleases me, so why should I chase after what cannot be! I am happy to hear from my kin, and play the qin and read to allay my sorrows. The farmer tells me that spring has nearly gone, and I must attend to the affairs of the Western Hill. Sometimes I am sent by carriage, sometimes by a lone boat, winding through hidden valleys and over rugged hills. The woods arouse my senses, and the springs trickle fresh and clear, they remind me good is born of timing, and that I am due my allotted year.
It is all over now! My days are numbered, how long must I be in this world so lumbered? Why not let my heart freely come and go, instead of feeling aimless, where do I want to go? Riches and pomp hold no sway over me, and to the empire I cannot foresee. I will set forth alone in the dawn to wander afar, at times planting my staff, at times hoeing the ground. I climb Eastern Heights to stretch my throat and sing, overlooking the clear stream and composing my poetry. I shall indulge in this natural cycle of life and travel till the end, for I trust the will of Heaven with no strife!
《晋书·列传第三十二·祖逖》
Zu Ti, Biographies Ch. 32, Book of...
I haven’t been around much lately, but Lin Junjian is putting out some of the best JS English translations I’ve seen. I particularly enjoy the “appraisal” sections and the way the source is not treated strictly as prose.
Twitter seeing so many "Taiwan is Chinese becuase Wu controlled China".
A lot of pro-China people apparently having low respect for Chinese history or think it is, weirdly, a great idea to talk about a failure to as many people as possible.
Ok I get why, most people don't know the era so Sun Quan/Chinese Government in ye ancient times sending 10,000 (you know, the one were 80-90% of them died of an epidemic) people to Taiwan sounds impressive. It is just very very dishonest and disrespectful to the history of their own country (as well as Taiwan's).
Just to be clear, 230 CE was not Wu seizing control of Taiwan or building it up, it was Wu seizing (from an island that might have been Taiwan but hasn't been 100% proven to be yet)) a few thousand people and bringing them to China. It was a expedition that went so well that the commanders were executed and Quan Cong suggested anyone who backed it was disloyal. The records are all about how much of a failure this was. Wu didn't follow it up by trying to prevent even a token claim on Yizhou, no memorial, no celebration, acting governor or officials.
Why ignore their own views and claim they controlled Taiwan?
I have a mixed view of Zhuge Liang, considering he made some crap decisions like advocating for Liu Feng's execution (a loyal and capable general) and Ma Su (a scapegoat for Jieting). What do you think?
Zhuge Liang was totally in the right to call for Kou Feng’s execution, and Liu Bei is the one who made that decision at the end of the day. Setting aside not being able to help Guan Yu, that gets played up, he lost Shangyong through his own fault. He as well presented a threat to the throne and so his death was entirely expected. Sad, absolutely. But to think it anything other than justified in the third century shows a lack of political understanding. Kou Feng was an adopted son who was elder to Liu Shan, the heir to the throne. Even if he didn’t have Imperial ambitions anyone around him could, and then use him as a proxy to rise against Shan if they felt there was an opening. Zhuge Liang secured the future of the state by sacrificing one life. Trolley meme.
As for Ma Su, that was his own fault. Ma Su wasn’t a scapegoat. Ma Su got himself executed. Setting aside the fact that Ma Su lost a large portion of the army which outnumbered Wei. Ma Su had every single advantage in this battle as Zhang He’s force was a splinter army. Cao Zhen took the bulk of the force, along with 50,000 extra soldiers to engage Zhao Yun and Deng Zhi. Ma Su lost this massive army and the real problem came afterward. Ma Su fled. He tried to escape and avoid facing Zhuge Liang for his defeat. After finding out all of this combination of new information for me, I have no sympathy for Ma Su anymore. He deserved to have his head cut off. Failing this badly and attempted to run away to save your skin is the height of cowardly and being utterly pathetic. Zhuge Liang did Ma Su a kindness in giving him the dignity of execution after capture and sparing his family.
Jiētíng is the failure of Mǎ Sù, Jīgǔ’s failing is Dèng Zhī. They outnumbered the thieves [Wei] and yet still faced defeat, Duke Zhūgé lay the blame at one man.
Next Year, Liàng set out the army, announcing to take Xié valley road, Cáo Zhēn sent large forces to meet him. Liàng ordered Yún with Dèng Zhī to resist, personally attacking Qíshān. Yún and Zhī’s troops were weak and the enemy was strong, they lost advantage at jīgǔ, however they drew back the forces and defended, and did not reach to a great defeat. The army returned, demoted to General of the Right [zhènjūn jiāngjūn].
Wèishū states: The courtiers were unaware of the action to take, the Emperor spoke: “Liàng protected himself with mountains, now coming forth in person as it says in military books to draw upon men. His greed for the three commandaries and knows only to advance, yet not retreat. Our victory is certain.” and therefore sent soldiers and horses of 50,000 to resist.
These 50,000 were men sent with Cao Zhen from the central plains westward. Zhen’s main force with these extra men engaged Deng Zhi and Zhao Yun, meanwhile Zhang He was sent from Mei to attack Ma Su and the larger army. Ma Su’s blunder saw this massive force utterly annihilated and while the likes of Wang Ping were willing to give their lives to rally together and save the army from complete loss to pull back, Ma Su thought only of himself and fled like a true coward.
In Zhuge Liang’s own writings he set out that there are eight evils that a general can commit. Strategic inability, lack of delegation to the wise, inability to meet out punishments, inability to aid the less fortunate, insufficient talent or genius to guard against disaster, insufficient tact to protect against the subtle, inability to express intuition and inability to avoid criticism in defeat.
Ma Su possessed nearly all of these evils in his defeat. Cutting off his head was no grave crime, and just as Liu Bei shed a tear for Kou Feng, Zhuge Liang did for Ma Su. He took no pleasure in this but he did what he had to do. Zhang Junsi said of Zhuge Liang’s rule that fair rewards are given to all, no matter relations. Punishments were not spare no matter how close. Nobility cannot be obtained through nepotism. Punishment cannot be pardoned by anyone.
If this was Sima Yi people would say he killed Liu Feng so there would be no one to stop him from manipulating the teenage Liu Shan and killed Ma Su to make him a scapegoat for his own failure.
Zhuge Liang didn’t attempt to overthrow imperial authority and create a foundation for his family to maintain power. Sima Yi killed Cao Biao was right.
He took advantage of a teenage sovereign to usurp imperial authority and wield complete control over the government. I don’t have an inherent problem with that but call a spade a spade. That’s what we say when anyone else does the same thing. The only thing stopping him from passing that down to his son was the kid being too young to wield it.
It isn’t the same, Zhuge Liang didn’t launch a military operation, surround the dowager palace, seizing arms, take hostages and then commit a mass execution of officials to gain his power. Zhuge Liang was given the authority by Liu Bei and it wasn’t revoked by Liu Shan. He resigned posts, was awarded posts all due to success and failure.
Funny how resigning a post didn’t actually reduce his power at all …
Every usurper has some justification for why they wield absolute power. Dong Zhuo, Wang Yun, Li Jue, and Cao Cao were delegated their authority by Liu Xie. Sun Jun and Sun Chen got it from Sun Liang. Sima Yi, Sima Shi, and Sima Zhao were appointed by the various Cao emperors. In all cases we call these men usurpers, but its somehow different when Zhuge Liang is in exactly the same position. Liang Ji would have loved to get the same benefit of the doubt.
Dong Zhuo, Wang Yun and Li Jue took their power from Liu Xie through violent overthrowings of the previous people in charge.
Cao Cao took the Emperor in who willingly accepted it. Then he came to regret it.
Sun Jun and Chen murdered their way to the top, the Emperor tried to fight back and he was deposed. Chen was then killed by another Emperor.
Sima Yi was not delegated sole authority, he took it through rebellion. Sima Shi and Zhao benefit from this and deposed and murdered Emperors to keep their power.
You cannot legitimately think these are good comparisons for Zhuge Liang who received and retained the same authority from Liu Bei to his death. The novel-bad has gone to your head on this one. There are easily things to criticize Zhuge Liang over, but to compare him to a bunch of actual tyrants? Come on now. Zhuge Liang took no action similar to any of these men when it came to acting against their states for their own power.
First, I’ll say that I was making some unfair comparisons. It’s not productive or helpful for me to say things like “he would have passed on power to his son if Zhan had been old enough” or “he would have held power through force if Liu Shan tried to take it from him.” That’s me arguing to situations that didn’t exist and isn’t useful. No sense in me insisting upon hypotheticals.
I’ll also admit I started this argument at, like, 3:30 AM when I couldn’t sleep so I might have started out from an unfair place to begin with. Shouldn’t debate while sleep deprived.
So let me circle back to the beginning. The point I intended to make (and did very poorly) is that if someone else did the things anon pointed out, we would not hesitate to assume the worst. Zhuge Liang is granted a presumption of innocence that is not extended to any of his contemporaries, and one that meets with strong blowback when questioned.
Your arguments are all valid but they all rely on the assumption that Zhuge LIang was basically a good and loyal man who was always acting in the interest of his country, and would not place his personal ambitions and desires over that of his sovereign and state. You have demonstrated why you believe that of him, and it is an opinion many people share.
I do not extend that presumption of innocence to him. When you strip away the gloss of his reputation, he no longer looks benign and benevolent. He was ambitious, intelligent, and more than willing to spill blood if it served him. While there may be arguments to justify any one particular instance (Liu Feng, various detractors in court, etc.) together they form a pattern of behavior that mirrors that of contemporaries we readily label usurpers.
I also come from the position that usurping power from the sovereign is not inherently a bad thing. A hereditary dictatorship is a bad form of government and if a usurper governs better than the hereditary sovereign, that’s best for everyone. Zhuge Liang did govern well, my criticisms of his military policy notwithstanding.
The main thrust here I guess is that I understand why you give Zhuge Liang the presumption of innocence. You have articulated that at length and have explained it well. Yours is a very popular position. However, it is not a perspective I can share. Looking at his actions, without extending him that benefit of the doubt, he is very similar to many other people of his age who no one hesitates to call usurpers. I believe this label is accurately applied to him as well.
I know not part of the debate but thanks for holding up hands and I hope you get some sleep this weekend
I think Zhuge Liang easily divides people into two camps. The “Zhuge Liang the good guy” and “Zhuge Liang is not the man of legend.” push back. Your right in that “kills an imperial relative” (or pushes for it) is not a good look most of that and that Zhuge Liang’s reputation provides him a shield on that. I don’t think that is always unfair though, if you shown consistently good character that a bit of leeway comes your way. The problem for others though is one break, always leaves doubt as well so Sima Yi does 249 and loyal but iffy acts don’t seem so loyal.
There is always a trap of “Liu Bei became Emperor so his helping Dong Cheng was ambition”, “Yuan Shu became Emperor so he objected to Liu Yu being Emperor for his ambitions” (it just seems a sensible piece of advice), “Cao Cao always had evil designs on the Emperor, look at what he did to his wives” so on and so forth. I do try to avoid that.
I consider Zhuge Liang, like many on the list in these discussions but also figures like the He family or Lady Wu and the two Zhang’s as controllers, usurpation I only usually use for the end game figures or where it is blatant. But sure, usurper if you want, whichever term works. I would say in fairness to all controllers, that moment where the ruler is ready to rule is tricky and few handle it well. Liu Shan’s mixed reactions suggest Liu Shan was grateful for what Zhuge Liang had done but also a tad resentful so it would suggest Zhuge Liang didn’t.
Is that usurpation in the bad way? I wouldn’t go that far. I think Zhuge Liang’s inability to delegate reflects part of what would have been a problem. It still reflects a failure on Zhuge Liang and on that I think he can be criticized, that he didn’t let go of power. I still think it is difficult for all parties concerned when that time comes and I don’t automatically think it means disloyalty either
What I would suggest is “good man camp” aren’t always going he did everything with the best of intentions. Zhuge Liang was partisan, Zhuge Liang sometimes dodged a fight, Zhuge Liang had an inability to let go in terms of work and yes he centralized control around himself. I don’t doubt that, on some level, Zhuge Liang (with Liu Feng) knew Liu Feng’s death made his future job easier. Or that centralizing control was a lot easier for him (as well as his general style) and he justified it to himself.
I try to do the same with others even if I perhaps haven’t shown it enough. For Sima Yi, I don’t consider his career one of disloyalty and ambition, I consider his final acts to be so but I also believe that he believed Cao Shuang had to go “to save things”. I believe Cao Cao believed he was doing things for the Han and for the wider good, even when rewarding himself.
I think as well as the good guy thing, the thing with Liu Feng is that yes it helped Zhuge Liang in the future but I just don’t see it as bad advice. Liu Feng was someone whose unusual position and, from what little we know, personality seems like a problem that it wasn’t wrong for Zhuge Liang and Liu Bei to be concerned with. Now I would probably be rather more sceptical if “Liu Bei dies. Zhuge Liang then kills Liu Feng” or it was done when Liu Bei was very sick (the sickbed problems) but telling the father this needs to happen and the father, a consummate politician himself, making the call suggests it wasn’t just Zhuge Liang who saw a potential problem.
It’s an interesting discussion. I have trouble seeing Zhuge Liang as a potential usurper because the contemporary histories are generally so complementary to him in regards to his intentions and his industry for Shu-Han. While Zhuge Zhan seemed to have some unearned reputation, his clan didn’t overtly benefit from his position, unlike those of Cao Cao, Sima Yi, Dong Zhuo, Liang Ji, etc. (Zhang Fei’s clan seemed to have the most links to the royal Liu branch.)
Liu Feng didn’t deserve to die, but I think it’s prudent to consider Cao Pi vs Cao Zhi, Sun Ba vs Sun He, Yuan Tan vs Yuan Shang, etc. Any ambiguity in succession could lead to a lot of conflict - one innocent life is a small price to better safeguard the future of the state. Any faction in support of a prince that gained political/military power could lead to major issues, as shown by the Sima princes.
Created Male 04 @quicklyqualitydonut - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
