23 replies to this topic

[snowybeagle]

濞 in standard Chinese PinYin should be spelled as Bi, not Pi,
though I don't know how it pronounced in Singapore Chinese.
晁错 in standard Chinese should be Chao Cuo, not Chuo, also.

Yes, it should be Chao Cuo. I will make the correction.

As for 濞, it took me a while to verify it, but I finally found a reference http://www.zdic.net/...dicBFZdic9E.htm
which gave 2 alternative pronounciations : bì　and pì.

Most English translations I read in Singapore used the latter.

[snowybeagle]

So why not Emperor Jing also wanted to levy more taxes from those princes and
the threat is only a pretension?
So YiZhongTian's comparision is very apt, Emperor Jing wanted to grab more
lands and wealth from other princes' hereditary holdings.

Perhaps, but Yi attributed it more to Chao Cuo's ideas after having studied Book of Shang (尚书) as well as other legalist texts.

1 Wiki reference claimed that curbing powers of enfeoffed princes began during Emperor Wen's reign, http://zh.wikipedia....i/七å%...¹‹ä¹±
but I have yet to verify it with any historical texts.

[kingswonder]

Maps don't show the full picture. Principality of Wu alone was able to raise 200,000 trooops.
Together with the forces of other princes, they could reckon against the Imperial troops whose primary forces were divided between the Northern Army (to guard against the XiongNu) and the Central Army.

I would like to suggest you read the original words in Shiji or Hanshu.

1) There's a conversation between a prince and the persuader of Wu. The one who disagreed rebel
said that the all strength and territory of all allied princes(except Liang, the brother of the emperor)
didn't match ONE FIFTH of the centeral government.

2) The map shows the weakness of the princes truly, but not enough. Though Wu had a large territory, it's
population was numbered, for the southeast of China was not developed at that time.

3) There's the reason why 200,000 trooops enlisted in the Rescript of LiuBi:
That's "All man below 62 and above 14 in age" in Wu, that'a a great part(and main part)
of the population of Wu.
This doesn't mean the power and the rebelling will of Wu, it do shows that the old prince was a good prince
and was advocated by his subjects.

Moreover, it's Emperor Jing who should be responsible for the civil war.
I don't mean his purpose for centralization was a fault, but his method.
He could adopt a policy like his father or his son, divided a big principality into more small principalities.
Such as the biggest one, Qi , already had been splitted into several small principalities.
In the onlybig one left , Wu, the prince had been 62-year old, he could waited for his death and divided
it amongst the sons of the deceased prince easily.
Thus, he could abolish some little principalities or their hereditament for some pretension, like other emperors
always do.
But to this new ascended emperor, freshness and self-confidence(maybe over) made him wayward and
acted by his personal will(or whim) despite the dissension of others.
(That's the same reason why Kangxi provoked the rebellion of WuSanGui)

Though he was lucky to put down the rebellion, Emperor Jing was teached a lesson.
In the later years of his reign, he kept quiet, and the peace coutinued for more than a dozen years.

Edited by kingswonder, 22 December 2007 - 03:36 AM.

[snowybeagle]

I would like to suggest you read the original words in Shiji or Hanshu.

It would be better if you could cite the actual reference by chapter.

1) There's a conversation between a prince and the persuader of Wu. The one who disagreed rebel
said that the all strength and territory of all allied princes(except Liang, the brother of the emperor)
didn't match ONE FIFTH of the centeral government.

That would be very curious. One must consider the motivation of the speaker to decide whether the facts were fudged in favour of his argument.

During early Han, the southern army which garrisoned the capital number around 20,000.
The northern army between 50,000 to 100,000.

The central government did have the option to mobilise troops from various prefectures and counties, but that would not be available at short notice.

3) There's the reason why 200,000 trooops enlisted in the Rescript of LiuBi:
That's "All man below 62 and above 14 in age" in Wu, that'a a great part(and main part)
of the population of Wu.

Where did you get this info from?
In any case, numbers tended to be exaggerated on all sides.
Still, if the rebels really numbered less than a fifth of the central government, Emperor Jing wouldn't have been alarmed.

[kingswonder]

It would be better if you could cite the actual reference by chapter.

That would be quite long , most in the chapter of Biograph of Prince of Wu

That would be very curious. One must consider the motivation of the speaker to decide whether the facts were fudged in favour of his argument.

Thus no words we can believe? Truth or lies depend on your judgement after your reserch of the facts.
About the detailed power of two sides, you can count the number of their cities, shires, counties, even populations.
The precise number can be calculated by analysis based on Geograhics of Hanshu(汉书 地理志)
I'm doing this job.

During early Han, the southern army which garrisoned the capital number around 20,000.
The northern army between 50,000 to 100,000.

That's the number of the standing army at peacetime!
How can be compared to a whole nation mobilized number of Wu's army?

Where did you get this info from?
In any case, numbers tended to be exaggerated on all sides.

If you don't know this, how could you know the age of LiuBi?
They are from the same piece of the Rescript of LiuBi (吴王诏书)recorded in both Shiji and Hanshu

Still, if the rebels really numbered less than a fifth of the central government, Emperor Jing wouldn't have been alarmed.

Dual logical problems.
Your logic firstly depends on the Emperor Jing is always wise and right.
Because he though Wu is a threat, so Wu is a threat, because he thought Wu ought to rebel, so Wu ought to reble,
and there must be evidences of the threat and rebel intent.
(That's the logic of most Chinese scholars: The ruler are right for ever! Errors lelong to his subordinates and subjects. Emperor's shadow still covers here?)
Second , you logic is putting personal judgement before impersonal facts.
Bacause Liu Qi(Emperor Jing) have a judgement that rebellion is inevitable, so the facts is that.
Why not dig the facts first?

I don't want to say any more, I urge you to take a original Shiji or Hanshu.
(Mordern Chinese history books are quite twisted and distorted, English ones are twisted more.
We should trace back as far as we can in history researching,
Original Shiji or Hanshu are the furthest we can now in history of Han Dynasty)
Or you can wait for fCharton's(Francois) translation of Shiji or my detailed articles in the future.

Edited by kingswonder, 23 December 2007 - 12:43 AM.

[snowybeagle]

That would be quite long , most in the chapter of Biograph of Prince of Wu

Shiji is available online at guoxue.com
Liu Bi's bio can be found in http://www.guoxue.co...hiji/sj_106.htm

Thus no words we can believe? Truth or lies depend on your judgement after your reserch of the facts.

It's not that we cannot believe it. We just have to be more careful with accepting at face value the written texts, and like you said, compare with other parts.

And finally, numbers is not the most significant factor in determining the course of history - Liu Bang versus Xiang Yü is a good example.

About the detailed power of two sides, you can count the number of their cities, shires, counties, even populations.
The precise number can be calculated by analysis based on Geograhics of Hanshu(汉书 地理志)
I'm doing this job.

Great. Perhaps you can share more in CHF about it.

That's the number of the standing army at peacetime!
How can be compared to a whole nation mobilized number of Wu's army?

The thing about such rebellion is you never get a battle royale between an entire mobilised nation against the rebels.
The key thing here is what is the size of the force that Han can actually mobilised and deploy against the rebels, not what is its full potential. It still has an empire to maintain, even during a rebellion.

In addition, it seems that Liu Bi's aim was not to overcome the whole of the Han Imperial forces, but to set himself up as an Eastern Emperor, leader of a separatist regime.

If you don't know this, how could you know the age of LiuBi?
They are from the same piece of the Rescript of LiuBi (吴王诏书)recorded in both Shiji and Hanshu

What do you mean how could I know the age of Liu Bi?

When I say numbers are exaggerated, I am referring to size of armies.

七国之发也，吴王悉其士卒，下令国中曰：“寡人年六十二，身自将。少子年十四，亦为士卒先。诸年上与寡人比，下与少子等者，皆发。”发二十馀万人。南使闽越、东越，东越亦发兵从。

Perhaps the number 200,000 of Wu mentioned as launched in the expedition did included everyone from 14-62 years of age, but again, what I wanted to point out is that reported sizes of other armies tend to do the same - include everyone rather than counting only the number of "qualified" combatants who were neither too young nor too old.

Your logic firstly depends on the Emperor Jing is always wise and right.

No, I never thought Emperor Jing was wise or always right.

Because he though Wu is a threat, so Wu is a threat, because he thought Wu ought to rebel, so Wu ought to reble,
and there must be evidences of the threat and rebel intent.
(That's the logic of most Chinese scholars: The ruler are right for ever! Errors lelong to his subordinates and subjects. Emperor's shadow still covers here?)

Again, no. While that is the oft touted rationale, I never accepted it myself. If I did, I wouldn't have started this thread, which is aimed to examine the issue from all angles and put to question every stance, whether it be "yes the emperor was justified" or "no the emperor was not justified".

Second , you logic is putting personal judgement before impersonal facts.
Bacause Liu Qi(Emperor Jing) have a judgement that rebellion is inevitable, so the facts is that.
Why not dig the facts first?

That's the aim of this thread.

I never said that I accept Liu Qi's judgment that rebellion was inevitable.
Please re-read what I posted and see for yourself.

Let's stick to impersonal facts as you said, and don't make presumptions whether I have made any personal judgment.
That's not academically sound.

It is possible that Emperor Jing had no cause to fear the rebels, and that he scared himself for nothing, and gave in to killing Chao Cuo for nothing, or as you might put it, acting illogically.

It is also possible that the advisors who advised the princes against the rebellion were not logical in their analysis, basing it on resource comparison.

吴少将桓将军说王曰：“吴多步兵，步兵利险；汉多车骑，车骑利平地。原大王所过城邑不下，直弃去，疾西据雒阳武库，食敖仓粟，阻山河之险以令诸侯，虽毋入关，天下固已定矣。即大王徐行，留下城邑，汉军车骑至，驰入梁楚之郊，事败矣。”吴王问诸老将，老将曰：“此少年推锋之计可耳，安知大虑乎！”於是王不用桓将军计。

From the above record, it showed that the rebel princes did not adopt the proposal by junior general Huan to make use of a strategy to optimise advantage for the rebels' primarily infantry forces against the Imperial Court's chariots and cavalry.

Ultimately, the failure of the rebellion could not be said to be primarily a matter of resource disparity.

As of now, there is still no clear answer whether the rebellion was provoked (or the princes were in hopeless situation to begin with), or that it was quite inevitable anyway, no matter what the emperor did.

But it seems that Chao Cuo made it certain it would happen.

[kingswonder]

Sorry, I pull back my proposal for your reading.
Obviously, you know the detailed records in Shiji and Hanshu.
But I'm afraid there's something considerable in your analysis method leading an incorrect understanding.

1 Absolute accurate number and conclusion does not exist, we have to accept some ambiguous numbers
and disputable materials, or we could do nothing.
An number couldn't be completely denied for it's exaggerated as usually done in Chinese documents.
As the number of Wu's army, it couldn't be everyones from 14 to 62 , of course! but it's must be the most
number he can mobilized, that's enough. And I used a quoted words of "All man..." of LiuBi to avoid inurbane accusation.
I found many members doubt any number of history records for it's ambiguity and exaggeration so as to blame any view here.

2 Everthing have it's possibility to be or not to be.
But we can't say it's inconclusive only for there's a minor reversal possibility.
If it has a major possibility, it could be acceptable. that's enough.

3 Use a global analysis method, avoid isolated analysis.
In this case, the rebellion should be connected with the long proceeding centralization policy from GoaZu, across Wen,Jing, to Wu; and also be connected with the personality of Jing, ChaoCuo in China, such a person-oriented society.
Obviously,Emperor Jing was rash and ChaoCuo was radical at that time.

4 Break through ideological curtain and recover original facts.
Histories were distorted by many things, especially ideological yoke.
But distorted history doesn't mean it unbelievable. the key is to weed the noise.
In this case, traditional elaberated-rebellion-view derived from the monarchy authoritarian ideological needs.
But now, the old ideological shadow is weakened, so we could recover it and discover it,
thus the new opinion emerged - the provoked-rebellion-view.


In the book of Cambridge China History, it mensioned a more radical opinion that the court elaberated to provoke the rebellion like an intrigue.
I don't think it's they wanted, but it's they provoked, by carelessness of the ruler's centralization plan.
And I don't think Wu had long elaberated to rebel for dozens of years.
Rebellion and war were also not inevitable in the conflict between the two sides, if the emperor would continue the moderate gradual policy.


To you privately,
1 The basic facts you mastered can lead a conclusion by youself easily, but you say " still no clear answer".
Of course there couldn't be one unique answer, if you want such a clear answer, there will never be.
But two opposite answers exist already.
The problem is you yourself wouldn't make a judgement between them.
2 Hold a stand, and use a rational logic.
Any view would be respected, if it had it's basis and evidence.
but disputing without an attitude and full of irrational logics not.

You firgured out the troops number of Wu to proof it's threatening ability.
But then you said "numbers is not the most significant factor" in another place.

When a number lead to the inevitable-opinion, you raised it,
when a number or estimate lead to the provoked-opinion, you doubt it.
and later you said you have no stand.

You asked if Wu is not threatening so why Emperor Jing worried.(though I answered it's his peronality)
Then you said you don't presume Emperor Jing is always right.

I don't know if you have a logic and what you want to do!
If you are not kidding me, then you are trapping me.

Edited by kingswonder, 23 December 2007 - 09:46 AM.

[snowybeagle]

I don't know if you have a logic and what you want to do!
If you are not kidding me, then you are trapping me.

Oh dear, I really did not intend for you to get that impression of me, let me apologise for it.

My interest and participation in CHF has always been non-adversarial, i.e., I try to keep discussion academic, non-personal, and I certainly do not aim to trap anyone!

On occassions, there could be some sense of competitiveness, but if it is there, it is purely "for fun", to "liven things up", and certainly not aimed at making anyone or anyone's ideas/theories look bad on purpose.

I have learned more in CHF from people who disagrees with my thoughts, or holds differing ideas. I learn from them what they based their views on, new facts I did not know before, or facts put under a different light.

On the issue of Emperor Jing and the Rebellion of the Seven States, even if someone had advocated a different stance from yours, I would question them the same way as you, sometimes playing "devil's advocate", sometimes just bringing up details that do not fit into the proposed views.

I am all too aware of the bias in traditional/conventional histories as presented through the eras, and in this particular subject of the thread, we just don't seem to have enough info.

Hence, in the spirit of historical discussions, different perspectives can be offered by presenting the known records to support, and plausible explanations for seemingly contradictory facts.

FWIW, I cannot tell whether the rebellion would actually happen if the Imperial Court had left things alone, but it seems certain that Chao Cuo made almost impossible to avoid.

[Boleslaw I]

In feudal Europe, fief was technically not private property (though in practice, it was a matter of who was more powerful).

With the invasions of savage tribes and the foundation of their nations circa 1000A A.D, the local authority became central to the European political system. Its concrete manifestation was the collapse of public authority and the formation of suzerainty.

Hou Jianxin based upon Marc Bloch analysis to conclude that:
"As a matter of fact, the numerous lords, whether their fiefs were large or small, were the unified executives of public and private laws when they excercised their political power in their domains."

So in practice, fiefs were private property. The king was not a superior autocratic monarchy: relationship between a king and his dukes was simply a contract for mutual benefit.