[snowybeagle]

Emperor YingZong probably enjoyed the only distinction of being a monarch of Imperial China to be captured by the enemy, allowed to return, retake his throne and execute the loyal minister who was responsible for saving his empire.

Would it be fair to say that in order to prevent possible instability, it'd be better to kill rather than allow an ex-monarch to return from captivity?

[vp98]

I guess YingZhong had revenge in his heart against the minister. As it was the minister that set up the new emperor.

[Centaur]

I could only use the old adage that the Mandate of Heaven remained with Yingzong (Zhentong) and even though he was disposed, he eventually regained his throne.

Yu Qian, the loyal Ming minster, had to die. It would be humiliating for Yingzong to allow Yu Qian to live. Yu Qian had supported someone else to the Throne in his absence. Yu Qian might had never expected that Yingzong would return. There were precedent set during the Song Dynasty where Huizong and Qingzong were captured by the Jins. The two Ex-emperors never return to power. Yu Qian, I reckon, was not being disloyal, but very patriotic. He kept his eyes on the country, and in a way neglected the captured Emperor. Yingzong on his return from captivity waskept in house arrest by his brother for the next seven years. It would be reasonable to see that he would view Yu Qian as someone against him. So again, good reason to get rid of Yu Qian.

As for the question if it be better to kill the ex-emperor that to allow him to return - yes, if based on the accomplishment of Jingtai Emperor and the subsequent degradation of the Ming dynasty under Zhengtong's son Chenghua Emperor. Jingtai's reign saw "He paying particular attention to matters affecting his country. He repaired the Grand Canal as well as the system of dykes along the Yellow River. As a result of his administration, the economy prospered and the dynasty was further strengthened"*. Whilst in the case of Chenghua Emperor - "Chenghua's reign was also more autocratic than his predecessors' and freedom was sharply curtailed when Chenghua established institutes such as the Xi Chang (to compliment the existing Dong Chang), monitoring all civilians' actions and words. This institute, not unlike a spy agency, would administer punishment to those whom they suspected of treason. The Xi Chang would eventually be shut down but it was the start of a dangerous trend and Chenghua's descendants would again revive the Xi Chang during the 16th century".* It would seem better that Zhengtong never return and someone like Jingtai to rule and prosper the country. However, this cannot be so as the Mandate of Heaven was clearly for Zhengtong and not anyone else.

*reference:
http://en.wikipedia....henghua_Emperor
http://en.wikipedia....Jingtai_Emperor

[Sephodwyrm]

If Yu Qian did indeed kill the ex-emperor, he'd not be remembered as a virtuous minister.

It is this greed for historical righteousness that probably doomed many "upright" ministers. I'm only glad that is mindset has changed in modern China. You shouldn't do things just so that people in the future can think better of you. We should love winners, not hate them.

[Wo Long]

allat, on Apr 15 2006, 02:00 PM, said:

I would say no. In the end, you're only responsible for yourself.

We, humans, weren't programmed for killing - and the act of killing changes us - our psyche. Our human persona. We were programmed for loving. As hackneyed as that may sound.

Do what you think is necessary - but know that it will effect you ever more, here and "Elsewhere." No excuse about preventing instability or self-defense, or because you're a soldier and have been ordered to do so. Look at all the AMerican soldiers coming back psychotic. Look at the Israeli soldiers that are the same way - and they're in psychiatric hospitals - this is kept secret by the governments. (btw, the young Israelis that have done their time in the army - are leaving Israel in n droves - and going to India - and adopting the culture there - and marrying the locals.- They don't want anything more to do with Israel. Check it out in the Internet, eh?)

I could go on into spiritual arguments, but this isn't the Forum for it. However, there's a writing going around the internet, The Secret Covenant:

A line of it says:

"They will never reach the higher realms, for the killing of their own kind will prevent passage to the realm of enlightenment. This they will never know."

Gives me the chills.

I disagree. We are meant to kill. To defend ourselves, to get food, to protect others, etc. Killing is part of human nature. We are socialized in this day in age to view every life as sacred and that killing is wrong. Though I agree that murder is wrong, I would not say it is against our nature. Before organized laws and war (such as "caveman" times), I'm almost positive that they would have no psychological effects. It's not abnormal to them. The way language evolves is the same way human nature evolves. We say breast and leg, words thought to be innapropriate a mere 50 years ago. Though human nature has not changed as rapidly, it does indeed change. So, to reiterate my point, killing is programmed for us for a number of reasons. Love is as well, they co-exist. There is no "one or the other" scenario like you're trying to pass off.

[lobster]

It showed the wisdom of Song Gaozong and Qin Kuai for not pushing back the Jurchens and saving the two captured emperors.

OK that's a pun....