In modern times, evil names such as Cao Cao, Qin Shihuangdi and even guys like Wu Sangui have become either redeemed or at least rationalized by reinterpreting their actions. Sui Yangdi on the other hand seem to still carry the label of tyrant around with him. Looking back though, was he really that horrible ? Sure, he did mobilized way too many people for this great projects, but how is that any different from Qin Shihuangdi ? By completing the grand canal, he did establish a lasting trade route as well as great potential of irrigration. He failed in his invasion of korea, so what ? like that was his fault ?

I suggest we merge this with Sui Yang Di - was he so bad?

Zunjing de Wujiang,

Hmm, of course, Sui Yangdi can certainly be redeemed; however, I have no idea whether or not historians will actually make any attempts in looking at Sui Yangdi in a more favorable light.

Why has Sui Yangdi always been deemed as a villain, while other Emperors who had done some of the same bad things were not condemned as severely? I think this is a very good question worthy of a discussion. In one similar thread, Yun had brought up a good point that Sui Yangdi was viewed so negatively mainly because he was believed to have killed his father. Since filial piety was extremely important to the ancient Chinese, the people can never forgive an Emperor who had murdered his father. However, we really lack conclusive evidences on whether or not Sui Wendi actually died at the hands of his son. If Sui Yangdi did not really kill his father, then he would not be a villain at all, but a person who had failed miserably at his tasks as the Emperor.

Even though Yun does have a logical point, I have my own rationale on why Sui Yangdi was considered very evil. It is not always right; however, people do tend to look on people’s success and failure to determine whether that person was good or bad. It is obviously not a very good way to judge since a lot of the times success and failure would depend greatly on fate and luck. In my opinion only, Sui Yangdi was considered evil simply because he was the last Sui Emperor, who had failed miserably at prolonging his dynasty.

The three other historical figures you have mentioned were not really in the same boat as Sui Yangdi. I assumed Cao Cao’s negative image came from the immensely popular novel “ROTK” rather than from official historical sources. In the novel, he was certainly made out to be a villain; however, people would have some opposite feelings when actually reading the official records. He may be ruthless; however, he definitely succeeded in laying the foundation for his descendants to reunify China. In this sense, he may also be viewed as a hero.

Of course, we are all aware of how cruel Qin Shi Huang was; however, we must give him the credit for being the first Emperor to unify China and standardized systems of writing and measurement. He also built the Great Wall at the expense of commoner’ lives; however, the Great Wall did later serve as a famous tourist site and one of China‘s many symbols. In fact, some people cannot claim they have visited China without seeing the Great Wall. Again, success would be the key word in redeeming Qin Shi Huang’s name.

Regarding Wu Sangui, I don’t have enough knowledge on him; hence, I will remain silence on this one.

May I ask one question out of curiosity? What would be the political purpose(s) for redeeming Sui Yangdi’s name?

Xie Xie,

As they say 'winners write history', sui yang di was a 'loser', he lost everything and nobody wants to redeem him anyway. On the other hand Tang taizong did many 'unethical' things yet many glorify him simply because he achieved more.

Sui Yangdi is getting redeemed in many online novels, of which there's a whole slew of them nowadays.
Even generals we considered heroes are getting bad rep.
I mean, dude, one of the online novels portrayed Shi Wansui as a pedophile. I mean, seriously...

In regard to Sui Yangdi;

1. Why was he so obseessed with Goguryeo?
2. Why did he choose to lead the expeditions himself?
3. If he had secured a victory would it have saved his regime or was his reign simply doomed?

The Sui reunification of China would not be complete without the conquest and incorporation of the northern half of the Korean peninsula into "All Under Heaven."

Han Wudi had set the precedent for "All Under Heaven" when he set up the four commanderies in Korea, incorporating the peninsula into the Han Empire.

So Sui Yangdi wanted to repeat this precedent as a prerequisite for "reunification of China".

Later Ming tried to do the same thing with regards to Vietnam, which was also previously incorporated into the Han Empire under Han Wudi.

Both the Korean peninsula and Vietnam militarily prevented takeover and reincorporation into the Han Empire. As a result "All Under Heaven" was no longer a repeat of the "All Under Heaven" under Han Wudi, which Yangdi and Tang Taizong both tried to emulate.

Sui Yangdi's reign was doomed because of a combination of his defeats in Goguryeo and massive infrastructure projects like the Grand Canal . This exhausted and diverted his manpower and resources, draining the fiscal health of his government.

Zunjing de MING-LOYALIST,

Yep, one of the most important things I have learned after reading so many history sources would be that history books were written by the victors, not the victims. It is only common for victors and victims to not share the same views. Therefore, the winners not only get everything during their lifetime, but also the right to make a good name for themselves toward future generations.

You are right; since Sui Yangdi lost everything, there would be no reasons for anyone to try and redeem him, unless it could somehow be used as a political propaganda, which I don’t really think will happen anytime soon.

It is actually very interesting to compare Sui Yangdi with Tang Taizong. I have personally never thought this comparison was possible. I surmise I have been sort of blinded by the fact that people have always praised Tang Taizong as the best Emperor, while bashing Sui Yangdi as an evil villian. It was my own fault for overlooking at the fact that Tang Taizong also did many unethical things. I guess that was why some people have stated that Tang Taizong would be a second Sui Yangdi had he not been the great Emperor he was.

In conclusion, if one compare these two according to how great of an Emperor they were, then Tang Taizong and Sui Yangdi were polar opposite of each other. However, judging on human qualities alone, even though Tang Taizong was not as bad as Sui Yangdi, they could certainly be on the same level for certain aspects.

Nevertheless, if you are looking from civilians’ point of view, you would see that commoners don’t really care how bad the Emperor had treated his own family members as long as the civilians’ lives were not badly affected by those actions.

In my opinion only, the comparison between Tang Taizong and Sui Yangdi only reflects the bad side of politics, which is not always so obvious! This is actually a really sad topic to discuss.

Sui Yang Di by any standards is indeed a horrible ruler, and most historians cast a bad light on him mainly due to:

a) He was the "last bad ruler" and exterminator of the dynasty

Often compared with the second emperor of Qin

c) Was suspected of usurping the throne by assasinating his father

d) Cause untold sufferings to the massess through his mega projects like the Grand Canal (though it is beneficial later to the Tang)

e) Excessive court extravagance and being a megalomaniac

f) obession with conquering Korgouyeo with three disastrous failed campaigns

By any standards he is much more worse in terms of calibre than the talented Cao Cao, the cruel but farsighted QinSHiHuang, and the traitorous but opportunistic Wu San Gui

I think the Sui dynasty is the most underrated dynasty in Chinese history, and the Tang one of the most overrated. Everything that reached their height during the Tang began during the Sui.
The 科举 civil service examination was instituted by Sui Yang Di in the second year of Da Ye.
The Grand Canal was built by him. Even as a power, the Sui during Yang Guang's time could match those of the Han and Tang. If there was no invasion of Koguryo, both Turuk empires might have been destroyed by the Sui, and China's population might have broke the 100 million mark by the 8th century.

Hmmm......

As I have been writing about the wars between Goguryeo and the Sui recently I have had to read alot about Emperor Yang of Sui. Let me see.....

I have to agree with Warhead, the Sui are certainly underrated, and when you think about it Sui Yangdi wasn't even all that bad at first. In the first years of his reign Emperor Yang was very popular, and the people loved him. He did alot of good things, like bringing back the old exam system, reorganizing the government, and constructing the Grand Canal and food depots. Despite the hardship that contructing the Grand Canal and its sister canals had on China the benefits of the system far outweighed the costs. Emperor Yang also proved himself diplomatically too, continuing his father's policy of 'armed diplomacy'. He wasn't bad on the battlefield either, after all Yang Guang, at the time Prince of Jin, was the man who mastermined the fall of the Chen Dynasty in 589. A very impressive feat mind you.

However Emperor Yang's biggest downfalls were his building projects and the diasters in Goguryeo. Had Sui Yangdi just contricted his building projects to things like the Grand Canal then I doubt he would take as much flak as he does for his building sprees. But he didn't, Emperor Yang's building projects ranged from dotting the empire with luxury palaces to rebuilding to the (useless) Great Wall. However I am of the opinion that the it was the obession with Goguryeo that truely sealed his fate. Once the First Campaign in 612 failed that basically started the long downward spiral to destruction. For all of the strength of the Sui economy, which was far greater then given credit for, it just couldn't handle the strain that Emperor Yang placed on it. Though to be fair the natural diasters that occured also played a big part. But the displacement of so much of China's peasantry, especially the farmers, really started the disintergration. Once the rebellions really gained steam it was too late to save the Sui. Had the wars with Goguryeo never occured then Sui would have recovered from Emperor Yang's more demanding projects and possibly gained even greater glory then the Tang.