HISTORY of the ZHANGUO ERA

[sephodwyrm]

OK. I have heard similar things like this. But for the Nth time, the collapse of the Sui dynasty is not just the invasion of Korea. The Emperor Yangdi had embarked on multiple campaigns, projects (the grand canal, the moving palace, the dragon fleets, the grand imperial gardens etc), commissioned great palaces and provided too much power to provincial governors, eventually leading to civil war, peasant rebellion and internal discord. Korean history has one aspect, but we Chinese read about all the aspects.

I am tired of rebuffing critiques that haven't even read Chinese history proper. And what's more, the Sui dynasty is 10 centuries away.

3 million Sui army? Chinese numbers are to the hundred's placement: 1 133 800. The army was buffed to be 2 million to cower the Koguryo army. Buffing is a strategem used to strike fear. When it comes to real logistical matters, army numbers cannot be toyed around.

So do you have any evidence that the Chinese did not raise armies in hundred thousand count?
And btw, if you don't really care, you wouldn't have posted a refutal. I suggest you go to www.chinahistoryforum.com. There is a Korean moderator there who can help you out with the Koguryo vs Sui history and he certainly has a more balanced view than you.

[Grumblefish]

Originally Posted by sephodwyrm

So you read the original versions?

Yes, I read many ancient and obscure texts. I find a lot of them very funny and interesting, and it's always better to read the original source than a singular paragraph summing everything up. Most professors today have never picked up the Book of Lord Shang, let alone read it. I studied in BeiJing DaXue for a year, but this is getting off topic.

I'd like to make another thread specifically about the XunZi and the ShangJunShu, with plenty of quotes. I can't do it right now (no time), but I will do it this weekend. The ShangJunShu is the most brutal, psychopathic text I have ever read. The point of the thread will be to prove, quote by quote, just how far hardline Legalism (ShangJunShu is regarded as the most hardcore Legalist text ever) is from XunZi.

I am in New York right now, having left Beijing a few months ago, but I always keep a copy of the Xunzi with me, as it's my favourite Chinese book. I also recently bought another copy of the Shang Jun Shu here in NYC, so I have that book too (it is from Wordsworth classics - do not buy it, it is a very crude replication of Duyvendaks earlier edition, although it is only 5 dollars). Very convenient, heh.

Your point is mute. Title does not dictate authorship. I cannot emphasize this more.

Even if the title did not dictate authorship, official catalogues, contemporary texts, and state records clearly state the texts are written by Shang Yang:

(text's title is in italics)

Han Fei Zi: "In every house there are those who preserved the laws of Guan Zhong and Shang Yang"

This is the earliest reference to any sort of written document by Shang Yang. It is not the strongest evidence for what I am saying, but it is the first, so I have included it here.

Shi Ji (SiMa Qian): "I have read the texts K'ai-sai and Keng-Chan by the Lord of Shang, which are in keeping with the deeds he did. There was indeed reason enough why he should have finally left a bad reputation in Qin"

Here, Si Ma Qian clearly states that these two chapters were written by Shang Yang himself. These two chapters are included in the entire corpus.

The Han Catalogue: listing authors and how many sections written by them, states the following: (under school of law) "The Lord of Shang, 29 sections" (under military treatises) "Gong Sun Yang, 27 sections"

The next reference we have to the Book of Lord Shang is in the "Collected Writings of Zhu Ge Liang" which state that Shang Yang's writings "benefit one's knowledge."

History of the Sui Dynasty (589-618, the quote appears in the catalogue listing of books being stored): "The Book of Lord Shang, in 5 chapters, written by the minister of Qin, Wei Yang".

Tang dynasty officials also believed its authenticity:

Old Tang History (contained in the chapter "on literature"): "The Book of Lord Shang, in 5 chapters." The New Tang History: (repeats the former quote and then this) "Written by Shang Yang, by some called Shang Zi."

I can go on all day, I have a giant list of all known references to the Lord of Shang and this text. Today I do not have the time to do so, however. Here is one last quote, showing a Chinese historian lying:

Ssu Ma Cheng, ShihChi-So-Yin: "In the Book of Lord Shang, kai means that, if penalties are severe, government measures may develop, and sai means that, if favours and rewards are distributed, government measures are obstructed; the idea of it lay fundamentally in having severe penalties and few favours. Also in order to obtain new arable land he opened up the longitudinal and transversal paths, and he said that rank was awarded for cutting off an enemy's head: this is the "book on agriculture and war" (Keng-chan-shu).

This quote proves one of either two things:

1. He never read the Keng-chan-shu, because it is COMPLETELY different from what he described.

2. The text he read was radically different from the text we have today, and proves that a pretty big ****-up in the history of this book has occured.

Take your choice. I would go with number 1, that he just lied, but it isn't like I knew the guy.

Your emphasis on minor details like this does not help in anything. Sun Zi's Art of War was adapted by Cao Cao in the 3 Kingdoms Era. Did he put his name on it? No. Because there's a less individualistic attitude amongst ancient Chinese authors regarding written works of historical research or ancient texts. The original author would still enjoy his name on the texts while later writers adapt the book to the times without penning their names on it.

Cao Cao wrote a commentary on a well-established book, and they are often placed together because Cao Cao is highly respected. I have no idea how this relates to people claiming that Shang Yang wrote the ShangJunShu, which was entirely different from a running commentary.

The comment about later writers adapting books to the times is also a very bad cover for a serious problem. Many, many ancient Chinese texts suffer from these "updates," which are not noted in any way! This means the updates are still attributed to the original authors, and we are stuck with a text which has had people tack on their own opinions, erase those previously in the text, and at worse corrupt the text so it is no longer readable - and all of this means practically every ancient Chinese text I've read professional works on is broken down into pieces, with authorship and dating for each individual paragraph/chapter.

It is very sad. As you can see in the above quotes, the Shang Jun Shu underwent many changes over its history - what we have today was certainly not written by one person, or even a single group of people. There are only very old, corrupted portions that have any chance of coming from Shang Yang himself, and there is much dispute on the matter.

Care to post the original texts? And your intepretations on it?

I would be happy to make a thread comparing Xun Qing to Shang Yang, with quotes of course. They're my two favourite Chinese books!

And the traditions of Chinese historiography were highly respected amongst academic fields. I knew this because I took a university course on historiography. There are numerous anecdotes about the upright nature of the historian, and the inviolate position of the historian. In any case, these are all good proofs.

I don't have time right now, but if you want I'd be happy to quote a few contradictions in Chinese texts (I'd even do it from the Guanzi, in chapters not a few pages from each other, but right now a professor friend of mine is borrowing my copy of the Guanzi down in Florida).

I would write more, but I have to go right this instant. Ignore that other lad who talks about China not being able to raise hundreds of thousands of soldiers, too. He is flat-out wrong, both the Roman and Han Empire had that many people registered as soldiers. It is not an insane claim.

Hope I didn't make too many typos, no time to check!

[Grumblefish]

Shang Yang death, proof that he did not necessarily die by chariots:

2 of the most famous:

BIOGRAPHY OF SHANG YANG IN THE SHIJI:

"...As soon as the Lord of Shang had re-entered Qin, he hastened to the cities of Shang, and, combining with his followers, raised an army in these cities and marched to attack Cheng. Qin sent an army, which attacked the Lord of Shang and slew him at Min-Ch'ih in Cheng. King Hui of Qin had him torn to pieces by chariots as an expiatory punishment, saying: "Let no one rebel like Shang Yang!" Thereupon, he exterminated the entire family of the Lord of Shang."

RECORD OF SHANG YANG IN THE CH'IN TS'E:

"...When Lord Shang returned from his journey home, King Hui had him torn to pieces by chariots, nor did the people of Qin pity him." (this is the story that is most commonly repeated; that he died by being pulled apart by chariots)


Smaller accounts and modern comments:

Shang Yang is also mentioned in the following annals: Qin annals, Qi annals, Chu annals, Wei annals, Bamboo annals. Much of what Si-Ma Qian says about Shang Yang is not recorded by any other source - there is no historical documents confirming many of details that Si-Ma Qian adds hundreds of years later. Quote Duyvendak, highly regarded Sinologist who did much translation work:

"...the story of of his disgrace, flight, and death, are certainly interpolations by the historian (Si Ma Qian) to the texts of the Annals. This text would deserve much confidence, as it was spared from the book burnings; but SiMa Qian, who complains that it did not contain the dates by days and months and that it was brief and incomplete, seems to have felt called upon to improve and complete it. This is regrettable, as it makes it uncertain whether the other entires, in which Shang Yang plays a part, have not also been touched up... etc etc"

The other annals, give much shorter accounts of the Lord of Shang, but several state that he was felled in battle after raising his army in the fiefdom of Shang. They do not all mention chariots and being pulled apart.

SiMa Qian is not deserving of being praised as having some sort of god-like honesty and treating sources as they should in the modern sense of history. He was a great man, but you should not forget yourself.

[SigniferOne]

Presuming I'm that "other fella", I did not say that China was literally unable to raise large armies. In fact, as I said, many nations in antiquity raised enormous armies, so at least on that issue China's armies are moot. It was done by all nations. However, I do have strong suspicion about the numbers mentioned in these books, as if they were somehow inviolable. The reason for believing their inviolability seems to be focused on a number of points:

1) The 'legendary' honesty of Chinese historians -- how do you know this fanciful story was not imagined and written down some time later? Especially after the last poster's informative posts, it simply baffles me how anyone can view ancient Chinese texts as authentic and holistic, especially when many people felt free to modify them over the centuries and millenia. I'm not saying it was not true, but I am asking what critical tradition and critical insight has been shined upon it, to discover its truth? None can be determined from sephodwyrm's posts, which is what I have a problem with.

2) A some kind of magical productivity of the Chinese farmer -- a productivity of 1000% probably assumes that one farmer can feed ten other people. Sephodwyrm puts this number here as if to dazzle us with the numbers of zeroes, but no information is provided about the productivity of the European farmer of this period, and no attempt is made to provide a comparison between the two. Tools of farming were found in Chinese burials -- so what? I fail to see what this has to do with ANYTHING, as MANY nations in history provide this evidence; even the primitive Celts of the era who were not farmers by culture, have farming artifacts in their graves. What is the big deal about finding them in Chinese graves, as if that's an extraordinary find?

Again, I'm not trying to be hostile to sephodwyrm here, but I am having an issue with the completely uncritical way in which information is put forward here, and absolutely insane claims are made with simple impunity. Are you really going to tell me with full honesty that the classicists and historians in UC Berkeley agreed with you, sephodwyrm, that SiMA Qian and other Chinese historians are better than Thucydides? Name me just ONE serious scholarly book that makes this claim, and I will at least consider it. Otherwise, please retract it and other statements like it.

Finally, let me address this incessant charge of Eurocentrism. The answer to Eurocentrism, wherever it may appear, is not Sinocentrism, but TRUTH-centrism. If you are going to attribute to China an advantage over Classical civilization in every department, as you clearly seem to be doing, then you have lost sight of that goal.

[Anthrophobia]

"Many historians in the past think that the "hundreds of thousand" of army in the warring states are exaggerations and only thousands of troops are gathered since the contemporary western armies could only have several ten thousand in most battles. However not long ago, study of chinese agriculture shows that this was possible and the sources recorded probably the truth. Chinese agriculture are far more developed than in any other place. Until the 17th century, productivity in European agriculture was severely limited by the inefficiency of ploughing, sowing, and hoeing methods. The 17th to 19th centuries saw a transformation of North European agricultural technology, basedon the development of the turn-plough with curved iron mould-board, the seed drill and the horse-shoe, all of which has been around in the central plain at least as early as the western Han. Jethro Hull was the first European explicitly to formulate this integral system of 'horse hoeing husbandry' in 1731, yet an agricultural system incorporating all the same very elements had existed in North China since Han times, while individual elementsof the system were to be found in several other parts of East Asia. The multi harvest system in China is also far ahead for its time. The Chinese plow concentrated the force much more efficiently on the sharp blade of the plow, with the mould-board designed to turn the soil with a minimum of drag. With the European plow, the entire straight wooden mould-board pushed against the soil. Therefore, the Chinese plow achieved a far higher energy-flux density, and accomplished far more work with far less effort. Chinese plows were so efficient, that they required only one or two animals to pull them. Four, six, or even eight draft animals were needed to pull the inefficient European plow. The Chinese plow was vastly more efficient than the European plow, both per worker and per unit of energy used. As LaRouche states, ``This difference is Leibniz's definition of the subject matter of technology.'' This method was so inefficient that most of the seeds never germinated to produce a crop. The plants also grew up in a disorganized mess. Weeding the fields was impossible, so the plants were left to compete with the weeds until harvesting season. This considerably reduced the crop. In Europe, it was often necessary to save one-half of the harvest to use as seeds the next year.

By no later than the Sixth Century B.C., the Chinese adopted the practice of growing crops in evenly spaced rows, and using a hoe to remove the weeds. ``Master Lu's Spring and Autumn Annals,'' states ``If the crops are grown in rows they will mature rapidly because they will not interfere with each other's growth.

At first, the seeds were placed by hand in furrows, in a ridge-and-furrow pattern. Around the Second Century B.C., the Chinese introduced the seed drill, which became almost universally used in northern China. This device consisted of small plows that cut small furroughs in the ground, a mechanism that released the seeds, evenly spaced into these furrows, and a brush or roller that covered the seeds with dirt. The seed drill could be adjusted for different types of soil and seeds. This method of planting was so much more efficient than sowing the seed by scattering it, that it could achieve an efficiency 10 or even 30 times greater.

It should be easy to see that the difference in productivity between Chinese and European agriculture was dramatic. The area of land that could be brought under cultivation in Europe was constricted by inferior technology, and by the need to leave more land as pasture to feed the extra draft animals. Obviously, we are comparing two large areas, over a long period of time. However, Chinese yields have been estimated at two, five, or even ten times higher than yields in Europe, at various times. China's higher yields allowed for an increased population density, and also for an increased division of labor, as we will see below.

Eventually these technologies were transmitted to Europe, which led to a large increase in agricultural production. European travelers were greatly impressed with the wealth of China, and the productivity of its agriculture. Leibniz and others actively sought out information on Chinese science, industry and agriculture from Europeans who traveled to China.

The Chinese plow and seed drill were introduced into Europe during the 17th Century, and gradually adopted throughout Europe. Growing crops in rows was championed by British agricultural reformer, Jethro Tull, who printed a treatise in 1731, to persuade farmers to adopt what he called ``horse-hoeing husbandry.'' Tull published arguments similar to those used 2000 years earlier in China. Tull also developed one of the first successful European seed drills.


In comparison, historians found that in China during the Qin, one pound of seed could have 10 times the amount of harvest in return, while in contemporary classical Europe that same amount of seed could only have 2.5 amount of harvest in return. In another word, Qin could have 4 times the amount of harvest with the same amount of seed put into the agriculture. This enable the Qin to feed a much larger army. All these advances in agricultuer undoubly created a increase in living standard and the living standard in the central plain at this time was greatly more than that of Europe."

It's all over the internet, possibly first posted by warhead in china history forum(I think he got it from a book instead of posted it by himself, possibly by Needleham, who seems fond of compaing all of China's high points to Europe's low for some reason). The lesson of the day is "China have lots and lots of people", which is what most six-yr olds say.

[sephodwyrm]

Well, Grumblefish, one cannot approach Chinese history properly without understanding Chinese culture.

1) The 'legendary' honesty of Chinese historians -- how do you know this fanciful story was not imagined and written down some time later? Especially after the last poster's informative posts, it simply baffles me how anyone can view ancient Chinese texts as authentic and holistic, especially when many people felt free to modify them over the centuries and millenia. I'm not saying it was not true, but I am asking what critical tradition and critical insight has been shined upon it, to discover its truth? None can be determined from sephodwyrm's posts, which is what I have a problem with.

What I'm trying to say is that Chinese history has a much more reliable authenticity and claims as a result of professionalism of the title of historian and archivist, something that is not present in either Herodotus or Thucydides. And in any case, I would trust a Chinese historian on Chinese history than some people that pick bones from eggs for the sake of raising arguments.

2) A some kind of magical productivity of the Chinese farmer -- a productivity of 1000% probably assumes that one farmer can feed ten other people. Sephodwyrm puts this number here as if to dazzle us with the numbers of zeroes, but no information is provided about the productivity of the European farmer of this period, and no attempt is made to provide a comparison between the two. Tools of farming were found in Chinese burials -- so what? I fail to see what this has to do with ANYTHING, as MANY nations in history provide this evidence; even the primitive Celts of the era who were not farmers by culture, have farming artifacts in their graves. What is the big deal about finding them in Chinese graves, as if that's an extraordinary find?

I mentioned 19 IRON farming tools. The Chinese also had the proper horse collar, metallurgy and field of agricultural science, with which Xu Hang was most well known for his studies (he lived in the Warring States). How about showing some evidence of the Celtic farming artefacts? I am not dazzling you guys with the number of zeroes, but it has been quoted in the books of the Warring States era (and even comments of the personalities) that farming brings in returns of 10 fold (1000%). And I'm giving just an underestimate because I'm assuming that the investment is purely on the seeds. If you include other investments such as tools, ox feed (to pull the ploughs), water, labor etc, it could probably be more than 1000%.

Again, I'm not trying to be hostile to sephodwyrm here, but I am having an issue with the completely uncritical way in which information is put forward here, and absolutely insane claims are made with simple impunity. Are you really going to tell me with full honesty that the classicists and historians in UC Berkeley agreed with you, sephodwyrm, that SiMA Qian and other Chinese historians are better than Thucydides? Name me just ONE serious scholarly book that makes this claim, and I will at least consider it. Otherwise, please retract it and other statements like it.

Classicists are not Historiographers. Name you just one serious scholarly book? There isn't, but Mr Hegel made a similar comment that the Chinese were the best Historians. I don't really care about what YOU or other professors or Mr Hegel said, because whatever you said cannot change what is recorded on history. I do not have the profession, prestige or right to change what was written centuries ago about OUR OWN history just FOR YOUR pleasure. Your feeble attempt at not trying to be hostile is noted, because I think you're just loud.

Finally, let me address this incessant charge of Eurocentrism. The answer to Eurocentrism, wherever it may appear, is not Sinocentrism, but TRUTH-centrism. If you are going to attribute to China an advantage over Classical civilization in every department, as you clearly seem to be doing, then you have lost sight of that goal.

Yeah yeah. I am not trying to attribute advantage of China over Classical civilization, since I wasn't the first one to bring it in. YOU are the first one to say how Herodotus is the true father of history and that Thucydides is the best classical historian (and you call this TRUTH-centrism???) when there's plenty of historical manuscripts that attack the authenticity of both classical historians, and especially Herodotus for his apparent lack of DATES.

You first brought up how the era with no kings in Zhou cannot be termed a republic (but the Zhou have termed it Gong He, and Gong He is used in modern Chinese to refer to republics), and then you brought up the issue of numbers and counts, and authenticity, and then brought in your own reference spheres and fathers of history. If this is not Eurocentrism, I don't know what this is.

I wonder why you guys have to so confrontational and could not even bring the slightest politeness to bear. :sweatingb :sweatingb

[Grumblefish]

Originally Posted by sephodwyrm

Well, Grumblefish, one cannot approach Chinese history properly without understanding Chinese culture.

That is your total response to everything I posted? Are you serious? That's the worst cop-out I've ever seen; either admit your wrong, show I've made a mistake, or be quiet. Weak excuses like "oh you don't understand China" are just tremendous cop-outs, and show a dislike for learning. When was the last time you went to China? You sound like some older Chinese friends and teachers of mine; A good point might be raised, but heaven forbid it not fit into their idealistic view of China, because then they'll just degenerate into a vegetive like state and mumble the classic "oh you don't understand China, 5000 year history, you don't understand China, China has culture you don't understand uhh... ni chi le ma?"

I should've known it'd be pointless trying to have sources and make a serious point about the failings of ancient authorship in China, but evidently you don't want to hear about it. Keep blocking your ears, because Lord knows how far your country has gotten with that method. Saying things like "Si Ma Qian is the real father of history" are stupid and inflammatory at best - even if I completely ignore his faults at recording history and maintaining the sanctity of historical records, Si Ma Qian is still born hundreds of years after Herodotus, and would be competing against many more historians for the title than just Herodotus and Thucydides (and I have no idea why the hell you have such a hard-on for Thucydides, care to quote his work?).

Even if, however, you ignored everything and just gave the title "Father of History" to Si Ma Qian, you'd still be wrong. The word history was redefined by Herodotus, because the original greek term just meant to research things. The word was of course borrowed, like most Greek terms by every language nearby, and it was the Roman Cicero who gave him the title. Before you go running around declaring your personal heroes to be champions of the universe and deserving other people's titles and fame, go do some research on how those people got there.

And for your own sake, READ THE ORIGINAL TEXTS. It might seem odd, but rather than relying on second hand (or worse) accounts of a text, go and read one. You seem literate when it comes to English, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find a translation of almost any recognised text on the planet. Do you go to Amazon, read the reviews of a book, and then try and declare yourself as having developed opinions of the author's work? I sincerely hope not, yet you kick up a storm here about how terrible one group of authors are, and how wonderful another group is, without even reading them all!

Originally Posted by SigniferOne

Presuming I'm that "other fella", I did not say that China was literally unable to raise large armies. In fact, as I said, many nations in antiquity raised enormous armies, so at least on that issue China's armies are moot. It was done by all nations. However, I do have strong suspicion about the numbers mentioned in these books, as if they were somehow inviolable. The reason for believing their inviolability seems to be focused on a number of points

Ah, well, if you are that "other fella," sorry for mis-representing your views. I think I was too eager to reply to the other guy. We both agree, though, on the questions of numbers in the book. I doubt you're going to have much like convincing the other chap, however, because he seems pretty dead-set that Chinese historians are goodness incarnate, while ancient Greeks are pathalogical liars who rely on gossiping old ladies as their sole historical source for major works of literature (damn you Plato, now I know why you let women into your Republic state!). I hear UC Berkely agrees with him, too.

It's kind of funny, however, because a lot of nationalistic Greeks are so similar. Mention some ancient Chinese history, and you're likely to get this response over there:

"Pah, what you talking about, ack, what are you talking about? You give me Chinese word and I will show you the ancient Greek root that it is derived from."

[sephodwyrm]

You see, Mr Grumblefish, calling other ridiculous and calling on names etc is confrontational.

Why do I call Sima Qian the father of true history?
1. A work that has 1/2 million characters
2. A work that spans all times and all universe to his knowledge
3. A work that includes individual treatises of geography, culture, philosophy, water works, agriculture, assassins
4. A work that has dates (for God-sakes)
5. A work that includes commentaries starting with: The Grand Historian comments...
6. A work that not only includes chronological order but also individual biographies.
7. And a historical work that initiated a template that would be used for millenia (2).
True, he might have some mistakes, but his mistakes are less jarring (and he himself less of a Greek vs Persian, or the either/or type). Although he's a Confucianist, he's view of the legalists such as Wu Qi, Wei Yang etc were considered fair and moderate compared to the dominant view of that time.

I have read the classicists account, and I do not find Herodotus' or Thucydides work a good one especially when I have a set standard to work from. Instead of calling me ridiculous you should show me how both Greek authors are superior to Sima Qian. In any case, the Mediterranean is the closest historical work that has the span of the Chronicles, and I know this because I read it. Now you just sound loud and confrontational.

I would have sound a lot less confrontational because that is the Chinese way of doing things. But I also believe in Nash equilibrium. I play my best strategem since you're only capable of calling names etc. I'll push back if you start pushing. To me you guys are just rude...and loud.

[Temuchin]

Originally Posted by sephodwyrm

OK. I have heard similar things like this. But for the Nth time, the collapse of the Sui dynasty is not just the invasion of Korea. The Emperor Yangdi had embarked on multiple campaigns, projects (the grand canal, the moving palace, the dragon fleets, the grand imperial gardens etc), commissioned great palaces and provided too much power to provincial governors, eventually leading to civil war, peasant rebellion and internal discord. Korean history has one aspect, but we Chinese read about all the aspects.

I am tired of rebuffing critiques that haven't even read Chinese history proper. And what's more, the Sui dynasty is 10 centuries away.

3 million Sui army? Chinese numbers are to the hundred's placement: 1 133 800. The army was buffed to be 2 million to cower the Koguryo army. Buffing is a strategem used to strike fear. When it comes to real logistical matters, army numbers cannot be toyed around.

So do you have any evidence that the Chinese did not raise armies in hundred thousand count?
And btw, if you don't really care, you wouldn't have posted a refutal. I suggest you go to www.chinahistoryforum.com. There is a Korean moderator there who can help you out with the Koguryo vs Sui history and he certainly has a more balanced view than you.

well Mr. sephodworm, yeah you're right
It's not just Goguryo Invasion, It's all the mulitple projects and the grand canal *which is stunning I must add*.

I wanted to point out that buffing headcount, which was used strategically all the time, could be translated into real numbers by the opposing side. The buffed numbers become much larger when the opposing side wins the battle (alas the 1.3mil becoming 2 mil by China, after China's defeat, 3 mil by Goguryo).

And most of the time Asian Texts only carry the buffed numbers, to either **** the other states off, or to glorify their victory.

If my point was taken, I was glad to have a rich debate with you

*By the way, if you ignore others by saying "One must understand Chinese culture to understand Chinese history", it's not very fair to those who have studied chinese history and taking great interest in it. Just saying *

[Grumblefish]

Originally Posted by sephodwyrm

You see, Mr Grumblefish, calling other ridiculous and calling on names etc is confrontational.

Grow a pair, lol. The internet is serious business, huh? Relax.

If what you say is silly, then it's going to be called that. It would also help if you acknowledge when you've been corrected, or when somebody makes a good point. Right now, all you do is say "post source" or flat-out ignore good points, and if someone does post sources, you just ignore them. There is no point if you aren't willing to recognise points that are raised. Having gone through the Chinese education system for a year, I know the raising of contrary points is not promoted, but come on heheh .

Why do I call Sima Qian the father of true history?

No, re-arrange the words, you said "the true father of history," meaning to strip Herodotus of the title, which is silly for the reasons I gave but you largely ignored.

1. A work that has 1/2 million characters

Okay, what is your point? Length doesn't mean greatness by itself, you do not see many people running about saying "the Iliad and the Odyssey are great because they're so long!"

The works of other historians are also certainly not short, and even if they were I still wouldn't get your point.

2. A work that spans all times and all universe to his knowledge

As well as times and universes outside his knowlege, and a few in his imagination. I say outside his knowledge, because you yourself stated that going back before the 9th century meant pulling stuff out from where the sun doesn't shine, and I say from his imagination, because I quoted both modern and contemporary sources showing that Si Ma Qian edited texts and added his own creative visions into history when he wasn't happy with the current record.

Still, I know you are probably thinking right now "oh my god he seeks to ruin the entire good name of the Shi Ji with minor points like this!" But really, I like the ShiJi, and I don't think his mistakes make the work deserving of great criticism. The opposite is true, however, and it doesn't deserve to be placed on a pedestal and have titles taken from people who have nothing to do with Si Ma Qian and given to him.

3. A work that includes individual treatises of geography, culture, philosophy, water works, agriculture, assassins

Errr, this is hardly unique. All of your points are just things that are good about Si Ma Qian, but they are not unique to him.

4. A work that has dates (for God-sakes)

Not unique to Si Ma Qian.

5. A work that includes commentaries starting with: The Grand Historian comments...

What does this have to do with anything? His title of "Grand Historian" means he is a good historian? People like Thucydides, whom you seem to hate for a reason you haven't really explained in any detail yet, commented and added remarks to history in great detail. In fact, we get many great quotes from him, just like we get quotes from the Shi Ji:

"The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it."

"the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must"

"Keeping a lid on taxes is not just good for the taxpayer. It's a powerful way to force government to be more accountable, set priorities and spend smarter. Let me repeat that: more accountable, set priorities and spend smarter - that's what we need to be about."


etc etc. I don't see any point in reviewing all your points, you have nothing to show that he is vastly superior to people like Thucydides. In fact, you just seem to have an irrational hatred from Thucydides; as he is generally regarded as a very reliable historian, who meticulously scanned official records and documents, and interviewed people actively involved in the history he was writing. Thucydides, in my opinion, is a better historian than Herodotus, is extremely impressive, and lived centuries before Si Ma Qian. I have no idea why we should give Si Ma Qian Herodotus's title, both because he is not that much greater than other historians of his time and earlier, and because the title was given to Herodotus millenia ago, and for reasons beyond just being a good historian (as I said earlier).

If you have a big problem with Thucydides, how about you open up his work and start showing us the problems that you find so jarring. Thucydides is highly respected, more so than Herodotus, and I do not understand what part of the book it is that you find so disagreeable. I gave you sources in early posts, I am happy to talk about Si Ma Qian, but your deifying of him is just silly.

[Anthrophobia]

Lol, Seph clearly stated that SiMa's listed what's his opinions and what's the facts by having the Grand Historian commentaries.

Why is the argument alive anyway? The whole point is about whether China can afford an army in the hundreds of thousands, which I proved

[Grumblefish]

I don't know why anybody would disagree about raising an army in the hundreds of thousands. The whole Si Ma thing started with Seph trying to deify him, and castigating Western historians.

[sephodwyrm]

I did not deify Sima Qian. I just said that his work has more widespread impact on Chinese historiography and set a much higher standard than either Herodotus or Thucydides.

[Grumblefish]

I don't see how SiMa Qian set a "much higher standard" than Thucydides, and I'm yet to see you quote him at all. I don't know what part of Thucydides' work you have a problem with, but everything I have read of him, including the text itself, tells me he was an extremely good historian. His work was written almost the same time as Herodotus', yet the two are leagues apart in style. Thucydides is remembered as a very cold, honest historian who kept good sources and even went and interviewed the people whom he wrote about. If you could quote his work, and tell us what problem you have with certain sections, then that would help us all understand your point better.

The only problem I can think of is that Thucydides didn't write about ancient antiquity to the modern day, but rather recent history and contemporary events. If you want someone more interested in a longer time frame, but you don't like Herodotus' reputation, then go look at Plutarch (who's actually closer to SiMa Qian's lifetime, too). Unfortunately, not all of Plutarch's work is still extant, as we have lost his records of such people as Heracles and Philip II, but a great deal of it is still extant today (and very popular, too).

If Plutarch isn't to your tastes, then how about Titus Livius? If you want to laugh, then how about Suetonius? Suetonius was born in 75 AD, so we're on the wrong side of the whole BC/AD thing with him, but you have to admit he's pretty damn funny. He's regarded as a good historian, but I like him because he recorded all the old jokes going around, and made notes of interesting rumours that he couldn't verify. Here is one joke:

back story: Nero (largely regarded as a terrible Emperor) had a young man castrated and made his wife. Here is what Suetonius says about it...

"...and the witty jest that someone made is still current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero's father Domitius had taken that kind of wife..."

He also tells a good one about Nero taking land to expand his palace, and how he wonders if it'll swallow up Rome itself. Seriously, "the Twelve Caesars" is a hilarious book at times.

[sephodwyrm]

Thing is, Thucydides is not the father of classical history. The "father" of classical history is Herodotus. In any case, both Herodotus and Thucydides lack in scale, scope and coverage when compared to Sima Qian.

[Grumblefish]

I have already explained the reasoning of Herodotus being called the "father of history," posting Cicero's logic behind it all, and yet you don't acknowledge that the title is completely unbefitting of SiMa Qian. Even ignoring the real, documented, historical reasons behind Cicero bestowing Herodotus with the title, "Father of x" would usually be used to denote that x originates with the person using the title. Ignoring Cicero for a second longer, Herodotus was not the first Greek chap to start recording history, which is why he does not have the title for this reason. This means the title still wouldn't be more suited to SiMa Qian, because not only did he live many years after Herodotus (who wouldn't hold the title for age anyway!), but he lived after people who were more meticulous and strict with accounts of history (yet again, see Thucydides).

Look, I don't see the point of discussing this further. I've shown you source material of SiMa Qian himself admitting to editing historical records to his liking, I've given you source material of modern day professors pointing out some of his flaws, and I've explained why the "Father of History" is a title specifically designed for Herodotus by Cicero, yet none of this matters to you. I also do not understand why you keep talking about the failings of people like Thucydides, yet don't show me any of the source material you have a problem with. If you've said all you have to say on the matter, then so have I, and we've hit a brick wall.

[sephodwyrm]

I'm not done yet. If you can prove that European historians taking after Herodotus influenced Asian historiography, I actually might agree with you. Truth is, Herodotus didn't influence a single thing. Written records were initiated in China in 841 BC and Sima Qian was known as The Grand Historian as a result of his post and also as a result of his influence in future Chinese historiography.

Show that either Thucydides or Herodotus exceeds Sima Qian in terms of his historical organization and scope.
The original point I'm making is that as a Chinese (and East Asian) I acknowledge Sima Qian as Father of History rather than Herodotus due to influence.

[SigniferOne]

Sephodwyrm, what this all comes down to is: scholarship. Unless I am seriously mistaken, none of us here are renowned scholars on either Herodotus, Thucydides, or SiMaQuan. Therefore it is pointless for us to argue about who is better, because we ourselves must ultimately rely upon the conclusions of scholars who know about things better than we do. That is why I said that if you are to give SiMaQuan any kind of title in terms of historiography, then you MUST, as a matter of logic, provide proof for that claim. Since you're probably not a scholar, then evidence in your case MUST be a book of scholarly quality written by someone else. It is not enough to say that you personally have read both books and concluded such and such -- that way, anyone can just say whatever they want. To make expert opinions, there are experts both the West and in China, so if you have any evidence for your viewpoint, you must provide sources and books which support it. This you REFUSED to do, and then we're the ones called confrontational...

I don't want to be intentionally rude, I am simply trying to state the truth. The tradition of history in the West is Very strong, and ALL historians pay homage to Herodotus as the founder of that discipline. There may have been historians before him but they did not survive, so as far as the impact of ancient Greek historiography is on the West, Herodotus is the unchallenged Father. Thucydides, the next in line, finished the project Herodotus started. So let's not get into what makes a good history, and the qualities of which historian make him better, because that is the province of scholars (but I do know that scope and length are irrelevant, and the only relevant quality, namely the truth and accuracy, you completely omitted in your description of SiMaQuan). All I am saying, since I'm not a scholar either, is that behind my view is an INNUMERABLE body of venerable works and authors, all of whom bow to Herodotus and Thucydides. I can cite these men in support of my view, I can provide sources and evidence for my argument. Can you? Saying you read both, and liked one more than the other, completely does not count.

I would like to keep this civil, btw...

[sephodwyrm]

As every Historians in East Asia bow to Sima Qian. I have never ommitted how Sima Qian was in fact more truthful due to his:
1. Professional training
2. Access to relevant resources
3. An anti-tyranny psyche (which means he feared no consequence of him writing the truth).

Sure. Cite all you want. They have never really read Sima Qian's Shiji, and those that did ultimately concluded that Shiji was way more superior than Histories, such as what Hegel himself had admitted. The archaic western history structure had no influence whatsoever on East Asian historiography, of which Sima Qian is considered the forerunner and greatest. I have read both Histories and Shiji, have you?

Just to give you an idea of the contents, its all in Chinese, with my translations.
001.卷一·五帝本纪第一 Records of the 5 Sage kings
002.卷二·夏本纪第二 Records of the Xia dynasty
003.卷三·殷本纪第三 Records of the Yin (Shang) dynasty
004.卷四·周本纪第四 Records of the Zhou dynasty
005.卷五·秦本纪第五 Records of the Qin dynasty
006.卷六·秦始皇本纪第六 Records of Qin Shihuang
007.卷七·项羽本纪第七 Records of Xiang Yu
008.卷八·高祖本纪第八 Records of Emperor Gao Zu (Han)
009.卷九·吕太后本纪第九 Records of Empress Dowager Lu (Han)
010.卷十·孝文本纪第十 Records of Emperor Xiao Wen (Han)
011.卷十一·孝景本纪第十一 Records of Emperor Xiao Jin (Han)
012.卷十二·孝武本纪第十二 Records of Emperor Xiao Wu (Han)
013.卷十三·三代世表第一 Tables of 3 generations
014.卷十四·十二诸侯年表第二 Tables of 12 feudal lords
015.卷十五·六国年表第三 Tables of 6 states
016.卷十六·秦楚之际月表第四 Tables of Qin Chu Lunar cycles
017.卷十七·汉兴以来诸侯王年表第五 Tables of Feudal princes of the Han dynasty
018.卷十八·高祖功臣侯者年表第六 Tables of Ministers and Feudal princes of merit of Emperor Gaozu
019.卷十九·惠景閒侯者年表第七 Tables of Laxing Feudal lords between Emperor Hui and Jin
020.卷二十·建元以来侯者年表第八 Tables of Feudal lords since the year of Jian Yuan
021.卷二十一·建元已来王子侯者年表第九 Tables of Feudal princes since the year of Jian Yuan
022.卷二十二·汉兴以来将相名臣年表第十 Tables of Marshals and Premiers of fame of the Han dynasty
023.卷二十三·礼书第一 Book of Etiquettes
024.卷二十四·乐书第二 Book of Music
025.卷二十五·律书第三 Book of Law
026.卷二十六·历书第四 Book of Calendars
027.卷二十七·天官书第五 Book of Astrologers
028.卷二十八·封禅书第六 Book of the Mandate
029.卷二十九·河渠书第七 Book of Canals and Waterworks
030.卷三十·平准书第八 Book of the Subduing of the Huai region
031.卷三十一·吴太伯世家第一 Great House of Grand Earl of Wu
032.卷三十二·齐太公世家第二 Great House of Grand Duke of Qi (Jiang Ziya)
033.卷三十三·鲁周公世家第三 Great House of Marquises of Lu and Zhou
034.卷三十四·燕召公世家第四 Great House of Marquis Zhao of Yan
035.卷三十五·管蔡世家第五 Great Houses of Guan and Cai
036.卷三十六·陈杞世家第六 Great Houses of Chen and Qi
037.卷三十七·卫康叔世家第七 Great House of Lord Kang of Wei
038.卷三十八·宋微子世家第八 Great House of Wei Zi of Song
039.卷三十九·晋世家第九 Great House of Jin
040.卷四十·楚世家第十 Great House of Chu
041.卷四十一·越王句践世家第十一 Great House of Gou Jian King of Yue
042.卷四十二·郑世家第十二 Great House of Zheng
043.卷四十三·赵世家第十三 Great House of Zhao
044.卷四十四·魏世家第十四 Great House of Wei
045.卷四十五·韩世家第十五 Great House of Han
046.卷四十六·田敬仲完世家第十六 Great House of Tian Jing, Zhong Wan
047.卷四十七·孔子世家第十七 Great House of Kong Zi (Confucius)
048.卷四十八·陈涉世家第十八 Great House of Chen She
049.卷四十九·外戚世家第十九 Great House of the Empress's family
050.卷五十·楚元王世家第二十 Great House of King Yuan of Chu
051.卷五十一·荆燕世家第二十一 Great House of Jing Yan
052.卷五十二·齐悼惠王世家第二十二 Great House of King Dao Hui of Qi
053.卷五十三·萧相国世家第二十三 Great House of Premier Xiao
054.卷五十四·曹相国世家第二十四 Great House of Premier Cao
055.卷五十五·留侯世家第二十五 Great House of the Marquis of Liu
056.卷五十六·陈丞相世家第二十六 Great House of Prime Minister Chen
057.卷五十七·绛侯周勃世家第二十七 Great House of Zhou Bo, Duke of Xiang
058.卷五十八·梁孝王世家第二十八 Great House of Prince Xiao of Liang
059.卷五十九·五宗世家第二十九 Great House of the 5 Lineages
060.卷六十·三王世家第三十 Great House of the 3 Kings
061.卷六十一·伯夷列传第一 Biography of Boyi
062.卷六十二·管晏列传第二 Biography of Guan Yan
063.卷六十三·老子韩非列传第三 Biography of Lao Zi, Han Fei
064.卷六十四·司马穰苴列传第四 Biography of Sima Rangju
065.卷六十五·孙子吴起列传第五 Biography of Sun Zi, Wu Qi

066.卷六十六·伍子胥列传第六 Biography of Wu Zixu
067.卷六十七·仲尼弟子列传第七 Biography of Zhong Ni and his students (Confucius and his students)
068.卷六十八·商君列传第八 Biography of Marquis of Shang
069.卷六十九·苏秦列传第九 Biography of Su Qin
070.卷七十·张仪列传第十 Biography of Zhang Yi
071.卷七十一·樗里子甘茂列传第十一 Biography of Hu Lizi and Gan Mao
072.卷七十二·穰侯列传第十二 Biography of Duke of Rang
073.卷七十三·白起王翦列传第十三 Biography of Bai Qi, Wang Jian
074.卷七十四·孟子荀卿列传第十四 Biography of Meng Zi, Xun Qing
075.卷七十五·孟尝君列传第十五 Biography of Marquis of Meng Cheng
076.卷七十六·平原君虞卿列传第十六 Biography of Marquis of Ping Yuan and Yu Qing
077.卷七十七·魏公子列传第十七 Biography of Marquis of Wei
078.卷七十八·春申君列传第十八 Biography of Marquis of Chun Shen
079.卷七十九·范雎蔡泽列传第十九 Biography of Fan Sui, Cai Ze
080.卷八十·乐毅列传第二十 Biography of Le Yi
081.卷八十一·廉颇蔺相如列传第二十一 Biography of Lian Bo and Lin Xiangru
082.卷八十二·田单列传第二十二 Biography of Tian Dan
083.卷八十三·鲁仲连邹阳列传第二十三 Biography of Lu Zhonglian, Zhou Yan
084.卷八十四·屈原贾生列传第二十四 Biography of Qu Yuan and Jia Sheng
085.卷八十五·吕不韦列传第二十五 Biography of Lu Buwei
086.卷八十六·刺客列传第二十六 Biography of Assassins
087.卷八十七·李斯列传第二十七 Biography of Lisi
088.卷八十八·蒙恬列传第二十八 Biography of Meng Tian
089.卷八十九·张耳陈馀列传第二十九 Biography of Zhang Er and Chen Yu
090.卷九十·魏豹彭越列传第三十 Biography of Wei Bao and Peng Yue
091.卷九十一·黥布列传第三十一 Biography of Jing Bu
092.卷九十二·淮阴侯列传第三十二 Biography of the Marquis of Huai Yin
093.卷九十三·韩信卢绾列传第三十三 Biography of Han Xin and Lu Wan
094.卷九十四·田儋列传第三十四 Biography of Tian Zhan
095.卷九十五·樊郦滕灌列传第三十五 Biography of Fan, Li, Teng and Guan
096.卷九十六·张丞相列传第三十六 Biography of Premier Zhang
097.卷九十七·郦生陆贾列传第三十七 Biography of Li Sheng and Lu Jia
098.卷九十八·傅靳蒯成列传第三十八 Biography of Fu, Xin, Kuai
099.卷九十九·刘敬叔孙通列传第三十九 Biography of Liu Jing and Shu Suntong
100.卷一百·季布栾布列传第四十 Biography of Ji Bu and Luan Bu
101.卷一百一·袁盎晁错列传第四十一 Biography of Yuan Ang and Chao Cuo
102.卷一百二·张释之冯唐列传第四十二 Biography of Zhang Sizhi and Feng Tang
103.卷一百三·万石张叔列传第四十三 Biography of 10000 stones Zhang Shu
104.卷一百四·田叔列传第四十四 Biography of Tian Shu
105.卷一百五·扁鹊仓公列传第四十五 Biography of Bian Que and Cang Gong
106.卷一百六·吴王濞列传第四十六 Biography of Liu Pi, King of Chu
107.卷一百七·魏其武安侯列传第四十七 Biography of Wei Qi, the Marquis of Wu An
108.卷一百八·韩长孺列传第四十八 Biography of Han Changru
109.卷一百九·李将军列传第四十九 Biography of General Li
110.卷一百十·匈奴列传第五十 Biography of Xiongnu
111.卷一百一十一·卫将军骠骑列传第五十一 Biography of General Wei of the Strong Steeds
112.卷一百一十二·平津侯主父列传第五十二 Biography of Marquis of Pingjin, Zhu Fu
113.卷一百一十三·南越列传第五十三 Biography of Nanyue
114.卷一百一十四·东越列传第五十四 Biography of Dongyue
115.卷一百一十五·朝鲜列传第五十五 Biography of Choson
116.卷一百一十六·西南夷列传第五十六 Biography of Southwestern Barbarians
117.卷一百一十七·司马相如列传第五十七 Biography of Sima Xiangru
118.卷一百一十八·淮南衡山列传第五十八 Biography of Huai Nan and Heng Shan
119.卷一百一十九·循吏列传第五十九 Biography of theh Obedient prefects
120.卷一百二十·汲郑列传第六十 Biography of wading the Zheng
121.卷一百二十一·儒林列传第六十一 Biography of the Confucianists
122.卷一百二十二·酷吏列传第六十二 Biography of the Cruel prefects
123.卷一百二十三·大宛列传第六十三 Biography of Da Wan
124.卷一百二十四·游侠列传第六十四 Biography of the vagabonds
125.卷一百二十五·佞幸列传第六十五 Biography of the sycophants
126.卷一百二十六·滑稽列传第六十六 Biography of the Clowns
127.卷一百二十七·日者列传第六十七 Biography of the Sun
128.卷一百二十八·龟策列传第六十八 Biography of the Turtle Strategems
129.卷一百二十九·货殖列传第六十九 Biography of Trade and Merchandise
130.卷一百三十·太史公自序第七十 Autobiography of the Grand Historian

Half a million characters, with a organizing structure of Record, Tables, Books, Great Houses and Biographies, that would be adopted for 2 millenia, written in such a style that makes it a great literary work in addition to its historical value, its scope and epicness was unprecedented and his style became a template for future Chinese, Korean and Japanese historians.

Why should I even acknowledge Herodotus or Thucydides as father of history when they have near to zit effects on East Asian history? And you think you're a Truth-Centrist? Eurocentrists should gimme a break and read.

[SigniferOne]

Sephodwyrm,

Firstly, I don't think you understand: the volume of the writing is absolutely meaningless in evaluating the quality of its author as a historian. The book Sima Quan had written may have been long, and interesting, and influential, but all of these features discuss its literary value, rather than its historical value. So it may have a good literary value, but no one is talking about that here. At all. So citing that Sima Quan wrote about court ceremonies, and about religion, and about economics, is utterly irrelevant in trying to prove that he was a good historian. So you still have not proved whether he was a good historian (as opposed to a good writer), and you STILL have not provided any references to any books that can corroborate your view.

Secondly, even if you admit that he was not the greatest historian ever, you can still say that he was a great Chinese historian, and made a huge influence on Chinese, or even Asian historiography. That influence might have been undeniably great, and I don't think anyone will argue with that. What we are talking about here is his influence on historiography AS SUCH. And in that category, his influence pales with that of Herodotus and Thucydides. Europeans have been open to Chinese writings for at least half millenium, and they have consistently chosen to abide by Herodotus, Thucydides, and the rest of the Western historical tradition that those two men have started. I don't think any major Western historian ever adopted Sima Quan as his model, even as his books were available in the West, whereas ALL Western historians swear by Thucydides. Insofar as this second point is concerned, I am not saying that Sima Quan is less, but it is clear that his influence, regardless of his capacity as a historian, was big in only one very limited part of the world, and negligible everywhere else, especially in the West. And since the West has started to matter so much in the past 500 years, influence in the West, or lack thereof, is a big deal.

So anyhow, my point is twofold: first -- that you have not proven Sima Quan's capacity as a historian to be the greatest, nor have you provided any scholarly sources that do so; second -- that his influence for historiography in general is minimal, even as its influence on historiography within China is not. Besides, Sima Quan comes 300 years after Thucydides, and even more after Herodotus. Why can't you simply say that he was a great writer, and (possibly) a good historian? You have not provided ANY proof for any claim other than that.