Eh, 秦始皇 pissing off 儒家 is a retroactive event that only mattered after 儒 came into power in the mid-Han. I don't think 儒家 had that much power over the various nobilities during Qin. After all, the philosophical fight between the 百家 schools weren't over yet. And even at the start of Han, the first few emperors were more using 黄老 and 道家 than 儒. Ironically it was 汉武帝 who raised 儒 (though in actually it was a mish-mash of 儒家+法家+阴阳家+道家 with a coat of paint) into state endorsed philosophy.
And thus later on after that line of philosophy became the mainstream, and the pot of "焚书坑儒" was firmly placed on 秦始皇, whose rep in later dynasties ain't that good. Similarly 汉武帝, and the historical criticism of 穷兵黩武. But the thing is, this is the judgment of Confucian scholars of later time periods, and not so much popular modern thought anymore.
Nowadays, both of these guys are "千古一帝" with "工在千秋". Primarily it's the emphasis on them being the "first" in creating/implementing various policies. 秦始皇 being the first to unify China and the start of 封建社会, creating 郡县制, etc. 汉武帝 for showing the strength of Han ethnicity by defeating 匈奴; implementing 州部, monetary policy, etc.; improvements on metalworking, farming, etc.
IMO, sure, pioneers should get some slack for being pioneers. But with Qin and Han so close together, I feel that early Han should get as much credit for the pioneer work that Qin started. And, I feel that Han proved that while said policies are viable (and historically "correct"), they also proved that these changes aren't something that can be pushed into place in the span of a single generation like 秦始皇 appears to have wanted. Han is a miracle in history with as many as seven 明君 in succession. That's not something I think one can trust to repeat with Qin (which if you count its kingdom days, already had a line of 6 decent rulers, so no wonder they were in line for substandard heirs at 秦始皇's generation, lol). So the what ifs trying to "save" Qin and erase Han, I feel, are more fantastical thinking and strain my SOD.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2023-12-10 05:53 pm (UTC)And thus later on after that line of philosophy became the mainstream, and the pot of "焚书坑儒" was firmly placed on 秦始皇, whose rep in later dynasties ain't that good. Similarly 汉武帝, and the historical criticism of 穷兵黩武. But the thing is, this is the judgment of Confucian scholars of later time periods, and not so much popular modern thought anymore.
Nowadays, both of these guys are "千古一帝" with "工在千秋". Primarily it's the emphasis on them being the "first" in creating/implementing various policies. 秦始皇 being the first to unify China and the start of 封建社会, creating 郡县制, etc. 汉武帝 for showing the strength of Han ethnicity by defeating 匈奴; implementing 州部, monetary policy, etc.; improvements on metalworking, farming, etc.
IMO, sure, pioneers should get some slack for being pioneers. But with Qin and Han so close together, I feel that early Han should get as much credit for the pioneer work that Qin started. And, I feel that Han proved that while said policies are viable (and historically "correct"), they also proved that these changes aren't something that can be pushed into place in the span of a single generation like 秦始皇 appears to have wanted. Han is a miracle in history with as many as seven 明君 in succession. That's not something I think one can trust to repeat with Qin (which if you count its kingdom days, already had a line of 6 decent rulers, so no wonder they were in line for substandard heirs at 秦始皇's generation, lol). So the what ifs trying to "save" Qin and erase Han, I feel, are more fantastical thinking and strain my SOD.