> obsessed with finding evidence of pre-Shang government
Noticed that too, along with how the rhetoric has been to set the archaeological/historical community as us vs them.
Feels like an odd area of competition to me, since the opponents are all dead civs. No one in "The West" claims any kind of direct inheritance from them. Not even Greece and Rome. America only admits that its founders were influenced by Greek philosophy, but that's as far as it goes. Most of the time, it doesn't even want to admit to inheriting culture from England/the Old World! (With the sentiment often returned from England/Europe.) Italy is definitely more closely associated to the Catholic Church than to Ancient Rome.
Also, I used to figure the whole "5000 years" thing was a relatively modern invention (because y'know, back during Ming it would need to be "~4500 years" and Qing would probably censor the whole line of thought), and possibly more metaphor (or rhyme/rhythm requirement) than exact dating. But now it seems to be a point of cultural validation. It can't be to gain the record of oldest civ, because it's still not gonna beat Sumer or Mesopotamia. Is it so as to beat Ancient Egypt for longest lasting civ?
> Like, you can't really ding 秦始皇 for depleting 1/7 of the population fighting nomads when 汉武帝 depleted 1/5 of the total population during his reign.
Sure, which is why I am also not a supporter of 汉武帝 like the hordes of fans he now apparently has. And certainly, the later part of 武帝's reign was close to going the same route as the end of Qin. The main difference there, is that 武帝 had a longer lifespan AND he had the precedent of Qin to learn from, resulting in him essentially pulling a political face-heel-turn to avoid collapse. AND, due to the Han emperors before him, he even had a blueprint on how to recover from the situation. Oh, and also, he had better luck with descendants and 托孤大臣.
But despite 武帝's modern popularity, he's by far not the whole of Han. And not the one I'm thinking when I'm talking about preferring Qin vs Han, etc. Or, another way to put it: Don't expect to be a noble if you ever transmigrate into the past. As a commoner, would you really pick Qin to live under over Han? Or Sui over Tang?
> As for the issue of 李世民 and re-writing history books, I haven't looked into it very much but from what I understand that seems to be the academic consensus.
Eh, I have to be clearer I guess. There is historical record of 李世民 asking to review current records, and record of him being rebuffed once or twice by the court historian, and one record of him saying that the records of 玄武门之变 is too vague - they need to be clearer that he was the one who killed his brothers.
So to be extremely technical, yes, he did influence the historical record of the time, and set the...official political stance I guess, of 玄武门 and his relationship with his family. But...really, all of the above is pretty much normal politics. It's not like he can ignore that big elephant in the room. If that's "altering history" and thus "Tang history can't be trusted", then you could say the same of all other chinese historical texts.
As well, the only piece of evidence these accusations seem to be able to throw out is that《大唐创业起居注》(written during 李渊's reign) has discrepancies with other Tang texts. Specifically it paints a better picture of 李渊 and 李建成, and so therefore it must be the most accurate first hand text and thus all other Tang texts are propaganda! However... this same text is full of "miracles" supporting 李渊's bid to the throne, and lacks any mention of 平阳昭公主 who featured prominently in the early days of campaign and was the only princess to be buried with military honors (with archaeological proof backed by her burial steele). So obviously, from a objective standpoint, this text is obviously not the most accurate. And for that matter, this text was cited in later Tang periods, and by post-Tang authors of 新旧唐书 &《资治通鉴》. So obviously this work was not censored by the Tang government (which is obviously not how "altering history" works). That the Song historians chose not to draw most of their depiction of early Tang from this work is certainly not something that 李世民 had any control over!
Like, does historical depictions of 李世民 consist of embellishment? Sure, that's inevitable for any famous figure, the moreso the more famous they are. But if anything, 李世民 didn't enjoy half the embellishment his court did (李靖 transforming into a god of the Shang dynasty :p, 魏徵 slaying a dragon, 尉迟敬德 & 秦叔宝 becoming door gods). But I don't feel that's necessarily something 李世民 commanded to be put into the historical records to "whitewash" himself. Success simply speaks for itself. How does the saying go? "...自有大儒为我辩经".
Did 李建成 get dissed more than he really deserved? Eh, IMO I feel that he's more ignored by historical scholars than actively dissed, but I also think that's more due to a case of '菜是原罪'. I don't feel that 李世民 ever needed to tell people to strike any positive depiction of his brother from the official record. The mere fact that 李建成 former supporters still enjoyed success in 李世民's reign meant that no one had any motive to support the loser.
And finally, if we really want to talk rewriting history, let's look at 朱棣's attempt to wipe 建文帝 from history. Its failure shows how such a thing is, well, not really possible.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2025-03-29 08:51 pm (UTC)Noticed that too, along with how the rhetoric has been to set the archaeological/historical community as us vs them.
Feels like an odd area of competition to me, since the opponents are all dead civs. No one in "The West" claims any kind of direct inheritance from them. Not even Greece and Rome. America only admits that its founders were influenced by Greek philosophy, but that's as far as it goes. Most of the time, it doesn't even want to admit to inheriting culture from England/the Old World! (With the sentiment often returned from England/Europe.) Italy is definitely more closely associated to the Catholic Church than to Ancient Rome.
Also, I used to figure the whole "5000 years" thing was a relatively modern invention (because y'know, back during Ming it would need to be "~4500 years" and Qing would probably censor the whole line of thought), and possibly more metaphor (or rhyme/rhythm requirement) than exact dating. But now it seems to be a point of cultural validation. It can't be to gain the record of oldest civ, because it's still not gonna beat Sumer or Mesopotamia. Is it so as to beat Ancient Egypt for longest lasting civ?
> Like, you can't really ding 秦始皇 for depleting 1/7 of the population fighting nomads when 汉武帝 depleted 1/5 of the total population during his reign.
Sure, which is why I am also not a supporter of 汉武帝 like the hordes of fans he now apparently has. And certainly, the later part of 武帝's reign was close to going the same route as the end of Qin. The main difference there, is that 武帝 had a longer lifespan AND he had the precedent of Qin to learn from, resulting in him essentially pulling a political face-heel-turn to avoid collapse. AND, due to the Han emperors before him, he even had a blueprint on how to recover from the situation. Oh, and also, he had better luck with descendants and 托孤大臣.
But despite 武帝's modern popularity, he's by far not the whole of Han. And not the one I'm thinking when I'm talking about preferring Qin vs Han, etc. Or, another way to put it: Don't expect to be a noble if you ever transmigrate into the past. As a commoner, would you really pick Qin to live under over Han? Or Sui over Tang?
> As for the issue of 李世民 and re-writing history books, I haven't looked into it very much but from what I understand that seems to be the academic consensus.
Eh, I have to be clearer I guess. There is historical record of 李世民 asking to review current records, and record of him being rebuffed once or twice by the court historian, and one record of him saying that the records of 玄武门之变 is too vague - they need to be clearer that he was the one who killed his brothers.
So to be extremely technical, yes, he did influence the historical record of the time, and set the...official political stance I guess, of 玄武门 and his relationship with his family. But...really, all of the above is pretty much normal politics. It's not like he can ignore that big elephant in the room. If that's "altering history" and thus "Tang history can't be trusted", then you could say the same of all other chinese historical texts.
As well, the only piece of evidence these accusations seem to be able to throw out is that《大唐创业起居注》(written during 李渊's reign) has discrepancies with other Tang texts. Specifically it paints a better picture of 李渊 and 李建成, and so therefore it must be the most accurate first hand text and thus all other Tang texts are propaganda! However... this same text is full of "miracles" supporting 李渊's bid to the throne, and lacks any mention of 平阳昭公主 who featured prominently in the early days of campaign and was the only princess to be buried with military honors (with archaeological proof backed by her burial steele). So obviously, from a objective standpoint, this text is obviously not the most accurate. And for that matter, this text was cited in later Tang periods, and by post-Tang authors of 新旧唐书 &《资治通鉴》. So obviously this work was not censored by the Tang government (which is obviously not how "altering history" works). That the Song historians chose not to draw most of their depiction of early Tang from this work is certainly not something that 李世民 had any control over!
Like, does historical depictions of 李世民 consist of embellishment? Sure, that's inevitable for any famous figure, the moreso the more famous they are. But if anything, 李世民 didn't enjoy half the embellishment his court did (李靖 transforming into a god of the Shang dynasty :p, 魏徵 slaying a dragon, 尉迟敬德 & 秦叔宝 becoming door gods). But I don't feel that's necessarily something 李世民 commanded to be put into the historical records to "whitewash" himself. Success simply speaks for itself. How does the saying go? "...自有大儒为我辩经".
Did 李建成 get dissed more than he really deserved? Eh, IMO I feel that he's more ignored by historical scholars than actively dissed, but I also think that's more due to a case of '菜是原罪'. I don't feel that 李世民 ever needed to tell people to strike any positive depiction of his brother from the official record. The mere fact that 李建成 former supporters still enjoyed success in 李世民's reign meant that no one had any motive to support the loser.
And finally, if we really want to talk rewriting history, let's look at 朱棣's attempt to wipe 建文帝 from history. Its failure shows how such a thing is, well, not really possible.