this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
131 points (97.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43963 readers
1242 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Eh, I'd argue that it was less stupid games and prizes and more... Unusually equally matched candidates vying for the throne? I mean, think of the warring states, or the Chu-Han contention, or whatever the fuck was going on in Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms.
In each of the cases, after the fall/overthrow of the previous dynasty, multiple powerful folks threw their hats into the ring. Warring states ended with Qin beating its rivals. Liu Bang out maneuvered Xiang Yu to reunite all/most of China. The Song Dynasty succeeded where all the previous 5 Dynasties failed and absorbed the ten kingdoms. The Three Kingdoms era was mostly similar, but somehow the three major contestants managed to almost perfectly balance their power and just got stuck at an impasse for long enough that the good ol' classic causes of the downfalls of Chinese dynasties (corruption of bureaucracy and the imperial families) took hold.
On reddit, I once read a really good perspective of the whole thing. To summarize: one of the greatest tragedies of the three kingdoms was that Liu Bei, Cao Cao, and Sun Quan were born in the same conflict era, as each of them were more than capable rulers and leaders that had what it would have taken to unite china. Meanwhile, the other conflict eras had only one or two truly capable emperor-aspirants that had the potential to take it all.
That's an interesting summary! I don't know that much about all of those periods of history. Mostly the R3K era, some Song dynasty. Also Vietnamese history, which has a lot of really random bits.
The greatest tragedies are often the conflict between completely acceptable powers, not good and evil.
I thought Sun Quan was the weakest of the three leaders though. So indicisive!
Yeah, that's a really good takeaway from this kinda of history.
In terms of individuality and becoming emperor of all of China, perhaps. He had a surprising number of really competent aides and generals, when compared to Cao Cao and Liu Bei. He was the kind of leader that was much more of a skilled manager of capable talent than a director who knew exactly what commands to give. In the long term, tho, this admittedly lead to politicking and infighting that cause Eastern Wu to rollover and die.
Also, it's worth considering that he was also arguably the most important of the three for their legacy. The Southeastern part of China is incredibly important /influencial in later chinese history, from Tang to Song to Ming and all the way to today, and Sun Quan had the unenviable task of fully absorbing the distinct jiangnan and southern chinese customs and idiosyncrasies into what we nowadays think of as chinese culture.
That's an interesting take on it! It's true Sun Quan had cultivated some good generals. Heck, Wu was the last of the 3 standing so I guess that counts for something.
Another big lesson I got out of the era was that the skills to build an empire are very different from the skills to run it. So an empire built by a great hero, can easily be mismanaged by the same hero. Then, when an empire is passed on through heredity, there is no guarantee that the new leader possesses either set of skills. This seems to be one of the major ways that empires fall apart.
I work with some large family-run Chinese companies. There were ones with a certain flavor of weak leadership which really confused me before I looked at it this way. Now I'm better aware of why this happens, the time scale and method of the resulting descent into chaos, and how to convince and maneuver my employers to profit from it. Similar things come up sometimes in Vietnam too, but somehow I never really connected the dots before.
Also apparently eunuchs ruin everything. I feel that there's a more modern analogy, maybe people who play politics for personal gain inside companies instead of through the merit of their own work? Can't quite put my finger on it.