Before asking the question of whether history is written by the victors, we should first make it clear: what kind of people deserve to be called "victors"?
Any "winner" actually exists in a certain category of time and space, and if the category of time and space is abandoned, then the word "winner" cannot be talked about at all.
In this regard, let's first illustrate it from the time range.
During the Spring and Autumn Period, there was a person from Cui Zhu in the State of Qi, who killed his own monarch, the Duke of Qizhuang, and the historian recorded "Cui Zhu Jun", so Cui Zhu killed this Shi Guan; the second brother of this Shi Guan also recorded "Cui Zhu Jun", who was also killed by Cui Zhu.
Killing two historians in a row, such a big boldness, do you say that Cui Zhu can be called a "victor"? If this ends here, then Cui Zhu can naturally be called a "victor".
However, the third brothers of these two historians appeared and recorded "Cui ZhuJun" again, and Cui Zhu had no choice but to let him write. From this point of view, which discipline is Cui Zhu considered to be the "winner"?
When the history books talk about this matter, they blur the most basic fact, that is, only two years after Cui Zhu killed the Duke of Qi Zhuang, he committed suicide in despair.
This can at least prove one point: Cui Zhu has the ability to kill Qi Zhuanggong by "beheading", but he does not have the ability to control the overall situation. If such a figure also deserves to grasp the right to write history books, then we are also too small to look at the ancient and modern Chinese and foreign tyrants.
Who are the stronger characters than Cui Zhu? Naturally, they are characters such as Cao Pi and Sima Zhao, who have the ability to blackmail the emperor into "Zen position", who have the ability to kill and offend the emperor, but they are actually fifty steps and a hundred steps compared to Cui Zhu.
Not long after Cao Pi's death, the Cao family's world was usurped; because not long after Sima Zhao's death, the Sima family's world collapsed in chaos.
In this context, what is so strange that all kinds of historical content that is not conducive to them are circulating everywhere?
The Manchu Qing controlled the world for more than two hundred years, and during these two hundred years, any historian needed to go through strict written censorship when writing history. In this context, as long as any historian dared to say that "Qingfeng was illiterate," the Manchu ruler could use this historian to "turn over books" as a crime and kill his entire family and even the entire clan.
But what about after the fall of the Manchu Qing? What is his ability to stop others from saying that "Qingfeng is illiterate"?
From Cui Zhu to Cao Pi Sima Yan, and then from Cao Pi Sima Yan to Manchu Qing, did they form qualitative changes through quantitative change? Apparently not.
After talking about the time category, let's talk about the spatial category.
There is a classic passage that goes like this: Did the Soviet Union have freedom of speech? Absolutely. Because you are in the Soviet Union, you can casually scold the president of the United States!
The name of the country and the name of the president in this paragraph, you can change it to any authoritarian country.
It is for similar reasons that the same historical event or the same historical figure, in different regions, usually appears in a very different image.
In a largely unified small peasant society, this phenomenon is not obvious. But at any time, the wild history is always there.
For example, at a time when the Manchu literacy prison was unprecedentedly powerful, the authorities were still unable to prevent the existence of a wild history that was unfavorable to the Manchus.
The most classic example is that the Yongzheng Emperor suddenly discovered one day that in the folk history, his father, the Kangxi Emperor, was actually killed by himself.
In the face of this "rumor", the Yongzheng Emperor almost went crazy, so he made a copy of the "Mystery of the Great Righteousness", emphasizing that his succession to the throne was reasonable and legal.
Whether it is reasonable or not is not discussed today. But one thing that cannot be denied is that the impact of similar content is very bad, and it is by no means something that the Yongzheng Emperor can eliminate if he wants to eliminate it.
Breaking away from small-scale peasant society and coming to the so-called modern society is even more intense.
When Stalin was alive, he was a "soviet father", but not long after Stalin's death, his successor Khrushchev personally exposed and criticized Stalin.
Do you say Stalin was a "victor"? From this point of view alone, how different is he from Cui Zhu and others?
As long as everyone does not oppose the above examples, it is natural to understand that there are no eternal "victors", and the impact they can have on history is always limited.
But does this mean that the phrase "history is written by the victors" is not correct? No.
I take the example from the category of time and space, just to tell everyone that there is no eternal and eternal "victor", but everyone who has the right to write history books in a certain time and space will follow the same idea, that is, to promote their own sacredness and legitimacy.
From this point of view, "history is written by the victors" has a certain truth.
The most intuitive point is: if we live in the feudal era, how can we become emperors?
If you put aside all theories and focus on finding answers in the history books, then no matter whose biography you read, the history books will tell you a fact: the emperor is not what you want to be, this is the destiny!
In order to ensure the sanctity of imperial power, historians even did not hesitate to smear the founding emperor, the most typical of which was Liu Bang.
Why was Liu Bang, the ancestor of Han Gao, become emperor? According to our vision today, it is naturally because Liu Bang was wise and mighty, invincible, and wholeheartedly represented the interests of the people, but the question is: Which historian dares to write like this?
If the historian dared to write this, didn't it mean that being an emperor was conditional? As long as I meet the three conditions of wisdom and divine martial arts, absolute victory, and wholehearted representation of the interests of the people, I am qualified to compete for the throne?
If the emperor can be derived by formula like mathematical physics, then what is its sacredness?
Further, as long as the three conditions of wisdom and divine martial arts, absolute victory, and wholehearted representation of the interests of the people are met, this emperor is a good emperor, and we should be loyal to him.
So, if an emperor is stupid, cowardly, perverted and evil, and wholeheartedly confronts the people, should we oust him from power? According to this line of thinking, was the idea of civil rights not born in advance?
If you are a historian and dare to guide the people in this way, please think carefully about a question: How many heads does your whole family have enough to cut off?
It is precisely for this reason that Liu Bang, the ancestor of Han Gao, that we see in the history books has become a useless scoundrel.
Liu Bang has not learned well since he was a child, and he has either drunk or gambled all day, or is idle, in short, the representative of people who hate dogs.
However, because he was a dragon son, he had seventy-two moles on his thighs, and everywhere he went, there were clouds shrouded in clouds, and he killed the son of the White Emperor just after his debut. This shows a truth: only a son of destiny like Liu Bang can become an emperor.
You say Liu Bang has no ability? it doesn't matter. Anyone who has the ability will obediently treat him as a little brother. If you don't have Liu Bang's Mandate of Heaven, then you will die to be Xiao He Zhangliang's life, and don't be delusional about the throne.
You can think about it carefully, which founding emperor did not have the "mandate of heaven" in the relevant records? I can tell you very clearly that there is everything.
The phrase "history is written by the victors" should be expanded to read "History is written by the unified words of the victors."
In addition to the "unified word writing", those "victors" who are not legal in the way of ascension to the throne will also use their brains, because they do not want the image of their usurpation of the throne to be preserved in its originality, so they will also use details and emotional colors.
On this point, the most typical is Li Shimin.
In the "Xuanwumen Revolution", Li Shimin became the biggest winner and the most powerful person in the whole world. But even Li Shimin, he did not dare to say that Li Jiancheng and Li Yuanji died of illness, because this objective fact was not something he could hide.
How to say it? Nature can only pretend to be innocent.
I killed my brother and brother and forced my father to give me all the family property, but I want to tell you the crowd of onlookers: the reason why I will do this is because our family's property is all made up by me, my brother and brother are not only losers, but also bent on killing me, and my father is always partial to them, so I do this, in short, I hope everyone understands and understands me!
Take this to fools, and fools will not believe them. However, the changes in Xuanwumen recorded in the relevant historical books, as well as their discussions of Li Yuan, Li Jiancheng, and Li Yuanji, are basically this tune.
From this point of view, Li Shimin did glorify himself through the history books, and confused many people in later generations.
Of course, Li Shimin naturally also has a "mandate of heaven", it is said that when he was four years old, there was a scholar who was good at meeting him who said that he would be able to help the people of the world in the future, so he was called "Shimin".
Do you believe it? Anyway, I don't believe it, love it.
It is undeniable that even if he is as strong as Li Shimin, he can only do things in details and emotional colors, because he cannot change the most basic historical facts.
As long as the reader does not superstitiously believe in the so-called correct history, he will naturally know that the so-called Li Jiancheng and Li Yuanji are bad people, Li Shimin is a good person, Li Yuan is a mediocre person, and Li Shimin is a great hero, and so on, which is only the result of Li Shimin's control over the right to write history. If Li Jiancheng destroys Li Shimin, everything will have to be reversed.
Finally, to sum up.
First, the "victor" who covers the sky with one hand exists only in the sophistry of some so-called people of insight. In the history of mankind, there has never been such a "victor";
Second, when writing history, the "victors" can only manipulate the details and emotional colors at most, and must never tamper with or erase the most basic historical facts.
History is written by the victors. But this does not mean that the victors can cover the sky with one hand and write history as much as they want.
From this point of view, "history is written by the victors" can also be changed to "historical details are written by the victors."