Liu Bang and Liu Bei have many similarities, Liu Bang is ugly into a villain, but Liu Bei is beautified as a gentleman? Many people speak from the morality of the two. In the final analysis, morality is spontaneously formed in society within a certain period of time, in line with the rules and regulations adapted to the environment at that time. Without the particular environment in which it is formed, morality is bound to be unable to interact perfectly with society. Therefore, in a chaotic world, but insisting on the morality of ruling the world is not a noble character, but unwise. Use the morality of the peacetime era to accuse the behavior in the chaos of war, and throw away the historical background and the cultural environment to criticize the "immoral" behavior.
Everyone's actions and choices must be considered in the context in which they live. You certainly will not accuse Xiao He of being unscrupulous because he is greedy for good goods, nor will you accuse Wang Qi of seeing small profits and forgetting great righteousness because he is greedy for good goods, so why would you accuse Liu Bang of having a weak heart when he suppressed the princes? These three people act for a specific purpose, rather than indulging their own nature and accusing them of immorality, which is inevitably shallow. In terms of the people and friends and subordinates, Liu Bei really had nothing to say. Just by not slaughtering the city and not killing prisoners in his lifetime, and even his subordinate generals did not slaughter the city and not kill prisoners, Liu Bei's moral index ranked at the forefront of the three thousand years of Chinese history.
It is not how cruel and cold Liu Bang Xiangyu and the like are, but Liu Bei's benevolence is beyond that era. In the Qin and Han dynasties, many values were difficult for modern people to accept, just like the later foot binding, modern people feel inhumane, and the women who wrap their feet may still feel fashionable.
Liu Bei has the will to come up and not to die, and this true disposition is also affirmed by zhengshi. It's just that Liu Bei GuanYu's interests have always been in the right direction before his death, and it is not good to compare with Liu Bang, liu bang and Han Xin are also undressed when They are in line with Han Xin, pushing Han Xin to eat and eat, and moving Xiao Han to death. Later, there was a conflict of interest, and Han Xin was not killed by him, so it could not be conclusively deduced that Liu Bei must be stronger than Liu Bang.
A chaotic prince who is running around does not kill innocents in vain; it is indeed very difficult and worthy of admiration. However, we cannot call Liu Bei a gentleman because of this superiority, their essence is a chaotic tyrant, and if their morality is measured by the standards of ordinary people, it is strictly a bad account, and "all emperors are thieves" is this meaning.
Liu Bang's ruthlessness towards the heroes is indeed not washed, but I think this is also a kind of imperial technique, compared to Liu Xiu's practice of treating the heroes kindly, I personally think that the former is more secure. After all, this world is still the world of the royal family, who does not want the power to always be in the hands of their own family. As for a situation like Zhuge Liang's Liu Chan, anyway, I don't believe it, Liu Chan really doesn't want to take power into his own hands, but Liu Chan cares about the overall situation and doesn't want to shake the foundation of the country in a big coup.
But from the perspective of encouraging the loyalty of the courtiers, they are actually equally cold, and contributing to the bloodshed of the empire is such a fate, whether the perpetrator is the emperor or a colleague. Therefore, it can also be regarded as one of the reasons why the Western Han Dynasty was easily usurped, and there was a generous treatment of meritorious servants after the "Guangwu Zhongxing", until the Liu Bei era and the enmity of the ministers, which was the result of the natural progress.
Second, slaughtering cities and killing prisoners was still commonplace even until a thousand years later, during the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom War in the 19th century. How can it be said that the moral bottom line of the chaotic world of the Three Kingdoms is lower than that of the chaotic world of Chu and Han hundreds of years ago? Virtue is virtue, and evil deeds are evil deeds. For thousands of years, the standard of moral judgment of some behaviors has generally been the same.
Weak leaders tend to be more gentlemanly in order to keep a low profile. Liu Bei was better to Guan Yu than Liu Bang to Han Xin, and at best it was unclear. In exchange, I would not have paid so much for the revenge of a simple Guan Yu, let alone Liu Bei as the emperor? When the emperor needs to take care of too many things, he is faced with more and more moral judgment systems from various perspectives, and it is not possible to judge how good and how bad it is from one angle. Liu Bei is the world is undecided to always use Guan Yu's ability, Liu Bang is already laying down the Jiangshan and no longer need Han Xin, both of them have different problems and grievances facing each other.