A: Huai Jia was convicted.
Zhou Yafu's son privately purchased 500 sets of armor for his father's burial, and someone reported him. The prison officer asked: Why are you rebelling? Zhou Yafu defended: These items are all used to enter the grave, what does it have to do with rebellion? The prison officer replied: Even if you don't rebel when you're alive, that's evidence that you want to rebel after you die.
Zhou Yafu was stunned and vomited blood to death in the imperial prison.
Do you think Zhou Yafu is wronged?
In fact, there is also the logic behind it: in ancient times, it was forbidden to keep armor privately. Not to mention the Han Dynasty, even in the 16th century, Nurhachi only started with 13 sets of armor, and the armor is basically the weight of the country, let alone 500 sets.
Zhou Yafu said that I was for the funeral, and the prison officer subconsciously felt that he was deceiving him for not understanding common sense, so he went back with yin and yang, and he was not wronged at all.
It's like today your house was found to have 500 99A's hidden, and you said that you were used as a collector's item, and the judge replied to you angrily: Then I will betray you on behalf of the collecting industry.
B: Unlucky Guo Jie.
Bad luck 1: In order to engage in development, the Han Dynasty wanted to move the wealthy families from various states to Guangxi to settle down, and the general Wei Qing came forward to intercede with Guo Jie: Guo Xie was an ordinary person and could not meet the qualifications to relocate. However, the Son of Heaven said: "An ordinary person can actually make an official at the level of the third prince intercede, so it seems that he is not ordinary." ”
As a result, Guo Xie went to Guangxi to open up wasteland.
Bad luck 2: Guo Xie committed a crime and was tried. During the jury trial, a group of onlookers appeared and said good things to him. 1 The scholar said: "How can a bandit like Guo Xie who does not act according to the law be worthy of chivalry? "There is a Guo family member who slaughtered this scholar in court and took his tongue.
The presiding judge took this opportunity to ask Guo Xie where the murderer was? Guo explained that he did not know. As a result, he was never caught. So Tingwei reported to the Son of Heaven to be acquitted. 1 The minister said: "But 1 is white, but he does the law in the name of chivalry, and takes people's lives if he doesn't like it." The murder of the scholar, even if it has nothing to do with Guo Jie, is more serious than the harm of his own hands, and he should be sentenced according to the degree of rebellion. ”
Finally, punish the entire Guo clan.
This is also a classic historical unreasonable event circulating on the Internet, and many people use it to be one of the black spots of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty - autocracy.
In fact, Guo Xie deserves it. A boss who was scolded by his younger brother took someone's life, could it be that you demand that the rule of law in the Han Dynasty is higher than that of Sir in Infernal Affairs - only punish the murderer and not the gang?
In ancient times, when productivity was not high, there was an environment of high personal dependence, and if the boss did not come out to take the blame, social stability could not be maintained at all.
Many people complain about the sin of Zhulian in history, but in fact, looking at it the other way, in ancient times, the ascension of chickens and dogs was particularly admired. When someone gains something, they will surely shadow their relatives and friends. What if this Guo Xie is developed one day? Will the one who took the shot for him also soar?
If you only want benefits and don't want to take risks, where can you find such good things?
C: Unreasonable knights.
Punish the officials with the text. It is said that when Zhang Yong was the county commander, he found that a small official was out of the warehouse with a penny, so he ordered the cane to be punished. The little official was very arrogant: "I just took a penny, how can you punish me so much, and I can't do anything." Unexpectedly, Zhang Yong changed the sentence, saying: 1 yuan a day, 3 years is 10,000, small mistakes continue, it will cause a big disaster, so he personally stabbed the official to death with a sword. In the end, Zhang Yong went to the criminal department to surrender himself.
corresponds to it.
Zhang Yong has been learning swords since he was a child and often does chivalrous things. One day, I stayed in the capital, and in my sleep, I suddenly heard someone crying in the neighboring room, so I went to understand the situation. This man didn't want to talk about it at first, but then he couldn't help but say: It turned out that he was an official who had borrowed public funds and was found out by his own servants. This little guy took the opportunity to blackmail him and wanted to get his daughter. The official was in a dilemma, so he cried in the middle of the night. After Zhang Yong grasped the situation, he took the little guy away, went to a mountain cliff, explained his crimes one by one, and then killed the little guy with a knife. In the end, Zhang Yong replied to the official: I have already killed my mouth, you should leave as soon as possible, and you must not violate discipline again.
Linking the two historical materials, do you think that this is a classic unreasonableness, the official "fake public and private" is not painful and admonished, and the official only takes a penny but loses his life, which is too double standard, right?
It's not over yet.
Later, Zhang Yong became an officer, and saw 1 soldier in the battalion teasing his child, who suddenly lost his temper and slapped his father inexplicably. When his father didn't say anything, Zhang Yong was furious, and immediately held a meeting to study and decide: If you are still like this when you are young, won't you turn the sky upside down when you become an adult? Punish it.
Although the above three cases have different reasons, they actually have one main line: reaffirming the program and discipline, and being serious and respectful. This was very necessary at the time, and Zhang Yong's approach was widely praised:
Since the Five Dynasties, the phenomenon of sluggish discipline, upside down, and lower offenses has been very common, which is not conducive to social stability and production development, and the reorganization of social order was the top priority in the early Song Dynasty.
Of course, it is a crime to use public funds and steal, but in this period, it is particularly important to correct the habit of disrespecting the teacher, and it is even more necessary to punish the petty who blackmails the master, is disloyal to the master, and has ill intentions; The children of soldiers are even more guilty of filial piety.
Any deconstructed historical material that is out of context is taken out of context.
Let's put it this way, if you kill the enemy who humiliated your mother in the early Song Dynasty, Zhang Yong will definitely be exempted from the crime in court and have a special honor.
D: Chu Vasui.
Another classic irrational incident in the history of the Internet.
Today's interpretation of this incident is basically a literal one. However, the original text is:
Read the full text and understand, right? The extra part tells us: Now that countries are fighting each other, our Chu State also has military strength, and we are willing to participate, please convey to the Zhou room with the country on my behalf: Give a knighthood. Zhou Tianzi did not agree, so the king of Chu said: The ancestor of Chu is Ji Chang's master, and the Zhou family of all dynasties also recognized us as ministers.
It's a bit of a stretch, but it's the same as most people understand it now - I'm going to kill you because I'm a barbarian, and it's the opposite of that. The willingness of the king of Chu is: I don't want to destroy your country, I just want to contribute to the peace of the Central Plains and the dignity of the Zhou family. Now the crusade against you is to show your strength and let Zhou Tianzi see it.
In the end, Chu Hesui established diplomatic relations and withdrew his troops. Half a century later, the history of extinction is already half a century later.
Grafting together the events of the two time periods, who is unreasonable?