In my article "Tan Qijun's Erroneous Example of a Historical Atlas of China", I said that the 1982 edition of the map of northern Jingzhou of the Three Kingdoms edited by Mr. Tan Qijun was very problematic.
< h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > the main problem</h1>
1, Yiyang County was not painted
The Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms - Book of Wei - Ming Emperor Records " In December of the first year of the Jing Dynasty (237 ), Xiangyang County was divided into Xiangyang County , which belonged to Yiyang Commandery " .
2. The ownership of Fancheng is wrong
The Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms - Book of Wei - Records of the Three Shao Emperors states that "in the summer and May of the second year of the first year (241), Wu besieged Zhu Ran and others at Fancheng in Xiangyang".
Fancheng originally belonged to Nanyang County, but jian'an thirteen years (208) was assigned to Xiangyang County, that is to say, the Three Kingdoms of Fancheng belonged to Xiangyang County.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > second, more accurate maps</h1>
In the thirteenth year of Jian'an (208), Cao Cao divided Xiangyang County in the north of Nanyang County, Xiangyang County in the north of Nan County, and Nanxiang County in the west of Nanyang County, and Deng County (Blind Fancheng) was assigned to Xiangyang County.
In the third year of the Huang Dynasty (222), Cao Pi divided the southern part of Nanyang County and the northern part of Xiangyang County into Yiyang County, of which Deng County was divided into two: the northern part belonged to Yiyang County, and the southern part was renamed Dengcheng County, and Deng County and Dengcheng County were different places, and we see that the Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms records Ma Mo as a "xiangyang county Yicheng (present-day Xiangyang Yicheng) person" and Wei Yan as a person from Yiyang County (present-day Nanyang Tongbai).
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" >3, Xiangyang County "GurungZhong"</h1>
Then, in the fifth year of Shu Han Jianxing (227), "today's next three points", when Zhuge Liang composed the "Table of The Master", would he write "Gulongzhong" in Deng County, Yiyang County, and Xiangyang County as "Nanyang"? Obviously not.
Therefore, the "Xiangyang Theory" is not valid unless the "Table of Teachers" is changed.