Introduction: In ancient wars, why did there be a rule of not cutting? What about chopping?
This is a very widely circulated rule in ancient warfare, but in the face of national hatred and hatred, does this binding force still exist?
Not only did ancient warfare have such provisions, but modern warfare actually has similar provisions, and there is such a provision in the Geneva Convention that countries in the world cannot mistreat prisoners, shoot medical soldiers, old people and children and other incapacitated personnel, and at the same time cannot kill negotiators on both sides. This is a rule that all countries abide by, and if anyone violates it, that country will be resisted by all the countries of the world, and it is likely to fall short.
Now society attaches great importance to human rights, but in ancient times, it was not so binding at all, just like bai qi who killed Zhao Jun, like the Ten Days of Yangzhou in the Qing Dynasty, like Genghis Khan's Western Expedition, wherever civilization is destroyed. In order to kill all the enemy's living forces, such things as slaughtering the city actually happened a lot.
But in such a situation, why would the Messenger be treated in such a way?
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="8" > the two armies are engaged, and they are not cut</h1>
This is handed down from the Spring and Autumn Period, when Hua Yuan went to the Chu army as an emissary to negotiate, asking them to withdraw their troops, the two countries truce, in order to show his sincerity, he voluntarily became a hostage to go to the Chu state, and later slowly evolved into "the two armies fight, do not cut to make".
Secondly, the means of transportation at that time were very backward, and the messenger was the one who conveyed the meaning of both sides, and if it was not handled well, it would cause many unnecessary misunderstandings. Just like during the Jiajing period of the Ming Dynasty, Mongolia wanted to trade with Daming, so it sent emissaries to negotiate, but Daming's side directly killed the future emissaries, resulting in intensification of contradictions and imminent war.
All wars are actually aimed at achieving their own political demands, and if they can accomplish their goals without fighting, who wouldn't want to?
And the art of war has clouds: the best way to subdue a soldier without a fight, and there is no way to mobilize troops, after all, there will be losses if there is a war.
Moreover, how big a storm can a small messenger turn over, and what is the harm in letting him have a life, so that he will still stabilize the other party at the moral level, so that he will be higher in the evaluation of others.
But in fact not everyone can do this, and it does not have to do this, and when the contradictions between the two sides are completely inevitable, the fate of the messenger will not be cared. Among the Three Kingdoms, the number of times the emissaries were killed was not uncommon, and Liu Bei, who was known as "Renyi", did not directly behead the emissaries of his opponents after his brother was beheaded?
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="17" > consequences</h1>
There is not such a completely absolute thing, and not to cut to make it possible to get information, to communicate with the other side, and even to plot against the opposition, to pass on false news, to oppose the generals; but to cut off to make themselves benefit, the first point can enhance their own momentum, causing a huge impact on the locality, and secondly, to show their own position, some problems are simply unable to adjust, at this time the messenger goes up, can only say that the fate is not long.
But in the vast majority of cases, not so many people choose to kill the messenger directly, after all, communication is still very necessary, there is a lot of room for coordination when there is a plan, there are opportunities for peace talks, and if the messenger is killed frequently, who dares to do such a thing? This man used to be an enemy.