First, the pranks of history
So-called: Chu and Han compete, legends through the ages. The two leading figures, Xiang Yu, the overlord of the world, finally defeated Wujiang and killed himself. Another leading figure, Liu Bang, sat on the throne and created the world of the Great Han Dynasty for four hundred years.
It is reasonable to say that Liu Bang, the victor, should accept praise. History seemed to have made a big joke for him, creating a "prank".
The loser Xiang Yu, who is praised as a hero of the ages, is called "still thinking of Xiang Yu and refusing to cross Jiangdong"! Liu Bang, on the other hand, was called a "rogue" or a "rogue emperor" by later generations. The reason for this is probably that Liu Bang's winning is too ugly.
For example, when Liu Bang was chased and killed by Xiang Yu's men and horses, in order to reduce the weight of the body and flee as soon as possible, he pushed his children out of the car twice or three times. Thanks to Xiahou Bao's inability to do it, he hugged him back, otherwise where would there be the later Emperor Hui of Han? Therefore, just by virtue of Liu Bang's incident, calling him a scoundrel seems to be reasonable.
But slowly, when our people are accustomed to ridiculing Liu Bang as a rogue or a rogue emperor, the British historian: Toynbee, suddenly shouted: the two most far-sighted and most influential political figures in human history, one is Caesar, who founded the Roman Empire, and the other is Liu Bang, who created the Han civilization.
So is Liu Bang a rogue in the end? Of course, the alternative question is: Why is Liu Bang called a scoundrel? Also, why did Toynbee pursue Liu Bang so much?
Second, is Liu Bang a scoundrel?
Without knowing the historical background, it is easy to use "the sword of the previous dynasty and behead the officials of the current dynasty", so if you want to understand this problem, you must understand the historical background at that time.
Before Liu Bang established the Han Dynasty, that is to say, from the beginning of the Xia Dynasty to the end of the Qin Dynasty dominating the world, what kind of inheritance state was history? The answer is simple, in our modern parlance: it's the game of nobility. A dynasty rises, another dynasty falls, and all the power is passed on among the nobility, and no one opposes this, right?
Look at Liu Bang's brothers, miserable, Surabaya Pavilion Chief, saying that he is the village chief is also right, the township chief can also, anyway, this is Liu Bang's official position before the incident. If Liu Bang's father is investigated, it will be even more tragic. Like you and me, we are all big heads of the people. As a result, Liu Bang, the founding han, sat in the middle of a group of "nobles". Dare to ask, is this a "rogue"? Of course!
But is this scoundrel appearing well? Of course it's good! So-called: The prince will have a kind of Xiangning? This was Chen Sheng's bold words, but in the end it was done by Liu Bang! Therefore, without Liu Bang, Chen Sheng will surely become a joke. But with Liu Bang's success, Chen Sheng is the "King of Chen Sheng", which is the cruelty of history, and the king is defeated.
That is to say, Liu Bang's success broke the "aristocratic inheritance" and injected a sense of commoners into history. But unfortunately, the wheel of history has a strong inertia, so Liu Bang has become a different kind and has been stigmatized! And "rogue" is the best annotation.
But when the wheel of history rolls forward more than four hundred years later, look at Liu Bang again, you will find that in a flash, he has become a "god", and no one dares to tweet to Liu Bang anymore. Even the brutal Shi Le, a so-called emperor of the Wuhu Chaohua period, said: Emperor Gao (Liu Bang), when he went north, competed with Han Peng for the first ear.
This means that if I meet Liu Bang, I only deserve to compete with Han Xin, Peng Yue and others. The subtext is that I can only be Liu Bei's little brother!
This is Liu Bang, the reason why he is called a scoundrel is because he moved the cheese of the "nobility"! In fact, if there is no Liu Bang and Xiang Yu succeeds, then history is very likely to regress to the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. Qin Shi Huang Fen VI Yu Lie, sweeping away the six kingdoms, is equivalent to white tossing.
Therefore, from this point of view, Qin Shi Huang really should "respect" Liu Bang for a cup, and it was these two people who jointly pushed forward the wheel of history and laid the inheritance of our great unification. Not to look at the map like Today's Europe, a large number of countries that are still struggling for reunification.
Who is Toynbee?
Answering why Liu Bang is called a rogue, then why did Toynbee pursue Liu Bang? To understand this problem, we must first briefly understand Toynbee.
He was born in 1895 and died in 1975. He has been called "the most cattle historian since modern times". He once shouted that after entering the twentieth century, Western civilization will decline. He also proposed that Eastern Confucianism and Mahayana Buddhism are the key to solving many social problems in the twenty-first century.
After having this basic understanding of him, especially seeing that he respects Chinese civilization so much, I think everyone is very happy. But the author is cautiously optimistic about this, for two reasons!
First, everyone knows that to study Chinese history, it is necessary to master ancient Chinese. Because no matter how good the translation, it will also be mixed with subjective emotions, do not believe to look at the "Tao Te Ching", who dares to pat the chest and say, I translated the most correctly? No one dares.
So how did Toynbee study Chinese history? Is it a second-hand translation? Or is he proficient in ancient Chinese and personally drilled into The Old Papers in China?
Therefore, I am afraid that this conclusion of his is derived from the standpoint of Western civilization (history). That is to say, just like during the Western Renaissance, European thinkers created a "perfect Eastern civilization" out of thin air to break the "shackles" of the current Europe.
Some people may ask: You are a small editor, and you don't know people Toynbee, which onion do you count, dare to question people? Don't worry, this is the second problem to be solved: why compare Caesar to Liu Bang?
Four: Why is Caesar and Liu Bang compared?
Toynbee said that Liu Bang and Caesar were the two most cattle in [human] history. For Liu Bang, we are all familiar with Chinese, but what about Caesar? Although I am not familiar with it, I know that he created the pride of the West: the Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire, along with the Han Dynasty, belonged to the same historical period and was called "Great Qin" in ancient times. At that time, Ban Gu of the Eastern Han Dynasty wanted to contact the Roman Empire, but he did not succeed.
Anyone who knows a little about Western history knows that the Roman Empire is still the pride of Western history. For example, why did Europe have the term "a thousand years of darkness in the Middle Ages"? Because the Western Roman Empire is gone! The subtext is that the fall of the Western Roman emperors caused Europe to lose its "lighthouse" guidance.
Why, for example, does Europe always have to live with Russia? From Napoleon to Hitler, they all gritted their teeth and stomped their teeth to overthrow Russia, and even now it is the same, and nothing is still cooperating to encircle Russia.
One reason is that Tsar is another name for Caesar.
It was after the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire by the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Russia believed that it was the heir of eastern Rome! That is, Russia stole "Caesar". And the Europeans did not agree to this at all!
Why not? To put it simply, Westerners generally believe that Russia originated in the Golden Horde (Mongol Empire), was ruled by others for more than two hundred years, and has long been a different race, what qualifications do you have to represent the West and rob our Caesar?
(Note: Rome was divided into East and West Rome, also known as the "Byzantine Empire", which was destroyed by the Ottoman Empire in 1453 AD.) The Western Romans, on the other hand, died in 476 AD. ）
Therefore, Europeans cannot forget the Roman Empire (Caesar) at all, so Toynbee has this judgment, which is nothing more than comparing the Roman Empire in the West with the Han Dynasty in the East Wind! The ridicule is that in order to sing praises to Caesar, he also praised Liu Bang at the same time!
But all this, from the perspective of our Chinese, you don't say Liu Bang, any founding hero, can be with Caesar - brothers are good, have a drink, right?
There is no way, Europe is such a Caesar, completed the unification of Europe. However, China has many founding heroes and completed this task.
This is why I questioned it, and of course, it is only a question. After all, there is doubt, there is discernment, not blind belief, etc. - it doesn't matter if he is kindly praised or viciously degraded! At the same time, it is also a way to open up ideas for readers, and the right should be thrown bricks and jade.