Zhang Tour is indeed a controversial figure.
Although Zhang Tour was revered by later generations as the most loyal and martyr, at the same time he had a superb strategy and tactics, and every time in battle, he fought less and more, but almost always won every battle. Calling him a famous general through the ages is not too much at all.
(Portrait of Zhang Tour)
However, there was also an incident that caused great controversy, that is, when he was defending the city, due to a serious shortage of food, in order to ensure the survival of the soldiers who could fight, he killed his concubines and cooked them for the soldiers to eat. Another guard, Xu Yuan, also killed his child servants for the soldiers to eat. As a result of the advocacy of these two commanders, there were many phenomena in the city of killing the old, the sick, the disabled, women and children, and giving food to the soldiers who guarded the city. According to historical records, before the war in Suiyang City, there were 40,000 people in the city, and when the city was destroyed, there were only 400 living people left. Of course, the loss of so many people is not entirely eaten alive by the soldiers. Most of them still died of illness and starvation. But the bodies of those who died of illness and starvation were still eaten by the soldiers.
It is absolutely impossible for such a situation to be left unconspetioned.
Even at that time, Zhang Tour's behavior had already caused great controversy. However, later, because Tang Suzong gave Zhang Tour an affirmative evaluation, he believed that he was more meritorious than excessive, and gave him a posthumous title. Therefore, this controversy has come to an end for the time being. Later generations have many evaluations of Zhang Tour, but most of them are positive evaluations. Only in recent years, due to the activity of the Network, everyone's voice of criticism of Zhang Tour has sounded again.
So, did Zhang Tour do it right, and how should he be evaluated?
(Network illustration)
In fact, the focus of the controversy over the Zhang Tour issue mainly focuses on two aspects.
The first is loyalty to the king and love for the people.
The reason why Zhang Tour resolutely resisted was that his dominant ideology was to be loyal to jun.
Today we feel a little ignorant of the idea of loyalty to the king, but today we advocate patriotism. But in Zhang's time, this was definitely the most important top priority, the first of all the core values at that time.
Some people may say that at that time, Tang Xuanzong had fled, and Zhang Zhu was still loyal to whom! But it was precisely Tang Xuanzong who fled, and Zhang Tour still insisted on loyalty, that is, the purest loyalty. Because in the value system of intellectuals like Zhang Tour, the king here is not specific to a single person, it can be said that he is loyal to Li Tangjiangshan. Even his loyalty to Li Tangjiangshan is narrow, and he should be loyal to the king of his heart. And the king in the heart is a moral belief. Regardless of whether the specific king fainted or not, whether he fled in advance in the face of great tribulation, it did not matter, it did not affect the belief of people like Zhang Tour.
Just as Zhang Tour himself replied to the rebels, he did this because he had "righteousness" in his heart. Later, Wen Tianxiang insisted on not surrendering when all the emperors of the Southern Song Dynasty surrendered and the Southern Song Dynasty was already destroyed, and also said the word "righteousness". It can be seen that this is the value criterion that intellectuals pursued at that time.
However, unlike Wen Tianxiang, Wen Tianxiang did not surrender, that is, he died alone, and at most he took his family. In order to pursue "righteousness", zhang tour was not only him, but also his entire loyal army, and even the entire city people. Therefore, some people say that Zhang Tour is a manifestation of not loving the people. If he loves the people, then he should surrender Kaesong. Kaesong surrendered, and the people naturally had a way to live. Zhang Patrol could not open the city to surrender, but instead killed the common people to cook and eat. This is both a manifestation of not loving the people and a manifestation of violating human nature.
The second is the collective and the individual.
When Zhang Patrol was defending the city, he had always pursued the concept of collectivity. That is, all the people of the whole city must have the same belief, swear to die and never surrender. To this end, he established strict discipline. He asked everyone to discuss whether to surrender. When a man expressed his own opinion that the city must not be defended, there was no food and grass inside, no reinforcements outside, and it could only lead to extinction, so he suggested surrender. Zhang Tour was originally open to discussion, but he eventually killed the six people who said surrender, and no one dared to say surrender again.
It is precisely because Zhang Tour adheres to collectivism. Therefore, in his eyes, the people in the whole city are a component. In order for the whole city to function, these components have to be sacrificed and coordinated. For example, in his view, when soldiers are hungry and powerless in order to defend the city, other old, weak, sick and disabled people should sacrifice themselves. Soldiers can be born into death, why can't ordinary people lose their lives?
Those who oppose Zhang Tour believe that Zhang Tour is a manifestation of complete disregard for personal wishes. It is also a gross disrespect for life. What is the point of the chief if he has disrespected man, does not respect his life, but only pursues a so-called value? All dictators in history have done this. In a sense, Zhang Tour is a dictator.
Of course, the debate about Zhang Tour continues. The reason why during the entire period of imperial society, there was less debate about Zhang Tour, and now the debate has become, obviously, a change in values. Because today, although the concept of collectivism is still crucial, the value and will of the individual are gradually respected. I think that's where we should pay attention when we look at this historical phenomenon.
(References: "New Book of Tang", "Old Book of Tang", "Zizhi Tongjian", etc.)