|
Post by seven stars on Oct 8, 2004 14:17:53 GMT -5
Chung Kyun,
I have to respond to what you said earlier.
I can see the comparison between Che Won and Zhang Fei in that they were both hot tempered warriors (one or both of whom drank too much), but I do not believe that the two can be compared in terms of merit in combat. Zhang Fei distinguished himself far beyond Che Won, and many others in AOW very early in his career. Consider the fact that he twice fought Lu Bu to draw for numerous rounds of action, and this while he was still young. He later did many other things that set him apart from these guys historically.
I believe that Zhang Fei's only rightful comparison's from AOW come in the very best warriors that we've seen on the show.
This is insight into an interesting debate about the greatness of AOW warriors when compared with ROTK's. Nevertheless, my statements are a dead give away with regard to my feelings in that discussion.
|
|
|
Post by ID on Oct 8, 2004 14:43:56 GMT -5
i xan't argue. zhang fei, though not a s higly regarded as guan yu {worshipped as a spirit of war} and zhao yun {the hero who single handidly drove off a million man army} he was an amazing wariror. though i love them both them both the same {for the same reasons} it is impossible to compare them. che won was mighty, but he wasn't super-human.
and though it has nothing to do anything, the only ROTK characters that i really hate, are Lu Xun, Huang Hao, and Liu Chan.
|
|
|
Post by Maalii on Nov 9, 2004 19:19:32 GMT -5
I think there is no doubt that the AOW writers were inspired by the Zhang Fei character and built many of his characteristics into their portrayal of Che Won, but I agree that Che Won was not Zhang Fei's equal. Although they both were hot headed and liked to drink, and this got them both into trouble, Zhang Fei could also be clever, as he showed in at least three different campaigns where he used guile rather than brute force to overcome an opposing army. I also agree that his individual fighting ability transcended that which Che Won was portrayed as having.
|
|
|
Post by TheIceTigers on Nov 10, 2004 8:37:55 GMT -5
alittle off topic but ID, im not very familair with the rotk warrior names in english, which one is Lu Xun? Well as for me, the character i hated the most is probably Sama Yim(duno if i spell it right) He reminds me of CCh in a way
|
|
|
Post by Maalii on Nov 10, 2004 12:33:00 GMT -5
alittle off topic but ID, im not very familair with the rotk warrior names in english, which one is Lu Xun? Well as for me, the character i hated the most is probably Sama Yim(duno if i spell it right) He reminds me of CCh in a way Lu Xun was one of Sun Quan's greatest leaders and strategists. He is the one who led the Wu forces to defeat Liu Bei's invasion of vengeance. You think Sima Yi reminds you of CCH? The way he is portrayed in the novel he doesn't overbear Imperial authority (w/o taking the throne) in the way Cao Cao or Sima's sons, Sima Shi and Sima Zhao did. I think Cao Cao himself is more CCH-like although I think he had a far better grasp of administration of a state than CCH.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Nov 10, 2004 16:12:35 GMT -5
alittle off topic but ID, im not very familair with the rotk warrior names in english, which one is Lu Xun? Well as for me, the character i hated the most is probably Sama Yim(duno if i spell it right) He reminds me of CCh in a way I'm with you on Sima Yi IceTigers!
|
|
|
Post by IceTiger on Nov 16, 2004 16:59:47 GMT -5
o so thats Lu Xun, i hate him to the guts too =P
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Nov 18, 2004 15:56:11 GMT -5
I have a greater problem with Lu Xun than I do with Sima Yi. The reason is that I believe Lu Xun embraced cowardice in his strategies leading up to battles. I understand that every measure must be taken to win, however, I feel that Kong Ming, Sima Yi and others formulated effective battle tactics within a framework of honor. Lu Xun seemed to have little consideration for this in his preparation for war.
My dislike of him is more a lack of respect than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Maalii on Nov 20, 2004 21:05:05 GMT -5
I have a greater problem with Lu Xun than I do with Sima Yi. The reason is that I believe Lu Xun embraced cowardice in his strategies leading up to battles. I understand that every measure must be taken to win, however, I feel that Kong Ming, Sima Yi and others formulated effective battle tactics within a framework of honor. I don't know, I don't think Lu Xun's strategies are any more cowardly than Kongming's. For example, note how Kongming trapped Jiang Wei into submitting. Clever, certainly, but was it any more honorable than any of Lu Xun's ploys? What about Kongming's burning of the Rattan Army?---Even he felt guilty about that one. I think Lu Xun was a pretty darned good strategist, but he had the advantage (in contrast to Kongming) of fighting to defend territory rather than to expand it.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Nov 23, 2004 15:16:57 GMT -5
Maallii,
You blow me away with the defending vs attacking analysis. Once again I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I will defend Kongming. His strategy regarding Jiang Wei was specifically to capture him, so the means are directly connected to the end. Burning the Rattan army is indefensable, yet he did regret it, so "The Sleeping Dragon" would probably agree with your assessment of that scenario.
We have no record of such sentiments on the part of Lu Xun, and his propensity to repeat such tactics would indicate a lack of regret for having authored and endorsing them in the first place. Either that or he was limited to those methods by a lack of creativity.
At any rate, he deserves credit in that Wu casualties were minimal under his watch (more often than not).
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Nov 23, 2004 15:27:31 GMT -5
You think Sima Yi reminds you of CCH? The way he is portrayed in the novel he doesn't overbear Imperial authority (w/o taking the throne) in the way Cao Cao or Sima's sons, Sima Shi and Sima Zhao did. I think Cao Cao himself is more CCH-like although I think he had a far better grasp of administration of a state than CCH. Cao Cao and CCH may have been similar in ambition and in their scope of vision, but as I have understood (mostly from reading the threads on this site) CCH was more of a warrior than Cao Cao. I cannot recall many instances in which Cao Cao actually engaged in combat himself (short of stabbing a couple of people and hunting). He certainly must have been skilled, but I generally regard him as the least of (Cao, Liu Bei, Sun Quan, Sun Ce, and Sun Jian) from the standpoint of fighting ability. Certainly he is at the top of the list with regard to administration and cunning.
|
|
|
Post by Maalii on Nov 24, 2004 15:09:56 GMT -5
Nevertheless, I will defend Kongming. Don't get me wrong, I'm not slamming Kongming at all. I was only saying that I didn't believe Lu Xun's strategies were less honorable than Kongming's. That having been said I believe Kongming was a more accomplished leader, not only because he had constantly spin plans to outwit a defensive foe, but also because his internal statesmanship was very praiseworthy. In fact it was because he insisted on wearing so many hats that he burned out and died at a comparatively early age. I have read some translations of Kongming's writings and I must say that I admire him even more upon reading them. He was truly a man of extraordinary brilliance and integrity. The writings I've read include the three letters he wrote on his deathbed (to his King, his son, and his nephew--the one to the King is given in its entirety in ROTK). Of those three, the one to his nephew is the most impressive to me. It is the type of writing you put up on your wall for inspiration (perhaps it also strikes a personal chord for me, too). Now Kongming is often criticized as a military strategist for being too conservative--many say he would have done well to take Wei Yan's advice when attacking the north. I don't agree with those detractors. I think Wei Yan's more direct attack on the capital may have gained an initial advantage, but I don't think anyone can say with certainty that it would have resulted in the ultiimate defeat for Wei. Wei was simply a stronger state: it had a larger population, more troops, it had the advantage of fighting on the defensive on its home turf, and it also had very skilled leaders of its own. I think the bigger question is whether Kongming should have undertaken multiple offensive actions against Wei in the first place. Because of his promise to Liu Bei he was sort of fated (cursed) to, but whether or not the policy really helped Shu-Han or not is debateable (it certainly hurt them during Jiang Wei's time).
|
|
|
Post by Maalii on Nov 24, 2004 15:39:11 GMT -5
Cao Cao and CCH may have been similar in ambition and in their scope of vision, but as I have understood (mostly from reading the threads on this site) CCH was more of a warrior than Cao Cao. I cannot recall many instances in which Cao Cao actually engaged in combat himself (short of stabbing a couple of people and hunting). He certainly must have been skilled, but I generally regard him as the least of (Cao, Liu Bei, Sun Quan, Sun Ce, and Sun Jian) from the standpoint of fighting ability. Certainly he is at the top of the list with regard to administration and cunning. Cao Cao is on the battlefield a lot in ROTK but he isn't shown as showing exceptional martial artistry in the field. As described in ROTK I agree that he ranks below Liu Bei and the Suns in his individual fighting skill. There are one or two instances early on when Cao Cao is described as being at the front of his troops during battle (actually leading with his sword), but later on we generally get a series of battles in which he flees for his life and is saved by one of his stalwart generals. Cao Cao did own a couple of awesome swords, apparently, but it was only Zhao Yun who showed everyone how awewome one of those swords was after killing Cao's swordbearer! Similarly, Sima Yi is never depicted in individual combat either (his eldest son does engage Jiang Wei unsuccessfully). So in that sense Cao and Sima are similar, but Cao is depicted in bullying the Imperial House more (ie more like CCH). Part of this, of course, is because the Imperial House is very much weaker during Cao Cao's time versus Sima Yi's time--the house of Wei really didn't precipitously go downhill until Cao Rui died (leaving an underage heir). After Sima Yi was able to outmaneuver Cao Shaung he finally overbore Imperial authority, but he didn't have much time left to live. Getting back to the original comparison, AOW depicts CCH in more individual combat than Cao or Sima, but I think the relative comparison as a warrior is still apt. CCH as depicted in the show was not a match, one on one, for any of the major AOW warriors (with the likely exception of the Master of the Colorful Cape), just as Cao Cao and Sima Yi are not depicted in ROTK as being the equal in one on one combat of any of their warrior peers. I think overall Cao Cao is still the most similar to CCH because Cao Cao was a "villianous subject" for much of his stay on the pages of ROTK basically making the Han emperor a puppet, whereas Sima Yi is portrayed as a loyal minister/general until he destroys Cao Shaung. I think the narration at the end of AOW sums up well the failure of the various warrior leaders in the AOW to truly lead the nation--they could wrest power with arms but they couldn't administer a state--and this included CCH. This is in contrast to Cao Cao whose Wei dynasty was strong for 3 generations (this includes himself as the first generation).
|
|