Talk:Xiahou Dun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
more info from the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms can also be useful. kt2 05:35 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Shu Dynasty?
Shu Han was announced by Liu Bei to be the genuine Han Dynasty, not another Dynasty.
- i understand that the matter is rather complicated here. Although Liu Bei would like to think that his reign was a legitimate continuation of the Han Dynasty, from history's point of view Han ended when Emperor Xian abdicated in 220. History then officially entered the Three Kingdoms period. After some considerations i suggest calling it "Shu-Han Dynasty" to avoid confusions. Counsel? --Plastictv 07:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest you use the Kingdom of Shu instead.
- That wouldn't be quite right either since Liu Bei and Liu Shan were not kings but bona fide emperors. As you recall, the "Kingdom of Wei" existed while Cao Cao was still alive, but only after he died did Cao Pi become emperor and start the "Wei Dynasty", in a way of speaking. Let me research more on that before giving you a satisfiable answer. --Plastictv 14:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the use of the Shu-Han Dynasty. It differentiates Liu Bei's dynaty from the Han Dynasty, and it was more than just a kingdom. It wasn't the Shu Dynaty, as Liu Bei did consider himself heir to the Han, but it wasn't the Han Dynasty either. Shu-Han is both accurate and the more widely accepted term. --Tiamatty 2:14 am, 16 May 2005
- That wouldn't be quite right either since Liu Bei and Liu Shan were not kings but bona fide emperors. As you recall, the "Kingdom of Wei" existed while Cao Cao was still alive, but only after he died did Cao Pi become emperor and start the "Wei Dynasty", in a way of speaking. Let me research more on that before giving you a satisfiable answer. --Plastictv 14:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest you use the Kingdom of Shu instead.
Ok. After much deliberation, i propose calling it "Kingdom of Shu" (and similarly "Kingdom of Wei" and "Kingdom of Wu"). These "kingdoms" are generally not considered "dynasties", primarily because they did not unify China. This is similar to the Warring States Period, where each state, though being an independent and hereditary monarchy, was not considered a dynasty.
Of course the hassle lies in determining when exactly these kingdoms began. Strictly speaking they began in 220, 221 and 222 respectively. But by mid-210s the three kingdoms had already taken shape. So i do urge caution in using the abovementioned terms, using instead names of their leaders (Cao Cao, Liu Bei and Sun Quan) where ambiguous. --Plastictv 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Xiahou Shao
Was he a direct descendant of Xiahou Dun?(泰始二年春帝正月（原注﹕《史通·模擬》云：“孫盛魏晉二《陽秋》，每年首必云：某年春帝正月。因元年無正月，故標於此。）高安鄉侯夏侯佐卒，惇之孫也，嗣絕。詔曰﹕“惇，魏之元功勛書竹帛。昔庭堅不祀，猶或到此之，況朕受禪於魏，而可以忘其功臣哉！宜擇惇近屬劭封之。（孫盛《晉陽秋》·《三國志注》九，《類聚》51）P.103。)
- This would depend on whether you choose to take the extra information given in the annotation by Pei Songzhi. Chen Shou merely stated that "廙薨，子邵嗣。" But《晋阳秋》added what you put down above. According to it, Xiahou Zuo was the grandson of Xiahou Dun, but he died without children. Hence Sima Yan, in his second year of reign, chose a close relative of Xiahou Zuo to succeed the title. As to how Xiahou Shao is related to the others i cannot say.
- P.S. Please sign off using two "-" and four "~". :) --Plastictv 14:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Hi. i just saw the change that you made. Yes i do agree with you that it is safer to say that Xiahou Shao was not a direct descendant of Xiahou Yi. :) --Plastictv 14:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
