Talk:Cao Wei

Untitled

Is it possible to take the data from Wei (state) and put it here??

Quibus 11:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wei (state) is from the Warring States Period, that's different from Three Kingdoms. Hanfresco 10:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Wei Status

As I review over the Wei state so many times, I see the one thing that I believe that could've have made it the more than just the strongest among the other kingdom. Cao Cao made the kingdom of Wei into a state of overwhelming man power, having more generals than Wu (maybe not), yet it seem that he would, to me, try to use chaos to his advantage or try to use surprising troops from the least place to expect. Overall, the kingdom of Wei had the man power, the perfect number of generals to command the troops yet at some points, they did not have the strategy to combat the likes of Zhuge Liang (till Sima Yi came to Wei's need) or of Lu Xun (Lu Meng's successor). I do though have much respect for Cao Cao and the use of chaos to his advantage; he displays this talent when he fought against Yuan Shao at the Battle of Guan Du.(Indeed, chaos can be a powerful ally.)

Nevertheless, Wei had all the resources needed, but it did not have the strategy to combat the best of Shu or Wu. --Zhang Liao 16:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Top Five Wei Generals

Zhang He, Yue Jin, Zhang Liao, Xu Huang, and Yu Jin. Out of all the generals that were in Wei, only these five men showed more skill(Maybe not) and more feats when war was upon them.

1.) Zhang Liao repel the Wu army at Hefei with only 800 troops and aid from only two officers.(Li Dian and Yue Jin)

2.) Zhang He assist Sima Yi in the assault from the South led by Zhuge Liang and scored a tremendous win at Jieting.

3.) Xu Haung displays his skill not only by maintaining order within Cao Cao's army but also by remaining on state duty weather he was in battle or not.

4.) Yue Jin was noteable for his amazing service to Wei from the time of Yuan Shao and after Cao Cao suffers the defeat at Chi Bi.(Known as the Red Cliffs)

5.) Yu Jin gains his own way into the high ranking from his efforts in the Yellow Turban battle. Upon the rise of Cao Cao, Yu Jin assist the Duke of Wei in his battle at Guandu and soon was promote.

If Anyone has any more interesting intel about the Top 5 Wei generals then, please add on.--Zhang Liao 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

personally i think Xuahou Dun was the strongest general, but whatever...Also Xiahou Yuan and Li Dian were very good aswell.--Teniii (UTC)

There is much debate about Xiahou Dun's ability. I'm on the supporting side of Xiahou Dun having skill. He was a renowned Vangaurd general along with Xu Huang. Both were on about the same level, except by coincidence, the books seems to allow Xiahou Dun to get ambushed more often. Zhang He was considered a discraced officer for a large majority of the time. He regains some honor in the latter end with his victories with Sima Yi, but he remains a supporting general and little more. Li Dian was a flank general, or a supporter. He did little more than that. He hardly his the 'famed' level. -Patricoo

I agree that xiahoa dun should be in the top 5, I also think that dian wei, cao cao, cao pi and guan yu [who was a genral] should be in the top 5. I think this because dian wei defended cao cao during a invation, cao cao lead the wei army for a long time, cao pi defended guandu well and guan yu ashured victery agenst yuan shou by killing two of his best genrals.-marknjp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.231.23 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Dian wei is one of the top genrals saving cao cao's life many times. Second genral is Guan Yu. I know he only assisted Cao Cao for his Yuan Shao campain but because of him Cao Cao didn't have to deal with Yan Liang or Wen Cho. Third genral is zhang Lio who helped at He Fei. Forth is Xhaho Dun because he faught a long way with his cousin from the begining he assisted Cao Cao in many battles. Finaly is sima yi who used many stratigys to take out the army of Shu at the Wu zhang plans. -Marknjp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.100.208 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Established English terms should be predominant on the English Wiki -- Cao Wei as page title violates this

The Kingdom of Wei is not chiefly known as Cao Wei. That's Chinese nomenclature. Although I'm fluent in Chinese and believe in adding Chinese nomenclature parenthetically whereever it helps clarify, this should only be done in accordance with established Wiki style. This is the English Wiki, not the Chinese Wiki. Established English names go first, followed by the Chinese and Pinyin in parentheses at the beginning of main pages. The page title of Cao Wei is therefore inappropriate. I am renaming it 'Wei Kingdom'. Dragonbones 03:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with "Kingdom of Wei" is that it's inaccurate. It wasn't a kingdom. I'm moving it back, but please discuss further. I can be convinced otherwise, and I'd also urge that you file an request for comment on this. --Nlu (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please also see all the categories that already have "Cao Wei" in their names (e.g., Category:Cao Wei emperors and Category:Cao Wei empresses), as well as all the articles that have been added with "Cao Wei" in their text. It would be a great hassle to edit them. --Nlu (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to discuss. My sources do call them kingdoms, e.g., JAG Roberts 'A Concise History of China', Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1999), pp.40 onward, and it is primarily known in English as Wei of the Three "Kingdoms". The clearly established name of the period is the Three Kingdoms, and I don't feel we should change that. If you have an argument for why they don't really qualify as kingdoms, that should be reflected within the text and not in the title. Furthermore, Cao Wei is a completely Chinese term IMO (I would say that when speaking Mandarin but never when speaking English, much as I would only say kuang2cao3 in Mandarin vs. something like 'wild cursive' in English. I had already begun the process of editing pages with Cao Wei in their text, btw... I'd like to hear your side, as to why it's not a kingdom; but let's remember this is the English Wiki, and English terms should predominate. The period IS known as the Three Kingdoms, clearly making Wei one of the three "kingdoms". Dragonbones 02:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a kingdom because its ruler was not a king; its ruler was an emperor. While the period is known as "Three Kingdoms," the cumbersome "Kingdom of Wei" isn't as established, and we shouldn't intentionally encourage historical inaccuracy. It is a similar situation, I think, to "Eskimo" -- while it is a more known word choice in English, "Inuit" is used on Wikipedia and should be used on Wikipedia because it is more accurate. --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from Wiki: "In 216, Cao Cao was promoted to Wèi Wang (Prince/King of Wèi). In 220, Cao Cao died and his son Cao Pi succeeded to the title Wèi Wang" (not huangdi!). My history books don't call either him or his son emperor. An overly glorious posthumous title of 'emperor' when in fact you don't rule an empire doesn't make you an emperor btw. Please provide references supporting your claim he was an emperor and Wei was an empire. I've never ever seen "the empire of Wei" in English. Is it called 魏代 Wei4dai4 (Wei Dynasty) or 魏朝 Wei4chao2 (Wei Dynasty) in Chinese? Or just 魏國 Wei4guo2(Wei country/state)? What makes an empire? Is royal bloodline enough? (If so, how is that different from being a king?) Doesn't one need to rule over something 'greater' than a state or kingdom? And was this the case with any of these three states and their rulers? Does anyone really call them Cao Cao Huangdi or Cao Pi Huangdi??? I'll admit that the history of this period is not my strength -- I'm pleased to discuss this with you, and hope to learn something! ;) Dragonbones 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's pull in some third opinions, and do a bit more research and discussion before adding this to the RfC request for comment, as per RfC guidelines. I'm not convinced yet but will keep an open mind. Cheers! Dragonbones 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, please see the entry on Cao Pi. Cao Cao indeed died without ever being emperor -- because he was the chancellor of Eastern Han Dynasty, even though he was the ruler in reality. He was only the wang (which I translate as "prince", but "king" is a perfectly fine translation) of Wei during his lifetime. It was after his death (less than a year later) that Cao Pi took over the throne from Emperor Xian of Han, thus ending Han Dynasty formally and starting Cao Wei. All of Cao Wei's rulers carried the title emperor (huangdi).

If you want more details on this, going to the source (Sanguo Zhi) is probably the best thing to do. Since you mentioned you speak Mandarin, I am going to assume that you can read Chinese. See [1], which has all the traditional Chinese histories (except, for some weird reason, Song Shi). If you read simplified characters, I think the source of Sanguo Zhi might be on Chinese Wikisource. For an alternative source, see Zizhi Tongjian. --Nlu (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, all three states' rulers carried the titles huangdi. Again, major reason why I feel "kingdom" is inaccurate. --Nlu (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I do read Chinese, but much too slowly to skim those sources for the information. Ok, Cao Pi declared himself emperor, but was he? Anyone can declare themself emperor -- does that really make them one? Is he generally known by historians as Emperor? In other words, does his claim of empire hold water? The Han empire was split into three states, right? If Cao Pi didn't manage to make grounds against Liu Bei's Shu Han and Sun Quan's Eastern Wu, as the Cao Pi page states, then weren't the three really just kingdoms or states, not empires?

If it's an empire and a dynasty, then shouldn't we call it the Wei dynasty and after that add disambiguating info such as '(Cao Wei)' or the dates or 'of Three Kingdoms period' after it, rather than using a Chinese term 'Cao Wei' as the main title? The main point comes back to the primacy of English names on an English Wiki, and the crux of the question is this: Is 'Cao Wei' a well-established English name, and if not, is there a well-established English designation which, perhaps with disambiguating information added after it, would either solve or skirt the Kingdom/Empire issue? Dragonbones 05:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cao Wei was the largest of the three states. I'd say that if any of the three qualified as an empire, it was.

But in any case, each of the three states was far larger than many other states known in history as empires. (Compare, for example, the Latin Empire -- which certainly was a legitimate empire.) It's also not just they themselves declaring themselves emperors; their subjects certainly viewed them as emperors. I think that here, in order to be NPOV, we have to treat them as the titles that they themselves claimed; otherwise, we get into value judgments on, "Is he a legitimate emperor?" But certainly "kingdom" doesn't make sense in that regard; if he's not an emperor because he was self-proclaimed, then what makes him a king? Why not call it the Usurpate of Wei?

I don't deny that the "primacy of English names" is important, but far more important is accuracy. "Kingdom of Wei" gives incorrect information, and I think should thus be avoided. --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the point stands --if it's an empire and a dynasty, then shouldn't we call it by the English term 'the Wei dynasty' and after that add disambiguating info such as '(Cao Wei)' or the dates or 'of Three Kingdoms period' after it, rather than using a Chinese term 'Cao Wei' as the main title? (Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult; it's just that this was my main point all along and you haven't addressed it.) Dragonbones 09:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wei Dynasty" has the trouble of then requiring disambiguation with Northern Wei Dynasty (which is obviously already disambiguated, but is made into a three word article title as a result) -- which then may make it have to be "Cao Wei Dynasty," which brings us full circle. Why not just stay with Cao Wei? (I am considering moving Northern Wei Dynasty to just Northern Wei, incidentally.) --Nlu (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wei Dynasty" and "Northern Wei Dynasty" respectively are fine with me. Nothing wrong with a 3-word title; I'd keep the Dynasty but wouldn't insist on it. Cheers!Dragonbones 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that then makes a value judgement that Cao Wei was more "legitimate" than Northern Wei, which is another problem. Northern Wei might have slightly less territory than Cao Wei even at its prime, but it lasted far longer. In Chinese history, when you talk about "Wei," disambiguation is required precisely because those two states in particular had significantly long history that you can be talking about either. I don't like the title of Liang Dynasty, but I accept it because there is not another significant Liang Dynasty in Chinese history. I don't think "Wei Dynasty" is appropriate standing alone. --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wei" standing alone matches the usage in the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary by DeFrancis, and that's always worked for me. I don't think there's any difference in legitimacy conferred by the presence or absence of a compass direction prefix. But if you insist on disambiguation, why not "Wei Dynasty of Three Kingdoms period"? I'm also very interested in having others weigh in on this... Dragonbones 03:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Nlu's position. I prefer the use of Wei (Cao) myself, then Cao Wei. The last name of the rulers is logically a simple and effective way to differentiate different states with the same name in English; it's preferred because it's simple, clear and accurate, not because it's Chinese convention (although it has become Chinese convention when used to differentiate Wei). Many academic writings in English also share the same usage. Due to the nature of the English language, I slightly prefer the use of Wei (Cao) over Cao Wei, since Wei is emphasized. Kingdom is an inaccurate reflection of the status of Cao Wei; actually, Wei (state) was closer to being a kingdom than Cao Wei. Cao Wei is best classified as a state or polity; avoiding terms like kingdom, empire, dynasty etc. is a good NPOV decision when it comes to Chinese polities (unless it's something like the Han Dynasty), since those terms have legitimacy POV connotations in the Chinese context. Calling Cao Wei a dynasty (but not Northern Wei) would elevate the polity to a status that's not recognized in history versus Northern Wei, as argued by Nlu. I don't think we should blindly follow common English usage, especially when it's rather problematic from an accuracy standpoint--Confuzion 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should stick with Cao Wei, just because I don't know any better way to disambiguate it from other political entities called Wei. "State" is, as Confuzion suggests, a better term to use than "kingdom", but the State of Wei implies the Zhànguó-era entity; and, if we used "Kingdom of Wei" instead, I don't know what makes that clearly distinct. It's true that Cao Wei was, at one point, a "kingdom", in the sense that Cao Cao was styled 魏王, King of Wei—but this translation is misleading, because Wei at that point was a feudal subentity subject to the empire, and "kingdom" is rarely used in this sense in English ("Grand Duchy" might be more appropriate). It appears that what Wei was was actually a military regime run by the Cao family on the basis of its de facto control of territory, which used a variety of titles to refer to itself. These titles, then, must be seen as formalities and propaganda devices rather than somehow definitive. Cao Wei seems to offer the best combination of precision, concision, and non-originality. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(Random un-indent) T'sao T'sao's state is not a kingdom; the 'king' title given in Chinese context does not revolve around actually being a King, as with the title of 'prince' or 'Marquis'. It is not a dynasty, as the emperor T'sao Pi never declared a dynasty by changing era name or calling his state anything other than T'sao Wei. So we are stuck with Empire-sized areas ruled by Emperors who were given nominal 'King' titles at the end of Han by a defunct Emperor, and yet none of them formally denounced the Han dynasty until the Jin Dynasty formed. So none of the three are technically Empires either (only Jin changed era Name). They are states under Han, until S'suma changed their era name to Jin, of which then they are their own empires(each changed their own era names - Shu of Han, Eastern Wu), until Jin absorbed them.Annihilatron (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Un-protection

Is protection of this page really necessary? About time to request an un-protect? Hanfresco 10:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

List of important individuals

How many "important" people do you think should be listed for a state that lasted 45 years? --Nlu (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, okay, heres what I will do than i will edit the list to what i think are the more important people meaning i will add some and delets some from the current list, if you disagree fell free to intrude, but I think I got it under control. Hardworker111 10:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're having a grasp of true importance. You removed regents and empresses and replaced them with people who had very little impact on Cao Wei's history. Further, if somehow you think Wen Qin was more important to Eastern Wu than to Cao Wei, you havve a rather strange definition of importance. --Nlu (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if it sounds like I'm losing my temper. After some thoughts, I will submit this to WP:RFC and look for opinions. As Cao Wei appears to be the one that is the most disputed of the three lists, I'll request that the discussion be directed here. --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind, afterall you have been here a lot longer than I have. I was just trying to help out, and I didn't even realize i added Wen Qin to Wu, must have been a mistake, so sorry for the hassel and I suppose i will leave the pages the way the are now, however I'm surprised you feel Yue Jin was not important. Also I personally think most empresses aren't important since they usually had no diplomatic, military, or political power, they just gave birth to some important people. Hardworker111 19:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, i looked back and understand what your saying, I didn't add Wen Qin to Wu I added Jiang Qin to Wu. Jiang Qin, if u don't know, was Zhou Tai's pirate partner who joined Wu the same time, etc. I think you may have gotten confused, not sure. Hardworker111 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But I'll address your view about empresses below. --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

RfC has been filed. Here are some of my views on what the criteria of inclusion should be, for all three articles (Cao Wei, Eastern Wu, and Shu Han):

1. The individual needs to have actually possessed a high position during the state's existence or made a major, major impact on the founding of the state. (Examples of the former, one from each state: Cao Shuang, Zhuge Ke, Jiang Wan; examples of the latter are Cao Cao, Sun Ce, and Guan Yu.) and
2. The individual himself/herself has to be completely non-fictional, and his/her impact on the state's governance has to be itself non-fictional. This excludes such individuals as Sun Shangxiang (based on real character, but the character as written later is fictional).

The reason is that these are encyclopedia articles, and people who may be signifiant in the public consciousness due to Romance of the Three Kingdoms and related works but are in actually non-important, or vice versa, are/can be more than adequately dealt with in their respective articles, rather than letting their inclusion continue to obfuscate on true importance. Based on the Romance of Three Kingdoms, you would not thiink that Sun Jun was important; in reality, he had already become important late in Sun Quan's reign, and later on became all-powerful after he overthrew Zhuge Ke. This is an encyclopedia, not a work of literary analysis. If there is a list of "important individuals aboard the RMS Titanic, including Sun Shangxiang in the list of important individuals for Eastern Wu is the equivalent of including Rose Bukater in that list. --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasons why I also think that empresses should be included, ontrary to Hardworker111's view above that they're not sufficiently important, is that they actually wielded substantial powers -- at least when their husbands had substantial powers and were not purely puppets. Their power inside the palaces over imperial servants, both male and female -- of which there are substantial numbers -- are near absolute, and they had fairly high powers over even the emperors' concubines. Further, many of them had substantial influence over the politics. Empress Guo (Ming), for example, was titular regent over three emperors' reign and made several (futile) to restore the power of the Cao Wei emperors. Empress Pan (Da) was indicated by histories to be highly influential late in Sun Quan's reign. Empress Zhu (Jing) was part of the decision process that led to the disasterous seletion of Sun Hao as emperor. Their importance isn't diminished simply because they're not individuals coming to the forefront of public consciousness when thinking of the Three Kingdoms. Including Zhang Bao (Shu Han), for example, while excluding his sisters Empress Zhang (Liu Shan, former) and Empress Zhang (Liu Shan, later), in particular, makes no sense in my opinion. Zhang Bao's authorities and impact on Shu Han's governance were minimal, while his sisters, while not much is recorded about them, had actual powers. (It may be the case that all three should be excluded; but if one has to go, Zhang Bao should go since he did not even have actual authority to exercise, whereas they did.) --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And, after some thought, I think I'll propose this: remove the lists altogether. The lists will either again spawn problems with over/under inlusion or create false impressions about what things actually were in history. --Nlu (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that Nlu, i understand your trying to prevent any edit wars from re-occuring, but that would make the page so dauntingly small, unless you plan on buffering it up and making it larger by adding more history and key facts. Hardworker111 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I support removing the lists. After all, the article (Shu Han, Eastern Wu as well) is much too brief, given the amount of information present. So size is not really a concern. _dk 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not as a comment as to whether the lists should be included, but some empresses and people you have listed to be 'unimportant' are very important; some wielded a lot of power as said before. However, Lady Sun (Sun Shangxiang by ROTK name) was politically important in the marriage to Liu Bei, and then she attempted to take Liu Bei's eldest son with her to Wu when the two states went to war later. I would think that is of at least political importance, although she did nothing later on to influence the country. I think the final problem is 'who judges' what is important and what is not; and that would be an issue should the list be kept. Annihilatron (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Whole Crew is here!

I like this! Everybody who made some important impact to the Cao Wei kingdom is here. Cool listing to the Han Era Crew and the Three Kingdoms Crew. I also noticed the other two (Eastern Wu & Shu Han) Also done like that or similiar. Well there is no more reason for me to add on to the three kingdoms chars or places. Nice work!--Zhang Liao 05:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The territory disputes

I do not understand why the Chinese would be so hell bent on trying to prove Korea was dominated by China. Especially when it was not quite this in the ancient times, Wei had its eastern coastal provinces taken by foreigners who ruled the Downriver HwangHe for 400 years, so says a Chinese official today! Also, Kogureyeo is smack bang in the area in the northern korean peninsula where Wei has its territory drawn into it. If that was the case, why does the Great wall end near Beijing and not into the Korean Peninsula? The Great wall is made to prevent Northerners from invading.

I even witnessed old Chinese men saying the Wei territories were not drawn like this in Chinese historical textbooks only 20 years ago.

The Great Wall at that time did end in the north Korean peninsula. Today's Great Wall was built around ming dynasty and was supposed to fend the Mongolian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.70.49 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wei part of Vietnam?

How is Wei part of todays Vietnam? I would add Mongolia, but certainly not Vietnam. I guess somebody confused it with Wu here. (EnTerbury (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

It's weird. Maybe the person was thinking of the Wei after it conquered Shu but before it became the Jin Dynasty. Some of Shu's southern territories might have been in present-day Vietnam. LDS _{contact me} 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The person who added it was probably thinking about the Wu mutiny in Jiaozhi (which includes parts of Vietnam) that declared themselves to be under Wei control in 264. _dk (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

point 1, wei first became jin then conquered shu. shu also included myanmar and laos as well. point two, yeah thats true, which is now explained in the article. good! point 3, but the part above xihai in caowei is in todays mongolia. further, the korean part extends across the border to south korea. edit? EnTerbury (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

1 not true actually, 3 needs explicit sources before editing. EnTerbury (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Former Wei" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Former Wei. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)