| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yuan Chonghuan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
edit"he also managed to defeat Nurhaci's son and successor, Huangtaiji, and his 200,000 mostly Mongol soldiers at the second Battle of Ningyuan." - Which fool wrote this article??? First Huangtaiji was the Manchurian king, he was not the mongolian king. Idiot! You made a big mistake. Second the Manchurian population was about 1 million, they got a army about 10,000 soldiers.'
Untitled
editHe was a great Confucian who wouldn't compromise even with the emperor, and that made him a tragic figure. He was like Yueh Fei, was China's ablest defender against Jurchen/Manchu invaders.
Not the be mean, but this article's level of english is poor, it is completely unsourced, and the vast majority of what is written seem to be a single author's personal commentary. What is irrelevant needs to be deleted. Historical facts need to be cited.Strategos231 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, though whether he was a tragic figure is a matter of a person's POV. To a pro-Ming, anti-Qing, and/or Cantonese historian, yes; he would be a tragic hero. But not all people may agree with that view. Some people may say that it was wrong opposing the Qing Dynasty because the Ming Dynasty was corrupt in its later years and needed to be overthrown, etc. Just saying. I hope nobody minds if I change the language of the article a little. ZhangYuu (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Chinese text to be translated
edit
毛文龍原是都司，鎮守遼陽。被派去援助朝鮮時敗退到皮島，建東江鎮，功到左都督、總兵、被賜尚方寶劍。毛文龍善於騷擾，一直派兵深入女真腹地襲擊。
崇禎二年（1629年）五月二十九日，袁崇煥在皮島以閱兵為名，召毛文龍並祭出尚方寶劍斬於帳前，開列罪狀如下：
九年以來兵馬錢糧不受經略巡撫管核； 全無戰功，卻報首功； 剛愎撒潑，無人臣禮； 侵盜邊海錢糧； 自開馬市，私通外夷； 褻朝廷名器，樹自己爪牙； 劫贓無算，躬為盜賊； 好色誨淫； 拘錮難民，草菅民命； 交結近侍； 掩敗為功； 開鎮八年，不能復遼東寸土。
其真實原因並非列舉的十二條，和袁當時要和皇太極議和、毛和袁爭奪糧餉卻不聽號令繼續我行我素、袁欲以劉興祚兄弟代毛從皮島攻女真、毛在官場上的後台王化貞、 毛對朝鮮見死不救以至於袁也要為朝鮮降清担當責任等事件有關。袁崇煥在殺毛文龍以後上疏請罪時說：「臣自到任，即收拾關寧兵馬，未暇及此，每章奏必及之， 收其心翼其改也。至關寧之營制定而此事可為矣。於是乎設文臣以監之，其不以道臣而以餉臣者，令其將若兵有所利而無所疑也。又嚴海禁以窘之，文龍禁絕外人， 以張繼善橫絕旅順不許一人入其軍。臣改貢道于寧遠者，欲藉此為間，皆所以圖文龍矣。賴皇上天縱神武，一一許臣，自去年十二月臣安排已定，文龍有死無生矣。為文龍者，束身歸命于朝廷，一聽臣之節制，其能為今是非，則有生無死。」
也有說有證據毛文龍當時要降女真，但證據不足。按袁崇煥上疏，毛文龍死前六個月早已無生(除非接受袁崇煥的領導)，並不是因為叛國。毛文龍被殺後有徐爾一[5]等人上疏為其鳴冤。 三個月後就發生了「己巳之變」，清軍兵臨北京城下，明庭大臣們多歸因於毛文龍死後女真無後顧之憂所致。 Arilang talk 05:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)