Female leaders

[Zaarin]

If a certain leader requires a drama/movie to enhance people's attentions then they're not really on the level of greatness as most other leaders. People often remember the best. As for interesting, it's a very subjective word. For instance I don't find Wu Zetian interesting at all. Her story is just like many Chinese emperors trying to become emperor.

People remember whomever it's in the best interest of the political powers to keep the memory of alive, or whoever serves nationalist or cultural agendas, or sometimes just whoever is the most colorful (like Henry VIII of England or Louis XIV of France). Richard I is one of the most popular kings of England, yet he ruled six months and bankrupted his country with his crusade--not exactly stellar leader material from where I'm standing. Popularity, notoriety, memorability, and effectiveness have a complicated relationship at best.

 

[Patine]

People remember whomever it's in the best interest of the political powers to keep the memory of alive, or whoever serves nationalist or cultural agendas, or sometimes just whoever is the most colorful (like Henry VIII of England or Louis XIV of France). Richard II is one of the most popular kings of England, yet he ruled six months and bankrupted his country with his crusade--not exactly stellar leader material from where I'm standing. Popularity, notoriety, memorability, and effectiveness have a complicated relationship at best.

You mean Richard I, right? Richard II, as I recall, was just a patsy boy for his uncle, John of Gaunt, who REALLY ran England at that time in all but title.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

People remember whomever it's in the best interest of the political powers to keep the memory of alive, or whoever serves nationalist or cultural agendas, or sometimes just whoever is the most colorful (like Henry VIII of England or Louis XIV of France). Richard II is one of the most popular kings of England, yet he ruled six months and bankrupted his country with his crusade--not exactly stellar leader material from where I'm standing. Popularity, notoriety, memorability, and effectiveness have a complicated relationship at best.

Honestly I think the story of the legendary Robin Hood during this time period has the most influence on why he would be so popular.

 

[Zaarin]

You mean Richard I, right? Richard II, as I recall, was just a patsy boy for his uncle, John of Gaunt, who REALLY ran England at that time in all but title.

Yes, I meant the Lionheart. Not Richard of Bordeaux or the guy that Shakespeare made (in)famous.

Honestly I think the story of the legendary Robin Hood during this time period has the most influence on why he would be so popular.

Or chansons de geste more generally: he was the quintessential knight-errant, and Medieval romance ate it up. Recall that Richard I lived at the same time that Arthurian romance was just beginning to blossom with Geoffrey of Monmouth and his rather fanciful Historia Regum Britanniae.

 

[LiamX]

History remembers greatness and tyranny alike and it is not anyway too subjective. Qin was an example of tyranny actually, according to majority view of chinese historians.

Cultural norms also came to play an essential role as well, adding more subjectivity to history.

Just as in societies where females are considered less important, you will expect to find less records of them.
E.g. females had very low social status in the Heian period of Japan, even the great novel writer, Murasaki Shikibu, did not have a name in record.
(Murasaki means purple, taken from a character in her book, Shikibu was her father's job title.)

People remember whom they like to remember, but not usually the best.

Actually, Qin was both a tyrant and a great leader. He united China and reinforced legalism which still has an impact even until the communist era. His reign valued meritocracy over aristocracy. He standardized measurements and scripts which has a long-lasting impact throughout Chinese history. Also connected the famous Great Wall and built the Terra Cotta Army.
This is why I laughed when one forumer here said Wu Zetian was better than Qin Shi Huang. lol.

Also, where did you get "the majority view of Chinese historians"? I study Chinese history myself and I'd like to look at your sources just to, you know, expand my knowledge.

Lastly, while politics would influence the reputation of a leader, for instance Qin Shi Huang's tyranny was actually exaggerated by the Han, I do think in most cases, it's either glorified or vilified. Leaders who were vaguely remembered at all, most likely didn't make that much impact as a leader. There are ofcourse a few exceptions like Hatshepsut-Thutmose but in most cases, it's just not the case. Wu Zetian tried to start her dynasty but it ended right after her reign and unlike the Qin and the Sui, she didn't make enough contribution for people to remember it.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Also, where did you get "the majority view of Chinese historians"? I study Chinese history myself and I'd like to look at your sources just to, you know, expand my knowledge.

One of the most studied and influential chinese history book called "Records of the grand historian(史記)', written by a Han dynasty historian. And the chapter about Qin is "秦始皇本紀".
https://baike.baidu.com/item/史记·秦始皇本纪/10323648?fromtitle=秦始皇本纪&fromid=2390952
He became a less remembered example of a good leader, as well as the more remembered side of a tyrannt in this book.

Lastly, while politics would influence the reputation of a leader, for instance Qin Shi Huang's tyranny was actually exaggerated by the Han, I do think in most cases, it's either glorified or vilified. Leaders who were vaguely remembered at all, most likely didn't make that much impact as a leader. There are ofcourse a few exceptions like Hatshepsut-Thutmose but in most cases, it's just not the case. Wu Zetian tried to start her dynasty but it ended right after her reign and unlike the Qin and the Sui, she didn't make enough contribution for people to remember it.

Actually Wu did build a lot in her life. Yet few has survived as her greatest projects were wooden architectures. Talking about the Terracotta Army and Qin's tomb, Wu's tomb was also very famous in China, called the QianLing Malosseum, which is (hopefully) not yet opened by anyone.

She was actually remembered throughout history (not vaguely) and was recorded in history books for emperors. On the other hand, Hatshepsut's trace was partially eliminated by her successors (likely Thutmose III)but yet we still take her as a great leader.

Btw, Wu's dynasty ended mainly because she wasn't able to appoint an heir. Her own son, was the heir of the Tang Dynasty throne. Choosing her own son was therefore impossible, making the issue of naming an heir an embarrassing dilemma for her. Thus unlike Sui and Qin, which was a completely different lineage of emperors, Wu could not make her close relatives as heir of her own dynasty. She was wise to return the dynasty back to Tang, for the creation of the new Zhou dynasty was merely her personal vanity.

 

[Phrozen]

Yes, I meant the Lionheart. Not Richard of Bordeaux or the guy that Shakespeare made (in)famous.


Or chansons de geste more generally: he was the quintessential knight-errant, and Medieval romance ate it up. Recall that Richard I lived at the same time that Arthurian romance was just beginning to blossom with Geoffrey of Monmouth and his rather fanciful Historia Regum Britanniae.

Well, Richard I wasn't supposed to inherit England just Aquitaine and Gascony. Henry the Younger was supposed to inherit England, Anjou, and Normandy. Probably the reason he didn't care much about it as he spent a lot of his life in Southern France. Its just that Henry the Younger and Geoffrey died before Henry II did so Richard inherited the whole Angevin Empire instead of just a large piece of it.

 

[Patine]

Well, Richard I wasn't supposed to inherit England just Aquitaine and Gascony. Henry the Younger was supposed to inherit England, Anjou, and Normandy. Probably the reason he didn't care much about it as he spent a lot of his life in Southern France. Its just that Henry the Younger and Geoffrey died before Henry II did so Richard inherited the whole Angevin Empire instead of just a large piece of it.

Though John (the youngest of Henry II's five sons, who, as I recall, was supposed to end up just being Lord of Ireland in the above distribution of lands) ended up effectively ruling England and, at many time, much of the French Angevin possessions, for all but six months of Richard's rule, and, despite the legendary stories of Robin Hood and Ivanhoe and other popular portrayals, was actually not THAT bad of a ruler - by High Middle Ages standards - to the point that the Barons of England solidly sided with John ascending to the throne properly instead of Richard's illegitimate son after Richard's death.

 

[Phrozen]

Though John (the youngest of Henry II's five sons, who, as I recall, was supposed to end up just being Lord of Ireland in the above distribution of lands) ended up effectively ruling England and, at many time, much of the French Angevin possessions, for all but six months of Richard's rule, and, despite the legendary stories of Robin Hood and Ivanhoe and other popular portrayals, was actually not THAT bad of a ruler - by High Middle Ages standards - to the point that the Barons of England solidly sided with John ascending to the throne properly instead of Richard's illegitimate son after Richard's death.

That was William Marshal making sure that the royal bloodline was legitimate. He was the right hand man of Henry II and Richard I when they were kings and was one of the most powerful and richest Barons in the empire, not to mention a rather good general. John's problem was that he was fickle and rather jealous. Rather then keeping Marshal around as an advisor and to keep the other Baron's in line he dismissed him from court and only brought him back when he absolutely had too. Of course, he was also facing off against France's debatably greatest monarch ever in Philip II who was able to best John, and many other powerful French barons, and assert the French crown as one of the most powerful in Europe.

In the end Marshal stayed loyal to the crown and helped reassert the English crown and the stability of the kingdom with his regency for Henry III

 

[liv]

please maybe start a thread in the history forum to continue this discussion as you guys are derailing the thread.. I will check in on it

 

[LiamX]

One of the most studied and influential chinese history book called "Records of the grand historian(史記)', written by a Han dynasty historian. And the chapter about Qin is "秦始皇本紀".
https://baike.baidu.com/item/史记·秦始皇本纪/10323648?fromtitle=秦始皇本纪&fromid=2390952
He became a less remembered example of a good leader, as well as the more remembered side of a tyrannt in this book.



Actually Wu did build a lot in her life. Yet few has survived as her greatest projects were wooden architectures. Talking about the Terracotta Army and Qin's tomb, Wu's tomb was also very famous in China, called the QianLing Malosseum, which is (hopefully) not yet opened by anyone.

She was actually remembered throughout history (not vaguely) and was recorded in history books for emperors. On the other hand, Hatshepsut's trace was partially eliminated by her successors (likely Thutmose III)but yet we still take her as a great leader.

Btw, Wu's dynasty ended mainly because she wasn't able to appoint an heir. Her own son, was the heir of the Tang Dynasty throne. Choosing her own son was therefore impossible, making the issue of naming an heir an embarrassing dilemma for her. Thus unlike Sui and Qin, which was a completely different lineage of emperors, Wu could not make her close relatives as heir of her own dynasty. She was wise to return the dynasty back to Tang, for the creation of the new Zhou dynasty was merely her personal vanity.

Like I said, it was the Han that made that opinion of him.
Also, I don't think Wu had any choice. She was forced to yield the throne to Zhongzhong and the Tang was later restored. She wouldn't be able to keep the Zhou dynasty going even if she wanted to.

And Hateshepsut was a different case, I could agree with that. Her records was erased because she did not give Thutmose the throne when he came of age. Wu wasn't erased but when I said "vaguely remembered" I meant she was remembered as just "one of those leaders". Her only selling quality is that she's the only female emperor of China which is a pretty weak sell in my opinion. That's the only thing common people only remember her as if they remember her at all.

 

[Phrozen]

Hatshepsut's records were erased long after her death and in the end of Thutmose III reign. From all indications they were joint rules for about 22 years and Thutmose was in control of the army. Considering how elderly Thutmose was when the monuments were defaced it was probably done by Amenhotep II who was Thutmose's son and later claimed the monuments were constructed by him.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Like I said, it was the Han that made that opinion of him.
Also, I don't think Wu had any choice. She was forced to yield the throne to Zhongzhong and the Tang was later restored. She wouldn't be able to keep the Zhou dynasty going even if she wanted to.

As I have mentioned, she couldn't pass it down to her close relatives as they were heirs of a former dynasty.
She could kill all those heirs (her sons/grandsons) and then crown someone else, but obviously it wasn't a wise choice.
And a lot of the court officials were from Tang dynasty, so they had a sense to push back everything.

I will take Ahkenaten as a synonym in the case of passing down a dynasty. He started something brand new in his life.
Yet when he died, the power has gone back to nobles/priests who preferred the old traditions and reversed everything back.

Similar to Wu's condition, when she died, everything was reversed back to what they used to be.
I don't think that it was because of her lack of power/determination. It was simply impossible to rule if you kill every official and relatives in court.

But anyway I don't think that the existence of a "Zhou" dynasty was that important. We all know that it was "Tang dynasty" in the name of "Zhou".
It was a way to solidify her legitimacy as emperor, because you can't be the emperor of Tang Dynasty when there are still more legitimate heirs of Tang Dynasty living.
So she just changed the name, nothing that essential.

Hatshepsut's records were erased long after her death and in the end of Thutmose III reign. From all indications they were joint rules for about 22 years and Thutmose was in control of the army. Considering how elderly Thutmose was when the monuments were defaced it was probably done by Amenhotep II who was Thutmose's son and later claimed the monuments were constructed by him.

Possibly. Everything is possible when there aren't sufficient evidence lol.

Like I said, it was the Han that made that opinion of him.

And Hateshepsut was a different case, I could agree with that. Her records was erased because she did not give Thutmose the throne when he came of age. Wu wasn't erased but when I said "vaguely remembered" I meant she was remembered as just "one of those leaders". Her only selling quality is that she's the only female emperor of China which is a pretty weak sell in my opinion. That's the only thing common people only remember her as if they remember her at all.

If you are saying that, so as Hatshepsut. Common people normally only remember her as the poor female pharaoh who got her face eliminated by her jealous step-son, and her beautiful temple. Mentions of her holding a "Golden age" come after google and wikipedia.

And, Wu was usually marked with the comment "extension of the golden age" (貞觀遺風) in history books, as if Tang Taizong with "Zhenguan golden age" (貞觀之治).
"Common chinese people" who overlooks this part about Wu normally means that he/she has fallen asleep in Chinese history lesson. So he/she probably won't know what Taizong was either.

Like I said, it was the Han that made that opinion of him.

The writer had access to many older historical text which are already lost today.
And the context of the book is mainly descriptive (e.g. Qin did what what what today.), if you can read that context in classical Chinese.
Therefore, I don't think that it is fair to say Records of the grand historian(史記) was a heavily biased one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Btw, I would like to nominate more female leaders from ancient China.
Is there a upper limit for candidates from each civ? Or do you think that there are already enough candidates currently?

 

[Patine]

Hatshepsut's records were erased long after her death and in the end of Thutmose III reign. From all indications they were joint rules for about 22 years and Thutmose was in control of the army. Considering how elderly Thutmose was when the monuments were defaced it was probably done by Amenhotep II who was Thutmose's son and later claimed the monuments were constructed by him.

Possibly. Everything is possible when there aren't sufficient evidence lol.

If you are saying that, so as Hatshepsut. Common people normally only remember her as the poor female pharaoh who got her face eliminated by her jealous step-son, and her beautiful temple. Mentions of her holding a "Golden age" come after google and Wikipedia.

Using the "Egyptians erasing monuments" thing to make various arguments about pet theories of various sorts about unrecorded and apocryphal events in Ancient Egypt predates the Internet. Cecil B. DeMille claimed to have a "large source of scholarly research by men of learning and integrity" that said Rameses II erased al records of Moses from "every obelisk and monument of Egypt." A younger relative of his apparently said years after DeMille's death that the great directly had much later confessed to him it was just artistic licence for the movie "the Ten Commandments" and just self-promotion and showmanship.

 

[LiamX]

She could kill all those heirs (her sons/grandsons) and then crown someone else, but obviously it wasn't a wise choice.
And a lot of the court officials were from Tang dynasty, so they had a sense to push back everything.

Exactly! Which is why she couldn't continue her Zhou dynasty even if she wanted to. The Tang officials specifically forced her to yield the throne to her son which is why she didn't have a say. She could probably kill all those heirs. Doubt she could do it though with so many people against that. But then it never happened so I guess it's all speculations now.

And, Wu was usually marked with the comment "extension of the golden age" (貞觀遺風) in history books, as if Tang Taizong with "Zhenguan golden age" (貞觀之治).
"Common chinese people" who overlooks this part about Wu normally means that he/she has fallen asleep in Chinese history lesson. So he/she probably won't know what Taizong was either.

Not really. The entirety of Tang was marked as the golden age in Chinese history as with the Han. It wasn't just in Tang Taizong's reign, though he was one of the reasons why Tang became a powerhouse. Read about Emperor Xuanzong. He's yet another great Tang ruler who solidified Tang as the golden age dynasty in Chinese history. And he was I think the 7th Tang Emperor? This was already after Wu Zetian's reign.

Also two things:
1. I've read so many Chinese history books and I've never come across reliable books that say "Zetian's reign was the extension of the golden age". Take note of the word "reliable". Usually, when it says "she's one of the greatest emperors", their reasoning is that she's the only female emperor of China and nothing else. Not really a valid reasoning. She's really nowhere near the leagues of at least 10 great emperors.
2. I know lots of Chinese who knows Taizong yet does not know who Wu Zetian is. My brother in law is Chinese. But then again, it's just my experience, it could be different with anyone else.


Also, I don't think Thutmose was jealous. Erasing his step-mother on the face of the earth was understandable since she didn't give the throne to him when it was agreed he'd take the throne when he came of age. Plus he better than her.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Exactly! Which is why she couldn't continue her Zhou dynasty even if she wanted to. The Tang officials specifically forced her to yield the throne to her son which is why she didn't have a say. She could probably kill all those heirs. Doubt she could do it though with so many people against that. But then it never happened so I guess it's all speculations now.



Not really. The entirety of Tang was marked as the golden age in Chinese history as with the Han. It wasn't just in Tang Taizong's reign, though he was one of the reasons why Tang became a powerhouse. Read about Emperor Xuanzong. He's yet another great Tang ruler who solidified Tang as the golden age dynasty in Chinese history. And he was I think the 7th Tang Emperor? This was already after Wu Zetian's reign.

Also two things:
1. I've read so many Chinese history books and I've never come across reliable books that say "Zetian's reign was the extension of the golden age". Take note of the word "reliable". Usually, when it says "she's one of the greatest emperors", their reasoning is that she's the only female emperor of China and nothing else. Not really a valid reasoning. She's really nowhere near the leagues of at least 10 great emperors.
2. I know lots of Chinese who knows Taizong yet does not know who Wu Zetian is. My brother in law is Chinese. But then again, it's just my experience, it could be different with anyone else.


Also, I don't think Thutmose was jealous. Erasing his step-mother on the face of the earth was understandable since she didn't give the throne to him when it was agreed he'd take the throne when he came of age. Plus he better than her.

Actually she had a say.
She had already dethroned two and killed her another son before. And she surely had the power to do it again, for good. Yet she didn't.
Therefore I am quite convinced that Wu decided to return the dynasty personally, instead of being forced.

Talking about Xuanzong's golden age, a large portion of it was derived from accumulated development from previous reigns.
He was the grandson of Wu actually, not that far away.
That's why Wu had the contribution in extending the previous golden age, and giving the next one.
(And Xuanzong's golden age also marked the irreversible decline of the entire Tang dynasty,
I don't think that it was a good comparison for stable periods like those in the first 3 Tang emperors' time)

For your first point: Then I suppose you haven't read enough? Or, apparent not reading sufficiently in depth about this line of history?
The mention that "Zetian's reign was the extension of the golden age" was supported by the Zizhi Tongjian (資治通鑑; literally: "Comprehensive Example in Aid of Governance"), an influential history book in the Song dynasty, although she was also greatly criticized for her deeds in the same book.

Her husband, the immediate successor of Taizong, named Gaozong, reigned from 649-683, also got the same mention. While from 660 Wu act as regent/co-ruler due to Gaozong's disease. Over half of his reign was contributed by Wu. Thus the title of "extension of the golden age" (貞觀遺風) to Wu wasn't a miss, and she was the true extender of Taizong's work to Xuanzong's golden age.

And this idea was also defined by 20th century historians, namely Mr Guo (郭若沫).
I tend to use recorded evidence of the academic field rather than asking my brother-in-law.
If all those lines of evidence can not be counted as reliability... well.

However, rounding up, I think we are discussing in different tracks. I don't define leaders only in turns of greatness.
Therefore listing her in "10 greatest emperors" based on pure "achievements" sounds unamusing to me.
But the fact that she was a great ruler in her own right, rather than purely shinning as a "female", shouldn't be overlooked.
And she ruled one of the two greatest dynasties in China in its rising period, and was an important role in pushing it to the peak.
I suppose there were only around 10 emperors who could be a good comparison, so she shouldn't be far from top 10, if not one of them.

This will be the last time I comment on this topic in this thread. If you wanna continue the discussion, I welcome you to open a thread in the history forum. But please stop discussing here, thankyou .