HY2206: China's Imperial Past

Acknowledging the fact that Hero directed by Zhang Yi Mou was cinematic and romanticised in nature, I think the movie was still pretty successful in highlighting certain historical discourse and hence, if I were to take a stand, I would argue that the first emperor was indeed a hero – a hero that unified China during the warring states period.

In the movie, the assassin, Nameless, was tasked to assassinate the king, however, he eventually spared the king’s life. Even though Nameless was executed by the King for his assassination attempt, he was later buried as a hero. In my opinion, this entire event, especially the conversation between the king and Nameless, showed how Nameless understood that despite the controversy regarding the King’s oppressive and brutal methods to consolidate power, violence was very much necessary under the circumstances during those times in order to truly end the war and achieve peace. This was aligned with the King’s vision of reunification (统一天下), which opened up the possibilities of a peaceful state and the potential for prosperity.

“True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.”.  I believe this quote by Arthur Ashe especially captures the notion of what heroism is. Even though no one except Nameless understood the king’s intention, the king did serve the greater good, allowing the nation to prosper.

There has been a lot of criticism against the movie Hero for painting Qin Shi Huang as well-intentioned in the scene where he said that he can die without regret now that someone understands his intention to bring peace through force. From what I recall, this may not be entirely too far from what he said in reality.

In the book of Han Fei Zi, the conclusion mentions how a good ruler must gather supplies, train for war, defeat his enemies, so as to bring order and safety. He writes that this must be done no matter how much the people dislike paying taxes and serving in the military; no matter how much the ruler is hated. He says that it is like a temporary pain of a medical operation that will reduce pain in the long term. When the Qin King read this book, he is reputed to have said to Chancellor Li Si: “If I can meet this author and move with him, I will die without regrets.” (@clarence remember I kept rambling about this book during the 2011 water project HAHA) Perhaps the director of Hero actually used this as the basis of the conversation and that infamous scene where the King offers the assassin Jing Ke the sword to kill him, to illustrate in exaggerated effect what he did in fact say at the time. It may support the assertion that the Emperor had an altruistic motive rather than merely being a mindless bloodthirsty conqueror.

Adding on to this the many archeological finds that the Qin legal system wasnt really that bad and seems to have been exaggerated by later Han dynasty propaganda to justify their rebellion. Instead of being marked by wanton cruelty, the general idea of the law seemed mainly to assist the common good by sending people to work on construction or pay fines.

Also it seems that later generations have been unnecessarily demonising him. Well there is also the theory that Sima Qian Records of the Grand Historian is personally responsible for smearing him, that he was using Qin Shi Huang as a punching bag to criticise his own Han Wu emperor, who was certainly very harsh towards domestic opposition, including Sima Qian personally. Han Wu di and his father Han Jing di also deserve some of the credit for unification because it was they who finally completed the abolition of the system of vassal kingdoms after the Qin collapsed

I believe we should not analyse someone (and his deeds) using a strictly “good or bad” dichotomy, especially since we have the benefit of hindsight. Instead, I feel that we could perhaps consider Qin Shi Huang and his policies as having two sides — that he was both a terrible tyrant and a great unifier. Both labels are definitely not mutually exclusive, in my opinion. Some scholars have characterised Qin Shi Huang’s reign as being “sinful for his time while being hugely impactful (in a positive way) for future generations” (罪在当代，功在千秋), insofar as the policies he introduced caused widespread distress among his contemporaneous subjects, yet the impacts of his policies are far-reaching and benefitted subsequent generations for a long time. Whereas he indeed instituted a series of brutal policies, such as the killing of intellectuals, to consolidate his rule over a vast empire, yet we cannot afford to deny that his unification of territories, his standardisation of measurement system, currency and writing system, among others, contributed to the entrenchment of the idea of “great unification” (大一统) in subsequent Chinese dynasties and influenced the development of Chinese history. Ergo, I feel that “罪在当代，功在千秋” is a fair judgement on Qin Shi Huang and highlights the nuances of his policies such that he was both a terrible tyrant (villain) and a great unifier (hero).

Interestingly, the phrase “罪在当代，功在千秋” is also frequently employed by scholars to describe the Emperor Yang of Sui (隋炀帝).

When studying the First Emperor, it is important to note that historicity/ historical interpretations of historical figures may change over time as new discourses are introduced and new evidence of their deeds come to light.

The First Emperor (Qin Shi Huangdi) is precisely a subject of this – previous portrayals depicted him as a brutal tyrant who destroyed the surrounding states, had many opposing scholars executed, and put thousands to death working on his mausoleum, based on the lack of primary sources at the time. This understanding of the First Emperor was also influenced by Han dynasty historical records, which would try to critique the legitimacy of the dynasty which they overthrew.

However, recent discourses have attempted to portray the Emperor in a different light, such as that in Zhang Yimou’s film Hero. In the film, the Emperor recognises that he is not a good man, however, he is embarking on this task of unification by conquest because he believes in long-term stability for the empire. It is also probable that the First Emperor was not as brutal as imagined. For example, in Hansen’s The Open Empire, it is stated that the archaeological discovery from the Shuihudi tombs showed clear legal procedures for punishments, and that being put to death was not as widespread a punishment as believed.

I posit that judging historical figures, such as the First Emperor, according to 21st century moral standards might also be difficult, as the standards of morality might differ from our time. Based on the Emperor’s destruction of the opposition and live burial of hundreds of thousands of artisans in his mausoleum, he would be a terrible tyrant. However, I argue that he displays shades of both. After his conquest of the other kingdoms in the Warring States era, he could have chosen to have the nobles and officers of the defeated kingdoms massacred to forestall any dissent, instead, he had them move to his capital city (though it was to keep an eye on them).

During his rule, the Qin also implemented policies such as the standardisation of currency, organisation of the empire into commanderies, and commissioned public works projects, suggesting that the First Emperor was also interested in proper governance. Hence, it can be said that he is both a terrible tyrant and a hero of imperial China.

Hi everyone, I think before I pass judgement, I must make the point that Qin Shi Huang, as with all human beings, was not the same person throughout his life. The 13 year old boy that rose to the throne as the King of Qin was not the same as the Qin Shi Huang who ordered the construction of his terracotta army. That said, I believe Qin Shi Huang was a great unifier in his younger days as King of Qin, for recognising talent such as Prime Minister Li Si, and for setting the foundations for eventually unifying all under heaven. This unification was a much needed one, as it finally brought peace to a region that has experienced a 500 odd years of constant warfare. To this extent, Ying Zheng, the King of Qin, was a great unifier.

However, his obssession with immortality and his own afterlife made him a tyrannical ruler in the later part of his life. As shown from the documentary, it was an uphill task to complete the terracotta army, more so with a time constraint. Qin Shihuang must have placed immense pressure on his subjects for the parochial concern of his afterlife, rather than focusing on managing his empire. Furthermore, his greatness was overshadowed by his favouring of eunuch Zhao Gao, which would eventually bring down his dynasty.

This view can be extended to other great emperors that we know of as well. For instance, while Tang Taizong was a capable ruler that brought the Tang dynasty to its greater territorial extent, his later years were also marred with royal factionalism and obsession with alchemy/immortality.

While many of my friends have already explained the merits of Qin Shihuang as a unifier, I will argue that this view is overstated. One reason for this is that the standardisation of measures and writing script attributed to Qin Shihuang already had a basis before his time.  According to Hansen, archeological evidence shows that weights and measures. coins, and characters used in different regions had already begun to converge around 350 BCE, and continued to do so during the Qin dynasty. Even at eve of the Qin dynasty’s collapse, there persisted significant regional variation.

Similarly, Qin Shihuang’s tyranny is often overstated, as Han historiography had to portray him as brutal and tyrannical to justify coming to power. From the Shuihudi tomb belonging to a Qin dynasty clerk, it was found that the provisions from the Qin code stressed close adherence to rigorously delineated series of judicial procedures, rather than the rule by law we know of Qin Shihuang today. Furthermore, Qin men who were called up for corvee labour who failed to report or who absconded were liable to be beaten, not killed, as the Han historians falsely maintained their account of the dynasty’s founding. Most importantly, Hansen mentions that the book burning commonly attributed to Qin Shihuangdi did not make much sense, as the books could still be transmitted.

Therefore, I believe Qin Shihuang’s role as a great unifier and a tyrant to be overstated.

Personally, I feel that I am in no position to judge the First Emperor as I do not understand his full story and his impact is long-lasting till today. However, I would like to argue that he is a great unifier who has tried his best to make China a better place.

Emperor Qin has left great legacies behind, such as the Great Wall of China, large-scale unification of measurements and languages. He had tried his best to change China to his ideal status where he is even titled, “千古一帝”. Emperor Qin ended the war state of China and expanded territories of the Qin. However, these large scales changes required heavy manpower, the over-exploitation of labour was one of his biggest controversies. His lack of empathy in the strict laws that he has enforced added to the unhappiness of his citizens. As the saying goes, 国有国法，家有家规，没有规矩，不成方圆。Since he took over the territories by force and everyone was from different upbringings, strict laws were needed to discipline and have his citizens under control.

Undeniably, some of his actions were inhumane, but I credit them under his family background. The rumours of his mum had the authenticity of his throne questioned, his mum later practices also brought shame to the royal family. Stepping up at 13, against all rumours and faults, I argue that it is a miracle that he managed to achieve such great doings. His cold-blooded personality was needed in order to survive the environment he is in. 人非圣贤，孰能无过。Hence, he is indeed a great unifier.

The concept that unification necessarily means a net positive is an assumption I wish to discuss first, as the original question easily becomes mired in the assumed dichotomy of bad tyrant and good unifier. In most cases, the idea pre-Qin of unification as a necessary component of prosperity only comes to us from opinion-sources that survived this early period of history, and mostly fall into confucian and legalist categories. There is little mention of the necessity of unification in the other surviving Hundred Schools of Thought like Mohism, Taoism (in both Laozi and Zhuangzi) and other more obscure groups like Agriculturalism(Nong Jia). In addition, there is the question of cultural and literary heritage. Despite the division of China in the Three Kingdoms, Northern & Southern Dynasties and Song Dynasty, there is a rich tradition and cultural dynamism in these periods, with examples in the former two in Jian An poetry and Southern Dynasty poetry. While the economic security of the populace does take precedent in measuring the benefits of unity or a multistate sytem, this does not preclude cultural achievements, both ‘high’ and ‘low’, as neither historians nor laymen would hardly call a culture with little evidence of artistic or cultural works “thriving”. And in many ways, cultural achievements and dynamism might itself be an oblique indicator of economic prosperity or freedom.

All of this means that it is very possible for the first Emperor of Qin to be both a tyrant and a unifier, if not a “great” one.

On the topic of unification, even from a Legalist or “production and efficiency at all costs” economic view, the first Emperor failed in this despite enacting the centralised policies that he believed would result in stability.  The centralisation of power resulted in the ease of ‘usurpation’ by his advisors, as all that was required was manipulating a younger son of the first Emperor onto the throne, which led directly to enacting disastrous policies that were unable to be challenged except by force of arms and rebellion. The revolt against his dynasty that culminated in the fall of the Qin mere years after his death was directly caused by massive discontent at these extravagant, state-directed construction projects. All this to say that, even from the standpoint that unity is important and paramount, the system the first Emperor built up was clearly flawed and led to temporary large-scale chaos. In this way, even the Legalist might argue that he was not a ‘competent’ or ‘great’ unifier.

As a student of history, I would like to problematize the question posed. I think that the question presents itself as a false dilemma (also referred to as the false dichotomy fallacy). The terms ‘hero’ and ‘villain’ are hyperbolic at best and subject to varying interpretations of what constitutes heroism and villianism.

As for the first emperor, I have a nuanced view of his actions and that could have been a terrible tyrant and a great unifier simultaneously, as some of my peers have alluded to above. This is because the first emperor supposedly burned books and executed scholars. Hansen notes on page 109:

In one of the most infamous incidents recorded by later historians, the Qin emperor launched a large-scale book burning in 213 B.C. that sought to destroy all dissenting points of view. The famous Confucian classics, including The Book of Songs and The Book of Documents, were banned, as were the historical annals of earlier kings. Only books on agriculture and divination were permitted.

Of course, as Hansen claims, there is a possibility that the punishments under Qin may have been overstated, as Su Yi underscored. This is something worth acknowledging when we read sources from the Han dynasty. However, at the same time, I think that emperor Qin left a lasting legacy behind, as evidence by Great Wall of China, large-scale unification of measurements and languages (as pointed out by Buffy). In addition, he spearheaded the building of the mausoleum at Lishan. Hansen quotes Sima Qian, a prominent historian, on page 105:

From the time the First Emperor took the throne, work was begun on his mausoleum at Lishan [24 kilometers or 15 miles northeast of Changan]. After he had won the empire, more than 700,000 conscripts from all parts of the country labored there. The laborers dug through three subterranean streams which they sealed off with bronze in order to make the burial chamber. This they filled with models of palaces, towers, and the hundred officials, as well as precious utensils, and marvelous rarities. Artisans were ordered to install mechanically triggered crossbows set to shoot any intruder. With mercury the various waterways of the empire, the Yangzi and Yellow Rivers, and even the great ocean itself were created and made to flow and circulate mechanically. The heavenly constellations were depicted above and the geography of the earth was laid out below. Lamps were fueled with whale oil so that they might burn forever without being extinguished. . . . Finally, trees and grass were planted on the mound to make it look like a mountain.

Another example of Qin’s significant role as the first emperor was the implementation of a unified system of units for length and volume as well as a national standard gauge for vehicles, so that roads could be a uniform width and carts could travel freely throughout the empire (Hansen, page 103).

Therefore, when we consider both the positive and negative elements of Qin’s emperorship, I think that adopting Clarence’s approach is most appropriate. Classifying emperor Qin as “good” or “bad”, “hero” or “tyrant,” “saviour” or “devilish” may not serve any purpose because these are binary categories. As Clarence astutely pointed out, every human being may not be the same person throughout his/her life. Therefore, it may be wiser to consider the impact of emperor’s actions at different time period instead of blindly labelling him a “terrible tyrant” or “great unifier,” especially when the interpretation of those terms are extremely subjective.