Anyone Interested In Cao Cao?

Aug 2015
Los Angeles
No, I didn't say He Jin corrupted the Emperor, I said that's the sentiment the other leaders figure have. They don't trust him.
They might prefer him to other Imperial in-laws but that's not saying much.
Given that is the state of Han politics, that says a lot.

What I'm presenting is the idea that the army commanders weren't fond of He Jin due to his background, his lack of proper experience and his sister's actions, but they preferred him by miles to his enemies, the Eunuchs.
To ensure He Jin cannot take the place of the Eunuchs immediately after killing them, Yuan Shao and Wang Yun summon Dong Zhuo to the capital to match He Jin's authority. The plan is that the two regents, both related in some way to the Emperor, will find themselves in a political stalemate too late in the game to cause another schism. It'll just be them alone against each other with the other lords doing their job, advising the young emperor and governing the realm.
This backfires horribly as He Jin's killed before the Eunuchs are and Dong Zhuo takes their place. And unlike He Jin, neither they nor the new Emperor are brave enough to try to control him.
So long as both He Jin and Dowager Empress He live, it's impossible for Dong Zhuo to do anything. Consider the number of forces Dong had with him. He Jin can sneeze on him and destroy Dong's forces.

It took one decree from the imperial court and Dong's army melted away. It happened. What makes anyone thinks Dong could have added anything to the equation so long as He Jin lives?
This is unrecorded, I realise. I just want to present the idea on this site to see whether it could be considered a credible way of looking at things or at least logical.
No, it isn't logical. Han politics operate in a very specific way.

The General-in-Chief may share the power but everyone knows who is the boss. The Grand Tutor is to act as a foil.

There is no reason for the Grand Tutor to challenge the General-in-Chief because that is not how Han politics operate until the Han emperor reaches adulthood.

The way people might have thought is what I'm pursuing here. There are few recordings or sources to this effect but I want to see, based on what we know now, if my ideas are sensible.
They aren't.
Aug 2015
Los Angeles
Look, there's no need to get so fierce.
Then stop repeating things that are just incoherent.

My idea is that, like Cao Cao, his own ambitions are what's guiding him. He doesn't want to actually rule but he wishes to be the power behind the throne by which he will be the true power behind what he hopes will be the downfall of Cao Cao. And after that, when the Han are restored, people will remember who really saved them. After that, he may either seize the throne or simply carry on as the invisible force behind it.
He never gets that far, of course.

I mean, you keep on saying he wishes to be the power behind the throne.

He is the throne. He is the Intendant to the Imperial Secretariat. He is the Control of the Imperial Secretariat. Seriously you should look up his titles before you talk about these 'behind the scene' stuff you seem to be so interested in. These all occur in open day light. Everyone knows who he is and what he is doing and everyone approved of them.

Cao Cao had legal power over the Han. It was given to him by the Emperor.
You are making the same mistake Dong made. Look, I don't want to repeat myself. Go look at my writing on Dong's mistake and his position on the Imperial Secretariat. Cao Cao did not have legal power. He just had power over it because he control the court with his army.

The Emperor had little to no contact with Liu Bei so the stuff about him secretly giving Liu Bei authority to challenge Cao Cao is very likely false.
I mean, in your fictional world you can write whatever you want. But in the real world

His previous majesty obtain his wife and child, and followed Lord Cao back to Xudu. [Cao] promoted his previous majesty to the General of the Left, and treated him with great respect, when they leave they leave in the same carriages, and when they sit they sit on the same carpet.

Cao Cao gained more and more authority over time but, whenever he had the opportunity to seize the throne for himself (Often encouraged by his fellows such as Xiahou Dun, Chen Qun and Huan Jie) he refused.
One can't say Cao Cao refused out of fear of rebellion while Zhuge Liang refused out of loyalty to the Han without presenting the idea of bias. You said yourself, we don't know how people thought.
Cao Cao prior to Chibi had no interest in usurpation. Even after Chibi, he didn't really have much interest in usurpation. I don't know what you are talking about.

My aim is to essentially flip the Cao Cao VS Zhuge Liang dynamic.
One is a power-hungry schemer, the other is a heroic, charismatic visionary.
The Zhuge Liang-Good - Cao Cao-Bad theme has been done to death by now and I want to see if I can present from the other end. I want to see how Zhuge Liang could be a presented as an antagonist.
Of course, I wouldn't fit that kind of perspective for every notable point in history but for the Three Kingdoms, whose non-contemporary records are accepted to be biased, I thought I could make this work.
Character motivation has to make sense. As I repeated told you, your character motivation is not making any sense. Zhuge is portrayed as such because there are no other way to explain his actions.

I realise there's no actual proof. It's all speculative. My goal is to examine how these individuals may have thought which there is little proof of.
That's why I'd like advice on whether this interpretation could be seen as credible and coherent, if fictional.
It's meant as a narrative choice and I'd like to know if it's a good one.
You are repeatedly told no. You were told WHY. You were told how the Han court operated. You were told the reason why you would present certain events in certain doesn't make sense according to Han tradition. Yet you insist on repeating this 'behind the throne' bs.

No. Nothing was behind the throne. Zhuge Liang did everything in the open. He wasn't a puppet master.