@@vitorpereira9515 Legalism would have reined in Caligula and Nero. One part of Legalism that's often not mentioned is that the Sovereign is too, subjected to the rule of Law.
@@vitorpereira9515 The Imperial Court. One thing a lot of people don't realize about Chinese Emperors is that even though technically they're absolute monarchs, the way the Imperial Court is structured keeps the Emperor in check. Whether or not they have the will to do so is besides the point. Qin Shi Huang is still subject to the laws of the Qin state. You may disagree with the laws of the time, over 2500 years ago, but even Qin Shi Huang doesn't just dictate things on a whim. There are many matters where even the Emperor has to get passed through the Lords and Officers of the Imperial Court, before it is processed by the Bureau of Law, where it is then executed or disseminated to the Empire. There's an entire legal structure created through the Legalist school, rather than just a simple "Emperor says, people do". This structure is what set the Qin apart from the other warring states.
@@1Invinc that gets ignored with monarchies in general. Absolute monarchies are fairly rare outside the modern era when governments became far kore centralized. Before that with feudalism monarchs not only had their own form of legalism but they also had to contend with their court and nobles under them. A rather minor example is eating. In medieval Europe leaders were expected to eat with their entire household including many retainers and servants and leaders got mocked or even censured for eating more extravagant meals on their own since the communal eating was meant to reaffirm communal bonds. This sort of legalism fell out of favor ironically enough thanks to the renaissance and enlightenment, and it was after that that we started seeing absolute monarch in the west. Even Roman emperors had rules and customs to abide by similar to Chinese legalism
Why Qin Shihuang has a frog on his shoulder. Because in ancient China, a crow represented the sun, and a toad represented the moon. This toad is actually Chang'e, the Chinese goddess of the Moon.
@@HotZetiGer If you meant the moon frog logo on the emperor's clothing, it's on his right shoulder. I was talking to another guy saying that before the second empire, Chang'e had a different name in ancient writings.
And then the next Duke executed Shang Yang (Lord Shang) for "treating him equal to a commoner" before the law. Equality before law is a dangerous thing to explain to a feudal warlord :)
@@whartanto2 actually it was the son of the duke that killed him, well he discipline the prince, of course he'll have the revenge when he took the throne
so Confucianism is like the idealistic way of what a gentlemen and society should act like, in a time where nobles are all powerful and states are all crazy for power, its understandable why his policies are not adopted or appreciated by state rulers. Its a brutal period, being the gentlemen wont benefit you but benefit your enemies. Legalism is a much more practical thought in that time setting, its all about strict law and the need to follow it, especially with Qin state before unification since they are viewed as frontier state / uncivilized, where court and noble culture is less appreciated, military are given high priority, with a strict hierarchal structure, might and wisdom of rulers is everything and shows results. . And that's why dynasties who conquered all of China switch to Confucianism later, because they pretty much conquered all of the the 'civilized' world that they know of, they just have to maintain the peace, which confucianism's talk of head of state patronage and the responsibility of ruler to their subjects, fits perfectly
Ultimately this really shows the genius of the Han Dynasty. A Legalist system ruled by Confuscisn thought. Aspiring for the goodness that is at the heart of Confuscian thought, but reining in the worst of men with legalist enforcement. The carrot and the whip.
@@1Invinc Read the Tanakh(Old Testament) and see the penalties there by comparison. And how they treat war. Its far more lenient and humane by comparison even if still brutal by our standards.
Qin had legalism for centuries by the time Ying Zhen came in to power. Their rival, Zhao was dealt a crushing blow by his grandfather and even then Li Mu was his biggest obstacle.
He was described in history as a defensive tactician, and a distant relative of Li Xin. But in Kingdom, he got powers. He was equal to Lian Po on being an all-rounder, except he did not have any instinctual assets. He got it all. Offense, defense, strategies, strength and most of all, strong minions. And his relationship with Li Xin was not revealed.
Not quite,his grandpa only reigned for 3 days, the real weakener was king zhaoxiang of qin he sent bai qi and wang he and destroyed the entire zhao army in changping in which zhao never recovered. Edit:king zhaoxiang was ying zhengs great grandpa.
However Machiavellian support incessant war, HanFei asked ruler to care more about its inner affair! It’s that much better for common people (outside intellectual sphere, in ancient time,few people are literate
3:37 "revolt by his own brother." Personally, I subscribe to the theory that this didn't happen. The original Chinese text says: "八年，王弟長安君成蟜將軍擊趙，反，死屯留," Translation: "Eighth year, the King's brother General Chengjiao, the Lord of Chang'an, attacked Zhao, revolted, and died in Tunliu," where the character "反" is translated as "revolted". However, 反 can also be translated as "reverse direction" or "return" (though the latter is uncommon these days) and it is the simplified version of the character "返" meaning "to return" or "to go back." So it sould not be discounted as a possibility that the passage could be read as "Eighth year, the King's brother General Chengjiao, the Lord of Chang'an, attacked Zhao, *returned* [to Qin], and died in Tunliu." The fact that there are no contemporary sources referencing the event that we can use to cross-check and find the most likely version of events doesn't help. There is a passage in Shiji 43 which at first glance seems to support the idea that Chengjiao did indeed revolt: "(赵悼襄王）六年，封长安君以饶" Translation: (King Zhao Daoxiang) sixth year, Lord Chang'an was granted Yi Rao. (6th Year of Zhao Daoxiang = 8th Year of Qin Shi Huang = 239 BCE) So to compile what we know is fact: 1. Chengjiao was sent to attack Zhao in 239 BCE 2. In the same year, the King of Zhao gave land to the Lord of Chang'an 3. Chengjiao held the title "Lord of Chang'an" From these facts, the simple assumption can be made that Chengjiao defected to Zhao instead of attacking them and was granted land in Zhao as a reward, this being the revolt mentioned in the Shiji. However, this is doubtful because Chengjiao wouldn't exactly benefit in abandoning his position in Qin for some inconsequential land in Zhao, and also because the passage in Shiji 43 only says "Lord of Chang'an" and doesn't specify Chengjiao's name. This is important because there is in fact another Lord of Chang'an, that being one of Zhao Daoxiang paternal uncles. Which do you think is more likely, that Daoxiang gave land to his uncle, or that he gave it to the prince of an enemy kingdom? This question casts major doubt on whether Chengjiao actually revolted at all. So then, what about Chengjiao's death? Personally, I believe this was purely down to political machinations between the different factions in Qin's court. Chengjiao was part of a faction connected with the state of Han. Queen Dowager Xia, the mother of Zichu, was from Han and would've picked a woman of Han like herself to be Zichu's wife. Therefore, Chengjiao has Han blood from his mother. Queen Dowager Xia passed away in 240 BCE and in 239 BCE Chengjiao was also dead. I doubt that the 2 most important members of a political faction dying in just 1 year is a coincidence. What I believe to have happened is that Lu Buwei (who was running Qin at the time since Zheng wasn't yet of age) saw Dowager Xia's death as a perfect opportunity to rid an opposing faction of all influence and sent the 17 year old (and inexperienced in battle) Chengjiao to fight in Zhao hoping that he would be killed in battle, and when that failed he had him assassinated or forced him to commit suicide at Tunliu.
Well, Zhao Chengjiao was Zheng's half-brother of King Zhuangxiang and his other woman. If we based his biography in Kingdom, he was just as ambitious as Lu Buwei. And later on, softened his stance against Zheng. He died fighting for Qin against conspiracy of Tunliu nobles and Zhao nobility. In history however, he remained ambitious. He aligned himself with Zhao, as seen in Tunliu, conspiring with Tunliu's citizenry. He died fighting for Zhao.
As somebody who studied political philosophy in the UK, it's quite interesting that the Confucianism vs Legalism debate in China basically mirrors the Hobbes vs Locke argument in the West. The world should be grateful that for the most part, Confucianism won out in China. All that focus on ritual and morality to maintain the Mandate of Heaven distracted Chinese emperors from some nice opportunities for imperialism and genocide.
The Qin Dynasty ruled the territories it conquered for only 14 years, and it perished in resistance. The lessons of its destruction were repeatedly mentioned by the participants of later Chinese politics, "Crack and destroy the cruel monarch and destroy its rule." “伐无道，诛暴秦”
Legalism did win. Legalism as the legal/government structure. Confuscianism as the social structure. They tempered each other's harshness. Supported each other's strengths. Covered each other's shortcomings.
When Wei Yang (later known as Shang Yang) introduced ruling methods to Duke Xiao of Qin, first he told him about Emperor's method of ruling, Duke Xiao said "You talk only of nonsense!", then he told him of King's method, Duke Xiao replied: "I like it, but it takes too long to see the result ", finally Wei Yang introduced Hegemon's method to Duke Xiao, he was so excited that he discussed with Wei Yang for three days and nights long. The Hegemon's method of ruling that Wei Yang introduced to Duke Xiao of Qin was actually Legalism.
I wouldn't say Confucianism 'replaced' Legalism in the years to come. It's more of the fusion of the two, where the efficiency and positive effects of Legalism is generally maintained, but the harsher and brutal aspects of it held back by a Confucian principle of love and compassion.
but "what" is efficient? resource usage? not really, since much waste is documented. morality is optimized? corruption is clearly documented. is it documentation itself optimized? no, as it's clear that many reports are ignored. effiency is a mystic myth, used to justify it's opposite, used to justify waste, corruption and ignorance. it's as aspirational, idealistic and utopian as the virtues it tried to supplant. bureaucracy itself is inefficient and wasteful. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Pi_7PG43o8o.html
Yes, it is always Legalism in general with Confucian to hold it back, prevent too brutal. One of the ideology of Confucian is about lawless society and apply law only for those had fallen beyond the bound of civilized behaviour. It is about depand and trust on moral values of people.
@@TheExtraterrestrial99 when the "bounds of civilized behavior" has more to do with your skin color, gender and sexual orientation, things that aren't empirically in your ability to control, you start to understand that "behavior" has more to do with what the desires of the ruler are, and less to do with the actions of the ruled. Confucianism doesn't really empirically create a human face to legalism, as it's standards are based on unempirical traditional rituals that do not empirically increase standards of living nor life expectancy, since it is not based on empiricism. but then again, all attempts at creating this from above are doomed to fail. neither lord, nor subject. Bao Jingyan
@@ethanstump that's because legalism isn't fully practiced.. the best example of modern day fusion of legalism and confucianism is Lee Kwan Yews government in Singapore. Paraphrasing what Lee said.. he used Confucius moral education to teach right and wrong and why people should obey the laws and equal treatment of laws. That's 儒表法理(Confucius fusion with legalism) which is commonly practice in han dynasty and specific ideology of Zhuge Liang (諸葛亮).
But but...human nature is bad and EVIL!- Legalist. Also Legalist, "I am going to severely punish anyone who doesn't adhere to my belief systems, because deep down I'm a sensitive and insecure prick"
@@lebarondeminuit3580 yes, HanFeizi I have actually read in ancient text, it is anti the war strategy genre(战国策，纵横家), it believes if implementing such harsh inner rule to win stablity and prosperity, it will make a country strong, and expansion will come naturely(so dont need to pursue specifically), it is opposing to other blind warmonger sects.....
2:42 "Confucius thinks that humans are by nature good." Where is the foundation for that? I don't think Confucius believed that humans are naturally good. The Analects says: "Zigong said: 'Human nature is not a subject that we hear the Master talking about." I know the quote "By nature, people are nearly alike. By practice they get to be wide apart" but besides that, Confucius doesn't really talk about human nature. However, throughout the Analects he makes constant remarks about the difficulty of achieving virtue, as if it's not in our nature to be naturally good.
"Kingdom" is both an anime & manga set in this time period. Its more focused on military campaign, but politics is a secondary focus. Its less historical, and more like the movie "300," but if you want entertainment set in this time period, its the best I can think of.
@@user-qu6ty1do8h Considering that his general took over his empire after his death. It definitely did fell to him and the west is never unified enough to be able make someone up without conflicting accounts.
It is not. All of those kingdom during warring state are equals hence why Unification at that time sounds really impossible. Chu and Qin Kingdom are equals in term of military power. It is Qin Shi Huang's grandfather that beaten most of smaller kingdom and paved its way for Qin Shi Huang.
There is no ethical line in legalism. It's about basically treating humans like animals using the most consistent method of punishment and reward (laws) with no bias to maintain control. However, the essence of legalism teaches what an absolute fairness of court can bring to us.
I don't think you understand both Machiavellianlism and legalism at all. Machiavellianlism means to gain control and power by the whatever means, while legalism is strict administration where rules applied to all regardlessly. It's like comparing apple to oranges. But if you must compare 'ethics', Machiavellianlism is bottomless as it's name suggest, to gain power by all means.
@@mottscottison6943 well legalism is apply the same treatment to everyone .. there is no ethical line in that. That was the reason why legalists were criticized so much. And because of legalists obsessiveness on rule of law and their obsessiveness to apply same treatment to everyone, they believe as long they maintain the above they can cross any ethical barriers like it doesn't exists. It's like a drive for them.
This is stupid, Legalism by itself isn't tyrannical. Qin Shi Huang and Li Si just took it to an extreme, as Qin Shi Huang was a great conqueror but a terrible ruler. Emperor Xuan of Han made great use of both Legalism and Confucianism to effectively rule his country. As opposed to his son, Emperor Yuan, whose strict adherence to Confucianism eventually led to the downfall of the royal family.
@@Cami-wd4rw depends on the translation. Most people reading the manga actually do their research. In-fact there is a huge discord following of which I am part of. The manga even has anecdotes/small notes for names with their actual representation. Keeper of legalism - Li Shi.
I would like a discussion on 100 Schools of thought. I only know of a few, and understand less. For instance Mohism I do not really understand. Or Names - how is that a philosophy? Agriculturalism - is it get back to basics, or think like a farmer, or we need more farmers? Militarism - is it solve all problems with combat, or be military in society order, or we need a stong military as a gov't to defend ourselves?
I've been studying Mohism a bit. As far as I understand, it's based on the principle of Utilitarianism. Wherein the goal of the state should be to provide for as many of its people's happiness as possible, and each member of society should behave in ways that help everyone else in the state as well. Mozi proposed the state needed to be run on Universal Love, saying that everyone should treat each other as equals, rather than prioritize certain people like family or the ruler, over others. He promoted harmony through compliance, a bit like socialism. Reward and punishment would be based on whether someone did someone that helped or hindered the whole. The Mohists also upheld scientific innovation over tradition, reasoning that at one point in history all traditions were innovations. So you can bet if they won the warring states period, that China would have likely developed the scientific method, and that would have been exported to Persia and Arabia. From what I'm reading, because Mohism espoused siege warfare, it always wanted to be waging defensive and never offensive wars unless absolutely necessarily. This means you would likely only get Mohism winning the Warring States if China is not unified, and thus tehre are several states that mohist communities can defensively ward off. There were actually Mohists that came to Duke Xiao of Qin before Shang Yang did. I wonder if they had struck a deal with Qin on promoting Mohism as a state philosophy, would it stick and would the whole history of China and humanity be changed or end up pretty much the same as ours.
@@kurtmill9080 The most important three ideas of Mohism maybe 1.Universal value,共義。2 The will of heaven 天志.3.universal care兼愛(shouldnt use word love thats wrong)。Universal value let people to decide what is wrong what is right what kind of value system society should have, what kind of laws they want to make.The will of heaven tells people we are all citizens of heaven all equal below the heaven.and mankind must obey the laws of heaven. Universal cares 兼愛tell people we must taking care each others or we wont have a society which benefit everyone.
@@kurtmill9080 also Mohism against Monarch,they believed rulers or those who with political powers should be selected,put most capable and moral men on those positions.尚賢。kinda like democrat dont you think?
Before Qin Shi Huang conquered the rest of China in 221BCE, the state of Qin had existed since the 9th century BCE. The name may have been coined by the Indians and Persians whose first point of contact to China is through the state of Qin, which is the westernmost state of China during the Zhou dynasty. It is unlikely that the name came from the unified entity that's Qin dynasty China, since it only lasted for 15 years.
The First Emperor does take credit for creating the nation that had came to be known as China, the common written Chinese language, and subsequently, the Chinese identity.
Good question. It really comes down to the invention of the title 皇帝 (Huang Di) by Qin Shi Huang. Which is translated to "emperor". Originally, the Zhou dynasty's ruler's title was 王 (Wang) which is translated as "king". But functionally, they're just like emperors, which commanded the allegiance of various other states which were ruled by the royal family's relatives or loyal ministers. Their title was 侯 (Hou) which is translated as "duke". Though they're supposed to be loyal to the Zhou kings, they had defacto control of their respective states. Since the Spring & Autumn period, the Zhou dynasty's influence gradually waned, and by the Warring States period, various states declared themselves to be kings, which meant that they're on the same level as the Zhou kings, and stopped listening to them. Eventually, the last of the Zhou kings was killed and every states had kings as their ruler. Qin Shi Huang then eventually conquered the other states whose leaders were titled 王 (Kings). He created the title 皇帝 (Huang Di) because he had to differentiate himself from the other kings for having achieved something as monumental of conquering "all under heaven". Which really was just the former vassal states of Zhou. Huang Di 皇帝 is the combination of the titles used by the mythical rulers of pre-dynastic China. The three augusts and five emperors 三皇五帝. After Qin Shi Huang used that title, subsequent dynasties also called their ruler 皇帝 (Huang Di). So that's why QSH is known as the first emperor. Because he invented a cooler name for the ruler of a unified China. 😂
instead of zhou, which is feudalism kingdom, it didnt get direct control over the whole china, weak court weak authority king. Qin killed this system off and he is the first one unified and ruled china by absolute power with the highly power concentrated central government, with the nationwide civil servant system and appointed governor to rule the land from his court, this is unheard of before him. so he is the first one actually unified china without feudalismhe , combine with newly conquered north and south land so he thought the existing word of “king” or something was just too lame for him then he made new word for his own. in the english context, king and emperor is not the same, emperor is kind of king of the kings, and rule over difference region with expansion power. so it suits his title hence people use emperor in translation. perfect fit.
During the Zhou dynasty,China wasn't unified yet. Most Chinese states during the warring state period comes from the royals of the Zhou dynasty. The Zhou dynasty give a land to his relatives, subordinates etc and from then, those land was become different states. Qin state fight all those states to determine who will be the supreme ruler of China, who will unified the warring states??? And the Qin won and unified All the state and declared as a supreme ruler as a unified China. That is why he was known as the first emperor of unified china
Before Qin, China was ruled by feudalism. There was no centralized government. Shang and Zhou kings did not have direct authority in vassal states, so sometimes vassal kings disobeyed Shang/Zhou kings and they had to lead an army to reassert their authority. We should also note that ancient China was not a united kingdom that broke into vassal states, it is the coalescence of vassal states that eventually formed China as we know it today. What unites those ancient China states is a shared general culture and writing system. The genetic makeup, spoken languages and customs varied a lot from state to state.
Shang and Zhou were feudalism under king. All vasals under the name of duke only pay tribute. The lands belong to them not the king. King has no right to appoint which land belong to which duke. It’s decided among their family. If there’s rebellion, king has army to reassert their dominance. That’s why at the end of Zhou, when the king lost its army, the state broke apart to become Spring and Autumn periods. After unification under Qin, emperor means the whole China belong to 1 state. No land is private. All official position is appointed by the emperor. Not handed down from father to son. Even if the emperor lost an army through war, non one can break apart the lineage aside from coup to appoint a new emperor of Qin. Army can be retrained under Qin banner. Not duke.
I can kind of understand from this why China as a culture finds the idea of copyright and intellectual property as rather strange. As literature in China is constantly filled with reiteration and plagiarism. Although you can put a name to a certain philosophy or idea or concept. You cannot outright claim (if you want to ever argue in good faith) they invented anything as schools of thought have always been nebulous and shared communally.
Fascism in theory anyway is supposed to actualize the national spirit into political form rather than keep human nature in check with a set of objective laws situated beyond them as in Legalism. But of course there are comparisons to be made in practice.
