Gou Jian, King of Yue, was one of the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period. Why did Sima Qian put wuyue's hegemony in the Warring States history?

In the song of the dynasty that we recited when we were young, there is a sentence? The Eastern Zhou Dynasty is divided into two parts, the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period? In most people's cognition, the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period are two completely different historical periods.

However, what is the historical stage of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period has always been controversial. Usually historians will take 475 BC as the dividing line between the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. If we tell you that the demise of Gou Jian, the King of Yue, occurred in 473 BC, we may be shocked to find that wuyue's hegemony among the five major countries in the Spring and Autumn Period occurred in the Warring States Period.

On this issue, I will discuss with you the stages of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, and how to divide them!

Why is it the most authoritative to divide the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period in 475 BC?

Even if we put wuyue's hegemony in the Warring States period, we can't deny the authority of this statement. The so-called authority is that an authoritative figure puts forward this view and a lot of authoritative figures admire it. This is authority.

In 475 BC, it was divided into the dividing line of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, which originated from historical records. Sima Qian, the first authority in the field of history, said in "Preface to the Chronology of the Six Kingdoms": After the Spring and Autumn Period, Qin began to be recorded, representing the current affairs of the Six Kingdoms, and ended in the second year, lasting 270 years. There's a gentleman in the back. Let's see. ?

This division method is based on the stages of Zhou (the first year of Zhou Yuanwang, that is, 475 BC), which is quite orthodox. Whether it is the Spring and Autumn Period or the Warring States Period, it is the Eastern Zhou Dynasty. Because Zhou's identity was established at that time, it was naturally authoritative.

Because it was recorded in authoritative historical records, endorsed by Sima Qian and praised unanimously by historians, this demarcation point was so happily decided.

Of course, although the Zhou Emperor of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty was still the master of the world, he was actually a decoration. Otherwise, why subdivide the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period?

The Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period were the product of the decline of the status of the Zhou emperor, and it was precisely because of the decline of the authority of the Zhou emperor that the Spring and Autumn Period hegemony war and the Warring States merger war were triggered. Not only people don't remember the master of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, but even those overlords in the Spring and Autumn Period, who cares about the life and death of the King of Zhou?

It can be said that it is normal for Sima Qian to divide the times by the number of years he ascended the throne, which is controversial in later generations.

Why is there a saying that 48 BC1and 468 BC are the dividing lines between the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period?

Both Lv Simian's History of the Pre-Qin Dynasty and Qian Mu's Outline of National History hold that 48 BC1should be the dividing line between the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period.

Lv Simian and Qian Mu are both famous contemporary historians, and they can't use this division method for no reason.

According to the idea of traceability, Spring and Autumn Period? This word comes from the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ram and the Spring and Autumn Annals of Gu Liang, which was recorded by Lu historians, because the ancient calendar had spring and autumn first, and then divided into winter and summer. After all, it was a farming society, and there were far more things to do in spring and autumn than in winter and summer. Later, people called this national history of Lu? Spring and autumn? .

"The Spring and Autumn Annals of Ram" and "The Spring and Autumn Annals of Gu Liang" recorded fourteen years from Lu Yingong to Lu Aigong, and the fourteenth year of Lu Aigong was 48 1 year BC. It is better to end the Spring and Autumn Period through the origin of the title of Spring and Autumn Period. Correspondingly, the title of the Warring States comes from the Warring States Policy, which is more reasonable than the clue that the title of the Spring and Autumn Annals comes from the History of Lu.

However, in the Spring and Autumn Period, in addition to The Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ram and The Spring and Autumn Annals of Gu Liang, there was also a history book to annotate them, which became Zuo Zhuan, known as the first two books? Three biographies of the Spring and Autumn Annals? .

Of course, as far as the influence of later generations is concerned, Zuo Zhuan is more influential because it pays attention to telling history and has its own system compared with the Spring and Autumn Period. Because Zuo Zhuan has a history of 13 years longer than Chunqiu, it was in the twenty-seventh year of Lu Aigong, that is, 468 BC.

In 468 BC, it was not only the last year of Zuo Zhuan, but also the year when Lu Aigong was hanged. Even more coincidentally, it was the first year of King Ding Zhen Zhou, and this time node was quite in place and impeccable!

Is wuyue the hegemony in the Spring and Autumn Period or the Warring States Period?

In the above two paragraphs, 48 BC1,475 BC and 468 BC are the dividing lines of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period respectively. However, as stated at the beginning of this article, if we know that the State of Yue destroyed Wu in 473 BC, then the first two methods put wuyue's hegemony in the Warring States period.

In 468 BC, wuyue was able to dominate the world at the end of the Spring and Autumn Period. However, Gou Jian was the overlord for five years. Is it a little disrespectful to Gou Jian? Is it possible that most of the hegemony of Yue was in the Warring States period?

Why did I say earlier that even if wuyue's hegemony was placed in the Warring States period, this division method in 475 BC could not be shaken?

In addition to authority, it actually involves the statement about the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period. There have always been many opinions about the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period, among which the most influential one comes from Historical Records? Qi Huangong, Jin Wengong, Qin Mugong, Chu Zhuangwang, Song Xianggong? .

That is to say, according to the historical framework of the Historical Records system, He Lv, the king of Wu, and Gou Jian, the king of Yue, have never been placed in the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period, so naturally it doesn't matter whether you are in the Spring and Autumn Period or the Warring States Period.

In fact, many historians also deny that He Lv, the King of Wu, and Gou Jian, the King of Yue, were rated as the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period according to this classification method. In their view, Gou Jian's destruction of Wu itself had the nature of merger, belonging to the Warring States period, and then took this opportunity to disprove the rationality of the five-bully version of Historical Records.

Different understandings of the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period naturally lead to different versions. The version of Wu Yue in the Spring and Autumn Period appeared in Xunzi? In Wang Ba, Xunzi thought that the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period should be? Qi Huangong, Jin Wengong, Chu Zhuangwang, King He Lv of Wu, King Gou Jian of Yue. ?

Is the version of "Five Overlords" in Historical Records really reliable? Do you know anything about Song Xianggong and Qin Mugong?

Although the five-hegemony version in Historical Records has long been deeply rooted, with the excavation of history, we are more and more inclined to Xunzi's five-hegemony version.

Qi Huangong and Jin Wengong are undisputed overlords in the versions of the Five Overlords in the Spring and Autumn Period, while Chu Zhuangwang is undisputed in the mainstream version. Controversial are Qin Mugong and Song Xianggong, as well as Wu Helu and Gou Jian, the King of Yue.

Among them, Song Xianggong is the most controversial. Song was originally a small country with poor strength, but it did not make any achievements in foreign military affairs. After Qi Huangong's death, Song Xianggong tried to rule the country, but he was caught by Chu when he joined the alliance. Later, he was released under the mediation of Lu, and was later defeated by Chu in the flood war. It can be said that Song Xianggong's hegemony is an act of overreaching.

Many people think that Song Xianggong's benevolence and righteousness should be considered in the circumstances at that time. Because of benevolence and righteousness, it is called overlord. Actually, this is all bullshit. Yu Zi's criticism of Song Xianggong is recorded in Zuo Zhuan. It can be seen that even in the Spring and Autumn Period, Song Xianggong's behavior was a joke.

Since Song Xianggong can be regarded as the overlord, Qin Mugong expanded westward and was appointed as the uncle of western governors by King Xiang of Zhou, so he was naturally the overlord. It can be seen that the evaluation of overlord in Historical Records has obvious retro narrow sense. Respect the king and oppose the foreign countries? This political slogan is also expected to serve as an important reference.

In fact, after Qin Mugong died in Jin Wengong, he wanted to move eastward. As a result, it was defeated twice by the Jin army and was completely annihilated. In this life, he will never dare to move eastward again. How dare Qin Mugong be the overlord?

Are He Lv, the King of Wu, and Gou Jian, the King of Yue, eligible to be named the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period?

In my opinion, the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period did not represent one person, but one person achieved the hegemony status on behalf of this country, which also spanned and replaced each other in time.

Qi Huangong was undoubtedly the first to dominate, but Qi Huangong was ignorant in his later years, which led to the gradual decline of Qi.

In 636 BC, Jin Wengong ascended the throne. During his reign, he appointed virtuous ministers and made great efforts to govern the country, which greatly enhanced the national strength of the State of Jin and became the second overlord after Qi Huangong. Since then, the state of Jin has dominated for a hundred years. Therefore, some people think that the five tyrants and four tyrants came from Jin in the Spring and Autumn Period, and it is not groundless.

In 6 13 BC, Chu Zhuangwang acceded to the throne and appointed Sun Shuai as Lingyin to develop economy and enrich national strength. The rise of Chu State and the long-term hegemony of Jin State. In 597 BC, Chu Zhuangwang defeated the State of Jin in the Battle of Tai Chi, and later won the Central Plains and gained hegemony.

In 5 15 BC, He Lv, king of Wu, ascended the throne, appointed Wu Zixu as prime minister and Sun Wu as general, and his national strength became increasingly strong. In 506 BC, he captured the capital of Chu and gained hegemony.

Just when He Lv was at the peak of his life, he capsized in the sewer during the war with Yue and died of serious injuries. Later, Fu Cha defeated Yue and captured Gou Jian.

However, Gou Jian gained the trust of Fu Cha and was released back to China. During Fu Cha's northern hegemony, Gou Jian attacked Wu in 473 BC, Gusu was breached by Gou Jian, and Fu Cha was defeated and committed suicide. Later, Gou Jian took advantage of the situation to go north and joined forces with the governors at that time in Xuzhou, becoming the last overlord in the Spring and Autumn Period.

From the point of time, there are quite a few versions of Xunzi. Has been ahead for hundreds of years. Posture.

It should be the most reasonable to use Zhao, Wei and Han as the dividing line between the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period.

Whether wuyue is one of the five tyrants in the Spring and Autumn Period is still controversial, but as long as there is controversy, it is safe to put wuyue's hegemony in the Spring and Autumn Period.

This debate has been well settled in Sima Guang's Zi Zhi Tong Jian. Sima Guang believed that the Warring States period should begin in 403 BC, because in this year, the Zhou royal family recognized the fact that Zhao, Wei and Han were divided into Jin.

Taking this as the node, the hegemony of Yue declined, and the status of Zhao, Wei and Korea was established. On the other hand, Tian actually gained the political power of Qi. As the biggest symbol of the Warring States Period, the embryonic form of the Seven Heroes of the Warring States Period has been established.

More importantly, around 400 BC, the political reform was launched, which made Wei rise rapidly and became the first rising power in the Warring States period.

The difference between the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period is largely a change in social form. At the end of the Spring and Autumn Period, the iron plough in Niu Geng was gradually popularized, the improvement of productivity promoted the development of production relations, and the land policy based on the well field system collapsed.

And what is an important content of the Warring States Reform? Abandoned mines, open buildings? The establishment of private ownership of land and the rapid increase of productivity effectively supported the merger war between vassals. For example, in the military system, countries generally adopted the conscription system in the Spring and Autumn Period, and conscription was only allowed in wartime, while the compulsory conscription system was adopted in the Warring States Period, and all men of school age had the obligation to join the army.

Of course, there are some controversies about this statement. After all, in 403 BC, the political status of Zhao, Wei and Han had already been formed, and it was meaningless to formally add recognition to Zhou.

Some historians believe that this incident should have started in 453 BC when Sanjin was divided, which is not unreasonable. After all, the division of Jin and Tian's Qi Dynasty is not a one-off event, but a process of several decades.

Historical theory:

From the Spring and Autumn Period to the Warring States Period, it is a vague transition, but there are obvious differences between them. Therefore, if an event is regarded as a concrete symbol, it may not be completely divided, but artificially divided according to an event node. Generally speaking, it is better to divide the three clans into Jin.