Sima Qian Puns

In Records of the Grand Historian, Sima Qian gave a list of thirty or so Shang rulers. It was later revealed from archeological evidences that, more than 3/4 of the Shang rulers listed by Sima Qian were clearly found on the oracle bones.

Considering that Sima Qian wrote his book 1600 years after the establishment of Shang dynasty, it is astonishing that he could match the archeological evidences so well. How did he achieve this?

I am currently reading China: A History by John Keay. From this book it seems as though almost all our knowledge of China before around 100BC comes from Sima Qian. While comparisons are made with archeological findings in order to support his claims other claims such as the xia dynasty for instance have no archeological corroboration.

I have to worry that one individual having such a massive impact on our knowledge of ancient chinese history must leave an extremely biased and uncomprehensive view. To what extent can we trust the shiji? Have there been other notable histories of ancient china that provide similar or contrasting views?

I finally have enough golden chips to get Sima Qian from the GH Quest Bonus exchange, but I'm wondering if she's worth it. All that awakening to her final form looks like work.

What do you folks think? Is she garbage before awakening her a half-dozen times? Is she garbage even after awakening? Should I focus on less grindy characters?

I understand William H. Nienhauser has been trying to translate these in full for a long time, Herbert J. Allen has translated some parts of it that I have seen recommended here before, and then Burton Watson has also translated many parts of this text. To begin attempting to get a full understanding of Shiji, though much of it is still untranslated, I imagine I will need to read all of the authors' works collectively but where should I start as someone with little to no understanding of ancient Chinese history?

For context Sima Qian was a historian and bureaucrat of the Han who spoke out in favour of the defeated general Li Ling and was castrated in liu of execution. This is a common trope in Chinese history. The question is, why? There seems to be no incentive in paradise for the tortured or dead unfortunate.

My question is pretty much is as stated above. In particular, I'm curious as to how reliable these sources are for establishing the existence of the Xia Dynasty.

I know he is considered another father of history and especially the father of historiography. From what I researched and analyzed, his main argument is that history should be taught as a cycle as patterns are shown of how dynasties rise and fall. Especially throughout Chinese history. In each cycle, there are lessons about the values of society that should be taught to rulers in order to govern well. These sections covers smaller, overlapping units dealing with famous leaders, individuals, and major events of significance in chronological order. Even accounting for lower class people, he does take care to make sure he does his research. Sima decided to keep moving forward even after his castration which amazes me because this individual seems even more superior than Herodatus.

I am unsure what to criticize in his argument of cycles because it makes a lot of sense that history should be taught as a cycle as empires have risen and fallen. The examples are common history and in his method, Sima wanted rulers to learn from his records and govern well in response to the past cycles. Sima however implies there is never a long-lasting change. As it doesn’t take account for any long-lasting changes that alter civilizations and changes their directions.

I am a little lost but I want to ask if there is any criticism against Sima Qian that makes sense.

I'm currently researching Chinese history and I've had no luck in finding a free English translation of Shiji. So anyone got a link?

As a child, I became interested in Chinese history before ~1000AD from reading the World Fantasy Award winner Bridge of Birds, which was set in a mythical fictional Tang dynasty. After reading real Chinese literature and classics from the ancient Imperial period onward, I kept hearing a name pop up again and again: Sima Qian (or Ssu-ma Chi'en), the Grand Historian.

Going by the stories, he seemed to be a historian myth made real; I hear he was the great scholar who lived ~100BC, and singlehandedly collected and preserved vast quantities of ancient Chinese history covering the preceeding 2000 years(!), much of which could have been lost otherwise. The accomplishments and virtues of his work seem myriad.

I hear he was the first great Chinese scholar to write general histories rather than being state or event-centric. He wrote privately, refusing to cover only high-ranking officials, instead also detailing lives of lower-class significant figures. Even more shockingly, I hear he showed some of the darker side of figures whose reputation still reflected on living authorities, but somehow managed to balance diplomacy and integrity in a dangerous situation. He traveled the country in search of graves and monuments. I am aware he ultimately ran into trouble not from his histories and suffered castration for his offense, lacking the money to commute his execution any other way, but continued writing his histories afterward.

Everything I hear about this guy seems larger than life. I, however, don't know enough to tell the truth in the proper context. He still seems like a hero even if only a quarter of what I hear is true. I do know that I want to know more about this, so what was it with Sima Qian, the Grand Historian? Was he really accurate with his histories as far as we can tell, and is accomplishing this without a modern historiographic tradition really as much of an awe-inspiring accomplishment as I feel it is? This is a broad question, so any information (or a good book) that anyone wants to share with me or others is very welcome.

Both I and my History teacher have been looking all over the internet, and the best we can find are partial translations, and scans of the original text in Classical Chinese. Surely there's a translation in full somewhere out there, right?

I am curious as to how did Herodotus, Thucydides and Sima Qian gather their sources to write history. Did they rely on oral and written sources and did they search for physical and archaeological evidence like modern historians do today?

I'm currently doing a project on the formation of the early Han dynasty, and I'm looking to find a copy of Sima Qian's histories with relation to this topic. The school library doesn't have a copy of the book, so I was curious if there was a source that had it available (like a pdf or a scanned copy). Are there any other important works of historical literature that I should be consulting? I'm looking specifically at the conflict prior to the formation of the Han, including the fall of Qin, as well as Liu Bang and Xiang Yu.

How much should I be reading into these names? Like if I encounter the name Liu, should I assume they were descendents of the Han bloodline.

Sima Qian was a contemporary of Emperor Wudi in the Western Han dynasty. Paper was invented a hundred or so years after, in the Eastern Han. How did Sima Qian preserve his histories? Bamboo slats? Incising on hard surfaces?

Also: As a member of the court of Wudi, did Sima actually perform the act of putting his words into permanent form, or would that have been the job of another court official?

writing a paper about this and was curious which Biographies people would recommend given this particular theme. I've read several of them but I'm still struggling as to which in particular to analyze. I've read The Assassin-Retainers, Wu Zixu, and Lord Shang so far.

Thoughts?

I started summer school two weeks ago so I could get my GE's over with. I ordered my books on Amazon and they all arrived within one week except the most important one. I need to write a summary of the Intro of "Herodotus and Sima Qian: The First Great Historians of Greece and China" By Thomas Martin. If I don't turn in my summary by Monday, then I am not allowed to write the ten page research paper. Please some one help me download it or something and I promise I'll make it up to you! Thanks

I was sent to /r/askhistorians to see if anyone had a copy, I only need the introduction or if anyone has this book and could tell me what the intro is about so I can at least get started with my three page summary. Thank You

Link of the book http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0312416490

It is another analysis post that I usually do but this time its a discussion/speculation with some analysis of the most likely 3rd member of the Zhao 3 Great Heavens, Shi Ba Shou.

Chinese name: Sima Shang, the "Sima" clan is one of the more renowned military families in Ancient China. Sima Yi, famous for being the strategist of the Cao Wei and later, founder of the Jin, is from the same family. The historian and author of Shi Ji, Sima Qian, is also a member of this clan. One of Qin's 6 Greats, Sima Cuo / Shibasaku, is also of the same clan .

Shibashou may be part of a branch clan of Shiba/Sima that lived in Zhao but you can notice on the design of the armor of two of Shibashou's Generals https://i.ibb.co/02FZQqc/shibashou-generals.png that they look extremely similar to Shibasaku's armor designs. That is most likely an aesthetic exclusive to the "Shiba" clan and great character design and consistency from Hara-sensei.

Interesting enough, the other two generals later introduced did not share the same aesthetic design. There could be a reason for that and I will give my opinion later on on why Hara-sense made that decision.

So far, we know almost nothing about Shibashou apart from being strong enough to be considered for the 3 GH position and defeating Ordo with only 5, 000 soldiers.

However, Hara-sense introduced four generals:

Gaku Shou and Jyoukaryuu, who both shared "Shiba" clan's armor designs.

Kan Saro and Ji Aga, who has a different armor aesthetic.

Based on their introductions, it seemed that Gaku Sho has the "air" or "demeanor" of a Strategic General, ala Gohoumei, Denrimi and Mouten. However, his size is also big, as seen how he towered over SSJ and Futei, so he would most likey be able to fight when required.

We didn't see much about Jyoukaruu but his design would remind you of Bananji if you don't know their names beforehand. It seems he is paired with Gaku Sho and most likely as a compliment to his "strategic demeanor". My theory is that Jyoukaryu is like Gyou'un to Chougaryuu or Bananji to Shunsuijiu--the martial compliment to a strategic general.

Now, here comes the other two generals: Kan Saro and Ji Aga. These two does not possess the aesthetics of the "Shiba" but instead wearing a much "exotic" looking armor design, something that would remind you from Mountain Tribes and the "Wolf fur" scarfs even describes that wild look.

If you remember, Seika was situated in the Eastern part

Hiya. Is there any classic book that you would say is the single best? One that changed your life? One that defined a phase or stage of your life? Thanks in advance!

Thought my fellow enthusiasts of 3K on reddit might enjoy this thread and particularly this top answer on quora as much as I did:

https://www.quora.com/If-all-the-historical-famous-people-in-the-three-kingdoms-era-read-the-Romance-of-the-Three-Kingdoms-what-will-their-reactions-be

Credit to "Kinton J. Green, a logical imperial sinologist" for this answer.

>Most of the generals who serve Shu-Han would be ecstatic at Luo Guanzhong’s portrayal of their characters.

>Guan Yu was deified, in addition to Guan Ping, so they would have both pleased by the way he portrayed them in the novel. Especially due to the fact that Luo Guanzhong made Guan Yu’s defection to Cao Cao in 199 seem more honourable than it really was. Guan Yu and Zhang Fei may be confused why they were presented as Liu Bei’s sworn brothers, but I’m sure that their presentation as Liu Bei’s substitute family wouldn’t have annoyed them one bit.

>Zhang Fei might question why he was portrayed as a drunk but it makes him a little bit easier to sympathise with so it’s up to him how he’d take it.

>Zhao Yun and Liao Hua would have probably been pleased too, because ROTK portrayed them as heroic die-hard loyal officers, far greater than the mediocre officers they were historically. It’s clear to say that Zhuge Liang wouldn’t have been at all dismayed either. Perhaps Liao Hua would be a little unsure why he was presented as a Yellow Turban, but he’d get over that.

>Ma Chao would be glad that the truth behind his slaughterous savagery went significantly unmentioned in ROTK, and that he was also presented as a symbol of justice.

> Huang Zhong and Wei Yan would probably be a little confused about their relation to Han Xuan’s supposed murder, and I’m sure almost everyone involved in that debacle (Liu Bei’s conquest of Southern Jing) would be baffled. It’d be like reading fanfiction about themselves. I suppose in a way, it is. Wei Yan would be outraged, and rightfully so, since the novel removes most of his deeds and titles, and presents him as a treacherous warrior, but he wouldn’t be too surprised that someone who is being bias towards Zhuge Liang would do such a thing.

>Chen Dao and Huang Quan would want to know why they were practically omitted in entirety, in spite of the latter’s significance in the army.

>Jiang Wei would probably be a combination of pleased and angered at his own portrayal as steadily loyal yet an unstable, desperate manic.

>Zhang Bao and Guan X

I know that Confucianist China had a rigid class system, but on the other hand, peasants were valued more than capitalist merchants.

Firstly, I’d like to stress that this post is strictly my personal view and thoughts about Shin and his defeat in Chu. I will break this down into 3 parts:

1. Discuss about the reliability of the historical records.
2. Discuss about some discrepancies that I thought didn’t make sense.
3. My personal (fictional) thoughts about how the event might have gone down.

1.Unlike in the West, Chinese emperors and other eastern rulers had a habit of interfering with historians’ works. (See biography of the grand historian Sima Qian for such example). These interferences mainly concerned the portrayals of their dynasty and themselves.

The popular Chinese proverb 成者為王，敗者為寇 sums it up very well. It literally translates to “winner be king, losers be outlaw”.

However, I am not saying that the emperors can straight up change history. It’s more about changing how certain events were portrayed, mainly in the scope of exaggerating the enemies’ flaws and mistake while undermining their own. Glorifying their achievements and undermining their enemies.

Considering usurping Qin is the bedrock and foundation of the Han dynasty, whose founder was from Chu, I wouldn’t be surprised if certain details were exaggerated to make Chu’s last stand more heroic.

2. Back to our MC and his eventually defeat in Chu. I have some problem with Shin and Ousen proposal of the number of soldiers required for the conquest and how it was recorded that Sei agreed on the proposal that was literal 1/3 of the other just because it’s the cheaper option but I will save this point for part 3.

What bugs me the most is the punishments handed out to Shin and Mouten after the defeat. As we’ve known, they were demoted temporarily but Shin later participated in the mopping up of Yan remnants and the state of Qi and retired pretty peacefully while Mouten went on to be in charge of the 300,000 border troops that was in charge of guarding against the northern nomadic tribes and also building, joining parts of the Great Wall and defensive structures along the border. Do these look like proper punishments after such disastrous defeat?

I’ve seen a lot of arguments that Sei took up the blame for it was his decision. However, firstly it was Shin’s proposal, secondly it was uncharacteristic for Sei (at least his historical counterpart to do so) and thirdly, even if he did, Shin and Mouten would be lucky to get away with their lives let alone having any hope of any military career after that mainly because

History spoilers below (you've been warned) . . . So on page 6 of Chapter 673, the King of Yan mentions "call for Prince En Tan to the capitol." and also mentions Prince Tan spent time with Sei while they were hostages in Zhou when they were younger.

Prince Tan is known to history for only one thing: one of the most famous assassination plots in Chinese history--Tan tries to kill Sei in 227BC. Based on the timeline, we're around 236 or 235 BC（shortly after the fall of Gyou in 236BC), so we're actually still 9 years ahead of the assassination plot, which is WAY earlier than I expected Prince Tan to be introduced into the storyline.

So this will be interesting to see how things play out because in history, Prince Tan comes to meet with Sei to try to broker a peace between Yan and Qin, but Sei rejects him harshly and treats Prince Tan is beneath his dignity.

Offended that Sei would reject an overture from a childhood friend, Tan decides to stop the rampaging Qin state, he needs to assassinate Sei.

To gain entry to Sei's court, Tan gets the help of a man who escaped from Qin and whom Sei is said to have been obsessed with capturing: Han Oki.

In Kingdom, Han Oki has already been introduced, as main guy leading the Rouai Army in the attack on the capitol (his son was the douchebag killing tons of civilians who's hand Shin chops off).

One intriguing twist is that there is a theory that Han Oki is actually Kanki, who escaped from Qin after his army was destroyed by Riboku in 233BC, and came under the protection of Yan. A lot of people seem convinced that the fact we've already MET Han Oki means the Han Oki who participates in the assassination plot of Sei cannot be Kanki, but count me as a person who's not entirely convinced--I could see somehow Kanki taking over Han Oki's name for some reason or another.

In any case, the historical Sei was interested enough in obtaining Han Oki's head that when given a chance to obtain Han Oki's head, he granted Prince Yan's representative, a man named Keika, a meeting. Keika used this opportunity to try to kill Sei, and came very close to succeeding.

A few interesting points::

1. Timeline wise, you could make the argument 227BC represents the time from when Sei goes from a brilliant conqueror King to brutal Tyrant. 230 BC was the conquest of Han and 228 was the conquest of Zhou.

But the 225 conquest of Wu has one of the most brutal incidents during the conquest, when Ouhon uses a dam to literally drown the entire po

Salve a tutti!

L'episodio di oggi riguarderà la Battria, storica regione situata tra il Parapamiso (odierno Hindu-Kush) e l'Oxos (odierno Amu Darya), nel suo periodo storico più "rigoglioso", quello ellenistico.

L'argomento ha ricevuto un totale di 8 upvotes, seguito dal Ducato di Atene/Neopatria con 5 e dall'ormai guest star Scipione l'Africano, con 4.

Upvotate gli argomenti che desiderate vengano portati in rubrica, o commentate voi stessi! È importantissimo per la sopravvivenza della rubrica!

Introduzione ed excursus persiano:

Le fonti non dichiarano nulla riguardo alla Battria fino alla conquista della regione da parte di Ciro il Grande, che da allora divenne una satrapia ("di serie B") per l'Impero Achemenide. La satrapia venne principalmente utilizzata dai persiani come posto dove mettere "al confino" le popolazioni particolarmente inclini al dissenso e alla ribellione, come i greci. Si narra addirittura di come Dario I fece deportare i greci di un'intera città della Cirenaica in Battria come pena da scontare per essersi ribellati al Re dei Re. Per quanto riguarda l'aspetto geografico/territoriale, la Battria è una regione particolarmente fertile (circondata da aspre montagne) e favorevole all'insediamento umano.

Quando Alessandro Magno invase l'Impero Achemenide la satrapia della Battria era goveranata da Besso, che passerà alla storia come colui che uccise Dario III (ultimo sovrano achemenide) e, per questo, attirò su di sé l'ira di Alessandro il quale lo "cacciò" fino ad arrivare oltre l'Oxos, dove finalmente lo sconfisse e lo uccise. Con la conquista macedone, la Battria divenne una provincia del neo-formatosi impero Argeade. Le fonti discordano a chi fu assegnata la provincia dopo la morte del grande conquistatore macedone, ma quel che è certo è che Seleuco I "Nicatore" sottomise la Battria e da allora divenne un nuovo territorio dell'Impero Seleucide. Sotto i Seleucidi la Battria vedrà la fondazione di numerose città e l'immigrazione di un largo contingente ellenico per popolarle. Con tali immigrazioni "volontarie" la regione adottò completamente la lingua greca antica come ufficiale e la religione ellenica prese sempre più piede a discapito dello zoroastrismo. Fun fact: La Battria fu una delle regioni designate da Antigono Monoftalmo (prima della sua sconfitta per mano di Seleuco e Lisimaco) per "far riposare" gli [argiraspidi](https://www.trecca

In Chinese history, dynasties have been restored multiple times and the majority of founders of dynasties were nobility in the dynasty before them, very rarely was any one of them not a noble. They had a direct chain of legitimacy as nobility and were almost never commoners who directly became emperor. The peasants, bakers, officers who became emperors were almost always made into nobility by a previous dynasty before their accession. Dynasties were founded by the same families centuries apart from each other. The Qin and Zhou were both nobles of the Zhang dynasty and then the Qin and Shang royal families were nobles in the Zhou dynasty.

Xia dynasty claimed cadet branches of the Xia dynasty

>Qi (state in Henan not the one in Shandong) 16th century BCE–445 BCE

>Yue (state) 2032 BC (legendary fouding - 333 or 222 BC

>Minyue 334 BC–111 BC

Shang dynasty 1600 BC - 1046 BC cadet branch of the Shang dynasty

>Song (state) 1046 BC - 286 BC (ruled by Shang dynasty royals)

Zhou dynasty 1046 BC – 256 BC cadet branches of the Zhou dynasty

>Wu (state) 12th century BC–473 BC

>Jin (state) 11th century BC–376 BC

>Han (state) 403 BC–230 BC

>Wei (state) 403 BC–225 BC

>Yan (state) 11th century BC–222 BC

>Sui dynasty (581 AD–618 AD) (The Sui dynasty emperors from the Yang family of Hongnong claimed direct paternal descent from the Zhou dynasty royal family via the Dukes of the Jin state (11th century BC–376 BC). The first Sui emperor held the title of Duke in the dynasty before his and overthrew them)

Liu Bang who founded the Han dynasty was originally a peasant but he was granted the title of King during the Eighteen Kingdoms period (206 BC - 202 BC) when rebels led by the former Chu noble Xiang Yu overthrow the Qin dynasty in 20C BC. Xiang Yu was from a noble family of the Chu state, and he restored a former Chu royal to power as Emperor Huai II of Chu and he divided the Qin dynasty into 18 fiefs, each ruled by a king/prince who paid nominal allegiance to Emperor Huai II. The 18 kingdoms were assigned to a mix of former nobles of the Zhou feudal states before Qin conquered them, and some new peasants and ordinary commoner warlords who took part in the rebellion against the Qin who were granted the noble title of king/prince by Xiang Yu. Liu Bang, as one of the participants in the rebellion was granted the title King of Han and assigned to the Han fief. Sima Ang was appointed as king of Yin. Liu Bang then fought against Xia

I've seen fragmentary references to the Yellow Emperor, Chiyou, Shennong, Nüwa and so on out there. Is there a primary source narrating this period? Or a book collecting myths associated with it? "Historical Records" by Sima Qian seems to be be such a source, but all the English-language editions I've found specifically cover either the Qin or Han dynasty. Any leads?

Hi! I'm trying to pick a 65 cost unit from the list, but I'm not sure which one. The SS units I found on the list and that I don't have are:

Tranquil Wings Saradoryeong Rearisen Vengeance Hanrakgungi Isle Reading Master Pu Songling Star Wish Memories Sima Qian

I was thinking of picking a red or a green unit since I think my yellow and blue boxes are okay, but I couldn't see any SS red units on the list so I was thinking of going for Sima Qian. Any advice?

https://imgshare.io/image/pgPOue https://imgshare.io/image/pgPbPw https://imgshare.io/image/pgPSb8

A recent set of reports caught the attention of some very online people: Professor Huang Heqing, Professor of Archaeology at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, claimed in a recent lecture that various historical constructions were not a product of ancient civilizations but rather forgeries of the 19th and 20th century European states insecure about their status relative to China’s history. Among these where claims that the Pyramids, Sphinx, and Parthenon were all forgeries, and supported the hypothesis advanced by various Chinese nationalist scholars like Dong Bisheng, Zhu Youzhi, and Du Gangjian that China was the source of all major inventions like agriculture, writing, history, democracy, and civilization in general.

The first bit here of interest is the claim that the Pyramids were a European forgery. This draws on the controversial research of Joseph Davidovits and Michel Barsoum, French and American researchers who separately argued that the limestone found in the Pyramids exhibits characteristics that are not natural to limestone rocks and thus must be a kind of concrete (Davidovits and subsequent adherents call it a “geopolymer”). Barsoum's 2006 paper was the more professional attempt, but has some basic historical inaccuracies: it claims, for example, that there is “no trace” of ramps at the construction sites, but Zawi Hawass found evidence of ramps at the Giza construction site and published such evidence in 1998, well before Barsoum’s writings. The bigger issue is that Davidovits and Barsoum are irreconcilable, despite some attempts: Davidovits hypothesized the use of an alkali substance to bind together the “geopolymer,” but Dipayan Jana’s 2007 rebuttal notes that Barsoum’s findings demonstrated no alkali enrichment in the limestone which would be present in the “geopolymer” method, and Barsoum finds that the interior stones and non-limestone blocks were carved, which would limit the “concrete” hypothesis to only the outer stones. And while there is some degree of plausibility that m

~This might be a long post just a heads up also I am on mobile so it might format it weirdly.

From the early chapters of the story it has been known that a party can have a maximum of 24 people. So I thought of the strongest active members that would fill the roles and reasons why they are included. I would also include special factors if any.

FYI I am excluding Agnus since he is supposed to play the role of a villan.

Party members:-

1. Overgeared God Grid - Leader of the party and blacksmith. [God's Command] [Hero King's Fighting Energy] [Duke of Fire] [Duke of Virtue] [Pseudo Duke of Wisdom] [Magic Swordsman of the epics]

2. Sword Saint Kraugel - DPS and vanguard. [Quick Command] [Sword Saint's Sword Energy]

3. Bow Saint Jishuka - Long range attacker and CC. [Breaking the evil Arrow] [Clairvoyance]

4. Demon Slayer Yura - Long range DPS and Hell gate opener. [Anti Magic Energy]

5. Overgeared God Church Pope Damian - Support, buffer, healer, and secondary DPS.

6. Saintess Ruby - Main healer and buffer. [Percentage Heals]

7. Saintess's Knight Sexy Schoolgirl - Guardian of Ruby. [attacks imbued with power of the Saintess.]

8. Red Sage Haster - All-rounder and vanguard. [Heroic Story]

9. Aura Master Hurret - DPS. [Immense Aura Control]

10. Lantier Faker - Assassin and Rogue. [Power of Extermination]

11. Mumud's Successor Euphemia - Magic DPS. [Mumud's Magic]

12. Ancient Rider Zibal - Mount user and DPS. [Ancient class Magic machine Raiders] [Providance]

13. Legendary Explorer Skunk - Scout and Navigator. [Eyes planted throughout the world]

14. God of War Ares - Buffs and DPS [God of War's Traits and skills gift]

15. Dungeon Maker Eat Spicy Jokbal - DPS and Field effects. [Dungeon Remodeling] [Dungeon Creation]

16. Legendary Farmer Piaro - DPS and wide area field effects and attacks. [Natural State]

17. Asphomel - DPS and Magic DPS using Magic swordsmanship. [Magic Contemplatiom]

18. Legendary Great Magician Braham - Magic DPS. [Braham's Enhanced Magic] [Magic Contemplation] [Mental Barrier with immense Knowledge] [Master of Mana] [True Duke of Wisdom]

19. Legendary Knight Mercedes - DPS and Guardian [Keen Insight] [Chivalric Codes]

20. 6th Evil of Sloth Zirkfactor - DPS and Magic Tank. [Runic Magic] [Power of the 6th Evil]

21)Fallen Archangel Sariel - DPS and possible tank. [Judgement]

22. Daughter of Insane Dragon Nevartan Nefelina - DPS [Truth of the World] [Dragon's Breath]

23. Sima Qian - Strategis

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

I'm trying to trace out the history of nomadic ethnographies in anthropology. Which were the first nomadic communities studied by Anthropologists?

ETA: I’ve been informed that people are apparently sending hate mail and/or harassment to the OP. This is never justified. We’ve all been newcomers to a topic before, and it’s important that we keep civil so there’ll be more.

So yeah, stop bullying people, this isn’t 4chan.

https://www.np.reddit.com/r/teenagers/comments/mjlikx/guys_cant_hold_a_conversation_for_shit_alright/

This post. This frigging post.

I swear, I was going to wait until I got at least a Master’s to post on this sub but this post was so misinformative it made me want to go early.

Before I begin, I’m going to point out I’m not a giant knocking the heads of imps. I am very much in the middle of my teen years. Yet, I can somehow summarize Chinese history properly and still have time to feign social skills. But do correct me if I’m wrong about anything, I always need feedback.

So yeah, this is honestly just… kind of lame. If the OP sees this, my advice on improving social skills is to join more clubs with opportunities forcing you to socialize. A single year of forensics has already made me actually sociable to a passable extent. Ranting about your interests is fun and all, but it’s really not the best idea to do it unprompted. I’d like to make it clear, therefore, that none of this is done with malice.

Though, OP, PM if you’d like to chat about history. I, for one, am always into rants.

Now, where to start?

OP begins by dismissing the pre-imperial Chinese states out of hand. Technically, yes, it could be argued that the Chinese Empire in the sense of being a culturally homogenous state with an emperor at its head only began with Qin Shi Huang, but the years before that are vital to our understanding of China as a whole too.

Every single one of the Four Books and Five Classics later held to such importance by the Chinese was written before the Qin dynasty. In addition, though the Warring States are not well-recorded, they were hugely formative in shaping Chinese philosophy. The philosophies of Zhuangzi, Laozi, and many (possibly mythical) others first appeared during this time.

>This quickly drove him into insanity and later death. Also, Qin Shi Huang is the one that had a massive terracotta army at his grave.

I can’t find a single source claiming it drove him insane; much of his mass-murder and immortality obsession were long before he ingested the mer

Do your worst!

I am currently reading China: A History by John Keay. From this book it seems as though almost all our knowledge of China before around 100BC comes from Sima Qian. While comparisons are made with archeological findings in order to support his claims other claims such as the xia dynasty for instance have no archeological corroboration.

I have to worry that one individual having such a massive impact on our knowledge of ancient chinese history must leave an extremely biased and uncomprehensive view. To what extent can we trust the shiji? Have there been other notable histories of ancient china that provide similar or contrasting views?