Holy shit now that is a genius and brave move. Ancient chinese generals never disappoint us
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)
[Dormant] moved to !historymemes@piefed.social
3515 readers
1 users here now
THIS COMM HAS MOVED
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It only worked because he was known as a master tactician. Gotta get the clout first.
It only worked because it is
F I C T I O N A L
Parts like the lute and troop count are embellished, but all three kingdom stories and their name sakes are based off of historical names and accords.
Zhuge Liang garrisoned at Yangping (陽平; around present-day Hanzhong, Shaanxi) and ordered Wei Yan to lead the troops east. He left behind only 10,000 men to defend Yangping. Sima Yi led 200,000 troops to attack Zhuge Liang and he took a shortcut, bypassing Wei Yan's army and arriving at a place 60 li away from Zhuge Liang's location. Upon inspection, Sima Yi realised that Zhuge Liang's city was weakly defended. Zhuge Liang knew that Sima Yi was near, so he thought of recalling Wei Yan's army back to counter Sima Yi, but it was too late already and his men were worried and terrified. Zhuge Liang……
It’s part of the original wiki article OP posted and I didn’t want a long winded comment, but you also aren’t wrong.
Then why not leave that last part out?
I shouldn’t have to spoon feed information that’s already been presented… if someone didn’t read the original article, why am I gonna think someone is gonna read an entire linked portion of it?
I provided enough information to prove my point, and if people cared about the conversation, they would find the rest to join in.
You proved my point in a way.
You know the end, the enemy fell for his tactic, and left. The details are immaterial at this point, as the whole original story with the lute is embellished.
It's not about spoon feeding, it's about not quoting something and leaving an incomplete sentence at the end. It's...
what…?
It’s normal to leave irrelevant information out of quotes to make information succinct.
I’m sorry you took offense to a totally normal thing and the information is already there for you. I originally only provided the quote to make fun of the person who obviously didn’t read the original article. Now you’re just making yourself look silly for not understanding making things succinct…
There’s just no pleasing people eh? A wall of text is too much, so do them a favor and some other person has to bloviate about their laziness to read source material.
It’s normal to leave irrelevant information out of quotes to make information succinct.
Yes, and you did the opposite, leaving incomplete information at the end.
This was originally supposed to be a light-hearted joke about the dangling name at the end, but you took it REALLY seriously. Zhuge Liang......
again… what…?
The information was provided by OP, I was providing a quote to a specific person.
I don’t give a shit about anything that comes after. If you want more information, like the person I responded to. Read the fucking source material lmfao.
Seriously, what is wrong with people and engaging in comments without reading articles or the even the provided source material…? You’re only making yourself look silly here mate.
Your “light hearted” joke stopped being that when you asked for clarification, so which is it actually…?
I'll try to explain again.
Here's the quote. Note the bold italic text at the end:
Zhuge Liang garrisoned at Yangping (陽平; around present-day Hanzhong, Shaanxi) and ordered Wei Yan to lead the troops east. He left behind only 10,000 men to defend Yangping. Sima Yi led 200,000 troops to attack Zhuge Liang and he took a shortcut, bypassing Wei Yan’s army and arriving at a place 60 li away from Zhuge Liang’s location. Upon inspection, Sima Yi realised that Zhuge Liang’s city was weakly defended. Zhuge Liang knew that Sima Yi was near, so he thought of recalling Wei Yan’s army back to counter Sima Yi, but it was too late already and his men were worried and terrified. Zhuge Liang……
Clearly you just made a mistake and left in a bit of text from the following sentence unintentionally. That's what I've been talking about all this time, not any of the things you've been talking about in your replies. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly.
I left the little bit of text so people knew there was still more to the story….
That’s normal for quotes, to show there’s more, but it’s not relevant to the story.
Clearly you just made a mistake and left in a bit of text from the following sentence unintentionally. That's what I've been talking about all this time.
… no… intentional… and speaking of talking about this entire time…
The rest of the story, as explained multiple times… by the embellished OP story, the wiki article, the article about Liang, and the specific historical account… his renown preceded him, they took his bait, and left. What’s the point of quoting the same shit for the umpteenth time…? The linked article has the information, I’m sorry you can’t be arsed to due a prime effort in your end to get already presented information…. The fuck is wrong with people… seriously….
This never had anything to do with wanting more information, just wondering why you left the dangling name. I've never seen anything like that done intentionally before. Thank you for clarifying.
It’s normal Lexicon and is well used in articles and other relevant media.
Quite shocking that you’ve never seen this quite normal thing before….
I'm very familiar with that, and that's not how that works. It still needs to be a complete sentence with the words omitted. You don't just...
Lmfao, again you show your laziness or at this point frankly pure ineptitude/arrogance to read provided source material, that’s literally how you remove irrelevant information from the end of the quote…. My Link even talked about this.
I’m gonna just block your trolling ass now. Everyone but you seems to understood how the quote works… You are, just as explained before, making an ass out yourself at this point. Twice now you’ve ignored provided source material. The fuck is wrong with you?
Sure bro, and Arthur is real too because Nennius said so.
A master tactician could get away with this, while a new one would probably get called on it.
It’s an important detail to the story, I’m sorry you can’t seem to be able differentiate between a truly fictional story and embellished.
I don’t believe every Viking story I read, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist just because a god appears dude. Seriously.
I wonder sometimes how common sapience actually is in humanity.
Judging from your responses, it's rare.
Oh no. Someone that believes in the historicity of Zhuge Liang's specific actions has insulted me.
My ego will never recover.
(That was sarcasm, I can tell it needs to be spelled out for y'all)
Wouldn’t a sapient person understand that Vikings exist while stories also talk about how they walked with their gods…?
Look in the mirror dude.
well... the enemy general is kind of a disappointment... coulda just sent his least favorite platoon forward to scout (and capture, in this case).
Or just have the bowman trainees assemble, tell them the first one to hit the general gets a promotion.
To be fair, even archers have to get in range and Zhuge Liang had successfully tricked them in the past. If real, I can imagine they felt its better to save their men for another fight.
The trick is to actually lay out successful traps hundreds of times before and build up your reputation.
He was actually trying to surrender, though? The enemy just didn't believe him.
Now that’s a Picard Maneuver.
You absolute legend. Do you have an alert set up when somebody mentions your name or are you an actual omnipotent being?
Haha, not unless they actually @ me. I just happened to be the one who posted this history meme.
I'm gonna order me a new pair of eyes. Missed that completely. 👀
Sometimes I post so much that it's like you're seeing me in multiple places at once.
Lol. Gotta scan for those compressed gasses to figure out who the real one is then!
My boy Zhuge Liang with the huge wang