The Lucky Farmgirl

I've noticed that in the reviews of the first few chapters, some readers have mentioned that "there is no history after Tang," which is actually a misconception.

Historiography is not that simple. Historians collect, analyze, and ponder information; they don't just believe whatever they hear like most people on the internet nowadays—they prioritize facts.

Saying things like "history is written by the victors" is something only losers would say, and only those who don't understand history would believe.

Who said that quote?

It was said by a defeated Nazi officer. Why should we take the word of a Nazi officer as an authoritative standard and even promote it extensively?

Indeed, Manbao's book is set against the backdrop of the early Tang Dynasty, even featuring characters with traits from that era, but my descriptions don't even come close to matching the historical figures of Emperor Taizong of Tang and Wei Zheng by one-tenth.

Of all the emperors in our history, I admire two the most: Qin Shi Huang and Li Shimin.

It's widely believed on the internet these days that Emperor Taizong altered history, but I don't think so.

This perception is due to Sima Guang's Comprehensive Reflections to Aid in Governance, which documented Emperor Taizong wanting to read the records of daily life, and Fang Xuanling among others dissuading him, believing that no emperor should view these records and that if Emperor Taizong set such a precedent, future generations might follow suit, eventually leading to accusations against historians.

Emperor Taizong didn't listen, and then Fang Xuanling and others compiled the actual records according to the daily life logs for the emperor to read. These logs couldn't be altered, but the actual records could.

In these, regarding the Xuanwu Gate Incident, Emperor Taizong said two things. One was, "Remove the superfluous words, record just the facts," and the other, "In the past, Duke of Zhou executed Guan and Cai to stabilize the Zhou Dynasty, and Zijuan poisoned Shu Ya to save the state of Lu. My actions are similar, why should historians omit it!"

It is because of these statements that Sima Guang made the subjective judgment that the records were tampered with and many materials were arbitrarily rejected and discarded.

However, this judgment isn't supported by any historical evidence, so Sima Guang didn't include this opinion in the main text but placed it in the "Critical Examination of the Comprehensive Reflections to Aid in Governance." Yet later generations have believed this subjective judgment without much thought.

History should be based on facts.

I don't believe Li Shimin altered history. The way I wrote about this emperor in Manbao's book was purely for the sake of the plot, and I don't want to give readers the wrong impression that history was actually altered.

If Emperor Taizong really changed history, why are there so many unfavorable descriptions of him in the annals?

Why, despite his many great achievements, are opinions about him still mixed? Isn't it because the history is authentic?

The Xuanwu Gate Incident is even included in middle school and high school history textbooks and has become widely known. His love of play, gambling, and womenhood, his excessive favoring of one of his sons leading to the crown prince's rebellion, his failure to educate his children, and even his grave-robbing of Wei Zheng's tomb—these are all recorded in history.

If he wanted to tamper with history, why leave so many faults in the official records, for posterity to read?

Perhaps Fang Xuanling and others considered that Emperor Taizong would read the official records, so they were very discreet in describing the Xuanwu Gate Incident. After reading it, Emperor Taizong said that historians should record the truth.

However, some readers of the Comprehensive Reflections to Aid in Governance say Li Shimin directly characterized the Xuanwu Gate Incident because he said to Fang Xuanling, "In the past, Duke of Zhou executed Guan and Cai to stabilize the Zhou Dynasty, and Zijuan poisoned Shu Ya to save the state of Lu. My actions are similar, why should historians omit it!"

But this statement was originally said by Fang Xuanling in the ninth year of Wude to persuade Li Shimin, so more than ten years later, Li Shimin didn't need to use this statement to characterize the event. By returning this saying to Fang Xuanling, he meant, since you consider the Xuanwu Gate Incident similar to that of Duke of Zhou, why then hesitate to speak of it?

Here in Manbao's book, I write that the emperor cares about his illegitimate rise to power only for the plot development, not that the historical Li Shimin was really like that.