Do you think Ryo Fui would have been better ruler ?

H

Homelander

#22
Ok lol some agree to disagree few cant stomach ei sei is a murderer .

I can understand people will say i am bullshiting but the fact is Ei sei is based on real life chinese emperor has rubbed of people badly here.

Its ok read the manga . It seems this thread will accuse me of being straw hat or whatever it is.
 
H

Homelander

#23
Hold on. Too much going on in this comment.

1. Just so I understand what you are saying, I don’t want to straw man you, you are saying that in Manga Sei-meaning the Sei that Hara has essentially written from scratch-is actually a terrorist and a monster, because the historical figure that he is based on was those things?

I want to make sure I’m not misrepresenting you because that is some grade A bullshit lol. Might as well say manga Yo Tan Wa and Kyoukai are actually men because they are based off historical men.

Hara using a historical figure as an archetype for what is essentially a fictional character doesn’t mean you should go applying all of the traits of the historical figure to the fictional one. You can acknowledge that Sei’s methods and ideology have been presented as the only possible unification method in this manga, while simultaneously acknowledging that the historical figure upon which the fictional Sei is based upon was an abhorrent madman. In the same way that you can love and enjoy Kingdom as a manga without necessarily morally approving of any actions taken by the Chinese Government historically or in the modern day.

2. So whether or not the current world actually works on Ryofui’s method-which is essentially oligarchy, and whether or not Ryofui would have been able to unify China, are two different questions.

On unifying China-No. Ryofui will tell you himself that he is not better on this issue than Sei is. Like the panel @Owl Ki shared says, at best Ryofui’s method buys China a couple of decades of uneasy peace while the many parties rally their armies and then the bloodshed resumes.

On the current world working on Ryofui’s method: are you approving of Ryofui’s method on a moral level or on as a method of effective governance?

The efficacy of capitalist oligarchy’s has been highly debated to say the least. The US is currently neck deep in a late stage economic collapse resulting from the inevitable trajectory of Capitalist systems resulting in the redistribution of wealth from the bottom of society to the top. The US is heading towards-best case scenario-a peaceful revolution that will transform the country into something radically different from what Ryofui had in mind for China lol. Other capitalist countries have social restrictions in place to prevent this from happening, but ironically social restrictions that limit the people in power from raping a country’s economy are in opposition to what Ryofui was proposing.

So ironically, the exact same end point for Ryofui’s method for leadership in the manga and irl, are exactly the same. Was this intentionally done intentionally by Hara, I wonder?
Yes.

On Ryofui’s method being more moral than Sei’s: this almost deserves an entire thread on its own, my attempt to explain why Ryofui’s method is no more or less moral than Sei’s in a paragraph, would be a bastardization of the explanation that actual topic deserves.

Long story short, there is no reason whatsoever to believe Ryofui’s method is more moral than Sei’s. Sei seeks to end the bloodshed and prejudices of the era, Ryofui seeks to postpone them while enriching himself in the process.

3. As for Qin succeeding where Rome failed:

There are literally thousands of factors contributing to this, not just Sei’s leadership alone, but also the caliber of his subordinates and armies, the difference in ideology and tactics between Qin and the opposition, luck, etc etc etc.

If what you’re trying to say is that Sei’s methods are worse than Ryofui’s because Sei’s methods failed elsewhere but succeeded for Qin, then my answer would be:

What does it matter if his methods failed elsewhere? They worked for China, and in this discussion, that’s really all that matters, is it not?
Its ok we have diverge view how we see the world. I firmly stand on my thoughts.

If you think this thread is not suitable you should lock this thread i dont want to create anymore scene here.
 
#24
"Better ruler", I think he was already the best leader/prime minister type of figure there was in China. So yes he would've made a great leader, but what are the criteria for a "better ruler" here?

-> He would've made Qin more prosperous economically
-> The Armies would be strengthened as well since 2 of his vassals were military focused
-> Laws would be thought out, hence he kept the legalism homie under him
-> There would be some Qin expansion, but not this extent
-> There would be less Qin people dying

But.. there would be no united China in his time, unless he went Riboku's path.


As for the path between Ryoufui & Ei Sei, Hara never takes any side on this, instead leaves it up for debate, ending the conversation between the two with the statement of their paths being too different and their perspective on how they view things is too different. So they essentially end the conversation on equal terms.



Perspective difference between the two:


Ei Sei's perspective is that of a man who struggled in his earlier youth, and then was pushed straight to royalty
Ryofui's perspective is that of a man who had spent years as a common man and rose to power by grinding it out


So dependent on who you are and what perspective you side with your thoughts about which would be the better ruler would lean towards the person who's perspective you find has more legitimacy.


Without Hindsight:

Without any Hindsight, Ei Sei's path seems more grander and right to go with, so him unifying China and making Qin "the kingdom" would be him being the better ruler than Ryoufui. But that does "better ruler" limited to just the people of Qin or also carry over the ones who's sons/fathers/brothers he slaughtered to unify the lands.. for them he would surely be a terrible ruler.


With Hindsight:

War breaks down only years after Qin unifies the lands. Then there are still wars under the Han Dynasty, then we enter the infamous 3 Kingdoms era, which can be argued as an even bigger era of War.. So was Ei Sei's bloodshed of all those people worth it?
Now maybe had Ei Sei's successors turned out to be decent, it could've been.. But who's to say his successors wouldn't end turning to war? In the end what happened was what Ryoufui had already stated, nothing can bring an end to warfare, certainly not the biggest war of them all. Since you can't control all humans, which would be the only way truly end conflict.

I mean this had happened just few hundred years after the unification:


Now you could credit Ei Sei for being the person who put the idea of a 1 China only out there with his conquering. He also established some law and such that would be incorporated by the Han, once they took over.


So to be real with you, it's hard to say, there's all different possibilities with both of them. Which I think what Hara was essentially trying to say with ending it on a non-conclusion ending with the two. You like honor, your country expanding, conquering other states, etc? Then Ei Sei would've been the guy for you. You want your nation to prosper without huge bloodshed and war? Ryoufui would've been the guy for you.
 
H

Homelander

#25
USSR. The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. That is what broke up.

Soviet Russia would refer to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, a part of the USSR that ultimately became the Russia of today.

If you are going to correct yourself then at least do yourself the favour of correcting yourself correctly.

Oh dear, if only those issues were addressed by Hara through Ei Sei. :quest:

Oh wait, they literally already have been. You should reread Chapters 487-488 :goatasure:
It is most amusing to see that every single one of your points has already been addressed and thoroughly debunked by the actual manga itself.

I assume this is the main reason why you do not use a single manga panel to back up any of your points.

Firstly
This is working off of the assumption that Hara follows events to the exact letter. For all we know, Ousen and his desire to be a King may end up being the reason why it all falls apart. Feck, Hara might throw us a complete curveball and create an alternative history where unification through martial might actually works.

Hara is not obligated to follow history to the exact letter. It is a work of fiction after all.

Secondly, what is the point of using historical events from other time periods as proof of you being somehow right regarding the events of a fictional setting (besides the fact that the manga is quite literally against you)?

Kingdom is a fictional story, set in a fictional setting that treats spiritualism as a completely real occurrence, that is loosely based on and romanticises real life events that were not recorded in any great particular detail.

Real life Houken could not kill tigers with his bare hands, real life Shin was not a noteworthy general, real life Yotanwa/Karin/Kyoukai were all men and real life Ei Sei would undoubtedly be nothing like fictional Ei Sei.

If you want to discuss history then go to an actual historical discussion forum.

If you want to discuss the actual manga called Kingdom then you should start searching for some manga panels that actually prove your point.

How could Ryofui end the Warring State period using a method that was never designed to end it and that not even he himself thought could end it? That sure sounds contradictory to me.

And Ryofui had limited knowledge as to man’s true nature and to the attitude of the other warring states and the people who rule them.

This is the mentality of those people.
If pure kindness means absolutely nothing to these folk then manipulative wealth that is only being used in an attempt to economically dominate them is obviously going to be worth even less to them.

Ryofui also continually said “Your idea won’t work”. He sure did not have a good rebuttal though, unlike Ei Sei who verbally tore Ryofui apart.

It was literally addressed why Ryofui’s method was a short term patch up.
Ei Sei’s method is literally the only method presented in the manga as actually having a chance to achieving a permanent end to warfare within China. Whether it did or did not is ultimately irrelevant.

All your arguments are based on;

I) Completely ignoring the manga which has already addressed every single one of your points. The fact that I have posted multiple manga panels to prove my points while you have used nothing is pretty telling.

II) Using completely disingenuous arguments involving grossly inaccurate historical comparisons with nations that were in completely different situations to the Warring States.

III) Using nonsensical straw man arguments (e.g. “Ei Sei’s method did not work for some other part of the world at some other point in time under completely different circumstances, therefore it is somehow bad.” and “Ryofui’s method worked over 2000 years later on a completely different continent with countries that use a completely different governance style, none of whom were actually at war with each other unlike the Warring States, therefore his method must somehow work for dealing with the rest of the Warring States.”).

IV) Using real life historical accounts of a vague period of history and using them to somehow judge fictional characters in what is essentially a fictional setting.

If all this was not bad enough, I have also noticed that you are going back to edit your posts and adding whole paragraphs to them.

Those two paragraphs were nowhere to be seen when I first quoted that post.

The sheer amount of intellectual dishonesty on display here is utterly staggering. :lawsigh:
Ok i get it Ei sei is your fav character seem like i ruffled your feather when i compared him to murderer.

If you have no idea who Ei sei is ? Qin empire i based s real life inspiration of this manga . Theempire is celebrates even today in China.

Its ok we have different view on how we see the character.

Call me multiple names its ok i am used to the argument like intelluctual dishonesty or strawman argument.
 
H

Homelander

#26
"Better ruler", I think he was already the best leader/prime minister type of figure there was in China. So yes he would've made a great leader, but what are the criteria for a "better ruler" here?

-> He would've made Qin more prosperous economically
-> The Armies would be strengthened as well since 2 of his vassals were military focused
-> Laws would be thought out, hence he kept the legalism homie under him
-> There would be some Qin expansion, but not this extent
-> There would be less Qin people dying

But.. there would be no united China in his time, unless he went Riboku's path.


As for the path between Ryoufui & Ei Sei, Hara never takes any side on this, instead leaves it up for debate, ending the conversation between the two with the statement of their paths being too different and their perspective on how they view things is too different. So they essentially end the conversation on equal terms.



Perspective difference between the two:

Ei Sei's perspective is that of a man who struggled in his earlier youth, and then was pushed straight to royalty
Ryofui's perspective is that of a man who had spent years as a common man and rose to power by grinding it out


So dependent on who you are and what perspective you side with your thoughts about which would be the better ruler would lean towards the person who's perspective you find has more legitimacy.


Without Hindsight:

Without any Hindsight, Ei Sei's path seems more grander and right to go with, so him unifying China and making Qin "the kingdom" would be him being the better ruler than Ryoufui. But that does "better ruler" limited to just the people of Qin or also carry over the ones who's sons/fathers/brothers he slaughtered to unify the lands.. for them he would surely be a terrible ruler.


With Hindsight:

War breaks down only years after Qin unifies the lands. Then there are still wars under the Han Dynasty, then we enter the infamous 3 Kingdoms era, which can be argued as an even bigger era of War.. So was Ei Sei's bloodshed of all those people worth it?
Now maybe had Ei Sei's successors turned out to be decent, it could've been.. But who's to say his successors wouldn't end turning to war? In the end what happened was what Ryoufui had already stated, nothing can bring an end to warfare, certainly not the biggest war of them all. Since you can't control all humans, which would be the only way truly end conflict.

I mean this had happened just few hundred years after the unification:


Now you could credit Ei Sei for being the person who put the idea of a 1 China only out there with his conquering. He also established some law and such that would be incorporated by the Han, once they took over.


So to be real with you, it's hard to say, there's all different possibilities with both of them. Which I think what Hara was essentially trying to say with ending it on a non-conclusion ending with the two. You like honor, your country expanding, conquering other states, etc? Then Ei Sei would've been the guy for you. You want your nation to prosper without huge bloodshed and war? Ryoufui would've been the guy for you.
Thank you this is balanced piece i wanted

/thread

This is balanced one i wanted to read instead of fandom here piling me with insults .

The amount of namecalling people pushed on me realise kingdom fans are worse than one piece officially.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#27
Ok lol some agree to disagree few cant stomach ei sei is a murderer .
He is a murderer, so is Ryoufui. Both of them are murderers. Ei Sei is just the bigger one. But it's not as if Hara is choosing to shy away from addressing it. He's had Ei Sei address it multiple , Ei Sei knows he'll be tyrant and so on, but he'll do it cause he thinks it's the best way for peace for the whole of China.


This just goes back to the whole ending of Ryoufui & Ei Sei without a solid "right or wrong answer".
 
Last edited:
H

Homelander

#28
He is a murderer, so is Ryoufui. Both of them are murderers. Ei Sei is just the bigger one. But it's not as if Hara is choosing to shy away from addressing it. He's had Ei Sei address it multiple , Ei Sei knows he'll be tyrant and so on, but he'll do it cause he thinks it's the best way for peace for the whole of China.


This just goes back to the whole ending of Ryoufui & Ei Sei without a solid "right or wrong answer".
Thanks i never said ryu fui is not murderer. No one has perfect solution to the problem.

I agree with your quotes as well. He knew he had to be tyrant to achieve the solution.

I do think there wasno perfect answer afterall.
 
#29
Ok lol some agree to disagree few cant stomach ei sei is a murderer .
What has this got to do with anything?

The title of this thread is
“Do you think Ryo Fui would have been better ruler?”

which implies that this is a subject regarding the pros/cons of Ryofui’s style of ruling Qin over Ei Sei.

However, the opening post is about Ryofui’s method of ending the Warring State period (which is non-existent as he inherently believes warfare is impossible to end) vs Ei Sei’s method (which is actually geared towards solving the problem).

And now, we have the whole “Ei Sei is a mass murderer” spiel which is strange, since pretty much nearly every important character in Kingdom is some form of a mass murderer, including Ei Sei.

What is even the point of this thread? The topical dissonance is all over the place.
I can understand people will say i am bullshiting but the fact is Ei sei is based on real life chinese emperor has rubbed of people badly here.
What are you even talking about? Just because Sei is loosely (emphasis on loosely) based on a historical figure, that does not mean that he is that historical figure.

This is on par with treating Blackadder’s Richard III the same as the actual Richard III.

At the end of the day, Kingdom is still fiction and can only be judged within it’s own fictional confines. Trying to apply the attributes of real life individuals onto fictional characters is simply illogical.
Ok i get it Ei sei is your fav character seem like i ruffled your feather when i compared him to murderer.
Who cares if Ei Sei is my favourite or not? That is irrelevant (my favourite is his fellow mass murderer Ouki). Lol. I also call him a mass murderer in this post so who knows how you came to that conclusion.
I have noticed you have this obsession with lambasting Ei Sei while simultaneously elevating other mass murderers such as Riboku (who was going to wipe off an entire state off the map and even brought along Mangoku the Slaughterer to assist him) and Ryofui (who made a plan that involved mass casualties of Kanyou City’s citizens) to somehow be his moral superiors.

Either they are all evil or they are all not. The crime is mass murder, the numbers are irrelevant.
Call me multiple names its ok i am used to the argument like intelluctual dishonesty or strawman argument.
I pointed out the flaws in your argument. That is merely objective observation. If you truly believe that I have somehow wronged you through perceived name calling then feel free to report me to a Moderator.
 
#30
Thanks i never said ryu fui is not murderer. No one has perfect solution to the problem.

I agree with your quotes as well. He knew he had to be tyrant to achieve the solution.

I do think there wasno perfect answer afterall.
Def. no one has a perfect solution to the problem. Especially out of the ones we're presented with in the manga:

- Ei Sei's unification
- Riboku's alliance method
- Ryoufui's economical based peace

And props to hara for always making sure he never puts Ei Sei's "unification" as the "right solution" ever. Instead just going with "this is the solution that prevailed out of the others", with both Riboku - Ei Sei / Ryoufui - Ei Sei discussions ending in a disagreement after both parties put their heart out.


It would be interesting to see how/if Hara will change Ei Sei's perspective and vision as the Unification gets closer, since we won't be getting into the actual implementation of legalism that Ei Sei will do, and all the forced unification of cultures (needed to make legalism work, as Rishi pointed out) and other things like monetary systems. There's also the Confucianism vs Legalism thing that Rishi talked about would happen after the unification of china (a war in itself according to Rishi), I do hope starts to be addressed near the end of the unification of China or atleast sneak-peaks of how that ideology conflict.

But for sure bro, no perfect answer at all from the ones presented.
 
Last edited:
#32
I think Ryofui would have maintained peace for a decade or two at best before his system collapses like Riboku's supposed plan to ally all 7 states. new wicked ministers, generals and nobility will appear later and ruin that method. military force/law is more secure. I think even in real life, Qin's first emperor would have succeed to stretch the duration of his dynasty if his ministers weren't rotten and if his law enforcements weren't too harsh.
 
#35
Europeon Union is your answer ;)

I would agree Ryo fui wanted to hold Qin Cultures dominance would deter other countries to descent into war but it worked in Europe we dont see German culture destroying french or italian . This is off topic but i think Ryu fui actually works if other nation cooperates .
That is very debatable. There is a reason why us Southerners are growing more and more displeased by a Union which is clearly German and other Stinger States dominated in the way it deals with the economic hardships.

In fact, it can be say that the EU shows why Ryofui's ambition wouldn't work in the long term. To be sustainable, it needs either an external threat and a backer (in the EU's case, the USSR and the US) or the real working of a state (which is to say, shared debt between all countries and help to the poorer regions which aren't loans). And we are seeing that it doesn't work like that at all.

Today, the EU has no external threat, no backer and its policies run against real solidarity between the member states. Its politics are actually actively brewing ever more nationalism because it's an easy scapegoat and it doesn't do anything to try and change that. Even a pendemic doesn't allow for solidarity in the EU, which is the reason even someone like Jacques Delors is telling that it's nearing its demise.
 
#36
This thread about a fictional universe based loosely on Chinese history better not turn into a real life modern day politics debate. :namiriously:
 
Top