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……
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 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.
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…?
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.
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.
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…?
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.