What three kingdoms anime/manga have you recently read or watch?
>>122966702
are there even any other mentionable besides ravages of time?
>>122967113
Some like Hox would advocate for Sangokushi because it's more faithful to Romance of the Three Kingdoms novel, and the 2010 TV show has a lot of fans.
But as far as making use of the sage texts and philosophies, I doubt any can compare to Ravages which goes back to old Chinese theatrics and poetry styles.
>>122968094
I tried watching the TV show which honestly wasn't that bad but I didn't went through with it. Thanks for the tips
>>122966702
>>122968094
Ravages is meant for people already familiar with the tale, as you get more enjoyment out of it that way. It makes little sense to be introduced to RotK with it.
>>122966702
But the Forbidden city was not even around during the three kingdom era. It is a product of the last dynasty in China.
>>122968600
Agreed.
>>122968803
That's not the Forbidden City that you are talking about.
the one with tits
>>122968918
Which one is it?
>>122968855
If you're a fan of RotK, just about every adaptation does something different and is worth trying out. They're not really in direct competition with each other.
>>122968803
That's a standard architectural style of the Chinese hall, which really didn't change much throughout the ages. It's not specific to the Qing, though it does seem the artist was heavily influenced by it when drawing it.
>>122968985
Well it's shown if you read so I'll put it in spoilersthe palace is simply part of a dream from the two main characters, and everything in that dream is over the top and has a lot of symbolism, though I personally have not understood the relevance of mirroring the Forbidden City yet.
>>122968600
>>122968855
I had no knowledge about RotK prior to RoT and I did just fine. Sure I may missed some hints but instead I'm not spoilered how battles will turn out or whos gonna die
>>122969577
It's not about knowing how the plot will generally develop, but appreciating the author's "commentary," if you will, on the original novel.
To give a more understandable analogy, you can still enjoy movies like Shrek or Austin Powers without being familiar with fairy tales or James Bond films, but you'd derive more enjoyment from knowing them beforehand. Don't let that stop you from enjoying it though if you are already, I'm just saying.
>>122969700
Yes thats what I was bascially referring to with "hints" though I admit that this word downplays the signifcance of it.
What english versions can you recommend me for the original novel btw? I'd be really interested. And any other literature for other dynasties?
![[Jiang Hu] Three Kingdoms ep 06v2.mp4_snapshot_02.31_[2015.03.23_23.16.52].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UACucVR.jpg "[Jiang Hu] Three Kingdoms ep 06v2.mp4_snapshot_02.31_[2015.03.23_23.16.52].jpg")
>>122966702
Watched episode 6 of the Three Kingdoms Drama earlier today actually. I've had it sitting on my harddrive for the last 6 months and haven't touched more then an episode a month until earlier this week. I'm trying to pick it apart, but I still can't help but get bored or zone out mid episode, sometimes splitting my screen between 4chan and the show. It'll pick up soon I hope, because I really like a lot of what its doing, but I just really really don't give a shit about it right now.
>>122969903
Moss Roberts translation is the best. With the other dynasties, it's more about reading regular history books. You could always read stuff like Water Margin, but that's more about outlaws fucking around instead of any large-scale warfare or dynastic struggles.
>>122970044
The TV series sort of starts in an odd place, when Dong Zhuo's already taken power and you hardly know much about the motives of any character. In the novel at least, you have the whole yellow turban rebellion and more reader-friendly introduction to Liu Bei & bros. which helps you get interested.
>>122970056
Thanks man. Wish similiar novels would exist for more periods. Was reading a compact history summary of all the dynasties and it interesting as fuck.
>>122969577
Beyond the commentary, a lot of it is how the author fills in the gaps of the records and novel, trying to 'make sense' of everything while still keeping it in that wuxia over the top format that makes it more of an epic than a documentary.
Hence why a constant reminder that history is written by the victor, how nobodies might have been stronger than Lu Bu but just died off before they could shine, etc etc. It constantly questions how the novel plays out and tries to make the characters more human even if their abilities are above human.
It also has a much deeper understanding and portrayal of the culture and politics at the time, but obviously RoTK wouldn't have that because it was written for the sake of propaganda; to encourage the masses to be loyal to the state. Even if the original author of the novel wanted to be critical he wouldn't dare have done so because the purpose was to make everyone sheep not make everyone think for themselves.
>>122970172
Liu Bei's wikipedia article doesn't make him much of an outstanding person at all. But his depiction in ravages is really amazing
>>122970172
Well I already am familiar with a handful of the major players in Three Kingdoms from Musuo and supplementary material (haven't gotten around to reading the original yet), so I know shit like how Cao Cao is an asshole and Guan Yu is a Mary Sue, but nothing going on has really drawn me in. Though a few scenes have been pretty great, mostly featuring Cao Cao or Liu Bei BTFO Yuan Shao and the Rebellion. Sun Jian has also been pretty cool the last few episodes, but goddamn is it slow.
>>122970270
Most people's depiction in historical records amounts to no more than one line pointing out when they got their ass kicked. That doesn't mean they were just given the right to command tens of thousands.
>>122970340
Ha, if you think that's slow read Ravages.
>>122970264
Uhh, I'm not sure why you think RotK is some sort of state propaganda, considering the author never held any sort of government post and his work was never reviewed or censored by the official state government, not to mention he mostly incorporated already popular folk tales about the 3 kingdoms period and put his own touch here and there.
>>122970485
>people at the time did not trust the government
>rotk comes out and sucks Shu's dick because MUH BENEVOLENCE MUH LOYALTY
>thinking the government would be dumb enough to have their connection to the author shown in public so everyone knows it's just propaganda instead of an entertaining novel
It's like you learned nothing.
>>122970620
So you literally have no proof for your claims? Right, carry on then.
>>122970620
Wow Da ren is so smart.. Damn I fell for medieval chinese propaganda
>>122970728
Might as well ask for proof of Jesus walking on water or the legitimacy of the records of three kingdoms themselves. You won't find it if you're gonna be anal about everything.
>>122970821
There's a reason Guan Yu wasn't remotely as popular before they turned him into a saint. And it sure as hell wasn't due to the records.
>>122970056
http://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=93594
Is this the right version? It says its by Roberts in the description but I'm not quite sure
>>122970823
There's a difference between doubting primary source records and completely making up theories without any sort of basis at all.
There's also the fact that the benevolence and loyalty angle could have easily been pushed with any of the other characters, especially Cao Cao, and there are known variants from the Tang period which portray Liu Bei as the villain. There's no reason why the early Ming government would suddenly decide to favour Shu over Wei, Wu, or Jin, or even take an interest in an obscure writer who never really rose to fame or power during his liftetime.
>>122970942
No, that's... I don't know what the fuck that is. Don't read that. As far as I know, Moss Roberts' version isn't available online, only the Brewitt-Taylor translation is, which is okay, but reads very differently from a modern novel, which is the style that Roberts emulates.
Brewitt-Taylor version: http://threekingdoms.com/001.htm
Damn all those sino experts ITT
>>122970942
>Jeffery-Lewis replied, "Murphy-Shackley is a rebel. I think you are failing in your duty if you do not attack him."
>"Your words are good," said Shannon-Yonker.
Seriously, what the fuck is this.
>>122970961
Yes there is, because early Ming was struggling and they wanted to be portrayed as underdogs. Why the fuck would you make Cao Cao the good guy when he's not even a Liu? You'd be giving the message that it's okay for someone not related to the imperial family to run the show.
If you picked Wei, Wu, or Jin, none of those would work because they are all based on succeeding Han which is still usurpation. Shu was the naturally closest depiction to being loyal to the state, so why wouldn't they pick it?
>>122970961
Guess you thought America went to war with Iraq to catch Bin Laden back in the day.
>>122971172
Obviously that's the localized version.
>>122971067
I see its not even available online. Thank you for your help and saving me from wasting more time. Found the paperback for 29€ which is still acceptable but comments said its thin paper printed in China oh well.
>>122971172
>Cao Cao is Murphy-Shackley
>Liu Bei is Jeffery-Lewis
>Lu Bu becomes motherfucking Bullard-Lundmark
Fuck I don't even... I really messed up
>>122971378
Hey don't be mad, you just found Hollywood's script for their next adaptation.
>>122971212
Because whether Liu Bei was a legitimate member of the imperial family was always in question and he could have been just like many of the other upstarts that the founder of the Ming dynasty fought for the control of the empire. Meanwhile, it's very easy to portray Cao Cao as a benevolent leader in the model of King Wen of Zhou, as he refused to become emperor all his life when it was only so easy for him to do so.
In any case, what you and I are arguing about doesn't even matter because at the end of the day, there's no real basis from which to assert that RotK, at least the original Luo Guanzhong's version, is nothing but state propaganda.
>>122971287
Except there were plenty of facts contradicting with the US's supposed motive for the Iraq invasion, unlike your claims, which is the equivalent of saying the recent Charlie Hebdo shootings were an inside job.
>>122971620
>Oh nice the Charlie Hebdo assasins lefts their IDs in their car
>Oh damn we killed them all, too bad guess we can't interrogate them anymore but that wraps it all up
Theres really nothing strange about the Charlie Hebdo case
Why was Cao Cao so gay?
>All these RoT fans
I'm surprised it was even scanlated to english
Did everyone drop that series about the nip kid going back to the three kingdoms era and essentially became jesus? Holy shit that manga was stupid
>>122971620
Are you really so dumb you can't understand why facts from hundreds of years ago wouldn't be accessible today?
>>122974892
I doubt most people here even bothered to read past 3 chapters of that.
>>122972237
He was from a eunuch family.
>>122977056
Are you so dumb as to be completely oblivious how historical research actually works? That you can't just make up wild theories and use the excuse, "B-b-but they were all just lost in time!" It's not about having incontrovertible evidence that could hold up in a modern court of law, but you have to have reasonable grounds for whatever suspicion you have. Considering how little is known about Luo Guanzhong's life, there's no room to reasonably claim he was a propagandist working for the Ming government. You could make the case that later writers and translators working in the Qing dynasty had an interest in doing so, but that's not what you're arguing.
God, you just get dumber and dumber every time I reply to you. I don't even know why I bother.
>>122977257
Why are you arguing with a conspiracy nut anyways
If you want watch TV series, watch 1994 version instead.
what manga do the sengoku period well?
>>122977257
The point is if you're gonna argue against such, you can't even claim the source material is correct in the first place. This whole excuse of primary versus secondary is silly considering there's so many gaps in the records it wouldn't even make sense if you took it word for word.
>>122977284
I never claimed the conspiracy was true. I was merely pointing out how it holds equal merit to something you can't prove back then. Can anyone prove all the Qin technology of crossbows disappeared somehow within 400 years and was no longer mass produced nor researched again during 3 Kingdoms? No, you can't. It's all guess work.
>>122977315
I respected that the 1994 show is a bit easier to follow, especially showing the lead-up to the Peach Garden Oath, but I found it so much less accessible as an outsider who, at the time, knew relatively little about RotK. The production quality was just so poor, it really is unfortunate.
>>122977384
Uh, do you not know what the R of RoTK stands for? It is historical fiction
>>122977384
I don't even know what the fuck you're trying to say anymore, it almost sounds as if you think I'm arguing about the historicity of the fictional novel that is RotK, but look at your own post right here >>122970264
>obviously RoTK wouldn't have that because it was written for the sake of propaganda; to encourage the masses to be loyal to the state. Even if the original author of the novel wanted to be critical he wouldn't dare have done so because the purpose was to make everyone sheep not make everyone think for themselves
And now you say you were never claiming your conspiracy was true? Please stop being retarded.
>>122977455
I'm talking about the records, not the novel. Everything recorded in history back then was easily subjected to censorship and such, and unlike the Roman Empire there weren't a lot of material evidence left behind. Lu Bu could have been a a fictional character for all we know and everyone played along.
http://baseson.nexton-net.jp/sinkoi-eiyuutan/syoku/character/index.html
Still not sold on the look but damn, that voice.
>>122977496
It was my take on it, just like how many people believed Jesus was not the son of God and was merely a person who knew parlor tricks. It should be obvious to anyone with common sense, but if you're gonna argue against it through scientific evidence then there's nothing to say, might as well keep arguing about theories about why the Dinosaurs went extinct.
>>122977543
Lu Bu as depicted in media is in fact fiction
>>122977613
I was arguing whether or not he was even a real person thank you, come again.
