what do you guys think?

   Mods: feel free to move this to the Historical Amusement..later on, not now..

So who is this Lu Bu guy?

Is he an Asian action movie star, or something?

Lu Bu is a warrior/general from the last few years of the han dynasty, he was known as an undefeatable warrior, but he eventually was captured by Cao Cao (not by Cao Cao himself)  You can read about him in the book Three Kingdoms

   this is Lu Bu

OK, thanks for the info.

But, why Lu Bu vs. Arnie?

Heh, if only babyblue.

And to read something more factual than you would find in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, try this: http://kongming.net/novel/sgz/lubu.php - http://kongming.net/novel/sgz/lubu.php

Indeed, why did you choose Arnie?

Aww... are you saying that because it was recorded by a Chinese historian, or is it something deeper? Objective reading? Fine, give me some sources that you would consider to be objective, and I'll read them.

A few of his exploits were indeed exaggerated... in the novel that was written during the Ming dynasty. However, the Sanguo Zhi was a historical account of the era, painstakingly put together. It's considered as the primary source.

hm, my bad, the one I read was the Ming dynasty one which I was told by a proffeosr (not a good one) was the definateive source.  Apparently he was wrong, good to know.

edit: what the hell do you mean by something deeper, I dont trust or distrust any historian over another based on culture, but its good to be skeptical.

more lol, no I actually find CVhinese historians more reliable than most if not all, I just like to question it more because of all the obnoxious Chinese nationalists that I cant stand.

this is rather biased i would have to say. as a moderator, you should not choose some source over another. at least not in the public.

yes he can have his own opinion but he still shouldn't prefer anything over another.

having his own opinion and being skeptical are different.

i can give racist comments and say it's my own opinion but that's illegal still.

anyone with even half a brain should be abel to tell if source A is better than source b.  Chinese historians are consistently reliable (at least after Shi Huang Ti era) and its merely a fact that they work in less religiously oriented bias than most people can achieve.

Although my all time favorite historian is Ibn Khaldun, and hes not Chinese so its not all one way.

In Europe Roman sources tend to be quite good if you can cut through propoganda but medieval sources are often terrible.  Ancient Egyptian sources are almost totally unreliable and filled with crap for the most part...its all objective, and I preserve the right to be objective.

This has turned from Lu Bu vs Arnie to a debate about sources.

*sits back and watches*