In ancient wars, if the two countries did not fight each other, would the envoys be safe?

Actually, it's not necessarily, because I think they may make the other party's economy suffer by holding each other hostage, which is actually a victim.

<> "In ancient wars, why do most of them follow the battle between the two armies?

In ancient times, when the two sides were at war, most of them could follow the principle of "the two armies fought without killing each other". So did both sides of ancient wars really follow this guideline? And why should we follow it?

So today we will look at the reasons for "not cutting to make" and what is the purpose of doing it.

In fact, in ancient times, if you don't cut it, it will not necessarily be observed by both sides, but generally most of the cases are to abide by this norm, which depends on the reason for the war between the two sides, generally speaking, the war is not a street fight, it is a group incident. In ancient times, wars mostly took place between countries, or between two opposing groups.

And no matter what the reason for the emergence of the war, in the final analysis, it is because of "interests", because of the conflict of interests, that the war is caused. Fights and brawls will occur when the interests of two people are questioned; And wars will break out between countries because of the issue of interests. And in war, unless the two sides have a blood feud, the war is not endless for both sides.

And as a continuation of politics, in ancient times there was no current **, communication is more developed, so both sides will have messengers, and then when the war occurs, the two sides will send envoys to their respective camps to negotiate, the messenger acts as an intermediary, if the conditions of both sides are satisfied, then there is no need to continue to fight, because the war is the most costly. Therefore, if you can get benefits without fighting, no one wants to fight.

The above situation is that both sides are happy, but if the negotiation is not possible, then the only way to continue to fight, but at this time the role of the envoy is still very large, although there is no negotiation, but as the war continues, the role of the envoy will still play a role. But if the two sides travel to the world and live or die, then the god Zheng Limb Messenger will generally kill the sacrifice flag. This kind of thing is not to be discussed, and the two sides will not die, so the two sides will not exclude the envoy and give each other a head for nothing.

Because it is very unorthodox to do this, you should let you go back and talk back when you come, and convey your meaning to the other party.

This is handed down from the Spring and Autumn Period, when Hua Yuan went to the Chu army as an envoy to negotiate, asking them to withdraw their troops and the two countries to make a truce, in order to express his sincerity, he volunteered to go to the Chu State as a hostage, and later slowly evolved into "the two armies are at war, do not cut the envoy".

Because the function of the messenger is to send a message, it is not offensive. Moreover, killing the envoy will appear to be cowardly before fighting, and he will lose his courage on the battlefield, and it is not in line with the demeanor of a great power.

Such a rule is actually an unwritten rule, because in the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, etiquette was the most important at that time, so in order to express mutual politeness and respect between the two dust stool countries, no matter how deep the hatred is, they will restrain their anger, and at most drive the messenger away, so there is a saying that they will not be killed.

Friends who know the history of ascension know that in the ancient Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, because of the influence of Confucianism that Confucius has always admired, Confucianism occupied the main ideological position at that time, and etiquette was very important to the quarrels of the vassal states, so whether it was a war or other disputes, it was necessary to issue a war letter in advance to agree on the time and place, and the real person was in such a role, so in order to express politeness and respect for the other country, the envoy would not be killed. <>

1. Such regulations have a deep relationship with historical background and culture.

From the entire history books including to the present, no matter what kind of conflict occurs between the two countries, the expulsion of the envoy is the most tense diplomatic means, very few countries will kill the envoy, in order to show respect for the other country, maintain a kind of Wood, coupled with the deep cultural influence of the time, such an unwritten rule has gradually formed, and the role of the envoy is indispensable in the process of war, so the importance of the envoy is obvious. <>

Second, the origin of this system comes from?

If you dig deeper, when did such a regulation begin? It can be traced back to the Zhou Dynasty, when the Zhou Dynasty had a very complete set of etiquette system, that is, we often called the Zhou Rite in the dynasty at that time, the ** of the entire dynasty and the people will restrain themselves according to the Zhou Rite, and anyone will fully abide by this rule, it is out of protective status, no one will kill the envoy to touch the dignity of the other party's country. <>

3. What is my personal opinion?

I think that such a system seems to be an unwritten etiquette, even if the two sides have a deep enmity like the sea, but in order to restrain their own manners and manners, although they are not respectful, they cannot be killed, and in the hearts of all people are always bound by reason, and everyone silently observes this habit, which has become a matter of common recognition for everyone.

On the one hand, due to the poor communication ability in ancient times, if the two sides want to understand each other's intentions, they need someone to pretend to be the finger to pass on the news, and on the other hand, it is also for Qi Chun to leave an excuse for the other party.

It was the ancient people who paid great attention to their own reputation, and those who killed the other party made it easy to leave a handle for themselves and let the other party provoke a war.

Because this is a kind of war etiquette, the two armies need to communicate information through messengers when they fight.