Ghwyang Sleq

Ghwyang Sleq (Shinasthana: 景王 似, kryang-ghwyang sleq; 730 – Jul. or Aug. 797) was a Themiclesian nobleman, statesman, diplomat, and military leader, being Justice of the Peers and Chancellor of Themiclesia under Emperor Bring between 791 – 793. He is most known for being in charge of the military campaign of 792 against an alliance of Columbian aboriginal nations that united against Themiclesian activities in the subcontinent; as a result of the military success of this campaign, formal Themiclesian administration and law was brought to the subcontinent, and an infamous massacre of at least 20,000 aboriginal non-combatants occurred with his permission.

792 campaign

Sleq proudly stated in his proclamation issued at his triumphant return he had "brought the sovereign's policy of peace to the four quarters and brough the policy of submission from the four quarters to the throne" (致三方以公其微 致公以三方其委). From the perspective of policy, this statement well captures his vision for the future of the continent. No longer content with temporarily suppressing the discontent of the tribes of the subcontinent, he created officers permanently stationed in the subcontinent and sought to subordinate the tribes within a new political structure with his own sovereign at its head.

Despite the extensiveness and intrusiveness of his plans, he took care to characterize the new system as one between consenting and equal parties even though it gave the power of initiative to Themiclesia. For example, the Concord of 795 states that lords of the subcontinent shall not fail to present gifts to the Themiclesian emperor when the latter has presented gifts to them; the converse is, conspicuously, not guaranteed. Formally, this continues the earlier custom of mutual gifting, but it, politically, repurposes the practice to affirm the superior authority of the emperor. The Concord also offers the emperor's arbitration to the tribes whenever they shall demand it, with the pretext that Themiclesia may enforce its judgements by force and at its discretion; arbitration, as a neutral third party, had occurred before, but the new rule imposes this as an element of authority rather than mere assistance. During the negotiation, Ghwyang reportedly asked if the aboriginal leaders believed the emperor was fit to dispense justice at his own instigation. When they declined, Ghwyang replied that he would only do so at request, instead.

The most critically-received part of Ghwyang's campaign from 792 to 795 was his decision to proceed with a massacre of what are assumed to be unarmed individuals in 794. The identities of the victims is only given as Qrek (絯), whose affinity in the material record is uncertain. As reported by Prince Per the historian about 60 years later, Ghwyang told the victims prior to their deaths that because they had seen fit to destroy a city that a former emperor has founded in 680, it is their own law that their "city" should also be utterly destroyed, including all its inhabitants of any profession or gender, prior to commanding his forces to loose their weapons on this population. But writing about 20 years still later, the Baron of Neng reports that Ghwyang shrewdly persuaded the victims of the massacre to disperse into several different places so as to make the massacre more manageable for his limited forces. For Neng, this is necessary because Ghwyang had already dismissed most of his troops, and the remainder therefore travelled from encampment to encampment to conduct massacres.

For several reasons it is held by mainstream historians that both accounts cannot be true at the same time. The element of Ghwyang's citation of the aboriginals' "own law" is common to both historians, but one portrays the Chancellor as being more sly and tactical, and the other, as being more blunt and unhinged. Both may be regarded as attempts, on some level, to exonerate Ghwyang's actions that were deemed bad enough to force him from the office of Chancellor, even though neither historian is completely sympathetic to Ghwyang. These testimonies reflect the complexity of Ghwyang's contemporary reputation even decades after his own death.

The fact that Ghwyang was only dismissed many months later after the massacre occurred suggests that it took time for public opinion to rise against him, and his actions back in Themiclesia cannot have been immaterial to this hostility to foment. On the one hand, it seems the massacre had caused genuine disapproval amongst Themiclesian nobles, and it was not an irrelevancy or pretext cited to force him from office; that much is learned from the defection of many of his friends in office after the war. On the other hand, this disapproval seems to have been catalysed by some other event and brought to bear in his dismissal, or otherwise the massacre could have been seen on the level of his morality rather than fitness to remain in office. Between 792 and 794, there are a few candidate events he would have handled (in some capacity) as chancellor that may have been the missing catalyst.

Dismissal

On September 2, 795, the Emperor directed his Exchequer to make a grant of the proverbial 10,000,000 coins to Ghwyang, which is a polite but open request to an incumbent chancellor to leave office (the sum is a large pension, hinting at retirement). Ghwyang declined the grant, which was permissible, indicating he had confidence to remain in office. For the next two months, Ghwyang frequently appeared at the Chancellor's palace to hold court, indicating a strong attempt at re-asserting his personal authority and re-establishing confidence.

Despite his reflexes, in November 795, Ghwyang offered his resignation to the emperor. On the same day, it was approved, and Emperor Ghwar appeared at the Sublime Porte to retrieve the chancellor's seal of office. Ghwyang was relieved of all the offices he held of the crown and created the Baron of River Kru (洘矦); the barony was located in Columbia rather than in Themiclesia, a pointed slight to a former chancellor who expected to be given a barony near the capital city to enable future political involvement. The creation did not require Ghwyang to travel to Columbia to take up the barony (there is no indication he did), but the message from the imperial court was clear—he was now persona non grata at court. He followed this advice quite closely: claiming illness, he sent congratulations and gifts to the court but excused himself from reception ceremonies on the occasions of the new year and the emperor's birthdays.

The rapidity of his resignation and the absence of much clamour for his retention suggests Ghwyang had lost most of his support amongst the courtiers, and whatever remaining supporter he had felt unable, given the atmosphere, to argue his case. A completely voluntary resignation is, for reasons of his general character and activity lately in office, unlikely. However, he has not encountered significant opposition in the policies he was directing. This points to his own person as the subject of the displeasure of the nobility, not that his policies were necessarily questionable.

There is but one hint of what may have transpired at court to occasion his downfall. In his letters, the Baron of Tik, writing in 830, warned his friend the Baron of Nu not to repeat Ghwyang's mistake of doing an "unjust" thing in office, as Nu was about to embark on the office of Viceroy of Lats-ngwyan.

See also

• Themiclesia