The Lingyan Pavilion and Its Illustrious Honorees

In the seventeenth year of the Zhenguan era (643 AD), Emperor Taizong of Tang, Li Shimin, commissioned the renowned painter Yan Liben to create portraits of twenty-four founding heroes who had helped establish the Tang dynasty. These portraits were displayed in the Lingyan Pavilion, a small building adjacent to the Sanqing Hall in the southwest corner of the Taiji Palace in Chang’an. This collection became famously known as the Twenty-Four Heroes of Lingyan Pavilion.

The ranked list of these honored figures begins with Zhangsun Wuji, Li Xiaogong, Du Ruhui, Wei Zheng, and Fang Xuanling, progressing down to the final name – Qin Shubao (better known as Qin Qiong or Qin Shubao). This ranking has puzzled historians and enthusiasts alike, especially considering Qin Shubao’s legendary status in Chinese folklore and his reputation as one of the most formidable warriors of his time.

Decoding the Ranking System: Beyond Simple Merit

Contrary to popular assumption, the Lingyan Pavilion rankings were not determined solely by military achievements or contributions to the dynasty’s establishment. Several factors challenge a purely merit-based interpretation:

First, if military accomplishments were the sole criterion, Li Shiji (also known as Xu Maogong) would not have been placed second-to-last. As one of the “Three Great Generals of Early Tang” (alongside Li Daozong and Xue Wanche), Li Shiji’s military record was exceptional. He defended the northern borders for sixteen years, repeatedly defeating the Xueyantuo forces. During the first campaign against Goguryeo, he served as commander of the Liaodong expeditionary force, achieving what even Emperor Yang of Sui had failed to accomplish in three attempts – the capture of the strategic fortress of Liaodong City.

Second, while Qin Shubao was undoubtedly a formidable warrior, his actual historical contributions may not have matched his legendary reputation. The Old Book of Tang describes him as a peerless individual combatant who could “charge into enemy formations and return with commanders’ heads,” but notes he lacked the strategic command abilities of generals like Li Shiji or Li Daozong. The latter, though not included among the Lingyan Pavilion honorees, demonstrated remarkable tactical brilliance by defeating a Goguryeo relief force of 40,000 with just 4,000 troops.

The Question of Loyalty: Reexamining the Xuanwu Gate Incident

A persistent theory suggests Qin Shubao’s lower ranking resulted from his neutral stance during the pivotal Xuanwu Gate Incident (626 AD), when Li Shimin eliminated his brothers to secure the throne. However, this explanation doesn’t withstand scrutiny:

Li Xiaogong (ranked second) also remained neutral during the coup, while Li Jing (seventh) didn’t participate at all. Wei Zheng (fourth) had actually served Li Shimin’s rival brother, Crown Prince Li Jiancheng. Conversely, some who actively participated in the incident, like Zhang Shigui and Yuwen Shiji, weren’t included among the twenty-four honorees.

Historical records indicate Qin Shubao did participate in the Xuanwu Gate Incident, though in a defensive role guarding the Qin Prince’s mansion rather than the frontline action that earned others greater recognition. His post-coup rewards (700 taxable households) were significantly less than those given to major participants like Zhangsun Wuji and Yuchi Gong (1,300 households each).

Alternative Theories and Their Limitations

Other explanations for Qin Shubao’s position prove equally problematic:

The latecomer theory suggests Qin’s relatively late defection from Wang Shichong’s faction affected his standing. However, Yuchi Gong and Wei Zheng joined Li Shimin’s faction even later, while Cheng Zhijie (who defected alongside Qin from Wang Shichong’s forces) ranks six places higher.

The civil-over-military preference theory fails because military leaders like Li Xiaogong rank highly, while civil officials like Xiao Yu (ninth), Yu Shinan (twentieth), and Tang Jian (twenty-second) appear throughout the list without obvious preferential treatment.

The Actual Ranking Criteria: Official Status and Hierarchy

The most plausible explanation lies in the Tang bureaucratic system. The rankings primarily reflect the officials’ formal positions and titles rather than their actual contributions:

The top five honorees all held or posthumously received the title of “Three Excellencies” (Sangong) – the highest honorary ranks in imperial administration. Zhangsun Wuji (first) served as Minister over the Masses (Situ), Li Xiaogong (second) posthumously received the same title, as did Du Ruhui (third) and Wei Zheng (fourth). Fang Xuanling (fifth) held the position during the portrait commission.

Rankings six through nine held the prestigious “Kaifu Yitong Sansi” or “Tejin” titles, indicating near-equivalent status to the Three Excellencies. From tenth position downward, the rankings become less consistent, reflecting various ministerial and regional governor positions without clear hierarchical distinction.

Zhangsun Wuji’s top position reflects both his exceptional contributions and his unique relationship with Li Shimin – as brother-in-law, early supporter, and chief architect of the Xuanwu Gate strategy. The emperor frequently acknowledged that “I owe my empire largely to this man.”

Qin Shubao’s Enduring Legacy Beyond Official Rankings

Despite his last-place ranking, Qin Shubao’s cultural impact has far outstripped that of many higher-ranked officials. His legendary status in popular literature like the Romance of the Sui and Tang Dynasties established him as the archetypal loyal warrior. Alongside Yuchi Gong, he became one of China’s most recognizable door gods – a folk tradition that continues to this day.

This popular veneration represents perhaps the most meaningful recognition of all. As the concluding verse of storyteller Shan Tianfang’s version reminds us:

“Heroes rose everywhere in late Sui’s days,
Dragons and tigers crossed blades in violent frays.
Many great men died with dreams unfulfilled,
Till the land united – the Tang empire built!”

While bureaucratic rankings may fade into historical footnotes, Qin Shubao’s place in China’s cultural imagination remains secure, proving that true legacy often transcends official hierarchies. His story illustrates how historical memory and popular culture can reshape our understanding of the past, creating narratives that sometimes contradict the formal records but endure in the collective consciousness.