A Poisoned Inheritance: The Origins of the Huainan Conflict

The seeds of this imperial tragedy were sown during the turbulent reign of Emperor Gaozu (Liu Bang), founder of the Han Dynasty. Liu Chang, posthumously known as the Infamous Prince of Huainan (淮南厉王), entered the world under circumstances that would forever mark his destiny.

Born to Consort Zhao—a concubine of Zhang Ao, Prince of Zhao—Liu Chang’s conception occurred during Emperor Gaozu’s 199 BCE visit to Zhao territory. The emperor’s brief liaison with the consort, occurring amidst a failed assassination plot against him by Zhao officials, left the pregnant woman abandoned when Gaozu, enraged by the conspiracy, refused to acknowledge her claims of carrying his child.

Historical records paint a harrowing picture: imprisoned alongside other Zhao household members following the conspiracy’s exposure, Consort Zhao gave birth in captivity before committing suicide in despair. Only then did the remorseful emperor take the infant prince into his household, entrusting his upbringing to Empress Lü. This traumatic origin story—a mother dead by suicide, a father initially indifferent—would shape Liu Chang’s embittered worldview.

Rise and Rebellion: The Making of a Discontented Prince

The political landscape shifted dramatically in 196 BCE when Emperor Gaozu suppressed the rebellion of Ying Bu (黥布), the original Prince of Huainan. In the redistribution of territories that followed, the seven-year-old Liu Chang received the coveted Huainan principality—a fertile region south of the Huai River that would become both his power base and his prison.

During Empress Lü’s brutal regency (195-180 BCE), while half-brothers perished under suspicious circumstances, Liu Chang’s unique position as her foster son provided temporary protection. Yet beneath the surface, the prince nursed growing resentments—not just against the deceased emperor and empress, but against surviving figures like Shen Yiji (审食其), the Marquis of Piyang, whom he blamed for failing to intercede on his mother’s behalf.

The prince’s first shocking act came in 177 BCE during the reign of Emperor Wen (Liu Heng). In broad daylight, the physically imposing Liu Chang—said to possess strength rivaling the legendary Xiang Yu—bludgeoned Shen Yiji to death with an iron mace at the marquis’ own gate. His theatrical “confession” to the emperor outlined three supposed crimes justifying the murder, revealing both his capacity for political theater and his lifelong obsession with avenging maternal dishonor.

The Road to Ruin: A Rebellion Doomed from the Start

Liu Chang’s final, fatal miscalculation occurred in 174 BCE. Historical accounts describe an almost farcical rebellion plot involving seventy men and forty supply carts—a hopeless endeavor that suggests either delusional overconfidence or possible entrapment. Contemporary historians puzzle over why such an experienced political player would launch such an obviously futile insurrection.

The aftermath followed a grim pattern familiar from imperial purges:

1. Judicial Theater: Emperor Wen publicly agonized over punishing his sole surviving brother, rejecting death penalty recommendations from ministers
2. Exile as Execution: The sentence of confinement in Shu (modern Sichuan) came with cruel stipulations—transport in sealed prisoner carts with no rest stops
3. Convenient Suicide: The proud prince’s starvation death en route allowed the emperor to mourn publicly while achieving his objective

Cultural Reverberations: Folklore and Historical Memory

The affair entered popular consciousness through a biting folk ballad circulating by 168 BCE:

“One chi of cloth can still be sewn;
One dou of millet can still be hulled;
But two brothers cannot coexist.”

This enduring rhyme captured public skepticism about the official narrative, suggesting widespread belief that Emperor Wen had engineered his brother’s destruction. The court’s subsequent rehabilitation efforts—posthumous honors for Liu Chang, noble titles for his four young sons—failed to dispel these suspicions.

Notably, the eldest son Liu An (刘安), later Prince of Huainan, would inherit both his father’s title and his grievances. His eventual rebellion in 154 BCE, though unsuccessful, demonstrated how imperial violence could echo across generations.

The Historian’s Dilemma: Unpacking Emperor Wen’s Motives

Modern scholars remain divided in interpreting Emperor Wen’s actions:

The Benevolent Ruler Theory
– Consistently rejected capital punishment for Liu Chang
– Provided luxurious conditions in exile (daily meat and wine rations)
– Punished officials for procedural violations after the death

The Calculating Autocrat Theory
– Deliberately indulged Liu Chang’s worst impulses (the “spoiling” strategy)
– Engineered a rebellion scenario through provocations
– Used bureaucratic procedures (sealed transports) to ensure suicide

The truth likely resides in the intersection—a ruler practicing what modern political scientists term “plausible deniability.” By creating conditions where Liu Chang’s destruction appeared self-inflicted, Emperor Wen preserved his reputation while eliminating a potential rival.

Enduring Legacy: Lessons from a Family Tragedy

The Huainan princely saga illuminates several enduring themes in Chinese political history:

1. The Perils of Imperial Kinship: Close blood ties to the throne often proved more dangerous than protective
2. The Theater of Clemency: Mercy demonstrations served vital legitimacy functions for rulers
3. Intergenerational Vengeance: Political violence tended to propagate across decades

Liu An’s later rebellion confirmed a bitter truth observed by contemporary scholar Jia Yi: “How can youths forget their fathers’ fates?” The Han court eventually learned this lesson—later dynasties would systematically weaken princely powers to prevent similar tragedies.

This 2nd-century BCE family drama thus represents more than personal animosities; it encapsulates the central tension of imperial rule—balancing kinship obligations against state security, a dilemma that would haunt Chinese governance for two millennia.