隨著大陸劇《太平年》熱播，五代十國這段常被視為「亂世」的歷史再度成為討論焦點，而其中最讓觀眾與網友議論的角色之一，便是五代十國時期著名的酷吏與叛將張彥澤。對於很多人來說，他的名字不僅代表政治背叛，更象徵著亂世中最極端的暴虐與人性崩壞。隨著劇集熱度上升，網路上也開始重新翻看史書，討論他在歷史上的最終結局究竟如何。

張彥澤的結局發生在公元946年，也就是後晉開運三年。這一年，後晉皇帝石敬瑭已經被契丹所控制，並最終被迫向契丹投降，史稱「送國於契丹」。張彥澤在此局勢下，選擇率領部隊投降契丹，並在契丹方面的軍事行動中擔任先鋒，攻入當時的中原都城開封。對於一個曾經在中原建立政權的朝代來說，這無疑是最為屈辱與絕望的轉折之一，而張彥澤的角色也因此被歷史記錄為「叛將」的典型。

他進入開封後的所作所為，更讓他成為當時民眾心中最痛恨的人之一。史書記載，張彥澤在城中縱兵劫掠、濫殺無辜，並且對開封的百姓進行無差別的暴行。最令人髮指的是，他甚至因私怨而殺害當時的宰相桑維翰，這種不僅違背軍紀，更背離基本人性與倫理的行為，使得他在短時間內就成為開封城中被憎恨的象徵。

關於他最終的命運，《舊五代史》與《資治通鑑》都有記載。當時契丹皇帝耶律德光率軍進入開封後，面對的是一座被戰火與暴行摧殘的城市。為了安撫中原百姓、穩定統治基礎，並且以懲戒不忠不義之人為表率，耶律德光下令將張彥澤斬首示眾。處決當日，耶律德光當眾點名張彥澤的罪行，逐一列舉他「濫殺無辜」、「焚燒都城」、「劫奪財物」等行徑，並將他押赴市曹示眾，以示懲戒與警告。

張彥澤被處死後，開封百姓的憤怒並未因此平息。由於他曾在城中造成極大傷害，民眾對他的恨意幾乎達到極點，因此他的死被視為一種「正義的審判」，甚至被傳為當時民間對暴虐者的一種宣洩。這也讓他的結局在中國歷史中顯得格外悲慘與特殊：他並非因戰敗而被處決，而是因為其暴行激起極大的民憤，最終被以極端方式清算。這一事件也深刻反映出五代時期社會動盪下的人性崩壞與道德滑落，並成為後世討論「亂世暴行」時常被引用的典型案例之一。

As the mainland Chinese drama Taiping Years continues to gain popularity, the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period—often regarded as a chaotic era—has once again become a topic of public discussion. Among the figures that viewers and netizens have been debating, one of the most infamous is the notorious official and rebel general Zhang Yanze. For many, his name not only represents political betrayal but also symbolizes the extreme cruelty and moral collapse that characterized the disorder of the time. As the show’s popularity rises, people have revisited historical records and debated how his story ultimately ended.

Zhang Yanze’s fate was sealed in 946 AD, during the third year of the Later Jin’s Kaiyun era. By that time, the Later Jin emperor Shi Jingtang had already fallen under the control of the Khitan-led Liao dynasty and was forced to surrender, a historical event known as the “ceding of the state to the Khitan.” In this context, Zhang Yanze chose to lead his forces in surrendering to the Khitan and served as a vanguard in their military campaign to capture the Central Plains capital, Kaifeng. For a dynasty that had once established its rule in the region, this represented one of the most humiliating and desperate turning points, and Zhang Yanze was recorded in history as a typical traitor.

What he did after entering Kaifeng made him one of the most hated figures among the local population. Historical records describe how Zhang Yanze and his troops looted the city, killed innocent people indiscriminately, and carried out acts of violence against the residents. Most shocking of all, he reportedly murdered the chancellor Sang Weihan out of personal grudge. Such behavior not only violated military discipline but also defied basic human ethics, making him quickly become a symbol of hatred within Kaifeng.

Zhang Yanze’s final fate is recorded in both the Old History of the Five Dynasties and the Zizhi Tongjian. When the Khitan emperor Yelü Deguang entered Kaifeng, he faced a city ravaged by war and brutality. To win over the people of the Central Plains, stabilize his rule, and demonstrate that disloyalty and wrongdoing would not be tolerated, Yelü Deguang ordered Zhang Yanze to be executed by beheading and displayed publicly. On the day of the execution, Yelü Deguang publicly enumerated Zhang Yanze’s crimes, listing his acts of “indiscriminate killing,” “burning the capital,” and “looting property,” and then escorted him to the marketplace for public display as a warning and deterrent.

Even after Zhang Yanze’s death, the anger of the people of Kaifeng did not subside. Because of the immense suffering he had caused in the city, public hatred toward him had reached a near-breaking point, and his execution was seen as a form of “justice.” It was even remembered in popular accounts as a cathartic act of retribution against a tyrant. This makes his end particularly tragic and distinctive in Chinese history: he was not executed simply because of military defeat, but because his atrocities provoked such intense public outrage that he was ultimately punished in an extreme manner. The case vividly reflects the moral breakdown and social collapse of the Five Dynasties period and remains one of the most cited examples when discussing the brutality of chaotic times.