Well, i'm not sure about his "pragmatism", after all he appeared voluntarily before a KMT court! Having not read anything about him other than your article, he seems like the kind of "noble bourgeois officer" not too rare during the first half of the 20th century, the dedicated type with a rigid sense of honour based on an idealized past that never really existed. I have long given up on these types, just about when i reached adulthood. I am now more impressed by rather more questionable characters like Sulla, who would rather break with all laws and tradition to grab history by the throat. Sulla's overthrowing of the Roman Senate is textbook seizure of power, brilliant in political insight and sheer boldness. Mao was consistent in not making such mistakes: after all, he abandoned his own baby son during the Long March so as not to endanger the safety of the retreating People's Army. It is these qualities of ruthlessness and determination that made the Chinese revolution succesful. Chang Hsueh-liang's show of determination by capturing Chiang Kai-shek was consistent with his rather "classical" morals and sense of honour, but it is the failure to break with these that led to a life of imprisonment.