[MengTzu]

WangKon936, on Dec 8 2005, 02:00 AM, said:

Warhead,

I assume you know something about math, right? You post about 3 times a day and I post about 0.3 times a day. Where the hell do you get the idea that I rant?

Dude, You are the freak'in Queen Bee of ranting. You make up almost 2% of the total posts in this web site.... and most of your posts dont' have anything meaningful to say. I mean, come on.... after over 1,500 posts no one has nominated you as a moderator or chief historian? Hahahaha.... it's obvious from all these hundreds of postings that you have either rubbed people the wrong way or your "knowledge" hasn't impressed anyone.

Again.... I guess you have nothing better to do..... and the numbers don't lie.

WangKon, count to ten and walk away. This is off topic and ad hominem. You get a warning.

warhead, on Dec 7 2005, 11:59 PM, said:

But what's this, if not projection? I suggest you review this thread from the beginning. Because it seems to be you that has nothing else better to do than rant.
Wankon is irrational. But everyone is entitled to make mistakes
But the lack of sufficient source on your part is just hopeless

And if you really want substance from this thread, you need to put in much more effort.

This is also bordering on ad hominem. This thread will be closed if you guys can't get back on topic and lose the ad hominem.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I'm perfectly willing to remain on topic, its he who diverted in the first place, and the karmic effect continues from there.

[WangKon936]

warhead, on Dec 8 2005, 11:58 AM, said:

Maybe because they are actually backed up by primary sources, something you are not capable of touching?

You want a primary source? Okie... here you go:

Samguk Yusa, page 85-86:

"[After the defeat of Paekje, T'ang]... divided [Paekje] into five provinces, thirty-seven countries, 200 towns and 760,000 households. But the victorious Chinese reorganized it and placed a Chinese military governor in each of the provinces to take charge of the local administration. General Liu Jen-Yuan was put in command of Chinese forces occupying Puyo (the capital of Paekje) while general Wang Wen-Tao was appointed governor of Ungjin with the special task of pacifying the defeated Paekje troops.

(Monk Ilyon's notes: The significance of this was that the T'ang government plainly intended to incorporate Paekje into the Chinese empire, a fact which was not lost upon Silla.)"

Page 87:

"In the fifth year of King Munmu (A.D. 665).... the King (of Silla) lead a large army to the forress of Ungjin (the headquarters of the Chinese governor), where he met with Prince Yung, the (T'ang) puppet ruler of Puyo (the capital of Paekje). The two... built an altar and killed a white horse as a sacrifice to the heavenly gods and gardian deities of mountains and rivers. Then they painted their mouths with the blood of sacrifices.... Next they read aloud the following oath (which was drafted by Liu Jen-Kuei, the Chinese military governor of Taebang, i.e. northern Paekje).

(Ilyon's notes: The oath is interesting evidence of the typical Chinese assumption that because of her superior civilization China was by right the ruler of all other states and that political virtue consisted chiefly in submission to the will of the Emperor.)

Page 98:

'Uisang, a famous Silla monk who was studying in China at the time, learned of the (T'ang) Emperor's intentions (to incorporate Silla into the T'ang Empire) from Kim In-Mun (the Silla prince who was a hostage of T'ang) and reported them to King Munmu on his return from Changan."

Warhead, if you doubt me, pick up a copy of the Samguk Yusa and turn to the indicated pages. It's still in print and transalated in English, unlike the sources you have mentioned. Next I will quote directly from the Samguk Sagi. This is a bit trickier as it has not been transalated into English yet. I'm having a professor that I know find the relevent passage for me, but his notes are not formally indexed so it will take some time, so patience Warhead. You will get what you are asking for.

This post has been edited by WangKon936: 09 December 2005 - 11:15 AM

[WangKon936]

warhead, on Nov 15 2005, 10:54 PM, said:

A commandery doesn't equal a colony. Tang du du fu come in many different sorts, some like those set up in the Uighur territory are completely independent. Setting up commandery in a area doesn't in any way means Tang would care to directly govern that state. On the contrast there is absolutely no reference in Tang manuals that Tang has such design. The border conflict in fact wasn't formally agreed upon until 735 A.D. You seem to consider it a given fact. I do not see the evidence abundant enough to state it as such.

Warhead, the nature of the commanderies set-up in Paekje were not independent at all. All five of the provinces in the Paekje commandery had Chinese governors, generals and troops. The prince of Paekje that was the "nominal" ruler of the commandery only had adminstrative control of the Puyo (capital) area. He had no authority over the Chinese generals or governors that surrounded him.

It was this arrangement and the very lack of independence that this arrangement conveyed that worried Silla so much.

This post has been edited by WangKon936: 09 December 2005 - 11:29 AM

[WangKon936]

MengTzu, on Dec 8 2005, 01:43 PM, said:

This is off topic and ad hominem. You get a warning. This is also bordering on ad hominem. This thread will be closed if you guys can't get back on topic and lose the ad hominem.

MengTzu,

I can totally understand why you would not want people in this forum to not rely on ad hominem arguments. It would really undermind the mission of this website as an "information exchange" medium if people can try poisoning the well all the time. However, why didn't you give this warning before when I was called a "nationalist" and "propagandist" in post #42 by Warhead? When he said that I thought he crossed some sort of line.

Please be fair and even handed in your warnings, thanks.

Also, it might make better sense to take all this Silla/Tang posts and move it to a new topic.

This post has been edited by WangKon936: 09 December 2005 - 11:56 AM

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

Samguk Yusa, page 85-86:

"[After the defeat of Paekje, T'ang]... divided [Paekje] into five provinces, thirty-seven countries, 200 towns and 760,000 households. But the victorious Chinese reorganized it and placed a Chinese military governor in each of the provinces to take charge of the local administration. General Liu Jen-Yuan was put in command of Chinese forces occupying Puyo (the capital of Paekje) while general Wang Wen-Tao was appointed governor of Ungjin with the special task of pacifying the defeated Paekje troops.

(Monk Ilyon's notes: The significance of this was that the T'ang government plainly intended to incorporate Paekje into the Chinese empire, a fact which was not lost upon Silla.)"

Get a grip, your primary primary source talks nothing about Tang ambition, only the commentary below it, it shows too well your inability to sort out whats facts and whats not. If you want to prove Tang's ambition, show me a report of Chinese genearl or government that shows a plot to incorporate the penisula, or else all your claims are nothing but fansy imagination with no basis.

Quote

Page 98:

'Uisang, a famous Silla monk who was studying in China at the time, learned of the (T'ang) Emperor's intentions (to incorporate Silla into the T'ang Empire) from Kim In-Mun (the Silla prince who was a hostage of T'ang) and reported them to King Munmu on his return from Changan."

You are going to rest your complete trust on a monk? Ignoring all the military reports and records of the Tang's side? Speaking of bias.

Quote

Warhead, the nature of the commanderies set-up in Paekje were not independent at all. All five of the provinces in the Paekje commandery had Chinese governors, generals and troops. The prince of Paekje that was the "nominal" ruler of the commandery only had adminstrative control of the Puyo (capital) area. He had no authority over the Chinese generals or governors that surrounded him.

I never said the commandery in paekche were independent, I was talking about Silla's supposed commanderies. I can't even find any mention of any commanderies set up in Silla at all after the conquest of Paekche.

Quote

I can totally understand why you would not want people in this forum to not rely on ad hominem arguments. It would really undermind the mission of this website as an "information exchange" medium if people can try poisoning the well all the time. However, why didn't you give this warning before when I was called a "nationalist" and "propagandist" in post #42 by Warhead? When he said that I thought he crossed some sort of line.

Please be fair and even handed in your warnings, thanks.

He WAS fair, you started it, I didn't.

[MengTzu]

WangKon936, on Dec 9 2005, 04:55 PM, said:

MengTzu,

I can totally understand why you would not want people in this forum to not rely on ad hominem arguments. It would really undermind the mission of this website as an "information exchange" medium if people can try poisoning the well all the time. However, why didn't you give this warning before when I was called a "nationalist" and "propagandist" in post #42 by Warhead? When he said that I thought he crossed some sort of line.

Please be fair and even handed in your warnings, thanks.

Also, it might make better sense to take all this Silla/Tang posts and move it to a new topic.

I warn where I see it. You can't expect the mods to be monitering 24/7. I'm also not assigned to this board. Just saw things while passing through.

"Nationalist" is probably not offensive anyway. Propagandist might be justified if there are proofs that you were propagandizing. I'll have to look up the post.

In any case, I gave warnings to both of you already.

warhead, on Dec 9 2005, 07:14 PM, said:

Get a grip, your primary primary source talks nothing about Tang ambition, only the commentary below it, it shows too well your inability to sort out whats facts and whats not.

Warhead, you're starting to frustrate me. Why is it that you can never simply discuss the facts and move on? Why do you have to include: "it shows too well your inability to sort out whats facts and whats not."? Why does it have to be directed at the person and his abilities, characters, etc.? Are you aware that this IS ad hominem?

I don't want to bring the rest out to the public, because I don't want to embarrass you. Please check your PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

Why is it that you can never simply discuss the facts and move on? Why do you have to include: "it shows too well your inability to sort out whats facts and whats not."? Why does it have to be directed at the person and his abilities, characters, etc.? Are you aware that this IS ad hominem?

I don't want to bring the rest out to the public, because I don't want to embarrass you. Please check your PM.

Because he chose not to? When his sources does not relate to the topic, then there is nothing wrong with that statement.

[WangKon936]

warhead, on Dec 9 2005, 09:54 PM, said:

Because he chose not to? When his sources does not relate to the topic, then there is nothing wrong with that statement.

Huh? My sources do relate to topic. We are talking about T'ang's designs on Silla, correct?

warhead, on Dec 9 2005, 02:14 PM, said:

I never said the commandery in paekche were independent, I was talking about Silla's supposed commanderies.

Warhead,
Given that the commanderies in Paekje and Koguryo were not very independent and were full of Chinese governors, generals and troops, it is unlikely that the commandery that was being set-up for Silla would have been any different. At least that's what Silla's king believed and he wasn't ready to take any chances. If you were a responsible ruler of a kingdom in a similar situation, neither would you.

This post has been edited by WangKon936: 09 December 2005 - 10:38 PM

[WangKon936]

warhead, on Dec 9 2005, 02:14 PM, said:

You are going to rest your complete trust on a monk? Ignoring all the military reports and records of the Tang's side? Speaking of bias.

Uh...... okie, where are all these "military reports and records" of Tang? There must be many, right? Please quote a few that contradict the monk's testimony. Btw... technically it wasn't the monk who said it, it was the Silla prince who was a hostage of the Tang court.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

Huh? My sources do relate to topic

I wasn't talking about your personalized attacks.

Quote

Warhead,
Given that the commanderies in Paekje and Koguryo were not very independent and were full of Chinese governors, generals and troops, it is unlikely that the commandery that was being set-up for Silla would have been any different. At least that's what Silla's king believed and he wasn't ready to take any chances. If you were a responsible ruler of a kingdom in a similar situation, neither would you.

First of all, I am still waiting for G to give me the primary source that Silla is even made into a commandery at all, and if it did, whether its after the conquest of Paekche, because the source he gave spoke of an earlier date. What Silla believed ins't the point, we are trying to find out whether Tang had such intentions.

You have no prove that Tang would set up similar commanderies to Silla, your assumptions are really groundless. Why should Silla be the same? Silla is a Tang ally, The Tujue were under Tang control, the Uighurs were quiet free, both are also commanderies they don't follow your logic of what goes for one goes for all. In fact from all the Tang military conducts from the East to the West, it only shows that Tang lets their allies rule rather independently. These includes the Uighurs, the Nan Zhao and Sogdiana states.

Quote

Uh...... okie, where are all these "military reports and records" of Tang? There must be many, right? Please quote a few that contradict the monk's testimony. Btw... technically it wasn't the monk who said it, it was the Silla prince who was a hostage of the Tang court

Its not about contradiction. Its about whether such intention even exist! You don't seem to get that point. To have an intention requires first hand accounts on military planning, court discussions on the benefits and difficulties of such campaign, none of them exist in Tang records, precisely because there are no such discussions, there is no evidence that Tang have such designs. You are the one that needs to find me a Tang source which states that Silla should be taken so we know that the Tang actually had such plans. The Sheng Tang Yang Jiu group of Bei Da University has all the available accounts of Tang, and they know very well what Tang's political motives are.

Also, if you could, I would also like the original script of the Monk's text, I want to see what the exact words are, whether its simply attacking Silla or actually making it a colony. Because your source seem to only hint at such(the emperor's intention which is far from clear) and did not outright state it.

[Yun]

Hey Wangkon and Gubook, I noticed you're both in Orange County. Are you already friends? If not, I recommend you find some time to get together and trace that source for Lee Ki-baik's statement. Until then, this discussion is pointless. Without evidence to compare, it's just descending to the level of insult after insult.

Either one of you PM me when you've got the source. Until then, I'm closing this thread. I think the whole staff has had enough.