How well is 濟 dynasty known in Chinese history as a descendant to Goguryeo?

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,798
United States
I think we have a winner for the next author of Hwandan Gogi II: The next generation or maybe even Samguk Sagi 2: The Fairy Tale continues.
Why are you equating the Samguk Sagi with the Hwandan Kogi? Are you saying the Samguk Sagi is a fairy tale?
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,798
United States
Not a fairy tale, but it seems it has some unfounded claims
Only the early records are particularly unreliable, and even then should NOT be thrown out if you're careful. The early annals of Koguryo, when viewed critically, are reasonably accurate. The early annals of Shilla and Paekche are based on oral history and possibly some written accounts, but are arbitrarily stretched back to the first century BC when the Koguryo accounts start, so should be viewed more skeptically. In either case, the exact dates (except when they can be corroborated by an outside source, in this case Chinese) should always be held in suspect until around the fourth century or so when the kingdoms started keeping formal records. Even after that some mistakes were made, as in any historical record.
 
Jun 2014
1,020
Earth
You raise an interesting point. The backdating of historyf or Shilla and Paekche was not done arbitrarily. In my opinion the author did this to create a tale of unity and common origin for the three kingdoms for political reasons. This is similar to entire history being backdated all the way to Gojoseon.

Often times small details added or omitted can change the entire perspective of a historical record, as anyone can see with this thread; Hwacha Nation apparently got his information from a different planet.
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,798
United States
You raise an interesting point. The backdating of historyf or Shilla and Paekche was not done arbitrarily. In my opinion the author did this to create a tale of unity and common origin for the three kingdoms for political reasons. This is similar to entire history being backdated all the way to Gojoseon.

Often times small details added or omitted can change the entire perspective of a historical record, as anyone can see with this thread; Hwacha Nation apparently got his information from a different planet.
Well yes that was the reason for backdating (though it probably was not Kim Pushik's doing), that and making Shilla older and thus more legitimate than the other kingdoms. Even serious Korean scholarship, while definitely worlds better than the nationalistic stuff, often puts too much trust in the Samguk Sagi at face value than is due.

However, the archaeological evidence does indeed show that the Iron Age immigrants that came into the southern peninsula c. 300-100 BC did indeed come from northwestern Korea and Liaodong, where Kojoson originally was, so the claims of its heritage are not unfounded.
 
Jun 2014
1,020
Earth
What you said is very true, but as has been said many times on this forum there is a difference between a civilization and a group of people living in an area, and there is a difference between a group of people living in the area of a current nation and deriving heritage from it.

After all, if using that same logic since people came from the current area of Liaodong then you could say Silla has "Chinese" heritage.
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,798
United States
Why do you say that? Wasn't Kim Pushik from Silla?
He was from Koryo, but a member the Kim clan which had ruled Shilla. The Samguk Sagi was compiled largely from the Ku Samguksa, so we know the idea of drawing the kingdoms together predated him, possibly by a few centuries. I remember reading somewhere that a lot of the conventions in the Samguk Sagi predated him.

Whatever the case, the important thing to remember is to take the records critically, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater and not taking them at face value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bananasinpajamas
Jun 2014
1,020
Earth
He was from Koryo, but a member the Kim clan which had ruled Shilla. The Samguk Sagi was compiled largely from the Ku Samguksa, so we know the idea of drawing the kingdoms together predated him, possibly by a few centuries. I remember reading somewhere that a lot of the conventions in the Samguk Sagi predated him.

Whatever the case, the important thing to remember is to take the records critically, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater and not taking them at face value.
I do agree with what you said but incidentally,
I just read more about the samguk sagi. Apparently there are some questionable tales in there in addition to the historical record.