"Korea's 1st kingdom ruled today's Beijing"

Jan 2015
433
Northern City
Buddhist sources of fifth century call Kushan emperor Kanishka as devout Buddhist. Kanishka died around 150 AD so gap is just 3 centuries. Historians now by examining inscriptions, coins and other evidences conclude that all those Buddhist texts are wrong and Kanishka was no more a Buddhist than he was follower of Greek religion. This when there is gap of just 3 centuries.

This is how rigorous standards are maintained in history, 'traditions' and 'beliefs' must be respected normally and outside historical domain but it is job of historians to separate fact from tradition and fiction. In this case, gap is of around 16 centuries, right? No competent historian uses such things without direct attestation.
In other thread, I have shown how even contemporary sources can be deceptive, Xuanzang described Harsha as Buddhist due to confusion and may use same but even a careful reading of Chinese account proves that Harsha was a Shaiva that is Hindu.
You're being tricked into believing in a nonsense argument. He is attacking a widely accepted historical view of succession without offering an actual contradiction. What he is doing is ahistorical.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,486
If you want to use logic of fallacies, you have to eliminate all history. It is all becomes fallacy. This is why I don't think you're a historian. Your arguments just aren't practical for doing history, only for fitting your own personal agenda.

I KNOW you aren't a historian so please stop implying that you are one. You've even misused fallacies, since much of history relies on popular support. For labels, words. Trust.
No, you don't. Textual criticism goes hand in hand with logical fallacies, you would have known that if you have done just a bit of homework or even assert some common sense, but you don't, and other than embarrassing yourself your pretentious behaivor is not productive or cogent. You clearly aren't trained in history and you obviously lack the knowledge to tell who is trained or not. You critisize historicism without even knowing what it means or that it is the mainstream school today and yet you have the stupidity to denounce others who are explaining to you what these are; thats just pathetic. Accusing one's history training background is cheap, your methodologies and posts directly reflects your degree of discipline, and it is transparent that you have not come across any mainstream theories and views of modern history academics or you wouldn't have been completely oblivious and denounced these concepts and terms that were put in front of you.
 
Last edited:

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,486
You're being tricked into believing in a nonsense argument. He is attacking a widely accepted historical view of succession without offering an actual contradiction. What he is doing is ahistorical.
You are assuming he is naive enough to believe without critique and evidence which reflects your own behavior, but unlike you, he actually have some ground in academic scholarship which is virtually non-existent in your posts. Just what is this so called contradiction of mine? I demand you to point it out so I will address them one by one and present the exact source to refute each. I presented direct evidence from primary sources such as the Zhan Guoce and Shiji, whereas you have presented absolutely nothing other than a non-critical obsession of a 14th century tradition that became widespread over a mellenium after the date that is being talked about. Do you even know what ahistorical mean? Speaking with someone who is untrained that actually thinks he is more qualified than trained historians is one of the most annoying things you have to deal with, and there is a point when patience ceases to be a virtue.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2019
2
725974L
Are you seriously now questioning the existence of Gojoseon?
When it was the chinese that kept records? Can you not read your own country's writing?

The Zhanguoce, Shanhaijing, and Shiji refers to Joseon as a region, until the text Shiji began referring it as a country from 195 BC onwards.

So that means something happened 195 BC to make the chinese refer to Gojoseon as a country. Most likely a unification of proto Korean tribes.

Seo and Kang (2002) believe the Dangun myth is based on integration of two different tribes, an invasive sky-worshipping bronze age tribe and a native bear-worshipping neolithic tribe, that lead to the foundation of Gojoseon.[6] Lee K. B. (1984) believes 'Dangun-wanggeom' was a title borne by successive leaders of Gojoseon.[7]

This could well be the explanation for the land being called a country. A symbiosis of 2 tribes, 1 being mainly Altaic and the other tribe being native Tungusic tribes or earlier Altaics.
"Records of that time mention the hostility between the feudal state in Northern China and the "confederated" kingdom of Gojoseon, and notably, a plan to attack the Yan beyond the Liao River frontier. The confrontation led to the decline and eventual downfall of Gojoseon, described in Yan records as "arrogant" and "cruel". But the ancient kingdom also appears as a prosperous Bronze Age civilization, with a complex social structure, including a class of horse-riding warriors who contributed to the development of Gojoseon, particularly the northern expansion[17] into most of the Liaodong basin."
Don't touch the porcelain, the country that you are governed by Tan Jun is not called North Korea.