Most powerful empires of each century

Jul 2014
1,602
world
Believe is what you rely upon, I cited primary sources and the critical analysis behind them. You just don't understand them and hence can't even begin respond to the evidence that was put forth.
I have shown you census by three different regimes. I have told you about the geographic impossibility of Tibet having a large population. I have given you statements by eminent TIbetologist/Sinologist saying that your source is unreliable.

You are apparently a genius whose "critical" analysis nobody understands.

As for me and rest of the Tibetologist universe, nobody believes in Tang historians bullshit about 200000 strong Tibetan armies of 670 AD.

You can believe what you want.
 
Mar 2012
4,405
I told you they are not real population census and I showed you the exact methodology and the primary sources involved in how such numbers were derived; these are the same exact sources your "eminent Tibetologists and Sinologists" derived their figures too (the discrepancy lies in how such sources were interpreted) because historians all work on the same published or unearthed material. It's that simple. You simply didn't understand their methodology nor demonstrated that you have any grasp of the primary sources involved and that's why your comments only have comical values.
As for nobody believes in Tang records of 200,000, there are plenty of prominent Tibetologists and sinologists who do just that; Wang Yao, Xue Zongzheng, to just name a few. You just haven't read their works as usual, so believe what YOU want, but don't give me the BS that nobody believes them, when its just you and your lack of competence in the discipline of Tibetan history (or any history for that matter) alone that is the problem (unless of course you think you are the entire Tibetologist universe).

This debate is also not about whether the Tibetans mobilized 200,000 at Dafeichuan, its about whether they CAN mobilize such a force. In that, Tang sources certainly aren't the only source that said Tibetans can mobilize armies of that size; something you don't seem to grasp.
You showed a single scholar questioning Tibet having 360 stong sde (nor did any of them question Tibet capable of mobilizing 200,000; thats just you), because a later imperial source said Songtsen Gampo only had 61 stong sde in 642 and used that as a "prove" that Tibet can't mobilize 200,000. This ignores the fact that
1) Dafeichuan occured in 670, after the Tibetans conquered the Tuyuhun at Qinghai, and not in 642 during Songtsen Gampo's reign.
2) We have no direct source verifying that a stong sde is exactly a force of 1,000 even if it nominally means such (A tumen is almost never 10,000 even though it meant that in Mongolian).
3) There are both primary Tibetan source (Old Tibetan Chronicle) and medieval Tibetan sources stating that early imperial Tibet can mobilize 300,000-400,000 soliders.
4) Chinese primary sources with head counts of enemies, talking about Tibetan garrisons in the tens of thousands in Amdo and Pamirs alone (in addition to the sources on 200,000 Tibetans at Dafeichuan).
5) Dunhuang documents in Tibetan talking about frontier garrisons (mkhar) in Amdo that can be as big as 10,000 and there are five military commissioners each with at least several of these garrisons alone.

You don't need to be a genius to see the mountain of evidence against those of yours, you just need to have basic training in history and a basic grasp of the sources, which you apparently don't have.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2016
1,199
Australia
Safe to say that at this point, this thread has gone wildly off-topic to an absurd degree. If you two keep going at this you'll drag this thread out to 50 pages and still be posting in 2020 :lol:
 
Jul 2014
1,602
world
I told you they are not real population census and I showed you the exact methodology and the primary sources involved in how such numbers were derived; these are the same exact sources your "eminent Tibetologists and Sinologists" derived their figures too (the discrepancy lies in how such sources were interpreted) because historians all work on the same published or unearthed material. It's that simple. You simply didn't understand their methodology nor demonstrated that you have any grasp of the primary sources involved and that's why your comments only have comical values.
As for nobody believes in Tang records of 200,000, there are plenty of prominent Tibetologists and sinologists who do just that; Wang Yao, Xue Zongzheng, to just name a few. You just haven't read their works as usual, so believe what YOU want, but don't give me the BS that nobody believes them, when its just you and your lack of competence in the discipline of Tibetan history (or any history for that matter) alone that is the problem (unless of course you think you are the entire Tibetologist universe).

This debate is also not about whether the Tibetans mobilized 200,000 at Dafeichuan, its about whether they CAN mobilize such a force. In that, Tang sources certainly aren't the only source that said Tibetans can mobilize armies of that size; something you don't seem to grasp.
You showed a single scholar questioning Tibet having 360 stong sde (nor did any of them question Tibet capable of mobilizing 200,000; thats just you), because a later imperial source said Songtsen Gampo only had 61 stong sde in 642 and used that as a "prove" that Tibet can't mobilize 200,000. This ignores the fact that
1) Dafeichuan occured in 670, after the Tibetans conquered the Tuyuhun at Qinghai, and not in 642 during Songtsen Gampo's reign.
2) We have no direct source verifying that a stong sde is exactly a force of 1,000 even if it nominally means such (A tumen is almost never 10,000 even though it meant that in Mongolian).
3) There are both primary Tibetan source (Old Tibetan Chronicle) and medieval Tibetan sources stating that early imperial Tibet can mobilize 300,000-400,000 soliders.
4) Chinese primary sources with head counts of enemies, talking about Tibetan garrisons in the tens of thousands in Amdo and Pamirs alone (in addition to the sources on 200,000 Tibetans at Dafeichuan).
5) Dunhuang documents in Tibetan talking about frontier garrisons (mkhar) in Amdo that can be as big as 10,000 and there are five military commissioners each with at least several of these garrisons alone.

You don't need to be a genius to see the mountain of evidence against those of yours, you just need to have basic training in history and a basic grasp of the sources, which you apparently don't have.
Hahahaha genius.

You are right and all the scholars are wrong. Publish a book genius and prove the world wrong.
But you cant ... right cuz world will laugh at you like I am doing.
 
Mar 2012
4,405
Hahahaha genius.

You are right and all the scholars are wrong. Publish a book genius and prove the world wrong.
But you cant ... right cuz world will laugh at you like I am doing.
I know reading isn't your strong point, but I already cited the scholars and books (along with the methodology) which was the basis of my argument, several times I might add (meaning that you claiming ALL scholars disagree with me is a plain ignorant factual error on your part); you just don't understand them as usual so its an utter waste of my time to repeat what I already posted several times.
 

Similar History Discussions