Roman history from non-Roman sources

Feb 2011
6,233
#51
Le Hoang, you're misusing the source material. The Chinese description of Tiaozhi speaks about HUMIDITY not rainfall, and it's humid in the area of Charax, in fact it's the only humid place relative to its surroundings:



Rainfall in DaQin was descripted such that it was "unexpected" for frequent rains. Le Hoang twisted the passage to make it sound as if frequent rains was described as common in DaQin, even though the passage only says that if unexpected frequent rains occur, they switch rulers. If rains were truly frequent all the time, DaQin would be cycling rulers every other day. Le Hoang's map shows that frequent rainfall in the Pandya kingdom would be something that's expected, not unexpected. Ergo using Le Hoang's logic, his map would show that DaQin was NOT describing the Pandya kingdom of Southeastern India, which have plenty of frequent rainfall which DaQin did not.

Also
Le Hoang, I asked you five times of the below question but you were never able to answer:
Le Hoang, again I ask you: do you have a single academic source saying that DaQin as recorded in the Hou Han Shu, is describing the Pandya kingdom of India?

Le Hoang, I asked you five times of the below question but you were never able to answer:
Post 41 shows that Anxi (Parthia) was described to be west of Yuezhi (Central Asia), and DaQin was described to be West of Anxi (Parthia), ergo DaQin would be far west of Central Asia. You say DaQin is in India. Le Hoang, why do you say India is West of Central Asia?

Again:

-Tianzhu is India (Northeast), Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi is not anywhere in India, contrary to your claim.
-Tianzhu was described as hot and humid, like Tiaozhi but not DaQin/Anxi. In fact the description of Daqin says that frequent rains are unexpected, to the point that if it does happen, DaQin switches rulers.
-Tianzhu was described to be Buddhist, Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi wasn't.
-Tianzhu was describe to have war elephants, Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi was not. Tiaozhi was described to have rhinos and ostriches which don't exist in Rameswaram as you claim.
-Tianzhu was described to be SouthEast of the YueZhi (Central Asia), Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi was described to be West of YueZhi (Central Asia). Rameswaram of India is East of Central Asia, ergo TiaoZhi is not India as you claim
-Tianzhu was described to be subjugated by the Yuezhi, which Northeastern India was at the time.

You've ignored the questions four times in a row, I can only deduce you are doing so because you can't address them satisfactorily, but you don't want to admit being wrong.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#52
The map can't help you.Most of ancient Characen is in light brown color(humidity lower than 50 percent) while all areas of South India(include Pandya and Rameswaram) are in blue(humidity 75 percent and higher).You yourself show that Characen wasn't humid.
I said that Tianzhu in Ganges basin(because great river was Ganges,not Indus) and you are pretending that you don't know.
...If there are unexpected calamities in the kingdom, such as frequent extraordinary winds or rains...
It showed very clear that there were normal winds and rains,out of extraordinary.It meaned that rain was a normal weather in Da Qin while it didn't happen many times each year in Syria and Egypt.Morever,you haven't answer my question: where can we see many tiger n Roman?Tiger is a strong argument.
I said that rhino fossils from 1200 BC were found in South India(include Rameswaram).Special actvities didn't happen from 1200 BC to 500 AD.So it could be unchange.Ostrich is a mistake of Watson because great peacock not same as ostrich.Peacock is very popular for all areas of India.So great peacock could be a species double larger than normal peacock.
 
Feb 2011
6,233
#53
Nope, Characene and Susiana is the light blue color, not light brown, ergo it's humid.
Again Le Hoang puts word in my mouth. For the second time, Le Hoang, quote where I said that it wasn't humid? I said the exact opposite.

Nope, Tianzhu is not the Ganges Basin as you claim, for that would mean there's no room for the Kingdom of Dongli (described to be Southeast of Tianzhu but still in India) to go. Tianzhu was described to be conquered by the Yuezhi, which makes it Northerwestern India, not NorthEastern India (Ganges Basin) as you claim



^The above is the Ganges Basin in green. If the green part was indeed the kingdom of Tianzhu, then the kingdom of Dongli wouldn't even fit, as this was described to be the kingdom of Dongli:
The main centre of the kingdom of Dongli (‘Eastern Division’)1 is the town of Shaqi (Śāketa).2 It is more than 3,000 li (1,247 km) southeast of Tianzhu (Northwestern India). It is a big kingdom. Its products are similar to those of Tianzhu (Northwestern India). There are several dozen major towns whose rulers take the title of king. The Da Yuezhi attacked and subdued it. The men and women are all eight chi tall (about 1.85 metres or 6 feet), but are cowardly. They ride elephants and camels when travelling to neighbouring kingdoms. When invaded, they ride elephants to wage war.

By saying that Tianzhu is the Ganges Basin, Le Hoang is putting the kingdom of Dongli into Southeast Asia, but the Da Yuezhi never attacked into Southeast Asia.

The passage Le Hoang quoted about Daqin only says: If there are unexpected calamities in the kingdom [of Daqin], such as frequent extraordinary winds or rains, he [the ruler] is unceremoniously rejected and replaced.

It does NOT mean Daqin was humid as Le Hoang claims, it does NOT mean there are "normal" amounts of rain. It only means that frequent rain would be an extraordinary event. Le Hoang is pushing what he wants to believe into the passage in order to force DaQin to be interpreted as India. Description of Tiaozhi mentioned humidity, description of Daqin does not.

Again, evidence that rhinos ceased to exist in 1200 BC in Southern India is taken as evidence by Le Hoang that rhinos existed in Southern India to 500 AD, some arbitrary number he made up because "special actvities didn't happen from 1200 BC to 500 AD". Really Le Hoang? I'd say the extinction of the rhino in Southern India by 1200 BC is a "special activity" wouldn't you say?

-So Le Hoang says that Tiaozhi is Southern India because it was described to have "peacock" and "zebu", but ignores the part which says Tiaozhi has animals that Southern India lacked at the time, such as ostriches and rhinos, using wishful thinking to justify ignoring these parts rather than actual evidence.

So Le Hoang, I ask you again:
1. You say I claimed that Charax was dry? Where did I say that? Quote just where I said it.
2. You claim Rhinos in Southern India existed to 500 AD, rather than going extinct in 1200 BC. Where is your evidence?
3. Daqin/Anxi/Tiaozhi were all described to be WEST of the Yuezhi. Why do you put all of them in India which is EAST of the Yuezhi? <--I asked you this six times in a row and you gave no answer
4. Do you have a single academic source saying that DaQin as recorded in the Hou Han Shu, is describing the Pandya kingdom of India? <--I asked you this six times in a row and you gave no answer
 
Last edited:
Likes: Ichon
Feb 2011
6,233
#54
Also, the Weilue says: Leaving there (Kashgar), and going west, you reach Dayuan (Ferghana),22 Anxi (Parthia),23 Tiaozhi (Characene and Susiana),24 and Wuyi (Arachosia and Drangiana – capital, Kandahar).
This backs up post 41 which proves the HouHanShu states that Anxi/TiaoZhi/DaQin was west of the Yuezhi.

If Anxi/Tiaozhi was in Southern India, you wouldn't reach it by going west from Kashgar, not even close as you'd ony be going further and further away. Also, DaQin was described to be West of Anxi, which also makes DaQin west of Kashgar by extension.

So far Le Hoang claimed that:
-Anxi is Western Pandya/Chola of Southern India
-DaQin is Pandya kingdom of Southern India. (He also claimed that the Golden Gate of Daqin was the Mahabodhi Temple, but this temple wasn't in the kingdom of Pandya. He also claimed that DaQin is a transliteration of Sri Lanka, even though Sri Lanka at the time wasn't a part of the kingdom of Pandya.)
-Tiaozhi is the Rameswaram peninsula of India

But as noted in the beginning of this post:

Anxi was described to be West of Kashgar, is Western Pandya of Southern India WEST of Kashgar? No?
DaQin was described to be West of Anxi, hence West of Kashgar. Is the Pandyan kingdom of Southern India WEST of Kashgar? No?
Tiaozhi was described to be West of Kashgar, is the Rameswaram peninsula of India WEST of Kashgar? No?

Not one academic agrees with you, Le Hoang, because your theories are based 50% on wishful thinking and 50% on cherry-picking by only reading the least important parts of the passage, while ignoring the more important parts that doesn't fit your narrative.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#55
...They ride elephants and camels when travelling to neighbouring kingdoms ...
It's very clear that Dongli isn't Ganges basin.Ganges basin rains so much that never have camel.
Harsa Carta - an india chronicle was written in 7th century AD recoreded that rhinoceros was appeared n classical India:
...king of Camundi(Chamundi - south Inida) was sipped,while he was extirpating rhinoceroses...
 
Feb 2011
6,233
#56
...They ride elephants and camels when travelling to neighbouring kingdoms ...
It's very clear that Dongli isn't Ganges basin.Ganges basin rains so much that never have camel.
Southeast Asia don't have camel either. Ergo Dongli isn't Southeast Asia by the same standard. However, Dongli was described to be Southeast of Tianzhu, and Tianzhu was described to be Southeast of Yuezhi. Le Hoang, you tell me which area Southeast of the Ganges Basin (which you equate as Tianzhu) have camels?

Le Hoang said:
Harsa Carta - an india chronicle was written in 7th century AD recoreded that rhinoceros was appeared n classical India:
...king of Camundi(Chamundi - south Inida) was sipped,while he was extirpating rhinoceroses...
You are making things up, we don't know where Camundi is, but the source Harsa Carita is about a North Indian King, and nobody denied that there were rhinos in North India. However, you put Tiaozhi as South India, not North. The translation only said that Pushkara was the king of "Camundi", but you yourself, not the translator, added that Camundi is Chamundi.

Plus, Le Hoang cut off most of the sentence to change the meaning. The entire sentence is:
"Qarabha, the Acmaka king, being attached to string music, his enemy's emissaries, disguised as chase-loving Puskara, king of Camundi, was sipped; while he was extirpating rhinoceroses, by the lord of Campa's soldiers ensconced in a grove of tall-stemmed reeds."

Ergo it was the Acmaka king who was killed while 'extirpating' rhinoes.. But Le Hoang cut off the sentence to make it sound like it was the king of Camundi who was killed, and then inserted that Camundi was Chamundi, which the translator said nothing about.

If there really were an animal as significant as rhinos in Medieval South India you'd think you can find something more significant than a offhand single sentence in Medieval poetry after all that digging.

So Le Hoang, I ask you for the seventh time in a row, because you are not able to answer:
1. Daqin/Anxi/Tiaozhi were all described to be WEST of the Yuezhi and Kashgar. Why do you put all of them in India which is EAST of the Yuezhi? <--I asked you this six times in a row and you gave no answer
4. Do you have a single academic source saying that DaQin as recorded in the Hou Han Shu, is describing the Pandya kingdom of India? <--I asked you this six times in a row and you gave no answer
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#57
- History research is the work all people can do.How can we claim that one idea from a student or anyone who loves histrory must be wrong and idea of famous researchers are always right.Acitivity of History forums is a good way to collect worthy ideas for researchers.Morever,Watson didn't have a single academic article about Da Qin with any reliable proofs.He gave himself right of God.When he like an unknown modern city must be match with an ancient site in a old text,it must be right and can't be argue.As I said,I supported no less than 4 proofs that could define Da Qin in South India(Pandya) instead of Roman empire.
- I said to you many times,Yuezhi is Eastern Kashmir to Nepal,so it is on the east of Rameswaram(Tiaozhi).Dongli should be at border of southern Tibet near Nepal because in ancient time,it had both elephants and camels.
There are few ancient kingdom could produce both 2 these animals like Roman or Parthia.
Stock Photo - Camel riders, Yumbulagung Castle, Tibet, China, Asia
Review on JSTOR
 
Feb 2011
6,233
#58
There, Le Hoang finally broke and said Yue Zhi (Central Asia) is East of India.... anyone can see that's not even close to true by looking at a map. He's including Tianzhu which the Yuezhi conquered, but they are described as different states so the geographic location described for the YueZhi is apart from the geographic location described for Tianzhu. He would rather have a mental breakdown than admit being wrong...

He also contradicted himself by claiming Dongli being near Nepal, because Dongli was described to be Southeast of Tianzhu and even more Southeast of the Yuezhi, so for Yuezhi to be in Nepal and the Dongli to be near Nepal as Le Hoang claims is contrary to what the passage states.

And by saying Dongli is near Nepal, then it also contradicts his statement that the Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin because Dongli was described by the HouHanShu to be Southeast of Tianzhu and if the Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin, then Dongli would be Northwest of it.

Of course, anyone can do their own research, but the quality of Le Hoang's Cherry-picked research is.... Not that good. Whatever fault Watson had, it doesn't involve denying geographic reality, self-contradictory statements, or repeatedly misrepresenting what sources actually said

Anyway, in summary: The Hou Han Shu describe the Yuezhi to be West of Tianzhu, and Tianzhu to be West of Dongli.
Yet Le Hoang says that both Yuezhi and Dongli were at or near Nepal, whereas Tianzhu is the Ganges Basin which is really contrary to the geographic locations of the places described in the Hou Han Shu.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
6,233
#59
Anyway, here's a map of the Da YueZhi:


Daqin/Tiaozhi/Anxi were all described to be West of the Great Yuezhi but Le Hoang insist that Daqin/Tiaozhi/Anxi are in India.

Le Hoang says that the Yuezhi is in Nepal, this is a map of Nepal:


Not the same place. The Hou Han Shu did specifically say that Tianzhu, which is Southeast of the Yuezhi, was subjugated by the Yuezhi, and the same fate befell the Dongli which was even further Southeast. Ergo Le Hoang is wrong in saying that the Rameswaram peninsual of India was West of the Yuezhi when it is in fact East.

Likewise, if Le Hoang admits that Dongli is near Nepal, then he needs to address that the Hou Han Shu puts Dongli as East of the Yuezhi whereas Daqin/Anxi/Tiaozhi were put West of the Yuezhi. Ergo Daqin/Anxi/Tiaozhi are far to the west of Dongli, yet Le Hoang says that Daqin/Anxi/Tiaozhi are in Southern India which is not far, far West of the Dongli at all. And if Dongli is near Nepal as Le Hoang admits, then Tianzhu could not be the Ganges Basin as he claims, for the Hou Han Shu describes the Tianzhu being Northwest of the Dongli whereas the Ganges Basin lie in the opposite direction.

Anyway, as according from the Hou Han Shu, traveling from West to East, the states are:
Daqin, Tiaozhi, Anxi, Da Yuezhi, Tianzhu, Dongli.

Proof from the Hou HanShu:


1. Showing that Tiaozhi was to the East of Daqin:
In the ninth yongyuan year [97 CE], during the reign of Emperor He, the Protector General Ban Chao sent Gan Ying to Da Qin (the Roman Empire).6 He reached Tiaozhi (Characene and Susiana) next to a large sea. He wanted to cross it...
2. Showing Anxi was to the East of Tiaozhi
If you turn north [from Tiaozhi], and then towards the east, riding by horse for more than 60 days, you reach [the old capital of] Anxi (Parthia).5 Later on, (Anxi) conquered, and subjugated Tiaozhi (Characene and Susiana).
3. Showing Da Yuezhi was to the East of Anxi
The main centre of the Da Yuezhi (Kushan) kingdom1 is the town of Lanshi (Bactra/Balkh).2 To the west it borders Anxi (Parthia), which is 49 days march away.
4. Showing Tianzhu was to the East of Da Yuezhi
The kingdom of Tianzhu (Northwestern) India is also called Juandu (India).1 It is several thousand li southeast of the Yuezhi (Kushans).
5. Showing Dongli was East of Tianzhu
The main centre of the kingdom of Dongli (‘Eastern Division’)1 is the town of Shaqi (Śāketa).2 It is more than 3,000 li (1,247 km) southeast of Tianzhu (Northwestern India).

This is backed by the Weilue:
Leaving there (Kashgar), and going west, you reach Dayuan (Ferghana),22 Anxi (Parthia),23 Tiaozhi (Characene and Susiana),24 and Wuyi (Arachosia and Drangiana – capital, Kandahar).

So Daqin was put furthest to the West whereas Dongli was put furthest to the East in the list of five states listed above. However, Le Hoang insists that Daqin/Tiaozhi/Anxi is in Southern India, which don't fit with what the Hou Han Shu said at all because that would put all three states East, not West, of the Yuezhi.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#60
Watson was so good in geography and Buddhism.So he placed Tianzhu in Indus basin instead of Ganges basin.Have you ever read anything about Buddhism?All 4 largest primary Buddhism were in Ganges Basin and Nepal but Watson pretended that he didn't know that.
1.Large sea is Indian Ocean(exact Bengal Bay),Jin shu defined that.So Charancen can't be Tiaozhi.I showed 4 other proofs in this problem: it isn't a peninsula,dry,don't have zebu and don't have peacock.
Relative Humidity in Basra, Iraq
Here is humidity map of Basra,the city is near to ancient Charax.Although it is in Persian Gulf,average humidity of city is about 60 percent(it means low humidity) or lower while humidity of Rameswaram around 75 percent.
 

Similar History Discussions