Roman history from non-Roman sources

Feb 2011
6,233
#61
Le Hoang, Tianzhu was described to be completely conquered by the Yuezhi, yet you say that Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin. When did Yuezhi conquer all of the Ganges Basin? Provide evidence of that. But oh, you don't need to because the Ganges Basin was somehow MORE Buddhist than Northwestern India? Excuse me, did the passage describe Tianzhu as the MOST Buddhist place, or just a Buddhist place? Your reasoning here is junk, as your priorities is lopsided.

Le Hoang, you haven't answered: You say Dongli was around Nepal, yet Dongli was described to be Southeast of Tianzhu. If Tianzhu is the Ganges Basin as you say, you are saying Nepal is Southeast of the Ganges Basin? Please explain how Nepal is Southeast of the Ganges Basin.

You say Tiaozhi is the Rameswaram Peninsula of India, yet Tiaozhi was described to be FAR to the West of Tianzhu and Dongli. Yet you say Tianzhu and Dongli are the Ganges Basin and Nepal. How is the Rameswaram Peninsula FAR to the West of Nepal and the Ganges Basin? Please explain. But oh, you don't need to because explain how it's thousands of km away from where Tiaozhi was described to be, because SOME of the wildlife mentioned for Tiaozhi matches with that in the Rameswaram Peninsula? (Nevermind the ostriches or rhinos which certainly don't match).

According to 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. And how do Le Hoang justify this? Because half(not most) of the description of animal production matches with the wildlife of Southern India, and some places were described as hot and humid....., and that's why he don't have to explain how the geographic location of these alternative places are thousands of miles in the wrong direction. I wonder what ancient geographers were more likely to get right and wrong? Whether a country is West or East of them, or descriptions of the exported wildlife that a country produces?
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#62
...because the Ganges Basin was somehow MORE Buddhist than Northwestern India? ...
It's very clear,even with Indian children but someone like you don't read any text relate to Buddhism.Buddha born in Ganges Basin,he research and found out basic theory in Ganges Basin and he died in Ganges Basin,too.It likes Mecca was centre of Islam,Jerusalem was centre of Christ.All people know that,except you.
I said that Dongli should be in southern border of Tibet,not Nepal and you are pretending that you don't know.
When Da Qin = Padya ; Tiaozhi = Rameswaram and surrounding place,Anxi = Chedi Kalinga kingdom,Yuezhi = Kashmir to north Nepal,Tianzhu = Ganges basin,it is suitable with Hou Hanshu : Pandya is in west of Rameswaram,Chedi Kalinga is in west of Rameswaram and Kashmir to North Nepal is in west of Chedi Kalinga.
 
Feb 2011
6,233
#63
Tianzhi was only described to be Buddhist, it was NOT described to be MORE Buddhist than anywhere else in India. Le Hoang is cutting off my quotes to change the meaning of what I said.
Le Hoang, where in the Hou Han Shu did it say Tianzhi was the MOST Buddhist place in India?
Le Hoang says that Dongli should be in the southern border of Tibet, NOT Nepal.... even though the Southern border of Tibet is Nepal, :D

Le Hoang said: Dongli should be at border of southern Tibet near Nepal
I told you: You say Dongli was around Nepal
How am I twisting your words on this? Why accuse me I am twisting your words on Dongli?

But this is just a smokescreen that is besides the point. Dongli was described to be well Southeast of Tianzhu. If Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin as Le Hoang claimed, then Dongli could not be around Nepal as that's nowhere near Southeast of the Ganges Basin. Nowhere around Nepal would make it well Southeast of the Ganges Basin, so whether Dongli was Nepal or around Nepal does not change the fact that Le Hoang's statement is still contradictory to the passage.

Le Hoang said:
When Da Qin = Padya ; Tiaozhi = Rameswaram and surrounding place,Anxi = Chedi Kalinga kingdom,Yuezhi = Kashmir to north Nepal,Tianzhu = Ganges basin,it is suitable with Hou Hanshu : Pandya is in west of Rameswaram,Chedi Kalinga is in west of Rameswaram and Kashmir to North Nepal is in west of Chedi Kalinga.
No, what you say is far from being in accordance with the Hou Han Shu, because:
1. Da Yuezhi was in Central Asia, so your entire list of geographic locations is based off of a false premise, an incorrect opinion that you treat as fact in order to make more incorrect opinions. I showed you a map of where the Da Yuezhi were located, you have nothing but your incorrect opinion and expect others to take your word for it.
2. Anxi was describe to have conquered Tiaozhi, and it was described that their conquerors (Anxi) where from the East of Tiaozhi. Since when did the ancient Kalinga kingdom conquer Rameswaram peninsula? By the time of Han explorer Gan Ying, the Kalinga kingdom was conquered by the Mauryan empire well beforehand many years ago, and the Mauryan empire was to the West of Kalinga kingdom.
3. You say that the Dongli was "Around Nepal", yet the Dongli was described to be far to the East of the Yuezhi, so how could the Da Yuezhi be in Nepal?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...hMigrations.jpg/280px-Yueh-ChihMigrations.jpg
4. You also contradict yourself.
Tiaozhi was said to be conquered by Anxi.
You say Tiaozhi was the Rameswaram peninsula and Anxi was the Kalinga kingdom.
The Kalinga kingdom didn't conquer the Rameswaram peninsula.
The Pandyan kingdom had the Rameswaram peninsula, but you say the Pandyan kingdom was Daqin, rather than Anxi.
Ergo your claims contradict each other.
5. You claim Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin and the Da Yuezhi was in Nepal. Yet the Tianzhu was described to be East of the Yuezhi, how is the Ganges Basin to the East of Nepal?
6. In summary, you claim Tianzhu is the Ganges Basin. But the Dongli was described to be East of Tianzhu, yet you say the Dongli is in South Tibet which is not East of the Ganges Basin. The Yuezhi was described to be West of Tianzhu yet you say the Yuezhi is in Nepal which is not West of Tianzhu. Daqin/Tiaozhi/Anxi are all described to be far, FAR to the West of Tianzhu, yet you put Daqin/Tiaozhi/Anxi to be directly South of the Ganges Basin.

Le Hoang, you also ignored Kashgar. 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).

The Hanshu says Anxi is West of Kashgar. You claim Anxi is the Kalinga kingdom, but that is EAST of Kashgar, not West.
The Hanshu says Tiaozhi is West of Kashgar. You claim Tiaozhi is the Rameswaram peninsula, which is EAST of Kashgar, not West.
Because the Hanshu says Anxi is West of Kashgar, then Daqin is West of Kashgar too because Daqin is West of Anxi. Yet you say Daqin means the Pandyan Kingdom, which is not West of Kashgar.
I suspect Le Hoang is going to deny where Kashgar is and make a new region for it, just like Da Yuezhi.

Also, the Han Shu states:
“[to the northwest of the state of Xiuxun] is a distance of 920 li [383 km]to the state of Dayuan, and 1,610 li [669 km]to the west, the the Da Yuezhi.
Ergo the Da Yuezhi is further West than Dayuan, and Dayuan was already described to be West of Kashgar. You claim the Da Yuezhi is in Nepal, is Nepal West of Kashgar? No, it is not.

 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#64
... By the time of Han explorer Gan Ying, the Kalinga kingdom was conquered by the Mauryan empire well beforehand many years ago, and the Mauryan empire was to the West of Kalinga kingdom ...
Really?Perharp you have never read anything about Mauryan empire.
Maurya Empire - Wikipedia
Mauryan empire was collapsed many years before travel of Zhang Qian(130 - 110BC).However,your information supported idea that Anxi could built in old Maurya because another name of Mauryan empire is Peafowl empire.It may be a strong argument because there were few big kingdom or empire called themshelves countries by name of a bird species(like Tiaozhi,a part of Anxi).Thank you very much.Kalinga became independent from 2nd century BC.They even attacked many other countries.
Hathigumpha inscription - Wikipedia
You used modern map for ancient descriptions while ancient Chinese didn't have many experiences in travel and distance calculation.We can see that by distance from well-known places in Hou Hanshu:
Yutian(Khotan) to Liuzhong(Lukchun) : in ancient text: 5300 li = 2194 km; real distance at present = 976 km.(around 1218 km shorter ancient calculation)
Yutian(Khotan) to Louyang : Hou Hanshu: 11 700 li = 4843.8 km;real distance = 2931 km( around 1912 km shorter)
Jumi(Keriya) to Liuzhong: Hou Hanshu: 4900 li = 2028 km;real distance = 888.4km(1140 km shorter)
Jumi(Keriya) to Louyang: Hou Hanshu: 12 800 li = 5300 km;real distance = 2777 km(2522 km shorter)
It was very clear that ancient Chinese went around desert and mountain areas and made results very differents from now.
 
Feb 2011
6,233
#65
Le Hoang, you just proved that by the time of Gan Ying, Kalinga kingdom was conquered by the Mauryan empire long ago.
However, you say Kalinga kingdom was conquered by a power to the East of the Kalinga Kingdom, Mauryan empire is to West of the Kalinga Kingdom, ergo your interpretation of the Hou Han Shu is wrong.
You say Kalinga kingdom was independent afterwards, yet this meant Kalinga could not be Tiaozhi as you say, because when the CHinese explorers came visiting Tiaozhi was not independent but conquered by Anxi. Ergo you are wrong to say that Kalinga is Tiaozhi, because Kalinga was independent as you admitted, whereas Tiaozhi was not. And when Kalinga was conquered, the conquerors came from the West not the East, whereas the conquerors of Tiaozhi came from its East.

Yutian(Khotan) to Liuzhong(Lukchun) : in ancient text: 5300 li = 2194 km; real distance at present = 976 km.(around 1218 km shorter ancient calculation)
Yutian(Khotan) to Louyang : Hou Hanshu: 11 700 li = 4843.8 km;real distance = 2931 km( around 1912 km shorter)
Jumi(Keriya) to Liuzhong: Hou Hanshu: 4900 li = 2028 km;real distance = 888.4km(1140 km shorter)
Jumi(Keriya) to Louyang: Hou Hanshu: 12 800 li = 5300 km;real distance = 2777 km(2522 km shorter)
Le Hoang was incorrect in claiming that the distance from Khotan to Luoyang was 2931 km. It is in fact 4024.7km, compared to 4843.8 km in the HSS
luoyang to khotan - Google Search
Le Hoang was incorrect in claiming that the distance from Keriya to Luoyang was 2777 km, it's in fact 3449.2 km, compared to 5300 km in the HHS
keriya to luoyang distance - Google Search
So I wouldn't be surprised if Le Hoang got the distances from Khotan wrong as well.
On the other hand, no matter whether the ancient Chinese got the exact distance wrong (and this may simply be because they used a different road), they still got the relevant parts right as far as this discussion is concerned:
The ancient text was correct that Khotan was West of Lukchun
The ancient text was correct that Khotan was West of Luoyang
The ancient text was correct that Keriya was West of Liuzhong
The ancient text was correct that Keriya was West of Luoyang
Ergo even though the exact distance between countries might be recorded wrongly, the cardinal direction of which country is relative to other countries are generally correct.

Ergo, the ancient text was correct when it says that the DaYueZhi was West of Kashgar, so when Le Hoang claimed that DaYueZhi was in Nepal, Le Hoang was wrong because Nepal was certainly not West of Kashgar.
Likewise, Dongli was claimed to be Southeast of Tianzhu, so when Le Hoang claimed that DongLi was around Nepal and that Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin, Le Hoang couldn't be correct because Nepal is definitely not Southeast of the Ganges Basin, but directly North of the Ganges Basin.

And because the DaYuezhi Was West of Kashgar, then Anxi/Daqin/Tiaozhi but be even further West of Kashgar because they were all described to be West of the DaYuezhi.
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).

But Le Hoang ignores all this by saying that Han geographers are wrong, using this excuse to justify why his interpretations of Anxi/Daqin/Tiaozhi/Yuezhi are in India (based on local wildlife) even though these states were described by the HouHanShu to be West of Kashgar, which does not correspond with Le Hoang's interpretations.

So in summary, some of the wildlife described for Tiaozhi exists in Rameswaram Peninsula, so Le Hoang thinks Tiaozhi is in the Rameswaram Peninsula, and Daqin/Anxi/Yuezhi must be in India/Nepal in order to force-fit this narrative. The fact that the description of the cardinal direction of these countries is explained away by claiming that Han geographers are wrong. OK, Le Hoang, thinks that Han geographers were wrong that Tiaozhi was West of Anxi, Han geographers were wrong that Anxi was West of Yuezhi, Han geographers were wrong that Yuezhi was West of Kashgar, BUT Han geographers were right about Tiaozhi's wildlife? And not even all the wildlife listed matches with that in South India anyways. He really thinks Han geographers got something as basic as the cardinal direction of the country wrong, but somehow got the information on the country's local wildlife as correct? That's like knowing calculus without knowing algebra. This is just shameless cherry-picking to an extreme degree.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#66
Le Hoang was incorrect in claiming that the distance from Khotan to Luoyang was 2931 km. It is in fact 4024.7km, compared to 4843.8 km in the HSS
luoyang to khotan - Google Search
Le Hoang was incorrect in claiming that the distance from Keriya to Luoyang was 2777 km, it's in fact 3449.2 km, compared to 5300 km in the HHS
keriya to luoyang distance - Google Search
Hackneye tried to hide a half of truth.He supported distance in car road while ancient Chinese didn't know them.
Here are real distance by straight line:
Distance between Khotan, Hotan, Tân Cương, Trung Quốc and Luoyang, Hà Nam, Trung Quốc, (World)
Khotan to Louyang: 2930.84 km
Distance between Keriya, Hotan, Tân Cương, Trung Quốc and Luoyang, Hà Nam, Trung Quốc, (World)
Keriya to Louyang:2776.73 km
Moreover,she is pretending don't know that even if we calculate by car road ,distance from Keriya to Louyang still very different from real distance...it's in fact 3449.2 km, compared to 5300 km in the HHS...2850 km longer than modern car road although if you go on your feet ,you really save time because you could pass very high mountain and
use boat to pass rivers while cars can't do that.So if we think about historical aspect,ancient road could close with straight line
 
Feb 2011
6,233
#67
Even modern day distances measure by road, why do Le Hoang think ancient Chinese are capable of measuring the distance between cities in a straight line by airplane flightpath :) Le Hoang thinks Han dynasty is advanced enough to have airplanes?

Again, Le Hoang is pretending that just because they got the exact distance wrong, somehow means they got the cardinal direction wrong. Except they didn't.

Le Hoang is tossing smokescreens and ignoring the critical part of what I said:

The ancient text was correct that Khotan was West of Lukchun
The ancient text was correct that Khotan was West of Luoyang
The ancient text was correct that Keriya was West of Liuzhong
The ancient text was correct that Keriya was West of Luoyang
Ergo even though the exact distance between countries might be recorded wrongly, the cardinal direction of which country is relative to other countries are generally correct.
Ergo, the ancient text was correct when it says that the DaYueZhi was West of Kashgar, so when Le Hoang claimed that DaYueZhi was in Nepal, Le Hoang was wrong because Nepal was certainly not West of Kashgar.
Likewise, Dongli was claimed to be Southeast of Tianzhu, so when Le Hoang claimed that DongLi was around Nepal and that Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin, Le Hoang couldn't be correct because Nepal is definitely not Southeast of the Ganges Basin, but directly North of the Ganges Basin.

In summary, if Le Hoang thinks the Han didn't know the exact distance between city A and city B, then the Han didn't know whether city A is West of city B. So it's basically a smokescreen to hide the fact, but not even school-children would think that.

On the other hand, if Han geographers really did get something as basic as the cardinal geographgy of a region to be wrong, then it's almost guaranteed that they got more specific things wrong like the regions humidity/wildlife/environment, and the descriptions which was recorded don't really match with Le Hoang's thesis anyway even if they were correct. Again, it's just shameless cherry picking from Le Hoang.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
6,233
#68
Also, Le Hoang, starting from post 28 you used distances between places as a way to justify your thesis. However, you now admit that Hou Han Shu could be wrong in recording the distances between places, so you need to retract those previous argument of yours. All I did was to use the book as a way to show whether a place is West or East of other places. Le Hoang, you are the one who used the exact distance between places to justify your argument.
 
May 2012
302
Heaven
#69
Plinius recorded some distances were much shorter than car road in Roman empire,According to your theory,Roman must have aircraft to do that?:
Rusicade(Skidda) to Cirta(Constantine) : 48 Roman miles = 71 km;straight line = 61 km; car road = 87,8 km.
Google Maps
Cyrene(Shahhat) to Ammonium(Siwa) : 400 Roman miles = 592 km;straight line = 530 km;car road = 910 km.
Google Maps
 
Feb 2011
6,233
#70
Le Hoang, you say Han geographers can get the distance between cities wrong, so why can't Roman geographers? Also Pliny said tons on the distances between places, and you picked the two that you needed and discarded the rest, how is that not cherry-picking?

But it is notorious that the figures in Pliny's text are often erroneous. For example, the very passage referred to gives the distance from the Hydaspes to the Hyphasis as 390 Roman miles, which is wildly wrong. It is rash, therefore, to rely on the figures in Pliny's text as we possess it. -The Early History of India from 600 BC to the Muhammadan Conquest

Also, Le Hoang says this :If we place Sibin in Chidambaram,it is very logical.A river is Kaveri river, Chidambaram to Pamban is 241 km in flight distance and around 390 - 400 km on sea road.So Yuluo is Pamban or some places near it.
The recorded distance from Susa to Yuluo as you admit is 399 km, not 241 km which is the flight distance. So Le Hoang, why use ground distance when it suits you, but flight distance at other times when it suits you? Pick one and stick with it, you are shamelessly moving the goalpost back and forth here.

On the other hand, Le Hoang admits that Han geographers could be wrong in regards to the distance in kilometers between far-away places.... in an attempt to discredit Han geographic accounts of the DIRECTION of states (ie West of Kashgar, Southeast of Tianzhu, West of Yuezhi, etc, etc....), except Han geographers got the direction of states correct but he ignores that.
But who is the only one in this thread to justify their pet theory using the recorded distance provided by Han geographers? Le Hoang, not anyone else. He did this starting in post 28.

Le Hoang, do you deny saying this in post 28?:
In fact,from Merv(Margiana) to Herat is only 368 km,less than a quarter distance of Watson.
From Susa to Maysan of Characen Spasinou only 111 km nearly a quarter distance of Watson,too.

Le Hoang, do you deny saying this in post 35?:
If we place Sibin in Chidambaram,it is very logical.A river is Kaveri river, Chidambaram to Pamban is 241 km in flight distance and around 390 - 400 km on sea road.So Yuluo is Pamban or some places near it.

Le Hoang, do you deny saying this in post 40?:
From Pamban to Rewa district around 1710 km in straight line(2400 - 2500 km in road for horse = 60 horse day)


Now Le Hoang, why do you in post 64 say that Han geographers were wrong in regards to the distance between places? Because their description about the DIRECTION (not distance) of cities don't agree with you? Then maybe you should retract your pet theories because your 'evidence' rely on those distances given by Han geographers. Why do you use those recorded numbers when you admit that they can be wrong? You are the only one here using these recorded numbers as 'evidence'.

So you are committing a number of fallacies here, I will name a couple:

^I use this because your argument regarding Han geographers being wrong about distance between places only negatively impact YOUR argument, my argument do not depend on whether the Han geographers were right or wrong in this regard.


^You treat Han geographer's recorded distance as distance on the ground when it suits you, and later on treat it as flight distance when it suits you. The descriptions that Han explorers made of different states are determined to be right or wrong in accordance to how much the descriptions fit your narrative, rather than how likely they were to be right/wrong as according to the context of their situation. You argue that Han geographers were wrong about whether a place was West or East from other places, but you act as if they correctly determined the specific distance in kilometers between two different places (whenever it suits your argument [post 28, 35, 40], that is). That's like knowing how to do calculus without knowing how to do basic algebra. Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Likes: No Bias FTW

Similar History Discussions