Roman history from non-Roman sources

May 2012
302
Heaven
#71
Here is argument of hackneye:
- Wrong calculation is normal in ancient time because they didn't have airplane so can't know straight line.
However when i supported proofs that in fact,there was good distance near to straight line,she tried to run out.Why I picked good distance?Because it showed that ancient people didn't need your plane to calculate straight line,you saw that but you try to hide that.Plinius is a polymath,not your god Watson so he can't exact in all information.However,no one can't deny that he collected many good informations among wrong informations.For example,he claimed that Eastern Malay(Chryse) was an promontory(a kind of peninsula) and later reminded that it is a paeninsula.He defined existent of a Roman base in south Arabia(Yemen) while inscription of Baraqish was found in 1977 by historian Costa only.
Anyway,she can't deny that ancient people had ideas about straight line and normal road.
 
Feb 2011
6,381
#72
Le Hoang, you picked two examples of distances provided by Pliny... out of how many potential examples in which Pliny was wrong?

It's called cherry-picking. Let's get this straight, when it suited you, you claim ancient geographers were wrong in calculating distance between places, but when I say it, you accuse me of it. Well that's not hypocritical at all.

But since you now switched your stance (again) and think ancient geographers were correct, then we are back where we began:
1. Le Hoang claims that the Da Yuezhi is in Nepal. This is contrary to what the ancient geographers said as the Da Yuezhi was described to be West of Kashgar and Nepal is not:
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). -Weilue​
2. Le Hoang claims that Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin and Dongli was around Nepal, yet this is contrary to what the ancient geographers said as Dongli was described to be Southeast of the Ganges Basin and Nepal is definitely NOT Southeast of the Ganges Basin
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). -Hou Han Su​
3. Le Hoang claims Daqin/Tiaozhi/Anxi are in Southern India but this is contrary to what the ancient geographers said as Daqin/Tiaozhi/Anxi was described to be West of Da Yuezhi and the Da Yuezhi were already described to be West of Kashgar, hence West of Southern India.
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. - Hou Han SHu​
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). -Hou Han Shu​
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... - Hou Han Shu​

And if Le Hoang thinks ancient geographers were wrong about distance measurements, then he should retract his personal theories which are based on the distance measurements made by ancient geographers.
Like what he said 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.

Or what he said 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.

Or what he said in post 40?:
From Pamban to Rewa district around 1710 km in straight line(2400 - 2500 km in road for horse = 60 horse day)


So as far as this discussion is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the ancient geographers were right or wrong, either way Le Hoang is still wrong because he talked himself into a pit.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#73
And if Le Hoang thinks ancient geographers were wrong about distance measurements, then he should retract his personal theories which are based on the distance measurements made by ancient geographers.
1.You are throwing words to my mouth.I said that distances in ancient times were often longer than straight line,some distances seemed be so different because they can't find out best way to move from A to B.For instance,distances in desert.Your link can't help you anything.Author used their deduction to predict places of Plinius instead of his description.I used distances from cities that were defined by inscriptions or buildings are found in modern time. What can help us match Hypasis river of Plinius is Beas River?What can help us match Hydapes river of Plinius is Jhelum river while ancient India had a very complex river systems.Writers was easy to confused rivers at here,even if he or she was Indian author.Morever,It is very clear that Plinius adopted distances from Diognetus and Baeton than by himself collection but your book accused all errors for Plinius and all accuracies must belong to Greek author although Roman descriptions were often more simple and exact than Greek writers.However,you are anti-Roman so in your view,almost Roman writers were so ignorant and almost Greek writers were so intelligent.
Odometer - Wikipedia
2.About calculation and measure in ancient time,you should see at here:
Bematist - Wikipedia
In common,ancient Chinese could calculate with deviation between 20 - 30 percent for around 2-3,000 li and 40 - 50 percent for 10,000 li or larger so places of Watson can't be match with descriptions of Hou Hanshu.
 
Feb 2011
6,381
#74
And if Le Hoang thinks ancient geographers were wrong about distance measurements, then he should retract his personal theories which are based on the distance measurements made by ancient geographers.
1.You are throwing words to my mouth.I said that distances in ancient times were often longer than straight line,some distances seemed be so different because they can't find out best way to move from A to B.For instance,distances in desert.Your link can't help you anything.Author used their deduction to predict places of Plinius instead of his description.I used distances from cities that were defined by inscriptions or buildings are found in modern time. What can help us match Hypasis river of Plinius is Beas River?What can help us match Hydapes river of Plinius is Jhelum river while ancient India had a very complex river systems.Writers was easy to confused rivers at here,even if he or she was Indian author.Morever,It is very clear that Plinius adopted distances from Diognetus and Baeton than by himself collection but your book accused all errors for Plinius and all accuracies must belong to Greek author although Roman descriptions were often more simple and exact than Greek writers.However,you are anti-Roman so in your view,almost Roman writers were so ignorant and almost Greek writers were so intelligent.
Odometer - Wikipedia
2.About calculation and measure in ancient time,you should see at here:
Bematist - Wikipedia
In common,ancient Chinese could calculate with deviation between 20 - 30 percent for around 2-3,000 li and 40 - 50 percent for 10,000 li or larger so places of Watson can't be match with descriptions of Hou Hanshu.
First you say that distance isn't in a straight line, and then you say that distance is in a straight line, now you say distance isn't a straight line again. You are using whatever distance that suits you, and all it does it contradict your own theories.
My conclusions depend on recorded direction, not distance. It is your conclusions that actually use recorded distance, and cherry-picked ones in which case you interpret the distance as straight/non-straight lines as you see fit.

For instance, Le Hoang says: I said that distances in ancient times were often longer than straight line,some distances seemed be so different because they can't find out best way to move from A to B
How is that any different from what I said? Yet when I said it you say the opposite in post 71: [Hackneyed says] wrong calculation is normal in ancient time because they didn't have airplane so can't know straight line. However when i supported proofs that in fact,there was good distance near to straight line,she tried to run out.

Le Hoang, do you deny saying this or statement like this?:
From Pamban to Rewa district around 1710 km in straight line(2400 - 2500 km in road for horse = 60 horse day)
You used statements like the above as proof, yet now you say "ancient times were often longer than straight line,some distances seemed be so different because they can't find out best way to move from A to B."
Your thesis depends on changing goalposts.

Back to the case in point:
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 [cardinal direction] right as far as this discussion is concerned. Le Hoang gave examples of how Chinese got the distance wrong for Khotan/Lukchun/Luoyang/Keriya/Liuzhong, but now he's saying that this is simply because they were not traveling in a straight line [of course when I used that same exact premise, he accused me of saying exactly what he's saying now]. Whatever the case may be, they still got the cardinal direction of these places correct:
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 don't even know whether these places were West or East of Central Asia, but somehow got the information on the country's local wildlife as correct? That's like knowing calculus without knowing how to count. This is just shameless cherry-picking to an extreme degree.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#75
Hackneye used only deduction to claim about direction.It could be right on theory with countries has wide shap like Bulgaria or Turkey but it is very different in real life if nations have long shape.C in West of B,B in West of A doesn't mean C in West of A.Here is a simple example in map of Caucasus region in 1989:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...al_en.svg/800px-Caucasus-political_en.svg.png
Georgia is in West of Kabardino - Balkaria.Wrong or Right?
Armenia is in West of Georgia.Wrong or Right?
Iran is in West of Armenia.Wrong or Right?

Now,How could you compare direction of Karbadino - Balkaria and Iran?
I said that ancient author like Plinius could calculate straight line with high accuracy but not Han author but you accuse me that it must be right for all ancient author.Roman used knowledges about angle and gnomon to calculate far distances in straight line but Han Dynasty didn't know them.Chinese can do that only from Tang or Song Dynasty when they had good basic knowledges about geometry.
 
Feb 2011
6,381
#76
Le Hoang claims Han geographers are wrong in calculating distance, but he used distance recorded from Han texts to back up his statement. His statements from Pliny are hence a smokebomb meant to mislead, because Le Hoang's premise for his argument came from Han texts, not Roman texts:
And if Le Hoang thinks the Han were inaccurate about distance measurements, then he should retract his personal theories which are based on the distance measurements recorded by Han chroniclers.
Like what he said 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.

Or what he said 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.

Or what he said in post 40?:
From Pamban to Rewa district around 1710 km in straight line(2400 - 2500 km in road for horse = 60 horse day)


^And how do Le Hoang defend these statements? By giving a text from Pliny and claiming how correct Pliny is, but the quotes from above was not Le Hoang quoting from Pliny, it was Le Hoang quoting from Han chroniclers. Ergo Le Hoang used Pliny as a smokebomb. Le Hoang made his conclusions based off of the distance measurements made by Han chroniclers, so if Le Hoang thinks Han chroniclers were inaccurate in measuring distance, then Le Hoang should dismiss what he said because it's based off of the very statements that he admitted to as inaccurate, as can be seen by his post 28, 35, and 40.

Le Hoang is also tossing smokescreens
1. Wether Georgia is West of Kabardino is irrelevant. Le Hoang mentioning this is a smokebomb that have nothing to do with anything. Le Hoang's claim is that Da YueZhi is in Nepal, which have nothing to do with Georgia's location in regards to Kabardino. What's relevant is that Da Yuezhi was recorded to be West of Kashgar. Kashgar is a city, a dot on a world map, so when people say Da Yuezhi is "West of Kashgar", there is nothing ambivalent about it. Ergo Le Hoang is wrong when he claimed that the Da Yuezh were in Nepal, because Nepal is not West of Kashgar.
2. Wether Armenia is West of Georgia is irrelevant. Le Hoang mentioning this is a smokebomb that have nothing to do with anything. Le Hoang's claim is that Dongli is around Nepal while Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin, which have nothing to do with Armenia's location in regards to Georgia. What's relevant is that Dongli was recorded to be Southeast of Tianzhu, whereas according to Le Hoang's claim Dongli would be recorded in the North, not far Southeast. Ergo Le Hoang is wrong, and his claims about irrelevant countries is a smoke bomb meant to mislead.
3. Whether Iran is West of Armenia is irrelevant. What's relevant was that the HouHanShu recorded that Daqin/Anxi/Tianzhu are West of the Dayuezhi and the Dayuezhi were West of Kashgar, ergo Daqin/Anxi/Tianzhu would be even further West of Kashgar. Yet Le Hoang claim these places to be in Western or Southern India, which is not in the right direction as what was recorded.

Ergo Le Hoang gave a list of irrelevant smokescreens that's designed to mislead.

What matters is the location of Kashgar:


The DaYuezhi was recorded to be West of Kashgar, Anxi was recorded to be west of Da Yuezhi, Tianzhu/Daqin was recorded to be West of Anxi (proof in post 72). If the direction between these states were as ambivalent as Le Hoang paints, then why did Han chroniclers paint them as un-ambivalent? So when Le Hoang claimed DaYuezhi was in Nepal, he was wrong because Nepal is not West of Kashgar. When Le Hoang claimed Daqin/Anxi/Tianzhu are in South India, he was wrong in because they are not West of Kashgar, but South. Instead of admitting it, he is throwing smokebombs asking whether Armenia is West of Georgia, amongst others, but none of those places are Kashgar. In fact he is tossing a list of countries, whereas Kashgar is a city. Ergo his smokebombs are irrelevant to the ancient texts and irrelevant to the discussion.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions