Why did only Asian based countries defeat the Mongol invasions?

Feb 2011
1,018
#61
Legionnarrious is the one of a few Korean I found in this site. I know him in another history forum in Korea. Him, me, Swinburne and maybe fox are certainly Korean.
Why is it that you return, time and time again, to this idyllic idea that Koreans are incapable of nationalist revisionism, and that whenever a Korean engages in it, he is "not Korean?" You've been given hard evidence of Korean nationalist revisionism from prominent Korean scholars. You simply deny whatever is thrown at you, as though Koreans are the ultimate victims of a world-wide conspiracy to frame them for what they didn't do.

I can talk him. He gave you examples of epitaphs of Korean traiters for Tang. It said they mentioned definition of their origin as Samhan. These epitaphs were founded in Tang period.
Yes, and only a moderate measure of critical thinking is required to see that the epitah of a Goguryeo "traitor" family is no proof of the Three Kingdoms being "Samhan" in identity.

Another example is Japanese historical record like Nihonshoki. This books written by that three Kingdoms as Samhan. I remember Legionnarrious said like that and I said you like that. That is enough refutations against your personal insistance, That means contemporary neighbours called Three kingdoms as Samhan. Additionally, your Samhan identity opinion were refuted by both Japanese and Korean scholars, correctly, geneticists and anthropologists. I want to keep this problem in here, But you know these are banning mention of that. So that is all. Just stop it
First, the oldest Japanese history records have actual names for the Three Kingdoms - ones that differ from the Korean versions, even. For example, Baekje was called Kudara by the Japanese, while Goguryeo was called Koma.

Second, exonyms are highly conservative, such that earlier terms for countries tend to survive even when those states are gone. The Russians, for example, still use the term Китай Kitay for the PRC, as though China was still the land of Khitans. The Japanese were in contact with the earlier Samhan, so for them to conserve the term Samhan for describing Korea even during the Three Kingdoms period is not at all informative.

Third, genetics is banned on historum because they are frequently used incorrectly to make arguments about history. In this case, the issue is language and identity - genetics are not even relevant.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
94
Melbourne
#62
Can we just stop talking about nationalism here??

Especially some of Chinese user keep talking about Korean nationalism that don't exitst in this forum.

If you guys see Korean nationalists, then complain it there. Not here.
 
Jul 2014
94
Melbourne
#63
Its constantly claimed by Koreans on this forum that Koreans making ridiculous ultra-nationalist claims are non-Koreans in disguise. Its convenient how everyone who sounds ridiculous gets turned into a non-Korean. (only when they say it in English)

AltaicKorean earlier told me this article was nonsense written by Japanese people with an agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_nationalist_historiography

http://historum.com/asian-history/8...zation-theory-6.html#post2101595?postcount=52

Lets see what real non-nationalist Korean historians themselves said, in books published at well known western universities, about Korean nationalist historians. Oh wait, is someone going to claim they are Chinese in disguise?

Title: Constructing "Korean" Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-formation Theories

Author Hyung Il Pai

Publisher Harvard Univ Asia Center, 2000

https://books.google.com/books?id=QxztLeLoVkQC



https://books.google.com/books?id=QxztLeLoVkQC&pg=PA250#v=onepage&q&f=false



https://books.google.com/books?id=QxztLeLoVkQC&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q&f=false



https://books.google.com/books?id=QxztLeLoVkQC&pg=PA252#v=onepage&q&f=false



https://books.google.com/books?id=QxztLeLoVkQC&pg=PA254#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Pulham theory

https://books.google.com/books?id=QxztLeLoVkQC&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy

Author Gi-Wook Shin

Publisher Stanford University Press, 2006

https://books.google.com/books?id=nNc2AzJmwPoC



https://books.google.com/books?id=nNc2AzJmwPoC&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false



https://books.google.com/books?id=nNc2AzJmwPoC&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q&f=false



3. 영국인의 선조는 한국인 (Koreans are the Ancesters of English People)

https://web.archive.org/web/20010424221455/http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~kbyon/culture/sanggo.htm


While Korean nationalists were busy trying to aggrandize their past and claim Koreans were the origin of world culture, Chinese people in China belonging to Yigupai (Doubting Antiquity School) were openly attacking and doubting ancient Chinese history, claiming that the ancient classics and ancient Chinese histories were fakes and none of it happened and that the Shang didn't exist.

And it turns out they were wrong- western scholars pointed out that these Yigupai people were proven wrong by archeological evidence. When Oracle bone records were deciphered, they prove that the ancient Chinese classics and histories were largely correct and real and Shang dynasty was real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Antiquity_School#Criticism

Chinese History: A Manual - Endymion Porter Wilkinson - Google Books

Oracle Bone

Early Chinese Religion: Part One: Shang Through Han (1250 BC-220 AD) (2 Vols) - Google Books


Is there any Korean users claiming those here??

And please don't just link books.
Explain which part of book says how it works. Please give users specifically.
Then I'll check those part in library if books exist there.

If you bring Korean nationlism here,
I also can bring Chinese nationlism here either.

But I really don't want to do because I know well that this is the waste of time.

I wish you also know that.
 
Jul 2014
94
Melbourne
#64
First, the oldest Japanese history records have actual names for the Three Kingdoms - ones that differ from the Korean versions, even. For example, Baekje was called Kudara by the Japanese, while Goguryeo was called Koma.
I don't think that's their ""actual"" name.
Modern Chinese also call many European countries different name.
We don't know why Japanese at that time called differently but that doesn't mean that those reflect real name.


Their actual names are written on many of Chinese and Korean records as you know.

And Samhan's identity may be more like nationality than ethenic group.

For example, Baekjae was a part of Samhan even if we all clearly know that those are from north. Baekjae successfully left their records because they eventually succeeded to become main country whereas most of Samhan countries couldn't so we don't know what type of people were exactly.
Part of Gaya also came down from north but we didn't even know that until we found tombs and Buyoe's stuff. Because they couldn't leave any records about themselves.

Furthermore,
I'm telling the fact only (There is no my opinion here).
Mohe was a part of Goguryo. But from the begining to the end of Goguryo, Mohe and Goguryo have different identity very strongly.
But at least for the last couple of hundreds years of Goguryo, They considered themselves Samhan ( - No matter who they are).
 
Feb 2011
1,018
#65
I don't think that's their ""actual"" name.
Modern Chinese also call many European countries different name.
We don't know why Japanese at that time called differently but that doesn't mean that those reflect real name.


Their actual names are written on many of Chinese and Korean records as you know.

And Samhan's identity may be more like nationality than ethenic group.

For example, Baekjae was a part of Samhan even if we all clearly know that those are from north. Baekjae successfully left their records because they eventually succeeded to become main country whereas most of Samhan countries couldn't so we don't know what type of people were exactly.
Part of Gaya also came down from north but we didn't even know that until we found tombs and Buyoe's stuff. Because they couldn't leave any records about themselves.

Furthermore,
I'm telling the fact only (There is no my opinion here).
Mohe was a part of Goguryo. But from the begining to the end of Goguryo, Mohe and Goguryo have different identity very strongly.
But at least for the last couple of hundreds years of Goguryo, They considered themselves Samhan ( - No matter who they are).
There's no evidence for the bold statement. As I said above, a Goguryeo captive/traitor's tomb inscriptions designating himself as Samhan does not stand for the entire population of Goguryeo. Were it the case that Samhan identity was the mainstream identity of Goguryeo, then the Goguryeo elites and the bulk of their citizens ought to have considered themselves Samhan, and we'd have records of such in the texts.
 
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
#66
Legionnarious is welcome to join this thread. You do not have to speak for him. Last I remember, he only provided evidence that certain elites in Goguryeo considered themselves Samhan, which is hardly evidence that Goguryeo and Samhan shared the same identity, as Goguryeo never traced itself to Samhan in contemporary records. The latter practice of identifying Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla with Samhan was in the 12th century, by Goryeo scholars. In fact, the continued existence of Samhan identity under the rule of Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla indicates that Samhan identity was not necessarily wiped out by the advent of the Three Kingdoms.
I don't understand your logic. Why shouldn't a few members of Goguryeo nobility considering themselves Samhan, be an indication that the Goguryeo nobility were Samhan.

You keep adding a revisionist accusation into the equation. I feel this is making your reasoning biased. In a sense, you are simply confirming your own suspicions.

1. Samhan is in the southern tip of Korea.
2. Samhan finds its way into the Goguryeo nobility in the northern parts of Korea.
3. Therefore, Samhan invaded northern Korea.
4. Samhan is the dominant faction within the Goguryeo elite.

Also, the Samhan noble was called a traitor. Clearly this is evidence that he was not an outsider, because why would an outsider be expected to be loyal when things get rough and then be called a traitor.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
#67
I don't understand your logic. Why shouldn't a few members of Goguryeo nobility considering themselves Samhan, be an indication that the Goguryeo nobility were Samhan.
Because it's a logical fallacy: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization"]Hasty generalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Feb 2011
1,018
#68
1. Samhan is in the southern tip of Korea.
2. Samhan finds its way into the Goguryeo nobility in the northern parts of Korea.
3. Therefore, Samhan invaded northern Korea.
4. Samhan is the dominant faction within the Goguryeo elite.
Responding to this specifically:

1. Samhan was not in the southern tip of Korea, it was situated across central and southern Korea, and started off as a collective Chinese designation for that region.
2. There is actually no evidence that Samhan was used ethnically to designate Goguryeo nobility. Samhan was, after all, also a location.
3. There is no evidence that Samhan invaded northern Korea, but plenty of evidence for Manchurian polities invading Samhan. Buyeo was, after all, a Manchurian entity, and both Goguryeo and Baekje traced themselves to Buyeo, not Samhan.
4. See my post about hasty generalizations.