Why did only Asian based countries defeat the Mongol invasions?

Jan 2015
433
Northern City
#71
Sui and Tang records, when speaking of famous people from Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla, do not call them Samhan. How do you explain this when, by your logic, their identity was "Samhan?" The same goes for Japanese records.
The Samguk Sagi states that Mahan became Goguryeo. Do you have records to contradict this?

I think you didn't answer this question, even though it was my fault you didn't see it. Do you have a counter-sample that is superior and contradicts the "small" sample?
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
#72
The Samguk Sagi states that Mahan became Goguryeo. Do you have records to contradict this?
Sure. The Wei Shu, which predates Samguk Sagi by five hundred years and was contemporary to Goguryeo's actual existence, had the following to say about Goguryeo's founding:

"Goguryeo was founded by the Fuyu, who called their ancestor Zhu Meng. Zhu Meng's mother was a daughter of Hebo."

The record goes on to detail the founding legend of Goguryeo. No mention is made of Goguryeo being founded by Mahan.
 
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
#73
Sure. The Wei Shu, which predates Samguk Sagi by five hundred years and was contemporary to Goguryeo's actual existence, had the following to say about Goguryeo's founding:

"Goguryeo was founded by the Fuyu, who called their ancestor Zhu Meng. Zhu Meng's mother was a daughter of Hebo."

The record goes on to detail the founding legend of Goguryeo. No mention is made of Goguryeo being founded by Mahan.
"No mention", is not a contradiction. It doesn't count as a contradiction.
 
Feb 2011
1,018
#74
"No mention", is not a contradiction. It doesn't count as a contradiction.
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No record is going to say "Goguryeo was not founded by Mahan." No historian is obligated to record a negative.

What the above shows is simply that, at the time of Goguryeo's apex as a state, they were seen as being founded by Buyeo people. In fact, the Buyeo narrative has other evidence going for it having to do with archaeology, etymology, and linguistics, but they are too detailed to delve into here.

Suffice to say, the mainstream view about Goguryeo is that the state was founded by Buyeo people. The idea that it was founded by Samhan people is a minority view.
 
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
#75
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No record is going to say "Goguryeo was not founded by Mahan." No historian is obligated to record a negative.

What the above shows is simply that, at the time of Goguryeo's apex as a state, they were seen as being founded by Buyeo people. In fact, the Buyeo narrative has other evidence going for it having to do with archaeology, etymology, and linguistics, but they are too detailed to delve into here.

Suffice to say, the mainstream view about Goguryeo is that the state was founded by Buyeo people. The idea that it was founded by Samhan people is a minority view.
I am still not satisfied with your answer that there's been a hasty generalization made. You must show there is a superior sample that contradicts the "small" sample.

It's possible that the Samhan people were Buyeo people.

A contradiction is what I'm asking for, not necessarily a "negative".
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
#76
I am still not satisfied with your answer that there's been a hasty generalization made. You must show there is a superior sample that contradicts the "small" sample.

It's possible that the Samhan people were Buyeo people.

A contradiction is what I'm asking for, not necessarily a "negative".
You first need to demonstrate that Samhan was an ethnic designation. Now that I've read further into it, there is actually no contradiction, because Samhan was simply a term for the region. A Goguryeo noble who lived in the capital at Pyongyang had every right to write Samhan on his tomb inscription, because that's where he came from, regardless of his ethnicity.

In fact, it was standard practice in ancient East Asia to write the region of your birth on your tomb. Chinese individuals regularly wrote that they were from Henan, Shandong, etc. Why not Samhan for a Goguryeo individual?
 
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
#77
You first need to demonstrate that Samhan was an ethnic designation. Now that I've read further into it, there is actually no contradiction, because Samhan was simply a term for the region. A Goguryeo noble who lived in the capital at Pyongyang had every right to write Samhan on his tomb inscription, because that's where he came from, regardless of his ethnicity.

In fact, it was standard practice in ancient East Asia to write the region of your birth on your tomb. Chinese individuals regularly wrote that they were from Henan, Shandong, etc. Why not Samhan for a Goguryeo individual?
It's an implied ethnic designation.
 
Mar 2019
52
Belgium
#80
The Crimean peninsula was long an integral part of Europe. The Greeks settled there and established colonies. The Romans established their rule over Crimea, the Germanic Goths ruled Crimea, and then the Byzantines ruled Crimea.

Crimea was the site where the Byzantines converted the Prince of Kiev, the ruler of all the Eastern Slavs to Orthodox Christianity.

Venice and Genoa both had colonies in Crimea and ruled the coastal areas and the city of Caffa (Feodosia). The black plague was spread by Mongol armies to Europe through Caffa.

The Genghisid Crimea Khanate used the Crimean peninsula and neighboring steppe areas in Ukraine as a base to launch massive, repeated raids for centuries against neighboring European states like Poland-Lithuania and captured millions of slaves for sale.

Yet Poland Lithuania could not destroy the Crimean Khanate. Europe was on the defense against the Ottomans and Crimeans most of the time, and except for the loss of Hungary, the Ottoman's possessions in the Balkans did not start to unravel until the 19th century.

The Crimean Khanate was not conquered and annexed until 1783 by Russia, a state which was always many times larger and more populous than Crimea yet it took centuries of slave raiding before they could put an end to the Khanate.



-Crimean was conquered and sacked many times between 1680 and 1783 by russian. In 1770 Crimean Khanate became a vassal state of Russia
- Ottoman Empire was stagnant since the battle of Lepante and began to decline for 1682 (after the defeat near Vienna). The only reason why ottoman possessions in the balkans didn't star to unravel until the 19th century is political. In the 18th century (mainly after the terrible Turkish defeat of austro Turkish was of 1718), the Ottoman Empire was really really weak and gradually became a puppet-buffer state of the two super power England and France against Russian expansion. Without the European great power protection, "Turkey" would have become a russian province since 1760s