Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Chinese invasion of Lhasa in 7th century did not exist
The following statement is false: "It is held in Tibetan tradition that after Songtsen Gampo died in AD 650, the Tang dynasty attacked and captured Lhasa.
At first I thought I learned something new, I had read books by the Dalai Lama and others but none talked about this Chinese invasion of Lhasa in the 7th century. But I soon realized that it cannot be true. The Tibetans themselves have never mentioned it. Take the “Key events in Tibetan history” a webpage on Freetibet.org for example, http://www.freetibet.org/about/key-dates nowhere is this invasion mentioned. If the Tibetans themselves don’t know it, such event simply did not exist. The Chinese do not know about this either.
A Chinese invasion that reached Lhasa in the 7th century was impossible, given the fact that from the time of King Songtsen Gampo to King Ralpacan, Tibet was militarily strong and dominated the region. The fact that Chinese emperor was compelled to married his daughter to King Songtsen Gampo and that later Chinese emperors in the Tang Dynasty had to pay tributes to the Tibetan King showed the strength of the Tibetan army. In addition to Tibet’s strong army the harsh terrain and severe weather also played significant roles in defense.
Three sources are used to back this questionable statement: 1. Charles Bell (1992). Tibet Past and Present. 2. Contemporary China Institute, Congress for Cultural Freedom (1960). The China quarterly, Issue 1. p. 88. Retrieved 2010-07-17. 3. Roger E. McCarthy Tears of the lotus: accounts of Tibetan resistance to the Chinese invasion, 1950-1962. I checked the sources. 1) On page 28 of Tibet Past and Present it says “Tibetan tradition records that after the death of Song-tsen Gam-po, which occurred about A.D. 650, the Chinese captured Lhasa.” 2) This source merely paraphrase the information provided by the 1st source. 3) This source reported the same information but added some color to it. It appears that the claim was derived from the 1st source Tibet Past and Present.
The author of Tibet Past and Present quoted the Tibetans but the Tibetans themselves were not (and are not) aware of such event themselves. Such false statement should not be included in the article.Tibetsnow (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please try to keep discussions in one place. I have replied to this where you first posted it at Talk:Lhasa#Chinese invasion of Lhasa in 7th century did not exist. Quigley (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can hypothesize, this invasion did exist. Please notice that Tibetsnow is referring all of his information from pro-Tibetan websites and pro-Tibetan historians. This is biased, as the Tibetans themselves would refuse to admit such an invasion due to their need to preserve their public image and avoid humiliation. Though none of Tibetsnow's references claim such an invasion, please take note that this event is not a key happening, and many historians do not consider it important. True, the Chinese have no written records of this invasion, but as any historian can do, we can easily predict that Tang did not record this invasion because they wanted to hide evidence of this incident, so that friendly relations with Tibet can continue. Besides, if even English historians are backing this theory, you cannot claim that this invasion is only supported by the Chinese themselves. The English have had a long standing influence in Tibet after their conquest of Burma, sending many exlorers into that region, even though they failed to conquer it. The English were very civilized at that time, so you can count on its historical records with 100% accuracy. Therefore, I say we should remove the extremely biased comment about the Tibetan historian denouncing the invasion. This invasion DID exist, whether the Tibetans accept it or not. Aslanofthecountryofnarnia (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I really don't think "The English were very civilized at that time, so you can count on its historical records with 100% accuracy" is a good argument at all. The British definitely had an agenda of their own at the time when Charles Bell wrote his book, as imperialism was still prevalent back then. Plus, being civilized does not necessarily equate writing good, objective histories. Generally speaking, asian studies in the West during Bell's time was very biased and crude, and therefore not very trustworthy. However, it has improved dramatically since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, people should try to check more recent scholarship to see if such invasion did take place or not. Also, Bell only mentioned the incident as according to a Tibetan tradition, without showing any other corroborating evidence. He did not specify what tradition it is, nor did he give the source of his information(he didn't provide any citation either). Consequently, we should be wary of his claim. Finally, the Tang and Tibet were not always on friendly terms. So there was really no need to hide any account of warfare between these two states. And, if the Tang did indeed capture Lhasa, how does hiding it helping to continue the good relations between the two sides? I doubt the Tibetans would forget such a terrible incident so easily. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
In return, I do not believe the preposterous term "terrible" should be applied the the above said invasion. What say you then, of the sack of Xian by the Tibetans during the An Lushan rebellion? Is that not utterly savage? Though Bell did not specify about the invasion, he mentioned it. That is the bottom line in historical accuracy. Their is no reason to lie about the invasion, since lying about it does not support any party in such a conflict. Due to the barbaric practices of the Tibetans themselves, I doubt Bell would have even had the oppurtunity to interview the local Tibetans. Note also that due to the poor leadership and the organization of the Tibetan government at that time, their own records and annals cannot be counted as reliable. Last of all, due to Songsten Gampo's hostile border ammasings during the Tang Dynasty, the latter empire has every right to invade if it feels that its neighbor is a threat to its own prosperity. In the end, history proves to us that the Tibetans were indeed a great threat to the thriving of the Chinese civilization, due to the savage Tibetan ransack of Xian during the An Lushan rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.145.199 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Wrong area statistics
Don't know if this has been touched on in the archives, but it strikes me as rather strange that an FA class article can have such an obviously erroneous statistic for the total area of Tang China in 633AD to be greater than its current area (11 million km2 vs. less than 10 million km2 today) - particularly since Tang China included neither Tibet nor Manchuria nor Inner Mongolia. Judging from the map I would guesstimate Tang China covering no more than 4 million km2 1812ahill (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I believe you make a good point here. I have looked over a couple articles and have found no sources even for the 11 million km2 estimate. I am not sure, but it seems it may come from Taagepera (whom awhile ago I read that his published work may have grossly exaggerated the sizes of certain Russian-Chinese empires, which led to some contention in the Largest empires article), but currently there is not way to check that, unless you order the work. While looking at least 25 different maps of the Tang Dynasty from the net, it seems its shape was most elongated, but thin, even if it annexed the lower half of Mongolia and or a little of Tibet, as a few to none exaggerated maps show, it could not have exceeded 8.2 million km2 at its greatest extent (this figure comes from 5.4 to 11, if averaged out. Though it which should not be done, but shown here for the purpose of being fair at most possible).
- The most detailed and probable accurate maps are in the Chinese language, which I found an interesting source on, I'm noting it here not for us using it as a source but, mainly to add or consider in the conversation. The first Chinese map (Tang is always green) shows maybe the lower and or upper parts where conquered, but in the KEY area it says those are borders to other empires (separate from Tang - maybe they gave some tribute), the larger one at the bottom of the page shows the yellow Tibet separate from the Tang, which I have found to be the biggest showing of the Tang Dynasty on a map that one can find on the net, that still looks to be around 8.2 million km2. You can view it here, 1.
- Unless we can find a reliable source for this new estimate, we have to stick to Turchin's estimate of 5.4 million km2. I have read that it was in around 700 AD (closer to the 5.4 million for 715 AD) when it was largest, but strangely it says for the 11 million km2 to be in 663 AD, thus it is OR and or SYN. Plus, it seems to me that this was a fairly new edit, as noted in the previous message as being odd. Also I think the previous message's guesstimate of 4 million km2 is very close to 5.4 million km2 anyway. So regardless of the guesstimate, UNDUE must be taken into account. Therefore, the reliable sourced material plus the majority of the maps show the Tang Dynasty to be around 5-8 million km2 at its greatest extent. New messages are welcomed, if need be.--Eirione (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the 11 million km2 is plausible because the Tang dynasty did conquer the eastern Göktürks and most of the western Göktürks [1], here is the size of the Turkic Khaganate
. The Tang had also established military government in former territories xueyantuo, which extended from Lake Baikal to the north, the Gobi Desert to the south, the Khingan Mountains to the east, and the Altay Mountains to the west [2]. Most of Korea was also under Tang control for 35 years.[3]
Actually, it would be extremely likely that the Tang Empire exceeded 11 million sq kilometers. In fact, from my research, the Tang at its largest extent reached exactly 15,235,377.14 sq kilometers, or 5,882,412 sq miles. They conquered all of present day China except Manchuria and Taiwan, they expanded into Central Asia and Afghanistan, they conquered all of Kashmir, and they subdued what is now French Indochina, Mongolia, and the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, it would be accurate to claim this area statistic as most correct, if not a tiny bit small. After all, all of these conquered territories were mentioned in the article, so why not add them onto the area statistics? By the way, I am currently working on creating a realistic map of the Tang Empire. When it is ready, I shall post a link on this page. Aslanofthecountryofnarnia (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Map
Are we sure this is accurate? See other maps at [4] and the one at [5]. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I am not sure this map should be used without an apporpriate description (in English) of what it shows (my guess would be 'influence of Chinese culture' or 'Suzerain states'). Obviously at first look here, it seems like all this land was 'owned' by the Tang (which is not right). 122.106.241.196 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think he's referring to the current map, but to [6]. Quite a shame that the details aren't translated of the the current one, it's such great quality and sourced too. Although, it is quite obvious what color is suppose to be the Tang. On another note, I'm also fond of this simpler sourced one and in English too. --Cold Season (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
A better map is needed here. Territory size of a Chinese dyansty tends to change over time during its rule. When Tang was at her strongest, her territory was bigger than the one shown in the current map. The map in the link given above by Cold Season (the current one link) is probably a better map, it's just that it's in Chinese. Someone should translte it. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- File:唐朝疆域（简）.png, with its various shaded areas and lines to indicate different relationships to the Tang, is too complex and contentious for the infobox. It's also more expansive than one sees in the sources even for the empire at its height – File:China, 742.svg is more representative (though still a bit too detailed for the infobox), and the current map (File:Tang Dynasty circa 700 CE.png is a fairly close approximation to that. Of course after 760 the territory was considerably smaller, and none of these maps shows that. Kanguole 09:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The map I am referring to File:唐朝疆域（简）.png, actually spells out the more stable part of Tang's territory and also indicates territories that are subjected to changes throughout Tang's rule (in areas such as modern day Mongolia and Xinjiang, this map also shows the years of occupation/control by the Tang and the type of administrative/governing system [probably in some kind of suzerain relationships with the Tang, and/or a protectorate under the Tang, and/or in any other kind of submissive relationship with the Tang] they were under). So it's a more representative map of the Tang. Tang at its height was certainly bigger than the map shown in the main article. Now, I am not claiming the map I am referring to is the perfect map, as it could also contain inaccurate information. But based on what I know, it is a pretty accurate map overall. So I am not sure what you mean by "It's also more expansive than one sees in the sources even for the empire at its height." Unfortunately, it will take some time to find a better map, if one can find one at all, on the internet. But, the map I am talking about is still better than the other maps listed here, as long as proper annotations and explanations (in English) are provided both on the map itself and also in the article, such as the different types of adminstrative systems the Tang used on its territories, the different kinds of controls, whether it's suzerainty, direct control, or any other kinds of controls. The definition of control and occupation of the territories and also the meanings and details of the various kinds/types of controls these territories were under can be very different during the Tang, when compared to the definitions and understandings of these things in the present-day (basically, the different understandings of the concept of sovereignty between the Tang and the present-day) and it would also be good to include that information and a good explanation of these issues in the main article while making references to the map. The infobox can be very complex and detailed, there is no reason why it can't be (not sure what you mean by too contentious for the infobox). If needed, one should include multiple, high quality maps to show the changes of territorial size throughout the Tang. The point is to give the readers the most accurate information possible. History is a complex subject, and there is no reason why one should try to simplify it, especially at the expense of good, more accurate information. But of course, it will take a lot of effort and time in order to make the changes I am talking about, and given this is wikipedia, someone could easily undo all that hard work. Nonetheless, if anyone out there who has the knowledge and ability, time, intent and energy, that person should definitely do it. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, the Tang certainly started to decline after the An Lushan rebellion in 755 AD. As for the Tang's territorial size in the later periods of her rule, I think if one looks carefully, the map I am talking about File:唐朝疆域（简）.png does indicate the changes of territorial size during Tang's decline, especially if one pays attention to the dates on the map in areas such as modern day Xinjiang. Again, I am not saying this map is perfect, as it could contain inaccurate information, even the dates themselves. However, this map is more representative of the Tang, is more accurate and does show more details than the other maps people have been putting forward, including the current map in the article itself. Of course, if it's a possiblility at all, having multiple, high quality maps of the Tang from different periods of the dynasty would be the best option. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The meaning of suzerainty/alliance/influence over various regions is still much debated by historians. These issues should certainly be discussed in the body of the article, but there is no room for such subtleties in the infobox. The map there should be fairly simple and based on clearly defined and uncontentious criteria. That means the area of direct administration by the Tang.
- The Tang did decline after 755, but that period represents half of the entire dynasty, and is no less representative. The loss of the Western Regions for the second half of the dynasty is a pretty significant detail. It's true that that map has the dates, but no-one would see them if you used it in the infobox. Kanguole 13:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
If we translate all the annotations of the map I am referring to from Chinese to English, then the map is still both simple and subtle/complicated enough to be included in the infobox. This map is really not that complicated to be put in the infobox! When readers see the different colors/shades and lines of the map at their first glance (which is a part of the original map anyway) they should be able to understand what it means. If they don't, they can always click the map to enlarge it to see the detailed descriptions on the map. The areas directly controlled by the Tang government also changes over time, just like all of its other territories. And I think this map shows these territorial sizes and their changes the best compared to the other maps here, including the current one in the main article. Again, detailed descriptions of the different types of control (direct, suzerainty, other kinds...etc.,) should be included in the article itself. But the map should also be detailed enough so that readers can point to and make references to the map based on the information in the main article if they want to, and the map I am referring to can do this much better than the current map in the article and the other maps people have mentioned so far.
As for the Western regions, the current map in the main article does not show the changes of that territory very well either. Whereas the map I am referring to does a better job at showing the changes. The size and the definition of the Western regions that were under the Tang's control (direct and indirect), before, during, and after the An Lushan rebellion is extremely complicated, and I am not saying the map I am talking about shows these information perfectly. It's just better than all of the other maps mentioned. Again, people should be expected to click to enlarge the map if they want to know more, such as the dates...etc. File:唐朝疆域（简）.png then has more useful and better information than the other maps, including the current map in the article. Hence, I think it is a better map, a more representative map of the Tang, as it basically covers the territorial sizes at the dynasty's height, during its norm, and its decline. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, this map I am talking about is used in the Tang dynasty entry in the Chinese wikipedia. However, there is also a very useful map over there, a map that shows the changes of territorial size over time. Not sure if it's 100% correct, but seems to be pretty accurate. Anyone who is interested should go and check it out. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The purpose of an infobox (see MOS:INFOBOX) is to present the reader with key facts from the article at a glance. That requires a simple map. Just explaining the controversies about the meaning of the light orange shade in that map would require a substantial article, defeating the purpose of an infobox. You appear to be talking about a map to illustrate the article text, which is a different thing.
- However the loss of the Western Regions is such a key fact. It could be economically depicted with a map with two shades for the empire in two specified years, e.g. 742 and 822. Kanguole 14:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, obviously we have different opinions toward File:唐朝疆域（简）.png, as I think it is actually quite a simple map to be included in the infobox here. The explanations of the details of this map should be put in the main article, not the infobox itself, so my suggestion does not defeat the purpose of the infobox at all (I don't know what you mean by "controversies" here, it's not that hard to explain what these different colors/shades and lines are, and I don't think they are very controversial). Of course, the article itself has to be the most important, especially if we want a good article. So we shouldn't sacrifice the quality of the article just because we want a simple infobox. As I wrote earlier, the Tang Dynasty entry in the Chinese wikipedia uses this map in its infobox. This map is also better because it does a better job than the current map in the article at illustrating many key facts such as cities and regions, and most importantly, the different territorial sizes (the different types of control, e.g. direct control, suzerainty...etc.,) of the Tang during the different stages of its rule. Again, I am not saying this map is perfect, it's just better than the current map in the article and many other maps.
I don't know why you keep mentioning the loss of Western Regions (This area, if I understand correctly, was under the direct control of, not just in a suzerain relationship with, the Tang at one time. Also, while the Tang lost this area after the An Lushan rebellion, the Tang did manage to regain control of a large part of the Western Regions for about 40 to 50 years in the 9th and 10th century, before losing much of these regions that have been regained when the dynasty collapsed). The Tang is known more for its expansion of territories than losses. A key reason as to why Tang is significant in history is because it was a powerful empire that expanded China's territories. We are not talking about the Song here, which is also important, but for different reasons. A good, representative map of the Tang should definitely illustrate the territory size of the empire at its founding, then especially, the dynasty's territorial size when it reaches its height, and finally, all the subsequent changes. This is why the map I am advocating is better than the current map in the main artcile, for the former does a better job at showing why Tang is considered to be the golden age in Chinese history. It would be good for the readers to get this key fact at the first glance.
I am not sure why 742 and 822 are that significant years on their own. There are other years one can pick from. Like I said, there is another map in the Tang entry in the Chinese wikipedia that does a fine job at showing the changes of territorial sizes of the Tang from its founding to its fall, which pretty much covers all of the things both you and I have been saying. That map could be used by this article, if it is translated from Chinese into English.
Look, we can have multiple maps in the article, which is what has been done in the Tang entry in the Chinese wikipedia. There is no need to have just one map. We can have different maps illustrating the different territorial sizes of the Tang at different times during its rule, at its founding, at its height, and at its decline. This might be the best option available. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- We certainly differ in our ideas of what is a simple map. If a map cannot be understood without reading the article or clicking on the map to study its fine print, then it is certainly not serving the purpose of an infobox to provide key facts at a glance. Such maps belong in the bodies of articles, not infoboxes.
- As for the controversies associated with that map, the biggest is the status of the "Anbei protectorate" (depicted as stretching to the Yenisei), which many historians do not consider part of Tang. Nanzhao territories are depicted in light orange, when again these are usually considered to be outside the empire. The western regions are presented as uniformly part of the empire over the given period, when in fact only the core Anxi protectorate (Tarim and Dzungar basins) was, the Kunling and Mengchi protectorates having lasted only 8 years, and the Soghdiana and Tukharistan protectorates subject to brief and limited control. (Incidentally the western regions weren't recovered in the late 9th century, just Gansu.) Baekje and Goguryeo were occupied for just 16 and 8 years respectively. The outer brown line is particularly vague.
- Looking at maps in a few books:
- A history of China, by Wolfram Eberhard, 4th ed. 1977, ISBN 978-0-520-03268-2, Map 5, p. 174.
- The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 3, Sui and T'ang China, 589–906, Part I, Denis C. Twitchett, 1979, ISBN 978-0-521-21446-9, Map 8, p. 281.
- China: a new history, by John King Fairbank, 1992, ISBN 978-0-674-11670-2, Map 9, p. 80.
- A History of Chinese Civilization, by Jacques Gernet, 1996, ISBN 978-0-521-49781-7, Map 17, pp. 284–285.
- Cultural Atlas of China, by Caroline Blunden and Mark Elvin, 1998, ISBN 978-0-8160-3814-5, pp. 92–93.
- They're all broadly in line with the current map. Some of them distinguish protectorates from the civil administration. None of them have Mongolia or Nanzhao as part of the empire. Kanguole 00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we do have different ideas about what a simple map is and what the function of an infobox should be. But that's okay.
As for the Anbei Protectorate, I do think while some historians might not see that as a part of the Tang, other historians do see it as a part of the Tang. So certainly it can be up for debate. This of course, goes to the issues of the different definitions of sovereignty and the different types of control, which I have talked about previously. Can Tang's protectorates and/or a political entity that is/was in a suzerain relationship with the Tang, and/or any kind/type of vassal state under the Tang be seen as a part of the Tang? This is of course a difficult, important and debatable question. We also have to consider the differences between our ideas of soveregnity and the ideas of soveregnity during the Tang. How did people in Tang's time see all of these things? The Chinese terms here Duhufu 都護府 as in the case "Anbei Duhufu" and in some other cases Dudufu 都督府, also matters. What do/did they mean? Are/Were they different things? If so, how are/were they different from each other? Are/Were areas that are/were called by these two terms a part of the Tang? Again, if people in the Tang saw all of these different types of territories as a part of their empire, maybe that should also be taken into consideration. We should respect the Tang's views on this too. I don't think we should impose our own modern views on history and on people in the past. Any kind of differences between us and people in the past should be explained. One can also debate the size of this territory (Anbei or any other area for that matter), and the changes it went through at different times. Again, various definitions of control and their meanings (such as what constitutes control, and what does it mean...etc.,) during Tang's time also matters.
The Nanzhao part is a bit tricky and maybe confusing. Still, only a portion of that area is shown to be under the Tang. In addition, you will notice that the place is still pretty much separated from the Tang by a light blue line in the map I am supporting. Of course, this map can still be improved upon. If my information is correct, Nanzhao at one time was also in a suzerain relationship with the Tang. Whether Nanzhao was ever a part of the Tang again belongs to the questions of the different definitions of sovereignty and the different types of control I talked about earlier. The same is true with Nanzhao's territory size throughout time, and all of the related issues mentioned previously. All of these things can be discussed.
The light orange color is described as areas that are subjected to change of soveregnity throughout time, so it's not considered to be stable territories of the Tang, while the outer brown line is simply providing a general contour of the empire.
Certainly some of these regions were not under the authority of the Tang throughout its almost 300 years of rule, that I definitely acknowledge. This is true with Korea, which the map I am supporting does not really say it's a part of the Tang, but it does indicate that Tang did occupy Korea at one time, which is useful information. This is also true with all of the various other areas, whether they are in the West, in the North, in the South, in the East and so forth. That the map I am supporting mentions that the Tang did expand into these areas during its rule means that this map is providing good information. As for the Western Regions, I never said the whole thing was recovered in the 9th century (what is the whole thing anyway?). But it is also true that many parts of present-day Xinjiang, Ningxia, Qinghai and Gansu were recovered by the Tang from the mid 9th century onward.
I don't think the map I am supporting portrays the Western Regions under the Tang in a uniform way. The dates are there for people to see. Nonetheless, the details can definitely be improved upon. By the way, I never claim this map is perfect. This map is not the most detailed map, so of course you might find some problems with it. This is also why I think it is a simple enough of a map to be put in the infobox.
As for your sources, I only have access to 3 of them, so I will just concentrate on these 3. The Cambridge History of China map only covers the Western Regions during the Gaozong era, so of course it won't cover the Nanzhao and Mongolia areas. But this map does not dispute the map I am supporting either, in fact, it seems to support my map more. As it looks like the Cambridge map shows bigger Tang territories in the West than the current map in the article, which is consistent with the fact that Tang's territory was the biggest during Gaozong's reign.
As for the maps in both Fairbank and Eberhard (I am using the 1998 edition of the former, 1969 edition of the latter), both of them are presenting Tang's territory in the 8th century. For Fairbank, the map is described as "Tang Empire at Its Greatst Extent (Eighth Century)", whereas in the Eberhard one (p. 171 in my edition), it's "The T'ang realm (about A.D. 750)". Now both maps are generally correct about the Tang's territory at around the 8th century, but Tang achieved its greatest extent of territories in the 7th century, not 8th, so Faribank is somewhat off the mark. By the 8th century, Tang's territory has started to shrink. So to whatever extent Tang had Nanzhao and Mongolia before, I am not sure if the Tang would still have these lands by the 8th century. On page 279 of the Cambridge History vol.3 we are using, it also says that Tang achieved its greatest territorial extent during the reign of Gaozong, which is from 649-683. Given the current map in the article is depicting 8th century Tang, of course both maps from Faribank and Eberhard would correpond more with the current one. However, I will note that it seems the Fairbank map shows greater extent of the Tang in the Western Regions than the Eberhard one. Fairbank's depiction then, seems to be closer, if not pretty much the same as the territories shown in the map I am supporting. Mind you, Fairbank's map also includes a bigger portion of Manchuria and all of Korea as a part of the Tang. This is not shown in the current map of this article.
Let me just say that I think the map I am supporting is more representative of the Tang than the current map in the article because it captures the golden age of the dynasty better. The map I am supporting also does a good enough of a job in showing the distinctions between the various areas under the different ways of control, e.g. protectorates, suzerainty, direct control...etc. Of course, the various dates, the different colorations/shades and lines and other information on this map are also useful. I think showing a 8th century map of the Tang at the top of the article does not do justice to the territory expansion Tang achieved during its rule. I think it is important for the readers to learn about Tang's greatest achievement in territory expansion when they glance at this article for the first time. If you take a look at the Roman Empire entry in Wikipedia, you will find the map over there shows Rome at its greatest extent. I am hoping a similar map can be used here in this entry. As I said, there is a map that shows the changing nature of Tang territory throughout its rule in the Tang entry of the Chinese wikipedia, maybe it can be used here. But someone needs to translate it.
Finally, I think this discussion has been good. However, I am not sure if any further discussion will result in anything constructive. As you recall, I never said I am going to change the main article, for it will take too much time and energy. I only hope to raise this map issue, so that people are aware of it. If any person who has the knowledge, time, energy and desire to improve this article, whether it's about the map or not, by all means do so. 128.104.60.133 (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I definitely need to bring up the fact that the map is extremely out of proportion. Note the fact that the Tang conquered all of Central Asia, Afghanistan, Mongolia, French Indochina, the Korean Peninsula, and all of modern-day China with the exception of Manchuria and Taiwan. This map is so biased that it depicts only a small intrusion into Central Asia and Mongolia and only the northeastern half of the Indochina Peninsula. Where is the rest of Central Asia, Afghanistan, the Korean Peninsula, Mongolia, French Indochina, and the other territories in China? We need to change the map immediately, for it greatly decreases both the size of the Tang Empire and the historical accuracy of the article. 71.146.134.99 (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Xueyuantuo enslaving Chinese prisoners
Please provide accurate, nonbiased information that historically describes that, during the transition from Sui to Tang, Chinese civilians were captured by the Xueyuantuo on the northern frontier. As far as I have researched, there was no historical evidence referenced in any book that I have studied that mentions Emperor Taizong sending envoys bearing gold and silk. Nothing about this supposedly occuring incident is referred to in transition from Sui to Tang. I expect the claimed information to be referenced with absolute accuracy, in a nonbiased sort of manner. Aslanofthecountryofnarnia (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Life in tang china
http://books.google.com/books?id=ile3jSveb4sC&pg=PA244#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Tang china and the steppe nomads
http://books.google.com/books?id=tDgfAQAAMAAJ
Rajmaan (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Tang Conquest of Central Asia
Though the Tang Empire lost the Syr Darya valley to the Arabs, they still held onto the land north of the Talas, that is, most of Kazakhstan and northern Uzbekistan. This can be accurately proven if you carefully examine a map of the Abbasid Caliphate. They exhibited tight control over the Ferghana valley during their Golden Age, but they never expanded north of that. The Gokturks were conquered by the Chinese, so it would be logical to speculate that the Tang still had a stretch of land bordering the northern Aral Sea and the eastern Caspian. Later, with the decline of the Abbasid power in Central Asia, the Tang probably conquered the vacuum space of territory. After all, there were no nomadic tribes residing in the area after the conquest of the Gokturks by the Tang. This should be referred to with more detail in the article, or else it would seem extremely biased as to claim that the Tang officially lost their control of Central Asia after the Battle of Talas, for the Tang conquered the area again later after the decline of the Muslim dominance in the area. Aslanofthecountryofnarnia (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Tang Dominance of the Korean Peninsula
The Tang conquered northern Korea from the Goguryeo Kingdom. However, there is ongoing debate about the southern territories of Korea. We also know for sure that the Tang conquered the Baekje, which means all of southwestern Korea was under Tang control. Please add more detail about this territorial control over Korea in the article. Though historical evidence suggests that Silla expelled the Tang from their territory, note that Silla has a relatively small territory in what is now southeastern Korea. The rest of Korea, therefore, was still under Tang control. The manner in which the article is written con cause great confusion over whether the Tang Empire exhibited control over areas of Korea even after the defeat by the Silla. According to my research, the Silla only managed to repel the Tang invasions, but did not manage to liberate the entire Korean Peninsula from Tang rule. Definite misunderstanding here! Aslanofthecountryofnarnia (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- What exactly would you like to change and what are your sources? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
What I would like to do is I would want more detail about the continuing Tang Dominance of Korea. As for my sources, I would not need any. It would be absolutely preposterous as to claim that Silla controlled the entire Peninsula, as their is no mention of this sort of "liberation" on the Tang-Silla Wars article. Would not it be perfectly logical to then assume that the rest of the Peninsula was still under Tang control? There was no other ethnic group in the region that had a very extreme influence militarily. 99.150.209.237 (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- You certainly would need reliable sources, not personal inferences, to back what you want to add. Wikipedia has a whole raft of policies in the subject. Kanguole 01:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Then please explain the absurdity of the fact that there is no sources claiming that Korea liberated the entire Korean Peninsula. Please do not demand sources from me when you yourself cannot provide sources of the claimed likewise. Please use some common sense before attempting to debate with me again. 71.146.134.99 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The article already contains citations on the points you're complaining about, and you've not said why those sources are unreliable, apart from their reaching different conclusions than you. In this case the current text is cited to Kang 2006 and Graff 2002. We could add the Cambridge History of China, volume 3, pp282–285. Kanguole 08:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Li Imperial family
The Tang imperial descendants were made dukes by the Later Jin dynasty
Chengcun village
http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/50676.htm
northwest aristocracy
Tang dynasty, mixed northwestern aristocracy vs "pure" northeastern aristocracy. Northwestern aristocracy were mixed Han and Xianbei
http://books.google.com/books?id=sV48AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3KXRUvqGLI7ksASy5YL4Cw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=ou-hq_FlQY4C&pg=PA75&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3KXRUvqGLI7ksASy5YL4Cw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=ou-hq_FlQY4C&pg=PA75&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3KXRUvqGLI7ksASy5YL4Cw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false
Misc
09:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tang dynasty/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
|---|---|
| I don't think this is a start class article anymore after my edits and expansions. I think it can be bumped up a level.
--PericlesofAthens 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) This is a great article, but I don't think any Japan expert has contributed. Glaring error: Japan was not a tributary state of the Tang. The Ashikaga shogunate had a brief trade-purposed relationship with the Ming. There was a relationship by the Ryukyu Kingdom from the Ming onward that was more long-lasting and manipulated behind the scenes by the Satsuma Domain. Reischauer's great work, Ennin's Travels in T'ang China, is not cited, although there is a good Wikipedia article on the Reichauer translation and commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.25.248.217 (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC) | |
Last edited at 09:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 22:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |