Talk:Goguryeo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

	This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles WikiProject Korea (Rated B-Class, High-importance) Korea portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been designated as unstable due to recurrent edit wars. Sustainable improvements to this article requires forging a consensus among all good-faith participants. Associated working groups: This article is supported by the Korean history working group. WikiProject China     (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments) 華 This article is maintained by the Chinese history workgroup. More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Former CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles WikiProject Former Countries (Rated C-Class) v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessible --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Comments: edit  · history  · watch  · purge Mid/High importance for Chinese history workgroup. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:ArchaeologyWikiProjectArchaeology articles WikiProject Archaeology (Rated B-Class) Archaeology portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Archives
/Archive1 (– 2005-12-31) /Archive2 (– 2007-02-28) /Archive3 (– 2007-03-14) /Archive4 (– 2007-03-17) /Archive5 (– 2007-03-26) /Archive6 (– 2007-04-20) /Archive7 (– 2007-05-22) /Archive8 (– 2008-12-25) /ArchivedPolls (strawpools)

[edit] now how 'bout it?

i found that the "military" section of the article was pretty much based on a paper by asmolov konstantin. i also found out it also happens to be the only credible english source that delves that deeply into the army of koguryo. the paras were utterly a mess so i switched out some stuff and gave it a facelift. i also added a few bits of my own based on an interesting book in my possession, (Peers, Cj. Soldiers of the dragon, osprey ‘06). the section suffered and still does from lack of citations, but i'll see if people approve of this anyway. Billy the ferret (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Military Main article: Military history of Goguryeo

Kokuryo was a dominant kingdom with its own sphere of influence separate from other east asian entities. Throughout its existence the Kingdom of Kokuryo exercised military action ranging from border skirmishes to punitive expeditions with its neighbors, mainly with the neighboring kingdoms of Baekje and Shilla. To a lesser extent Kokuryo were engaged in struggles with the Chinese to the West and the Hsien-pi to the north.

Kokuryo fielded five armies in the capital, mostly cavalry that were personally commanded by the king, numbering approximately 12,500. Military units varied in number from 21,000 to 36,000 soldiers, were located in the provinces, and were led by the governor. Provincial armies were virtually private armies of the lords acting as provincial governors. Military garrisons near the boundaries consisted mostly of soldiers and peasants, a first line of defense and early warning against foreign invasion. Goguryeo was able to maintain and utilize a standing force of 50,000 at any given time, and in times of emergency armies could be mobilized to figures as high as 300,000, sometimes as high as 650,000 on one occasion.

Few records remain regarding the military of Goguryeo. A Tang treatise of 668 records a total of 675,000 displaced personnel among 176 military garrisons after the surrender of King Bojang.

Goguryeo’s regular army consisted mainly of mounted units such as cataphract cavalry and cavalry archers. It is Widely speculated that the infantry was a closed battle order. Evidence that kokuryo maintained a significant naval force is demonstrated by large- scale naval engagements during one or more of the Sui-Goguryeo wars.

Military Equipment If not always, the Koreans often avoided engagements in open terrain. Throughout its five thousand year history battles involving walled cities and fortified towns were the most common, and Goguryeo was no exception. Most of the battles during the Sui and Tang invasions took place at or near a fortress. For this sort of static warfare the most common and recurring weapon used was obviously the bow, a quite standard weapon among both the peasantry and the elite. Kokuryo was a hunting culture with a distinguished reputation for fine mounted archers. Wall paintings of people identified as kokuryo nobles hunting on horseback found in North Korea back this claim. Two hunts per year were led by the king himself.

Goguryeo units were divided according to weapons: spearmen, halberdiers, archers whether it be infantry or mounted, and various types of cavalry ranging from light to heavy. Other groups like the catapult units, wall-climbers, and storm units were part of the special units and were added to the common. This suggested probably a closed battle order, and a common disadvantage with it that limited maneuverability.

Chinese and Korean sources mention a specialized cataphract cavalry (鎧馬武士, or Gaemamusa) and archeological finds of the armor used by these units are on display in the seoul war museum. Recently unearthed royal tombs of the kokuryo kings have found bronze spiked boots that probably may have been used by cavalry to trample opponents. Fortifications The most common form of the Goguryeo fortress was one made in the shape of the moon, located between a river and its tributary for natural defense barrier and was usually built on high ground for obvious tactical reasons. Ditches and ground walls between the shores formed an extra defense line. The walls were made from huge stone blocks fixed with clay. Examples survive all over Liaodong and the Korean peninsula. Walls were surrounded by a ditch to prevent an underground attack. A network of walled cities, fortified towns, and military garrisons along the liao and the amnok was called the Cheolli Jangseong .

Military Strategy The military formation had the general and his staff with guards in the middle of the army. The archers were defended by axemen. In front of the general were the main infantry forces, and on the flanks were rows of heavy cavalry ready to counterattack in case of a flank attack by the enemy. In the very front and rear was the light cavalry, used for intelligence, pursuit, and for weakening the enemy's strike. Around the main troops were small groups of heavy cavalrymen and infantry. Each unit was prepared to defend the other by providing mutual support. Goguryeo implemented a strategy of active defense based on cities. Besides the walled cities and fortified camps, this active defense system used small units of light cavalry to continuously harass the enemy, de-blockade units and strong reserves, consisting of the best soldiers, to strike hard at the end. Goguryeo also employed military intelligence and special tactics as an important part of the strategy. Goguryeo was good at disinformation, and on one occasion they did so much as sending stone spearheads as tribute to the Chinese court when they were already in the Iron Age. Goguryeo had developed its indigenous system of espionage. One of the most famous spies, Baekseok, mentioned in the Samguk yusa, was able to infiltrate the Hwarangs of Silla.

[edit] Edit war over "Empire"/"Emperor", &c.

I have protected the article for one week due to the edit warring. Please discuss the propriety of the use of "empire," "emperor," &c. here. Please try to make arguments backed up by logic. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nlu, btw... what is the convention in Wiki? Is 太王 ever translated as "Emperor" or is the only term (in the East Asian sense) translated as such 帝 (Je)? WangKon936 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Korean government, It is an empire and Goguryeo was the multi-ethnic country. if you wanna change to kingdom. we should remove such as CPOV, RPOV. Because kingdom means single nation. --Tnaniua (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

and Do you think Cydevil38, WangKon936 are more reliable than Oxford, Collins Cobulid, and the Korea's Offical Website? --Tnaniua (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell us what CPOV, RPOV, and KPOV mean? Spacepotato (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tnaniua, can you get a real user page so we can talk to you directly? WangKon936 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Although his user page is a redlink, you can still contact Tnaniua on his talk page. Spacepotato (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more from the editors actually involved in the dispute before I would give a more definitive opinion -- and note that my opinion is no more authoritative than anyone's. I protected the page because of the edit war, not because I believe that one side is necessarily more right than the other. In other words, again, logical reasoning is the key. I believe that I can be persuaded by good argument from either side. However, I think one thing that has to be explained by a proponent of the use of "emperor" or "empire" in the argument: is there a good reason to believe that the Goguryeo rulers' use of the title 王 (wang), rather than 帝 (di in Chinese, che in Korean) is not dispositive on the issue? Would one refer to Barack Obama as an emperor even if he uses the title of president? That is an issue that has to be addressed, although I realize not always dispositive. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nlu, the Samguk Sagi is available online and I believe it's also searchable as well. One could very easily query for 王 vs. 帝 and see if any Korean monarch during the period referred themselves as 帝. WangKon936 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I will post my thoughts on the matter this weekend. Some of us have jobs! WangKon936 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In describing the history, there is an important point. every countries having different situation and the nature. such as the language problem so as to see subtle differences that can bring up to a serious misunderstanding is the issue. What is difference between king and emperor? these words don't have any difference. emperor, king - It's just ruler. Goguryeo's ruler called 'Taewang'(太王) -- 王 is king? 帝 is emperor? It's only in CPOV. -- I said above, the language of the country is the most important element of uniqueness. In Goguryeo's view, Goguryeo is center of the world. So they called 'Taewang'(太王, Emperor), and Goguryeo was multi-ethnic country, According to Oxford, Collins Cobulid. single-ethnic monarchy country is kingdom but multi-ethnic monarchy country is empire. --Tnaniua (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Tnaniua, can you please provide web links to the sources you say refer to Koguryo as an Empire? WangKon936 (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets just take a vote and get it over with.

Goguryeo is a kingdom.

1. Goguryeo is commonly referred to as a kingdom in reliable sources. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gogurye is an empire.

Lets just take a vote? It's unfair, and reliable sources? According to Korean government and Oxford, Collins Cobulid(and many english dictionaries) - Gogurye is an empire. --Tnaniua (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's go for a vote. Besides myself, Cydevil and Tnaniua, who's voting? WangKon936 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tnaniua, what is typically referred to and translated as "Emperor" in the English language is 皇帝, or Hwang Je or more simply 帝 or Je. 太王 is Tae Wang or Great King. I believe that Silla and Paekje kings called themselves 太王 sometimes too. Do we go into the Silla and Paekje articles and replace all the references to "King" to Emperor as well? The only time 帝 was used for a Korean monarch was during the Korean Empire or the Daehan-jeguk (大韓帝國) period which was the brief time before the Japanese colonial period. There, Gojong is correctly referred to as "Emperor" or 帝 ("Je") in wikipedia. WangKon936 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is not decided by "voting" but by argument. Tnaniua, you have to show evidence that "Gogurye" is referred to as "empire" by Korean government and Oxford, Collins Cobulid(and many english dictionaries). Not separately arguing that Goguryeo was consisted of multiple ethnics, and empire is consisted of multiple ethnics. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I said above, the language of the country is the most important element of uniqueness(eg. see [1], Emperor of Ethiopia called king of king - and 太王 is the Greastest king.) also See [2][3][4][5].--Tnaniua (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki page can not be your back up when it comes to "reliable sources", and you've only brought "one" sources for your claim, the others are spuriousness that does not show "Goguryeo is referred to as empire".--Caspian blue 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the links provided by Tnaniua and I don't see any real evidence to support his POV. The Korea.net link refers to Koguryo sovereigns as "Kings" not emperors. I will quote:

"The founder of Goguryeo was King Chumo, or Gojumong, who originally came from the State of Buyeo."

"By the middle of the first century A.D., during King Taejo's reign..."

"It was King Gwanggaeto (r. 391-413), who greatly changed the map of Goguryeo..."

The burden of proof is still on Tnaniua's shoulders. WangKon936 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We can choose other things, For example removing all CPOV, because Goguryeo is a kingdom. - it was the most important issue for me. --Tnaniua (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, what "things" are "CPOV"? WangKon936 (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

such as chinese name box. --Tnaniua (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We had a VERY long discussion about it in the archives. I recommend you review those because a lot of issues have been hashed out and corrected in there. Ultimately it was decided that the Chinese name box should be included not because Koguryo "belongs" per se, to China but because it played such an important role in Chinese history. Furthermore, the name boxes of all the countries that currently occupy Koguryo land should be included, not just China, but that would also include Russian name box as well. WangKon936 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the arguments made. Here's my view: The United States is also often referred to as an empire. That doesn't make Barack Obama an emperor. If a Korean (or Vietnamese, or Japanese, or Nanzhao, or whatever nation in Asia) sovereign claimed imperial title, he/she should be referred to as an emperor/empress regardless whatever the regime in China at the time might view the matter. But if he/she didn't claim imperial title, for us, in the posterity, to impose a title on the person that the person never used, would be wrong. If the person used the title of king/queen, use that. If the person claimed the title of khan, use that. If the person used the title of president, use that. That's hardly a "Chinese POV"; that's a POV that whatever title the person claimed should be the one that is used in the article. --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nlu, I'm looking at the evidence here and it looks like Koguryo gave the title of 太王 posthumously, after the death of a king. This appears to be done for Gwanggaeto. He was 大王 while he was alive and 太王 at his death. I think this is what the Vietnamese did as well. Give an "emperor-like" titles posthumously. Wiki calls Vietnamese monarchs "Kings" not "Emperors." WangKon936 (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When Vietnamese monarchs claimed the title of 帝, they are referred to as emperors. See, e.g., Bao Dai. --Nlu (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes true, but as far as I know, Koguryo monarchs never used the title 帝. WangKon936 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The key for me is how do we translate the title 太王 and did Koguryo monarchs use that title while they were living rather than given that title posthumously at their death? WangKon936 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so that's why I don't favor referring to them as emperors, unless Tnaniua or someone else can make a convincing argument that 大王 is the equivalent of 帝. Note that referring to them as emperors would also create another issue -- how do you distinguish between their titles and those of the later Korean monarchs who did use the title of 帝? --Nlu (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I also have to concede this sua sponte: I myself treat the Chinese title of Tian Wang (天王) as emperor even though it is not 帝, but that's more out of necessity since the title holders were all posthumously referred to as 帝. --Nlu (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

However, it appears for Koguryo monarchs they are referred to as 大王 while they are alive and 太王 after their death. I don't think Koguryo monarchs are ever referred to as 帝 in any written materials. WangKon936 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Goguryeo Monarch did used 太王 as King of Kings, before this I don't think Koreans ever used "帝", and even "王" before adaption of class system from China. 太王 can be translate into something similar to Shah or Tsar. Great Britain empire never used the title of Emperor but did used King of Kings, so the main question is "Goguryeo is empire?", the answer is Yes during Gwanggetto & Jangsu resigns, both Silla, Malgal, and few other smaller states became their protectorate states. Goguryeo practically had five ruling tribes, which they elect leader to represent them to ruler of Goguryeo, very similar to British Empire.--Korsentry 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

帝 was only used twice in korean history. once in the early goryeo dynasty and once in late joseon dynasty. differences between the word "emperor" and "king" is somewhat ambiguous. a japanese emperor was bestowed a royal order by an english king. another instance an emperor of later yan submitted to the king of goguryeo. Goguryeo was an empire, but like Nlu said, you can't call a barack obama an emperor. Never once was the title 帝 ever used by goguryeo kings, never once was 帝 never enfeoffed by chinese emperors( the arrogant ***ks never would), and only once was the term "太王" ever used. in east asian history thereis no difference between 大王 and 王. The ming dynasty recognized the joseon monarch as 王, and the korean bureaucracy still wrote in their books 大王. so i always treated the preceding 大 or 太 as an adjective. some Christians refer to jesus of nazareth as "king of kings", but i've never heard even the most fundamentalist christian call him an emperor. rather they give him puny title "lord" which i think is 王 with a little slash on top. That just reminds me, the stone jade, which is also similar to the character 王, was a stone usually associating in royalty. hence it were chinese kings that were mummified in jade and korean kings that wore jade ornaments in their crowns. i feel like im jumping from topic to topic, but i wanted to add a little insight. 71.132.67.151 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

帝 never used before Korean empire in korean history. the goryeo's Gwangjong refered him as 帝 in official letter to Bohai, but that doesn't mean goryeo used 帝. 112.162.197.118 (talk)

[edit] Goguryeo is Manchurian !

where is evidence goguryeo is korean？ in foundation time, goguryeo were based in Manchuria and it's peoples also came from Manchuria. goguryeo used puyu-family language distinguished from silla. 112.162.197.118 (talk)

There is no conclusive evidence that Koguryo and Silla spoke a different language. There is discussion that Koguryo spoke a language that was once spoken by a people in the central Manchurian kingdom of Puyo. However, if this theoretical language did exist than it was also spoken by people in the Baekje kingdom, which was well within the Korean peninsula. There is a web site that talks in detail about how the Baekje kingdom may have also used the theoretical Puyo language (http://www.corea.it/kudara_1.htm). WangKon936 (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Peakche and Goguryeo's rulling class were discendent of fuyu, but Silla is not. i can't find the evidence notes Silla and Peakche, Goguryeo shared same culture. 61.99.38.227 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)