Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

On the ethnicity of the Sui and Tang emperors


  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#196 Yun

Yun

    Sage-King

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 9,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore/USA
  • Interests:Ancient Chinese history, with a focus on the Age of Fragmentation. Chinese ethnicities, religion, philosophy, music, and art and material culture. Military history in general.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Three Kingdoms, Age of Fragmentation, Sui-Tang

Posted 24 February 2009 - 12:51 PM

Except for the explicit Turkish overlay, his actions followed Li family tradition...


This is a very vague statement and I'd like to know what Barfield means by "Li family tradition". None of the Tang emperors is known to have behaved in the same way as Li Chengqian; if they did, Chengqian's behavior would not have been condemned by the court historians.

Barfield's book is not a coffee-table book, but I have read it more than once and I don't think highly of it at all. Barfield is an anthropologist and not a historian, and he does not read Chinese. Most of the information for his book was taken from secondary sources in English or other European languages, including Wolfram Eberhard. So in many cases, he is simply reproducing the inaccuracies, groundless claims, and mistaken assumptions of other scholars.
The dead have passed beyond our power to honour or dishonour them, but not beyond our ability to try and understand.

#197 Wayne

Wayne

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nam Yong
  • Interests:East &amp; Southeast Asian history &amp; culture, European history and culture, Indian history culture, Ancient Near East, genetics and origins of people, classical music, horticulture!<br /><br />But I'm an amateur, so pardon me if I say stupid things!
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 30 June 2009 - 06:08 AM

Dear Yun, thank you again for these interesting papers.

Thomas J. Barfield "The Perilous Frontier - Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757" Blackwell, Cambridge Massachusetts & Oxford UK
(definitely not a coffee table book!)

p.143
...Turkish influence within the royal line was even more pronounced in Li Shih-min's son and heir Li Ch'eng-ch'ien. He was fond of Turkish music and customs and surrounded himself with Turkish retainers. He ignored the traditional customs of Chinese behavior and used violence against anyone who offended him. He was rebuked for conduct unbecoming to an heir and stripped of his Turkish retainers. Outwardly, he then comported himself correctly. However in his palace he chose Chinese attendants that looked like Turks and spoke Turkish. He constructed a yurt in the courtyard complete with wolf's head banners. For amusement he once held a khagan's funeral and played the corpse himself surrounded by wailing mounted nomads. He often expressed the desire to move to the steppes where he could lead a less restricted life. Ch'eng-ch'ien never ruled. He plotted against his father in 643, was exiled, and died a year later.
The details of Ch'eng-ch'ien's Turkish habits were recorded in lurid details by court historians intent on proving he was unfit to rule. But his behavior even at its most bizarre, was not unusual in his times. Except for the explicit Turkish overlay, his actions followed Li family tradition...


I seemed to have read this somewhere too. But here are some thoughts...
What did these Turkic people 'look' like? Per my understanding the original Turkic people are similar in appearance to the Mongols, and thus to the northern Chinese.
Only after they interbred with Tocharians, Persians and Greeks did they get their Eurasian look.
I read somewhere that the Xianbei, Tuoba, and the Shatuo Turks multi-ethnic amalgamation of various peoples under their banners just like the later Mongols.
Given that this Crown Prince lived in a Sinicized environment, his 'Turkic' behaviour could be just a taste for things 'exotic', that was so typical of the cosmopolitan Tang.
With his dual heritage, it could also conjure images of a idealised past on the steppes, if he really hated his royal life that much.
But I doubt that by the time of the Tang dynasty, Turkic influence remained very strong. They had all been more or less Sinicized.
It was only with the later nomadic dynasties that the desire to remain distinct from the conquered Han became paramount.

#198 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Grand Minister of State (EP)
  • 882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 02 July 2009 - 12:56 AM

I seemed to have read this somewhere too. But here are some thoughts...
What did these Turkic people 'look' like? Per my understanding the original Turkic people are similar in appearance to the Mongols, and thus to the northern Chinese.
Only after they interbred with Tocharians, Persians and Greeks did they get their Eurasian look.
I read somewhere that the Xianbei, Tuoba, and the Shatuo Turks multi-ethnic amalgamation of various peoples under their banners just like the later Mongols.


Similar appearance to Mongols and northern Chinese?

Spread of Turkic people
http://www.tribwatch...urkicPeople.bmp

Uyghur girl
Posted Image

Crimean Tatars girls
Posted Image

Miss Turkey
Posted Image

kashgar girl
Posted Image

Mongols are not Turkic people, there are mixed people in central asia that appeared both Turkic and Mongolian physical features but present day Mongols are more closer to NE Asians than Turkic people.

Also, central asian tribes weren't exactly related to Persian, Greek, Russian, Chinese, Mongolian & Siberian etc..

Please note invaders didn't much left genetic traits.
Good example is Korean population, after countless of foreign invasions, Koreans are more purer than these invaders and still kept their unique genes.

Edited by SNK_1408, 02 July 2009 - 12:57 AM.

역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#199 Wayne

Wayne

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nam Yong
  • Interests:East &amp; Southeast Asian history &amp; culture, European history and culture, Indian history culture, Ancient Near East, genetics and origins of people, classical music, horticulture!<br /><br />But I'm an amateur, so pardon me if I say stupid things!
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 02 July 2009 - 01:41 AM

Similar appearance to Mongols and northern Chinese?

Spread of Turkic people - Answer - Studies indicate that Turkic peoples most likely came from Eastern Siberia / Mongolia.
http://www.tribwatch...urkicPeople.bmp

Uyghur girl - Per what I read, they looked like this because of their mixing with the Indo-European Tocharians, who were the original inhabitants of Xinjiang.
Posted Image

Crimean Tatars girls - Answer - They have picked up lots of Indo-European blood along the way to Crimea, as they passed through Central Asia.
Posted Image

Miss Turkey - Answer - They are thoroughly mixed with Greeks and other inhabitants of Anatolia, who were more numerous than them. Its throught to language replacement ethnic Greeks became Turks.
Posted Image

kashgar girl - Answer - Again, remember that Central Asia was predominantly Indo-European before the Turkic and Mongol conquests.
Posted Image

Mongols are not Turkic people, there are mixed people in central asia that appeared both Turkic and Mongolian physical features but present day Mongols are more closer to NE Asians than Turkic people. - Answer - Mongols and Turkic are both frequently classified as Altaic languages, or at least closely related if not of the same family. You can find plenty of sources on this.

Also, central asian tribes weren't exactly related to Persian, Greek, Russian, Chinese, Mongolian & Siberian etc..
Central Asia prior to the Turkic and Mongol conquests were Indo-European, and related to Persians, Scythians and Tocharians (both now extinct) in particular.
Answer - The Turks and Mongols migrated there in large numbers, and also killed off many of the original inhabitants during their invasions.
The remainder became extremely mixed. All now speak Turkic due to language replacement.
You can check their DNA lineage. The pie chart is an exotic potpourri of East and West.

Please note invaders didn't much left genetic traits.
Good example is Korean population, after countless of foreign invasions, Koreans are more purer than these invaders and still kept their unique genes.
Answer - This is not necessarily true. For the case of Korea it is also not true, although for some reason you find it difficult or shameful to admit. Is it so shameful?

I got my info from several sources, which all give me similar answers that I now write here.


Edited by Wayne, 02 July 2009 - 02:11 AM.


#200 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Grand Minister of State (EP)
  • 882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 07 July 2009 - 11:22 PM

It doesn't matter what they started off from, present day physical appearance is their new looks now.

You must know ancient people are not same as modern population.

Answer - This is not necessarily true. For the case of Korea it is also not true, although for some reason you find it difficult or shameful to admit. Is it so shameful?

I got my info from several sources, which all give me similar answers that I now write here.


No I'm not shame of Korean people being purer than it's neighboring people.
Let's heard it from your sources, then I'll study them and post my opinion for you.
:clapping:
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#201 Wayne

Wayne

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nam Yong
  • Interests:East &amp; Southeast Asian history &amp; culture, European history and culture, Indian history culture, Ancient Near East, genetics and origins of people, classical music, horticulture!<br /><br />But I'm an amateur, so pardon me if I say stupid things!
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 08 July 2009 - 03:44 AM

It doesn't matter what they started off from, present day physical appearance is their new looks now.

You must know ancient people are not same as modern population.

No I'm not shame of Korean people being purer than it's neighboring people.
Let's heard it from your sources, then I'll study them and post my opinion for you.
:clapping:


I guess our definitions are different.
I believe that ancient linguistic groups are related to their y-chromosome haplogroups.
I also think that modern people and their languages are a specific mixing of these ancient components.
For example, why does Korean appear to be related to Altaic, but yet not sufficiently enough for some language experts?
To me it could be that Korean could be a hybrid of Altaic with an ancient language spoken in Korea by the Mumun or Violin Dagger people.
It then reflects in their genes which showed Altaic C3 and Mumun/Yayoi O2b.
So ancient people are related directed to the present population, even though they are not the same.
Similarly, Japanese could be a hybrid of 3 components : Jomon, Yayoi and Altaic languages.
As for Turkic, it has mixed with a great deal of Indo-European languages, which made it appear less Altaic than Mongolian or Manchu.

Here's a study on the various sources of the modern Korean populations based on mtDNA.

The Peopling of Korea Revealed by Analyses of Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosomal Markers

Han-Jun Jin, Chris Tyler-Smith, Wook Kim

Abstract

Background

The Koreans are generally considered a northeast Asian group because of their geographical location. However, recent findings from Y chromosome studies showed that the Korean population contains lineages from both southern and northern parts of East Asia. To understand the genetic history and relationships of Korea more fully, additional data and analyses are necessary.

Methodology and Results

We analyzed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation in the hypervariable segments I and II (HVS-I and HVS-II) and haplogroup-specific mutations in coding regions in 445 individuals from seven east Asian populations (Korean, Korean-Chinese, Mongolian, Manchurian, Han (Beijing), Vietnamese and Thais). In addition, published mtDNA haplogroup data (N = 3307), mtDNA HVS-I sequences (N = 2313), Y chromosome haplogroup data (N = 1697) and Y chromosome STR data (N = 2713) were analyzed to elucidate the genetic structure of East Asian populations. All the mtDNA profiles studied here were classified into subsets of haplogroups common in East Asia, with just two exceptions. In general, the Korean mtDNA profiles revealed similarities to other northeastern Asian populations through analysis of individual haplogroup distributions, genetic distances between populations or an analysis of molecular variance, although a minor southern contribution was also suggested. Reanalysis of Y-chromosomal data confirmed both the overall similarity to other northeastern populations, and also a larger paternal contribution from southeastern populations.

Conclusion

The present work provides evidence that peopling of Korea can be seen as a complex process, interpreted as an early northern Asian settlement with at least one subsequent male-biased southern-to-northern migration, possibly associated with the spread of rice agriculture.

#202 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Grand Minister of State (EP)
  • 882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:53 PM

I guess our definitions are different.
I believe that ancient linguistic groups are related to their y-chromosome haplogroups.
I also think that modern people and their languages are a specific mixing of these ancient components.
For example, why does Korean appear to be related to Altaic, but yet not sufficiently enough for some language experts?
To me it could be that Korean could be a hybrid of Altaic with an ancient language spoken in Korea by the Mumun or Violin Dagger people.
It then reflects in their genes which showed Altaic C3 and Mumun/Yayoi O2b.
So ancient people are related directed to the present population, even though they are not the same.
Similarly, Japanese could be a hybrid of 3 components : Jomon, Yayoi and Altaic languages.
As for Turkic, it has mixed with a great deal of Indo-European languages, which made it appear less Altaic than Mongolian or Manchu.

Here's a study on the various sources of the modern Korean populations based on mtDNA.

The Peopling of Korea Revealed by Analyses of Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosomal Markers

Han-Jun Jin, Chris Tyler-Smith, Wook Kim

Abstract

Background

The Koreans are generally considered a northeast Asian group because of their geographical location. However, recent findings from Y chromosome studies showed that the Korean population contains lineages from both southern and northern parts of East Asia. To understand the genetic history and relationships of Korea more fully, additional data and analyses are necessary.

Methodology and Results

We analyzed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation in the hypervariable segments I and II (HVS-I and HVS-II) and haplogroup-specific mutations in coding regions in 445 individuals from seven east Asian populations (Korean, Korean-Chinese, Mongolian, Manchurian, Han (Beijing), Vietnamese and Thais). In addition, published mtDNA haplogroup data (N = 3307), mtDNA HVS-I sequences (N = 2313), Y chromosome haplogroup data (N = 1697) and Y chromosome STR data (N = 2713) were analyzed to elucidate the genetic structure of East Asian populations. All the mtDNA profiles studied here were classified into subsets of haplogroups common in East Asia, with just two exceptions. In general, the Korean mtDNA profiles revealed similarities to other northeastern Asian populations through analysis of individual haplogroup distributions, genetic distances between populations or an analysis of molecular variance, although a minor southern contribution was also suggested. Reanalysis of Y-chromosomal data confirmed both the overall similarity to other northeastern populations, and also a larger paternal contribution from southeastern populations.

Conclusion

The present work provides evidence that peopling of Korea can be seen as a complex process, interpreted as an early northern Asian settlement with at least one subsequent male-biased southern-to-northern migration, possibly associated with the spread of rice agriculture.


I think you are misunderstanding my comment.

Koreans generally shows close akin to its NE Asian neighbors because of the close proximity of location.
So geographical element is very important to determine evolution and migration of modern human race.

I'm not denying Koreans do share similarity with their neighboring people, however if you compare modern Koreans to modern Chinese, modern Japanese, modern Mongolian etc.. modern Koreans are purer than these people hence many experts are labeling Korean people are most homogeneous people, in fact Japanese are also known for homogeneousness.

Even you compare modern Korean population with modern Japanese population (which both are known for homogeneousness), Koreans are little more purer than Japanese folks.

Altaic C3 and Mumun/Yayoi O2b & Jomon, Yayoi and Altaic languages

You must know, Juelmun = Jomon & Mumun = Yayoi; it's just reference to period of different age of pottery & archaeological. Nothing do with genetics.

We know, Juelmun/Jomon people were hunters and gatherers and Mumun/Yayoi people were farming communities, and by the time of Mumun/Yayoi period, Jeulmun/Jomon period was over. It's only that these stuck at Hokkaido were isolated from rest of migration became 'Ainu' people, which often referenced as Jomon people of Japan.
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#203 Wayne

Wayne

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nam Yong
  • Interests:East &amp; Southeast Asian history &amp; culture, European history and culture, Indian history culture, Ancient Near East, genetics and origins of people, classical music, horticulture!<br /><br />But I'm an amateur, so pardon me if I say stupid things!
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 10 July 2009 - 04:56 AM

I think you are misunderstanding my comment.

Koreans generally shows close akin to its NE Asian neighbors because of the close proximity of location.
So geographical element is very important to determine evolution and migration of modern human race.

I'm not denying Koreans do share similarity with their neighboring people, however if you compare modern Koreans to modern Chinese, modern Japanese, modern Mongolian etc.. modern Koreans are purer than these people hence many experts are labeling Korean people are most homogeneous people, in fact Japanese are also known for homogeneousness.

Even you compare modern Korean population with modern Japanese population (which both are known for homogeneousness), Koreans are little more purer than Japanese folks.

Altaic C3 and Mumun/Yayoi O2b & Jomon, Yayoi and Altaic languages

You must know, Juelmun = Jomon & Mumun = Yayoi; it's just reference to period of different age of pottery & archaeological. Nothing do with genetics.

We know, Juelmun/Jomon people were hunters and gatherers and Mumun/Yayoi people were farming communities, and by the time of Mumun/Yayoi period, Jeulmun/Jomon period was over. It's only that these stuck at Hokkaido were isolated from rest of migration became 'Ainu' people, which often referenced as Jomon people of Japan.


I guess now I understand what you mean by purity. i.e. its homogeneity that you really meant. Yes in that sense, Korean and Japanese populations are generally very homogeneous due to the fact that all the mixtures and migrations of people took place in either pre-historic or early historic times, and allowed the mixing to become very 'complete', and the identity to be very unique. Later historical migrations were at a minimum in these countries.

#204 Prince of the South

Prince of the South

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 514 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 07 August 2009 - 06:41 PM

It doesn't matter what they started off from, present day physical appearance is their new looks now.

You must know ancient people are not same as modern population.


Doesn't this matter if we are analysing the northern steppes peoples during the Sui and Tang times? The discussion whether they speak a Turkic or Mongolic tongue, or if they appear more Turkic or Mongolic cannot be determined by the looks and languages of the present occupants, as "the ancient people are not same as modern population".

So the academic study and research is really more than presenting a collage of present-day peoples of the region, i think that is really too simplistic and fallacious

Moreover, the Central Asia region is a melting pot of cultures and peoples not similar to the more isolated Korean peninsula or the remote Japanese isles so that the latter could remain more or less homogeneous. In this context, the Australian aboriginal people are even more homogeneous than the Koreans or the Japanese, don't you think, a people that is unchanged for not thousands but ten thousands of years?

#205 Akskl

Akskl

    General of the Guard (Hujun Zhongwei/Jinjun Tongshuai 护军中尉/禁军统帅)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Languages spoken:Russian
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Eurasian
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    science

Posted 02 October 2009 - 11:30 PM

Direct descendants (by language and traditional culture) of the ancient and medieval Eurasian Turkic-speaking nomads are Kazakhs, Noghays and Kyrghyzs, who are very close to each other. Also I would add northern, i.e. steppe (not coastal) Crimean Tatars (who practically are Noghays), and non-Sart part of modern Uzbeks (who are very close to Kazakhs). And, probably, Karakalpaks, Turkmens and Bashkirs. These peoples (who are practically the same people) historically lived in the Eurasian Steppe belt - from Danube river to the Great Wall of China. All other (settled) Turkic (and many non-Turkic) peoples who live on the periphery of the Great Steppe, are results of mixture (at least partly) of the Turkic nomads - conquerors - with the conquered local settled population of various origin.

Edited by Akskl, 03 October 2009 - 11:32 AM.


#206 congxian

congxian

    County Magistrate (Xianling 县令)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Tang dynasty

Posted 21 August 2010 - 07:11 AM

According to the wekapedia , The imperial Li family were Toban people of the Toban militant noble household elite groups of the Sui era who became sinofied . Emperor Tang Tai zhong and wife were Toban people . It was Zhang shun, the duke uncle or guo jiu wuji who subdued the Xianbei . Emperor Tang Tai Zhong subseuently subdued the Tanguts (Tujie) and the Gorturks which occupied and foraged into china through the Asain steppes and its trade route across Central asaia. Many of these such minority half chinese groups still exist today from that point in time .

Tai Zhong's conquest of the Tanguts and these babaric tribes led to the excavtion of the famous silk road trade which stretched across central asia to Tukestan in today's Afghan states . It linked the famous trade routes of Bukkarah , Symrandkhan and Orissa which were desert oasis towns connecting China to Persia , Arabia, greece, Egypt and the middle east. In Tai Zhong's day, the Goturks and other turkish empires, Khitan , uyghirs and Uzbek turks prior to the rise of the golden tartar huns or Jins or kins (who later emerged and challenged the Song Dynasty) and the turkish mongols who founded the Yuan) ruled these terains thorugh several empires all paying homage to Tang Tai zhong as the greatest Khanate .

Why then, would Tai zhong want to subdue his own nomadic tribal race if his matrachial llineange was xian be origianlly? Surely his turkish chinese blood must have some other origins that is also not pure Han Chinese and no doubt still retained a very semi-babaric savagous like blood . This was evident by the fact of the Tang emperors ruled the Tang empire as a vastly militant powrful, mighty and illustrious sovereign sate . So what is the real difference between a xian bei and a toban or tofan?

The era of its government political and economical diplomaitc history besides extending into the middle east also incoporated the trade routes of today's Xinjing, across the Talamakan deserts , autonomus regions and Ferghana in tody's soviet russia and the borders along Heilong Jiang paying its mercantile doors opened to Europre . This led to an influx of cultural and religious exchange beasieds its mercentile and economic transmissions .

The colossal might of the Tang even extended further down south the globe into gulf of Siam in Thailand, Malay archepalogo of Malaysia , Javanese islands and the Phillipines. They all had to recognise cthe dominance of Tang china's suzereintly . for instance, the 5th Malaysain civilization of Pan Pan had to surrnder millions of gold to Tang china as tribute . There was also the establsihment of the chinese civil service metroplotian exams so that capable admistrators and new talent could be sought to enable the Tang imperail regeime to rule wisely . This vogue , no doubtsethe established norm became the ladder to sucess and promience, fame , prestige and fortune to be mounted and it is educational foundations is still highly chersihed and observed today by overseas Chinese .

Back home, to secure its interior, the various minority groups were forced to assimialte into the Tang sinofied culture and taking on its identity . such assimilation into the might of the Tang identity caused Tang China to become a very cosmopolitian multi-racial and relgious tolerant puralist society . Trade relationships too flourished with Tai Zhong's expansion into Korea and Japan . It made the Tang nationals to be very proud and so they calll themselves Man of Tang which is a refrence to today's overseas' Chinese descent - Tang ren or Tong yan in the Cantonese meaning multi-cultuarised cosmopolitan Chinese in reflection of this era.

Unfortunately, in its later decadent years with weaker monarchs on the throne saw a vogue in the vengance and attacks by Korea in the time of emperor She Zhong and the more aggressively powerful Uyghir khanates in the south east . This period of decline brought China further into the fragmantation of the 5 dynasties and ten Kingdoms . Consequently, no re-unification came to light and was restored until General Zhao Kuan yin emerged victorious and establsihed the Song dynasty .

The contribution and efforts of Tang Tai zhong and its sucessors has set the precedence of Tang Dynasty China's sucess as a vast, very powerful and sucessful political socio economic trading nation. Tang Chinese ciritzens inspite of its sub-rural predominant economy was a very strong, self-enriched , highly literate and sophisicated nation able to embrace multi-ethncity and purality and diversity for such was the nature of comtempoary Tang thought in te spirit of the times. The arts ,literal works with classcial Tang peotry being the most ubiqious and other asthecis peaked and flourished and much admired so much so that in Singapore, the temples of the moral uplifiting society (DE jiao Hui) specialises in veneration of esoceritc Tang poets . The same is said for the Veitanese sect of Daoism where respect for accomplished Tang peots are a very restorspetive inspaartinal soucre of vietnamese national pride . Vietnamese imperail candidates of the Ly dynasty which corrosponded with Tang China made accomplishment in Tang peotry and classical literate works a very compulsory syllabus if canddidates were to sucess in the imperial civil service exams . Architectural construction soared with the raising of walled cities and fortififed towns in its ancient capital of Chang An and in its remote frontires with the arrival of various caravan traders and camelers from Afghanistan and Arabia into Luzhou . It was followed by the passage of Islam, Mahanyna and Zen Buddhism through Korea, Japan and Tibet , Manicheanism , Zorastarinism and Nestorain Chirstinirty from Persia , Roman catholicism from protguese traders and missionaries and Hinduism from India .
It was also in this era that Monk Xuan zang and famous apologist of Mahannayna buddhism and Brahman hinduism scholar made his prilgrimmage to India which set the story of journey to the west to follow .

This precedence was to be followed and re-enacted in the lateter dynasties of the emblsihed Song, the enlightned Ming and post modern Qing .

The current para restrospective projection is that can china now emerging as a new power glout revert and its role in the Asia Pacific diplomatic trading relations revert to this once gloriously brilliant and proserous nation as precedented by the Han and Tang commercial era and transformations ?

comment and discuss .

Edited by congxian, 21 August 2010 - 07:45 AM.


#207 Akskl

Akskl

    General of the Guard (Hujun Zhongwei/Jinjun Tongshuai 护军中尉/禁军统帅)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Languages spoken:Russian
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Eurasian
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    science

Posted 07 November 2010 - 07:35 PM

Harper Collins "Atlas of World History" edited by Geoffrey Barraclough
Published 2003 by Borders Press. First published 1998 by Borders Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

p.95
...Eventually a powerful Turkic people, the Toba (Northern) Wei 386-534, succeeded in reunifying northern China. But they did so in the end by becoming completely sinicised. In the early 6th century this led to civil conflict, and their empire was again for a time split up. During these centuries, not only did the nomadic invaders adopt Chinese customs, literary culture and political institutions, but the Chinese upper class, particularly in the north-western China (Kansu, Shensi, Shansi) collaborated widely with them, and themselves intermarried with the Turks and Hsien-pi. The result was the emergence of a distinctive Sino-nomad aristocracy, many of whom spoke both Chinese and Turkic, who lived a style of life much influenced by non-Chinese customs, and among whom women played a very powerful role. It was from this aristocratic group that emerged the ruling houses of the Sui (581-617) and T'ang (618-907) dynasties, which reunified the whole of China, and extended throughout the empire the institutions and style of government which had been developed in the northern successor kingdoms to the Toba Wei.They maintained a distinctive identity as a separate group until the late T'ang...

Edited by Akskl, 07 November 2010 - 07:36 PM.


#208 chinesehistoryboy

chinesehistoryboy

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • Xiucai Exam Candidate
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 16 May 2011 - 06:37 PM

Tang dynasty = legit Chinese dynasty. The culture, official language, it was all there. The emperors never identified themselves as foreigners trying to conquer China. All ppl who disagree are sinophobic, saying how china was occupied by northern races since 600. Oh yeah, Song and Ming were chinese dynasties too. Forbidden city was not built by mongols. Any view opposing these truths are politically motivated lies used by koreans, mongolians,Japanese, and Turks.

#209 oldbreadstinks

oldbreadstinks

    General of the Guard (Hujun Zhongwei/Jinjun Tongshuai 护军中尉/禁军统帅)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:sg
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:18 PM

Tang dynasty = legit Chinese dynasty. The culture, official language, it was all there. The emperors never identified themselves as foreigners trying to conquer China. All ppl who disagree are sinophobic, saying how china was occupied by northern races since 600. Oh yeah, Song and Ming were chinese dynasties too. Forbidden city was not built by mongols. Any view opposing these truths are politically motivated lies used by koreans, mongolians,Japanese, and Turks.


just wondering, in your opinion,which dynasty isn't a legit Chinese dynasty?

What's chinese to you?

And if a chinese were to have an opposing view just by disagreeing with your statment would that person be considered following politically motivated lies used by koreans, mongolians,Japanese, and Turks??

#210 chinesehistoryboy

chinesehistoryboy

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • Xiucai Exam Candidate
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:36 PM

just wondering, in your opinion,which dynasty isn't a legit Chinese dynasty?

What's chinese to you?

And if a chinese were to have an opposing view just by disagreeing with your statment would that person be considered following politically motivated lies used by koreans, mongolians,Japanese, and Turks??


I throughly understand the foreign rule of Yuan and Qing. Actually, they were the only 2 foreign entities that conquered all of China. The rationale used for Yuan and Qing cannot be fully applied to Sui and Tang. lol, the general population never cried out, destroy the barbarian tang and sui, revive China! Tang emperors were ruthless towards ethnic Xianbei. I suppose you are here to flame me and pretend to be Chinese.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users