[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

State your source that yue tribes wasn't registereed, infact over 10 of thousands (and almost all of Minyues) of them were sent north of yangtze (district area) and left substantially few of them on original land.

Obviously this is not the case because Fu Jian's Yue was never compete assimilated or removed until the time of Sun Quan. You want source? I'll give them to you in full detail. First your statement was not only unhistoric but preposterous in every way. There are numerous tribes in Yunnan Fujian, and Canton as well as Annam that had tribal chiefs that merely gave allegience to the Han and paid annual tribute they were never assimilated into Han population thus not registered. Examples of the tribes are Ye Lang of Yunnan. These can be found Han Chinese expansion in South China by Herold Wiens p.139. Another prove is that After Jin emperor Wen had conquered Shu Han in A.D. 263, a census registration revealed a Chinese (including sinicized Tai) of 940,000 households in Si Chuan and the former Wei kingdom combined. This would be roughly 5,372,900 people. Before Jin conquered Wu, the Wu had a registerred population of 5,300,000.. Yet after Jin conquered Wu the Wu had 4 Zhou, 43 Jun, and 313 Xian. The registered household was 523,000, the officials 33,000, and its soldiery 230,000. Male and female, its population numbered some 2,300,000. The entire population of Jin was given as 2,49,840 households, with 16,163,863 people. This indicate a tripling of population in only 17 years. a absolute impossibility. This can only be because of two things, one the unregistered population is much higher because of chaos and fleeing, the other is that more local tribal population are incorpaorated into the local Chinese population during this time after Jin conquered Wu and Han and these newly submitted tribes became registered Chinese population after they submitted as LiuShan Li point out. Again read Han Chinese expansion in South China by Herold Wiens p. 177.
Happy? Or are you still stubborn enough even after the sources are obviously presented.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

You're kidding, we have been talkiing the Zhenguan years and I see no disagreement from you.

I'm talking Zheng Guan at its height with Kai Yuan at its height for the second time.

Quote

Wrong, Songtsan seek for marriage even before the incident, by 638 they attacked Tuyuhun, Dangxiang and Bailan, at Songzhou he had asked again for one princess, because Songtsan was too impatient to wait for Li Shimin's daughter, its clearly states 谓其属曰：“若大国不嫁公主与我，即当入寇。”遂进攻松州, and it wasn't showing any vassal status either after the war, it even shown that Taizong surrendered (Xujiang) Wencheng to Songtsan, by the time of Gaozong (649) it was merely recognized as the status of emperor's son-in-law (Fu Ma), this status generally did not existed after 650 when Songtsan died, Songtsan could never send his troops to help Tang either, beacuse he was death by a year.

Whats wrong? For the second time in Zhi hi Tong Jian 195: 6139-6140, its recorded clearly that general Hou Chun Chiled a surprised counterattack and routed the Tibetan invading forces killing "over 1000 heads" In Qiu Tang Shi, it is recorded that the Tang troops drove off the Tibetan troops in heavy casualies", Sgampo later wrote a letter to "beg forgiveness for his crimes" and reosk the marriage, Tai Zong thought it would be beneficial and agreed. Its quite obvious that it was a Tang victory, therefore the only one thats wrong is you for claiming a Tibetan victory.
Xu Jian doesn't mean surrender it merely mean marring the princess off. Or is it even a primary source that you've read because Neither Jiu Tang Shi or Zhi Zhi Tong Jian in any way claim that Tai Zong is "force" to give the princess. It mentions that only after Sgampo begged forgiveness and sent a large amount of tribute as well as his embassadar prostrating befoer the emperor and kowtow that Tai Zong agreed to give a princess to pacify the barbarians.

Quote

it was merely recognized as the status of emperor's son-in-law (Fu Ma), this status generally did not existed after 650 when Songtsan died.

Could you read? because I've just posted right befoer yours that in 649 a.d., when Gao Zong just got on the throne, he bestowed the title of Fu Ma Tu Wei("military commander/ imperial son in law) AND Xi Hai Jun Wang(soverign of the western seas) AS WELL AS the title of Bao Wang(treasure king) on Sgampo. In response, Sgampo states that if the Tang had any problem he would promply to send an army to help straighten them out. For the vassal status. Zhi Fu Yuang kuei 974: 13V, Tu Yu;190: 1023, Jiu Tang Shu196a:5222, and Hou Tang shu: 196a:3r)
All of them states thatthat. This title is GRANTED to the Tibetan emperor not just known. Only a vassal could be granted a title. Since I've shown my source, why don't you show yours?

Quote

Songtsan could never send his troops to help Tang either, beacuse he was death by a year

Sgampo alerady sented troops to help out Tang on many occasions, one was a campaign against Kucha in which Tai Zong ordered many nations to join hin in the attack and Tubo is listed as one of them. Another is in 647 when Tang ambassador Wang Xian Ce went to India but was mistreated, he later went to Tibet and asked Sgampo to give him a army for revenge, sgampo been a vassal sent a force of 10,000 and persuaded the King of Nepal to sent a army of 7,000. With this army Wang xian Ce defeated the king A Fu Shun Na of central India and lead him back in Chains to chang An. So don't mince words with me.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

During Zhenguan and Li Zhi's regin, tarim was occupied occasionally so what's the point, infact they had lost more battles with Tibetan during Li Zhi.

Tarim was occupied for more or less thirty years. and during this thirty years it was more powerful than Kai Yuan or Tien Bao. They only lost to Tibetans starting from 670 a.d., which is not what I was talking about. Tang was at its strongest from 630-665 druing this time it had no threatening enemies opposed to the numerous ones in Kai Yuan and Tien Bao.

Quote

The Khitan during Kaiyuan and Tianbao paid over 20 times or so tributes to Tang so what's the point again, they shown at least a clear vassel status of Kaiyuan.

The point is they defeated the tang army and was in constant rebellion whuile it only rebelled once and was immediately crushed during Tai Zong and Li Zhi's reign.

Quote

You're basically mindless, there's no Anbei back then when Taizong defeated Tujue either to that of "20 prectures". It was merely after defeated Tujue, Taizong discussed with his ministers and divided Tujue territory of from Youzhou (east) to Lingzhou (west) into four Dudu and six Zhou, from which left-terrtiory incorporated into Dingxiang and right-territory to Yunzhong Dudu Fu (not Duhu), which was not even included Outer (North) mongolia which still holds by Xueyantuo, again what implies.

And your eyeless because you again missed what I've posted as here: in 647 the Uighurs revolted against the Xue Yang Tuo and with the aid of Tang troops overthrew them and occupied Siberia and north mongolia. Tai Zong rezoned this region into 6 Du Hu Fu and 7 Zhou established over the Uighurs and associated tribes. North Mongolia was incorportated into the Tang Empire during Tai Zong reign as this implies.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

孝宣之治，信赏必罚，综核名实，政事、文学、法理之士咸精其能，至于技巧、工匠、器械，自元、成间鲜能及之，亦足以知吏称其职，民安其业也。遭值匈奴乖乱，推亡固存，信威北夷，单于慕义，稽首称籓。功光祖宗，业垂后嗣，可谓中兴，侔德殷宗、周宣矣！
There's no such term of Hanxuan Zhishi either, please keep that in mind. It should be Zhongxing, during his regin, the Xiongnu recognized Han supremacy (not Yuandi), and the regin of Yunadi and Chengdi could barely be supremacy than Xuandi, due to this fact that he was equalied that of King Pangeng (Shang) and King Xuan (W.Zhou) as comparison.

I never said Xiongnu submitted during Yuan di nor did I say Chengdi's reign was superior, Xuan Di and Yuan Di are the strongest point of Han. Which one is superior is up to opinion, but both are clearly superior to Wudi was my point. You still haven't mentioned to me why Wudi's reign is superior to Xuan Di's as you claimed.

Quote

承孝武奢侈余敝师旅之后，海内虚耗，户口减半，光知时务之要，轻繇薄赋，与民休息。
Yes, but you had been freaken-up, because Wudi didn't adopted Yuming Xiuxi (与民休息), and Yuming Xiuxii was only adopted by Wen, Jing as well as Huo Guang during Zhaodi times in which was lasted unitl Xuandi Qinzheng (not Yuandi either). Primarily because after Wudi the popluation had been deceased into half and worsted during Yuandi times. I still failed to see your logic that Yuandi was the Peak of Han.

Wrong, Wudi did adopt Yu Ming Xu Xi during the last three year of his reign, this set a precedence to Zhao and Xuan Di. Do you want sources?

Quote

So you had agreed Zhenguan wasn't the peak of Tang but Kaiyuan.

What the hell is wrong with you? Where did you see in my post that I claimed Kai Yuan is superior? I never said Zheng Guan is the strongest, Li Zhi's regign was. Zheng Guan was still superior to Kai Yuan for the obvious reasons I've pointed out.

Quote

It simple, beauase Kaiyuan and Tianbao is basically the peak of Tang as commonly stated.

I haven't installed a Chinese reading program into my new computor yet, so don't give me anything in Chinese because they won't appear. Whats commonly stated? Show me your source. And commonly stated doesn't mean its always right, since most Chinese Sinologist are highly sinocentric so what they say doesn't mean its the truth in any way. Kai Yuan and Tien Bao is wealthier and internally stronger, this I didn't disagree, but externally Tang during 630-665 is the strongest where its a unipolar power without challenge.

Quote

Zhenguan had a larger territory but that does not meant its a peak.

Again, I never said Zheng Guan is peak, I said that Li Zhi's reign is the peak, simply because it had no challenge.

Quote

warhead, its Tianjin not Tientsin, Xuzhou not Suchow, don't be such anachronism, what you used isn't Wade-Giles either, why not instead D'ang Dynasty.

There is a third system other than Pin Yin and Wade Giles, and this system is the one that I came across. Since you can understand it what are you bitching about? I have my own use of words.

And still, YOu cower away from answering to my statement that according to your logic, Trajan's reign isn't the strongest reign during Roman either if you count internal politics and spirit or success and nyumber of battles as the strength of a empire. Because Rome fought far more battles, won far more territories, and have more troops during the reign of Caesar than trajan. All Trajan conquered was Dacia and Northern Mesopotamia. During Caesar and Augustus's reign, more than twice that many territory, battles and victories are presented than Trajan's. Your method of stength judgement is simply flawed. And as I repeat again, strength is not judged by internal decline, its judged by the power comparison between that state and its enemies, even if Yuan Di and Cheng Di's rule became weakend, Xiong nu's power weakened even more so Han is more powerful during Yuan and Cheng Di. Its absolutely ridiculous to claim Wudi as the strongest simply because during Wudi, Han is not even a unipolar power yet. This did not began until the xiongnu empire collapsed and Han became the sole power in the power struggle, just like that after the soviet Union fell, United States became the unipolar power and had no challenge, but since the United States has less missile than it had duing the cold war is the U.S. inferior in power after the Soviet Union collapsed? No.

[thirdgumi]

I see your points.
Warhead was emphasing relativism between different powers, while yimanrongdi was emphasing relativism between the same power but of different stages in history. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think comparing a state with others is easier than comparing a state with itselves during different stages of history. The former one would be obvious, one can see the difference between 2 states just by comparing them. The later one is not so obvious, because one must take in consideration the growth (be it economical or military or anything else) of the state in different stages.
So, back to the topic, all we need to take into considerationg is to mark a period which a Roman legion and a Han army would meet, because we can't put two armies belonging to different periods to fight, it would be unfair.

A word from the MOD to Warhead and yimanrongdi: be cool and be calm, stop offending each other. And I suggest when we post in Chinese we must also post the english translation of it, so other forumites could understand.

[yimanrongdi]

I would not respond much, since your full of ****.

Quote

You've absolutely nothing other thanpointing out that Wudi fought more battles. You've so far failed in every aspect in comparing the quality of the Han troops to the extend you've discussed the quality at all. You've got to do better than that. You've shown no prove that Wudi's troop is superior other than saying he fought more. And all those battles aren't victories if you haven't noticed.

Yes, infact I did shown how inferior Yuandi was than Wudi on such apects, you should had shown yours.

Quote

Short history of the Chinese peoplethird addtiion by Goddrich p.30, it clearly mentions that the population grew steadily from the begining of the Han to 2a.d. which the census show 59,595,000.

Look, on Hanshu it stated that the populatuion had been deceased into half and could barely growth until Yuanshi and Yuanfeng era, it grew instability and erratic, so your statement was not only unhistoric but preposterous in stating like "grew steadily" or "continuously" from begining of Han to 2 AD.

Quote

Read Han Shu yourself, i don't know what nonsense you've read, but in Han shu 96b, 3-6 it clearly mentions that after 65 b.c., the Wusun is divided into two kingdoms, that of little Kunmi and big Kunmi, both of which recognized Han supremacy and remained faithful vassals, when Zhi Zhi attacked big Kunmi, big Kunmi remained loyal to Han and didn't submit to Zhi Zhi. During yuan Di, there are frequent civil war between the two kingdoms and Yuan Di had to use troops to quell them constantly. Han Shu also clearly states that in 5 b.c. when a petty princeling of Wusun in the west stronve to gain glory attacked the Xiongnu but was in return defeatedthe Wusun was forced to remain a hostage in the xiongnu, court. When the Han found out they insist that since BOTH the wusun and xiongnu are vassals o the Hanits highly improper that one should remain a hostage in anotherso the xiongnu gave way and returned the Wusun hostage.

Yes, they were divided after 64 BC (not 65 BC either), but they had never recognized Han supremacy, either it had mentioned anything of remained faithful vassals and they had revolted and fighting one another occasionally during Yuandi and Chengdi times, infact it even stated that since the division of Wusun, Han had been exhausted and yet couldn't accomplish for peace of Wusun matters. It did, Wusun attacked Xiongnu in 5 BC and in return was defeated. And no, its had NEVER stated that both are vassals. Quote your source out.

Quote

Wrong, Wudi did adopt Yu Ming Xu Xi during the last three year of his reign, this set a precedence to Zhao and Xuan Di. Do you want sources?

Yes, if so please do quote your source.

Quote

Han Shu clearly states that after Zhi Zhi is defeated, the Kangu start to pay annual tribute to the Han and even sent a hostage there, so the Han did have a vague influence on them even though its purely nominal. The Han during this time is virtually the policeman of central Asia punishing those insubordinate nations that threaten other weaker ones such is the case with Zhi Zhi.

No, After defeated Zhizi, Kangju was barely mentioned during Yuandi times. Quote your source.

Quote

the Han Shu clearly mention that in 5 B.C. right after the Wusun incidence, the Han emperor sent a fourfold ultimatum to the xiongnu and says that trouble would come to them if they harbor anyone from
1) China proper, 2)Wusun, 3)Xiyu, 4) WuHuan
It also states that afterwards that WuHuan still paid tribute to the xiongnu, and since both are assals of the Han the Han told the WuHuan that tribute is no longer need to be paid. The Wu Huan obeyed.

Yes, Wang Mang did sent four orders to Chanyu after two Xiyu kings fled to Xiongnu, but Chanyu did not really obeyed, and it never stated Wuhuan still have to paid tribute to Xiongnu, infact Wuhuan obeyed the Zhaotiao (rules) which set by Wang Mang and eventually angered the Xiongnu, the Xiongnu raided and killed hundred of them afterwards.

Quote

Obviously this is not the case because Fu Jian's Yue was never compete assimilated or removed until the time of Sun Quan. You want source? I'll give them to you in full detail. First your statement was not only unhistoric but preposterous in every way. There are numerous tribes in Yunnan Fujian, and Canton as well as Annam that had tribal chiefs that merely gave allegience to the Han and paid annual tribute they were never assimilated into Han population thus not registered. Examples of the tribes are Ye Lang of Yunnan. These can be found Han Chinese expansion in South China by Herold Wiens p.139. Another prove is that After Jin emperor Wen had conquered Shu Han in A.D. 263, a census registration revealed a Chinese (including sinicized Tai) of 940,000 households in Si Chuan and the former Wei kingdom combined. This would be roughly 5,372,900 people. Before Jin conquered Wu, the Wu had a registerred population of 5,300,000.. Yet after Jin conquered Wu the Wu had 4 Zhou, 43 Jun, and 313 Xian. The registered household was 523,000, the officials 33,000, and its soldiery 230,000. Male and female, its population numbered some 2,300,000. The entire population of Jin was given as 2,49,840 households, with 16,163,863 people. This indicate a tripling of population in only 17 years. a absolute impossibility. This can only be because of two things, one the unregistered population is much higher because of chaos and fleeing, the other is that more local tribal population are incorpaorated into the local Chinese population during this time after Jin conquered Wu and Han and these newly submitted tribes became registered Chinese population after they submitted as LiuShan Li point out. Again read Han Chinese expansion in South China by Herold Wiens p. 177.
Happy? Or are you still stubborn enough even after the sources are obviously presented.

I could barely agreed, also Yelang wasn't in Yunnan but Guizhou, and they were never under part of Yizhou Jun. Read Tongdian, after Wei (not Jin, he was not yet titled Wendi either) had conquered Shu, census revealed 280,000 households, 940,000 populations, 102,000 soldiery and 40,000 offcials, Tai minority was not included in this registration. Before Jin conquered Wu, the Wu had a registerred population of 2,300,000 and 520,000 households (242 AD). After Jin conquered Wu, the Wu had 4 Zhou, 43 Jun, 313 Xian, 523,000 households, 320,00 offcials, 230,000 soldiery and 2,300,000 population. The entire population of Jin was given as 2,459,840 households with 16,163,863 population. The Jin incresed 986,381 households and 8,490,982 (8 millions) population in 18 years. In which many of them were unregistered during chaos.

Quote

I'm talking Zheng Guan at its height with Kai Yuan at its height for the second time.

Yet you didn't even stated earlier

Quote

Whats wrong? For the second time in Zhi hi Tong Jian 195: 6139-6140, its recorded clearly that general Hou Chun Chiled a surprised counterattack and routed the Tibetan invading forces killing "over 1000 heads" In Qiu Tang Shi, it is recorded that the Tang troops drove off the Tibetan troops in heavy casualies", Sgampo later wrote a letter to "beg forgiveness for his crimes" and reosk the marriage, Tai Zong thought it would be beneficial and agreed. Its quite obvious that it was a Tang victory, therefore the only one thats wrong is you for claiming a Tibetan victory.
Xu Jian doesn't mean surrender it merely mean marring the princess off. Or is it even a primary source that you've read because Neither Jiu Tang Shi or Zhi Zhi Tong Jian in any way claim that Tai Zong is "force" to give the princess. It mentions that only after Sgampo begged forgiveness and sent a large amount of tribute as well as his embassadar prostrating befoer the emperor

Go check out my perviouly post, I said during a victory battle of Songzhou. And Xujiang does not literal means marring off.

Quote

and kowtow that Tai Zong agreed to give a princess to pacify the barbarians.

Show your source on the kowtow parts.

Quote

All of them states thatthat. This title is GRANTED to the Tibetan emperor not just known. Only a vassal could be granted a title. Since I've shown my source, why don't you show yours?

Tubo wasn't a vassel of Zhenguan.

Quote

Tarim was occupied for more or less thirty years. and during this thirty years it was more powerful than Kai Yuan or Tien Bao. They only lost to Tibetans starting from 670 a.d., which is not what I was talking about.

You're kidding, tarim was occupied during Zhenguan and Li Zhi for even less than 20 years.

Quote

And your eyeless because you again missed what I've posted as here: in 647 the Uighurs revolted against the Xue Yang Tuo and with the aid of Tang troops overthrew them and occupied Siberia and north mongolia. Tai Zong rezoned this region into 6 Du Hu Fu and 7 Zhou established over the Uighurs and associated tribes. North Mongolia was incorportated into the Tang Empire during Tai Zong reign as this implies.

read your post: After Tai Zong defeated and conquererd the Tu Jue he divided their territory into 20 perfectures into the An Bei, the Xue Yang Tuo confederation which occupied Siberia was also organized into Du Hu Fu. But they revolted constantly.

Quote

I never said Xiongnu submitted during Yuan di nor did I say Chengdi's reign was superior.

At least we came to an agreement, Wudi and Xuandi are the peak of Han as I had been suggested on earlier post, and there's no freaken way that 36b.c. of Yuandi was the Peak of Han

Quote

I haven't installed a Chinese reading program into my new computor yet, so don't give me anything in Chinese because they won't appear. Whats commonly stated? Show me your source. Kai Yuan and Tien Bao is wealthier and internally stronger, this I didn't disagree, but externally Tang during 630-665 is the strongest where its a unipolar power without challenge.

Go read Tangshu (as I had posted earlier), it had already stated clearly that Kaiyuan and Tianbao was the Peak of Tang.
.

Quote

Again, I never said Zheng Guan is peak.

Right on, either you had been stating Li Zhi regin as the strongest earlier, however I did stated Li Zhi was superior on externally, but it was the Kaiyuan which regaraded as the Peak of Tang.

Quote

There is a third system other than Pin Yin and Wade Giles, and this system is the one that I came across.

What kind of system would have Qiu Tangshu (Jiu Tangshu), Hou Chun Chi (Hou Junji)

[Yun]

Sorry to interrupt. First of all, an apology to Yimanrongdi: the use of the term "sheng shen zhou chao" was actually by Warhead and not by you, as you have already mentioned.

Secondly, I would appreciate if both of you use Hanyu Pinyin, simply to avoid confusing the rest of us who are not so strong in Chinese.

Thirdly, when you quote a passage in Chinese from the primary sources, please try and translate or summarise for the benefit of those who can't read Chinese.

Fourthly, do not use words like "what the hell" and "****" in this forum. If you use them again, I will have to edit your post. My job as a moderator is to ensure that the language used is moderate.

Lastly, let me propose a way to simplify this debate into a more easily understood form for everybody. Both of you should express your entire argument in a point-by-point manner covering all areas:

1. Territorial extent

2. Strength of military

3. Economy

4. Population

5. Relations with other powers

6. Others

Compare Han Wudi's reign with Han Yuandi's reign in one post, and then compare Tang Taizong's reign with Tang Xuanzong's reign in another post. And then address your opponent's arguments point by point, from 1 to 6. Cite sources whenever you can, and counter your opponent's sources wherever possible. If your opponent has a relevant source and you do not, then you are considered to have lost on that particular point.

All the best to you both!

[General_Zhaoyun]

Alright.. sorry for the interruption, Warhead and Yimanrongdi, I know that both of you get into a rather heated debate trying to prove each other's point is wrong and you're right. But please calm down and follow our forum rules. Saying things like "You are full of ****" isn't going to make our discussion more fruitful. I would appreciate if both of you can be more polite.

I hope I'm not going to lock this thread or send a PM warning to you guys, but please refrain from personal attack and follow our forum rules . I'll watch out for this thread so that it doesn't turn into a flame.

As said before, this is an english-language forum, so if you're quoting chinese sources, I would appreciate if you can at least translate them into english, for the benefit of forummers who can't read chinese to understand your point. Anyway, if you're a chinese speaker, this forum is also a place where you can improve your english and express yourself. If you do have problems about translation from chinese to english, you can PM me, Yun, thirdgumi, Sephodwrym for help.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

I would not respond much, since your full of ****.

Why give up so soon? I ask only your source that proves my so called "****". Do not press on too much love. For you've done nothing but rant. So far I've asked you to tell me why Wudi's reign is superior to Yuan Di or Xuan Di, but all you've done is cower away like a scared puppy and fail to give any solid reason. But even worse is that to dispatch up your ignorance and incompetence, you've resorted to name calling and shown nothing but the c**p such as its been "commonly" agreed. Do not attempt to mince words with me, I know very much what your so called "commonly agreed is. The Kai Yuan that you are so fund of as the height of Tang is called Kai Yuan Shen Shi, and you obviously fail to understand the definition of this term. The historian did not refer to this as military height, but cultural and prosperity height. You have so far shown absolutely nothing worthwhile to back up your prove and you consistently deny your mistakes.

Quote

Yes, infact I did shown how inferior Yuandi was than Wudi on such apects, you should had shown yours.

And here is a perfect example of your head on ranting without stop. How many time to I have to tell you that all you've done is giving me numbers. I want quality. Do you even know what the definition of troop quality is? Ask any militarist and see if they will give your erroneous definition of fighting more battles. Fighting more battle has nothing to do with strength of the military, or else Israel would have the strongest miltiary on earth. I've kept on questiong you on these and you've kept on avoiding these replies because you couldn't. The very fact that Wudi is fighting more battles shows that there is constant threat and his reign is not as stable or peaceful as that of later emperors. Yuan Di and Xuan Di didn't fight as uch battles because there isn't much to fight about since Han was alerady supreme, and the battles they did fight, they won all of them.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

Look, on Hanshu it stated that the populatuion had been deceased into half and could barely growth until Yuanshi and Yuanfeng era, it grew instability and erratic, so your statement was not only unhistoric but preposterous in stating like "grew steadily" or "continuously" from begining of Han to 2 AD.

That was during Wang Mang's reign, show me the chapter where it claim it was during Wudi's reign. And you seem to forget that its after the end of the war that Wudi conquered Korea and South China, which added a large amount of population to the empire. Decline by half? Do you have any common sense? How does a foreign war decline the population by half, there isn't a single instance in history that has that, even the two world wars merely took away a fraction of the population much less than even a quarter. You've taken Han Shu literally just as you've done with all your other petty arguments.

Quote

Yes, they were divided after 64 BC (not 65 BC either), but they had never recognized Han supremacy, either it had mentioned anything of remained faithful vassals and they had revolted and fighting one another occasionally during Yuandi and Chengdi times, infact it even stated that since the division of Wusun, Han had been exhausted and yet couldn't accomplish for peace of Wusun matters. It did, Wusun attacked Xiongnu in 5 BC and in return was defeated. And no, its had NEVER stated that both are vassals. Quote your source out.

First I said after 65 B.C. so there is nothing wrong with my statement. I've already shown my sources and even the exact chapter, look back, Here is the passage from Han Shu. "Yuan Shou Er Nien Chuen Zheng Yue, Xiongnu Chang Yu Ji Wu Sun Da Kun Mi Yi Ci mi jiezhi lai Chao, Han Yi wei Long."
Translated: in the second year of Yuan Shou, the Xiongnu Chang Yu and the Wu Sun great Kun Mi(king of wusun) Mi Yi came to court to to obeiance, the Han's honor is great. I don't know how you can weasle and tongue twist out of this one. The king of Wusun himself came to court to do obeisance, its very clear that Wusun is a vassal a heavily influenced vassal as well.

Quote

infact it even stated that since the division of Wusun, Han had been exhausted and yet couldn't accomplish for peace of Wusun matters.

Thats obviously wrong because Han did in fact involve in many internal struggles afterwards by dispatching troops. Want the source and events?

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

No, After defeated Zhizi, Kangju was barely mentioned during Yuandi times. Quote your source.

No to what? Here is the same passage that comes right after the Wusun Kun Mi and Chang Yu coming to court. "Er Kang Gu, Da Yue Qi, An xi, Yensai, Wu Ge Zhi SHU ci yi gue yuan bu zi shu zhong, qi lai xian gong." Translated: But vassals such as Kang Gu, Da Yue Qi, An xi, Yensai, Wu Ge were too far away so they isn't withing the number to give tribute. There is certain flaw in the passage, its doubtful that Ansi(Parthia) and Da Yue Qi are vassals but there is no reason to suppose that the Yensai and Kang Gu isn't, the Han has a well record of Kanggu on its population and military strength. And Yensai is heavily economicly dependent on the Han and could barely live without Han's products and were quite willing to claim legitimancy of Han.

Quote

Yes, Wang Mang did sent four orders to Chanyu after two Xiyu kings fled to Xiongnu, but Chanyu did not really obeyed, and it never stated Wuhuan still have to paid tribute to Xiongnu, infact Wuhuan obeyed the Zhaotiao (rules) which set by Wang Mang and eventually angered the Xiongnu, the Xiongnu raided and killed hundred of them afterwards.

The point is WuHuan is a Han vassal, and you're wrong when you claim it wasn't.

Quote

I could barely agreed, also Yelang wasn't in Yunnan but Guizhou, and they were never under part of Yizhou Jun. Read Tongdian, after Wei (not Jin, he was not yet titled Wendi either) had conquered Shu, census revealed 280,000 households, 940,000 populations, 102,000 soldiery and 40,000 offcials, Tai minority was not included in this registration. Before Jin conquered Wu, the Wu had a registerred population of 2,300,000 and 520,000 households (242 AD). After Jin conquered Wu, the Wu had 4 Zhou, 43 Jun, 313 Xian, 523,000 households, 320,00 offcials, 230,000 soldiery and 2,300,000 population. The entire population of Jin was given as 2,459,840 households with 16,163,863 population. The Jin incresed 986,381 households and 8,490,982 (8 millions) population in 18 years. In which many of them were unregistered during chaos.

Thus my point.

Quote

Yet you didn't even stated earlier

I don't need to, I said it was the stronger DURING Zheng Guan, DURINg doesn't mean its the whole reign, it could be one year or all of the reign but as long as it fell within the scope of the reign.

Quote

Go check out my perviouly post, I said during a victory battle of Songzhou. And Xujiang does not literal means marring off.

Nor does it in any way imply forced marriage as you claim, so whats your point?

Quote

Tubo wasn't a vassel of Zhenguan.

Wrong, it was, and I've already shown you my source on it. Now back up your claim.


[/quote]You're kidding, tarim was occupied during Zhenguan and Li Zhi for even less than 20 years.[QUOTE]

No, thats all of tarim, most of tarim was occupied for 30 years. By 648 all of tarim is subjugated, but most of it was subjugated long before.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

read your post: After Tai Zong defeated and conquererd the Tu Jue he divided their territory into 20 perfectures into the An Bei, the Xue Yang Tuo confederation which occupied Siberia was also organized into Du Hu Fu. But they revolted constantly.

And read your post: And you really ought to read something about the so called siberia parts history, it was not merely annxed in Zhengguan but Longshuo.

Quote

At least we came to an agreement, Wudi and Xuandi are the peak of Han as I had been suggested on earlier post,

No we haven't, I claimed Xuan Di and Yuan Di's reign is superior not Wudi's. And so far you haven't told me how Wudi's reign is superior to Xuan Di's as I ask for the third time

Quote

and there's no freaken way that 36b.c. of Yuandi was the Peak of Han

There is no freaken way tha Wudi's reign is the height of Han, Xuan Di's reign is clearly superior in all aspects. While at least during Yuan Di Han influence spread further west and further north, therefore I think it was superior to Xuan Di as well.

I haven't installed a Chinese reading program into my new computor yet, so don't give me anything in Chinese because they won't appear. Whats commonly stated? Show me your source. Kai Yuan and Tien Bao is wealthier and internally stronger, this I didn't disagree, but externally Tang during 630-665 is the strongest where its a unipolar power without challenge.

Quote

Go read Tangshu (as I had posted earlier), it had already stated clearly that Kaiyuan and Tianbao was the Peak of Tang.

And as I said you are been sino centric. And again Kai Yuan and Tien Bao was clearly called cultural and economic height not miltiary or political height. Show me the passage where Tang Shu claim Tien Bao is miltiarily and politically stronger than Zheng Guan. In fact I've already shown that your petty argument on peace is wrong by simply examining the miltiary garrisons presented in both eras, Kai Yuan had far more garisons on the border because it had constant threat while there is virtually none in zheng Guan because there is no powerful enemy to even challenge Tang let alone threaten it. Tang during Zheng Guan is a unipolar power, Tang during Kai Yuan wasn't.

Quote

Right on, either you had been stating Li Zhi regin as the strongest earlier, however I did stated Li Zhi was superior on externally, but it was the Kaiyuan which regaraded as the Peak of Tang.

Peak of Tang as culturally and economically as I've already said but not the height of Tang as a world power as I said.

Quote

What kind of system would have Qiu Tangshu (Jiu Tangshu), Hou Chun Chi (Hou Junji)

Don't know, I've merely came across it in English books, ask the author. I merely mispelled Jiu Tang Shu, don't be such a pain in the a**.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

Most importantly, during Yuandi,

There is nothing more important than the subjugation of the Xiongnu which is what all the territory annexation os about. Thus most importantly xiongnu was not subjugated during Wudi therefore Wudi's reign was not stronger than his suceessors.

Quote

There's no such term of Hanxuan Zhishi either, please keep that in mind. It should be Zhongxing, during his regin, the Xiongnu recognized Han supremacy (not Yuandi), and the regin of Yunadi and Chengdi could barely be supremacy than Xuandi, due to this fact that he was equalied that of King Pangeng (Shang) and King Xuan (W.Zhou) as comparison

What are you bickering about? Zhong Xin doesn't contradict Zhi shi. Zhong Xin translated as middle height could also be a Zhi Shi. Xuan di's reign is a Zhi Shi, its often called Xiao Xuan Zhi Shi or sometimes Han Xuan Zhi Shi. And Wudi had neither Zhi Shi or Zhong xin given to his reign so I fail to see how its the height of Han. I've read that passage of how he compares to King Xuan, its Ban Gu's words. And you still haven't told me how Wudi's reign is superior than his.

Quote

Yes, if so please do quote your source.

http://cn.netor.com/.../hist/hist4.htm, I have another book source which is not with me. This also clearly claims tha tEastern Han's economy is superior to western Han's.

Quote

Warhead was emphasing relativism between different powers, while yimanrongdi was emphasing relativism between the same power but of different stages in history. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Its not something that needs to be emphasized, all nations measure their power by their relative position against another, and those with the greatest ability to spread their infleuence through military power and economic pressure are considered the greatest power of the time. The relative position of both Xuan-Yuan Di and Tai Zong-Gao Zong is superior to Wudi and Xuan Zong's reign by this definition. Since the former are unipolar powers while the later aren't, in fact as already pointed out, its not even clear which power had the upper hand during Wudi's reign, the xiongnu or the Han. Its not until later Zhao Di's time that the Han had a clear superiority. Wudi's Han never had the conflict dampening role that a unipolar state such as Han during xuan di-wang mang or such as the U.S. could exercise. There its absolutely clear that his reign isn't the height of Han and Xuan di's is superior in everyway.

[yimanrongdi]

[Edited by Mod as it contains verbal attacks words]

[Yun]

Yimanrongdi has been issued a warning for using provocative and offensive language towards Warhead despite previous requests from the moderators to refrain from doing so. Warhead will also receive a warning if he continues to use offensive language towards Yimanrongdi.

This thread has deviated alot from its original purpose, although it has been educational for all of us. Anyway, the original purpose was itself dangerous because Warhead got into a very ugly quarrel with another guy on AE about the Han vs. Rome issue only a few weeks ago. Warhead, you may be a moderator on AE, but on CHF you are obliged to respect the forum rules yourself. And that means strictly no personal attacks, whether in retaliation or not.

Also, let it be stated here that no-one on this forum is to dismiss another forum member as an 'amateur', as if there were something very wrong with that. We are all amateurs on this forum, as long as we are not professional historians. If you have a PhD and are a professor of history, let us know. But I can say in all frankness that this is not the way that professors debate with one another.

Now, follow my earlier instructions and summarise your arguments in point-by-point format, or I will close this thread because it is becoming useless to the rest of us.