I didn't use the word "end" in my post, you did.
I used the word "reduce".

Then why should Talas reduce it?

Let's look at the example of India.

For centuries, India was the middlemen in the spice trade to Europe.
But when the European traders expanded into India and established their presence, India became a springboard for European explorers and traders to go further east to the Spice Islands.

Thus, Europeans found they could actually bypass India for the Spice Trade, made possible by their establishing a foothold in India.

But until their presence were too entrenched, the Indians continued their middlemen role.

In the case of Talas, it meant that China's western reaches were curtailed and Central Asia's role as middlemen became more secured.

don't be ridiculous
you think Tang, hypothetically having a vested interest in the western reaches, hypothetically risking harm to that interest by the battle of Talas, would not commit additional measures as necessary as to rectify the situation?

Of course they would. In fact, Kao's army is but another in a long series of western expeditions, some more successful than others.

The reason why further activity never happened should be obvious. Talas does not signify anything; other expeditionary armies have suffered occasional reverses here and there; this particular one due to allied betrayal. If at all, it is only a marker, one of the more famous ones that due to later unfortunate circumstances would become one among the last official Tang expeditions to the west. (I don't know if the later severed garrisons ever acted on a larger scale than their immediate localities - perhaps they did)

What is significant is the transmission of technology to the barbarians, of note, paper making, and the touring of the west by Tang prisoners of war

Abandon your fantasy - Tang presence receded from the western regions because of internal disruption, not by the military suddenly deciding to stop operating because of the magic of Talas

"Let's look at the example of India.

For centuries, India was the middlemen in the spice trade to Europe.
But when the European traders expanded into India and established their presence, India became a springboard for European explorers and traders to go further east to the Spice Islands.

Thus, Europeans found they could actually bypass India for the Spice Trade, made possible by their establishing a foothold in India.

But until their presence were too entrenched, the Indians continued their middlemen role.

In the case of Talas, it meant that China's western reaches were curtailed and Central Asia's role as middlemen became more secured. "


I fail to see your logic. What does European landing a foothole in India have any similarity with a battle?
You are going to have to show me how traffic of the silk route decreased on the Tang side because of this battle, which route was shut off. Or which political change occured that prevents the Tang merchants from crossing and increased the central Asians.
If you have no source other than a guess, than it amounts to little. Common sense easily deny this fact since just about all of Turkistan is economically dependent on Tang exports and imports. No central Asian state are stupid enough to shut off Tang merchants and get ruined economically. The Tang has nothing to gain from central Asia, in fact some historian suggest Tang's trade on the silk route has a negative net export. Nor does Tang greatly desire any outside product as the "celestial empire that possesses all product in abundant". Certainly Talas does not change anything regarding to the silk road or immedieate military action would be taken, if not, at least a stress on the historical records, which did not exist.

Why are you talking about decrease in trade or shutting of trade route when I made no mention of it?

Why are you talking about Tang merchants being prevented from crossing when I made no such claim?

You are just reading what you want to see into my words, you are not reading my words themselves.

Please re-read them again.

"Why are you talking about decrease in trade or shutting of trade route when I made no mention of it?"

Then make yourself clear and give a reason.

You said this:
"About the reduce role of the Central Asia as middlemen between the East and West should the Tang had not lost Talas, that is my own personal conjecture.
I am supposing that the traders from China and from Europe might interact more directly with each other"

And how will they interact more with each other from a battle? If you don't mean Tang merchants decrease from going westward, you must mean that central Asians suddenly participate more in trade because of the battle, or vice versa from the west. I see no logic in that claim, instead of keeping me guessing what your point is, why don't you state the reason for your claim and make it clear?

I don't have a problem if you're just guessing, but your phrasing was simply putting words into my mouth. Why couldn't you just ask what I meant instead of setting up arguments supposedly on my behalf and then countering them?

And don't say that's just the way you are ... a warhead.
Meaningful discussion require mutual respect.
If that's not what you want, then adios.

Refer back to the example of Europeans in India. It was about the Europeans being able to bypass the middlemen to the source of the products they were seeking.

It did not mean that the Indians lost their role as middle-men, but they found competitors where they previously had a monopoly.

The nature of trade does not always refer to battles, and the effect of Battle of Talas was not just about the battle itself.

It is also about whether how easy it would be for the traders from the origins of goods and the traders from the final market of the goods interact with each other.

The victory of the Arabs at Talas reaffirmed Central Asia's middlemen would continue to enjoy their advantage.

Another example to look at in history was the East-West trade route during the Mongols' rule in China and Central Asia.
Merchants were able to travel from Europe to Asia much more easily than before, bridging the East and West in a way closer than ever in history. It did not remain that way for long.

"I don't have a problem if you're just guessing, but your phrasing was simply putting words into my mouth. Why couldn't you just ask what I meant instead of setting up arguments supposedly on my behalf and then countering them?"

I did ask you. And I also clearly stated that "IF thats what you mean". and stated the reason why its not so. So its not making a general accusation against you at all.





"The victory of the Arabs at Talas reaffirmed Central Asia's middlemen would continue to enjoy their advantage."

And HOW did it do that. You've never explained this. Just how did merchants pass the Middlemen BECAUSE of the battle? You've only stated the cause and effect(an assumed one that is), but not the reason.

The same way merchants from Europe get to travel all the way to China during the Mongols' dominance - lowering of "trade barriers".

With reference to the battle itself, consider how it would have looked for the nascent Abbasid Caliphate which only seized power from the Umayyids in AD 750 had they lost the battle.

I am not claiming how history would be like that had the battle turned out otherwise. I am offering my views of some possible outcomes - the Abbasids might not have gone on to last for another 500 odd years. It was under the Abbasids that the originally non-Muslims Mamelukes came into power within the Islamic world.

The Qarluks and other Turkisc people converted to Islam after the battle and henceforth aligned their states with the Islamic Central Asia and Middle East.

Would the Europeans have found trade with China easier if Central Asia remained aligned to China while the Middle East were firmly entrenched in traditionally hostile rival Islamic sphere?

Perhaps not as easy as it would have been during the Mongols' supremacy, but there would be more possibilities.

Please note again, this is a case of "if", not "must".

"The same way merchants from Europe get to travel all the way to China during the Mongols' dominance - lowering of "trade barriers"."

thats due to peace kept by clearing banditry. I see no connectiong between Talas and Banditry.


"With reference to the battle itself, consider how it would have looked for the nascent Abbasid Caliphate which only seized power from the Umayyids in AD 750 had they lost the battle."

Not much. considering its only part of their border war. Which is why Al Tabari, the most well known muslim historian of that time didn't even mention Talas in his source. Not to mention, the Arabs always mnage to repeatedly conquer their subject territory, and even if parts breakaway(which did under the civil war betwen Al mamun and his brother) its still manage to conquer it after.



"I am offering my views of some possible outcomes - the Abbasids might not have gone on to last for another 500 odd years."

LOL, Abassids would collapse in a border skirmish? Sorry, but do you know how ridiculous that is? Jut an example, the Battle of Tours had at least 50,000 arab troops. Perhaps a number not so much diffrent from those in Talas. Yet it was pinprick damage to Umyad power, because it was the emir of Spain's own action and did not affect the central power Damascus. We got n even better example coser to our area. In 724, Sulu crushed the Arabs in the battle of thirst and threatened to overrun Khurasan itself. Did it cause the collapse of umayyad? No, the Ummayad was alarmed, but didn't even sent any considerable forces for support, it prefered to lt Khurasan handle it on its own which was successful. Similarily Talas was the action of the governor of Khurasan, but to even consider it would ruin the central power at Baghdd is just ridiculous.

"It was under the Abbasids that the originally non-Muslims Mamelukes came into power within the Islamic world."

And they will come with or without the victory at Talas.


"The Qarluks and other Turkisc people converted to Islam after the battle and henceforth aligned their states with the Islamic Central Asia and Middle East."

Wrong, now I see the major part of the confusion here. None of these tribes rendered their allegience to Abassid, Qarlucks are still Tang vassals, read back at the Talas thread, I've already dried myself from repeating.
Read Zi Zhi Tong Jian, Turgis remained Tang vassals, and so did the Qarluqs, perhaps even Tashkent as the source vaguely imply. Even as late as 753 a.d., titles were granted to the rulers of the Qarluqs and Qarluqs are still influenced by Tang is when they turned over the rebel Abusi to the Tang when Tang demanded him in 754. Turgis remained a Tang puppet until An hi, and that kingdom was finally destroyed in 763.
None of these convereted to Islam after the battle, Qarlucks only converted at the beggining of the 9th century when Al Mamun campaigned againt them. The Uighurs never did convert to Islam until at least the destruction of their Khanate and part of them became Islm, the other part Buddhist which only became pure Islam later into the Ming dynasty.

"Would the Europeans have found trade with China easier if Central Asia remained aligned to China while the Middle East were firmly entrenched in traditionally hostile rival Islamic sphere?
"

Central Asia did remain alighed to Tang. That is the point. There are no political shift because of the battle. No source stated that Abassids took control of any of the previous Tang vassals, while Tang source clearly shows that there was no change and the relation is just with the other central Asian states the same as before.
And just HY should Islamic contries prevent Chritisan travellers? the only major Chirtian travellers that actually participate in the travel at that date wa from Eastern Europe, and their route is usually northwards. And I have not seen any evidence at that time that Islamic rulers tried to cut out Chritian merchants.

I will concede I have exhausted my personal knowledge and am unaware of the points raised by Warhead that Tang's influence in Central Asia did not change.

As for how the Abassids would have fared had they lost the battle so early in their "career", it can only be speculated. It is not possible to conclude just because a major historian like why Al Tabari did not mention it. The way warhead put it, it was a provincial war for the Arabs. Perhaps that's why it was overlooked.

With that, I will bow out ... as gracefully as I can manage

I was looking at the maps when Tang was at its peak. I know all about that marriage stuff. So... is Tibet a vassal before the battle or rebellion in 670? I looked at the 2 maps when the Tang was at its peak. The only difference between hte 2 is that one shows Tang having Tibet as a vassl while the other shows it is seperate.

Tibet was more of an ally, kind of like Isreal to USA.
Tang married a princess and gave much gifts to Tibet and Tibet acted in Tang interests.

Actually, speaking of the Byzantine Empire, it depends on the period you are refering to. Definately, the Empire of Justinian or Maurice (6th and beginning of 7th century) is one of the greatest powers of the world. Then came the crisis, but the Byzantines clawed their way back. The Empire under Basil II is once again a superpower, way stronger than all Muslim states, including the Fatymids.

now that I understand the history between those country more, I would now say that the Tubo Empire was a vassal of Tang at that time. I realized according to Zhizhi Tongjian that the Tubo Empire once sent an army of 200,000 and Taizong sent 50,000 army led by Huo Jun Ji at Songzhou and that battle became known as the Battle of Songzhou. During that battle, the Tang had a clear victory. Later, there would be the marriage where the princess would teach the Tubo empire and let it grow. I soon realized that the Tubo was still pretty primitive and even lacked a single language at that point. Therefore, in my mind I see the Tubo Empire as a vassal up until 670.

We are talking about the height of Tang power from 630-755, in which the Byzantine empire is a third rate power comparable to Koguryo.

I don't see what single language has to do with a nation being great.

Tubo Empire's vassal status is by no means a sign of weakness.

And the Tubo Empire were consistently at fighting the Tang for dominance over central Asian and South Asia. And many times won.

Tang marring a daughter to Tubo is a sign of Tang weakness, not Tang greatness.

No. The He Qing policy is much more complex than that. Princesses were given even to kings of states which were just pacified by the Tang. For example, the Tang married princess Hong Hua to the king of Tu Yu Hun right after Li Jin annihilated their forces at kunlun and forced the Tu yu hun into vassalage. Princess Jin Le was married to the king of Khitan and princess Yi Fang to the king of Xi after the Tang forces quelled their rebellion. Less important kings such as that of Yu Tian and Ning Bao also received Tang princesses. Marriage is a diplomatic policy conducted by Tang to give privilege to certain tribal people to balance the power of the nomads in Tang's favour.

However, Tubo is never officially a Tang vassal as I mistakenly thought in the past few years. Tang did enfeoff titles to Tubo rulers. Gan Bu was enfeoffed Xi Hai Jun Wang, but enfeoffment does not connote vassalage, it is another one of Tang's diplomatic policies in balancing "barbarian" power.

While I agree some Tang princess were married to states defeated by Tang. However, Tubo and Songzan Ganbu was not one of such case.

When he first sent envoy to Tang (and the first time Tibet sent any envoys to China) he learned that Tang granted all these princess to other tribal leaders, so his ambassador asked for one themselves. Li Shiming denied the request and Songzan Ganbu took 200,000+ army and swepted through nations standing in between Tibet and Tang and demanded the princess or war. And Tang was actually beaten.

The Tang Shu said later Songzan Ganbu was defeated losing 1000 men and became afraid, withdrew, and requested for princes again where he then was granted the princes.

But that is pretty much bull. Songzan and 200,000 cavalry, and losing 1,000 in Tang territory makes he scared? I think he just wanted to make sure Tang knows he just want the princess.

Tang shu also went and said how much Tibet admired Tang and all Tibetans began to learn Tang customes. Which weren't the case because Songzan Ganbu's favored the the Nepali Princess wife.

After Songzan died, most of Tang's battles with Tibet ends in defeat. And I mean entire army wiped off the face of the planet kind of defeat. While Tang "victories" often are just like the one claimed by Tang Shu, where they got the Tibetans to leave.

In fact, the case is quite comparable. The Tubo force that attacked Song Pan was routed by general Hou Jun Ji in a surprise attack. Tubo was defeated just like the other enemies. Tang married princess Wen Chen to Gan Bu only showed that it began to treat Tubo as an equal of the Tu yu hun, which was a mere Tang vassal. Because prior to the war, Tubo's position at court was inferior to even that of the Tu Yu Hun.




Tang Shu never mentioned that he was scared, it only stated that he begged forgiveness. In any case, you're claim that Tang married Wen Chen to Tubo as a sign of Tang weakness is a incorrect and simplistic generalization of the He Qing policy.



Stop making conjectures. Both princess were held in high standard, what source did you draw from that showed the Nepalese princess held a higher position? In fact that itself is politically improbable, Nepal is a conquered state, Tang is a big independent state which was considered the prime enemy even in Tibetan sources such as the old tibetan chronicle.



No it didn't. The war that was fought between 670-706 ended with the marriage of princess Jin Chen. The result was that Tubo lost Khotan, Kashgar, and their western Turkish vassals. Tang merely lost the fairly unimportant fortress of An Jung. Strategically, Tubo lost more than it gained. The defeat that general Wang inflicted upon the Tubo were hardly small, there were several battles which resulted in 30,000 Tubo deaths each. Furthermore, the Tang defeats were the result of high altitude disease, fought on Tibetan soil, most Tibetan attacks on Tang fortification were easily driven off.

To me, it has nothing to do with Tibet being beaten by Tang or not. Before he was not bothering anyone and begged for a wife, but Tang viewed his state even less important than tribes that are beaten, so it took Tibet kicking some rear ends so Tang realized they are powerful enough to take action and prevent them from turning against Tang.



you and i seems to argue about what the text said or did not say a lot. well, at least texts speaks for itself, that's a good thing.

From Tang Shu, Lie Zhuan chapter 146

太宗遣吏部尚書侯君集為當彌道行營大總管，右領軍大將軍執失思力為白蘭道行軍總管，左武衛將軍牛進達為闊水道行軍總管，右領軍將軍劉蘭為洮河道行軍總管，率步騎五萬以擊之。進達先鋒自松州夜襲其營斬千餘級。弄讚大懼，引兵而退，遣使謝罪，因復請婚，太宗許之。

so Tang Shu did mention he was scared.




give it a rest. Nepal princess was married first so she is the first wife and therefore is the actual Queen. First wife in traditional Eastern Cultures (and probably in any culture) outranks the second wife. And this fact is well documented in historical text. Bhrikuti of Nepal out ranked WenCheng, is a statement based on simple observations, not political agenda.



I wasn't talking about the war where Tibet lost 1,000 men. I am talking about war where general Xue RenQui was sent to defeat the Tibetans but instead failed miserabely. The states along the silk road switched their alliance between Tibet or Tang many times through out Tang history. These two nation are on par in terms of influences.

I remembered incorrectly. But thats not important. You are only diverting from the main point. There is nothing that indicates Tang weakness, only Tubo defeat. Losing over 1,000 is enough to cause fear and uncertainty, there is nothing surprising about that. The fact remain that Tang only elevated Tubo as an equal of Tu Yu Hun and the marriage alliance is not a sign of weakness as you incorrectly assumes.







Give it a rest yourselve. The Nepalese princesses only outrank princess Wen Chen in official position due to the order of marriage, in popularity Wen Chen far outrank the former.(In fact there were three Nepalese princesses before Wen Cheng, they are Chi Zun, Xiang Xiong, and Mu Xie.) Gan Bu certainly didn't "favour the Nepalese" princess over Wen Chen. And the fact that he sent his aristocrats to study at the Tang court is well documented in chapter 146 of Jiu Tang Shu.
"��酋豪�弟，請入國學以習《詩》�《書》。�請中國識文之人典其表�"
Even if Gan Bu did favour the Nepalese princess(and all popular legend clearly indicate that Wen Chen was more popular), it still doesn't change the fact that he took lots of culture and technology from the Tang.





You wrote this: "After Songzan died, most of Tang's battles with Tibet ends in defeat. And I mean entire army wiped off the face of the planet kind of defeat. While Tang "victories" often are just like the one claimed by Tang Shu, where they got the Tibetans to leave."


As I've shown it was wrong. In Zi Zhi Tong Jian, volume 205: "二月，武å¨�é�“总管王å­�æ�°ç ´å��蕃孛æâ€�µè®ºèµžåˆƒã€�çª�厥å�¯æ±—ä¿€å­�等于泠泉å�Šå¤§å²­ï¼Œå�„三万馀人
Tubo suffered heavy defeats where they lost over 30,000 men.

And the result of the 2 wars that followed both ended in the strategic defeat of the Tibetans.
The states along the silk road didn's switch alliance "many times", after 692 it never reverted to Tubo control until the end of the 8th century, decades after the An Shi rebellion. The two states were hardly on a par in terms of influence. In most of Kai Yuan and Tian Bao period, Tubo not only didn't control the tarim, it didn't even pose a threat, after the Tang repeated defeated Tubo in Qin Hai after 729 A.D., most battles were fought at Kokonor and Kashmir, tarim wasn't even invaded. Zi Zhi Tong Jian chapter 213 mentions that "Tubo lost many battles and was fearful, they sued for peace" "�蕃兵数败而惧，乃求和亲".

貞觀八年，其贊普棄宗弄讚始遣使朝貢。弄讚弱冠嗣位，性驍武，多英略，其鄰國羊同及諸羌並賓伏之。太宗遣行人馮德遐往撫慰之。見德遐，大悅。聞突厥及吐谷渾皆尚公主，乃遣使隨德遐入朝，多?金寶，奉表求婚，太宗未之許。使者既返，言於弄讚曰：「初至大國，待我甚厚，許嫁公主。會吐谷渾王入朝，有相離間，由是禮薄，遂不許嫁。」弄讚遂與羊同連，發兵以擊吐谷渾。吐谷渾不能支，遁於青海之上，以避其鋒，其國人畜並為吐蕃所掠。於是進兵攻破党項及白蘭諸羌，率其眾二十餘萬，頓於松州西境。遣使貢金帛，云來迎公主，又謂其屬曰：「若大國不嫁公主與我，即當入寇。」遂進攻松州。都督韓威輕騎覘賊，反為所敗，邊人大擾。太宗遣吏部尚書侯君集為當彌道行營大總管，右領軍大將軍執失思力為白蘭道行軍總管，左武衛將軍牛進達為闊水道行軍總管，右領軍將軍劉蘭為洮河道行軍總管，率步騎五萬以擊之。進達先鋒自松州夜襲其營，斬千餘級。弄讚大懼，引兵而退，遣使謝罪，因復請婚，太宗許之。弄讚乃遣其相祿東贊致禮，獻金五千兩，自餘寶玩數百事。

That's the entire passage of the portion of Tang Shu I quoted. Where it mentioned

遂進攻松州。都督韓威輕騎覘賊，反為所敗，邊人大擾。

Songzan then proceeded into Song-Zhou (located in Sichuan). Admiral Han Qi lost to the enemy and the boarders were in a panic.



Chinese legends yes. Not the Tibetan ones. Songzan did send envoys to Tang and learn Tang cultures, but he also sent them to India and created the Tibetan writing based on Indian script. His son had the buddhist monks from Nepal and India debate the ones brought by Wen Cheng from tang. And the ones from Tang lost and that pretty much ended ends Han Buddhism in Tibet.



Neither ever established absolute dominance over one area. When Tang went to fight Nan-Shao in 752 not long after some of the "defeats" you mentioned. NanShao had allied with Tibet and the losses Tang suffered is anything short of catastrophic.

One of the times 30,000 wiped out with the leader of the army captured. And another 70,000 soldiers were sent and again wiped out by Tibet Nan-Shao alliance.

And your point? The result was still a Tibetan defeat, with Hou Jun Ji's 50,000 force routing the Tubo army.




Wrong! It is in fact precisely the Tibetan legends that worship princess Wen Chen as a buddhist goddess, not the Nepalese princesses, go to Tibet yourself to have a look. Even middle age Tibetan writings from people such as the fifth dalai lama shows the popularity of Wen Chen.
Your refutation of Tang influence on Tibet is purely fatuous. There has been numerous study in this area by historians and archeologists already, you are only in ignorant denial. Tubo's bureucratic structure only began after its contact with Tang. Their Xing Bu and Bing Bu Shang Shu were virtual imitation of the Tang administration.



You are confounding the timeline and event. The debate occured at the end of the 8th century and it was the Chinese monks who won the debate. Chinese form of Buddhism hardly died in Tibet. Lamaism only gained prominence in the middle ages.




In fact, Tang did achieve absolute dominance over the Tarim after 729A.D., there are no record that Tibetan forces ever entered the Tarim again until 4 decades later. Even in Nan Zhao, Tibetan influence was clearly inferior to Tang until after 754 A.D. Your arguement for parity of power simply doesn't hold. It only reigns true decades after the An Shi rebellion.

You talk of it as if after An Shi rebellion it doesn't count as Tang. Tibet has its own internal issues you know? In the whole Tang Tibetan contact, it was never one sided.

The Nepal Princess is worshiped as Green Tara, while Wen Cheng is the White Tara. Your statement is again a little off.

Like I said, there was a debate after Songzan died. Though in the end, the Tibetan Ban religion won out over the Nepal monks and Tang monks.

When Jincheng princess was married to Khriide gtsugbtsan was the revival of Han Buddhism. However it was short lived as Buddhism was banned right after his death. When his son Trisong Detsan finally retook power, the 2 year debate that took place from 792-794 once again had the Indian Buddhism favored over Tang Buddhism.

Tibet never had anything close to the destructive influence of the An Shi rebellion until 842. The worst they had was the persecution of the Mgar clan in 699, which was quickly ccomplished. These court intrigues were no different from Wu Zhou's ursrupation and the later empress dowager Wei and princess Tai Ping's crisis. The central power of Tubo was never unseated.
If you want to include the whole of Tang and Tubo, the Tang still won more battle, especially after civil war torn Tubo apart after 842.




No the statement is not off. You were simply irresonsible with your post. You never bothered to dig for Tibetan sources and incorrectly assumed that all the records were Chinese fabrications. In fact, the introduction of Chinese medicine and culture into Tubo was recorded in a Tibetan source called "Tubo Wang Chao Shi Xi Ming Jian" �蕃王�世袭明鉴. And this book clearly imply the greater popularity of princess Wen Chen.



You fabricated a story which you did not have full understanding of. Chinese form of Buddhism did die out, but it has nothing to do losing a debate.

Ok, I can agree with this statement. After 842, Tibet no longer have the military might it once had. However no significant battle were mentioned beyond that. And in Tang Shu this is the recording:

初，太宗平薛仁杲，得隴上地；虜李軌，得涼州；破吐谷渾、高昌，開四鎮。玄宗繼收黃河積石、宛秀等軍〔四〕，中國無斥候警者幾四十年。輪臺、伊吾屯田，禾菽彌望。開遠門揭候署曰「西極道九千九百里」，示戍人無萬里行也。乾元後，隴右、劍南西山三州七關軍鎮監牧三百所皆失之。憲宗常覽天下圖，見河湟舊封，赫然思經略之，未暇也。至是群臣奏言：「王者建功立業，必有以光表於世者。今不勤一卒，血一刃，而河湟自歸，請上天子尊號。」帝曰：「憲宗嘗念河湟，業未就而殂落。今當述祖宗之烈，其議上順、憲二廟謚號，夸顯後世。」

Where it is suggested by the officials of Tang that after the endless skirmish between Tibet and Tang, at the end the civil war of Tibet returned the lost Tang territory without having to move a soldier.

Whether Tang had military advantage of Tibet prior to the Tibetan civil war is pretty clear.



I personally have experienced Tibetan Medicine and it isn't similar to Han Medicine. The underlaying principles are dramatically different. You seems to be implying that Tibetan Medicine is the same as Chinese medicine like that of Korean and Japanese medicine (where they actually referred to it as Han Medicine before the rise of nationalism). But it simply isn't the case.



I fabricated nothing. All information I have provided are either from Tang Shu or other Chinese sources, or they are from Tibetan sources in English. Green Tara being Nepel Princess is widely known, even in the Chinese sources.

I don't know why you have to accuse others when you can simply state your sources to point out where I am wrong. After all, that's all I am doing to counter your arguments.

Don't tell me you forgot Zhang Yi Chao's campaigns in the west. Zi Zhi Tong Jian, chapter 249:
"张义潮å�‘兵略定其æ—�ç“œã€�伊ã€�西ã€�çâ€�˜ã€�肃ã€�å…°ã€�鄯ã€�æ²³ã€�å²·ã€�å»â€œå��州，é�£å…¶å…„义泽奉å��一州图ç±�å…¥è§�，于是河ã€�湟之地尽入于åâ€��"
Translation: "Zhang Yi Chao sent his armies and pacified the ten prefecture of Gua, Yi, Xi, Su, Lang, Shan, He, Min, Lan...the territory of He and Huan is encorporated into the Tang"

In addition to Zhang Yi Chao's campaigns, Tang also applied forces when they took back much of Long You circuit. ITs true that no major battle occured, yet small scale attacks were numerous. It was far from gaining free territory "without having to move a solider."


And we have digressed from the main topic long enough, you still haven't face up to the fact that the marriage alliance has nothing to do with Tang weakness and everything to do with the diplomatic policy of "Yi Yi Zhi Yi" (Using the barbarians to rule the barbarians).
Furthermore, the balance of power was clearly not on a parity until after 765 A.D. before 756, Tang had the upper hand, after that Tubo had the advantage.



What you've personally experienced is irrelevant to the fact that Chinese medicine and cultue was brought into Tibet in the 7th century A.D. No I didn't impy that Tibetan Medicine is the same as Chinese medicine. My point was that you were wrong when you stated "Tang shu also went and said how much Tibet admired Tang and all Tibetans began to learn Tang customes. Which weren't the case because Songzan Ganbu's favored the the Nepali Princess wife."
Tibetan sources themselve state the influence of Tang culture upon Tibet, Chinese sources didn't fabricate the fact that Gan Bu sent the royal princes to Da Tang to study. Princess Wen Cheng is clearly more popular in Tibetan folklore than the 3 Nepalese princesses. (Furthermore, only one of the Nepalese princess, Chi Zun was worshipped as Green Tara). And studies of Tubo administration from records such as the OTA reveal its adoption of Tang institutions such as the Shang Shu Sheng.

So all the evidence does point to the fact that Song Zan Gan Bu admired Tang and that the Tibetans began to take in Tang customs.
How that has anything to do with the marriage policy is my question to you. Please don't digress and let us return to that.






You fabricated a debate. This was your quote: "His son had the buddhist monks from Nepal and India debate the ones brought by Wen Cheng from tang. And the ones from Tang lost and that pretty much ended ends Han Buddhism in Tibet."

Chinese buddhism clearly didn't disappear and debates were known even as late as the late 8th century. If you didn't fabricate, show me the source of that debate in which the Tang monks lost and that Chinese buddhism ended in Tibet because of that. You are the one that made the claim, so the responsibility lies on you to provide the source.

arg, am I really the only one having problems with the Encodings after the Forum upgrade @_@ I sure miss the good old days when there isn't all these encoding manual labor and no random codes in our discussions.

Yes, you are right, Tang had their overwhemling victories as well. But in the end what help Tang regain their lost land is the internal fighting of the Tibetans after 842. Which resulted in factions that defected to Tang.

If the marriage of Wen Cheng or Jin Cheng were supposed to be any sort of "以夷至夷" using barbarians to control barbarians for the Tang's benefit, I say it didn't work out very well. As Tibet while can say that Tang and Tibet are "Nations of Uncle and Nephews" diplomatically and at the same time mount raids and attacks anyway.



Yes, Wen Cheng and Jin Cheng did bring Chinese monks, literatures and texts into Tibet. But Tibetans didn't embrace it the way it was described on the Chinese texts. Debates is essential in Proto-Buddhism. It is a important part of Buddhist monk's practice.

There have been multiple times when Bon Religion and Buddhist Religion engaged in official debates hosted by the king to determine which is the right religion. The only times that Han Buddhism were involved was the 1st time after Songzan died with the Tang Buddhist brought by Wen Cheng, and the second time in the 8th century when Buddhism won over Bon but also Han Buddhism lost to the Indian or Nepalese Buddhism.

However there was more official debates after that. Many people think that there was just that 1 single debate and ignored the Bon Religion's participation.

From a Chinese source 佛光教科書

祖贊王崩後，隨即發生西藏史上第一次的禁佛運動，直至其子赤松德贊(七五五－七九七年在位)掌權後，即刻展開一連串的護法行動，包括：迎印度寂護大師入藏說法，又請蓮花生大師來藏感化苯教，並請二高僧共創桑耶寺，依佛戒度僧出家；請僧譯經，並解決當時中印僧人「頓漸之爭」，進而宣布西藏佛教採印度寂護一系的應成中觀派教法；於佛苯二教辯論後，正式宣布佛教為西藏國教，佛教因此建立穩固的基礎。

See even the famous debate in 8th century was actually "佛苯二教辯論後", debate between Bon and Buddhism. Yes it also resolved that Buddhism from India won over ones from China, but the first two Major debates is more significant because it's a struggle between Traditional Tibetan Religion and Buddhism.

Under the Bon wiki thread:

I have the same problem with the character Warhead posts or quotes, but not for the other members (your characters are fine, just as those posted by most of the regulars, and the old ones).

Warhead, I suspect this has to do with the way the computer you use (more precisely your browser) is configured for chinese characters, any chance you can change this?

Francois

Let me take a look at the facts for a change: In 674-678 & 711-712 AD the East Romans repulsed two major offensives by the greatest military power on earth, each of which the Caliphate took years to organize. At that point of time latest, the Byzantine were viewed by the Arabs as the enemy par excellence, that is the enemy which to fight brought the most glory to Muslim fighters.

On the other hand, we have a victory of the Arabs at the very periphery of their empire only one year after the settlement of a major civil war between the Umajads and the Abbasids (Talas 751). Still, the Arabs crushed the Tang forces and their best general with contemptuous ease. Also, the Franks defeated the Arabs 732 at Tours.

Byzantines & Franks > Arabs > Tang

Doesn't that direct comparison relegate Tang power to third class (not to mention the Korean pygmy)?

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...12789&st=45

"Piffles, every comment you make unveils blatant ignorance. The Arabs did not blew away the Tang army "with ease", if you actually read the Sima Guan's Zi Zhi Tong Jian, you would have known that the battle actually lasted five days, until the Quarluqs switched sides. And if you actually read al-Dhahabi, you would also have known that the Arabs were actually in a defensive position until the Qarluqs charged into action, and that the Arab victory rested on the cooperation of the Qarluqs as part of a carefully prearranged battle plan by Ziyad. But you haven't. And even if the battle did result in the "easy victory" of your fabrication, it is still hardly a humiliation by a stretch of the imagination, all due to your ignorance of the strategical irrelevancy of Talas. And its transparent that your so called "doing the historical truth justice" is nothing more than another one of your pre-determined ani-Chinese trolling."

The Byzantines repelled the Arab sieges thanks to two advantages: 1) the Theodosian Walls of Constantinople, which were possibly the finest fortifications in the world at that time; and 2) Greek Fire, which was their secret weapon.

That does not prove, though, that the East Roman field army was a match for the Arabs. In fact, the East Roman empire was unable to hold Palestine, Syria, and Egypt against the Arab invasions.

As for Talas: we already have a thread (linked above by Noob) on how representative that battle was of the relative strengths of the Tang and Abbasid militaries. Let's try not to duplicate the debate here?

Sadly Tibet Libre is just yet another one of those history wanking fanbois, yall should hold those you keep company with to higher standards and ban his a**

some people have better knowledge in certain fields but not others. and frankly your attitude is not of particular high standards in this case. perhaps if you have this type of suggestions you should send PM to administrators who have the ability and judgment to ban forum members.

Byzantines lost these provinces to Arabs just after devastating war with Persia, so we can assume that these event took place in quite extraordinary twist events (Persia was so weakened that it fell entirely). In fact, shortly after the Islamic conquest, there was two centuries long stalemate with no side capable of delivering a decisive blow. For almost two centuries there was continuous Arab-Byzantine war that ravaged Cylicia and with mutual raids into Asia Minor and Syria. There were heavy fights both on land and sea. The Arab invasion of 717 was mostly fought on land, with naval battle as a last stage. During this siege Arabs suffered horrific loses, though the Byzantines were supperted then by Slavic and Bulgarian cavalry. It was the Byzantines who managed to get the upper hand somewhere at the beginning of 9th century. The only reason why the Byzantines did not start a full-scale campaign of reconquest was the conflict with the mighty Bulgarian Empire which brought Byzantium to the brink of destruction at the beginning of 10th century.

When the Byzantines had finally free hands on the West, their campaign against the Arabs were triumphal marches. In late 10th century armies of Nicephor Phocas retook Cylicia and most of Syria, including Antioch. His successor, John Tsimkses recaptured Damascus by storm and marched into Palestine, taking several important cities, including Tyre, Acre and Nazareth. His army was just 2 days away of Jerusalem. He had to withdraw however on the news of yet another Bulgarian invasion. At the beginning of 11th century his successor, Basil II, completely obliterated an Egyptian Fatymid army and ensured Byzantine supremacy over Arabs.

Byzantine army was one of the mightiest military machines that ever existed. It consisted standing professionals (Tagmata army, Varagian Guard and Frankish mercenaries) and semi-professional Stratiotai, i.e. soldiers granted with land property, but remaining under arms all the time. The standing army counted about 40 thousands of professionals, including about 8.000 Varagians and Franks. The total mobilization of Stratiotai could give army of about 160.000, though such gigantic force was never assembled. Instead the emperors were mobilizing the Stratiotai of Themes (military provinces) that were close to ongoing conflicts.

I should point out, though, that these reconquests took place when the Abbasid caliphate had effectively split up into rival sultanates, so the advantage was on the Byzantine side. This is similar to how the advantage was with the Arabs after the Byzantine-Sassanian wars.

Add Tunisia (Carthage in 698 taken). But the reasons why the Byzantines were so seemingly easily pushed back by the Arabs are also well known and they are NOT be found in any weakness of the Byzantine military, but rather in extremely adverse circumstances:

1. The Empire was exhausted after what was probably the most ferociously fought war in late antiquity, the war against Persia from 602 to 627. Also, the Byzantine shad to cope with the Avar threat in the Balkans which had triggered the Slavic infiltration of the Balkans, an event of world importance. Finally, the byzantine Empire wall particularly hard struck by the long term effects of the first appearance of the plague in history (see Prokopius account for the mass dying in Constantinople under Justininian).

2. The Arab onslaught exactly stopped at a geographical line where the population stopped being Monophysite Christians and began adhering to Orthodox faith, that is along the Taurus in south-eastern Turkey. That line held until 1071, as the Arabs now encountered what can be called with only minor reservation true national resistance of the Byzantine Greek population.

And after the Byzantine victory in 740 , there was an equilibrium established even in the open field and the Byzantines began to undertake minor offensives.



No, I am just no friend of Warhead's constant excuse machinery to downplay teh role of Talas where in fact the Arab army blew the Tang army completely into the weeds.

That the Qarluqs allegedly 'betrayed' the Tang is a bad excuse, since traditional Chinese military doctrine favoured exactly such soft and indirect means over more frontal confrontation. So just a case where the Arabs let the Tang taste their own medicine.

And that the battle took several days, says also little. Those who are familiar with early Muslim tactics will know that the Arabs often protacted their battles when they thought fit so.

In particular, the fights between the Byzantines and Arabs was in several respects on a different level than anything going on in the east. Specifically, both opponents had open sea navies, their cities and castels were usually fortified by elaborate stone walls, and their siege equipment featured hybrid trebuchets, raising the stakes in siege warfare. Chevedden even identified the most powerful hybrid trebuchet as Byzantine.

With such an edge in two of the three dimensions in warfare (Maritime & siege warfare), the uninformed comment above about Byzantine being a third class power is flat out amusing.

Yes, there seem to be something wrong with the encoding, even I can't read the passages. Unforunately, the bowsers I used belong to my university, I can't change it.




I never refuted the fact that Tubo lost its territory due to its internal collapse, in fact I even emphasized on this fact. The purpose was to draw a parity between Tubo's internal collapse and Tang's internal crisis during the An Shi rebellion.
The policy of 以夷至夷 was never always successful, but it was a policy, not a yield to foreign demand and certainly not a sign of weakness.



This was not the point, don't digress off. To satisfy you're pre-determined conclusion, you blindly assumed that Chinese buddhism ended in Tubo when it clearly didn't. Its a pity, you have the superficial abilities to examine ancient texts, but you simply lack the critical ability and detachment to present a scholarly argument.

Tibet Libre, please don't make me impugn your discredited claim again for the 5th time. It was boring the first time. If you actually have something valuable to present, show us your sources for your fatuous assumptions. Otherwise, do all of us a favour and leave this debate.
Your asinine remarks only reveals the fact that you have absolutely no understanding of even the simplest principles of political science.

There are several definitions of power in international relationship, none of which implies a defeat in a battle. Even weaker states has the ability to overwhelm a greater power of the international system on the battlefield in a specific region. Examples include Japanese victories over Russia in the Russo-Japanese war, Japanese victory over Britain in WW2, and Chinese victory over the U.S. in the early phase of the Korean war. It does not indicate that China was a greater power than the U.S. in 1950. Your fatuous logic, or the lack of it, is the biggest mockery to the discipline of strategic studies.
The greatest power is one which has the ability to exert their influence over the greatest portion of the world, not one which lost a single battle regionally. Do yourself a favour and discipline yourself a bit more in international relation before you embarrass yourself further.


I'm sorry, but it is no excuse, but a simple historical fact that Talas is strategically irrelevant to the outcome of Tang policy in central Asia, you simply don't want to face up to this fact because of your porno Sino-Phobic agendas.
This is a history forum, not a billboard for inferiority complex. If you disagree with a statement, provide the sources, otherwise back off. Its that simple. You provided nothing, and despite that, you still have the ignroance and audacity to press on a unsupoported assertion. This undeniable fact is what makes you the biggest time waster and the sorest loser that has ever posted on this forum.

A third rate power does not imply that it is a weak power, only the fact that it is weaker compared to others. A Tang Shu record of a dialogue between a magistrate of BoHai and the king mentions that Koguryo had 300,000 forces. And in the battle of An Shi, it was able to put to the field 150,000 mohe and native soldiers against the Tang. Byzantine's population has dwindled to no more than 7million at this point(MCEvy & Jones) Koguryo's population was over 4 million. It was a power comparable to the Byzantine.

I am going to address the Wen Cheng Princess's introduction of Chinese buddhism's fate in Tibet one last time.

First, Songtsan have 5 wives, with Nepali Princess, Bhrikuti as his queen. But it's said neither Bhrikuti or Wen Cheng produced off springs.

Songtsan sent envoys to both India and China and brought back Buddhists and texts but he based Tibetan writing on the Indian writing.

Songtsan built 2 Buddhist temples, the one hosting Indian Buddhists was bigger the one for Wencheng was smaller.

Songtsan was initiated by the Indian Master Samantabhadra.

During his reign and after he died, Bon is the ultimate winner of the 3 religions. And Buddhism was not reintroduced for much later. And when chinese buddhism was reintroduced, it lost in the famous 2 year long debate.

To repeat myself, regional strategic equilibrium does not equate equality in aggregate power. The greatest power is one which could exert its influence over the greatest portion of the world. Britain was on the defensive against Russia in central Asia in the 19th century and China stalemated America in the Korean war. Yet because the percetage of British and American forces that was put into the regional struggle is only a small fraction of their overall strength because they have over portions of the world that they have to defend, regional strategic parity was achieved. The Byzantine frontier is only the second pillar of Arab grand strategy.(the primary being central Asia, so powerful was the cetnral Asian force that the Abbasid was able to overthrow the Umayyad) Achieving local strategic parity on the Byzantine part in no way indicate it was an equal of Arabs as a world power.



At no time did Chinese buddhism ever died out. No one argued that it gained prominence over all other religions. But Jin Cheng did not "reintroduce" Chinese buddhism, she merely brought more of Chinese buddhism to what was already there.

Do us a favour and actually read a document of Tang's Koguryo campaign and get a general understanding of east asian siege and naval combat.
The battle of Bai Cun Jiang between the Tang fleet and the Wo fleet involved over 30,000 forces on the sea in a single battle. The Tang's first attack of Koguryo had 40,000 naval forces alone, and the subsequent invasions by Su Ding Fang applied numbers as large as 70,000.
In fact Trebuchet was only introduced to the west from China in the 7th century A.D. The so called Hybrid trebuchets that you speak of wasn't even used until the 9th century A.D.
Chinese missiles at this point had a much longer history of development with winched crossbows capable of firing over 1,000 meters and trebuchets manned by over 200 men. The Byzantines at this time just received the techonology of the Trebuchet and still have trouble firing it accurately.

Byzantine was a third rate power not because of its weaponry, but because it lacked the resources compared even to second rate powers such as the Islamic and Tubo empires.
As Graff comments; the equipments of armies in medieval times was not profoundly different. It was planning and the quantity which was the decisive factor.

got to go with warhead on this one. The Battle of Talas alone shouldn't alone prove that Arabs>Tang because history proves that sort of assumption false. If we look at the Mongol period, the Mongols were without question the world's mightiest army of the time, yet Kublai Khan was unsuccessful in conquering Korea and Vietnam. Likewise, the U.S during the Cold War (one of the world's 2 superpowers) was defeated by Northern Vietnam. Just because of those defeats, does that really mean U.S < Northern Vietnam? Heck no, at the beggining, the U.S went with traditional warfare and scored major victories, but later the Viet people switched to the guriella warfare and used the geography to its advantage. The Viet set booby traps all over the place, had tunnels, mixed spies into the citizens... But does that really mean U.S < Northern Vietnam? No...
And the true determination of how strong a country is internationally shouldn't be based solely on the military power.
The criterion for a power in the world these days include culture, influence, economic, military, politics, geographic, demographic.

If we were to use these criterion to evaluate the Tang at its military peak (during Taizong's period). Then we can make the following evaluation. Culture- Buddhism was starting to flow in. The general life of citizens were decent, drawing great praises. Food and taxes were reasonable during the period. Influence- In terms of vassalage, the Tang under Taizong expanded all the way into the Western Turks which is near the Caspian Sea. They also had tremendous influence on the strengthening of the Tubo empire. Economic- Generally speaking, economy was strong and there were trades with the usage of the Silk Road. Politics- great officials such as Du Ru Mei, Fang Xuan Ling, Wei Zheng, and Zhangsun Wuji. Less corruption. Geographic- the Tang the by far the world's biggest empire, vassalizing or controlling most of the countries around them all the way to the Caspian Sea (Korea eventually fell and india is an exception due to the mountains). Under Taizong, the military power was at its peak for the Tang with famous generals such as Li Jing, Li Shiji, Hou Jun Ji that generally have more fame and more tactical genius compared to Xuanzong's period. The Tang at that time generally dominated over the opponents (Eastern Turks were destroyed) and the country's emphasis on the use of calvary gave it a great advantage over other major powers. Persia at the time was under the the weakened Sassanid Empire. The Tubo empire was strong, but it overall as a international power was still in its primitive stage, learning from the Tang empire. And the military was defeated by an army 1/4th of its size at Songzhou by Hou Jun Ji. After this defeat, Gampo retreated and formally apologized to Taizong (part of the reason why I think Tibet was technically under the Tang). The Byzantium was a strong empire, but not during this particular period. Tang's military might was at its peak somewhere between Taizong's reign around 630 all the way to around 669 when the vassals slowly started to break off. During this period, Constan II was the ruler of the Byzantium empire, yet they got destroyed in terms of military by the Arabs (only the later civil war in Arab saved the empire). At one point, the empire even lost 500 ships in one battle+the emperor almost got killed! Based on this point, I really don't see how the military might of the Tang wasn't the world's greatest during Taizong's period. Plus, even the other factors all point out that the Tang is superior, especially compared to a weakened Sassanid. Byzantium was at a lower period of its history and Tubo was still primitive and learning.

On the other hand, if we look at Xuanzong's period, then the argument might change a bit. Though the military was inferior to the older period of the Tang, but its influence, culture, art, economy all reached peak points in chinese history. The influence was perhaps the greatest part of the Kaiyuan period since it influenced Korea, Japan, Tibet, and the Persians. The Silk Road at this time was used to its maximum extent. Changan was the world's largest international city of the time. Culture, tons of countries were absorbing and learning. Buddhism was big and Korea also sent people. Plus, the Tang also incorporated a lot of ethnics into its government. Examples include Gao Xianzhi of Korea or An Lu Shan of the Xianbei ethnic. Art, history had some of its greatest poets. And economy was prosperous with its heavy trade with all the influenced countries. Along with the fact that Xuanzong got most of his land back, the Empire was back as the world's largest empire. Even with an occasional military failure against Tubo(though the Tang won more than they lost), the Tang still proved to be a military might. In addition, I agree that the Battle of Talas alone shouldn't be used to evaluate the Tang's military might. There are several argumentations already included in previous threads such as the betrayal. Plus, let me remind you that the # was 150,000 Arabs (I read that # somewhere) to 70,000 Tang pro soldiers. With these factors of influence and economy, I really don't see how the Byzantium was a comparable international power.

You are foolish, he purposely casts events in a light to suit his fantastical needs. Talk about missing the big picture

I have the balls to act. Do you?

When we talk of Tibetan parity or victories, we should consider the big picture. The big picture is that, except for a brief interregnum when uprisings occurred all over the conquered territories of the Empire, Tang consistently had the upper hand against Tibet until its own army turned against itself. There was even a rather successful invasion of the Tibetan borderlands going on right at the end of Tian Bao. And while occupying the borderlands when Tang was in the midst of a consuming civil war, Tibet was chased out of Changan by a Tang army without even giving battle.

The amount of manpower massed against the western regions was very few indeed after An Shi. There would be only one last operation which involved joint maneuvers with the Uighurs and only 2,000 Tang troops iirc. After the An Shi rebellion the available manpower to the central government in general was very low and would continue to be a fatal weakness of the dynasty until its end. The military was tied up in rival provincial standoffs and private armies which took no order from the Emperor. The Tang central government could not even force obeisance from its core territories; the provinces were de facto independent!

Those Tang garrisons out west were completely cut off from contact with the rest of the Empire. A missive sent by roundabout way through Uighur territory some decades afterward would be the first resumption of contact. Despite this many held out by themselves against Tibetan pressure until their garrison troops aged; the last one shutting down in 790.

Now, if we talk of Tang influence, I've read that Wencheng brought or initiated contact that brought much "Han" knowledge and technology to the Tibetans, who admired the material achievements of the civilization. FYI Regarding manufactures, Tibet of this time, besides fielding the famous massed armored troops, also were said to have produced toy automatons

Trebuchet (or a similar machine operating on the same rule of counterweight) is mentioned in Strategikon, military handbook written by East Roman Emperor Maurice in mid 6th century.

Edit: Since when the fact how big is country's population is a reliable measurement of that country's military might? This is nonsense. Mongols trashed half of the world with so tiny population. Britain could defeat China in Opium Wars etc.

Besides, the Byzantine Empire was Caliphate's arch-enemy. It was prophet's command to take Constantinople. So, it was the main front where the Muslim armies fought. And Byzantines not only withstood the assault but also managed to get the upper hand and regain lots of territories.