Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Kogoryo, was it chinese

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Loknar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jun-2005
Location: Somalia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 666
  Quote Loknar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Kogoryo, was it chinese
    Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 03:25

About 1 year ago the Chinese government officially made the claim that Koguryo was Chinese, or was ran by Chinese, a claim which has North an South Korea up in arms.

The Chinese have a tendency to dominate all history around them, I have even heard that they claim Gengis Kahn was a Chinese.

In any event there are 2 questions I have:

Is there any validity to this claim?

Also, if there is no valid claim, why would China make such a claim?

I feel that, and this is not unique, China is making a defacto claim upon North Korea incase it ever collapses.

I have another question which has nothing to do with this. Is it true that until Japan took over Choson, that Choson actually owned a small province north of the Yalu river? During the Imjin war Katos division briefly crossed the Yalu and to me knowledge it wasnt to fight Ming, or even attack Ming but to fight Jurchens.



Edited by Loknar
Back to Top
Koguryeo-sonyeon View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Koguryeo-sonyeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 05:34

1st reply

They say that all theirs to see. Tibet, Old chosun-koguryeo-Barhae, mongol, Dolkwol...etc

last time, A chinese scholar said that even the shilla also China.

there are also mad people who said the History of Korea is 9,000years in Korea with Hwandankoki.(and they say the Korea qonquer the siberia, Mesopotamia)

they are same level.......alike however not all chinese people say like that.

 

2nd reply

What is the Yalu river? I don't hear the name.

Chinese character in Korean pronunciation can't write the 'lu'

Back to Top
Conan the destroyer View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
  Quote Conan the destroyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 09:43
China has never claimed Koguryo was Han Chinese. They claim that it was the kingdom of an ethnic minority of China.
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 14:49
Yalu=Amnok

Kato did cross over to fight the Jurchens.
Back to Top
ChineseManchurian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
  Quote ChineseManchurian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 15:03
no body stupid as hell claim Ghangis Khan is a Chinese Hero, everyone knows he is Mongol even the Chinese Scholar,but Chinese scholar claimed that his grand children are Chinese, but from the other side, Korean even claimed Manchu and Japan were part of Korea, only because the emperor of Japan were a Korean noble? Silla is highly confucium, Chinese scholar only claim that.
Back to Top
Loknar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jun-2005
Location: Somalia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 666
  Quote Loknar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 16:33
Originally posted by Koguryeo-sonyeon

1st reply

They say that all theirs to see. Tibet, Old chosun-koguryeo-Barhae, mongol, Dolkwol...etc

last time, A chinese scholar said that even the shilla also China.

there are also mad people who said the History of Korea is 9,000years in Korea with Hwandankoki.(and they say the Korea qonquer the siberia, Mesopotamia)

they are same level.......alike however not all chinese people say like that.

I do not mean to go off topic too much, but wasnt old Choson ran by the Chinese?

Back to Top
Loknar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jun-2005
Location: Somalia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 666
  Quote Loknar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 16:36

Originally posted by Gubook Janggoon

Yalu=Amnok

Kato did cross over to fight the Jurchens.

Yes,  this is what I am getting at. The territory he crossed into, was it Korean? I heard that it was the Japanese who gave this province to China once they annexed Korea.

Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 17:00
Ok, I think what you are getting at is Gando.

IIRC, Gando did not exist at this time.  It comes around more during the time of the Qing dynasty.

Joseon may have viewed the Jurchens as vassals though.


As for Gojoseon (Old Joseon) being run by the Chinese that wouldn't be a correct statement, unless you're talking about the Han commanderies.

Not much is known about Gojoseon and as far as we know the state may not have even existed.  The founders of Gojoseon: Tangun, Gija, and Wiman may be fictional characters. 

Assuming that they existed though. 

Tangun:  No one knows his ethnicity or whatever.  Supposedly he's the son of God, so let's just put him in the modern ethnic construct of "Korean"

Gija and Wiman:  These two are debatable.  They come from what are now considered Chinese dynasties, but some contend that they were ethnic Gojoseon people.  It doesn't really matter.  As far as I'm concerned we can put them in the modern ethnic construct of "Chinese", but that does not mean that China controled Gojoseon.  Think of them sort of like you would William of Orange.  He took the British throne, but Britain did not become Dutch.  They were "Chinese" rulers of a "Korean" state.

Back to Top
Koguryeo-sonyeon View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Koguryeo-sonyeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 21:00

Conan the destroyer. Do you know the Northeast process promoted by Chinese party?

distrotion of History by china  in present. They are entrying Old chosun-Koguryeo-Barhae into Chinese History.

Last time, They promoted the Westsouth process to entry the Tibet history.

And Gubook Janggoong.

Gando was Korean territory. Look the Baekdusan Jyungkyebi(boundery stone) built in 1712.

Japan and Qing had Gando treaty in 1909 in theirs own way.

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------

I don't think so reclaim the Gando......Already around 100 years passed. statue of limitation also remain only 4 years in international law. If the reclaim Gando now, It isn't differnt with Jude in palestine. but I'd like to you don't miss the historical fact.

 

read the newspaper today morning, Korean minstry of diplomacy decided Gando policy very suspicious because big stick of China.

They are all the stupid people in Goverment.

Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 21:53
The Baekdusan Jyungkyebi was built during the time of the Qing dynasty, not during the time of the Imjin Waeran.  Loknar's question was if Gando was a part of Korean territory during the time of Kato Kiyomasa's attack on the Jurchens.  In addition to this, the stone marker marks the boundry between Qing and Joseon at Baekdusan, not above it.


Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 21:56
Originally posted by ChineseManchurian

no body stupid as hell claim Ghangis Khan is a Chinese Hero, everyone knows he is Mongol even the Chinese Scholar,but Chinese scholar claimed that his grand children are Chinese, but from the other side, Korean even claimed Manchu and Japan were part of Korea, only because the emperor of Japan were a Korean noble? Silla is highly confucium, Chinese scholar only claim that.


We had the Ghengis conversation awhile back at CHF.  It's an interesting discussion.  Most people I've talked to seem to deny that he was "Chinese" on the point that he never founded a Chinese dynasty or ruled a Chinese dynasty.

There's a difference to China claiming Ghengis Khan and Goguryeo vs. Koreans claiming that Manchus and the Japanese are Koreans.

The latter isn't state run.  Extreme nationalists who claim such are usually marginal scholars and they don't really garner much public attention.  Basically it's not the mainstream.

This is in contrast to the works being pushed forward by mainstream Chinese scholars actively being supported by the government that claim that Goguryeo and Ghengis Khan were Chinese.
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 22:18
Originally posted by Conan the destroyer

China has never claimed Koguryo was Han Chinese. They claim that it was the kingdom of an ethnic minority of China.


This is true.

I don't think anyone has ever confused Goguryeo as an ethnic Han nation, except that very confused individual who voted as such on the poll.

This is where the problem lies.

China claims that Goguryeo was an ethnic minority who took its orders from the Tang and Sui courts. 

This not only negates any "Korean" aspect about Goguryeo it is pure fallacy.  If Goguryeo was taking orders from China why would the Sui dynasty have to invade Goguryeo four times and the Tang have to send one of their greatest generals Su Dingfang to subjugate the nation?

Proponents of the PRC's side often inject here that Goguryeo was a tributary of the middle kingdom.  So it was, but so were countless other nations such as Baekje and Shilla. 

They then say Goguryeo can be considered a part of Chinese history because part of its former territory is now PRC territory.  Fair enough.  There's nothing wrong with teaching local history if you give due credit to the peoples you are teaching about.  But you shouldn't be putting up signs like this at the same time. 



That say things like "Gao Gou Li Ren Bin Fei Chao Xian Ren" of "The people of Goguryeo don't have any relation to Koreans"


Now granted

The Korean camp doesn't have much meaningful stuff to say either.

I've argued for a long time about this on the Korean side ever since the whole controversy started.  I've learned a lot since then and I've realized that a lot of the stuff we, Koreans, say is crap.  There are a few things that do mean something though.

1.  History-Goguryeo is recorded in the old histories of Korea as being part of the history of the area.  The Samguk Yusa and the Samguk Sagi both record Goguryeo as being one of the three kingdoms of Korea along with Baekje and Shilla.  Chinese records always label them as barbarians and not a part of China or any Chinese dynasty.
2.  Succession-Succession is as important in Korea as it is in China.  The closest thing that we have to a Chinese entity claiming Goguryeo as an ancestor state is when the Tang dynasty installed a member of the old Goguryeo royal family as king/governer of the now subjugated Goguryeo and giving him the title of "King of Chaoxian".  This though is short lived because of the king's constant rebellions.  On the other hand, there are two permanent states which do claim that Goguryeo was their ancestor state:  Barhae and Goryeo.  Barhae actively pushed itself as Goguryeo sucessor even taking the names of Goryeo and Goguryeo sometimes in its diplomatic ventures.  Goryeo was founded as the the sucessor of Goguryeo plain and simple.  Khitan invasions would eventually destory Barhae leaving Goryeo as the sole sucessor to Goguryeo.

Those two reasons, IMHO, are the strongest reasons Goguryeo should be and is considered a part of Korean history.  The fact that they happened in antiquity doesn't hurt either.  By occurring in the past, it gave time for Goguryeo to become solidified as a part of Goryeo history and therefore a part of Joseon's history. 


That's my take on it.  Hope that helped.
Back to Top
Koguryeo-sonyeon View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Koguryeo-sonyeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 23:33

Oh, I didn't look before Imjin war. Sorry for that.

Gubook Janggoon. I read your post interesting.

I can't understand all the words because my poor English.

Thanks.

Back to Top
ChineseManchurian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
  Quote ChineseManchurian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 19:05

Originally posted by Gubook Janggoon

Originally posted by Conan the destroyer

China has never claimed Koguryo was Han Chinese. They claim that it was the kingdom of an ethnic minority of China.


This is true.

I don't think anyone has ever confused Goguryeo as an ethnic Han nation, except that very confused individual who voted as such on the poll.

This is where the problem lies.

China claims that Goguryeo was an ethnic minority who took its orders from the Tang and Sui courts. 

This not only negates any "Korean" aspect about Goguryeo it is pure fallacy.  If Goguryeo was taking orders from China why would the Sui dynasty have to invade Goguryeo four times and the Tang have to send one of their greatest generals Su Dingfang to subjugate the nation?

Proponents of the PRC's side often inject here that Goguryeo was a tributary of the middle kingdom.  So it was, but so were countless other nations such as Baekje and Shilla. 

They then say Goguryeo can be considered a part of Chinese history because part of its former territory is now PRC territory.  Fair enough.  There's nothing wrong with teaching local history if you give due credit to the peoples you are teaching about.  But you shouldn't be putting up signs like this at the same time. 



That say things like "Gao Gou Li Ren Bin Fei Chao Xian Ren" of "The people of Goguryeo don't have any relation to Koreans"


Now granted

The Korean camp doesn't have much meaningful stuff to say either.

I've argued for a long time about this on the Korean side ever since the whole controversy started.  I've learned a lot since then and I've realized that a lot of the stuff we, Koreans, say is crap.  There are a few things that do mean something though.

1.  History-Goguryeo is recorded in the old histories of Korea as being part of the history of the area.  The Samguk Yusa and the Samguk Sagi both record Goguryeo as being one of the three kingdoms of Korea along with Baekje and Shilla.  Chinese records always label them as barbarians and not a part of China or any Chinese dynasty.
2.  Succession-Succession is as important in Korea as it is in China.  The closest thing that we have to a Chinese entity claiming Goguryeo as an ancestor state is when the Tang dynasty installed a member of the old Goguryeo royal family as king/governer of the now subjugated Goguryeo and giving him the title of "King of Chaoxian".  This though is short lived because of the king's constant rebellions.  On the other hand, there are two permanent states which do claim that Goguryeo was their ancestor state:  Barhae and Goryeo.  Barhae actively pushed itself as Goguryeo sucessor even taking the names of Goryeo and Goguryeo sometimes in its diplomatic ventures.  Goryeo was founded as the the sucessor of Goguryeo plain and simple.  Khitan invasions would eventually destory Barhae leaving Goryeo as the sole sucessor to Goguryeo.

Those two reasons, IMHO, are the strongest reasons Goguryeo should be and is considered a part of Korean history.  The fact that they happened in antiquity doesn't hurt either.  By occurring in the past, it gave time for Goguryeo to become solidified as a part of Goryeo history and therefore a part of Joseon's history. 


That's my take on it.  Hope that helped.

The problem is it's true Koguryeo are not Korean, not Chinese, but later on 90% of people become Chinese and 10% become Korean, if Chinese claim that Koguryeo is ethic group of Chinese border, I think Koreans should claim that also. Xian-Bei were also be known as an ancient ethic monority on the Chinese border later on become Chinese, and lots of example for that.

Back to Top
Koguryeo-sonyeon View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Koguryeo-sonyeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 20:44

I don't agree think that "Koguryeo was Korea's. so GIVE US BACK ours Manchu 'n people of Koguryeo was!!" -_-

But the time of Koguryeo period. China also claim Koguryeo like Tang's minority or territroy even then. Only I'd like to criticize is this.

Succeeding of ethinic get accomplished in China more than Korea clearly. However people of Koguryeo could not refuge in those days.(maybe also now?)

People was pulled along to Tang by force about 150,000. Now the Manchu is China's territory. There were not nation which keep alive Korea's in North. Succeeding of ethnic never accomplished of theirs own accord. I don't have deny mind, but I'd like to you know these.

thanks for reading.(BTW How can I pull others words like that?)

Back to Top
ChineseManchurian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
  Quote ChineseManchurian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 20:50

well, Manchu were already Chinese territory in Ming dynasty.

in Tang dynasty Tang never claim Koguyeo as Tang territory, but Korguyeo does take some territories from Tang dynasty. Tang never clamed Koguyeo as Tang's monority, where you get that from?

 

Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 20:51
Originally posted by ChineseManchurian

The problem is it's true Koguryeo are not Korean, not Chinese, but later on 90% of people become Chinese and 10% become Korean, if Chinese claim that Koguryeo is ethic group of Chinese border, I think Koreans should claim that also. Xian-Bei were also be known as an ancient ethic monority on the Chinese border later on become Chinese, and lots of example for that.



That's true.  The problem lies in the fact that past nations don't really represent the current nations that claim inheritance from them.  In the same way I think it is problematic to claim that 90% became Chinese and 10% became Korean.  (I'm assuming that your numbers are right here.)

In the same way the so called "Korea" and "China" at that time, basically Shilla (Barhae also comes into the mix later) and Tang can't really be considered Chinese or Korean in the context of the ROK, DPRK, the PRC, or the ROC. 

By claiming that these past entities were "Chinese" or "Korean" we're forcing them into a mold that they really don't fit into.   I'm sure the Goguryeoans would scoff at being put into the same history as their former vassals Shilla and Baekje and would likewise balk in horror as they were put into the same history of their dreaded enemies Tang and Sui.

No one is really ever right here.  Like I've said, I've discussed this for a long time, and to my dismay I've found that no one's really the winner.

What keeps Goguryeo Korean then?  IMHO it's convention.  States that are conventionally forced into the mold of "Korean" have claimed heritage and inheritance from that state.  They considered Goguryeo their ancestor.

States in China did no such thing.

Simple.  Convention.  It's quite disappointing.  No astounding in your face victory, but that's how it seems to be.

Hokay, as for being an ethnic minority.  I find this argument a little weak.  It would be like the United States teaching the history of Songhay or the Aztecs as the "American Kingdom of Songhay" or the "American Empire of the Aztecs" because it has a large population of minorites that identify their heritage with these entities. 

The Han "Chinese" in the Lolang commandery were a minority among the "Koreans" living there.  Sure they ruled them, but they were a minority.  Then Goguryeo came along and destroyed Lolang, making the Han citizens into Goguryeoan citizens and therefore making them into a minority.  Therefore North Korea can now claim that Han China was a minority nation and can refer to it in its text books as "The Korean Empire of Han China". 

Do my farfetched and overimagined examples make sense to you?

BTW, nice talking to you again Chinese Manchurian.  You havn't been active for awhile.  You planning on coming back to CHF anytime soon?
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 20:53
Originally posted by ChineseManchurian

well, Manchu were already Chinese territory in Ming dynasty.

in Tang dynasty Tang never claim Koguyeo as Tang territory, but Korguyeo does take some territories from Tang dynasty. Tang never clamed Koguyeo as Tang's monority, where you get that from?

 



The first is highly debatable.  Ming occupation of Dongbei was limited to, IIRC please correct me if I'm wrong, a few isolated outposts.  They didn't really have that much control over the area.

As for the latter, no Tang never claimed the Goguryeoans as Tang's minority.  I don't think the concept of minority group even existed back then.  :Q

That's the claim that the PRC is making though.  Go figure.
Back to Top
Koguryeo-sonyeon View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Koguryeo-sonyeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 21:18

Wher I get that from?

The chinsese scholar in Eastnorth project. all the says like that.

Back to Top
poirot View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
  Quote poirot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2005 at 04:12
oh boy, I believe that the kingdom is a part of Korean history and Koreans should be proud of its existence
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.133 seconds.