Talk:History of the Han dynasty/Archive 1

Here is my draft

From my sandbox page, this is my draft for Featured Article Statues and one of five branch articles I will create in addition to rewriting the article for Han Dynasty. I hope Mikey Likes it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record I want to point out that nominating an article which has existed for a grand total of 53 minutes (or about 3,200 seconds) is a gross abuse of the "featured article" process. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record: It's one thing to simply object to an article (which you already have and I think once is enough); it's another to be rude and deliberately try to pick a fight with another editor on a separate page from the FAC. So what, I made a mistake and nominated something too quickly; can you blame me for being antsy after I've been working on this project for months?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the article talk page. That information should be here, not just hidden away in some archived featured article review page.

Like you claimed, you've been working on the article for seven months. But nobody else has. Almost certainly wasn't anybody who had spent even seven minutes on it by the time you nominated it for a featured article. Probably not even one single person who had read it all the way through. Give it some time. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I'll give it some time. You certainly have had enough time to read it, since you've been looking at it since yesterday. I want to know your opinion about the content, rather than just the time it has existed so far.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that PericlesofAthens nominated this article so fast because he has already written similar articles on the Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties, and has successfully raised them all to featured status. I see no "gross abuse" of any rule here, especially since PoA already has more than 10 featured articles under his name and this one is also written at a very high standard that is rarely matched on Wikipedia. (I say this after having read the entire article.) This being said, I do agree we should give as many editors as possible a chance to read and edit it before we jump to conclusions. In the mean time, thanks for another great article, PoA! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Madalibi.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to second the comments by Madalibi...Pericles is a veteran at writing Featured articles on Chinese history par excellence....as good as it gets! Excellence, initiative and hard work should be encouraged and appreciated - not penalized! Modernist (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, Modernist. Perhaps I should have waited for as much input as possible before rushing to the FAC page. Thanks for the compliment though!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Emperors and their titles

Han emperors are known in scholarship as Wendi, Wudi, etc., but they did not reign under these titles, which were only given to them after their death (these titles are called shihao 謚號). Also, the opening paragraph says that Liu Bang "reigned as emperor Gaozu," but Gaozu was Li Bang's temple name (miaohao 廟號), which was also posthumous, so he could not have "reigned as" Gaozu. A few similar slips in the rest of the article should be corrected. Maybe we could insert a footnote at the beginning explaining the conventions by which these emperors are now referred to? Madalibi (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. I'll correct the first paragraph to "known posthumously as"; that sounds better.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you know them already, could you point out the other mistakes where I might have said "reigned as" as opposed to "known posthumously as"? I'd like to fix them right away.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You can find them fast with keyword searches for "reigned as" and "throne as"! Madalibi (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh! Lol. I'm on it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And I know you know all this, but there's a good and concise explanation of all these imperial titles here in Endymion Wilkinson's Chinese History: A Manual. If you don't have this book, buy it now, it's amazing! Madalibi (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to scrounge up some resources; hopefully my library has it. In the meantime, I believe I have fixed all the instances where there was confusion over the posthumous titles of emperors.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There are still many instances you can find by looking up "throne as" (from "took the throne as," which means pretty much the same thing as "reigned as," and therefore needs to be corrected to). Going to bed! Madalibi (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just changed those as well. If you get a chance, see the note I just placed in the article in the first paragraph. Good night.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

Wow! What an amazing contribution! I still have to read it all again - but after my first quick read I am just filled with awe and admiration. Thanks so very much. Bows, John Hill (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that was very kind. I take then it that you didn't find any mistakes or errors that need fixing or attention? If you see some the second time around, let me know, because I've been tweaking the article a bit since the day I founded it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My apology for bad taste humour

Sorry for bad taste joke. Arilang ^talk 09:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, what are you talking about? I thought the kowtow picture was funny! I just didn't have time last night to respond when I walked in after hanging out with the guys at the bar (I saw it for a minute, laughed, then immediately passed out afterwards, hah). You don't have to apologize, I mean, sheesh, you already kowtowed to me, isn't that enough? Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More kowtow

File:Kowtow.jpg

More kowtow to his excellent Tribal Chief benevolent forever brave kungfu blackbelt 2000 wifes 3000 sons 10,000 years long life king of all kings Pericles of Athens. Arilang ^talk 17:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha! Why thank you very much for bestowing this title on me. Do I get a marquisate? Also, is there a way I can shorten it so it can be more easily remembered? Hah. Ok, ok. You don't have to answer that. This is a wiki talk page, time to get serious.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Very famous Han emperor's quotations you may use in the article

Han Wudi said: 明犯强漢者，虽遠必诛, translation:anyone dare to invade this strong and powerful country(漢), no matter how far they are, they will be hunted down and killed. Among all the Chinese emperors' decree, this one would be among the top ten. Arilang ^talk 05:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Song of Xiongnu:亡我祁连山,使我六畜不蕃息。亡我焉支山,使我妇女无颜色

Translation: Took my Chiliang Mountain, my animal husbandry destroyed;
Took my Yiangzhi Mountain, my women have no colors.(Yiangzhi Mountain produced cosmetic powder.) Arilang ^talk 06:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm not sure how I could use these quotes in the article, but the first could certainly be used in the article for Emperor Wu of Han and the second should be placed in the article for the Xiongnu. Maybe Emperor Wu's quote could be used in reference to Dayuan (Fergana), but they didn't exactly invade China; they just temporarily cut off China's access to Central Asia.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dayuan was not enemy of Han. After Zhang Qian established contact with Dayuan, he brought back 汗血宝馬, the most valued horses in Chinese history, legend had it that the horse would go on and on, until it's sweat turned into blood. 汗血宝馬 in itself deserve an article of it's own, because it's name appeared again and again in Chinese history. Arilang ^talk 17:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Dayuan was not a mortal enemy, they weren't even an occasional foe; there was only that one war involving Li Guangli at the end of the 2nd century BCE. Other than that, Dayuan paid tribute and upheld trade relations with Han; they were simply too far away to be a burden for Han, who had their hands full with the wars against the Xiongnu and then the Xianbei. I merely mentioned Dayuan because Emperor Wu said that no matter how far away an enemy was, the forces of Han would come for them, and Dayuan (Uzbekistan) is pretty friggin far away for an ancient Chinese army to march against! In any case, it was merely one example.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinese text needed to give it more full picture

PericlesofAthens, I add a few Chinese words for you at some crucial positions, because I feel that pinyin is just not good enough. Arilang ^talk 18:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I believe the guideline for adding Chinese characters, though, is to only add characters when there is no article for that person/place/thing. If someone, some place, or some thing has a blue-colored link to an existing article, the Chinese characters aren't necessary in this article (as they can be seen in another), according to the guideline. However, I personally don't mind having a few more characters here and there for illustrative purposes.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Arilang, in the future, when you add Chinese text names for events, also add their English renderings for Wiki visitors who only understand English. Otherwise the names of the events will not be comprehensible to them.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Selective Chinese texts

Han history, and Tang history, ranked Number 1 among Chinese history. In fact, the Han-Chinese of Han (漢) does come from the Han-Dynasty (漢), even though privately, Southern Chinese preferred to be called Man of Tang (唐人), potentially another good wiki article.

Chinese terms such as 楚漢相爭, 火燒阿房宫, 鸿門宴 have been turned into TV dramas and movies countless of times, so I think they deserved to appear, at least once, in wiki article in full traditional Chinese text(not pinyin), because there are many online Chinese-English dictionary, a few extra mouse clicks, readers could find out the true meanings of these Chinese texts. Arilang ^talk 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that 漢 has come to denote the majority ethnicity within "China" is truly worth mentioning, I agree. But perhaps it would be best placed in the main Han Dynasty article where everything about the Han Dynasty is summed up. This article, History of the Han Dynasty, is almost strictly focused on politics, court intrigues, and foreign relations, with some necessary info on society, culture, technology, economy, philosophy, scholarship, etc. Looking at how the sections are divided and the content therein, I don't think there is a relevant or proper place in this article where the future ethnic identity of 漢 can be sufficiently discussed. I think I'll save that discussion for the main article. Plus, consider the (prose) size of this article already! It's about 90 KB, and anything over 100 KB in size is unacceptable according to Wikipedia standards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Pericles of Athens, the present day Han people owe too much to the ancient (古漢人). Most importantly, 漢字, a language based on pictogram, will be learned, and used by more and more users, judging by the coming of age of Modern China. The legacy of Han Dynasty had etched into the DNA of modern Chineses, these memory will just carried into the future generations. Stories such as 十面埋伏 (translation:Ten levels of ambush), 圍魏救趙 (translation:Sieging Wei in order to save Zhou) are two famous military campaigns that had become household terms which are in everyday used, as if these age-old campaigns happened only yesterday. Once you decided to write another wiki based on these historical events, I shall be glad to offer my humble service. Arilang ^talk 05:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm glad to be of service as well. User:Madalibi is also making noteworthy contributions by improving sentence structure and flow of the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Famous poem by Xiang Yu before suicide

力拔山兮气盖世， 时不利兮骓不逝。 骓不逝兮可奈何， 虞兮虞兮奈若何？

My might can move mountain,
My ambition to conquer the world.
But luck is not with me
Even my horse galloping slow.
What can I do, my horse, what can I do?
What can I do, my lovely girl, what can I do.(On here he referred to his girl friend 虞美人. His horse name is 烏骓馬, a black-color horse.)

This poem is known by nearly every Chinese, and deserved to be mentioned somehow in a wiki. Plus, the river bank where he allegedly killed himself is 烏江. Arilang ^talk 01:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when I create the literature section of a Society and culture of the Han Dynasty article, this poem can be utilized. Until then, this article really has no place for it. It is a nice poem, though. I am, however, a much greater fan of Qu Yuan's poetry, if I am to cite a near contemporary to Xiang Yu.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

虎符

I read through the article, and feel that a historical important item is missing:虎符. In the ancient time, this item was used to facilitate troops movement, half of it is in the possession of field general, and the other half in the hand of the emperor. When any war was won, the field general was supposed to return his half to the emperor, symbolizing the emperor ultimate command of the imperial troops. In another way of saying, for thousands of years, Chinese military generals, or military leaders, did not have absolute authority over their troops, this tradition was only broken in late Qing in the form of Xiang Army by Zeng Guofan .

I think 虎符 needs to have it's own article. Another historical item, symbolizing the absolute power of the emperor is:上方宝劍, swords usually given to high officials or military generals, to carry on capital punishment in emergency without the order of the emperor, historically called 先斬後奏, literally, kill first then tell me later. Arilang ^talk 02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. I'll most likely add these items to the Society and Culture article when I create it. Right now I'm working on science and technology, though. Check it out @ User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Science and technology of the Han Dynasty. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Great work!

Hi User:Nlu, I see that you have started the copyediting process. Great work so far! You certainly corrected a lot of factual errors. I tried to be as accurate as possible, but sometimes the wording in my sources (such as Cambridge History of China) are too ambiguous or even a bit misleading.

I do have one concern though, and that is the gigantic prose size of this article. Before you started editing, the main prose size was already about 88 KB; 100 KB is considered unacceptable. It is important that you add some material where needed, but please keep in mind that you can't insert too many new sentences; otherwise this article will become way too bloated. Nonetheless, thank you for your impressive contributions so far. Cheers!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there is a broken reference at 295 "bielenstein 1986 257 258". Benjwong (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. User:Nlu, when you delete material, always make sure that you're not creating citation errors at the same time.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Three "western" commanderies

PericlesofAthens comment: No, I'm perfectly sober. Look to Yu's source. The commanderies of Longxi, Anding, Beidi, and Shangjun were all evacuated and the people moved to the interior.)

... while the people of three entire commanderies within eastern Liang province and and one commandery within Bing province were temporarily resettled in 110 CE. Following general Ban Yong's (班勇; son of Ban Chao) reopening of relations with the Western Regions in 123 CE, three of these Liang province commanderies were reestablished in 129 CE, only to be withdrawn again a decade later. Even after Liang province was resettled, there was another massive rebellion there in 184 CE, instigated by Han Chinese, Qiang, Xiongnu, and Yuezhi rebels. Yet the Tarim-Basin states continued to offer tribute and hostages to China into the final decade of Han, while the agricultural garrison at Hami was not gradually abandoned until after 153 CE.

I find the above statement quite problematic and too simplistic. Said here that the three named commanderies were "temporarily resettled in 110 CE" and were to reestablish again "in 129 CE and only to be withdrawn again a decade later", that would make it like around 139 CE. And so I gathered a little information from that Zizhi Tongjian, I had confirmed that these passages below duplicated pretty well with annals of Book of Later Han, so I hopes that would clear things up for Mr PericlesofAthens. Said here:

110 徙金城郡居襄武
110 Jincheng Commandery moved to Xiangwu.
111 陇西徒襄武，安定徙美阳，北地徙池阳，上郡徙衙
111 Longxi Commandery (host seat) moved Xiangwu, Anding Commandery (host seat) moved to Meiyang, Beidi Commandery (host seat) moved to Chiyang, Shangjun Commandery (host seat) moved Ya (presumbly all to interior).
124 陇西郡始还狄道
124 Longxi Commandery (host seat) returning to Didao.
129 诏复安定、北地、上郡归旧土
129 Moved Anding, Beidi and Shangjun Commanderies back to former area.
140 徙西河治离石，上郡治夏阳，朔方治五原。
140 Moved Xihe Commandery (host seat) to Lishi (Lishi located at mid Shanxi), Shangjun Commandery (host seat) to Xiayang and Shuofang Commandery (host seat) to Wuyuan.
141 复徙安定居扶风，北地居冯翊
141 Moved Anding Commandery (host seat) to Fufeng and Beidi Commandery (host seat) to Fengyi.
Key word here are Longxi, it never said Longxi was reestablished in 129 nor did it withdrawn again a decade later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.149 (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello 220.255.7.149 (if you want to be addressed by your IP number; feels kind of silly after you've been calling me Mr. Pericles). Thank you for providing this information from the Zizhi Tongjian. These are my notes from Yü Ying-shi (1986, "Han Foreign Relations" in Cambridge History of China), to give you an idea of why I wrote that paragraph as it was:

• Page 430: When the Qiang led a massive rebellion against Han in Liangzhou in 110 AD, the Han court debated on whether or not the entire northwestern area of Liangzhou should be evacuated and abandoned. The General-in-Chief (regent) Deng Zhi was in favor of evacuating and abandoning Liangzhou, even more so when he was persuaded by the frontier officer Pang Can's reports (Pan Ceng was supervisor of military colonies in Guanzhong) about the financial constraints and logistical nightmare of staying in Liangzhou to fight the Qiang. Pang suggested that the frontier Chinese in Liangzhou be resettled in the arable territory of Guanzhong.
• Page 431: Although withdrawal from the northwest did not occur immediately in 110 AD, the Han court did allow four northwestern commanderies to pull out of the region during the following year and have their people settle within the interior of the empire; those commanderies were Longxi, Anding, Beidi, and Shangjun.
• Page 431-432: Some Han Chinese in the Liangzhou region refused to be resettled in the interior of China, so the local government restored to drastic measures of burning their homes and destroying their food stores to drive them out. This led many Han Chinese to revolt and even join the Qiang. This is exactly what the Han court feared would happen, which is why they did not sponsor a full withdrawal of the Liangzhou region.
• Page 432: In fact, during Emperor An of Han's reign, the Han court had spent a whopping 24,000,000,000 wushu coins in the defense of Liangzhou against the Qiang, yet their victories were minimal and often temporary. In 129 AD the court realized that it could not abandon something it had spent so much resources on, and so reestablished the commanderies of Anding, Beidi, and Shangjun. However, a decade later these commanderies were once again abandoned. The Qiang began large scale attacks against Guanzhong and the metropolitan area, which became the new frontier.

So now you can see why I wrote what I wrote. If I made a mistake in gathering this information from Yu, I deeply apologize to everyone here for causing such a misunderstanding! Feel free to edit the article to reflect what the original source (i.e. Zizhi Tongjian) has to say on the matter. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey relax dude, you did a great job on many articles, I really enjoy reading your articles, I am opposing novel-like biographical and historial articles in an encyclopaedia, history around the world are not only written by victors but sometime self-righteous people as well, some minor points might had been omitted, and so in order to put themselves under the light. Your articles are fine just that sometime there are minor mistakes. I've checked my boook and it is pretty much the same in Yu/1962 too, I'll see what to add in future, but maybe not around this time. Anyway don't worry about it.

Qiang conscription as soldiers for Han, how was it related to Tarim Basin?

...The Qiang people, who had been settled by the Han government in various frontier areas since Emperor Jing's reign (but mostly concentrated in Qinghai and Tibet), resented their forced conscription as soldiers for Han in the Tarim Basin; they began a devastating revolt in the northwestern province of Liangzhou (涼州) that would last until 118 CE, cutting off Han's access to Central Asia.

I find this statement to be quite amusing, I know that the Qiang were resented about their forced conscription as soldiers during the Eastern Han era, and also that was not the main reason for their resent, but in the Tarim Basin since Emperor Jing's reign? Or are we talking about Eastern Han? In terms of forced conscription, they were more notable in quelling themselves under the leadership of Chinese commander since 107 really. The comments on their animosity is notable enough to be at least mention, but their involvement in Han's major battles (small or large scale) as implies on this statement is not. In order for such an idea to be even notable under the prose size History of Han dynasty, we'll have to conclude that 1) the overall success rate of campaigns whenever Qiang were involved (and thus the quality of their contributions to Han's military affairs, specifically in Tarim Basin) 2) the proportion of their number in a campaign 3) whether they were offically conscription or just allies aid. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.144 (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "but in the Tarim Basin since Emperor Jing's reign?"

What? You're misrepresenting what is written in the very paragraph you just quoted. It clearly says that since Emperor Jing's reign, the Qiang peoples were settled in "various frontier areas" and that they were "mostly concentrated in Qinghai and Tibet." Where are you getting this idea about the Tarim Basin? The Tarim Basin is where the Qiang were forced to march (or ride) on occasion as conscripted soldiers for Han to suppress rebels or enemy states who were against Han. I never claimed that the Han court settled the Qiang people in the Tarim Basin, let alone since Jing's reign. As for the level of Qiang involvement in Han campaigns, I too would like to see what different sources have to say about this, but thus far Yu Ying-shih makes the claim that this was one of the major reasons why they started the rebellion in the first place. If you can find a source which opposes this view, it may be presented. Until then, there's not much to say.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "The Tarim Basin is where the Qiang were forced to march (or ride) on occasion as conscripted soldiers for Han to suppress rebels or enemy states who were against Han."

That's what Crespigny speculates, just like how Needham likes it, you should've put it that way, I shouldn't had to do that for you. There is no evidence for Qiang conscripted as soldiers for Han to suppress rebels or enemy states who were against Han, and that event for such would be so mere that it's not worth mentioning anyway. If you can find a source from Ban Gu or Fan Ye which oppose the view, it may be presented. Until then, there's not much to say. As for Yu, Yu mentioned other major reasons as for why Qiang started the rebellion in the first place, obviously you didn't read his book as you pretend to. Sheesh, just do the simple math and figure it out, btw you can quit being an idiot, you've my permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.42.98.175 (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought it was Yü Ying-shih who I cited for that particular statement, but it was Crespigny. A simple clerical mistake on my part. As for what the "Australian" Crespigny (2007) states on pages 123-124 (btw, how is his nationality relevant?):

• Page 123: QUOTE: "On the northern frontier, the pattern begun in the time of Emperor He initially continued. In 106 there was a new incursion of the Xianbi in the northwest, but the Northern Xiongnu sent messengers to Dunhuang commandery offering tribute. In the autumn of that year, however, there was a general outbreak of rebellion in central Asia and the Protector-General Ren Shang was besieged at Shule [Kashgar]. He called for help, and a force of five thousand horsemen, primarily composed of auxiliaries from the Qiang and other non-Chinese tribes of Liang province was sent to his relief. Though the siege was broken before the relief force arrived, the troubles continued and worsened, Ren Shang was recalled and replaced, and in the summer of 107 the Dowager ordered that the whole territory of the Western Regions should be abandoned: the extended empire was more than the government could afford to maintain."
• Page 123-124: QUOTE: "The strategic decision was justifiable: the enterprise in central Asia had been the personal achievement of Ban Chao, and its military costs now appeared to outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, the withdrawal still required a transitional military presence, and when the Qiang were subjected to a further impressment they rose in rebellion throughout Liang province: the troubles in the far west were seen as a clear sign of weakness, and the non-Chinese resented the conscription and feared they would be kept from their homes indefinitely. An initial mutiny, badly handled, spread rapidly, and though some of the insurgents simply fled across the frontier other groups fought back. By the winter of 107 the insurgents had cut off the road to central Asia, and the great Qiang rebellion was maintained for more than ten years."

I believe someone has been schooled by the "Australian" Crespigny.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And speaking of Yü Ying-shih (1986), it's the strangest thing that you would say I haven't read his source very closely, since he just happens to say this on page 429-430 (the bolding of text is my own emphasis):

• Page 429-430: QUOTE: "To gain the status of inner subjects of Han China, the Ch'iang, like many other barbarians, accepted the obligation to render services to the Han government, either as laborers or in the armed forces. Servicemen from the Ch'iang dependent states figured prominently in Han campaigns against frontier barbarians. The tribes were probably also subject to taxation of some kind, though the Chinese sources are not very clear about this point. If they were settled in the frontier area, it was their duty to guard the Han frontiers as 'ears and eyes' of the Chinese government."

Oh! So what was that now about "There is no evidence for Qiang conscripted as soldiers for Han to suppress rebels or enemy states who were against Han"? Doesn't seem like two credible sinologists agree with an anyonymous IP address editing Wikipedia. Gee. I wonder which one I should trust?

Also, the comment about their settlement within Han borders as far back as Jing's reign, that also comes from Yü's book chapter in the Cambridge History of China:

• Page 426: QUOTE: "The earliest recorded settlement of Ch'iang in Han territory took place during the reign of Ching-ti (157–141 B.C.), when the Yen tribe under a chief named Liu-ho asked permission to guard the Lung-hsi frontier. The request was approved, and the tribe was settled in five counties."

In essence, this sort of arrangement where the Han relied on local Qiang for aid in guarding and defending the frontiers dated all the way back to Jing's reign. On the previous page, Yü provides a quote from Hou Ying, who commented in 33 BCE that:

The Western Ch'iang of late offered to guard [our] frontier. Thus they were in daily intercourse with the Chinese. The Chinese frontier officials as well as [powerful] people, bent on gain, often robbed the Ch'iang of their cattle, women, and children. This incurred the hatred of the Ch'iang and consequently they revolted against China from time to time.

This clearly shows that yes, the Qiang had for a long time harborded discontent towards the treatment they received by Han Chinese officials at the border. Whether or not this was also a determining factor in their choice to rebel in 110 CE is not made explicit by either Crespigny (2007) or Yü (1986), but if you can find a source which offers additional reasons for why they chose to rebel in 110 CE, then feel free to present evidence here on the talk page and I will gladly add it to the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

However, snarky comments of yours like "Annual is the keyword here dork" and "I am rather sick of your fuucking attitude" and "btw you can quit being an idiot, you've my permission" are not only inappropriate discourse for Wikipedia, but they're the sort of vile comments which get anonymous IP addresses banned by administrators. A fair warning. Have a wonderful day.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quit acting as if you've known something. You can launch a report if you like for that snarky comments, and it should noted that none of your rants above had correctly address to my point I raised. For your informaton, the 106 event was the second only Qiang involvement at the far west, and even with that we still talking about Dunhuang not fcuking Tarim Basin, thus both Yu and Crespigny seem to both disagree with you even more with that rubbish "...The Tarim Basin is where the Qiang were forced to march (or ride) on occasion as conscripted soldiers for Han to suppress rebels or enemy states who were against Han" Would you consider this mere incident and the only event Qiang ever being dispatched into "near" Tarim Basin worth mentioning under the prose size article? "local Qiang for aid in guarding and defending the frontiers" "and the tribe was settled in five counties" The "frontier" and "counties" here refer to southern Gansu region, which had been misrepresented by you as Tarim Basin, a mistake which you don't admit it until now you dork. Do you think I was that stupid like you for not knowing about Ren Shang and 106 event and to raise such a question, what do you take me for? I believe you had just schooled by both author you quoted, thus you should've crawl away instead quoting useless stuffs here that don't matter at all. As for whether Qiang's rebellion of 110 was result of distreatment from Han officials, I would not argue that, it's the matter of POV even if a Yu or Asutrilian Crespigny's book don't explicit said it, Qiang's conflicts with Eastern Han started from 34 CE onwards anyway.

Next time, don't bother to add nonesense from the source you pretend to have read, there's no different from Yu's 1962 and 1986 (in Cambridge History of China), the latter are available from google book while the former I owe, that's a fair warning to you for making Original Research. Have a wonderful day moron.--Anonymous IP

You write: "The "frontier" and "counties" here refer to southern Gansu region, which had been misrepresented by you as Tarim Basin, a mistake which you don't admit it until now you dork." I never made the claim that Longxi Commandery was anywhere but Gansu. I merely quoted that passage to show you where I got the information about the Qiang being settled during Emperor Jing's reign, which you asked in one of your initial questions. Do you have the memory of a goldfish or something? Remember when I said above: "What? You're misrepresenting what is written in the very paragraph you just quoted. It clearly says that since Emperor Jing's reign, the Qiang peoples were settled in "various frontier areas" and that they were "mostly concentrated in Qinghai and Tibet." Where are you getting this idea about the Tarim Basin?" So once again, you're putting words in my mouth and setting up a straw man argument. There's a difference between being settled to live in a certain area, and being conscripted to fight in another area far away. Oh! And speaking of conscription:--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You write: "what do you take me for?" I take you for an Anonymous IP who provides no sources to back up his claims. Considering the I've now completely overturned your argument that "There is no evidence for Qiang conscripted as soldiers for Han to suppress rebels or enemy states who were against Han" ...why should I lend you any credibility at all? In fact, you don't deserve any credibility until you provide at least one source here (with quotes) to back up your claims. So far you have failed to do so.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself, look Dr. Eric Connor, I am done with you with all this quoting word game.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.20.124 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 May 2009(UTC)

I find it creepy that you actually pay attention to the edit revisions of my user page. What are you, a troubled fan or a stalker! Hah.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Histories on the Qiang people and Tarim Basin; extended discussion

I did a little snooping around and found additional information on the Qiang people. The information below comes from Chinese histories (i.e. the Book of Later Han and Zizhi Tongjian). Apparently, the Qiang people of the Hexi Corridor commanderies (i.e. Zhangye, Wuwei, Jiuquan, and Dunhuang) were sent in 106 CE to Kashgar to relieve a siege against Ren Shang, who was then the head of Han's Protectorate of the Western Regions. The siege was lifted by the time the Qiang arrived. However, these Qiang troops, led by Liang Qin (梁慬), were then sent to garrison a city in the oasis state of Kucha along the rim of the Taklamakan Desert. So yes, anonymous IP, the Qiang WERE SENT to the Tarim Basin. In fact, after Liang Qin and his Qiang troops entered Kucha, the inhabitants rebelled against them, a rebellion which the Qiang under Liang's command were charged with quelling.

Now, as for the Qiang people who rebelled in the Hexi Corridor in 107 CE, they were actually a different group of Qiang people from Jincheng, Longxi, and Hanyang commanderies in what is now southeast Gansu province. This group of Qiang people were supposed to reinforce the Protector General Duan Xi as he pulled out of the Tarim Basin. Just as Rafe de Crespigny asserts, these Qiang were uncertain about how long they would have to serve in the Tarim Basin, so they rebelled against Han to avoid serving as conscripts. Afterwards, Liang Qin and his Qiang troops returning from the Tarim Basin fought these rebelling Qiang people from Jincheng, Longxi, and Hanyang and defeated them. Liang Qin's forces killed some eight to ten thousand of them. Thus, your idea that the Qiang fought other Qiang is correct, but you are entirely incorrect about the reason WHY this particular group of Qiang decided to rebel! It's an assertion of Crespigny's that you rejected, even though he is a respected sinologist and you are some random guy using a bunch of public computers in Singapore (that's right, I check IP addresses).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, here's my evidence (courtesy of a friend of mine who pointed these out):

Zizhi Tongjian chapter 49

(孝殤皇帝延平元年/AD 106) ... 詔以北地梁慬為西域副校尉。慬行至河西，會西域諸國反，攻都護任尚於疏勒；尚上書求救，詔慬將河西四郡羌，胡五千騎馳赴之。慬未至而尚己得解，詔征尚還，以騎都尉段禧為都護，西域長史趙博為騎都尉。禧、博守它乾城，城小，梁慬以為不可固，乃譎說龜茲王白霸，欲入共保其城；白霸許之，吏民固諫，白霸不聽。慬既入，遣將急迎段禧、趙博，合軍八九千人。龜茲吏民並叛其王，而與溫宿、姑墨數萬兵反，共圍城，慬等出戰，大破之。連兵數月，胡眾敗走，乘勝追擊，凡斬首萬餘級，獲生口數千人，龜茲乃定。...

(孝安皇帝永初元年/AD 107) ... 西域都護段禧等雖保龜茲，而道路隔塞，檄書不通。公卿議者以為「西域阻遠，數有背叛，吏士屯田。其費無已。」六月，壬戌，罷西域都護，遣騎都尉王弘發關中兵，迎禧及梁慬、趙博、伊吾盧、柳中屯田吏士而還。

初，燒當羌豪東號之子麻奴隨父來降，居於安定。時諸降羌布在郡縣，皆為吏民豪右所徭役，積以愁怨。及王弘西迎段禧，發金城、隴西、漢陽羌數百千騎與俱，郡縣迫促發遣。群羌懼遠屯不還，行到酒泉，頗有散叛，諸郡各發兵邀遮，或覆其廬落；於是勒姐、當煎大豪東岸等愈驚，遂同時奔潰。麻奴兄弟因此與種人俱西出塞，先零別種，滇零與鍾羌諸種大為寇掠，斷隴道。時羌歸附既久，無復器甲，或持竹竿木枝以代戈矛，或負板案以為楯，或執銅鏡以象兵，郡縣畏懦不能制，丁卯，赦除諸羌相連結謀叛逆者罪。 ...

詔車騎將軍鄧騭、征西校尉任尚將五營及諸郡兵五萬人，屯漢陽以備羌。...

(孝安皇帝永初二年/AD 108) 春，正月，鄧騭至漢陽；諸郡兵未至，鐘羌數千人擊敗騭軍於冀西，殺千餘人。梁慬還，至敦煌，逆詔慬留為諸軍援。慬至張掖，破諸羌萬餘人，其能脫者十二三；進至姑臧，羌大豪三百餘人詣慬降，並慰譬，遣還故地。...

Hou Han Shu chapter 47 (biography of Liang Qin 梁慬)

延平元年拜西域副校尉。慬行至河西，會西域諸國反叛，攻都護任尚於疏勒。尚上書求救，詔慬將河西四郡羌胡五千騎馳赴之，慬未至而尚已得解。會征尚還，以騎都尉段禧為都護，西域長史趙博為騎都尉。禧、博守它干城。它干城小，慬以為不可固，乃譎說龜茲王白霸，欲入共保其城，白霸許之。吏人固諫，白霸不聽。慬既入，遣將急迎禧、博，合軍八九千人。龜茲吏人並叛其王，而與溫宿、姑墨數萬兵反，共圍城。慬等出戰，大破之。連兵數月，胡觿敗走，乘勝追擊，凡斬首萬餘級，獲生口數千人，駱駝畜產數萬頭，龜茲乃定。而道路尚隔，檄書不通。

歲余，朝廷憂之。公卿議者以為西域阻遠，數有背叛，吏士屯田，其費無已。

永初元年，遂罷都護，遣騎都尉王弘發關中兵迎慬、禧、博及伊吾盧、柳中屯田吏士。

二年春，還至敦煌。會觿羌反叛，朝廷大發兵西擊之，逆詔慬留為諸軍援。慬至張掖日勒。羌諸種萬餘人攻亭候，殺略吏人。慬進兵擊，大破之，乘勝追至昭武，虜遂散走，其能脫者十二三。及至姑臧，羌大豪三百餘人詣慬降，並尉譬遣還故地，河西四郡復安。

Hou Han Shu chapter 87 (on the Western Qiang)

東號子麻奴立。初隨父降，居安定。時諸降羌布在郡縣，皆為吏人豪右所徭役，積以愁怨。安帝永初元年夏，遣騎都尉王弘發金城、隴西、漢陽羌數百千騎征西域，弘迫促發遣，腢羌懼遠屯不還，行到酒泉，多有散叛。諸郡各發兵儌遮，或覆其廬落。於是勒姐、當煎大豪東岸等愈驚，遂同時奔潰。麻奴兄弟因此遂與種人俱西出塞。

先零別種滇零與鐘羌諸種大為寇掠，斷隴道。時羌歸附既久，無復器甲，或持竹竿木枝以代戈矛，或負板案以為楯，或執銅鏡以象兵，郡縣畏懦不能制。冬，遣車騎將軍鄧騭，征西校尉任尚副，將五營及三河、三輔、汝南、南陽、穎川、太原、上黨兵合五萬人，屯漢陽。明年春，諸郡兵未及至，鐘羌數千人先擊敗騭軍於冀西，殺千餘人。校尉侯霸坐觿羌反叛征免，以西域都護段禧代為校尉。

My conclusion

I believe this settles it once and for all. And I believe you owe me a huge apology for suggesting that I should "crawl away instead quoting useless stuffs here that don't matter at all". Yeah, right. Quoting useless stuff like Rafe de Crespigny and Yu Ying-shih. If that's not good enough for you, here are the original sources they used. Next time you make an argument on a talk page and deliberately try to insult the person you are having an argument with, you BETTER have your facts straight or else your insults can easily be turned around and used against you. Since I'm the better man, I won't stoop that low. Good day.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I owe nothing, obviously you had someone to help you out on the primary source. Like I said, there are more source that suggest Qiang was being used to quell themseleves than sending to TARIM BASIN. Thus the Tarim Basin need not to mention under the line as I suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.42.98.146 (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"entirely incorrect about the reason WHY this particular group of Qiang " We should look into Qiang history as a whole not some particular group of which year that's how you study the fact moron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.42.98.146 (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Obstinate to the end, huh? Of course someone helped me out with the primary sources, I'm only a third-year speaker of Mandarin and only know about 1,700 to 2,000 written characters by heart. That's not enough to dive into the Histories. Besides, I admitted as such above when I said: "courtesy of a friend of mine who pointed these out"

You write: "there are more source that suggest Qiang was being used to quell themseleves than sending to TARIM BASIN" And your point is? What does that have to do with the rebellion of 107 CE? Absolutely nothing. Therefore your little hissy fit here on the talk page is irrelevant. Also notice that I NEVER MADE THE CLAIM that the Qiang did not fight other Qiang. I wonder why you even feel the need to bring this up. This isn't an article about the Qiang people, after all. And that particular section deals heavily with a specific Qiang rebellion, the massive one of 107 to 118 CE.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold your horse I will provide my point from priamry source why I revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.42.98.146 (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This better be relevant to the rebellion of 107 CE. If not, don't even bother.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

107 rebellion!?!? I couldn't fucking believe my eye when you said that. Are you even aware that there were more rebellions out there in these source than just 107-118? Christ sake, please go learn something else, read some sources or play a ps3 for the sake of fact. Al you do is rant and ask for help from someone through email.

Well, genius, we are talking specifically about the 107 CE rebellion. The article doesn't describe any other massive Qiang rebellion and does not need to mention the Qiang fighting other Qiang. The article doesn't even need to explore the nuances of how the Qiang were mistreated by Han border officials; that's perhaps information best reserved for the article Qiang people. If you don't get that, then get lost and go somewhere to cool your jets. You're obviously upset and getting flustered over nothing. Just listen to yourself. You're desperately trying to steer the conversation into different avenues that are quite frankly irrelevant.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to what, why don't you get lost from where you started. If you think 107 is not enough, we will extend the rebellion cause, which is what should be done anyway, what are you doing in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.42.98.146 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Summary style. I don't want that section of the article to become bloated with a bunch of information about the Qiang and their history with the Han court and frontier affairs. That would give the Qiang too much weight in the overall scheme of things. Keep in mind, this article is about the History of the Han Dynasty, not the History of the Qiang people. Always ask why the material you are adding is relevant.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed your thrid source sinece is "irrelevant", so far you had only provided 106 event of Liang Qin (Which I ALREADY KNEW), that's the second only time Qiang get into that far west, mark my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.42.98.146 (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Of couse this isn't History of the Qiang people, but consider those were the "conscription" used by Han General mantaining statblitly on the Han's border, shouldn't you think this is relevant to History of the Han Dynasty? Just listen to yourself.

Look, like I said far above in a previous section, if you can find a source which explicitly says that the Qiang revolted in 107 CE specifically because they were unhappy about fighting other Qiang people or because they were being mistreated by border officials, then I would be more than happy to add the input of whatever scholar makes that assertion. So far you haven't really done that. At all. I'm sure these were contributing factors to the Qiang people's decision to rebel, but I don't want to add such a statement to the article until I see solid proof.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you think other Qiang rebellions in the latter half of Eastern Han are more important than the rebellion of 107–118 CE, then speak up. Name them and use the Histories to explain why they have enough merit to be mentioned in this article at all. The reason I give the 107–118 CE rebellion so much attention is because of the great cost it had for the Han court in terms of treasury money, military manpower, and the loss of territory, farming land, and control over vital trade routes leading into Central Asia. Is another Qiang rebellion of Eastern Han this significant and severe?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Histories on 1 occurence of the Qiang conscription into Tarim Basin for Han vs 16 occurences of Qiang rebellion and their conscription as solders for Han on quelling Qiang rebels BEFORE 107 CE (extended)

Zizhi Tongjian chapter 42

33 诸羌自王莽末入居塞内，金城属县多为所有。隗嚣不能讨，因就慰纳，发其众与汉相拒。司徒掾班彪上言：“今凉州部皆有降羌，羌胡被发左衽，而与汉人杂处，习俗既异，言语不通，数为小吏黠人所见侵夺，穷恚无聊，故致反叛。夫蛮夷寇乱，皆为此也。旧制，益州部置蛮夷骑都尉，幽州部置领乌桓校尉，凉州部置护羌校尉，皆持节领护，治其怨结，岁时巡行，问所疾苦。又数遣使译，通导动静，使塞外羌夷为吏耳目，州郡因此可得警备。今宜复如旧，以明威防。”帝从之。以牛邯为护羌校尉。

34 先零羌与诸种寇金城、陇西，来歙率盖延等进击，大破之，斩首虏数千人。于是开仓禀以赈饥乏，陇右遂安，而凉州流通焉。

35 夏，先零羌寇临洮。来歙荐马援为陇西太守，击先零羌，大破之。

35 马成等破河池，遂平武都。先零诸种羌数万人，屯聚寇钞，拒浩亹隘。成与马援深入讨击，大破之，徙降羌置天水、陇西、扶风。

Zizhi Tongjian chapter 43

36 是岁，参狼羌与诸种寇武都，陇西太守马援击破之，降者万余人，于是陇右清静。

Zizhi Tongjian chapter 44

57 秋，滇吾与弟滇岸率众寇陇西，败太守刘盱于允街，于是守寨诸羌皆叛。诏谒者张鸿领诸郡兵击之，战于允吾，鸿军败没。

58 秋，七月，马武等击烧当羌，大破之，余皆降散。

Zizhi Tongjian chapter 46

77 初，安夷县吏略妻卑湳种羌人妇，吏为其夫所杀，安夷长宗延追之出塞。种人恐见诛，遂共杀延而与勒姐、吾良二种相结为寇。于是烧当羌豪滇吾之子迷吾率诸种俱反，败金城太守郝崇。诏以武威太守北地傅育为护羌校尉，自安夷徙居临羌。迷吾又与封养种豪布桥等五万余人共寇陇西、汉阳。秋，八月，遣行车骑将军马防、长水校尉耿恭将北军五校兵及诸郡射士三万人击之。第五伦上疏曰：“臣愚以为贵戚可封侯以富之，不当任以职事。何者？绳以法则伤恩，私以亲则违宪。伏闻马防今当西征，臣以太后恩仁，陛下至孝，恐卒有纤介，难为意爱。”帝不从。马防等军到冀，布桥等围南部都尉于临洮，防进击，破之，斩首虏四千余人，遂解临洮围；其众皆降，唯布桥等二万余人屯望曲谷不下。

Zizhi Tongjian chapter 47

86 烧当羌迷吾复与弟号吾及诸种反。号吾先轻入，寇陇西界，督烽掾李章追之，生得号吾，将诣郡。

87 护羌校尉傅育欲伐烧当羌，为其新降，不欲出兵，乃募人斗诸羌、胡；羌、胡不肯，遂复叛出塞，更依迷吾。育请发诸郡兵数万人共击羌。未及会，三月，育独进军。迷吾闻之，徙庐落去。育遣精骑三千穷追之，夜，至三兜谷，不设备，迷吾袭击，大破之，杀育及吏士八百八十人。及诸郡兵到，羌遂引去。诏以陇西太守张纡为校尉，将万人屯临羌。

88 公卿举故张掖太守邓训代张纡为护羌校尉... 训因发湟中秦、胡、羌兵四千人出塞，掩击迷唐于写谷，破之，迷唐乃去大、小榆，居颇巖谷，众悉离散。

Zizhi Tongjian chapter 48

93 护羌校尉贯友遣译使构离诸羌，诱以财货，由是解散。乃遣兵出塞，攻迷唐于大、小榆谷，获首虏八百余人，收麦数万斛。

96 护羌校尉贯友卒，以汉阳太守史充代之。充至，遂发湟中羌、胡出塞击迷唐。迷唐迎败充兵，杀数百人。充坐征，以代郡太守吴祉代之。

97 烧当羌迷唐率众八千人寇陇西，胁塞内诸种羌合步骑三万人击破陇西兵，杀大夏长。诏遣行征西将军刘尚、越骑校尉赵世副之，将汉兵、羌、胡共三万人讨之。

101 迷唐复还赐支河曲，将兵向塞。护羌校尉周鲔与金城太守侯霸及诸郡兵、属国羌、胡合三万人出塞至允川。

102 春，安定降羌烧何种反，郡兵击灭之。

I can see hell alots rebellion and how Colonel of the Qiang Army was responsible for quelling for rebllion, now Mr. PericlesofAthens what are you gonna say now? You're lucky as I happened to be in school right now and manage to pick some time to dig out these source, these ain't through yet, as theremight be more in Book of Later Han. I guess now you can get your boyfriend translator through email and help yourself out jerk, your no scholar, all you do is rant and reverted the corrected version of history while the page was being protected.

My point is clear.

Look at yourself, how could you limited the rebellion on just 107-118 time scale, and allowing only the direct cause of 107 (matter of debate) rebellion to be mention? Who are you?

Frankly I am done with you, I really do not have much time, I am in the cafe now. Anyway because of you and the rest of the here would not allow non-user adding stuffs here, History of Han Dynasty will never reveal itself, only lies does.

I will extend the rebellion time scale once I register (depends whether if I could) an account, at the mean time, it should also be noted that 107-118 rebellion does not occurs in every year, and there is gap inbetween them just as any other Qiang rebellions. "A group of Qiang people conscripted to reinforce the Protector General" is not nessary to be mentioned since the direct cause of 107 rebellion was not explicitly clear as "this particular group of Qiang" was quelled in 108, that would make the time scale of rebellion for "this particular group of Qiang" 107-108 instead of 107-118 for the line, and since that's what Crespigny asserts, his name should be mentioned under the line.

You write: "you're just straying far off course by picking at one statement I made on this talk page about the Tarim Basin, a statement I never even included in the article" Read the quote I provided on the first post which I drawn from the article itself retard. Get over with it.

This is the quote from the article before anyone one of us makes the edit:

...The Qiang people, who had been settled by the Han government in various frontier areas since Emperor Jing's reign (but mostly concentrated in Qinghai and Tibet), resented their forced conscription as soldiers for Han in the Tarim Basin; they began a devastating revolt in the northwestern province of Liangzhou (涼州) that would last until 118 CE, cutting off Han's access to Central Asia.

And heres what you've wrote genius: "The Tarim Basin is where the Qiang were forced to march (or ride) on occasion as conscripted soldiers for Han to suppress rebels or enemy states who were against Han."[1]

Sure, I'll admit that I was wrong for writing on this talk page that the Qiang were forced to march on occasion to the Tarim Basin, since I have now discovered that Liang Qin and his Qiang troops' venture into Kashgar and then Kushan was a rare and unique event for Qiang conscripts (who, as you've pointed out more times than necessary, were mostly used to fight other Qiang tribes). However, the rebellion of 107 CE in the Hexi Corridor was in fact due to a group of Qiang who "resented their forced conscription as soldiers for Han in the Tarim Basin", because they mutinied against Duan Xi when they were supposed to reinforce him. They mutinied because they were worried about how long they would be forced to fight for Han in the Tarim Basin; yet this group never even made it to the Tarim Basin, since their rebellion was in Gansu. This group of Qiang, as has been noted elsewhere, was finally defeated in 108 CE by Liang Qin and his Qiang troops who had just returned from the Tarim Basin after quelling a revolt in Kushan. Therefore, there is no historical inaccuracy with the original version of that paragraph from the article, and due to my recent edits, everything is much clearer now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You write: "in fact due to a group of Qiang who "resented their forced conscription as soldiers for Han in the Tarim Basin" "there is no historical inaccuracy with the original version of that paragraph from the article" Not really, the original version of that paragraph from the article is wrong, "this group of Qiang" wasn't resent about anything, they were scared whether they could return from Tarim Basin or not as the source said.

The connection of Western Qiang and Tarim Basin are slimmer and unique than you may thinks. I don't know where you got the information that the Qiang conscripts actually venture into Kashgar and then Kushan, the primary source you quoted above (see The Histories on the Qiang people and Tarim Basin; extended discussion) in fact mentions of no such thing. If you meant to say Kucha then I can understand, but Kashgar and then into Kushan? I think that's just pure nonsense. In fact this particular event or one-time-event is pretty much how Qiang's military activities in Tarim Basin could stretches, anything further than that is simply pure imagination. Let's not even forget that, this group of Qiang army led by Liang Qin wasn't entirely make-up of Qiang ethnic group, it was in fact a combined army of merely 5,000 Qiang and Hu/Little Yuezhi from Hexi four commentaries, this still doesn't includes the additional of 3,000-4,000 of non-Qiang troops as Liang Qin entered the Tarim Basin (before the battle even took places). That's so much how Qiang's military activities can be linked with Tarim Basin. Also where do you get the information that the 107 Qiang group mutinied against Duan Xi? Since Wang Hong led the troops and since this Qiang troop didn't get to meet Duan Xi, it should be correctly to say they mutinied against Wang Hong.

You'll also get to know that the devastating rebellions of 107-118 are only able to penetrate into what's now southwestern Shanxi and Henan (111 CE) and Chongqing (114 CE) at its furthest. It would also good to point out that most of these rebellions and conflicts took places in what is now southeastern Gansu and southern Shaanxi since Qiang had a tendency to move towards Han interior, and none after 107 Liang Qin's quell down happened at the formal four commandaries of Hexi Corridor, namely Wuwei, Zhangye, Jiuquan and Dunhaung, these four commandaries remained largely peaceful, so much for the northwest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.12.236 (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And your point would be? ...

Again, how is any of this relevant to the rebellion of 107–118 CE? Above I ask the question: did mistreatment by Han border officials or the conscription of Qiang to fight other Qiang have anything to do with the rebellion of 107–118 CE? So far you haven't given any sort of clear answer. You're just straying far off course by picking at one statement I made on this talk page about the Tarim Basin, a statement I never even included in the article. Get over it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, another question I just posted above: is there another Qiang rebellion during Eastern Han that is as relevant as the 107–118 CE rebellion? That is to say, was there any other Qiang rebellion that caused as much damage? I think not. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, what's the point of all this ranting?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

See, you're still willfully ignoring me and the main point I am raising: how is any other Qiang rebellion as or more relevant than the 107–118 CE rebellion? This Wikipedia article has gotten too large according to Wiki's prose size standards. Are you suggesting that I provide a detailed history of all the Qiang rebellions? That doesn't make any sense. I don't see how leaving out every little instance where the Qiang caused a disturbance is producing lies or misinformation, as you seem to suggest here. I think you're being a bit unreasonable.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, at this point, I don't think you're doing much else but trolling. You write: "Frankly I am done with you" Well, the feeling is mutual.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You write: "I will extend the rebellion time scale once I register" Are you kidding? You wouldn't last a day as a Wikipedia user. You have no conception of what Wikipedia:No personal attacks is. You'd be banned simply for the multitude of nasty comments that you directed at me thus far (and surely for the many more to come).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what is underlying cause for other groups of Qiang to rebel throughout 107–118 CE?

@ Anonymous IP: you recently wrote:

"A group of Qiang people conscripted to reinforce the Protector General" is not nessary to be mentioned since the direct cause of 107 rebellion was not explicitly clear as "this particular group of Qiang" was quelled in 108, that would make the time scale of rebellion for "this particular group of Qiang" 107-108 instead of 107-118 for the line, and since that's what Crespigny asserts, his name should be mentioned under the line.

Well, let's look once again what Crespigny wrote:

The strategic decision was justifiable: the enterprise in central Asia had been the personal achievement of Ban Chao, and its military costs now appeared to outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, the withdrawal still required a transitional military presence, and when the Qiang were subjected to a further impressment they rose in rebellion throughout Liang province: the troubles in the far west were seen as a clear sign of weakness, and the non-Chinese resented the conscription and feared they would be kept from their homes indefinitely. An initial mutiny, badly handled, spread rapidly, and though some of the insurgents simply fled across the frontier other groups fought back. By the winter of 107 the insurgents had cut off the road to central Asia, and the great Qiang rebellion was maintained for more than ten years.

It seems here that Crespigny implies that the "group of Qiang people conscripted to reinforce the Protector General" initiated the rebellion because they did not want to serve as conscripts far from home. Their rebellion then spread out of control and included other Qiang groups throughout Liang province, who chose to rebel for reasons Crespigny does not specify. Right? Now let's see how this article, History of the Han Dynasty, presently reads:

At the beginning of Empress Dowager Deng's regency, the Protector General of the Western Regions Ren Shang (d. 118 CE) was besieged at Kashgar. Although he was able to break the siege, he was recalled and replaced before the Empress Dowager began to withdraw forces from the Western Regions in 107 CE.[288] However, a transitional force was still needed. The Qiang people had been settled by the Han government in southeastern Gansu since Emperor Jing's reign.[289] A group of Qiang people conscripted to reinforce the Protector General during his withdrawal decided instead to mutiny against him. Their revolt in the northwestern province of Liangzhou (涼州) spurred a greater rebellion that would last until 118 CE, cutting off Han's access to Central Asia.[290]

See? This is exactly what Crespigny says. The question I have for you is (if you know the answer): after the Qiang from Jincheng, Longxi, and Hanyang commanderies were defeated by Liang Qin and his Qiang troops, why did the greater Qiang rebellion continue until 118 CE? Why did other groups of Qiang throughout Liang province decide to revolt? It obviously wasn't for the same reasons that the Qiang conscripts from Jincheng, Longxi, and Hanyang decided to revolt (i.e. did not want to serve as conscripts and so mutinied against Duan Xi). But you're right, Crespigny doesn't explicitly mention why the other groups of Qiang decided to rebel after the initial mutiny. Do you know why?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

PericlesofAthens do you even read through the discussion?

I guess the initial 107 rebellion would be the same manner how you treat the perviosly rebellions and mistreatment from Han official as contributions. Oh wait! But that's not even the fcuking point, the point is since when did I opposed Crespigny asserts? All I am asking was his name to be appear right on the context itself and not under the citation and including a wider scope of time scale on rebellion. Is that so hard for you to grasp? Next time, if you've bother to even read my post, do post your response otherwise please don't waste the space of this discussion board here. I am sorry you're not gonna get your easy answer as for how and why the underlying cause for other groups of Qiang to rebel throughout 107–118 CE in this manner, if you really wanna know it dig it out yourself as I am not interested. When I said explicitly, I meant to said primary source are not explicitly enough on the cause, what the hell is Crespigny doing here?

On top of that, this whole article is a disgrace, the whole context itself here was written in a way of what you only sees fit for the Han dynasty history, anything that is regard to "mistreatment" should be censored and must've bring out on this board, especially when it come to "foreign" section. It is funny that this article didn't even mention how a few shanyus represent themselves when receiving orders from the court after Huhanye submission, no wait, there's nothing of such! Instead we've bunch of mythic account on the amount of "tribute" that is being keep mentioning in the context over again and again! Becuase you don't like to see it! You've stink mind, a narrow one, that's what I know, is there no room for them to be mentioned? I see, now I finally get it. Do you know why?

Another important point which you seem to missed

You writes " if you think other Qiang rebellions in the latter half of Eastern Han are more important than the rebellion of 107–118 CE, then speak up. Name them and use the Histories to explain why they have enough merit to be mentioned in this article at all." Umm, wait a minute here, that's was a rather unusual of yourself. Do you think I was that stupid like you for not knowing why you've the nerves to speak up like this? Your anon boyfriend was helping you out on this whole deal through email, on the 107 "great rebellion" and the followed by the second "great rebellion", most modern context had put it that way anyway, so much for the point out. Well, I am sorry to disappoint you, that's not the whole point of this disuccsion. See? Get over it.

Dude, what are you doing on English Wikipedia?

I can't even make sense of half of what you are saying. Really. And this is reflected in your edits. Not use Crespigny in the citation but mention him in context? How does that make sense? Why mention him at all if we are not citing him in the article? You're just rambling now; it would be as if I attempted to ramble at you in Mandarin Chinese (which I don't know enough yet to present a coherent argument about ancient foreign relations in China!). And you're acting like a complete troll for no reason (which is why I'll be ignoring you now; don't want to 'feed the fire' so to speak). And for Shangdi's sake, sign your edits! (i.e. add this --~~~~ to the end of your edits) Good luck with that whole usership thing; you're going to need it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Get over it. My God. I feel like I'm talking to the Terminator! I say one English phrase, and you pick up on it like "Hasta la vista, baby."--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If the only reason you are still here is to see something in the article about how the Qiang being mistreated by Han officials was a major cause for them to periodically rebel, then allow me to add something (which won't be much of a problem). I have been reluctant to add it thus far to that section because I was unsure about how much this particular aspect of Han-Qiang relations had to do with the 107–118 CE rebellion. Remember, I'm not censoring things; it is official policy that Wikipedia is not censored. I am merely following a narrative, summary style which includes the most relevant and significant information in a short, concise way that respects Wiki's guidelines of prose size constraints. I can't stress that enough. You're suggesting that I add a bunch of new material, a timeline if you will, about the Qiang, when that is in fact extremely excessive and off-topic for this article. It is more suitable in a new article such as Qiang-Han foreign relations or something along that line.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you got your wish, Anonymous IP. Here is how the paragraph in the article reads now:

At the beginning of Empress Dowager Deng's regency, the Protector General of the Western Regions Ren Shang (d. 118 CE) was besieged at Kashgar. Although he was able to break the siege, he was recalled and replaced before the Empress Dowager began to withdraw forces from the Western Regions in 107 CE.[288] However, a transitional force was still needed. The Qiang people, who had been settled by the Han government in southeastern Gansu since Emperor Jing's reign,[289] would aid Han in this withdrawal.[290] Throughout Eastern Han, the Qiang often revolted against Han authority after Han border officials robbed them of goods and even women and children.[291] A group of Qiang people conscripted to reinforce the Protector General during his withdrawal decided instead to mutiny against him. Their revolt in the northwestern province of Liangzhou (涼州) was put down in 108 CE, but it spurred a greater Qiang rebellion that would last until 118 CE, cutting off Han's access to Central Asia.[292] The Qiang problem was exacerbated in 109 CE by a combined Southern Xiongnu, Xianbei, and Wuhuan rebellion in the northeast.[293] The total monetary cost for putting down the Qiang rebellion in Liangzhou was 24 million cash (out of an average of 220 million cash minted annually), while the people of three entire commanderies within eastern Liang province and one commandery within Bing province were temporarily resettled in 110 CE.[294]

Happy now? Of course you're not. You want some ridiculous timeline that stretches for a mile/kilometer long in one section. Well, I'll never let you include that. But at least I have compromised and mentioned the reason for why the Qiang often rebelled against Han authority (using Yü Ying-shih's 1986 book chapter in Cambridge History of China).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude, look here before you start the rants again

Well, I guess you've enough for the day, below why are you removing the source of Book of Later Han which I cited under inline citation 289, while allowing the source you cited stay at 290? Anyway, you should've start out something like Crespigny asserts blah blah blah under inline 290. "Why mention him at all if we are not citing him in the article?"You're just rambling now; that guy is being cited in the article, once again please check it (de Crespigny (2007), 123–124; Zizhi Tongjian, vol. 49; Book of Later Han, vol. 47, vol. 87 ; see also Yü (1986), 429–430.). "I am merely following a narrative, summary style " Really? you've get rid of all these exact amount of tribute mentioning in the article since they're already found in elsewhere, and also including more information on the rebellion, and please do not give me that rubbish that it should be the direct cause."You're suggesting that I add a bunch of new material, a timeline if you will" No thanks, we can start it with rebellions that last from 34-102, something like that, mind you I did not mention anything about timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.104.180 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me, you said "time scale", not "timeline". I see what you're saying now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As you said yourself, the rebellion of 107–118 CE involved sporadic fighting and in between these years there were times when little or no battles were going on at all. Such a point should CERTAINLY be made clear if we are to mention Qiang rebellions from 34–102 CE. What is the exact number of Qiang rebellions that occurred in this time frame? In other words, how frequent were they? And how devastating? The reason the 107–118 CE rebellion is mentioned at all is because it had dire consequences for Han (i.e. access to Central Asia was cut off, a huge amount of money was spent on the war campaign to crush the rebellion, many lives were lost, and a huge amount of territory was abandoned for years). Plus, it was an event that had to be clarified before mentioning Ban Yong's (班勇) reopening of relations with the Western Regions in 123 CE. See what I mean by a narrative now? In other words, how do the other Qiang rebellions of 34–102 CE fit within the existing narrative of the article?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't said 107-118 isn't important, since they can be found anywhere else when it comes to Qiang rebellions. Below, you won't need to includes 34–102 CE rebellion, simply say rebellions which occured before 107. That's a huge work to be done, if you want the exact number of these Qiang, some might not be available. I kinda think the current line is fine, I had no objection of course if you wanna includes more details into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.104.180 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had a feeling the Histories did not bother to mention every single Qiang rebellion, especially the smaller and more inconsequential revolts. If there's anything you feel is still lacking, bring it to my attention. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as any ancient texts, you'll need modern estimation when it comes to figure. But now I see you're talking about how many times Qiang and Eastern Han gets into conflict instead of the number of Qiangs involved in all these events, the latter are impossible to dig out, because they're overall figure not figure in one larger revolt.

That makes sense.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It maybe a good idea to not take that 116.15.104.180 too seriously. Perhaps ask user Nlu to check out some of those classical sources. Qiang subjects, including the history, are almost always really fuzzy (especially since the 08 tibetan movements). Possibly these belong in a separate rebellion type article. Maybe 116.15.104.180 should write one. Benjwong (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Mr. Huang I think you shows a little too jealous about this or something, which can be very annoying for someone, try to be open minded on this sort of discussion. I not Interested in 08 tibetan movements, I do have a few books used in this article though, Chang (2008), Yu (1962) and Di Cosmo (2002). I tired to get de Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms (23-220 AD) too, but couldn't, the book is quite costly also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.104.180 (talk • contribs)

I just thought it was interesting that you showed up at the quake anniversary to complaint about qiang history. Benjwong (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know anything about the anniversary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.42.98.172 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sima Qian's downplay on Ferghana's threat of cutting off Han's access to the Silk Road

The article wrote:

Fergana threatened to cut off Han's access to the Silk Road, yet historian Sima Qian (d. 86 BCE) downplayed this threat by asserting that Li's mission was really a means to punish Dayuan for not providing tribute of prized Central Asian stallions.

Did Dayuan (Fergana) made any claim that they wanted to cut off Han's access to the Silk Road? I couldn't found any of them in Records of the Grand Historian, I think this deserve to rise a question. Because the statement should've put it Torday (1997) asserts that the Fergana threatened to cut off Han's access to the Silk Road, yet historian Sima Qian (d. 86 BCE) downplayed this threat... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.157 (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind mentioning Torday's name. Just for the record, here are my notes from his works (keep in mind these are paraphrased; nothing here is a direct quote of Torday's words):

• Page 119-120: For the meager amount of horses the Han came back with, it does not seem to have been much of a benefit considering that they lost all but 10,000 foot-soldiers and 1,000 cavalry from the much larger original force. However, the real objective of this campaign, not the procurement of horses, becomes clear when Li Guangli established Dayuan as a puppet state by installing a Han-appointed king, a local nobleman who would be favorable and loyal to China. Despite this, the Han-appointed king was overthrown just a year or two later and replaced by the brother of the previous king. However, the Han had made their point and the Dayuan Kingdom would never again dare to slight them or worse, close off the lucrative trade route leading west that China relied on for contacting and trading with all the other kingdoms. Torday believes that Sima Qian's refusal to address this is a politically correct means to hide the fact that Wu, who should have been worried about pacifying the barbarians of the wild zone, instead chose to secure commercial routes through a distant war. The war was thus justified within a safe narrative of retaliation against arrogant horse-traders in Dayuan who dared insult the emperor.

Torday's assumptions are pretty logical, but nonetheless, it is his assumption. His name should thus be attributed to this assumption presented in the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PericlesofAthens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.12.236 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbers of people which had moved to Hexi Corridor and Ordos areas

The number of people which moved to these two areas after acquisition is very important, this should've been mention under War against the Xiongnu section, that section is short compare to other sections.

Chang, Chun-shu. (2007). The Rise of the Chinese Empire: Volume II; Frontier, Immigration, & Empire in Han China, 130 B.C. – A.D. 157, p.6:

Following the surrender of King Huyan, the western border regions, such as Longxi, Beidu and Shang (northern Shanxi), were no longer the westernmost frontiers of the Han empire and were troubled far less by the Xiongnu. The government therefore moved about 725,000 indigents from the Guandong area (east of the pass, mainly the central and eastern Yellow river valleys) to poplulate the region south of the bend of the Yellow River known as Xinqinzhong (新秦中). In 119 BCE, as successful expeditions led by Generals Wei Qing and Huo Qubing forced the Xiongnu to retreat even farther from the Chinese borders, the Han sent about 60,000 farming officials and solderis to the western side of the Yellow River to construct irrigation works in the area extending from Shuofang (central-western Suiyuan) to Lingju (令居, modern Ping'fan of in central Gansu). These events suggest that after 121 BCE, the Han government concentrated its efforts on ddeveloping its western border regions through immigration and farming.

The Guandong region located east to Guanxi and Guanzhong, comprise roughly what is now Shandong and Henan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.12.236 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Regional background of Han settlers in Juyan from excavated wooden documents

The regional background of Han settlers besides literary evidence as seen in the excavated wooden documents from western Gansu and western Inner Mongolia.

Chang, Chun-shu. (2007). The Rise of the Chinese Empire: Volume II; Frontier, Immigration, & Empire in Han China, 130 B.C. – A.D. 157, p.53–56:

The Han frontiersmen and colonist in Juyan came from different regions of the empire. A large number of wooden documents record the regional origins of them hence provide a clear picture of how the various regions were involved in colonizing Juyan. Table 9 is a tabulation of such information. It is primarily based on the numerous records and registers of individuals in all documents discovered in Juyan and Dunhaung and other connected region... As the table shows, the Gansu area registers the largest number, a total of 236 or about 39% of the grand total of 602. Then comes Henan with over 160 or about 27%. Shandong runs a close third with about 70 or about 9%. That Gansu suppied the largest number is understanable because Juyan was part of Zhangye Prefecture. But Henan is distant from the Juyan region, and Shandong is even farther away. The fact that these areas supply the largest totals seems to be related to the emigration policy of the Han government, which was based on demographic and economic coniditions in the Han empire. A combined total of over 250 persons or nearly 42%, came from the so-called Central Plain region (Zhongyuan) or loosely termed Han-time Guandong region, which included Henan, western Shandong, southern Shanxi, southern Hebei, northwestern Jiangsu, and northwestern Anhui. This reigon was then the most populated in the Han empire...

Dividing Expansion, colonization, and the Silk Road into two sub-sections

As for more detail on the layout and where these new material should be insert, the Expansion, colonization, and the Silk Road should've divided into two sub-sections, alot of stuffs there wasn't really about expansion or colonization, instead it is just about exploration and diplomatic relationship.

PericlesofAthens: No response

Well its been 3 days now, so eric I take it that you accept these changes, since you've been silent all out of sudden these few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.12.236 (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, man! I just got back home from Roanoke, Virginia after visiting my sister's boyfriend's family and watching her graduate from college. Yikes. I'll take a look at all of this later. I'm tired after driving for four hours on the highway.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As you have suggested, I have noted the huge population that was moved by the Han court from the Guandong region to the area just south of the bend of the Yellow River. I have also split that sub-section on colonial expansion, exploration, and diplomacy into two new sub-sections as you have suggested. Finally, I included a note about the proportion of Juyan settlers who came from the Guandong region. I believe this addresses your points. However, there is no need to add any further detail, for obvious reasons regarding Wikipedia's guidelines. See Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, we should be discussing ways of reducing the prose size of the article, not increasing it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)