Talk:Tay Son dynasty

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (nations and regions): Southeast Asian military history task force

It is true that the Tay Son rebellion (and especially the characters of Quang Trung) might have been greatly exaggerated and idolised by popular beliefs. However, to be completely fair, it should be pointed out that the literatures quoted to point at the contrary (i.e. Quang Trung was vicious and uneducated peasant) are also not free of bias: "Hoang Le Nhat Thong Chi" was basically written from the perspective of the Le loyalists. It is no surprising then to them, the Tay Son rebellion is nothing but that: a peasant rebellion and Quang Trung, its leader, being nothing but a particularly vicious peasant with some leadership skills. "To Quoc An Nan" mentions Quang Trung as a cruel and violent character but it does so in the context of a Vietnamese criticising his own country's history as being written to idolise violent militarists. In a way, it was more of a humanist's commentary on history rather than a matter-of-factly discussion of history. One can hardly counter anecdotal evidences with personal points of view, after all neither is the point of Wikipedia. But then again, historical writings from that time period were commonly wrought with propaganda. The best approach is probably to introduce both sides of the arguments along with all propaganda exposed and analysed.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.47.195 (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The chapter state with poor knowledge and historical facts Just line Furius stated: large amount of propaganda, 1) Untrue fact: Under this dynasty there almost none of the Vietnamese fallow or knew of Christian to be prosecuted! The Nguyen kings allowed Christianity in Vietnam after the Portuguese and French missionaries arrived! 2) Many facts stated about Quang Trung Dynasty are untrue and extorted. Please be aware that this can be liable in a court of the Law! so State only but the truth and facts. ...

This article contains a large amount of propaganda such as "Peasants were slaves" and so on. I am sure that they were, but it doesn't seem provable, and I am sure they were just as enslaved under Tay Son rule. The whole page seems a little pro-Tay Son. I lack any real knowledge in this area, though, so if someone who has knowledge of this period could wikify this, please do. Furius

Many documents about the Tayson dynasty were changed or destroyed under the pressure of Nguyen Dynasty,even the tomb of Nguyen Hue (king of Tayson) was destroyed and now,vietnamese don't know where it is.Second,Every history writer at that time belongs to 1 side,so their comments are not so fair.Besides that,we have to consider about the thinking way of officers at that time,who followed the sentence "quân xử thần tử thần bất tử bất trung" means "when king decides you to die,you have to die,if not,you are a traitor".An officer had to follow his king no matter what did the king do.So it is not strange when a officer consider his king's enemy as a tyrant.That's my opinion.Vietblood

Etymology

Does it mean "western mountains" (西山朝)? Badagnani (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the "First Tet Offensive" of 1798?

This important part of history needs to be mentioned.Sea888 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Source of references

www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/17_18_century/3027111.html?page=1&c=y: This article "The First Tet Offensive of 1789", By Spencer C. Tucker, i put forward to a few Vietnamese friends. As a byproduct of our little chat, the Vietnamese friends mentioned that this little guy Nguyen Hue was actually poisoned by his own imperial court advisers because he wouldn't listen to them. The advisers opposed to his plan of reclaiming ancient Vietnamese territories lost to the Chinese. The Vietnamese friends couldn't provide me with any references for further readings however. Could somebody come up and help? Thankx in advance. (Can't read Vietnamese or Chinese documents)

By the way, would you consider marrying your enemy's daughter just to reclaim something from him? They would. The mainpage reads like that. Ancient East-Asian history is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.21.26 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)