Talk:History of the Han dynasty

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

...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)

Yu and Crespigny seem to both disagree with you

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 only Qiang involvement at the far west, and even that we still talking about Dunhuang not 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 stupid enough like you to raise such a question if it is unfounded what do you take me for? I believe you had just schooled by both author you quoted, you should've crawl away instead quoting useless words 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. Have a wonderful day moron.