From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Goguryeo/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search

Gaia1CB3's insistence of a naming 'speculation'[edit]

KORGURYO LAND AREAS WOULD BE ABOUT 480,000 AREA. NOT 350,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Korguryo ( Geographical Area) is all wrong!!!!!! If you have commonsense. It cannot be 350,000. Korean Peninsula itself is 219,000-220,000 area. So Korguryo was 220,000 + (130,000) equals Korean Korugyro geographical territory??????? I think it is more than wikipedia suggest. Find the correct numbers please.  Current one is all wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanpeninsulageography (talkcontribs) 06:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


Look Gaia1CB3, pre-Jumong Goguryeo was known as Guryeo/Guru, which means 'castle' in the Goguryeo language. The 'Go' (high) was added during Jumong's reign. High castle. No thirteen speculations. Really simple. Akkies (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are certain the other speculations then remove them. Your speculation come from Records of Three Kingdoms, 溝漊者句麗名城也. It is not 句麗 means 'castle', think.Gaia1CB3 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Is goguryeo ancient?[edit]

I think the phrase "Goguryeo or Koguryŏ (Korean pronunciation: [koɡuɾjʌ]) was an ancient kingdom ..." should be changed. I think the the kingdoms period is the end of the ancient times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it a medieval kingdom? Never heard so. Goguryeo reigned over the area from B the CE, so it should be an ancient kingdom, probably. Kfc18645 talk 12:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

recent editwarring[edit]

Two recent editors seem to be tag-teaming me for removing uncited and improperly cited text, that stops now. The issue is not whether I personally can read kanji. This is the English-language Wikipedia. Therefore, sources should be in a language the people who come here can read, per . Stop the ad-hominem attacks and the nationalist rants, and stick to Wikipedia policy. Next revert with the slightest attack gets reported. --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources should be in English, unless no English source/translation is available. However, per those same guidelines, "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors." Kintetsubuffalo's comment above is clearly a request for the original text and its translation. —C.Fred (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been reported as the personal attacks continue. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

About the infobox king list...[edit]

It lists the 4th king as Yeongyang. I don't think that he is really important in Goguryeo- I think it should be changed. Was there a discussion about this, or can I fix it now? Kfc18645 talk 12:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sino-caucasian name ?[edit]

My ethnic is Caucasian Avar , my Korean brothers. As you know we Avars live in North Caucasus. Our Sino-Caucasian ancestors were (da bizi / ang mo lang / Hunnic kings )the rulers of old China and Asia. But they were leave Asia because of East Asian tribes' rebellions.

in Caucasian Avar language : гогари GO-GA-Ri= making war гогарухъан GO-GA-RU-GKHAN = warrior

What was the your Gogurio Kingdom's Gogurio name's mean ? is it was about war ? Thank you - so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaristan (talkcontribs) 08:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

@Avaristan: it's a Chinese (Hanja) name, and it was originally simply called "Goryeo", but the "Go" was added after another state adopted that name. (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Samguk Sagi[edit]

What does it mean to say the Samguk Sagi was only composed of facts? Are we referring to its having been compiled from other sources? In context it seems to imply there are no factual errors. (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Samguk Sagi was written and first published in 1145AD as a Goryeo government project. The book's content was based on both Korean and Chinese sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhhwang7 (talkcontribs) 14:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Emperor Taizong of Tang's injury caused by arrow to the Taizong's eye??[edit]

There are some erronous paragraphs related to the Taizong's injury. Zizhitongjian did not specify the cause or the nature of the injury, and it is purely speculation that the Taizong is injured by an arrow to his eye. In addition, the Taizong did not succumb to his injury soon after as he lived 4 years after the battle of Ansi. We can state here as "it is speculated by Korean sources that…while most of other historical records did not specify the nature or cause of" instead of current description. And the source of 29 should be removed as the source 29 is a cross-reference to Zizhi Tongjian which contradicts to the description in the article of Goguryeo and thus it is a false citation. The 30 is a Korean source so it should act a speculation source instead.

At the meantime, as stated above, the description "Taizong is believed to have died after the failed invasion...he got more and more mentally unstable as the Tang army repeated defeats. He was…..pain and stress" is groundless and purely speculation based on the Korean source alone. All these languages need to be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

such a lie, you can't just come around with some korean history that is totally made up by some korean scholars, Emperor Taizong died of poisoned drugs he consumed in an effort to prolong his life. in his military campaign, the biggest regret he ever felt is Tubo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Emperor Taizong[edit]

Historiographer, please explain why you are making this revert repeatedly. The version you are reverting to has more weasel words ("Some sources indicates") and uses more charged, problematic language (such as calling the Tang "Chinese", which by contrast deemphasizes Goguryeo's Chinese heritage). You need a better reason for blanking than "Sinocentrism", which sounds like an ethnic attack. Quigley (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Histographer and other co-editors, given it is Goguryeo subject not Tang Taizong, we do not need to argue here whether Taizong is injured or not, why whom etc. Simply leave Taizong failed to conquer Goguryeo is fine. What do you think?

Let's leave the nationalism and controversial topics away and edit it into more objective manner. Only the facts should be recorded here, such as when the country establish, when falls, not speculations, rumors, and legends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction tag (cause of death of Taizong)[edit]

Please discuss the issue at Talk:Emperor Taizong of Tang. Please do not remove the tag until the contradiction is resolved. (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Has this been resolved yet? I don't seem to see any references to Taizong's cause of death in this section now. WangKon936 (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Source?[edit]

when you search up 고구려 on google images there are a bunch of korean maps that drastically enlargen not only goguryeo's land but also silla and gaya's into china, siberia, mongolia and japan and reducing the tang dynasty land to only interior provinces with the coastline taken over by goguryeo, while others show a more subtle expansion that just includes all of manchuria and the provinces around beijing. i was just wondering if these were credible because when i google translated one of the site that hosted the picture, they said something like "When you look at this article gangseonghal Goguryeo to the south to the far reaches of the Yangtze in China do I find out that you have entered.

When a fish "munjahotaeyeolje (letter Neptune), Fujian Province, when the one thousand shares of Silla (south of the Yangtze River, near Hong Kong), let's move to""

i get the idea of it trying to say goguryeo went as far south as the yangtse, even further as it mentions fujian too. i cant read korean and i heard that some korean history textbooks were biased or false or something. kUCEEZ 23:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuceez (talkcontribs)

I am pretty sure you are looking at fictional maps - could also be part of online game map. You are way overstretching when you are using some random blogs to assert that cited sources are false. (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Goguryeo was Multi-Ethnic[edit]

Direct quote from the Zizhi Tongjian, written by Cheng Da De, an envoy to Goguryeo: 往往见中国人,自云家在某郡,隋末从军,没于高丽,高丽妻一游女,与高丽错居,殆将半矣. The 668 census quoted in the same work also showed approx 1/3 Han Chinese population in Goguryeo. Thousands upon thousands of Han Chinese had lived in Goguryeo since the times of the Han commanderies, and even more settled there after the failed Sui invasions, many of them marrying Goguryeo women.

Somebody asked on the edit page "Sorry, what is ethnic Chinese back in 5th century?". Well, first of all, these reports date from the seventh century, and secondly, if the Chinese-speaking descendants of the four-commanderies era migrants from the central plains and the soldiers of the Sui army are not ethnic Chinese, what are they?

Goguryeo was a multi-ethnic state. This is reflected in the historical sources, by their culture and society, and even by the genetic record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Beckwith "not mainstream"?[edit]

I'd like to see some evidence of this statement from User:Koryosaram,[1] especially since Beckwith is only linguist who has published a book specifically on the Gaogouli language, and because I provided an additional source from Andrei Lankov which specifically states the opposite to what Koryosaram claims: that the "Old Korean"-Gaogouli linguistic connection is rejected by mainstream linguists. By contrast, the Northeast Asian History Foundation is a pseudohistorical propaganda organization established by the South Korean government to provide justification for its occupation of Takeshima, irredentist claims on Yanbian, etc. I would also like to understand why Koryosaram reverted my addition of native Gaogouli-language names (e.g. Ortu) for its cities and settlements, especially since Beckwith says that some of them are better-known by their modern Chinese toponyms (Wandu) than by the Sino-Korean readings of those toponyms (Hwando). Shrigley (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure Beckwith is only linguist who has published a book specifically on the Goguryeo language? No, there are some Korean linguists having very good knowledge of Goguryeo phonology reconstructed Goguryeo words. But Backwith reconstructed Goguryeo words through his version of historical Chinese phonology. It is regrettable for him that he has scaresly knowledge of Goguryeo phonology. Beckwith is a Sino-Tibetanist whose hypotheses on Goguryeo language are criticized by western linguists who are specialized in Japanese or other altaic languages. Andrei Lankov? He is not even a linguist, but a specialist in North Korean history. Ortu(丸都) and Piarna(平壤)? “Or” meaning “small ball” is equivalent with contemporary Korean word “Ar”. “Piar” meaning “plane” is similar to contemporary Korean “pʌr” meaning “plain”. And “Na” meaning “land” is equivalent with contemporary Korean “nara”. “Tu” can be Sino-Goguryeo readings for the toponyms. Each of these gives only strong and clear evidences that Goguryeo language is closely related with contemporary Korean.
Koryosaram (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Have you even Googled the guy? He got his MA from Indiana University's Department of Uralic and Altaic Studies and his PhD in Inner Asian Studies. Some of his writings are pretty anti-Chinese also, but that's besides the point. Anecdotal similarity means nothing as far as genetic relationship goes. As you know, Korean has many words with similar pronunciation and meaning with Chinese, but that's because of borrowing. To establish relatedness, there is a certain method involving mass comparison of static words according to certain rules of phonological change. I admit I might have an English-language bias, but that's warranted and appreciated in this area where dangerous nationalism reigns. Back to the main point: you haven't provided any sources of equal or greater reliability that contradict mine, so your revert is illegitimate. Shrigley (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Beckwith got his degree from Indiana University's Department of Uralic and Altaic Studies? This dose not change the fact that the majority of his works are on Sino-Tibetan languages. Of course, Korean has many words with similar pronunciation and meaning with Chinese, because of borrowing. And your assumption or logic can also be applied on the so called linguistic connections between Goguryeo and Old Japanese.
I have cited some sentences from Thomas Pellard(expert linguist of Japonic languages)’s review on the problematic book written by Beckwith:
  • “Unfortunately, Beckwith’s ambitious work is heavily flawed in many aspects, of which I will provide only a few examples. First, I deplore the general opacity of his methodology, since most of his reconstructions are his own, quite different from the ones adopted in mainstream Chinese (Baxter 1992; Sagart 1999; Starostin 1989, 1998-2003) and Japanese (Martin 1987) historical phonology, and it is unclear how they were arrived at. His comparisons thus use reconstructions that are too often problematic, sometimes simply incorrect, or, worse, just circular.
  • “Beckwith’s comparisons also include a significant number of cases with questionable or unrealistic semantics.
  • “The exact nature of the source language of the place names remains problematic in spite of Beckwith’s arguments, and this has led some scholars to label it cautiously “pseudo-Koguryo”.”
  • “Nevertheless, its too many methodological shortcomings forbid us to accept Beckwith’s reconstructions and conclusions, although it is quite clear that some of the Koguryo place names indeed represent in all likelihood a language related to Japanese that was once spoken in the center of the Korean peninsula.”
Koryosaram (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Goguryeo was a Korean Kingdom?[edit]

Goguryeo is definitely related to Korean history, but it doesn't mean it was "Korean". Goguryeo culture influenced today's Korean culture, but they had their own language, tradition, etc. After Goguryeo collapsed, part of its population moved to Korean peninsula, part of them moved to Central Plain, some of them even served as Chinese officials. If it was a ancient kingdom that had connections to both China and Korean Peninsula, then how can you say Goguryeo is Korean? Koreans think it was one of their three kingdoms, but generally, it was a part of North Easter Asian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree here. There were no Korean, Japanese or Chinese states in the 1st to 7th centuries A.D. However, before one is to change it, there needs to be uniformity. For example, in the Tang Dynasty article it states, "Tang Dynasty... was an imperial dynasty of China." Also, for Yamato Period it states, "[Yamato]... is the period of Japanese history when the Japanese Imperial court ruled from modern-day Nara Prefecture." Why should the Goguryeo article be different from the aforementioned standards? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not? User:WangKon936 (talk) 05:55, 03 April 2013 (UTC)

WangKon, I see what you did there, but you forgot several points: Tang originated in China, and it inherited the tradition, culture and language of it. But Goguryeo(Gaogoli) originated in northeastern China, and then moved to Korean peninsula. It's language and culture were different from other nations of Korea. Yes, I agree, Goguryeo is a very important part of Korean history, and many Koreans today are related to it, but this isn't only about Korea itself. Other nations in Korea (such as Silla) treated Goguryeo as how Chinese treated Mongolians. Do you think China can claim the entire history of Mongolia as Chinese history? Mongolia, same as Goguryeo, had its own history and identity. Sure Korea can proudly tell their connection with ancient Goguryeo kingdom, but you can't say Goguryeo was "Korean" because it didn't merge into Korean nation at its early history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Postmodernist attitudes aside, such broad brushing is easily refuted. Chinese historical identity is based around the concept of Hua and Zhongguo, which the Tang certainly identified with. The same argument exists for Japanese identity and Yamato, which indeed became synonymous with Japan. Both of these states were circumscribed within the borders of China proper and Japan proper, respectively. For Goguryeo, however, the case is less obvious. The bulk of Goguryeo territory was located outside of the Korean peninsula and the same goes for its political predecessor - Buyeo - which was in its early stages completely external to the Korean peninsula. Such a situation is supplemented further with the observation by Western linguists ie Alexander Vovin, James M. Unger, and Christopher Beckwith that the Goguryeo-Buyeo languages were not native to the Korean peninsula, but had arrived with the conquest of the peninsula by Manchurian states. Geopolitically, the analogy is therefore not with Tang and Yamato, but with the Jurchen Jin, the Khitan Liao, and the Tangut Xi Xia.
What helps the Korean case is that historically and culturally, these conquest states have been instrumental in the formation of Korean historical identity and are included within the narrative continuity of the Korean state. Yet, competing narratives did and do exist. For example, there is a clear divide between northern Korea - the seat of Joseon, Goguryeo, and Goryeo - and southern Korea - the domain of Silla and the various Samhan states. This division persists to this day with the DPRK calling itself after Joseon, and the ROK calling itself after the Samhan, thereby appealing to regional resonance. While in English the country is broad brushed into a singular Korea - after Goryeo and Goguryeo - such an exonym is of little use for deciding Goguryeo’s contemporary identity back in 100-700 AD. Here, our understanding is compromised by the scarcity of documents, and we ultimately know little about how Goguryeo people thought of themselves and how other states on the Korean peninsula thought of them. The Goguryeo stele and contemporary Chinese documents are of no help, in this regard, because they draw a line between Goguryeo and Silla, the ultimate unifier of the Korean peninsula and the direct cultural and linguistic predecessor to latter day Koreans.
All of the above serves to show that there was no known cultural equivalent to the Hua concept of China and the Yamato concept of Japan, and thus no smoking gun for Korean identity at this stage in time. While I myself do not oppose calling Goguryeo Korean/Koreanic - mainly because I subscribe to the idea that Korea was the primary cultural and political successor of Goguryeo - it is important to understand that the historical controversy springs from precisely this deficiency. Korean historians of later eras constructed a linear narrative from Gojoseon onwards, but this is merely a retrospective construction without contemporary validation. This differs greatly from the case of dynasties in China, where there exist contemporary records of state ideology showing identification with the Hua and the Chinese dynastic tradition. It also differs from Japan in that there were multiple, competing narratives, while in Japan the unbroken line of Yamato emperors are symbols of the state to this day. Thus, though it is comfortable to take the postmodernist stance that there were no Korean, Chinese, and Japanese from 100-700, such a stance ultimately distorts rather than informs. There were no nations in East Asia before the arrival of nationalist ideas from the West, but there were, nonetheless, historical identities which, though not equivalent to the modern nations, are nonetheless capable of being examined in how they adhere and fail to adhere to concepts of Korean, Chinese, and Japanese identity. Lathdrinor (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you're forgetting that Tang Dynasty's border were at times well beyond the boundaries of China proper and also present day China. Also, I don't see Vovin, Unger and Beckwith defining Goguryeo and Buyeo as "Manchurian" states, and you are also omitting the other many scholars who argue that Goguryeo was linguistically Korean. Beckwith proposes that Goguryeo language was Japonic. Unger proposes that Goguryeo language was Old Korean. Vovin goes further to "undeniably conclude" that Goguryeo language was Old Korean. In the context of history, you cannot simply define political entities by their present-day geographic location. Also, I don't think your analogy of today's division of the Korean state is accurate. Joseon's seat of power, Seoul and the Han River basin, was a fiercely competed territory among Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla, and it is the present day capital of the ROK. Seoul and Incheon themselves were first established as city-states by migrants from Goguryeo, who eventually formed Baekje. ROK's Korean name "Dae-han-min-guk", which you think is somehow disconnected from Joseon, comes from the imperial name of Joseon when it self-proclaimed itself as an empire. Goryeo's seat of power, Gaeseong, was formerly part of the ROK before the Korean War, and historically was part of Gyonggi Province, which is basically the metropolitan area of Seoul. It was a result of the war that it became a part of North Korea. So your so called division is very vague, both in historical and contemporary contexts. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The Tang's borders were, for practically the entire duration of its existence, little different from the Han's unless you take after the Chinese nationalist revisionists in attributing Gokturk territory to the Tang, which is illogical. Yes, the Tang expanded at times to the Tarim Basin and even the Korean peninsula, but it's a difference of degrees - the Tang never successfully incorporated these areas, and never controlled them for long. Goguryeo, by contrast, was from its very beginning located in the Manchurian-North Korean borderland, and expanded both northwards and southwards. Throughout its history, a huge portion of Goguryeo's territory lay outside Korea proper and comprised regions not under traditional Korean control. This is relevant to this discussion because Goguryeo came to include / included from the very start peoples who did not become latter day Koreans, but who nonetheless subscribed to Goguryeo heritage. This differs Goguryeo from Tang and Yamato, whose descendants are practically all restricted within the historical Chinese and Japanese identities, respectively.
Of course, you are not wrong to stress that, because Goguryeo was linguistically Koreanic, the best candidate for its heritage are Koreans. However, it has to be understood that Koreanic and Old Koreanic are merely retrospective labels. They are called such because Koreans inherited the language, and not because there was a primordial Koreanness to the language. I bring up Unger, Vovin, and Beckwith not to argue against the idea that Goguryeo was Koreanic, but to argue against the idea that Koreanic was central to the identities of the people on the peninsula prior to its takeover. All three linguists, to this end, agree that Koreanic displaced earlier languages on the peninsula - which must include Japonic, but also arguably includes Sinitic, Tungusic, Austro-Asiatic, and various isolates - and not during the Neolithic, but during the Three Kingdoms period. Indeed, these linguists have went ahead and called Koreanic an intrusive language to, at the minimum, the southern side of the peninsula.
All of this serves to dispel the structural analogy Wangkon tried to draw between Goguryeo and Tang/Yamato. The central issue is the lack of evidence for a holistic Korean identity prior to the Silla unification. That is to say, the standard Korean history narrative, which tries to paint Goguryeo as a Gojoseon successor state and ethnically primordial, is, from what I understand, completely absent in contemporary records. Thus, at the time of Goguryeo, there is no evidence of a specifically Korean identity - no equivalent to the Hua/Yamato historical Chinese/Japanese identities. While you are, I reckon, accurate on the details of how Seoul came to be and how Koreans view their own regional differences, the importance of Goguryeo to Korean identity does not in and of itself become sufficient for drawing this parallel. Yes, Tang and Yamato are central to Chinese and Japanese identity, and to the degree that Koreans believe Goguryeo is central to Korean identity, the analogy is tempting. But that does not make it valid, and it does not justify making the argument that because a historical Korean identity did not exist at XX time, so a historical Chinese and Japanese identity must also not have existed at XX time. Lathdrinor (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As I've said once again, you're thinking of historical states in present-day geography and national identities. Since you fail to understand from other perspectives, such as history, linguistics and archaeology, you fail to see that cultural borders can shift back and forth. Historians, archaeologists and linguists in general regard the Three Kingdoms of Korea period as firmly within the domain of Korean history and define as "Korean". I'm talking about non-Korean historians, archaeologists and linguists who are not motivated by Korean nationalism. This is a point that has been argued to death previously on this talk page. In addition, you speak of contemporary identities as one of the important elements of being "Korean", "Japanese" or "Chinese". Well, for one thing, the people of the Yamato period were themselves a diverse cultural group who probably didn't share a common social identity. You also speak of descendants. In a region where population migration and displacement occurred countless times throughout prehistory and history, your idea of descendants as the defining element of national identity is rather baseless. Regardless of what you think, or what Chinese historical revisionists think, fact of the matter is that mainstream linguists consider that the Three Kingdoms of Korea had a common language. Archaeologists who deal with prehistory believe that there was a "Korean" cultural sphere, originally based in northern Korea and southern Manchuria, which eventually began expanding throughout the Korean peninsula since bronze age. And of course, historians, Korean and non-Koreans alike, consider Goguryeo as a Korean kingdom. The exception of course is the recent surge of Chinese historical revisionism, which attempts to define every former historical entities that occupied present-day territory of China as a Chinese entity. And my final point, the "standard Korean history narrative", which you were so concerned with at Korean nationalist historiography, has very little to do with this article. This article is mostly based on non-Korean sources because of previous controversies generated by Chinese historical revisionism. Cydevil38 (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It is the exact opposite. I am thinking of historical states in historical geography and identities, hence the need to understand Goguryeo's contemporary conception of itself, and not merely what historians centuries later thought of it. I am not concerned with the characterization of Goguryeo as Korean by modern scholars, but rather the characterization of Goguryeo as being analogous to the Tang and Yamato in being equally absent of Korean/Chinese/Japanese identity. Fundamentally, whether historians ex post facto place Goguryeo within the continuum of Korean states has little to do with the analogy, because Wangkon's contention was that Korean/Chinese/Japanese identity did not exist at that stage in time. Such an assertion bypasses latter day conceptions altogether because it addresses directly the problem of contemporary identity. My contention is that, though this is arguable for Korean due to the lack of contemporary awareness towards a specifically Korean identity, it is not the case with the other analogies. For we have ample evidence that a concept of what was specifically Chinese did exist in the form of Hua during the Tang, and that the same went for Japanese in the form of Yamato. Even though the people living under these regimes were not necessarily socially / culturally unified, the concepts themselves were there, thereby lending credence to the existence of contemporary Chinese and Japanese historical identities. Do we have an equivalent concept for what is specifically Korean among the proto-Korean states? I've seen no such concept, not only because there are practically no detailed studies of contemporary self identity during the Three Kingdoms of Korea to begin with, but also because the very differences of the entities involved in the analogy precludes a simple equivalence.
To this end, I don't think you've understood my argument. Else, you have chosen not to address it directly. This is not a second battle front for the Goguryeo controversy, which is ultimately a conflict over retrospective characterization, and is therefore not relevant to Wangkon's comment and my response. Lathdrinor (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, if that is your contention, that the persistence of an identity existed in China and Japan, whereas such did not exist in Korea, then you're wrong again. Surely, the Goguryeo people thought of themselves as the Goguryeo people, and this essence continued on among the people in former Goguryeo territories, both in Balhae and Silla. Balhae, or at least the elites, continued to identify itself as Goryeo, a later name of Goguryeo, and when Silla was splintered into pieces by local rebellions, people in northern/central Korean peninsula founded later-Goguryeo, which was eventually renamed Goryeo. The dynastic change from Goryeo to Joseon was merely a power transition, and Goryeo continued to be used to refer to Korea, such as in the case of "Goryeo University"(Korea University), the North Korean proposal of naming the reunified Korea as "Goryeo Federation", and the self-identity of Korean migrants in the former Soviet Union as "Goryeo people". In your initial contention with Wangkon, you brushed off this traditional name that, for some funny reason, the identity of Goguryeo or Goryeo don't apply to Goguryeo. Then you continue to make some baseless contentions based on linguistics, territoriality and geopolitics. Whereas the nature of Gojoseon is more mythical and less historical/archaeological, the history and archaeology of Goguryeo is rather firmly established within the context of "Korea", as much as Tang or Yamato are established within the history and archaeology of China and Japan, respectively. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The taking of a previous dynasty's title does not in and of itself show anything other than the prestige of that title. Certainly, no careful scholar believes that just by calling a dynasty after a previous dynasty, the people's identity was thereby preserved. This is especially the case given that Goryeo included territories inhabited by peoples who were formerly deeply hostile to Goguryeo, and there is no evidence that the people of Silla had a Goguryeo identity. Further, despite your allusions to the proposed and actual use of Goryeo in modern day Korea, it is precisely its visibility relative to terms ie the Han and Joseon that renders it contentious. The self designation of the Korean people in North Korea is Joseon-in. In South Korea, it is Hanguk-in. Only in former Soviet territories and Western countries, where Goryeo/Korea was used by/assigned to Korean emigres, did Goryeo/Korea persist in overriding the previous two, and in the first case, it is thought to be due to the physical establishment of the communities during the rule of Goryeo. To say that Goryeo identity resonated within Korea prior to the active politicization of the issue around the early 2000s requires greater evidence.
But persistence is only one aspect. The bigger issue, which you have continuously ignored, is contemporary identity. The argument was ultimately over the idea that Korean, Chinese, and Japanese identity did not exist in the 1st-7th centuries, and therefore Wikipedia's labeling of states as such is anachronistic and tolerated only because of a flawed standard. It is this issue that I have spent the bulk of my time addressing, but it appears that till Wang Kon decides to respond himself, I am simply wasting my time. Lathdrinor (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You're just coming with one excuse after another. Contemporary identity was that of Goguryeo. Silla was a heavily segregated society with a tolerant policy towards the former populations, allowing them to retain their identities. Whether self-designation of today's Koreans in different names does not mean the conceptual identity of Goguryeo does not persist. Hua nor Yamato are common names by which Chinese or Japanese refer to themselves as. If you think Goryeo identity didn't resonate within Korea until the early 2000s, you need some elementary education on Korean history, because you're skipping more than a thousand years of Korean history during which it did. In fact, this necessity for elementary education on Korea was exposed when you made very ignorant comments in your initial contention, not even knowing the history and location of Seoul and Gaeseong, and your so-called idea of "persistently divided Korea". Cydevil38 (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Your first two sentences says everything I need to know about your rhetorical tactic. Yes, the contemporary identity of Goguryeo was Goguryeo. But Goguryeo was not the equivalent of historical Korean identity during the 1st-7th centuries, because Silla, Baekje, and even Samhan were also 'Korean', and yet they did not share in Goguryeo identity. In this exists the contradiction - for Korean identity to be analogous to Hua and Yamato during the 1st-7th centuries, there had to have been a specifically Korean identity to begin with, not several competing ones with no overarching whole. You have been skilled at dodging the thrust of what I'm arguing while picking at specific details, yet even in these details, you've avoided the main issues. For example, the observation that Joseon is a state title historically associated with northern Korea and vice versa for Samhan holds regardless of whether Seoul is south of the 38th parallel, for it is the parallel itself that was the arbitrary product of outside of intervention, not the north-south dynamics of Korean history. Just the same, your supreme confidence that Goryeo identity was on par with Joseon and Han identity fails to explain why, during the development of Korean nationalism, Korean nationalists have always preferred Han and, to a lesser degree, Joseon to stand for 'ethnic Korean', even though the Samhan confederacies have been gone for over 1,500 years. Yes, when you twist words to make them seem as though they are arguments in extremis, they do take on a certain sheen of ignorance. But just because I challenged you to procure greater evidence for A, does not make my argument the diametric opposite of A. At this stage, it would be very difficult to argue that you interjected in this discussion - which, I remind you, was between Wangkon and I - in solid faith, and not simply because you have an agenda to push. Lathdrinor (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Lathdrinor, sorry for the delay in getting back to you but Wiki, unlike something like Disqus, does not have a system of letting me know when responses to my comments have been posted and I don’t always check the Talk page of this post on even a weekly manner. Let me see what I can do in terms of addressing your thoughts. Your first thought appears to be disagreeing with my questioning of the use of modern state names to describe kingdoms in antiquity. I think you were in defense of this practice for the Tang Dynasty and Yamato. However, I would say that even if people of the Tang Dynasty had a vague understanding of “Zhongguo,” it isn’t the same as saying “China.” Similar to Yamato. It is not the same as the modern construct we know as “Japan.” You’re point is well served in that much of Koguryo’s former territory is in today’s People’s Republic of China. I myself had indicated that I would also be included to not directly refer to Koguryo as “Korean.” However, although much of Koguryo’s north is in today’s PRC, former Koguryo territory probably constitutes 10% of PRC’s total land mass whereas Koguryo territory at its height in the 5th century A.D. constitutes ~70% of the Korean peninsula’s current territory. Additionally, experts like Gina Barnes would state that Koguryo’s more southern territories (i.e in the Korean peninsula) contained much (perhaps a majority) of its population due to the more optimal (i.e. warmer) weather to grow staple grain crops (i.e. rice, mullet, barley, etc.). Koguryo, in its original Manchurian/northern Korean homeland (Hun river valley), had poor land to grow crops, which is why they often resorted to brigandage, as attested in early Chinese histories.
Going on to language, you are citing Vovin, Unger, and (maybe?) Beckwith incorrectly. I have read, in their entirety, Beckwith’s “Koguryo: the Language of Japan’s Continental Relatives,” Unger’s “The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean” and Vovin’s “Koreo-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin,” as well as numerous academic papers written by them. I can say with extremely high confidence that Vovin, Unger and Beckwith do not form a consensus when it comes to the characteristics and taxonomy of the Koguryo language. Briefly, Unger believes that Koguryo is a Koreonic language and may have distant genetic relations to the Japonic languages. Vovin also believes Koguryo to be a Koreonic language but does not believe it to be genetically related to Japonic and Beckwidth believes Koguryo to be a Japonic language with no relation to Koreonic languages. Both Unger and Vovin do not believe in Koguryo/Buyeo language grouping to be exclusive to Old Koreonic. They believe there was a super Old Koreonic or Proto Koreonic language family that Koguryo belonged to. You are clearly misrepresenting the conclusions and findings of at least two of the three scholars you cite. I don’t know if this is because you don’t know their views clearly and you are just assuming or do know their views clearly, hoping that I would not, and are misrepresenting to advance some kind of agenda.
In regards to various post Unified Silla Korean references and association to Koguryo I believe you are being selective. It is true that Unified Silla did not describe themselves as Koguryo. They had a military alliance with Tang to destroy said kingdom. They had a different ruler base and a different agenda. Silla had no reason to exemplify the histories and cultures of Koguryo or Baekje because they were trying to graft their own onto these newly conquered areas. However, once that ruler base started to fracture in the late 9th century, the Korean peninsula split into three kingdoms yet again: Hu-Baekje (or Later Baekje), Hu-Koryo (or Later Koguryo) and Silla. All three kingdoms roughly occupied the same area on the peninsula as in during the original three kingdoms period that is south of the Taedong river (which was Unified Silla’s boundary with Parhae). Given that there was such a split along nearly identical political lines with the dead kingdoms of Koguryo and Baekje, one has to consider that the so called “unification” that was achieved by Silla in the late 7th century was not as complete as one would think. Of course, the kingdom of Koryo won out at the end and a century afterwards it would commission the writing of a history book that would unify the three surviving histories of Silla, Baekje and Koguryo into what was called the Samguk Sagi. The kingdom of Koryo clearly had the idea of a unified Korean peninsula and referred to both Baekje and Koguryo as “we” and “our” kingdoms in the Samguk Sagi. The Koguryo pongi (section), despite not having as many sources, was just as long as the Silla pongi for the same time periods. As Dr. Edward J. Shultz (Korean history professor at the University of Hawaii) states, the Silla descended scholars lead by Kim Pu Shik gave just as much importance to the telling of Koguryo history as they did to Silla history in the Samguk Sagi. A unity of all three kingdoms in the peninsula’s shared history was most certainly present in the Koryo kingdom. It was also probably present in Unified Silla too among the people and the old nobility of the dead kingdoms as the refracturing of the peninsula in the late 9th century would clearly attest to this. Additionally, one must take the writings of the people of Koguryo into account. All that remains are Koguryo’s own writings are in their memorial steles, chiefly the big one to King Kwangetto near Jilin, PRC and one in Chungju, South Korea called the Jungwon Koguryo stele. Both steles discuss a vague understanding of Koguryo’s mastery of the Korean peninsula and relationship with Silla as its tributary state and its superiority over Baekje (or those damn Baekjans, the characters used here were "百殘" which would mean something akin to those "100 rebels" or "100 oppressors" rather than the normal "百濟" or 100 retainers). Koguryo and Baekje most certainly believed themselves to be rival and ethnically related states as the Nihon Shoki records instances where royal members of both kingdoms in Yamato would challenge each other to duels and hurl insults at each other as to who had inherited the Buyeo mantle better.
Regarding Japan. It wasn’t so much a an identity with Yamato, but one of Nihon (日本 “country where the sun rises”). Regarding their “unbroken line of kings” that’s a fable that no objective scholar of Japanese history believes. Early part of the Japanese historical chronicles (i.e. the Nihon Shoki) was highly fabricated history until the 7th century A.D. At that time Yamato was most of Kushu island and around half of the main Honshu island. Actually, there was not political unity within Yamato until probably sometimes after the Taika Reforms. Archeology would indicate existence of a lot of little independent and semi-independent states in Kushu island and southern Honshu island until at least the 6th century, facts that the Nihon Shoki did not care to mention. Any ways, nearly half of Honshu was still occupied by pre-Yayoi aboriginals, even as late by the 7th century A.D.
China had the advantage of having a near megalomaniac Zhao Zheng drag most of the various kingdoms in the central plains, kicking and screaming, into a larger kingdom by the 3rd century B.C., thus putting the vague concept of “Zhongguo” into greater practice at a very early time. However, as I said earlier, “Zhongguo” is not the same as the modern construct of “China” or even the 16th century moniker (i.e. Sina or Cīna).
With regards to Korean identity with both northern and southern kingdoms that influenced it I think you may be a bit confused. You seem to believe that it was the “standard Korean history narrative” that “paints” Koguryo as the successor state to GoJoseon, but I don’t think that’s the only case. I think that Koguryo people and even the contemporary Chinese (i.e. Tang Dynasty) believed this as well. When Koguryo fell and the Andong administration was moved from Pyongyang to Liaodong due to rebel Koguryo and Silla resistance, the Tang Dynasty set-up the “Chaoxian (or Joseon) Commandary” and the former king of Koguryo, Bojang, as nominal ruler of this commandary. Chinese kingdoms typically name their commandaries not directly the name of the immediate kingdom they had conquered and/or defeated, but after an older kingdom that was associated with it and/or an archaic name of the kingdom. For example, when Tang and Silla defeated Baekje, the Tang called former Baekje territory Ungjin Commandary, Ungjin obviously being "Bear Ford" in the Sino-Characters, which is related to the old name that the Yamato Dynasty consistently called Baekje (Ungjin = Bear Ford [Sino characters]= Gom Naru [native Old Korean]= Kun Dara [Old Japanese pronunciation of the Old Korean]). Tang named Silla as Kyerim Commandary, Kyerim being an archaic name for Silla. Thus, to Tang Joseon must have been an archaic reference to Koguryo. Additionally, in the memorial stele found in Luoyang, in Tang’s “East” capital, belonging to the youngest son of Koguryo dictator Yeon Gaesomun, Yeon Namsan, it is claimed that he was a “Joseon” person. Additionally, the Wei Dynasty’s “San Guo Zhi” or “Account of the Eastern Barbarians,” it said that Ye and Maek and the same language and similar customs as Koguryo, but also that Ye and Maek had the same language as GoJoseon. Furthermore, Gojoseon is called "Yemaek Joseon" in the Records of the Grand Historian. The sum of all this would point to even the Chinese themselves believing there to be ethnic affinity between GoJoseon and Koguryo, thus it is not strictly a “standard Korean historical narrative” as you say. User:WangKon936 (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Wangkon, "China" / "Cina" / "Sina" is practically entirely exonymic. The Chinese do not call their country "China," and to confuse the Western term for the actual historical identity within and around China is both anachronistic and erroneous. "China" was not, as a rule, used by the Chinese / China's own neighbors, including Korea and Japan, with only minor exceptions dating primarily to the modern period - ie when Japan changed its term for China to "Zhina" as a way of imitating the West and because they took offense at the idea that their own language called China the Central Kingdom. Consequently, I don't see how this is relevant and I am not sure why you think this is equivalent to an argument against historical Chinese identity. With regards to Japan, the Yamato emperor's continuity from the 7th century onward has not been refuted, and the only counter evidence you provided is that Yamato did not, in the 7th century, yet control the entirety of Japan, which is fair but not relevant because Yamato identity eventually replaced all competing identities, thus making Yamato identity the kernel and the best candidate for 'historical Japanese identity.' By contrast, Korean identity was pluralistic during the Three Kingdoms period and I see no cause to favor one Three Kingdoms state above others in constructing 'historical Korean identity.' The analogy therefore fails.
I am also not sure what you think I failed to understand re Vovin, Unger, and Beckwith. Your statements do not contradict mine. It is helpful to state exactly what you are responding to here instead of simply info dumping. For example, you seem to place stress on the idea that there was a super Old Koreanic language group, which makes Buyeo/Goguryeo not exclusive. Yet you forget that just because Under and Vovin believe that there was a super Old Koreanic language group does not mean that they believe it was the language spoken in the [southern] Korean peninsula. Indeed, Unger's current theory of how the Japonic language expanded from the Korean peninsula explicitly rejects a Koreanic/proto-Koreanic language identity for the Yayoi migrants' homeland in the peninsula. Beckwith disagrees altogether with Unger and Vovin about what is Koreanic vs. what is Japonic, but still places Buyeo-Goguryeo outside of the [southern] Korean peninsula.
I of course agree with the fact that Samguk Sagi conceptualized the Korean past in holistic terms. This is the 'retrospective history writing' I spoke of in my response and is a milestone in the development of the historical Korean identity, and is also manifest in the phenomenon of later Korean historians to trace the Three Kingdoms to the Samhan, for example, even though such a characterization is bound to be erroneous given the northern providence of Buyeo. I disagree, however, with your idea that Tang considered Goguryeo Chaoxian in identity. The placement of the Chaoxian commandery was indeed referring to an older entity in the region - specifically, the Wiman Joseon that the Han had defeated. From the time of the Han Dynasty, the geographical region formerly controlled by Wiman Joseon had been called Chaoxian after the archaic state. Yet, when Goguryeo rose, the Tang never called it Gojoseon and never wrote that it was a successor to Gojoseon. For that matter, neither did Goguryeo, Silla, and Baekje in their contemporary records. I also scanned through the Book of Wei re: the passage about Ye and Maek, and I do not see how the statement that Yemaek share similar customs and language with Goguryeo and language with Gojoseon justify assigning either a Gojoseon or a Yemaek 'ethnic identity' to Goguryeo, much less to Baekje and Silla. The quotes are, after all, about language/customs and not political/ethnic identity; all three were separate entities in Chinese records. Indeed, given the Chinese practice of using prefixes to distinguish between groups, 'Yemaek Joseon' and 'Joseon' were themselves not necessarily the same entities. The memorial stele found in Luoyang is, in this respect, misinterpreted: given that the Tang called the region of Goguryeo Chaoxian, why is it any surprise that a Goguryeo descendant in China wrote Chaoxian for his ancestral home, following the territorial terminology of his adopted country? Further, given that Goguryeo had been destroyed by the Tang by this time, what incentive did he have to advertise his ties to Goguryeo while living in the Tang?
The above argument, however, remains incidental, because even were it the case that Goguryeo and Joseon shared 'ethnic affinity', it is still not the case that Silla and Goguryeo shared the same 'ethnic affinity.' To this end, I remain negatory towards the analogy you tried to draw between Goguryeo, Yamato, and the Tang. It is not an issue for me to accept that Goguryeo was a 'Korean' kingdom, but structurally speaking, 'Korean' identity during the Three Kingdoms period was in no way analogous to 'Japanese' and 'Chinese' identity during the Yamato and Tang periods. The differences are not binary: the 'Korean' and 'Japanese' historical identities differ in ways that 'Korean' and 'Chinese' do not, and vice versa. To group the three historical identities together in your iconoclastic nihilism is to deny these fundamental differences.
This is and has been my only disagreement with you. Thus, I do not contend, as does, that Goguryeo ought to be recast as a Northeast Asian kingdom independent of Korean historical identity. But trying to paint Korean historical identity during this time period as being equivalent to the much older Chinese historical identity and the monolithic Japanese historical identity is doing a disfavor to the differences in their details. Again, I do not believe that a linear/monolithic Korean historical identity existed at this formative time, which I reckon is what inspired your idea that there was no 'Korean' from 200-700 AD. What you fail to understand, however, is that the formative processes behind the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese historical identities did not occur concurrently / in the same manner, and thus your broad brushing of the three does not work.Lathdrinor (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Goguryeo Language box[edit]

I don't see why "Middle Chinese" was added as a writing system in the box. The writing system is not included in the boxes of any other Chinese influenced kingdoms including Silla, Baekje, Yamato or Ngô Dynasty (Vietnam). Thus, I deleted it because it does not follow Wiki convention for entries of similar kingdoms. I also added the hypothetical "Puyo/Buyeo" family of languages to the box as well to reflect current scholarship that the Goguryeo language may fall into this category. I took out "Mohe" language as well as it links to wiki article "Mohe People," not anything about the Mohe language. User:WangKon936 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Questions about "modern politics" section of this article.[edit]

As what I see, the "modern politics" section is biased. Almost all citations in this section come from Korea, and it obviously represents Korea's point of view. The evidence it gives can't support what it claims. That must be fixed. I suggest to make two charts. One of them shows the China's story about Goguryeo(Gaogoli), and list the historical and archaeological evidence they have, and in another chart showing Korea's point of view. It would be more fair. And please add some Chinese links to this section, so it wouldn't be so imbalanced. It looks more like a Korean encyclopedia now.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 
That solution sounds too long. The Goguryeo article is long enough as it is. The "modern politics" section should be merged with "Koguryo controversies" article and hashed out more fully there. However, the blurb about "modern politics" should dispassionately represent both sides though. I will work on it when I have more time. User:WangKon936 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


I just wanted to clarify: the text says that Goryeo/Koryo is a shortened form of Goguryeo. But there seems to be a parallel with Gojoseon in which "Go" meaning ancient is prefixed to Joseon in order to distinguish it from the later kingdom. This makes me think Goguryeo is actually "Ancient Koryo". But perhaps this is a false parallel.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Request to change imperial rank: Goguryeo rulers since the reign of Gwanggaeto the Great should be called Taewang[edit]

Taewang is a title used by rulers of Goguryeo since the reign of Gwanggaetto the Great. Taewang means greatest of all kings which is an equal status of the emperor of china. Taewang So i think we should change the imperial rank of rulers since Gwanggaetto to taewang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenloveswaffles15 (talkcontribs) 02:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The English term "Monarch" can mean both "King", "Great King" (Taewang) and "Emperor". Is there really any need to change it? --Cartakes (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about the kings of the rulers. Like for example i click on a ruler's name and i go to his biography it says wang. I wanted to change it to taewang. And yes i want to change it because many people misunderstand that Goguryeo was an equal status with china. China's influence makes people think that goguryeo was lower than chinese dynasties. So could i change it?Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about articles such as Bojang of Goguryeo, right? The actual Hangul for him was "보장왕" and the Hanja for it was "寶臧王". This was the actual title he had at at time. I can understand what you say, but how can you change the title he actually held? Furthermore, we are talking about Goguryeo right now, so I don't think there is a need to talk about the "misunderstanding" associated with Chinese dynasties. --Cartakes (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about chinese and goguryeo getting mixed up. I was talking about how people think china is higher status than Goguryeo. Like a superior country to a subjective state kind of thing.And the actual hangul for kings that followed gwanggaeto the great used the title taewang. "태왕". Bojang was an exception because he was the last king who had no power because of Yeon Gaesomun. However, articles for example for yeongyang and pyeongwon used the title taewang. The actual hangul for pyeongwon is 평원태왕 and hanja is 平原太王. The current articles are wrong innaccurate. According to the Samguk Yusa all rulers of goguryeo after Gwanggaeto the great should be changed for each articles. Can i change them now? I have evidence from a direct source and it even says here on wikipedia that taewang is used for all rulers after gwanggaeto.Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So basically you can't see Chinese dynasties had a higher "imperial rank" than Korean dynasties, right? I must point out this is in fact an nationalist view. In English Wikpedia we edit articles according to reliable sources, and should try to avoid nationalist view as possible. If you have reliable sources, usually English-language ones, you can try to change them. But there is really no need for nationalist view in Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. --Cartakes (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Samguk Sagi and Samguk Yusa are primary sources that are also propaganda. We need reliable, secondary sources. Ogress smash! 04:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Request to change the map of goguryeo to another one.[edit]


I want to change the map of goguryeo to this for the following reasons 1) The current map is innaccurate because it claims in the Gwanggaeto Stele says he conquered the state of later yan. 2) Gwanggaeto stele states he conquered the Buyeo Kingdom. 3) Gwanggaeto stele claims he took the lands of khitan and mohe.

"귀족들의 내부권력을 억제하기 위해 광개토태왕이 대대적 정벌을 꾀했다면, 장수왕은 귀족들의 소굴은 국내성에서 평양성으로 천도를 강행하여 귀족들의 세력을 억제하려 했다. 그 때문에 천도한 평양을 기점으로 백제와 신라 또한 압박하여 남쪽 국경을 아신만에서 영일만까지 확대했다. 또한 후연이 멸망하고 생겨난 북연이 북위 때문에 멸망위기에 놓이자 북연의 수도를 점령하고 북연을 멸망시켰다. 강대국 고구려를 상대로 최강대국 북위 또한 고구려와 화친을 꾀하였고 그 때문에 유목강대국 유연은 지두우 지역을 고구려와 분활지배 했다. 화남지방의 송나라(다음 왕조 제나라)또한 고구려와는 결코 적이 되려 하지 않았다.

문자명왕때는 북위의 북경 변방을 습격했으나 취하지는 못했다. 어쨌건 북위는 이에 대해 트집을 잡지도 않았다. 중원이 남북으로 갈라져 힘이 분산되어 고구려를 쉽게 제어하지 못했을 수도 있으나 고구려의 국력이 그 만큼 강대하지 않았다면 중원 남북조와 결코 고구려는 대등한 서열에 위치하지 못했을 것이다."

The current map of Goguryeo does not have all of this territory under the year 475. My map here is credible and it has the true expansion of Goguryeo at its height in the year 475 AD.Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

However, it is highly recommended to use an English-language map than a Korean-language one. At least with English-language labels in the map. --Cartakes (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Request to change map of goguryeo[edit]

Everything is the same as the last request. I put all of my cited sources on the last section but i found a map with english map.Goguryeo at its height in 475 AD.]Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stevenloveswaffles15: Please don't upload randoom images from the internet! Wikipedia cannot use copyrigthed maps. The website you linked as a source for the image is simply a blog using random images from all over the internet. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 07:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Goguryeo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Mid/High importance for Chinese history workgroup. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom or Empire?[edit]

This edit introduced the term "kingdom" in 2003. This edit introduced "empire" last month. There is a claim that the kings of Goguryeo held the title of Taewang (Great King) which made them equal to the Emperor of China. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Goguryeo is known as kingdom in english and in korean. It is part of the three kingdoms of korea. (Goguryeo, Silla and Baekje). The term "empire" is wrong. Official goguryeo is a kingdom. And wikipedia should use official classification as it is used on korean side. See Three Kingdoms of Korea (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed Burgershots going around adding "empire" to a lot of articles but removing it from this one. This really makes no sense. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

goguryeo was a kingdom. this is mentioned on mostly all articles and informations about goguryeo. it is not without a reason called one of the three kingdoms of korea.

also this article mentions kingdom. only one time it is called as "powerfull empire". this must be changed. it is no empire. this is a kind of korean nationalism promoted by mostly oversea koreans in australia, canada and usa.

for examples of more vandalism see the webpage "koreansentry" it is full of insane ultra- and ethno nationalistic propaganda.

wikipedia must be neutral and must stop promoting pro korean activities.

also in the article Gaya confederation the language must be Gaya language and not old korean. Gaya language is not related to korean at all, but belived to be a indigenous japonic language. Same in baekje. Baekje language is not part of old korean. See gaya/baekje languages.

I hope a admin will change this.-- (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You could go about changing it yourself if you register an account and make some edits to other articles. Discussion also helps; it’s a matter of consensus, not admins. You might want to hit up those other articles’ talk pages, too, rather than proposing changes to them here. — (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See the RfC close below. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Part of the recent edit warring involves whether Goguryeo was a tributary to China. The Encyclopedia Britannica article cited in the lead does not support that claim. Rather, it says that Goguryeo was a kingdom until it was conquered by the Southern Korean Silla dynasty in 668. However, this EB article says that Goguryeo did pay tribute to China, and that the Silla dynasty was itself a vassal state to China. Am I reading these sources correctly? Are both versions of the edit war partially correct? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Korea was indisputably a tributary state of China, please read these sources:

1.) Korea Herald. (2004) Korea now, p. 31; excerpt, "The Chinese also insist that even though Goguryeo was part of Chinese domain, Silla and Baekje were states subjected to China's tributary system."

2.) Kwak, p. 99., p. 99, at Google Books; excerpt, "Korea's tributary relations with China began as early as the fifth century, were regularized during the Goryeo dynasty (918-1392), and became fully institutionalized during the Yi dynasty (1392-1910)."

3.) Seth, Michael J. (2006). A concise history of Korea, p. 64, p. 64, at Google Books; excerpt, "China found instead that its policy of using trade and cultural exchanges and offering legitimacy and prestige to the Silla monarchy was effective in keeping Silla safely in the tributary system. Indeed, the relationship that was worked out in the late seventh and early eighth centuries can be considered the beginning of the mature tributary relationship that would characterize Sino-Korean interchange most of the time until the late nineteenth century;"

4.) According to the Book of Later Han vol. 85, Records of Three Kingdoms vol. 30 and Book of Jin, vol. 97, 2 tribute missions in 1st century, 4 tribute missions in 3rd century, 10 tribute missions in 5th century was sent to Imperial China.

5.) Kang, David C. (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. Columbia University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-231-15318-8. "thus, between 1637 and 1881, Korea sent 435 special embassies to the Qing court, or an average of almost 1.5 embassies per year."

6.) Gundry, R. S. "China and her Tributaries," National Review (United Kingdom), No. 17, July 1884, pp. 605-619., p. 605, at Google Books

7.) Kang, David C. (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute, p. 59., p. 59, at Google Books

8.) Shambaugh, David L. et al. (2008). International Relations of Asia, p. 54 n15., p. 54, at Google Books citing the 1818 Collected Statutes of the Qing Dynasty (DaQing hui-tien)

9.) Fogel, p. 27., p. 27, at Google Books; Goodrich, Luther Carrington et al. (1976). Dictionary of Ming biography, 1368-1644, p. 1316., p. 1316, at Google Books; note: the economic benefit of the Sinocentric tribute system was profitable trade. The tally trade (kangō bōeki or kanhe maoyi in Chinese) was a system devised and monitored by the Chinese -- see Nussbaum, Louis Frédéric et al. (2005). Japan Encyclopedia, p. 471.

10.) Yoda, p. 40., p. 40, at Google Books; excerpt, "Japanese missions to the ... Tang Dynasties were recognized by the Chinese as bearers of imperial tribute; however, in the middle of the ninth century -- the early Heian Period -- Japan rescinded he sending of missions to the Tang Empire. Subsequently Japan conducted a flourishing trade with China and for the next five hundred years also imported much of Chinese culture, while nevertheless remaining outside the tribute system."

11.) Imperial envoys made perilous passages on kentoshi-sen ships to Tang China "The cross-cultural exchanges began with 5 missions between 600 and 614, initially to Sui China (on kenzuishi-sen), and at least 18 or 19 missions were sent to T’ang China from 630 to 894 although not all of them were designated kentoshi."

12.) Kwak, Tae-Hwan et al. (2003). The Korean peace process and the four powers, p. 100., p. 100, at Google Books; excerpt, "The tributary relations between China and Korea came to an end when China was defeated in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895."

13.) Chisholm, Hugh. (1911). The Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 15, p. 224, p. 224, at Google Books

14.) Pratt, Keith L. (1999). Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary. p. 482.

Thank you! (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

To Aristophanes68 (talk), you do know that you had the Gwanggaeto the Great page accidentally blocked without first consulting and checking the historical sources which are correct. Please undo the block, Thank you! (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources; however, none of those are cited in the lead, so changing the lead without ALSO changing the sources is misleading. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to mention tributary status in the lead; the Britannica ignores it, so it might best be discussed (with sources) later in the article. If you want to continue the edit was over at Gwanggaeto, you'll need to make an account first. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
P.S. This topic fits perfectly in the "Controversies" section of the article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

There is a clear consensus that Goguryeo's status as a tributary to China should be mentioned but not emphasized. There is no consensus about whether the status should be mentioned in the lead. Editors recommended following WP:UNDUE in presenting the different viewpoints and WP:NPOV in not favoring one side over the other. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How much attention--and where--should this article give to Goguryeo's status as a tributary to China? Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Comment - It should be noted in the lede and body in an appropriate manner and fully explained in the "Controversies" section. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Not much. However, the current version states "The Chinese version of Goguryeo history, which attempts to recharacterize it as a northern Chinese ethnic state rather than a Korean kingdom, has received criticism from South Korea and doubts from all scholars." The statement "all" is rather not neutral and needs more proper sources I think. I think the claims come directly from the Chinese government, however, I would be surprised if there were not any Chinese scholars that support this claim. Still, in the scientific community, the claim is disregarded. One possible source could be Peter Hays Gries: The Koguryo controversy, national identity, and Sino-Korean relations today. In: East Asia. Vol. 22, No. 4, 2005, doi:10.1007/s12140-005-0001-y. In my opinion, stating that a controversy exist, telling that scholars interpret this ever as defensive or offensive move and disregard the claim and elaborating China's reasoning (the legend of Jizi) should be enough. It should be also noted that to my knowledge not only the Chinese government follows that claim but also the government of Taiwan (Republic China). But of course, as source would be needed. --Christian140 (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The (occasional) tributary relationship should be mentioned but not emphasized. Goguryeo's relationship with Chinese dynasties was mostly hostile, not subservient, unlike later Korean kingdoms. Regarding the Goguryeo controversies, I agree with Christian140 that non-neutral statements from both sides should be removed. Goguryeo originated from modern Jilin, China and later moved its capital to modern Pyongyang, North Korea. Nationalistic and anachronistic claims from either side to exclusively "own" the ancient kingdom have no place on Wikipedia. We should follow the UN's example, which recognizes both the Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom in China and the Complex of Goguryeo Tombs in North Korea as World Heritage Sites. -Zanhe (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: As usual, the edit warriors are mostly know nothing people. Where are the details about the economic exchanges between the two countries (at various points of the time) ? Where are the details about who ruled which fortress, which garrisons, etc (and when) ? Moreover, there were so many Chinas during this seven centuries period that summarizing them by the single word "China" is not a serious analysis. Moreover arguing that each time Gwanggaeto has defeated a Chinese army, the said Gwanggaeto was paying tribute to China... doesn't look as a serious analysis either. Pldx1 (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The key is to present a Neutral Point of View, WP:NPOV, not favoring Korea OR China. When researching this, I found it difficult to find content that was not written by someone with a Chinese or Korean name. Here is one that appears to be unbiased: (Pacific Forum CSIS | Center for Strategic and International Studies).

In any event, I feel that the issue needs to be briefly mentioned in the lead and then in more detail in the "Controversies" section - with citations for suitable, unbiased scholarly sources.Peter K Burian (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using biased sources so long as you WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV them. Alcherin (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: It should not be mentioned in the lead. The lead should be reserved for important general points about the subject. Goguryeo tributes are a minor point in the overall picture. Goguryeo was hostile or warring with Chinese dynasties most of the time. Putting tribute in the lead is giving disproportionate attention and bias to a minor aspect that does not belong in the lead. IMO you would actually be making the article biased, misleading and not neutral if you emphasize tribute by putting it in the lead. It should be clear to people who have an overall knowledge of Goguryeo and Korean history and also understand how drastically different in nature "tribute" were from the era of Goguryeo compared to Joseon that tribute is a minor aspect when it comes to Goguryeo.

Like Zanhe said, mention it but don't emphasize it. Putting it in the lead would be emphasizing it. However, it should be mentioned in the article. It was an important economic factor and source of cultural inflow from China after all. I added it. YB92 (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2017[edit]

The cleanup template at § Controversies should have “section” as the second parameter, not first:

{{Cleanup rewrite|2=section|date=October 2014}}

See Template:Cleanup rewrite/doc. (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

DoneMRD2014 📞 contribs 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom or Empire?[edit]

Actually Koreans commonly call Goguryeo as "Goguryeo empire".If you check the page of Goguryeo in the Korean wikipedia,also koreans wrote that Goguryeo was empire ruling other races and actively started to conquer other countries such as buyoe,naklang,manchurian,mongolians and some Chinese in 4th century.Is this a very sensitive topic?Richeaglenoble (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Constant addition and readdition of ungrammatical gibberish[edit]

@Richeaglenoble: You clearly are not a native speaker of English, but could you please get one to check the grammar of your edit before you restore it again? I'm at 1RR so I won't revert again myself, but you're past 3RR and will almost certainly be blocked if you don't self-revert and change your behaviour immediately. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, telling people to "ask anyone in Korea" is pretty useless. Cite a reliable source or refrain from editing Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
[2] Just keep digging... Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
But,you can not deny and outrage common sense of Korea.And do not delete my photo.I contributed my photo to Wikipedia.Richeaglenoble (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
As I told you on my talk page, no one cares about the photo. You are refusing to cite sources, and the text you are adding to the article is ungrammatical and messy. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)