The Yuezhi's Inclusion in EB - Debate [Archive]

View Full Version : The Yuezhi's Inclusion in EB - Debate

jurchen fury

12-29-2005, 06:20

This thread is for the discussion of the Yuezhi's inclusion on the current EB map and how historically accurate it is (which it isn't). I will be posting up relevant information on the Yuezhi's historical situation during the start of EB's campaign map here and also propose a rearrangement and redoing of EB's eastern boundaries, a case Pedro had brought up earlier (it doesn't necessarily mean an extension of the current EB map more eastwards), though my experiment had different results from his.

jerby

12-29-2005, 11:25

no offense...but get some sources before posting this...

and even better: don't say [qoute]how historically accurate it is (which it isn't).[/quote]
it sounds cocky, and make you look really bad when you're wrong...

Shrapnel

12-29-2005, 11:55

lol touché :winkg:

Simmons

12-29-2005, 13:41

This thread is for the discussion of the Yuezhi's inclusion on the current EB map and how historically accurate it is (which it isn't)
Yes where is the debate whats so inaccurate??

Moros

12-29-2005, 13:53

no offense...but get some sources before posting this...

and even better: don't say
how historically accurate it is (which it isn't).
it sounds cocky, and make you look really bad when you're wrong...
He hasn't even started with his discussion and you're already breaking him down. While I believe he has more knowledge about this than you.

I wander who really should be embarrased at the end. Please don't judge someone before you actully know him and don't start saying stuff before someone has actually started.

Divinus Arma

12-29-2005, 14:56

I think this should be interesting enough.

Remember, EB is about historical accuracy more than anything else. If Jurchen Fury has evidence and information from solid sources, then it should be presented. If Jurchen Fury's info is better than ours (which I am sure Jerby just simply doubts), then we should make the relevant changes within the game.

Europa Barbarorum attempts to be accurate whenever possible and bases this on the best available historical evidence. EB historians have researched the information that is presented in the Mod, but more info is always better than less.

Jurchen Fury: What do you want to share?

edit: Jurchen Fury is a member? Oh. Good.

VandalCarthage

12-29-2005, 15:33

Well, without pre-empting jurchen, anyone here who was wondering about the Yuezhi - could pick out the concern just by looking them up on wikipedia.

Also, as a note, since it doesn't seem to have come up here, jurchen was responsible for developing a lot of EB's Yuezhi faction, and is indeed an EB member.

The Blind King of Bohemia

12-29-2005, 15:48

Only problem I find with the Yuezhi is that their campaign is a real bastard, its very tough if you don't move quickly. May I suggest maybe a couple of light cavalry units to start with or the chance to train them from the off?

Its a great campaign mind, my diplomats covered the length and breadth of the map extorting money from the big factions. Why settle for 250 mnai for map information when you can get 1000?:rtwyes:

Chester

12-29-2005, 17:33

IF not them, then who? How about another Barbaian faction! Any thing other than the phalanx!

Teleklos Archelaou

12-29-2005, 17:43

JF will post more info on this to come, but the big problem is that the Yuezhi are hard to get good information on exactly where they were at precise dates. Were they in the far western edge of the Tarim basin in 272 (or on our map at all in 272) is the big question.

Some secondary literature (there's exceedingly little primary lit on this) suggests that they may have been here or near here, but it seems like more suggest that they were further north and east.

The nice thing is that they are the people who did come in and take over baktria , but that is 130 or so years later. And they also nicely fit an area of the map that needs some 'company'. But we are seriously considering these things and would like to open the question up to the public here as well.

edit: I would add that this is definitely not the place to argue for other factions at this point. THe question is whether or not the yuezhi should be in. Not whether another faction should be there instead (yet).

jurchen fury

12-29-2005, 19:40

Alright, thanks EB members for clarifying my status and the point of the debate. It seems some have mistakenly assumed me for another role, ie that of a troll perhaps.

I've taken the time to do a detailed analysis of "The Yueh-chih and their migrations" by K. Enoki, G.A. Koshelenko and Z. Haidary", pp. 171 - 172 in "History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume II - The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250" editted by Janos Harmatta, B.N. Puri, and G.F. Etemadi, UNESCO Publishing with information cited from both primary and secondary sources.
The quoted text in red below are from the said article above.

The identification of the Yueh-chih with Casia is also based on the similarity of the names Yueh-chih and Casia, but there is some additional positive evidence to support it. 'Casia' is the name given by the Greeks in the first century A.D. to the Kunlun mountain range in the south of the Tarim and to the region stretching north of it, which is famous even today for the production of jade.

More specifically, the region stretching north of the Kunlun mountain range would be the oases south of the Taklamakan desert and to the north of the Kunlun, ie the southern Tarim. It would also help immensely if they gave the primary source for the mention of 'Casia', ie which ancient Greek geographer recorded that name. By the early 2nd century BC, the Yuezhi had already left their homeland between Qilian (to be identified with the modern-day Tianshan range that separates Jungaria from the Tarim in modern-day Xinjiang province, see Lin Meicun, "The Western Region of the Han-Tang Dynasties and the Chinese Civilization", pp. 64–67, also see Liu Xinru, “Migration and Settlement of the Yuezhi-Kushan: Interaction and Interdependence of Nomadic and Sedentary Societies,” Journal of World History 12, no. 2, p. 268 as well as Barber, "The Mummies of Urumchi", pp. 122 - 123, also on p. 220, she also cites from Lin Meicun, "Qilian and Kunlun - The Earliest Tokharian Loan-words in Ancient Chinese") and Dunhuang (though Lin Meicun identifies Dunhuang with Dunhong, presumably a mountain range in the Tianshan from the Shanhaijing, a text containing semi-mythical elements, it still can refer to modern-day Dunhuang since the Xiao Yuezhi sought refuge with the Qiang in the southern Gansu - northern Qinghai region, indicating that the Yuezhi must've had a presence in Gansu since they had contact with the Qiang) and by the early 2nd century BC, they were already in Baktria. For an approximate date of the relocation of the Yuezhi from Qilian and Dunhuang to the Ili, see Sima Qian's Shiji, Ch. 123: Dayuan Liezhuan Di Liu Shi San (Dayuan Liezhuan-style "Biography" #63, also translated as Ch. 123: The Account of Dayuan by Burton Watson in "Records of the Grand Historian", Han Dynasty II, pp. 231 - 253, which BTW, oddly fails to mention the Sai/Saka and the Yuezhi's expulsion of them from the Ili before the Yuezhi relocated to Baktria c. 130 - 128 BC after the Wusun in turn drove them out of the region) as well as Ban Gu's Han Shu, Ch. 96A: Xi You Zhuan Di Liu Shi Liu Shang (The Western Regions Zhuan-style Biography #66A/Upper Part), all of which mention the relocation of the Yuezhi from Qilian and Dunhuang elsewhere after they were defeated by Lao Chanyu, who reigned c. 174 - 158 BC, according to Watson, ibid. A tiny minority of Yuezhi, referred to by Chinese sources as the Xiao Yuezhi, stayed behind and sought refuge in northern Qinghai with the Qiang, possibly a proto-Tibetan people. Thus, 'Casia' most likely does not refer to the Yuezhi, who weren't in the Tarim in the 1st century AD. I don't know how "Casia" is suppose to sound anything like "Yuezhi", and certainly doesn't sound anything like the ancient Chinese pronunciation of "Yuezhi".

According to the Book of Kuan-tzu, jade was produced either in the country of the Yu-chih, who are considered to be identical with the Yueh-chih, or in the mountains on their frontier. The Book of Kuan-tzu is some time before the third century B.C., when the Yueh-chih dominated the greater part of Mongolia.

I've found specific references to the Yuzhi and their location in the Guanzi, conventionally using W. Allyn Rickett's excellent annotated translation.

On p. 386:

XXII, 73 GUO XU

Jade comes from the Yuzhi (48), gold from the Ru and Han rivers (49), and pearls from Chiye (50). From east to west and north to south, the distance from Zhou was 7,800 li (51). Rough terrain and rivers blocked the way, neither boats nor carts being able to make it through. Since the road was long and reaching these places was difficult, the former kings took advantage of the preciousness of such things. They made pearls and jade the highest form of money, gold was placed next, and knife and spade copper coins were placed at the bottom (52).

It is clear that this passage referred to these goods as their source only in general terms, since in another part of the book, on pp. 468 - 469, there is a parallel passage, but the sources of the goods are made more specific:

XXIV, 81 QING ZHONG YI

"How does one carry this out?" asked the king. "Gold comes from the righthand (southern) confluences of the Ru and Han rivers, pearls from the Moguang area of Chiye, and jade from the mountains bordering on the territory of the Yuzhi. For all of these the distance from Zhou is over 7,800 li.....

From the bottom passage, it is clear that jade was from the mountains bordering on the territory of the Yuzhi, not "in the country of the Yu-chih". Since those mountains bordered the territory of the Yuzhi and presumably because those mountains were controlled by a people neutral, allied, or dependant to the Yuzhi, the Yuzhi were thus able to secure their income of jade from those mountains, and the mention of "Jade comes from the Yuzhi" in the Guo Xu section of the Guanzi on p. 386 of Rickett's translation may have been an indication of whom the Chinese directly got their jade from, who were the Yuzhi, and not necessarily who controlled the region containing the jade. However, I do agree with the indirect suggestion of identifying these mountains with the Kunlun mountains near modern-day Khotan in the southern Tarim, which was famous for jade (the article being analyzed here, ie Enoki and the other two authors), and so the territory of the Yuzhi was probably somewhere in the oases south of the Taklamakan, ie the southern Tarim, and possibly near Khotan, a region famous for jade. This is further corroborated by the mention of an oasis town called the "original land of the Duhuoluo" (most scholars identify this with the "Tocharians" though it is possible that the Duhuoluo/Tuhuoluo were merely a Tocharian-speaking people and not necessarily representative of all Tocharian speakers, like the case of the Yuezhi, another Tocharian-speaking people [also, calling "Tocharian" a language might be misleading though it is commonly used; using "Kuchean-Agnean" in replacement of "Tocharian" to refer to a language might be less misleading though it is far less commonly used and thus potentially confusing]) by the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang in his work, the Xi Yu Ji, though his work as a historically accurate source is questionable, since he was only a Buddhist pilgrim and not a court historian and it dates to the early-middle 7th century AD, far removed from the time of the Yuezhi and their conquest of Baktria. Still, Mark Aurel Stein, the famous Hungarian explorer of Central Asia of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, in his work Serindia: detailed report of explorations in Central Asia and westernmost China - Vol. 1, p. 287, note 6, identifies this settlement as an area between modern Niya and Charchan/Cherchen in the southern Tarim; Niya is just slightly to the east of modern-day Khotan while Cherchen is far more to the east, and all three places are near the modern Kunlun range. So it seems likely that at least one group of Tocharian-speakers occupied a part of the southern Tarim, and it is also possible that the Duhuoluo/Tuhuoluo were the descendants of the Yuzhi mentioned in the Guanzi and the Yuzhi were thus a Tocharian-speaking people like the Yuezhi. This could also be used as evidence for the identification of the Yuzhi with the Yuezhi, whose descendants, the Kushanas, occupied the region of Baktria, later known as Tocharistan (certainly so by the time of Xuanzang's travels to India), which was possibly known as the "land of the Duhuoluo/Tuhuoluo", though there are grounds to suggest otherwise, as in my speculation below.

Also notice that while bringing up the mention of the Yuzhi in the Guanzi, I've used "Yuzhi" all along, and not "Yuezhi". Apparently, "Yuzhi" is the Pinyin transliteration for 禺氏, while "Yuezhi" is the Pinyin transliteration for 月氏 (or 月支). Though it is commonly accepted that 禺氏 is merely a different transciption of 月氏 (or 月支) and actually refer to the same people, it seems to me that this is based almost solely on the evident similarity of the modern Mandarin pronunciations of the two peoples therefore its conventional acception, though I could be wrong on this issue. Almost certainly, the ancient Chinese pronunciation of 月氏 (or 月支) doesn't anything like "Yuezhi", and there is the possibility that 禺氏 was also pronounced differently in ancient Chinese from the ancient Chinese pronunciation of 月氏 (or 月支), and thus the "Yuezhi" were a different people from the "Yuzhi", though I have yet to verify this. In any case, even if we accept the common identification of the "Yuzhi" as the same people as the "Yuezhi", all the mentioning of the Yuzhi in the Guanzi indicates is that the Yuzhi/Yuezhi had some degree of control (possibly those Tocharian-speaking peoples living in the oases of the southern Tarim were vassals of the Yuezhi, who were clearly a nomadic people) over some of the oases in the southern Tarim, more specifically the region between Niya and Cherchen and possibly other areas in the southern Tarim as well, which is far different from "controlling the entire Tarim" or "settling in the Tarim" as others had suggested.

What is important is that none of the areas mentioned, ie Khotan, Niya, and Cherchen, are depicted on the current EB map, of which "Yuezhi Yabgu" only has Sulek, aka Kashgar, as a city, though the entire province arguably extends to territory near Yarkand in the southeastern part of "Yuezhi Yabgu". There is absolutely no historical evidence that Kashgar was under the control of the Yuezhi until they became the Kushanas, and that was only during the reign of Kanishka, presumably sometime in the early 2nd century AD, out of the time period depicted in EB. At any rate, giving the Yuezhi the starting province of "Yuezhi Yabgu" in what is now modern-day Kashgar in the northwestern Tarim is historically inaccurate, conflicts with who the Yuezhi were recorded as, ie a nomadic steppe people, while the inhabitants of Kashgar were later recorded in the Han Shu as having markets with stalls, suggesting that they were sedentary cultivators of the oasis. In any case, Kashgar was neither the homeland of the Yuezhi nor is there any historical evidence that even suggests that they controlled the region until they later became the Kushanas, and it certainly isn't steppe territory and wasn't capable of supporting such a population of nomads as that of the Yuezhi, who had 100,000 - 200,000 veterans/warriors alone, according to the Shi Ji (the largest oasis kingdom of the Tarim could only support a population of 81,317 people and that was Qiuci [modern-day Kucha] according to the Han Shu). Unfortunately, the homeland of the Yuezhi, which was between Qilian and Dunhuang, ie the eastern Tianshan - western Gansu region, and the territories they possibly controlled isn't depicted anywhere on the current EB map. Also "Casia" is also nowhere on the current EB map since "Yuezhi Yabgu" province only contains the northwestern part of the Tarim, while "Casia" refers to the oases in the southern Tarim.

So it is quite possible that 'Yu-chih', 'Yueh-chih' and 'Casia' represent the same name; and that the Yueh-chih were known to the Chinese to be associated with jade. Presumably jade was known by the name of casia because it was produced in the country of the Yueh-chih, or the Yueh-chih were known by the name of Casia because of their jade.

Again, there's no strong evidence to support the identification of "Casia" with the "Yuezhi".

In a place near modern Khotan in the ancient region of Casia, jade is still called gutscha; and 'gutscha' is very similar to the old pronunciation of Yueh-chih, which may have been 'zguja' or something like that. If the jade was called casia because of the Yueh-chih, the country of Casia might have been the place where the Yueh-chih originated.

According to Mallory and Mair in "The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West", pp. 98 - 99, the ancient Chinese pronunciation of "Da Yuezhi" has been reconstructed as something like "d'ad-ngiwat-tieg". Apparently, "d'ad-ngiwat-tieg" sounds nothing like "Da Yuezhi", indicating how much the Chinese language had changed over a thousand years and the difficulty of interpreting ancient peoples recorded in the Chinese records using modern Chinese pronunciation alone. Other theories concerning the ancient Chinese pronunciation of "Yuezhi" include "gwat-ti, got-ti, or gut-si", originally proposed by W. B. Henning in "The First Indo-Europeans in History". However, according to http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/hhshu/notes13.html#1, it seems fairly now that "ngiwat-tieg" is the more "valid" reconstruction of "Yuezhi" rather than anything else for most scholars today:

The first theory, developed by W. B. Henning in his 1965 paper, â€œthe first Indo-Europeans in history,â€� is discussed at some length in Mallory and Mair (2000), pp. 281-282. They explore Henningâ€™s suggestion that the ancient pronunciation of â€˜Yuezhiâ€� could be approximately reconstructed as *Gu(t)-tâ€™i and related it to the â€˜Gutiâ€™ people who began harassing the western borders of Babylon from c. 2100 BCE.
According to Assar (2003), people the Parthian king Mithradates II mounted a major campaign into the â€œGutian countryâ€� circa 120 BCE and there is a reference to actions by Parthia involving the Guti as late as circa 77 BCE.
Apparently, Henning believed that Guti in the â€˜Kuchean-Agneanâ€™ or â€˜KAâ€™ language â€œwould have been rendered Kuči, and hence be equivalent to Kuchean. As for the toχri mentioned in the Uighur colophon, Henning believed one need look no further than the name of the TukriÅ¡ who had been neighbours of the Guti in western Persia and hence had given their name both to the toχri of the northern Tarim and the Tocharians of Bactria.â€�
Unfortunately, for this theory, Mallory and Mair find his supposed support on the basis of similar ceramics unconvincing but, â€œOf greater detriment to such a theory is that Henning accepted a reconstructed Chinese pronunciation of Yuezhi as *Gu(t)-tâ€™i when, in fact, it is commonly reconstructed now as *ngwāt-tĕg which makes it a far less transparent correspondence.

Both Hulsewe and Loewe also conformed with this reconstruction of "Yuezhi", ie "ngiwat-tieg", in their work, "China in Central Asia: The Early Stage 125 BC – AD 23", p. 119, note 276.

Thus, while the possibility exists that the ancient Chinese pronunciation of "Yuezhi" might've been "zjuga", it seems more likely that it was at least as likely, if not more likely, that it was "ngiwat-tieg", which is the more commonly accepted reconstruction and in which they (K. Enoki, G.A. Koshelenko and Z. Haidary) oddly fail to mention. Thus, the theory of "If the jade was called casia because of the Yueh-chih, the country of Casia might have been the place where the Yueh-chih originated" (the keyword here being "if") can be as easily discarded as it was proposed, simply because "zjuga" as a reconstruction of "Yuezhi" doesn't seem very likely and the identification of "Casia" with "Yuezhi" seems shaky at best. In fact, "Casia" could easily be identified with the ancient Khotanese (also "Khotan" seems vaguely similar to "Casia" though this observation isn't backed up solid evidence, but that's not the important part), who were also famous for their jade, and where the earliest texts found in the region were in a language called "Khotan-Saka" (the affiliation of the ancient Khotanese language with Indo-Iranian Saka was proposed by H. W. Bailey, as indicated here: http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Bailey.html and pretty much all sources I've seen also commonly use "Khotan-Saka") while others were in Sanskrit, indicating that the ancient Khotanese may have spoken an Indo-Iranian language, making these sedentary oasis cultivators different from the presumably Tocharian-speaking (or, less misleading, a "Kuchean-Agnean"-speaking) and nomadic Yuezhi, in which case places possibly, with indirect evidence, occupied by them before their relocation from Qilian and Dunhuang, like Turfan and Yanqi/Agni, contain Tocharian texts, and the people there presumably Tocharian-speakers. In any case, most modern-day Khotanese speak a Turkic language, ie the modern-day Uygur language and many are mixed with the said Turkic people.

But the Yueh-chih were a great horde of pastoral people, and had 100,000 or 200,000 cavalrymen, according to the Shih-chi (Book 123), when they reached the Amu Darya. This makes it unlikely that they could have originated in a place such as Casia where the oases could only support a population of a few thousand at the time of the Han dynasty. It must also be remembered that no other nomadic people has ever risen to power in any part of the Tarim basin where Casia was situated. If the Yueh-chih were called by the name of Casia, because of the casia or jade they produced, they must also have had another name of their own.

Oddly, the evidence they present here already refutes their (maybe his/her rather than "their" seems more appropriate) conclusion in the end here:

; although it is most likely that Casia was the native place of the Yueh-chih.

It is exactly the opposite of the evidence contained in this passage, which contains far more solid evidence than anything they've brought up before.

What is certain, however, is that the region of Casia and other countries in the Tarim basin were under the control of the Yueh-chih

If we go with the theory that the "Yuzhi" were the same people as the "Yuezhi", which is quite possible, then the Yuzhi/Yuezhi had, at one point in history, control over parts of "Casia" if "Casia" refers to the oases south of the Taklamakan and north of the Kunlun mountain range, more specifically the oases between Niya and Cherchen if we accept the Xuanzang's 7th century source, the Xiyu Ji, as reliable. Also note that the Guanzi never said anything like "jade comes from the original homeland of the Yuezhi", but simply indicated that jade came from the mountains bordering the territories controlled by the Yuzhi. IMO, all the discussion about the supposed homeland in "Casia" based solely on speculation and supposed similarity of names made in the article by the three authors isn't convincing at all. Furthermore, the degree of "control" the Yuezhi supposedly had over these oasis kingdoms is questionable, since directly controlling them militarily would be impractical and senseless for a nomadic people like the Yuezhi who utilized armies made up largely of mounted archers and in which, keeping in mind the remount system of steppe nomads that made their armies so mobile and efficient for the purpose they play, with the Da Yuezhi's 100,000 or 200,000 veterans/warriors when they were living north of the Oxus/Amu Darya as recorded in the Shi Ji, Ch. 123, would require at least 200,000 - 400,000 warhorses alone for the veterans/warriors, and certainly far more for the regular tribesmen on the move. Since the Yuezhi were far more powerful than at the time when they had just conquered Baktria and presumably owned far larger territories earlier in their history, meaning they had more access to manpower, Yuezhi armies before their defeat by the Xiongnu may have numbered more than 100,000 or 200,000 warriors and thus, warhorses required to support such warriors would amount to over 200,000 - 400,000 of them, numbers the small oases of the Tarim almost certainly were not capable of supporting. In fact, a direct quote from Hungarian explorer Stein in "Serindia : detailed report of explorations in Central Asia and westernmost China - Vol. 1", p. 287, note 6:

................That the Tarim Basin with its barren wastes of sand or gravel, broken only by a narrow fringe of cultivated oases, was throughout historical times a region utterly unsuited to nomadic migrations is a geographical fact which deserves to be reckoned with in historical speculations more than hitherto has been the case.

Also, from Mallory and Mair, "The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West", pp. 77 - 78:

Khotan also occupied a remarkably strategic position. To its south, the forbidding Qurum and Qaraqurum ranges were absolutely desolate and Stein could count but a mere 400 people scattered across a territory of 9,000 sq. miles [23,310 sq. km]. To its east one could follow the Silk road, but beyond Niya (Minfeng) the oases were so few and far between that it would have been difficult to facilitate any major approach to Khotan other than one that had been highly organized, such as might be found in Chinese military operations.

The point is that beyond Niya, to its east, "the oases were so few and far between that it would have been difficult to facilitate any major approach to Khotan". All cavalry armies, like those utilized by steppe nomads, would find it extremely difficult to support their men and especially horses let alone militarily occupy a kingdom, in light of the geographical conditions.

Much of the Tarim was unsuited for nomadic migrations, much less direct military occupation by steppe nomads planning to stay steppe nomads, whom the Da Yuezhi still were when they had just conquered Baktria and set up their metropolis north of the Amu-Darya. It seems more likely that these oasis kingdoms speculated to have been "controlled" by the Yuezhi were the Yuezhi's tributary vassals, mirroring how the Xiongnu dominated the oasis kingdoms of the Tarim during the early 3rd - late 2nd century BC. The fact is that the only real direct evidence of the territory controlled by the Yuezhi before their relocation elsewhere somewhere between 174 - 158 BC is in Sima Qian's Shi Ji, Ch. 123, and it directly states that before the Yuezhi were defeated by the Xiongnu and the Yuezhi king's skull turned into a drinking vessel by Lao Chanyu that the Yuezhi had lived between the Qilian mountains and Dunhuang. It seems likely, as I've cited from authorities above, that the Qilian mountains in question most likely refers to the Tianshan range in what is now northern Xinjiang instead of the modern-day Qilian mountains in today's Gansu province for reasons of living space and linguistic etymology. However, given the mention in the Shi Ji, Ch. 110, that "At this time the Donghu ["Eastern Barbarians"] were very powerful and the Yuezhi were likewise flourishing. The Shanyu or chieftain of the Xiongnu was named Touman. Touman, unable to hold out against the Qin forces, ....", there is reason and space for the suggestion that the Yuezhi controlled more territory than simply the eastern Tianshan - western Gansu region, and also perhaps that the line in the SJ 123 doesn't need to be accepted "dogmatically" for some. Of the other speculated tributary vassals of the Yuezhi before they were defeated by the Xiongnu and moved to the Ili, there is other indirect evidence other than the mention of the Yuzhi in the Guanzi. The kingdom of Loulan (near modern Lake Lop Nor at the eastern edge of the Tarim) might've also been under the control of the Yuezhi as a tributary vassal state since it was located between the eastern Tianshan - western Gansu region and the Niya - Cherchen region, the latter of which was possibly the territory of the Yuzhi and later the Duhuoluo/Tuhuoluo. Also, the state of Gushi, ie in the modern-day Turfan oasis northeast of the Tarim Basin, also lies between the central/eastern Tianshan region and modern-day Dunhuang in western Gansu, and Liu Xinru had even suggested that the original homeland of the Yuezhi might've been at a place near Turfan. Also, Tocharian A texts were first found in the Turfan region, where the presumably "Kuchean-Agnean"/"Tocharian"-speaking Yuezhi had some control over and it is possible, though without entirely solid evidence, that the Gushi peoples might've been the descendants of the Yuezhi. There is even more space to move a little more westwards, perhaps the westernmost limits of the Yuezhi empire and its vassal states, toward modern-day Yanqi, just a little southwest of the Turfan oasis, though the source, again being far removed from the time of the Yuezhi, is as questionable as Xuanzang's Xi Yu Ji on the "original land of the Duhuoluo". Quoting from Mallory and Mair, "The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West", p. 334:

A document from Dunhuang, dating to AD 966, indicates, for example, that the state between Khocho and Kucha, ie the state centred on the town of Yanqi (Agni), was known also as Yuezhi. One can then argue that the Yuezhi held on to this territory even after the departure of the Greater Yuezhi and thereby associate the Yuezhi with territory in which we later recover KA manuscripts. Or this could merely reflect the tendency of the Chinese to label ethnic minorities whose cultures had been heavily influenced by Buddhism as Yuezhi.....

Of all the indirect evidence brought up regarding the speculated "tributary vassals" of the Yuezhi before they were defeated by the Xiongnu and migrated out of their homelands, the least shaky and most solid is the Gushi/Turfan region being controlled by the Yuezhi. OTOH, again, there is no historical evidence at all, not even indirect evidence, that the Yuezhi controlled Kashgar until the Yuezhi became the Kushanas and during the reign of Kanishka. All of the speculated tributary vassals of the Yuezhi doesn't have any of their territories depicted on the current EB map and even if they do, squeezing the Yuezhi into those oases would be very ahistorical and very misrepresent the Yuezhi as a historical steppe power.

Their establishment of an Iranian identity for the Yuezhi and linking them with the Pazyryk kurgans of the Altai, now commonly identified with the Saka/Sakae, has major flaws and errors, and there's plenty of evidence to refute it, though that isn't the point of this debate, therefore no need to bring all that up here.

There's so many other misquotations and errors that I've seen in the article that I'm simply too tired right now to directly quote them and comment on them with stuff from other sources, so I might do that later. But, as of now, I believe I've brought up more than enough historical evidence to refute the idea that the Yuezhi supposedly controlled the entire Tarim or even had a presence in Kashgar, which is oddly called "Yuezhi Yabgu". In any case, again, squeezing the Yuezhi into any of their speculated tributary vassals' territories in the Tarim or leaving out the most important part of the Yuezhi empire, ie their main territories in the eastern Tianshan - western Gansu region, would still be a major historical error and a very ahistorical representation of a steppe power. Giving a steppe power a starting province that belonged to sedentary cultivators I believe isn't very historically accurate.

khelvan

12-29-2005, 19:42

Jurchen Fury is a member of EB, and quite frankly is one of our most, ahh, detailed when presenting his sources. He likely didn't post anything with this first message because he wanted to present his case in one two-page message full of shock and awe.

Unfortunately our other resident expert on steppe nomads with his wealth of historical sources is no longer here, at least not for now. So the Yuezhi are being championed against and have no champion to defend their inclusion in the western end of the Tarim basin anywhere near our start date.

We have no reason not to make this debate public at this point. The Yuezhi have the least done for them now, so they would be the least painful to remove. I wanted them in, but I don't have any sources to back their placement on our map. Hopefully some of you do and can debate this. If not, the Yuezhi are a lost cause; we'll likely retain the few units we made for them, and work on another faction elsewhere.

Warning, however, I will start deleting threads that talk about a possible replacement here. This question is solely about whether or not the Yuezhi were on our map at campaign start.

jurchen fury

12-29-2005, 19:47

Unfortunately our other resident expert on steppe nomads with his wealth of historical sources is no longer here, at least not for now. So the Yuezhi are being championed against and have no champion to defend their inclusion in the western end of the Tarim basin anywhere near our start date.

I will also, in future posts, put up Pedro's stance on the issue, which is mainly the proposal of the rearrangement of EB's eastern boundaries, though again, I had different results from his.:winkg:

Sahran

12-29-2005, 21:17

Because I have been too impatient to read through all of that, it may very well do much to hurt this arguement, but:

The Yuezhi invaded Bactria 130 years into the campaign, if that's correct -

In 216 BC, Hannibal Invaded Italy and defeated the Romans at Cannae. (This does not happen in the game)

In 52 BC, Caesar defeated Vercingetorix. (Does not occur ingame)

In 247 BC, Parthia revolted after inspiration from witnessing Bactria do the same. They start off as an individual faction, which still somewhat represents a satrapy, but it's accuracy is debateable.

Around 302 BC, Pontus became a kingdom ruled by a succession of kings. Their importance really seemed to only come in the first century BC with Rome. Before then, I'd consider their presence to be comparable to any number of city states or small kingdoms that are not a faction.

In short. If the Yuezhi were not in the region they currently are, but were offmap, then they might not be due to be added (you could introduce a major rebel spawning to represent them?).

If they were in that region at the start of the game, they should stay, because while their encounter with the Bactrian's occured at a later date, there are examples of factions only truly comming about, or being of signifigance warranting the inclusion as a faction, far later than the starting date. From glancing over the research, it seems like their position is rather debateable..it might be too much a risk if the team is unwilling to work upon so shakey a foundation.

Steppe Merc

12-29-2005, 21:23

I know Pedro thought that the Yuezhi could be considered in, and we should look at both sides, though if Pedro doesn't show up soon, not sure if that can happen.

In 247 BC, Parthia revolted after inspiration from witnessing Bactria do the same. They start off as an individual faction, which still somewhat represents a satrapy, but it's accuracy is debateable.
No, they represent the Nomadic Parni, who then invaded the province of Parthia.

Sahran

12-29-2005, 21:25

I know Pedro thought that the Yuezhi could be considered in, and we should look at both sides, though if Pedro doesn't show up soon, not sure if that can happen.

No, they represent the Nomadic Parni, who then invaded the province of Parthia.

But Parthia is allied to the Seleucids? I can't recall if it's either Bactria or Seleukia they are allied to.

Steppe Merc

12-29-2005, 22:07

no offense...but get some sources before posting this...

and even better: don't say [qoute]how historically accurate it is (which it isn't).
it sounds cocky, and make you look really bad when you're wrong...[/QUOTE]
Dude, Jurchen has helped a lot especially with the Yuezhi. This is not a new issue, I assure you and we agreed to discuss it post OB.

Steppe Merc

12-29-2005, 22:10

But Parthia is allied to the Seleucids? I can't recall if it's either Bactria or Seleukia they are allied to.
Well the Parni were sort of allied (more or less) to the Seleukids. And I think they are allied to both, though I could be wrong (haven't been able to play this game for a while since my computer died).

Mouzafphaerre

12-30-2005, 00:34

.
If one day we decide to port the mod to BI or make a BI version of the mod, then [not] being around at the campaign start wouldn't prove much of an obstacle for the inclusion of a faction since we can then script faction emergences in later dates.

:2cents:
.

jurchen fury

12-30-2005, 02:50

Because I have been too impatient to read through all of that, it may very well do much to hurt this arguement, but:

Well, please take the time to read through all of it and try to understand as much as possible since there'd be no point in replying in the thread if no points are addressed.

The Yuezhi invaded Bactria 130 years into the campaign, if that's correct -

In 216 BC, Hannibal Invaded Italy and defeated the Romans at Cannae. (This does not happen in the game)

In 52 BC, Caesar defeated Vercingetorix. (Does not occur ingame)

In 247 BC, Parthia revolted after inspiration from witnessing Bactria do the same. They start off as an individual faction, which still somewhat represents a satrapy, but it's accuracy is debateable.

Around 302 BC, Pontus became a kingdom ruled by a succession of kings. Their importance really seemed to only come in the first century BC with Rome. Before then, I'd consider their presence to be comparable to any number of city states or small kingdoms that are not a faction.

In short. If the Yuezhi were not in the region they currently are, but were offmap, then they might not be due to be added (you could introduce a major rebel spawning to represent them?).

If they were in that region at the start of the game, they should stay, because while their encounter with the Bactrian's occured at a later date, there are examples of factions only truly comming about, or being of signifigance warranting the inclusion as a faction, far later than the starting date. From glancing over the research, it seems like their position is rather debateable..it might be too much a risk if the team is unwilling to work upon so shakey a foundation.

All the territories/places that the events happened that you brought up are on the current EB map, and many of the examples you brought up concern the political status of those factions at the start of the game. This is not an issue with the Yuezhi. At this time around, it seems probable to deduce that the Yuezhi were a very powerful empire at this time, as well as the Donghu nomads in the eastern Mongolia - western Manchuria region, based on a line in the SJ 110 that the Xiongnu were pressured by the powerful Donghu in the east and the powerful Yuezhi in the west, though this was in the late 3rd century BC during the time of Touman Chanyu, the father of the great Maodun Chanyu. The real issue with the Yuezhi is that their most important territories, as well as their speculated tributary vassals of the Tarim, does not appear anywhere on the current EB map. "Yuezhi Yabgu" is a representation of the Kashgar oasis and the outlying regions, arguably up to areas near Yarkand in the southeast of the province (based on the mountain ranges in the south of the province). It would be ahistorical and historically inaccurate to represent a nomadic power by giving them a starting province that was historically populated by sedentary cultivators with no evidence that those people were related to the nomadic Yuezhi or even politically controlled by them (this is one of the main points), as well as geographically impractical for a steppe power to militarily occupy such an oasis. At this time around, they were clearly out of the political scene of Baktria or the adjacent regions at the western edge of the Tianshan and were clearly within the political scene on the northwestern borders of China, ie fighting with the Xiongnu and possibly fighting against or allied with some of the warring states of China, specifically Qin, Zhao, and Yan.

jurchen fury

12-30-2005, 12:38

I'm presenting Pedro's argument on the issue, something I had spoken to him a while ago and have additionally included my response to the steps he took.

Here are the pictures showing what Pedro had done.

Map 1:

https://img526.imageshack.us/img526/8579/ebnecorner11ad.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Map 2:

https://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2968/ebnecorner47ho.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Map 3:

https://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7116/ebnecorner4b2sr.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Map 4:

https://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6382/ebnecorner62yf.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Map 5:

https://img521.imageshack.us/img521/2977/ebnecorner6b1qj.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

As you can see, he used the size and location of Lake Balkhash to determine the eastern boundaries of the EB map, reasoning here:

Also, the larger physical features are, the more reliable is their placement in EB's map. In this regard, Lake Balkhash size may be a bit too small, but just a bit. It seems reasonably accurate, when compared to that of the Caspian and Aral Seas and I would trust it more than I would expect EB map to have shown some of the physical details you mention. If the map's borders are actually further east that they "seem" (and I think they are, at least to some extent) and that calls for the inclusion of new physical features. that is doable, because the overall scale of the whole map does not change. Adding a new river, lake, mountain range, that should have been there and wasn't moving the location of a settlement, etc. is not terribly hard. Has been done before and is still being done. However, expanding the map east changes the whole overall scale of the map and then pretty much everything, everywhere has to be modified. It pretty much means re-darwing a completely new map. Think of EB's map as always having to be included within a frame of a fixed size. Then, the scale of what is represented varies depending on how large an area of the world you want to get inside it.

So, by using the size and location of Lake Balkhash on the current EB map, and by mirroring such a step on a real world map of the Tarim (maps 2 - 5), he has reached the conclusion that EB's "real" eastern boundaries not only includes the Kashgar oasis, but presumably about 3 quarters of the Tarim, including a large chunk of the Taklamakan desert, even tiny bits of Turfan and the Junggar Basin and even Khotan. So, the current EB map right now depicts its eastern boundaries quite inaccurately. Also notice how long and exaggerated the Ili river stretches from Lake Balkhash to the Ili valley.

After I did my own experiment using what Pedro had done, I might have to agree with him too. However, as you can see from here, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/mapcenter/map.aspx?TextLatitude=39.45&TextLongitude=-98.907&TextAltitude=0&TextSelectedEntity=39070&SearchEnc=false&MapStyle=Comprehensive&MapSize=Large&MapStyleSelectedIndex=0&searchTextMap=Lake+Balkhash&MapStylesList=Comprehensive&ZoomOnMapClickCheck=on, Lake Balkhash seems to be inaccurately depicted as well. Compared to the Encarta map, the Lake Balkhash on the EB map here:

https://img505.imageshack.us/img505/1261/eball6ui.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

is way too small, thin, and underrepresented in relation to the Caspian and Aral Seas. Also, according to the logic, "the larger physical features are, the more reliable is their placement in EB's map.", using larger physical features to determine EB's eastern boundaries would be appropriate. In this case, I've used the Caspian Sea to estimate the eastern boundaries of EB's map. These are the results I came up with:

Map 6:

https://img513.imageshack.us/img513/2112/eballnecorner8tm.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Map 7:

https://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4831/neborders9zf.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Map 8:

https://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9931/neborderszoom0co.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

On maps 7 - 8, you will notice that EB's eastern boundaries are drawn on the Khotan river and slightly to the northeast of it. However, Pedro was indeed correct about a very tiny bit of the Junggar Basin included, though Turfan and Khotan certainly aren't there. Kucha (and though the people there later spoke Tocharian - Tocharian B, there is also no historical evidence to suggest that they were under the control of the Yuezhi before the Yuezhi migrated from the eastern Tianshan - western Gansu region to the Ili, it must be kept in mind that the Yuezhi = doesn't equal all "Kuchean-Agnean"/"Tocharian" speakers) however, also appears to be there too.

The problem is that all these oases areas of the Tarim weren't necessarily directly militarily controlled by the Yuezhi, but only their tributary vassals. Yanqi, which is to the east of Kucha and in which my map doesn't seem to include, is about as far west as the historical evidence (which is arguably shaky anyway since it comes from a middle 10th century AD source, ie the Dunhuang manuscript of 966 AD mentioned by Mallory and Mair) allows for the reconstruction of the "Yuezhi empire" before their defeat by the Xiongnu and their subsequent migration to the Ili region c. 174 - 158 BC during the reign of Lao Chanyu. Pedro seems to be a bit inclined to try to squeeze the Yuezhi in if some of the speculated tributary vassal states of the Yuezhi in the oases of the Tarim are depicted, even though that would mean giving the Yuezhi a starting province with just oases and deserts, which makes one wonder if the Yuezhi were even steppe nomads at all, since they occupy no steppe on the map. Again we should consider these quotes from Stein and Mallory and Mair:

Furthermore, the degree of "control" the Yuezhi supposedly had over these oasis kingdoms is questionable, since directly controlling them militarily would be impractical and senseless for a nomadic people like the Yuezhi who utilized armies made up largely of mounted archers and in which, keeping in mind the remount system of steppe nomads that made their armies so mobile and efficient for the purpose they play, with the Da Yuezhi's 100,000 or 200,000 veterans/warriors when they were living north of the Oxus/Amu Darya as recorded in the Shi Ji, Ch. 123, would require at least 200,000 - 400,000 warhorses alone for the veterans/warriors, and certainly far more for the regular tribesmen on the move. Since the Yuezhi were far more powerful than at the time when they had just conquered Baktria and presumably owned far larger territories earlier in their history, meaning they had more access to manpower, Yuezhi armies before their defeat by the Xiongnu may have numbered more than 100,000 or 200,000 warriors and thus, warhorses required to support such warriors would amount to over 200,000 - 400,000 of them, numbers the small oases of the Tarim almost certainly were not capable of supporting. In fact, a direct quote from Hungarian explorer Stein in "Serindia : detailed report of explorations in Central Asia and westernmost China - Vol. 1", p. 287, note 6:

................That the Tarim Basin with its barren wastes of sand or gravel, broken only by a narrow fringe of cultivated oases, was throughout historical times a region utterly unsuited to nomadic migrations is a geographical fact which deserves to be reckoned with in historical speculations more than hitherto has been the case.

Also, from Mallory and Mair, "The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West", pp. 77 - 78:

Khotan also occupied a remarkably strategic position. To its south, the forbidding Qurum and Qaraqurum ranges were absolutely desolate and Stein could count but a mere 400 people scattered across a territory of 9,000 sq. miles [23,310 sq. km]. To its east one could follow the Silk road, but beyond Niya (Minfeng) the oases were so few and far between that it would have been difficult to facilitate any major approach to Khotan other than one that had been highly organized, such as might be found in Chinese military operations.

The point is that beyond Niya, to its east, "the oases were so few and far between that it would have been difficult to facilitate any major approach to Khotan". All cavalry armies, like those utilized by steppe nomads, would find it extremely difficult to support their men and especially horses let alone militarily occupy a kingdom, in light of the geographical conditions.

Much of the Tarim was unsuited for nomadic migrations, much less direct military occupation by steppe nomads planning to stay steppe nomads, whom the Da Yuezhi still were when they had just conquered Baktria and set up their metropolis north of the Amu-Darya. It seems more likely that these oasis kingdoms speculated to have been "controlled" by the Yuezhi were the Yuezhi's tributary vassals, mirroring how the Xiongnu dominated the oasis kingdoms of the Tarim during the early 3rd - late 2nd century BC.

In a later post, I will also be discussing the historical situation and historical importance of the Yuezhi/Da Yuezhi during the entire period in EB and compare it to the historical significance of other empires that weren't included in EB (they certainly have no chance to be in, though I'm not suggesting that they should be included since some might call me ludicrous) and that also expanded their empire into "EB territory".

jerby

12-30-2005, 19:12

i was wrong, and i apologize..

i just figured you were one of the post-OB history-bashers. i didn't see/know (hów coudl I with your sig...) you were an EB-meber...i gues si jumped to conclusions too fast...

and a Q: what do you propose then? removal of the faction, name-change, territory-change, units-change?

khelvan

12-30-2005, 20:33

All of his proposals involve removing the Yuezhi. So unless someone can come up with sources for why the Yuezhi should exist, they will likely no longer be a playable faction in EB.

Copperhaired Berserker!

12-30-2005, 20:56

Ludens

12-30-2005, 21:52

QwertyMIDX

12-30-2005, 22:35

They were actually pushed westwards but another nomadic group farther to the east.

khelvan

12-31-2005, 00:20

The Xiongnu are what forced the Yuezhi to migrate west, due to their pressure from the east. The strong enemy to the east is the very reason they were so attractive to us as a faction (when we believed a portion of their controlled lands were in our map area). They were effectively barred from moving east by the Xiongnu.

jurchen fury

12-31-2005, 07:56

Would the Yeuzhi have been able to expand and dominate to the eastern side of the map during EB's time frame, or did the political theatre north of China make this impossible? If they could than it would be a valid reason for including them, even in a slightly incorrect location. However, if they weren't capable expanding in western direction until they actually moved to Baktria, then removing might be better.

Whether or not they were on the EB map, if they had dangerous enemies to the East then it would not be realistic to add them. The couldn't have expanded because they were occupied on other fronts.

They were actually pushed westwards but another nomadic group farther to the east.

The Xiongnu are what forced the Yuezhi to migrate west, due to their pressure from the east. The strong enemy to the east is the very reason they were so attractive to us as a faction (when we believed a portion of their controlled lands were in our map area). They were effectively barred from moving east by the Xiongnu.

Ok, to clarify the historical situation, from my previous post (the "long" one):

Also notice that while bringing up the mention of the Yuzhi in the Guanzi, I've used "Yuzhi" all along, and not "Yuezhi". Apparently, "Yuzhi" is the Pinyin transliteration for 禺氏, while "Yuezhi" is the Pinyin transliteration for 月氏 (or 月支). Though it is commonly accepted that 禺氏 is merely a different transciption of 月氏 (or 月支) and actually refer to the same people, it seems to me that this is based almost solely on the evident similarity of the modern Mandarin pronunciations of the two peoples therefore its conventional acception, though I could be wrong on this issue. Almost certainly, the ancient Chinese pronunciation of 月氏 (or 月支) doesn't anything like "Yuezhi", and there is the possibility that 禺氏 was also pronounced differently in ancient Chinese from the ancient Chinese pronunciation of 月氏 (or 月支), and thus the "Yuezhi" were a different people from the "Yuzhi", though I have yet to verify this. In any case, even if we accept the common identification of the "Yuzhi" as the same people as the "Yuezhi", all the mentioning of the Yuzhi in the Guanzi indicates is that the Yuzhi/Yuezhi had some degree of control (possibly those Tocharian-speaking peoples living in the oases of the southern Tarim were vassals of the Yuezhi, who were clearly a nomadic people) over some of the oases in the southern Tarim, more specifically the region between Niya and Cherchen and possibly other areas in the southern Tarim as well, which is far different from "controlling the entire Tarim" or "settling in the Tarim" as others had suggested.

Much of the Tarim was unsuited for nomadic migrations, much less direct military occupation by steppe nomads planning to stay steppe nomads, whom the Da Yuezhi still were when they had just conquered Baktria and set up their metropolis north of the Amu-Darya. It seems more likely that these oasis kingdoms speculated to have been "controlled" by the Yuezhi were the Yuezhi's tributary vassals, mirroring how the Xiongnu dominated the oasis kingdoms of the Tarim during the early 3rd - late 2nd century BC. The fact is that the only real direct evidence of the territory controlled by the Yuezhi before their relocation elsewhere somewhere between 174 - 158 BC is in Sima Qian's Shi Ji, Ch. 123, and it directly states that before the Yuezhi were defeated by the Xiongnu and the Yuezhi king's skull turned into a drinking vessel by Lao Chanyu that the Yuezhi had lived between the Qilian mountains and Dunhuang. It seems likely, as I've cited from authorities above, that the Qilian mountains in question most likely refers to the Tianshan range in what is now northern Xinjiang instead of the modern-day Qilian mountains in today's Gansu province for reasons of living space and linguistic etymology. However, given the mention in the Shi Ji, Ch. 110, that "At this time the Eastern Barbarians [Donghu] were very powerful and the Yuezhi were likewise flourishing. The Shanyu or chieftain of the Xiongnu was named Touman. Touman, unable to hold out against the Qin forces, ....", there is reason and space for the suggestion that the Yuezhi controlled more territory than simply the eastern Tianshan - western Gansu region, and also perhaps that the line in the SJ 123 doesn't need to be accepted "dogmatically" for some.

Below I've also attempted an analysis and a reconstruction of an approximate chronology for the Yuezhi and their historical status during the 3rd - 2nd centuries BC as well as dwelving into the political scene of the northwestern borders of the cultural area of the Chinese warring states.

The key line in Sima Qian's Shi Ji, Ch. 110, is here: "当是之时，东胡彊而月氏盛。匈奴单于曰头曼，头曼不胜秦，北徙。十馀年而蒙恬死，诸侯畔秦，中国扰乱，诸秦所徙適戍边者皆复去，於是匈奴得宽，复稍度河南与中国界於故塞。" (in simplified Chinese from here: http://www.guoxue.com/shibu/24shi/shiji/sj_110.htm [the pink letters are commentaries from later period Chinese historians, the Shi Ji is a late second - early first century BC text]). It is roughly translated as (following Watson): "At this time the Donghu ["Eastern Barbarians"] were very powerful and the Yuezhi were likewise flourishing. The Shanyu or chieftain of the Xiongnu was named Touman. Touman, unable to hold out against the Qin forces, had withdrawn to the far north, where he lived with his subjects for over ten years. After Meng Tian died and the feudal lords revolted against the Qin, plunging China into a period of strife and turmoil, the convicts which the Qin had sent to the northern border to garrison the area all returned to their homes. The Xiongnu, the pressure against them relaxed, once again began to infiltrate south of the bend of the Yellow River until they had established themselves along the old border of China."

From Meng Tian's biography in the Shi Ji, Ch. 88: "始皇二十六年，蒙恬因家世得为秦将，攻齐，大破之，拜为内史。秦已并天下，乃使蒙恬将三十万众北逐戎狄，收河南。筑长城，因地形，用制险塞，起临洮，至辽东，延袤万馀里。於是渡河，据阳山，逶蛇而北。暴师於外十馀年，居上郡。是时蒙恬威振匈奴。" (ibid), roughly translated as (following Watson): ".......In the twenty-sixth year of the First Emperor (221 BC), because of the distinguished service rendered by his family for succeeding generations, Meng Tian was appointed a Qin general. He attacked Qi, inflicting a major defeat, and was honoured with the post of prefect of the capital. Qin, having completed its unification of the empire, dispatched Meng Tian to lead a force of 300,000 men and advance north, expelling the Rong and Di and taking control of the region south of the bend of the Yellow River. He set about constructing the Great Wall [my comment: not the one we see today - that was built during the Ming dynasty, over one and a half millenium after the time of the Qin dynasty], following the contours of the land and utilizing the narrow defiles to set up frontier posts. The wall began at Lintao and ran east to Liaodong, extending for a distance of over 10,000 li. Crossing the Yellow River, it followed the Yang Mountains, twisting and turning as it proceeded north. Meng Tian remained in the field for over ten years, residing in Shang Province. At this time Meng Tian's might had struck terror into the Xiongnu people."

So, from the following sources, Meng Tian presumably lead an attack on the Rong and Di (Di was a general term for the "barbarian" peoples living to the north of "China" while Rong was a general term for the "barbarian" peoples living to the west of "China" that is, according to the commentaries in the SJ 110, and the Xiongnu fall under the category of the "Di" while the proto-Tibetan Qiang as well as quite possibly the Yuezhi fall under "Rong") not long after the 26th year of the First Emperor, ie 221 BC, the year when Qin Shi Huang Di/First Emperor defeated all the Chinese warring states and unified "China". As the SJ 110 tells us, from above, before and after Meng Tian's conquest of the region south of the bend of the Yellow River, ie the Ordos steppe region, Touman was the leader of the Xiongnu until his son Maodun killed him later and became Chanyu. During Touman's reign, both the Donghu (a proto-Mongolic people in the eastern Mongolia - western Manchuria region) as well as the Yuezhi were very powerful. Touman's reign was presumably sometime around 221 BC, before and shortly after that time. So, around 221 BC, the Yuezhi were still "very powerful like the Donghu". Thus, it would appear that at this time, the Xiongnu were not necessarily strong, at least not strong enough to defeat the Yuezhi, the Donghu, or the Qin. The start of EB's campaign map is 272 BC, clearly before 221 BC, and presumably at a time when the Yuezhi "empire" with its territory situated mainly between Qilian and Dunhuang (as the SJ 123 tells us), ie the eastern Tianshan - western Gansu region (regions which don't appear at all on the current EB map, not even if EB's eastern boundaries were to be rearranged) was still a strong empire and not facing any dangerous pressure from the Xiongnu, which wasn't until much later when Maodun Chanyu rose to power and defeated the Yuezhi twice. Around 221 BC or before that time, [b]it was the Yuezhi, the Donghu, and the Qin that were pressuring the Xiongnu on their west, east, and south, respectively, not the other way around. Thus, at this time (c. 221 BC), it can be said that both the Donghu from the east as well as the Yuezhi from the west and the Qin from the south were seeking control of the Inner Mongolia - Ordos steppe region that was the territory of the Xiongnu and that the Qin was victorious over the region until the death of Meng Tian and the fall of the Qin empire. Thus, the somewhat ironic mention in "The Yueh-chih and their migrations" by K. Enoki, G.A. Koshelenko and Z. Haidary", p. 174 in "History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume II - The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250" editted by Janos Harmatta, B.N. Puri, and G.F. Etemadi, UNESCO Publishing":

This may mean that the Yueh-chih were seeking to control the greater part of the Mongolian plain.

Quite frankly, besides the fact that there is no evidence that the Yuezhi "empire" had control, not even vassal control, over EB's current "Yuezhi Yabgu", aka the Kashgar oasis, the Yuezhi also had no reason to feel a need to "migrate west" in some date as early as 272 BC, since things were going so well for them on their eastern frontiers, that is, before Maodun's rise to power in the late 3rd century BC, and the regions lying to the west of the Yuezhi, ie the oases of the Tarim Basin, were geographically hard to even get access to, as I've shown above. The Yuezhi also very possibly had contention, besides with the Xiongnu, with other peoples as well, which might include the Loufan and the rest of the Di and Rong peoples, the Boyang Wang/ruler of Boyang, as well as with the Qin empire, as is evidenced below in the passage from the SJ 110.

Interestingly, I've found even more evidence that suggests a rather very eastward extension of the Yuezhi empire before Maodun Chanyu's rise to power. From the same Shi Ji, Ch. 110 on the Xiongnu: "既归，西击走月氏，南并楼烦、白羊河南王。悉复收秦所使蒙恬所夺匈奴地者" (ibid) or, roughly translated as (Watson): "......Then he returned and rode west, attacking and routing the Yuezhi, and annexed the lands of the ruler of Loufan and the ruler of Boyang south of the Yellow River. Thus he recovered possession of all the lands which the Qin general Meng Tian had taken away from the Xiongnu;...."

Thus, from this passage, it would seem to indicate that, after the death of Meng Tian and the subsequent gradual loss of the Ordos steppe region ("the lands which the Qin general Meng Tian had taken away from the Xiongnu", as is indicated in his biography in the SJ 88) to the nomads due to the lack of manpower defending the region caused by the downfall of the Qin that among the nomadic peoples who had a presence in the region included the Yuezhi as well as the Loufan, with the addition of the Boyang Wang in there as well, and that it was actually in contention between these three powers as well as the Xiongnu before Maodun Chanyu had risen to power and defeated all of these three other powers and made the Xiongnu victorious over the region. That the Ordos steppe region was in contention between the Loufan, and quite possibly the Yuezhi, and most definitely the Xiongnu, as well as other nomadic peoples, even before Meng Tian conquered the region, ie c. 221 BC or before that time, is evidenced by the mention of "乃使蒙恬将三十万众北逐戎狄，收河南。" or "dispatched Meng Tian to lead a force of 300,000 men and advance north, expelling the Rong and Di and taking control of the region south of the bend of the Yellow River." in Meng Tian's biography where both the Rong as well as the Di were there.

When was Maodun Chanyu's approximate rise to power and his expulsion of the Yuezhi, the Loufan, the Bowang Wang, and quite possibly other nomadic peoples as well from the Ordos? Right after the passage on Maodun's expulsion of the three said powers, it is said that: 是时汉兵与项羽相距，中国罢於兵革，以故冒顿得自彊，控弦之士三十馀万。, or "At this time the Han forces were stalemated in battle with the armies of Xiang Yu, and China was exhausted by warfare. Thus Maodun was able to strengthen his position, massing a force of over 300,000 skilled crossbowmen [Watson's error: evidently should be horse archers]."

The Shi Ji, Ch. 53: "汉三年，汉王与项羽相距京索之间", or "In the third year of Han (204 BC since the Han dynasty was founded in 206 BC and that was called the first year of the Han), the king of Han and Xiang Yu were locked in stalemate in the area of Suo in Jing." So, Maodun Chanyu's consolidation of his conquests probably happened sometime between 204 - 202 BC, the latter presumably the date when Maodun Chanyu surrounded Han Gaozu at Baideng. His rise to power and his conquests and the subsequent expansion and transformation of the Xiongnu into a world power was probably sometime between 210 BC (Meng Tian garrisoning the border for over 10 years) - 204 BC, though interestingly, I've seen a secondary source suggest that his rise to power was 209 BC, but the exact date is not important since even the primary sources only gave approximations on many occasions as well. What does this mean for the Yuezhi? [b]During the period c. 210 BC - 204 BC was the time when the Xiongnu eventually became a threat to the Yuezhi because that was presumably when the Xiongnu drove them out of the Ordos steppe and was the time when the Xiongnu was transformed into a superpower with them conquering the entire Mongolia region up to the Lake Baikal area in southern Siberia. However, the big blow to the Yuezhi was only dealt to them by the Xiongnu between 177 - 176 BC as I've shown before (found in the letter sent by Maodun to Han Wendi in 176 BC that is recorded in the SJ 110, it also contains the first evidence of the Xiongnu's western campaigns since it directly mentions that, in addition to the Yuezhi, who was the Xiongnu's main target in this campaign, that Loulan, Wusun, the Hujie, and 26 other nearby states were conquered by the Xiongnu Wise King of the Right, indicating that between 202 BC - 177/176 BC that the Yuezhi were still a formidable power in their territories west of the Ordos). The other big blow was during the reign of Lao Chanyu (c. 174 BC - 158 BC) in which the king of the Yuezhi was killed and his skull turned into a drinking vessel by the Chanyu, which then prompted the Yuezhi to migrate from their territories between Qilian and Dunhuang to the Ili - Issyk-kul region northwest of the Tianshan range.

As we can see here, it is clear that at a date like in 272 BC that the Yuezhi were clearly not "pressured by the Xiongnu", at least not on any serious scale that would make them think of migrating away from their homeland between Qilian and Dunhuang. The pressure only began to increase during the beginning of Maodun Chanyu's rise to power and it was only by the end of his reign that the Yuezhi were in serious trouble. If we go with the idea that because the Yuezhi made an appearance on the eastern boundaries of the current EB map later after the start of the campaign map that we should include them at the start of the game, by that same logic we could potentially add in the Xiongnu and the Former Han, reasoning with the case of Zhizhi Chanyu during the middle of the 1st century BC for the former and reasoning with the case of the Former Han conquest of the entire Tarim as well as the Talas river valley (in current Wusun Yabgu) during the late 2nd century BC - early 1st century AD, or the Wusun as well ("reasoning" that they appeared in the Ili - Issyk-kul region [in current Wusun yabgu] when they drove the Yuezhi out of there sometime before 130 - 128 BC). Obviously, this would be very ahistorical since the placement of factions on the current EB map should be in accordance with where they historically were in 272 BC. Even if the eastern boundaries of the EB map were rearranged to include some of the oases of the Tarim speculated to have been under the control of the Yuezhi before their migrations westward, how historically accurate is it to deprive the Yuezhi of most of the territory (which, BTW, was their most important territories, since those territories, namely the steppes north of the Tianshan, which would be those in the Junggar Basin as well as all the area between the eastern Tianshan - western Gansu regions were their sources that provided their nomadic lifestyle, ie the proper grazing lands and pastures, livestock and horses, etc.) they historically controlled at that time (all off the current EB map as of now) and squeeze a steppe people into deserts and oases as if those places were their homelands and still call them the historical Yuezhi, a steppe people?

fallen851

12-31-2005, 08:11

Having access with a vast wealth of literature I will attempt to argue this point, just for its own sake.

That said I think it is extremely important that we remember any history from this time period is quite piecemeal, and thus what we know today, is almost certainly different from what actually happened during the period. Many historical writers and researchers (I work and speak with many on regular basis) make great assumptions on very little evidence. Thus what they say should not often be taken as "fact".

After a quick search the literature, it appeared for quite awhile, that I would not be able to even argue with jurchen fury, but now I appear to have some evidence.

"The Xiongnu temporarily abandoned their interest in China (invasions they began in middle of the 3rd century B.C.) and turned their attention westward to the region of the Altai Mountains and Lake Balkash, inhabited by the Yuezhi (Yüeh-chih in Wade-Giles), an Indo-European-speaking nomadic people who had relocated from China's present-day Gansu Province as a result of their earlier defeat by the Xiongnu. Endemic warfare between these two nomadic peoples reached a climax in the latter part of the third century and the early decades of the second century B.C.; the Xiongnu were triumphant. The Yuezhi then migrated to the southwest where, early in the second century, they began to appear in the Oxus (the modern Amu Darya) Valley, to change the course of history in Bactria, Iran, and eventually India." (paper published in 1989)

The above quote suggests that the Yuezhi people were not living in the Gansu province around the middle of the 3rd century B.C. but rather, near Lake Balkash.

Unforunately, other evidence I found suggests that: "The Yüeh-chih are first mentioned in Chinese sources at the beginning of the 2nd century BC as nomads living in the western part of Kansu province, northwest China (Regular old encyclopedia britannica)."

Furthermore: "in c.162 BCE, the Yuezhi dynasty and those tribes that remained loyal to it commenced a migration away from the Gansu (Columbia Encyclopedia)"

In fact, I do a lot of historical studying (though mostly of the "Dark Ages") and I've never seen so many sources differ so much. Another source I looked into spoke of them being in the Tarim Basin (doesn't specifiy east or west...), which doesn't appear to be that far off from the current location on EB's map...

The most important resource I found was a paper out of MIT which states that "The Tokharoiare generally accepted to be the same as the Yuezhi people often referred to in Chinese sources. According to Han dynasty records, the Yuezhi originally lived directly west of the Gansu corridor in what is now China, but were defeated by the Xiongnu sometime around 176..."

I'm not sure if this is accessible to the public, but here it is:

http://web.mit.edu/~smore/www/tocharian-paper.ps

This statement obviously states they lived west of the Gansu, and Tokharoiare lived in the region of Sinkiang China from all the sources I found. I realize these dates are after EB's starting date, but these records report their location before they were pushed around by the Xiongnu, suggesting that Yuezhi/Tokharoiare live farther west than the Gansu province...

Again, this location not far off from the current location on the EB map...

What sources to believe though is beyond me. Perhaps a greater look at the Tokharoiare will be more definitive?

jurchen fury

12-31-2005, 09:09

That said I think it is extremely important that we remember any history from this time period is quite piecemeal,

I wouldn't be so fast to make that conclusion especially since sedentary civilizations in general tended to record more of their history than did nomadic civilizations and the Yuezhi happen to be a nomadic civilization, thus the general lack of indepth info on them. It would be quite uncalled for to assume that the amount of info and sources on the Yuezhi are representative for "any history from this time period".

and thus what we know today, is quite different from what actually happened during the period.

There also exists the possibility that the primary sources and archaeological evidence left to us was not so "different from what actually happened during the period." especially since we actually don't really know "what actually happened during the period." since no one in the present travelled back in time and saw the "real truth". What has come down to us as "history" is mostly based on primary sources and archaeological evidence, or should be ideally, and they, which unfortunately constitute a minority of readily available information, should be regarded as the most authentic sources; otherwise, if we just drop whatever scrap we have left to us and just deem them all crap, we will never know what really happened in history and the field of "history" will cease to exist. Those sources are there and do help in reaching that goal and progressing a step further is better than having nothing, and hence, you will see that in my arguments, I almost always try to refer to and even quote from primary sources or studies on archaeological evidence whenever possible and do my own analysis of it as well as looking at analysis done by other authorities in reliable secondary sources. Probably, many primary sources, if not most, are prone to some form of "governmental propaganda" but without logical evidence that directly concerns the context of the source itself, simply dismissing it as unreliable without any logical reason or backed up by reliable sources would be illogical and evidently shows that person's bias and irresponsibility as a historian.

Many historical writers and researchers (I work and speak with many on regular basis) make great assumptions on very little evidence.

That is why one should try and get first-hand access to primary sources as well as studies of historical archaeology and also look for reliable secondary sources that actually analyze all the primary sources and archaeological evidence (either may actually do in just one secondary source) available to us that is relevant to the topic in question. The access to the primary sources as well as studies on historical archaeology may be used to sort of in a way "check" the validity of comments made in secondary, tertiary sources, or sources that otherwise lack any proper citations for that matter. Things to look for in reliable sources (especially modern-day) include: 1. acknowledgement, reference to, and optionally, actually quoting from the primary sources, 2. shows knowledge of past modern-scholarship done on the subject, 3. extensive bibliographical list, 4. extensive, detailed annotations/notes/commentaries with logical and reasonable analysis and conclusions and proper sources cited, either in the back or on each page (preferably the latter since IMO it's easier to read). Tertiary sources without any sources cited I tend to ignore as much as possible unless I am totally lost on a subject.

Ludens

12-31-2005, 12:26

jurchen fury, I think you misunderstand fallen851. He did not say that your evidence was unrelyable, merely that evidence from this period in general is scarce.

I am no historian, so it is possible I misinterpret your meaning, but basically you are saying that the Yuezhi wouldn't have expanded west at the start of the EB time-frame because their succes against the Xiongnu gave them no need to do so. If so, I was mistaken, for I assumed there were reasons other than their capture of Baktria to include them in EB.

jurchen fury

12-31-2005, 17:58

Thus what they say should not often be taken as "fact".

Of course not, that is, modern-day tertiary or secondary sources that fail to quote from any primary sources or archaeological evidence (or from a study done on it), which unfortunately seems to make up the majority of readily available historical information on the internet. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of your sources you just presented below fall into this category.

After a quick search the literature, it appeared for quite awhile, that I would not be able to even argue with jurchen fury, but now I appear to have some evidence.

"The Xiongnu temporarily abandoned their interest in China (invasions they began in middle of the 3rd century B.C.) and turned their attention westward to the region of the Altai Mountains and Lake Balkash, inhabited by the Yuezhi (Yüeh-chih in Wade-Giles), an Indo-European-speaking nomadic people who had relocated from China's present-day Gansu Province as a result of their earlier defeat by the Xiongnu. Endemic warfare between these two nomadic peoples reached a climax in the latter part of the third century and the early decades of the second century B.C.; the Xiongnu were triumphant. The Yuezhi then migrated to the southwest where, early in the second century, they began to appear in the Oxus (the modern Amu Darya) Valley, to change the course of history in Bactria, Iran, and eventually India." (paper published in 1989)

The above quote suggests that the Yuezhi people were not living in the Gansu province around the middle of the 3rd century B.C. but rather, near Lake Balkash.

fallen851, no offense but for anyone who has actually read the primary sources, that quote from here: http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/mongolia/a/XiongnuYuezhi.htm about the Yuezhi is blatantly wrong and would thus be a case to prove the unreliability of wikipedia on a topic such as this. Surely, from your statement in your previous reply, ie "Many historical writers and researchers (I work and speak with many on regular basis) make great assumptions on very little evidence.", you must at least understand the very significant importance of using and directly quoting from primary sources and optionally archaeological evidence (sometimes used to challenge statements from the primary sources). Also, judging from the same "Many historical writers and researchers (I work and speak with many on regular basis) make great assumptions on very little evidence" you must certainly understand how to clearly distinguish the reliability of secondary and tertiary sources, ie sources that have citations to either archaeological studies that presumably challenge statements from the primary sources or directly from the primary sources themselves, and that, most of the time, the primary sources are usually the most reliable. None of your sources are either primary sources nor do they cite from them or from any archaeological evidence at all. That says alot about the "reliability" of a source and that is a huge problem for all of the sources you presented. Please reread my third statement in my immediate previous post to this one, ie:

......Things to look for in reliable sources (especially modern-day) include: 1. acknowledgement, reference to, and optionally, actually quoting from the primary sources, 2. shows knowledge of past modern-scholarship done on the subject, 3. extensive bibliographical list, 4. extensive, detailed annotations/notes/commentaries with logical and reasonable analysis and conclusions and proper sources cited, either in the back or on each page (preferably the latter since IMO it's easier to read). Tertiary sources without any sources cited I tend to ignore as much as possible unless I am totally lost on a subject.

If you don't understand what is wrong with your info from wikipedia, also please take the time to read or reread post #28, especially the quotes from Sima Qian's relevant chapters on the subject in his Shi Ji, a primary source (I provided the Chinese quotes so as to stay authentic to the source instead of merely translating them into English). I seriously don't feel like rewriting what I had written in posts #11 and #28, in which I tried to be as detailed and accurate as possible to also hopefully address any potential points that would've been brought up in the future. It is not at all certain that the Yuezhi controlled the Altai and, of the available historical evidence, there is nothing solid at all that suggests they did; the Pazyryk kurgans from the Altai are most commonly identified to be Iranic-speaking Sakae and the Pazyryk people a Sakae people, different from the presumably "Kuchean-Agnean"/"Tocharian"-speaking Yuezhi. In any case, the Altai are not even on the current EB map at all and even a rearrangement of EB's eastern boundaries would still not reach all the way to the Altai at all. As for the "Lake Balkhash", it may have been confused with the Ili valley - Issyk-kul region that was first occupied by the Yuezhi sometime between 174 - 158 BC, as I've indicated above in post #28statement, since Lake Balkhash is near the Ili valley - Issyk-kul region, though the Ili valley - Issyk-kul region isn't exactly in the region where Lake Balkhash is situated. In any case, evidently the start of the EB campaign map is 272 BC, not somewhere between 174 - 158 BC, and the Han Shu, Ch. 96A clearly indicates that the inhabitants of the Ili valley - Issyk-kul region before the Yuezhi migration to there c. 174 - 158 BC were Sai/Sakae tribes whom the Yuezhi drove out when they migrated there. The rest of stuff doesn't even need to be considered at all since they are baseless and sourceless; apparently, theories created out of a vacuum are not reliable at all and are not even proper sources to say the least. I need not explain anymore since all the necessary info are in my posts 11 and 28 on this thread.

Unforunately, other evidence I found suggests that: "The Yüeh-chih are first mentioned in Chinese sources at the beginning of the 2nd century BC as nomads living in the western part of Kansu province, northwest China (Regular old encyclopedia britannica)."

Furthermore: "in c.162 BCE, the Yuezhi dynasty and those tribes that remained loyal to it commenced a migration away from the Gansu (Columbia Encyclopedia)"

Again, this source, though a serious problem with it would include its extreme lack of citing and referencing to the primary sources (since this is clearly a tertiary source, not even a secondary one), its info coincidentally agrees with the primary sources (it most likely used reliable secondary sources that did proper quoting probably of passages from the primary sources). The "western Kansu province" part is based on the old theory that the Qilian mentioned in the SJ 123, HS 96A, and HS 61 that was mentioned alongside with Dunhuang (a city/town in modern Gansu province) referred to the modern-day Qilian mountains that are situated in today's southern part of Gansu province, which lends even less credibility to the inclusion of the Yuezhi since the current and future EB map has territory nowhere near Gansu province, which is east of modern Xinjiang, as you should know. Please reread this part from post #11:

More specifically, the region stretching north of the Kunlun mountain range would be the oases south of the Taklamakan desert and to the north of the Kunlun, ie the southern Tarim. It would also help immensely if they gave the primary source for the mention of 'Casia', ie which ancient Greek geographer recorded that name. By the early 2nd century BC, the Yuezhi had already left their homeland between Qilian (to be identified with the modern-day Tianshan range that separates Jungaria from the Tarim in modern-day Xinjiang province, see Lin Meicun, "The Western Region of the Han-Tang Dynasties and the Chinese Civilization", pp. 64–67, also see Liu Xinru, “Migration and Settlement of the Yuezhi-Kushan: Interaction and Interdependence of Nomadic and Sedentary Societies,” Journal of World History 12, no. 2, p. 268 as well as Barber, "The Mummies of Urumchi", pp. 122 - 123, also on p. 220, she also cites from Lin Meicun, "Qilian and Kunlun - The Earliest Tokharian Loan-words in Ancient Chinese") and Dunhuang (though Lin Meicun identifies Dunhuang with Dunhong, presumably a mountain range in the Tianshan from the Shanhaijing, a text containing semi-mythical elements, it still can refer to modern-day Dunhuang since the Xiao Yuezhi sought refuge with the Qiang in the southern Gansu - northern Qinghai region, indicating that the Yuezhi must've had a presence in Gansu since they had contact with the Qiang) and by the early 2nd century BC, they were already in Baktria.

In fact, I do a lot of historical studying (though mostly of the "Dark Ages") and I've never seen so many sources differ so much.

As is common in studies in the West on topics that derive most of its info from non-Western languages, probably because of the language-barrier, and also partly because most of the sources you've presented so far are unreliable tertiary sources with no references to the sources they derived their info from, and because of them coming mainly from the internet, therefore the "differences". According to my experience, this happens quite often on non-Western history topics (Chinese history topics for example), in contrast to the Western-history topics. It is generally almost useless and nothing conclusive nor leads one to anywhere when tertiary sources are used when researching non-Western history topics. Good source material on the Yuezhi or most non-Western history topics, ie reliable secondary sources or, even better, English translations of the primary source material, is extremely hard to find online. Because of thse problems, mistakes often being repeated over and over again like wildfire appear in many internet sources and you will get an abundance of sources that repeat the same mistake over and over again, while other sources don't repeat the mistake and thus leaves the internet reader confused as to the real reliability of both types of information. I generally don't waste my time trying to look at tertiary sources or unreliable secondary sources, especially if they are merely personal internet webpages.

Another source I looked into spoke of them being in the Tarim Basin (doesn't specifiy east or west...), which doesn't appear to be that far off from the current location on EB's map...

Again, the Tarim Basin theory need not even be considered. Please reread the ending arguments in post #21 if you don't know why; even the article being disected in post #11, ie the UNESCO article, would already tell you why, though the quotes from Mair and Mallory and Stein offer even more compelling and detailed evidence.

The most important resource I found was a paper out of MIT which states that "The Tokharoiare generally accepted to be the same as the Yuezhi people often referred to in Chinese sources. According to Han dynasty records, the Yuezhi originally lived directly west of the Gansu corridor in what is now China, but were defeated by the Xiongnu sometime around 176..."

I'm not sure if this is accessible to the public, but here it is:

http://web.mit.edu/~smore/www/tocharian-paper.ps

This statement obviously states they lived west of the Gansu, and Tokharoiare lived in the region of Sinkiang China from all the sources I found. I realize these dates are after EB's starting date, but these records report their location before they were pushed around by the Xiongnu, suggesting that Yuezhi/Tokharoiare live farther west than the Gansu province...

Again, this location not far off from the current location on the EB map...

I can't get access to the article. In any case, while it is true that the Tocharoi are generally accepted to be identified with the Yuezhi (and, for the sake of the argument, we will even accept that for now though it is not necessary and not entirely accurate to claim that that identification is the "most accurate" since there are other strong reasons that go against it as I've indicated in my Yuezhi faction history) it is well worth mentioning that exceedingly little info can be found on the Tochari/Tocharoi in Greco-Roman sources and of the few geographical mentions of the Tochari mentioned in the Greco-Roman sources is in Strabo's Geographica, Book 11, Part 8, as indicated from here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0198&layout=&loc=11.8.1, and this quote in particular: "But the best known of the nomads are those who took away Bactriana from the Greeks, I mean the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari,4 and Sacarauli, who originally came from the country on the other side of the Iaxartes River that adjoins that of the Sacae and the Sogdiani and was occupied by the Sacae."

Since the Tochari are identified with the Yuezhi, and Strabo's information dates from the middle of the 1st century BC anyway, the mention that they lived on the other side of the Iaxartes/Jaxartes/Yaxartes/Syr-Darya river can probaby be correlated with the time period of the Da Yuezhi's migration from the Ili valley - Issyk-kul region to Baktria c. 130 - 128 BC as mentioned in the Han Shu, Ch. 96A, as I've indicated above in post #11. Thus, "these records report their location before they were pushed around by the Xiongnu" is incorrect because the Xiongnu had, as I've shown in post #28, that the Xiongnu was already applying serious pressure in their defeat of the Yuezhi c. 177 - 176 BC and the major one by Lao Chanyu between c. 174 - 158 BC.

That "Yuezhi/Tokharoiare live farther west than the Gansu province" is not something new at all but proving so still doesn't help much, if any at all, to the inclusion of the Yuezhi on the current map of EB, since I've already done that in post #11. Having territories west of Gansu doesn't mean that the Yuezhi can be put on the current EB map. Please reread post #21 on the maps and you'll understand that most of the Tarim isn't even included on the current EB map anyway and current Yuezhi Yabgu is really only representative of the Kashgar oasis and Sulek the settlement of modern-day Kashgar itself and even if a rearrangement of the eastern boundaries of EB's map doesn't in anyway call for the justification of such an ahistorical representation of the Yuezhi by giving them oases and deserts and calling them steppe nomads.

As for the Xinjiang theory, according to here: http://www.transoxiana.com.ar/Eran/Articles/benjamin.html, see note 3, the "Tagouraioi", probably your "Tokharoiare", they lived in the Issyk-kul region, and the event has been connected to the Yuezhi fleeing to that region sometime during c. 174 BC - 158 BC. It is clear that the Yuezhi had no presence in the Ili - Issyk-kul region [in current Wusun Yabgu province] until they drove out the Sai/Saka out of there when they migrated there during the same c. 174 BC - 158 BC, in which some of the descendants of these Saka formed Indo-Saka kingdoms. The Issyk-kul region is only a part of Xinjiang and the Yuezhi certainly didn't originate, militarily control, or settled in the Tarim during the start of EB's campaign map in 272 BC, over a century before the Yuezhi fled to the Ili - Issyk-kul region. Again, please reread posts 11, 21, and 28 because I've made it very clear in those posts and, as of present, am simply too tired to rewrite what has been said.

What sources to believe though is beyond me. Perhaps a greater look at the Tokharoiare will be more definitive?

A greater look at the Tocharoi would be almost useless since there's almost next to nothing recorded in Ptolemy and Strabo's geography books on the history of the Tocharoi and their migrations; Strabo simply records them, as I've shown above, as having come from the other side of the Syr-Darya where the Sakae also lived while Justin, from here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/justinus_08_prologi.htm, in his prologus to Book 42 in his "Epitome of Pompeius Trogus" says that the Asiani were the kings of the Tochari, and the Asiani I had read in one study had even been suggested to have been the Wusun, while one had also suggested the Asiani to have actually been the Yuezhi since there's no historical evidence in the Chinese records that suggest that the Wusun, who clearly settled in the Issyk-kul - Ili valley region after driving out the Yuezhi sometime before 130 - 128 BC as I've noticed above, participated in the conquest of Baktria.

As for what sources, they would be the primary sources and reliable secondary sources to believe. Sources that don't cite their original sources properly or tertiary sources you save a lot of trouble by easily discarding them.

jurchen fury

12-31-2005, 18:17

jurchen fury, I think you misunderstand fallen851. He did not say that your evidence was unrelyable, merely that evidence from this period in general is scarce.

I think you've misunderstood the intent of my reply to fallen851's reply. I did not say that he claimed my evidence was unreliable; I was simply trying to avoid making generalizations about history on the whole just because indepth information on the Yuezhi during this time seemed to be lacking. Because of this debate being made public and because of the discipline towards historical accuracy and the discussion and use of sources generally being lax around here in public, I felt the need to place heavy emphasis on the correct use, judgment, and citing of reliable sources in any potentially fruitful historical debate that aims to go in the correct direction. It is precisely because of what just happened in fallen851's post and his bringing up of sources that didn't cite their original sources properly that I felt the need to clarify these problems, now even more so since apparently I've not made it clear enough perhaps, that inadequate sources are still being brought up for discussion.

I am no historian, so it is possible I misinterpret your meaning, but basically you are saying that the Yuezhi wouldn't have expanded west at the start of the EB time-frame because their succes against the Xiongnu gave them no need to do so. If so, I was mistaken, for I assumed there were reasons other than their capture of Baktria to include them in EB.

Yes, you are correct. However, whether or not the Yuezhi could or could not have expanded "west", the fact is that there is no historical evidence that suggests the Yuezhi controlled the Kashgar oasis, aka present Yuezhi Yabgu, until they became the Kushanas and did so under Kanishka I in the early 2nd century AD and that is what really matters, not whether they "could" or "could" not. Even if some of the speculated oases vassal states of the Tarim speculated to have been under the control of the Yuezhi appeared on the rearranged map of EB, it is still very ahistorical and would also be an ahistorical portrayal of the Yuezhi to give them deserts and oases as their starting provinces and still call them steppe nomads, leaving out their most important territories that, unless a miracle happened and the extension eastwards of the current EB map was called, could be depicted, and those would be namely the area between Qilian and Dunhuang.

fallen851

12-31-2005, 23:49

I wouldn't be so fast to make that conclusion especially since sedentary civilizations in general tended to record more of their history than did nomadic civilizations and the Yuezhi happen to be a nomadic civilization, thus the general lack of indepth info on them. It would be quite uncalled for to assume that the amount of info and sources on the Yuezhi are representative for "any history from this time period"...

Jurchen, I don't know what your backround in history is, but this shows a lack of understanding of the recording of history.

Any period, of any culture whose history is not accurately recorded, should not be trusted.

First hand sources (and almost every other source), are often extremely unreliable from anicent periods. If you look at the Bible as history book for example, then you're going to have a lot of unexplainable events. Ancient history writing today is much less looking at "first hand sources" from these events, and more thinking about what was "plausible" at the time.

It fact, it wasn't until the 14th century, when Francesco Petrarch and the humanist movement began recording history, that history was truly accurately recorded the way it is today. Before this time it was customary for monks (they were the ones who usually did the writing of historical texts) or scribes (or anyone else) to "edit" or "add" in information to history to make it more exciting, even in the classical world. At that time (world wide), it didn't matter if things were exaggerated, it was widely accepted in history then.

Now to use those same exaggerated and simply inaccurate texts today (about distances, army sizes, ect.), is doing a great injustice to historical study.

The above statement can be vouched for by two history PH.D professors at Clark University, and generally accepted in the scholarly world (though it doesn't mean this is correct).

My main point is that I don't think there is enough information about the Yuezhi, many of the sources cite the Chinese nations hundreds of miles to the east, whose direct contact was limited, to say from our very limited information "we know where the Yuezhi lived and where they didn't" is an extremely naive and arrogant statement, especially considering they were nomadic (how much do we know about the "exact" whereabouts of the nomadic Native Americans at any given period?). I would venture to guess that the information that the Chinese collected was not written and collected by the same person, introducing and magnifiying (ever played telephone?) the problem of anicent history keeping that I introduced above.

From all the sources I've looked at, there isn't even a concrete date of when the Yuezhi were pushed westward. It varies in as much as 30 years. So one could argue that the Yuezhi could have lived in that location at the time of EB's starting date.

I don't think anyone can be wrong, because we don't know enough about what happened. It upsets me quite a bit you simply slam some sources as being "unreliable" and lift others on a pedastal as being reliable. Why? For what reason? It seems to be as being quite arbitrary and I don't feel you're looking at this historically, rather you're simply trying to win an arguement, and when arguing it is fine to dismiss other arguements as you please, but to creating a historical arguement is quite different, and requires looking at all sources regardless of what bias or source they appear to have (or "credentials" from your list). When I quoted articles, I look at all the sources, whether I agreed or disagreed (you'll note I quoted some encyclopedia's that support your points...), and it was a quick review of the literature out there, I didn't judge them.

Finally I feel compelled to answer this directly (although I did argue against this heavily above...): "you must at least understand the very significant importance of using and directly quoting from primary sources"

When you have an article that says it has a primary source, that is incredibly misleading. For instance, a man could encounter the Yuezhi on a trip, then tell the village scribe his encounters, and that is written out by the village scribe (not the man who actually saw the Yuezhi). Then it is translated by a third person and reported in an article or a journal by a fourth person. Now that is a first hand, primary source? Give me a break. Labels are arbitrary, even including the labels "primary source" and "official".

Finally, please stop quoting yourself (who are you? Francis Galton?), I read all the things you wrote. I'd be quite interested to know your level of education.

There does seem to be a dominant historical view that the Yuezhi lived in the western Tarim basin, but just because it is dominant doesn't mean it is correct, and the evidence supporting it comes from Chinese texts, which as historical sources, are questionable as I outlined above.

jurchen fury

01-01-2006, 09:50

Any period, of any culture whose history is not accurately recorded, should not be trusted.

Again, we don't really know how "accurately recorded" is a certain history simply because no one from modern times travelled back in a time machine to the past to see just how inaccurate the recording of a certain history is. You seem not to understand that; because no one still alive today has seen the "real" ancient history, there is nothing to compare the ancient sources available to us to to even make a statement "Any period, of any culture whose history is not accurately recorded, should not be trusted." Usually, the "accurately recorded history" is based on a textual analysis of the primary sources available to us and interpretations made by secondary source authorities.

First hand sources (and almost every other source), are often extremely unreliable from anicent periods.

And just how many "first hand sources" have you even read yourself to make that oversweeping generalization of "First hand sources (and almost every other source), are often extremely unreliable from anicent periods"? Please, tell me.

If you look at the Bible as history book for example, then you're going to have a lot of unexplainable events.

LOL. Of course no one would take the Bible as history book simply because it's clearly a religious text and not necessarily to be taken as a history book because clearly that wasn't its purpose.

Ancient history writing today is much less looking at "first hand sources" from these events, and more thinking about what was "plausible" at the time.

Then that is not called "history" but called "speculation". And "speculation" alone leads to nowhere because all kinds of possibilities arise. It is only from the primary sources and archaeological evidence that speculation can occur and even then they can only occur if they aim to challenge rather ironic and unrealistic statements found in the primary sources - as I've indicated before, using archaeological evidence is one way to challenge some statements from the primary sources, that is, if the archaeological evidence disagrees with the primary sources. Using simply your "speculation" alone by itself to challenge the primary sources is not called studying history.

And what we regard as "plausible" at the time also comes mainly from the primary sources and archaeological evidence left to us. It is a logical statement to say that people far less removed in time and especially people contemporary with the events happening in time know far more about the subject in question than people far removed in time from the events attempted to be described. That is the basis for using primary sources and archaeological evidence as most significant and that I believe is very logical and generally accepted. It would be extremely naive and ignorant for you to think that any modern-day secondary or tertiary sources which don't even have proper citations would know more about the Yuezhi than the primary source authorities.

It fact, it wasn't until the 14th century, when Francesco Petrarch and the humanist movement began recording history, that history was truly accurately recorded the way it is today. Before this time it was customary for monks (they were the ones who usually did the writing of historical texts) or scribes (or anyone else) to "edit" or "add" in information to history to make it more exciting, even in

Now to use those same exaggerated and simply inaccurate texts today (about distances, army sizes, ect.), is doing a great injustice to historical study.

The above statement can be vouched for by two history PH.D professors at Clark University, and generally accepted in the scholarly world (though it doesn't mean this is correct).

LOL. Typical. Classic. This is what I mean by a Western-centric/Euro-centric view of world history and making sweeping generalizations about so many cultures you probably haven't even heard of before, much less know their style of history-writing - He might've changed history writing in medieval Christian Europe, but that doesn't automatically make him the father of "modern history" to all cultures and civilizations worldwide. Please tell me what you know about history writing in ancient China - oh, and don't gimme biased BS like, "ancient Chinese historians tended to exaggerate events far more than their Western counterparts, who were truthful and not liars while the Chinese were just big fat liars" because I can easily counter that arrogant, hypocritical and nationalistic statement. If you can do that, also tell me about the history writing traditions of nomadic civilizations, those of the Central Asian oases, those of the Muslims, India, etc. etc. etc. If you can't do all that, I believe it's best for you to retract your sweeping generalizations about other civilizations based on what you only know about the West.

It is really your sweeping generalizations about history writing that is leading us nowhere in this "debate" and is "doing a great injustice to historical study". Especially your erroneous belief that somehow modern-day Western people living over 2,000 years removed in both time and space as well as geographical area from the events they are describing in parts of the world and who don't even cite any of the original sources they used to acquire their info are supposedly more correct about the Yuezhi than the ancient Chinese historians living perhaps a few years, a few decades at most, and some who were even contemporary with the events that happened to the Yuezhi and some who even personally fought with them or their neighbors, notably the infamous Xiongnu, and whom the historians acquired their information from the imperial archives containing official edicts, letters, records, etc. all possible through a highly organized bureaucracy and whom drew their sources from personal visits to those places or from records made by people who were held responsible for the information they provided since the official histories were to be later used as a guide for policy-making. In fact, one notable historian would rather lose his balls and record the real history than to die and not finish the work that was started by his father. There was also nothing impossible about the distances, army sizes, etc. given by those ancient Chinese historians because they are well within the ranges of steppe armies known throughout history. More importantly they are the primary sources, and without them, we may never have a clue as to who the Yuezhi were or even if they had existed. It is historical evidence which is real important in historical study and in which case you've shown not to understand and are lacking in.

My main point is that I don't think there is enough information about the Yuezhi, many of the sources cite the Chinese nations hundreds of miles to the east, whose direct contact was limited, to say from our very limited information "we know where the Yuezhi lived and where they didn't" is an extremely naive and arrogant statement, especially considering they were nomadic (how much do we know about the "exact" whereabouts of the nomadic Native Americans at any given period?).

LOL. "many of the sources cite the Chinese nations hundreds of miles to the east, whose direct contact was limited, to say from our very limited information "we know where the Yuezhi lived and where they didn't" ' Do you see what I mean when I say you haven't read my posts carefully? Please reread post #28. Since you'll most likely ignore that suggestion, I'll simply quote from them.

Around 221 BC or before that time, [b]it was the Yuezhi, the Donghu, and the Qin that were pressuring the Xiongnu on their west, east, and south, respectively, not the other way around. Thus, at this time (c. 221 BC), it can be said that both the Donghu from the east as well as the Yuezhi from the west and the Qin from the south were seeking control of the Inner Mongolia - Ordos steppe region that was the territory of the Xiongnu and that the Qin was victorious over the region until the death of Meng Tian and the fall of the Qin empire.

Before the Yuezhi were subdued by Maodun Chanyu and the rise of the Xiongnu, the Yuezhi were the direct northwestern neighbors of the "Chinese nations". The Ordos steppe was in contention between the said powers. As for "especially considering they were nomadic (how much do we know about the "exact" whereabouts of the nomadic Native Americans at any given period?)" it seems you don't really have a clue about steppe nomadism in Central Asia. The area between Qilian and Dunhuang was the general area that the Yuezhi steppe nomads were generally confined to when practicing their nomadism and was their "grazing grounds"; it is indeed not meant to be an exact place since Qilian and Dunhuang is such a wide area, but then again, I doubt you know where Qilian and Dunhuang are since you seemed to have mistook it as a specific area. They moved every season from pasture to pasture in that generally confined area. Please take the time to reread my posts once again.

I would venture to guess that the information that the Chinese collected was not written and collected by the same person, introducing and magnifiying (ever played telephone?) the problem of anicent history keeping that I introduced above.

This is not called oral history. Sima Qian's information on the Yuezhi and the states to the west and northwest of the Han empire, not "Chinese nations", was indeed based on official reports made by Zhang Qian whom he drew from the imperial archives, whom he directly quotes from in his Shi Ji. Zhang Qian was the person responsible for visiting the Yuezhi and, again, the information he collected he was held responsible for since it was used as a guide to policy-making; in fact, the whole intent and purpose of Han Wudi sending Zhang Qian there was to attempt an alliance with the Yuezhi or any of the states to the Xiongnu's west, in an effort to make war on the Xiongnu. When Zhang Qian came back to the Han empire, full-fledged war against the Xiongnu had already began. So, in a sense, some of the information on the "western nations" in the Shi Ji are secondary but, luckily, Sima Qian often times quotes directly from Zhang Qian's reports. So we do have primary source information on the Yuezhi or the states to the west of the Han.

From all the sources I've looked at, there isn't even a concrete date of when the Yuezhi were pushed westward. It varies in as much as 30 years. So one could argue that the Yuezhi could have lived in that location at the time of EB's starting date.

By that logic, we could argue that the Yuezhi lived anywhere on the current EB map during the start of EB. Why, by that logic, I could simply slam the ancient Greek sources and simply say that they were all liars and that the Yuezhi had moved into Baktria in 272 BC and that they were just too full of themselves to admit it. Hell, I could even argue that the Yuezhi even invaded eastern Europe because Roman sources were too ignorant or "the Roman nations 'living hundreds of miles to the west,' " didn't know squat about what happened. Or the Yuezhi invaded India long before they became the Kushanas simply because Baktria is "near India". Do you not understand the folly of not using the primary sources or archaeological evidence? The keyword is called "evidence", not "speculation on plausibility". And "there isn't even a concrete date of when the Yuezhi were pushed westward. It varies in as much as 30 years" was probably based on your own misunderstanding of the Yuezhi migrations. The dates are approximate but the difference varies in less than 20 years (Lao Chanyu, reigned c. 174 - 158 BC) when they first moved to the Ili and when they moved to Baktria the dates are even less vague, and the approximate date can be said to be about 130 - 128 BC (Wusun kunmo under the patronage of Junchen Chanyu); please read the quotes from the primary sources I had provided in my post above.

I don't think anyone can be wrong, because we don't know enough about what happened.

If "wrong" here is meant as "contrary to what happened in real history", because there aren't any witnesses alive to saw what happened in ancient history, then I guess no one can be wrong but then again, that can be said for any history and there would be no conclusions for any type of historical debate. If "wrong" here is meant as "contrary to what we know about them according to the primary sources" or "contrary to what we now about them that is considered to be the most genuine, logical, and historical info", then the sources you cited from are indeed wrong because they don't cite from any original sources at all. You still don't understand what is wrong with that and how important they are in any historical study.

It upsets me quite a bit you simply slam some sources as being "unreliable" and lift others on a pedastal as being reliable. Why? For what reason?

It upsets me even more that you think tertiary or secondary sources who don't even cite their original sources are more reliable than primary sources. You think that a person living over 2,000 years later removed from the events he/she attempts to be describing is more accurate and more correct than a person living contemporary or just a few years and, at most, a few decades, removed from the events he/she is describing. You say "Chinese sources are incorrect because the Chinese are 'hundreds of miles to the east' as if you had any historical evidence to show where the Yuezhi really lived". Why? Because you think Western sources are the most reliable out of all sources when in fact the ancient "Western" sources contain the least amount of information on the Yuezhi/Kushanas, even less than the references to the "Tukhara" in ancient Indian sources?

It seems to be as being quite arbitrary and I don't feel you're looking at this historically, rather you're simply trying to win an arguement, and when arguing it is fine to dismiss other arguements as you please, but to creating a historical arguement is quite different, and requires looking at all sources regardless of what bias or source they appear to have (or "credentials" from your list).

LOL. I am being "arbitrary" and "not looking at it historically" or am "trying to win an argument". LOL. I am "not looking at it historically" or am "trying to win an argument" even though I was responsible for helping to develop the Yuezhi faction and writing up building and unit descriptions which I have hesitated to submit until I've felt that I've done a thorough enough review of the sources used. I am "not looking at it historically" even though I've offered numerous citations from primary and reliable secondary sources and have quoted from them directly when in fact you have merely offered 3 sources which contain no references to the primary sources or archaeological evidence at all. I am "not looking at it historically" when it is you who has questioned my personal "credibility" even though I've done numerous citations, often exhaustive, to both primary and reliable secondary sources and it is you who has asked questions in an attempt to make ad-hominem attacks against me (who am I? what degree I have in history? - as if all these questions are relevant to the Yuezhi's historical situation at all), yet you still hypocritically accused me of "simply trying to win an arguement". You like to accuse me of that yet never think of what I would gain by "simply trying to win an arguement" because that would mean I would have to throw away all the descriptions, etc. I had done for the Yuezhi yet I was still accused of "not looking at it historically"; OTOH, if you had "won the argument" you would be able to enjoy the Yuezhi regardless of their historical situation at the time. So instead of directly attacking and countering the points I had brought up with primary or reliable secondary sources, you instead decided to ask me personal questions in an attempt to cook up ad-hominem attacks against my "credibility" that would supposedly somehow make all my arguments "incorrect".

When I quoted articles, I look at all the sources, whether I agreed or disagreed (you'll note I quoted some encyclopedia's that support your points...), and it was a quick review of the literature out there, I didn't judge them.

It is clear from your post here that you clearly cannot distinguish between a group of sources that should be considered and another group of sources that should be ignored. You cannot understand that there are tons of garbage online and out there in general and that very good-quality online sources with proper citations and notes only come up once in a while. You ignored what I said here once again:

That is why one should try and get first-hand access to primary sources as well as studies of historical archaeology and also look for reliable secondary sources that actually analyze all the primary sources and archaeological evidence (either may actually do in just one secondary source) available to us that is relevant to the topic in question. The access to the primary sources as well as studies on historical archaeology may be used to sort of in a way "check" the validity of comments made in secondary, tertiary sources, or sources that otherwise lack any proper citations for that matter. Things to look for in reliable sources (especially modern-day) include: 1. acknowledgement, reference to, and optionally, actually quoting from the primary sources, 2. shows knowledge of past modern-scholarship done on the subject, 3. extensive bibliographical list, 4. extensive, detailed annotations/notes/commentaries with logical and reasonable analysis and conclusions and proper sources cited, either in the back or on each page (preferably the latter since IMO it's easier to read). Tertiary sources without any sources cited I tend to ignore as much as possible unless I am totally lost on a subject.

It is also clear that you clearly don't understand the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and the significance that the primary and secondary enjoy over the tertiary. It is also clear that you haven't, as of yet, read any primary sources on the Yuezhi, nor have you read any scholarly study on the subject. I want you to think about how credible are online sources written by people who don't even cite any of the sources they've acquired their info from, which constitute all the sources you've presented to me so far; it means that I could also put up a website and write any type of BS out there and as long as there are people out there that believe what I wrote, whether they think it's true or they simply like it, that means it's reliable? Please.

Finally I feel compelled to answer this directly (although I did argue against this heavily above...): "you must at least understand the very significant importance of using and directly quoting from primary sources"

When you have an article that says it has a primary source, that is incredibly misleading. For instance, a man could encounter the Yuezhi on a trip, then tell the village scribe his encounters, and that is written out by the village scribe (not the man who actually saw the Yuezhi). Then it is translated by a third person and reported in an article or a journal by a fourth person. Now that is a first hand, primary source? Give me a break. Labels are arbitrary, even including the labels "primary source" and "official".

What is incredibly misleading, far more so than anything I've presented so far, is your wrong assumptions of how the information about the Yuezhi is recorded in the primary sources. Far different from your "village scribe" (yes, I know you will tell me loads about our supposedly poor pathetic Chinese peasant village chief - you are a historian of ancient China too, eh? mandarin hats and peasant waves and other lovely Western fantasies of ancient China?), the primary source information on the Yuezhi was recorded by Zhang Qian in his reports to Han Wudi, of which is thankfully preserved in Sima Qian's Shi Ji, Ch. 123. Zhang Qian was an envoy sent by Han Wudi to attempt an alliance with the Yuezhi in an effort to undermine Xiongnu power in the upcoming war against them. Later, Zhang Qian, after his visits to the Yuezhi and other states to the west of the Han empire, became a commander sent against the Xiongnu and was later demoted, almost losing his life, due to a failed reconnaissance attempt with the general Li Guang. His biography can alternatively be found in Han Shu, Ch. 61. What is even more funny is that you've clearly not read everything I've wrote yet you claim you did; you certainly did not read post #28 in which case direct quotes from the Shi Ji, Ch. 123, are present, even in Chinese characters and the translations done by Burton Watson (so no one accuses me of translating them wrong). It seems I've done all of them in vain because people with no understanding of historiography simply ignored them and said they were wrong without any evidence.

Finally, please stop quoting yourself (who are you? Francis Galton?), I read all the things you wrote.

Really? And who do you think you are? A rocket scientist? Einstein? The reason I keep on quoting myself is because the points have been addressed already, I've provided numerous quotes, including the direct characters themselves from the primary sources, also including citing from reliable secondary sources, quotes from them as well, etc., etc., etc. It means you haven't read my posts carefully at all or failed to understand them and I am simply too tired to rewrite what I just wrote a couple of posts ago in very indepth and detailed paragraphs. Quite frankly, it's a waste of my time to repeat myself when I could simply quote from my previous posts.

I'd be quite interested to know your level of education.

Absolutely irrelevant nor does it in anyway related to the question of whether or not the Yuezhi should be included in EB. I can see the shift and a potential de-evolution to a flame thread. In any case, I feel no need to answer such pompous questions simply because the debate is about the Yuezhi, not whether who's "smarter", me or you.

There does seem to be a dominant historical view that the Yuezhi lived in the western Tarim basin, but just because it is dominant doesn't mean it is correct, and the evidence supporting it comes from Chinese texts, which as historical sources, are questionable as I outlined above.

No, there is absolutely no historical evidence at all for a "dominant historical view that the Yuezhi lived in the western Tarim basin". It's also clear from this post that you have absolutely no clue as to where Qilian and Dunhuang are; they certainly aren't anywhere in the western Tarim and there's nothing in the Chinese sources that support that view - look it up on a world atlas and then come back and debate with me on where Qilian and Dunhuang are. As I've indicated in post #11, there is reason to believe that the Qilian were really the Tianshan in northern Xinjiang, and though that would seem to support a Yuezhi presence in Xinjiang, that does not at all suggest the Yuezhi inclusion on current EB Yuezhi Yabgu. About Chinese sources, don't even start giving me the "Chinese texts, which as historical sources, are questionable as I outlined above." because it's evidently clear from this post of yours that you have absolutely no understanding nor have any clue of the study of historiography in general and the reliability of Chinese sources in particular - I also love the way you pick out the Chinese sources as "questionable" because it ony shows your bias rather than any understanding of Chinese historiography.

In regards to the Tarim theory, you have ignored the disecting of Enoki and the two other authors' article in the UNESCO book I've disected in post #11 and have also ignored these two quotes, very important from a geographical point of view and consideration in collaboration with the historical sources:

Furthermore, the degree of "control" the Yuezhi supposedly had over these oasis kingdoms is questionable, since directly controlling them militarily would be impractical and senseless for a nomadic people like the Yuezhi who utilized armies made up largely of mounted archers and in which, keeping in mind the remount system of steppe nomads that made their armies so mobile and efficient for the purpose they play, with the Da Yuezhi's 100,000 or 200,000 veterans/warriors when they were living north of the Oxus/Amu Darya as recorded in the Shi Ji, Ch. 123, would require at least 200,000 - 400,000 warhorses alone for the veterans/warriors, and certainly far more for the regular tribesmen on the move. Since the Yuezhi were far more powerful than at the time when they had just conquered Baktria and presumably owned far larger territories earlier in their history, meaning they had more access to manpower, Yuezhi armies before their defeat by the Xiongnu may have numbered more than 100,000 or 200,000 warriors and thus, warhorses required to support such warriors would amount to over 200,000 - 400,000 of them, numbers the small oases of the Tarim almost certainly were not capable of supporting. In fact, a direct quote from Hungarian explorer Stein in "Serindia : detailed report of explorations in Central Asia and westernmost China - Vol. 1", p. 287, note 6:

................That the Tarim Basin with its barren wastes of sand or gravel, broken only by a narrow fringe of cultivated oases, was throughout historical times a region utterly unsuited to nomadic migrations is a geographical fact which deserves to be reckoned with in historical speculations more than hitherto has been the case.

Also, from Mallory and Mair, "The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West", pp. 77 - 78:

Khotan also occupied a remarkably strategic position. To its south, the forbidding Qurum and Qaraqurum ranges were absolutely desolate and Stein could count but a mere 400 people scattered across a territory of 9,000 sq. miles [23,310 sq. km]. To its east one could follow the Silk road, but beyond Niya (Minfeng) the oases were so few and far between that it would have been difficult to facilitate any major approach to Khotan other than one that had been highly organized, such as might be found in Chinese military operations.

The point is that beyond Niya, to its east, "the oases were so few and far between that it would have been difficult to facilitate any major approach to Khotan". All cavalry armies, like those utilized by steppe nomads, would find it extremely difficult to support their men and especially horses let alone militarily occupy a kingdom, in light of the geographical conditions.

Much of the Tarim was unsuited for nomadic migrations, much less direct military occupation by steppe nomads planning to stay steppe nomads, whom the Da Yuezhi still were when they had just conquered Baktria and set up their metropolis north of the Amu-Darya. It seems more likely that these oasis kingdoms speculated to have been "controlled" by the Yuezhi were the Yuezhi's tributary vassals, mirroring how the Xiongnu dominated the oasis kingdoms of the Tarim during the early 3rd - late 2nd century BC.

In case you don't know who Marc Aurel Stein is, he was the famous Hungarian explorer of the late 19th - 20th centuries and made numerous expeditions into Chinese Central Asia, discovering an abundance of archaeology there, and particularly notable as one of the first explorers to bring back the Tocharian texts found there to the West for study of the nature of the language. So, in a way, he was a pioneer of Tocharian studies in the West.

Steppe Merc

01-01-2006, 17:08

Just as a side not, a lot of what I've read seems to me that the Chinese sources are a lot more realiable (probably the best) when it comes to nomads, mainly because of the large amount htey interacted with them, and the common practice of Western chroniclers to demonize nomads. Not that they any source is above question, but that's just what it seems from what I've read.

fallen851

01-02-2006, 00:57

I'd appericate if you'd read my entire post before responding. One of the things you should have learned in your education is how to create an arguement, a rambiling boring, massive post with "LOL" included. That kind of stuff isn't making me want to read your post. You like to pick apart every piece of my arguement, whether it means anything or not, which is just plain stupid.

Now you're right, we shouldn't attack each other . But I'd like strong evidence to refute what two PH.D professors believe and teach to their students at Clark University, this is a serious challenge, perhaps you can change all this?

So please "easily counter that arrogant, hypocritical and nationalistic statement"?

But before you begin, please do not simply give one source and prove it is accurate, prove to me the recording process the Chinese used was peer-reviewed by journals as it is today, and not biased. Good luck.

Thankfully I showed this thread to a undergraduate whose research focus on ancient China. She analyzed some of your sources and disagrees strongly with the idea that any nomadic nation of the period based in the Tarim basin could field an army of 200,000 soldiers (especially without a policy of consistent expansion!). Commercial farming was not developed in the area at the time, and simple subsistence farming would have a hard time logistically supporting an army of that size for any amount of time.

Furthermore she believes this is a case where history was written by the victor, and that the Xiongnu (whether or not they meant to do it) could have bolstered the number of the Yuezhi either to make themselves look good, or because the tactics used the Yuezhi (also the Mongolians) had quite a bit of deception in the way of making their force look larger than it is. She would estimate a force of about 20,000 soldiers, if even that.

Now don't even start with her please, I'm simply outlining different opinions. I didn't say I agreed with her. I'd rather have you focus on proving that Chinese sources are so fact-filled with no corruption, major mistakes, ect.

You have to understand, that most things that are written, if they are not published in a peer-reviewed journal, are generally rubbish. You can publish anything, but if it isn't in a peer-reviewed journal, you probably shouldn't believe it, even if it comes in a nice fancy book. The undergraduate student I mentioned has problems with all your sources.

Let me give an example of this, as someone who has dwelled in Holocaust and Genocide studies, there is a book written, a best-seller, called "Hitler's Willing Executioners". It is a book that is hated in the scholarly world, because it makes vast generalizations about why the Holocaust happened and who was responsible. This is exactly the same reason it is a best-seller. There are many other books on the subject of racism and mass murder that are far more valuable, such as "The Anatomy of Power" by Alexander Butchart. But, that book isn't popular because it doesn't provide an answer to anything. People like answers. When there isn't one, they make one up. I feel you are doing this now.

Let me give you a few examples about sources from governments, primary sources, and offical sources. How about a recent one, the Bush Administration and their evidence about WMD in Iraq? If that had never been discovered to be to incorrect (ie the war didn't happen or something) then hundreds of years from now, people just like you would say "well the reliable good old US government says this..." and you'd believe they would have weapons of mass destruction, for the same reason you believe the Chinese government sources from then.

How about another example, Julius Caesar, and his siege on Alesia. It has been claimed the relief army consisted of 80,000 Gauls, but who gives that number? The Romans? Well Caesar wouldn't look impressive if the force had only been 20,000 right? Rome surely is more impressed with 80,000. And he won the battle, right? Hmm... questionable sources arise again.

Do you need more examples? Can you prove your sources avoid this kind of bias, as well as corruption and are mistake free?

Now I have access to peer reviewed journals and there is not much about the the Yuezhi in them, why you may ask? Because it is a topic that nothing can be said with relative certainly. The one article I was able to dig out of a journal was that one from MIT. I'll reproduce it here if you would like to see it. Peer-reviewed journals have articles that have been written, then submitted to peers in the field for review, who then edit them. They go through many revisions until they are as factual as possible, and agreed upon by many people in the field of research.

That is why your education level becomes important, having access to peer-reviewed journals, is important. Also realizing this is important: Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it. It doesn't matter if I cite 50,000 primary sources, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. It doesn't matter if I cite no sources at all, if I'm right, I'm right. If you begin with that, instead of your little list of things, you'll find yourself looking for the "correct" history, instead of simply the best cited history, which may not be correct. Always critical to keep your eye on the ball at all times, because the road to victory, isn't the same everytime, you have to follow the ball.

You should never believe anything that isn't based on both your experimentation, and rational reasoning. You shouldn't believe something because someone told you its true, even if you "trust" that person. You shouldn't believe something because things have been happening that way for many years and that is the way it is. You shouldn't believe something that "feels" right.

Unforunately those circumstances (known as authority, tenacity, and intitution respectively) are what your arguing. You submitting yourself to authority, stating these sources are so great and true because look all my little list of 4 requirements they fufill, and then intitution combined with authority because you use maps and sources to attempt to place the Yuezhi.

But since we can't do "science" (experimentation and rational reasoning) we'll never know.

When I said the dominant historical view, it is based of what I read in the Encyclopedia, yes you can deny that assertion by quoting me from above and because you love to pick apart everything I say, I'm sure you will, but it's a mute point, unimportant to the topic. I'd really like to hear about the quality of recording keeping in China, if you can prove it beyond a shadow of doubt, your work could be published and you will be compensated.

Now you can go off and believe the US government, believe the FDA is marketing safe drugs, believe what you want to believe, believe that Polish calvary charged German tanks, believe that ADHD is actually a disease, believe that 39 cent pet food provides a full days nutirtion for pets, believe that toothpaste actually works, believe the Chinese sources had no reason to lie, that the corruption that exists today in record keeping did not then because today we are just... (fill in the blank). That is your right. But it is not your right to claim you beliefs, are facts without science.

Now whether or not the Yuezhi make it into EB doesn't matter. You simply can't be historically accurate about it. I think Jurchen Fury does good research, but puts far too much faith in sources simply because they "first hand" and "primary", but that doesn't mean they are right, certainly not, especially considering the unreliability of sources from that time period.

jurchen fury

01-02-2006, 19:07

I'd appericate if you'd read my entire post before responding.

I certainly have since I've responded to every one of your points. But you certainly haven't and won't admit that nor would you admit that you've not been able to understand any of my points, which I will shortly show below.

One of the things you should have learned in your education is how to create an arguement, a rambiling boring, massive post with "LOL" included. That kind of stuff isn't making me want to read your post.

LOL. FLMAO. So what? I believe it's you who has failed to understand and counter any of my points that you resort to playing the role of a small man and all you can do is put up a whole paragraph of rant and nonsense about my "LOL" as if there was anything horribly wrong, offensive, or "unintellectual" (you aren't even qualified to even talk about intellectuality since you have so far shown no understanding of historiography at all) about that little phrase which constitutes less than 1% of my entire post. Talk about nitpicking. Yes, it is only a "rambiling boring" post probably because you've failed to understand any of it or even know what I've been trying to say all along.

You like to pick apart every piece of my arguement, whether it means anything or not, which is just plain stupid.

I love to pick apart every piece of your argument because almost every piece of it is wrong and based on silly little sourceless and illogical assumptions. Who is really stupid will be pretty clear as I will show below.

Now you're right, we shouldn't attack each other .

No, you shouldn't have started to attack me. I merely attacked your sources which, for any person with a competent understanding of historiography, would've quickly deemed as useless. But it was you who took that all personally and resorted to low-level pathetic ad-hominem attacks against me, which only shows your unreadiness to debate on a scholarly level. I tried playing nice and that was why I told you to reread my posts again in the hope that you would understand every single one of my points and then come up with reasonable and logical statements backed up by reliable sources against my arguments, but it's now apparent that playing nice with you gets nowhere since you refuse to do so and cling to your silly little assumptions.

But I'd like strong evidence to refute what two PH.D professors believe and teach to their students at Clark University, this is a serious challenge, perhaps you can change all this?

No, I don't have to prove anything to you at all. In contrast, it's you who has to prove to me with strong evidence to refute what those two professors said at Clark University. Let's analyze what you've shown to me so far and who has really made the boastful statement:

It fact, it wasn't until the 14th century, when Francesco Petrarch and the humanist movement began recording history, that history was truly accurately recorded the way it is today. Before this time it was customary for monks (they were the ones who usually did the writing of historical texts) or scribes (or anyone else) to "edit" or "add" in information to history to make it more exciting, even in

Now to use those same exaggerated and simply inaccurate texts today (about distances, army sizes, ect.), is doing a great injustice to historical study.

The above statement can be vouched for by two history PH.D professors at Clark University, and generally accepted in the scholarly world (though it doesn't mean this is correct).

In particular, you say:

It fact, it wasn't until the 14th century, when Francesco Petrarch and the humanist movement began recording history, that history was truly accurately recorded the way it is today. Before this time it was customary for monks (they were the ones who usually did the writing of historical texts) or scribes (or anyone else) to "edit" or "add" in information to history to make it more exciting, even in

The statement of "history" may only pertain to "Western history" and that I may not particularly disagree with. However, you only say "history" as if you knew about the historiography of every single culture that ever existed in human history. That is a very sweeping generalization to make. Besides your anonymous "vouched for by two history PH.D professors at Clark University", that is all you can cite as "sources". In order for that statement to make any sense or have any type of reliability or scholarly consideration as pertaining to all of human historical historiography, you would have to show from first hand primary sources as well as reliable secondary sources how all the historiography and historical sources from all cultures that existed before Francesco Petrarch's time are totally "unreliable" and "inaccurately recorded" - it means it would require an understanding of the historiography of all cultures, not just "Western" historiography in history - that is your major error, ie because of your ignorance of non-Western historiography you think that everything "bad" in Western history is perhaps double-accounted for for non-Western cultures which evidently shows your bias. Since you have done neither of that, the "unreliability of pre-14th century sources from across the world" statement, which I doubt you've even quoted accurately and which I doubt you have any understanding of historical historiography of non-Western cultures, is uncalled for. Making a valid historical statement doesn't mean simply putting up a baseless assumption and only giving anonymous "sources" (especially since it is unwritten material) and then if the other person can't counter that argument then that makes your statement "valid"; it requires careful, rigorous, exhaustive hours of analysis of the primary sources and archaeological evidence and, in your case of history as if it pertained to all of human history, it would be extremely exhaustive - I doubt you can seriously do any of that.

And I also love your statement about "monks" and all as if every culture in the world before Francesco Petrarch's recorded their history by hiring Christian monks to do it for them. From that statement and also your lovely "village chief peasants", it shows that you have absolutely no understanding of the historiograhy of non-Western cultures. In the case of "China", Zhang Qian as an imperial envoy and later Han commander and Sima Qian being a professionally trained court historian with access to the large imperial archives already proves wrong your statement of "monks".

So please "easily counter that arrogant, hypocritical and nationalistic statement"?

I've already did. Read the above.

But before you begin, please do not simply give one source and prove it is accurate, prove to me the recording process the Chinese used was peer-reviewed by journals as it is today, and not biased. Good luck.

I didn't say that Chinese sources were totally unbiased or were peer-reviewed by journals as it is today. Bias exists in almost every source, even sources today, but it is the difference in the amount and level in each category of sources that matters. But the way to challenge the primary sources is to observe the possibility or practically of the statements made in the sources (from all point of views, ie geographically, logistically, etc.) or to use relevant archaeological evidence of the period to do so, or also to see if it agrees with other contemporary sources on them or not. But so far, there is nothing in the Han Shu or the Shi Ji that is very unbelievable, biased, or totally out of line with reality, and there was also no reason for Sima Qian or Zhang Qian to lie about the information gathered on the Yuezhi considering the purpose of Zhang Qian's mission (to seek an alliance with the Yuezhi) and that of the information he gathered (i.e. to be used as a guide for policy-making). Besides contemporary modern-day sources, there is no way to prove with real strong evidence that the method of recording history was "accurate" for pre-modern sources simply because there are no witnesses alive today who, having faith in them that the information they give doesn't contain bias or that he/she isn't bluntly lying, can compare what they saw to what has been recorded as a historical source. Furthermore, this doubting on the reliability of pre-modern sources isn't just about Chinese sources in particular, but in all pre-modern sources, and it concerns the existence of the whole field of history itself. Quite frankly, the study of the "reliability" of pre-modern sources is really about the study and analysis of the context of those sources themselves and how well they collaborate with other sources contemporary to the period being described (archaeological evidence being one) more than the study of how the history was recorded itself simply because there isn't much "reliable" evidence on that method (because the method of recording history for that particular source we are talking about also comes from sources contemporary to the period and even they maybe "unreliable" - can you personally have vouched that you've clearly seen Francesco Petrarch "peer-reviewing" all post-14th century Western history sources or that all historical sources after his time were "peer-reviewed") and a bit of "faith" in the belief that sources contemporary to or near the period being described is accurate, ie statements that don't meet the criteria of being deemed "unreliable" (no statements that contain logistically impossible numbers or anything not possible relative to reality) are accepted as "reliable". If we simply deem all pre-modern or, in your case, pre-14th century sources as simply unreliable, then we have nothing, nada, zero information on pre-modern history - by that point, what is the point of historical study if you will doubt any pre-modern sources on it, and what is the whole point of the field of history as we know it today? As I've said before, unless there was a time machine, we would never know what "really" happened in history, but choosing that option would lead us nowhere and the whole field of history would cease to exist. However, by the study and analysis of primary sources and archaeological evidence, we reach somewhere and we know something about history, and that is a far better option than knowing nothing, even if the history we know may not necessarily be "truly accurate" and what is generally accepted to be the most accurate and knowledgeable information available to us are the primary sources and archaeological evidence contemporary to the said period - that is the basis of all historical research and the study of history really focuses on that.

Thankfully I showed this thread to a undergraduate whose research focus on ancient China. She analyzed some of your sources and disagrees strongly with the idea that any nomadic nation of the period based in the Tarim basin could field an army of 200,000 soldiers (especially without a policy of consistent expansion!). Commercial farming was not developed in the area at the time, and simple subsistence farming would have a hard time logistically supporting an army of that size for any amount of time.

I'm glad you showed my thread to her because she made an accurate conclusion, ie that "no nomadic nation of the period based in the Tarim basin could field an army of 200,000 soldiers". But perhaps you've misunderstood the whole point of this thread or perhaps she hadn't thoroughly read my thread, which was not about the possibility of the Yuezhi fielding "an army of 200,000 soldiers" but about whether or not the Yuezhi had any territory in present EB "Yuezhi Yabgu", depicting the current Kashgar oasis in the northwestern part of the Tarim. Indeed, it is true that "no nomadic nation of the period based in the Tarim basin could field an army of 200,000 soldiers". In fact, the way you've presented her argument and believing it supposedly gave aid to your stance or backed up your points only shows that you've clearly not "read everything I wrote" or have even read the thread thoroughly enough. In fact, from post #11 which you seem to have missed:

But the Yueh-chih were a great horde of pastoral people, and had 100,000 or 200,000 cavalrymen, according to the Shih-chi (Book 123), when they reached the Amu Darya. This makes it unlikely that they could have originated in a place such as Casia where the oases could only support a population of a few thousand at the time of the Han dynasty. It must also be remembered that no other nomadic people has ever risen to power in any part of the Tarim basin where Casia was situated. If the Yueh-chih were called by the name of Casia, because of the casia or jade they produced, they must also have had another name of their own.

Oddly, the evidence they present here already refutes their (maybe his/her rather than "their" seems more appropriate) conclusion in the end here:

; although it is most likely that Casia was the native place of the Yueh-chih.

It is exactly the opposite of the evidence contained in this passage, which contains far more solid evidence than anything they've brought up before.

What is certain, however, is that the region of Casia and other countries in the Tarim basin were under the control of the Yueh-chih

If we go with the theory that the "Yuzhi" were the same people as the "Yuezhi", which is quite possible, then the Yuzhi/Yuezhi had, at one point in history, control over parts of "Casia" if "Casia" refers to the oases south of the Taklamakan and north of the Kunlun mountain range, more specifically the oases between Niya and Cherchen if we accept the Xuanzang's 7th century source, the Xiyu Ji, as reliable. Also note that the Guanzi never said anything like "jade comes from the original homeland of the Yuezhi", but simply indicated that jade came from the mountains bordering the territories controlled by the Yuzhi. IMO, all the discussion about the supposed homeland in "Casia" based solely on speculation and supposed similarity of names made in the article by the three authors isn't convincing at all. Furthermore, the degree of "control" the Yuezhi supposedly had over these oasis kingdoms is questionable, since directly controlling them militarily would be impractical and senseless for a nomadic people like the Yuezhi who utilized armies made up largely of mounted archers and in which, keeping in mind the remount system of steppe nomads that made their armies so mobile and efficient for the purpose they play, with the Da Yuezhi's 100,000 or 200,000 veterans/warriors when they were living north of the Oxus/Amu Darya as recorded in the Shi Ji, Ch. 123, would require at least 200,000 - 400,000 warhorses alone for the veterans/warriors, and certainly far more for the regular tribesmen on the move. Since the Yuezhi were far more powerful than at the time when they had just conquered Baktria and presumably owned far larger territories earlier in their history, meaning they had more access to manpower, Yuezhi armies before their defeat by the Xiongnu may have numbered more than 100,000 or 200,000 warriors and thus, warhorses required to support such warriors would amount to over 200,000 - 400,000 of them, numbers the small oases of the Tarim almost certainly were not capable of supporting. In fact, a direct quote from Hungarian explorer Stein in "Serindia : detailed report of explorations in Central Asia and westernmost China - Vol. 1", p. 287, note 6:

................That the Tarim Basin with its barren wastes of sand or gravel, broken only by a narrow fringe of cultivated oases, was throughout historical times a region utterly unsuited to nomadic migrations is a geographical fact which deserves to be reckoned with in historical speculations more than hitherto has been the case.

Also, from Mallory and Mair, "The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West", pp. 77 - 78:

Khotan also occupied a remarkably strategic position. To its south, the forbidding Qurum and Qaraqurum ranges were absolutely desolate and Stein could count but a mere 400 people scattered across a territory of 9,000 sq. miles [23,310 sq. km]. To its east one could follow the Silk road, but beyond Niya (Minfeng) the oases were so few and far between that it would have been difficult to facilitate any major approach to Khotan other than one that had been highly organized, such as might be found in Chinese military operations.

The point is that beyond Niya, to its east, "the oases were so few and far between that it would have been difficult to facilitate any major approach to Khotan". All cavalry armies, like those utilized by steppe nomads, would find it extremely difficult to support their men and especially horses let alone militarily occupy a kingdom, in light of the geographical conditions.

Much of the Tarim was unsuited for nomadic migrations, much less direct military occupation by steppe nomads planning to stay steppe nomads, whom the Da Yuezhi still were when they had just conquered Baktria and set up their metropolis north of the Amu-Darya.

From the way you presented her argument already suggests to me that you probably don't have a clue as to what this thread is really about or where Qilian and Dunhuang, or the Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, Kashgar, etc. really are. In fact, her proposal would give even more weight to the suggestion of the exclusion of the Yuezhi out of the current EB map. It's freaking hilarious that after all the nonsense you wrote to me about historical study and sources that you've now written this ridiculous rant about how her proposal would supposedly "suggest the invalidity of Chinese sources". It seems you have no clue that I've been arguing all along that the Yuezhi were anything but a "nomadic nation of the period based in the Tarim basin could field an army of 200,000 soldiers". It's also clear that you need not respond and reply to this thread anymore because you're only making yourself look like a fool. If you've actually taken the time to read my posts and especially the quotes from the primary sources, you would know that "200,000" (the Shi Ji actually says 100,000 - 200,000 while the Han shu says 100,000 - the difference can be accounted for if you've actually studied the texts and know what period the data is applicable for - the Shi Ji was written earlier than the Han Shu and both describe the Yuezhi at different stages in their history) was written alongside the statement that the Yuezhi originally lived between Qilian and Dunhuang. For anyone who has actually studied geography, the Qilian and Dunhuang, as I repeat and as I've already said in my previous post, evidently didn't refer to the Tarim basin, which was your own erroneous misunderstanding and ignorance, but Qilian and Dunhuang are actually situated in the western Gansu region and, as I've outlined above in post #11, we have reason to believe that the Qilian in question may not actually refer to the modern-day Qilian mountains in Gansu province but actually to the line of mountains called the Tianshan range in current northern-day Xinjiang. The Gansu region is east of the Tarim Basin and the Tarim Basin is in southern Xinjiang, currently the western-most province of the PRC. Indeed, the Yuezhi were anything but a "nomadic nation of the period based in the Tarim basin could field an army of 200,000 soldiers" and that was what my sources pointed to all along, ie that they actually lived between the eastern Tianshan - western Gansu region rather than anywhere in the Tarim! I should also further add that the oasis kingdom with the largest population recorded in the Han Shu during Han times was Kucha, and it only had a population of around 80,000, well within accord of modern estimates.

Furthermore she believes this is a case where history was written by the victor, and that the Xiongnu (whether or not they meant to do it) could have bolstered the number of the Yuezhi either to make themselves look good, or because the tactics used the Yuezhi (also the Mongolians) had quite a bit of deception in the way of making their force look larger than it is. She would estimate a force of about 20,000 soldiers, if even that.

This is ridiculous. Either you misquoted her or she hasn't read the thread thoroughly enough. The 100,000 - 200,000 numbered was acquired by Zhang Qian found in his report to Han Wudi and preserved in Sima Qian's Shi Ji, Ch. 123. Zhang Qian evidently didn't, and couldn't acquire this type of information from the Xiongnu because the Xiongnu at the time were in a very tense situation with the Han and both were on the verge of all-out war. He acquired this information by personally visiting the Da Yuezhi just when they had conquered Baktria, ie Daxia, and still had their metropolis north of the Amu-Darya (Gui river). Of the kingdoms he personally visited, according to his report, included the Da Yuezhi, Kangju, Dayuan (Ferghana), and Daxia (Baktria), but the rest of the information on the "5-6 other large states" he gathered from other sources. The whole purpose of his mission was to attempt an alliance with the Da Yuezhi in the hope that the Da Yuezhi would be allies with the Han against the Xiongnu in the upcoming war but, to his surprise, the Da Yuezhi king refused. His report contained the first real knowledge of the states to the west of the Han at the time and this was extremely important because it was later used by the Han during the time when it attacked some of these western states. His report also gave knowledge with whom the Han should be allies with. He was held accountable and responsible for the information he gave in his report and, as I've pointed out earlier, the dynastic histories were used as a guide to policy-making in general. There was absolutely no reason for Zhang Qian to lie about all this information and no reason to "boast" of a 100,000 - 200,000 for the Da Yuezhi. It is incredibly likely that, considering that he personally visited the Da Yuezhi north of the Amu-Darya and even tried in vain to persuade the Yuezhi to make an alliance with the Han and attack the Xiongnu, that this "100,000 - 200,000" came from the Da Yuezhi themselves, not from the Xiongnu.

Now don't even start with her please, I'm simply outlining different opinions. I didn't say I agreed with her. I'd rather have you focus on proving that Chinese sources are so fact-filled with no corruption, major mistakes, ect.

Right, and you should stop posting in a thread in which you have absolutely no clue about, and your insistence on doing so only shows your pompousness and arrogance and also inability to "lose a debate". Responding to your replies is really a waste of my time than anything else.

You have to understand, that most things that are written, if they are not published in a peer-reviewed journal, are generally rubbish. You can publish anything, but if it isn't in a peer-reviewed journal, you probably shouldn't believe it, even if it comes in a nice fancy book.

You have to understand that most of the sources you've presented to me are garbage and fail to cite any original sources that they got their info from. You also have to understand that being published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean much, if anything at all; what really matters is the content of those articles themselves and the quality of the content found in the articles can vary from author to author and also how well researched it is - hence the statement of "don't judge a book by its cover". You also have to understand that sources, even being from your biblical "peer-reviewed journals" which fail to cite their original sources from where they got their info are very questionable. Also, the majority of my sources don't come from "nice fancy books" but from the sources I've cited from, which contain the dynastic histories, manuscripts, secondary sources like Stein who has considered the geographical point of view as well, and they are certainly far more reliable than any of your internet sources, one which you even used wikipedia which already says alot about just how seriously you actually take history (which you really don't).

The undergraduate student I mentioned has problems with all your sources.

Either you misquoted her or gave her partial information or she clearly hasn't read my thread because I've given clear reference to reliable sources.

Let me give an example of this, as someone who has dwelled in Holocaust and Genocide studies, there is a book written, a best-seller, called "Hitler's Willing Executioners". It is a book that is hated in the scholarly world, because it makes vast generalizations about why the Holocaust happened and who was responsible. This is exactly the same reason it is a best-seller. There are many other books on the subject of racism and mass murder that are far more valuable, such as "The Anatomy of Power" by Alexander Butchart. But, that book isn't popular because it doesn't provide an answer to anything. People like answers.

Honestly, I don't care what books you've read or what sweeping generalizations you make contained in your lovely rant, they all don't give any weight to your pathetic arguments.

When there isn't one, they make one up. I feel you are doing this now.

Does the word "hypocricy" not ring a bell at all? I "make up an answer". I gave references to and have done analysis of the primary sources, and cited from reliable secondary sources as well as studies on the archaeological evidence. All you've done was give your misleading lecture about primary sources, denying that they have any importance, rant about your biblical "peer-review journals", and would rather believe in sources without proper citations or a bibliographical list, no notes, nothing, rather than reliable secondary sources that have done exhaustive and rigorous analysis of all the evidence possibly available to them or the primary sources. You also erroneously said, without a clue as to what you're saying, that the "Chinese sources support a homeland in the western Tarim", evidently indicating your lack of understanding of proper geography and insisted that your sources were more correct than mines. Yet I "make up an answer". You are funny.

Let me give you a few examples about sources from governments, primary sources, and offical sources. How about a recent one, the Bush Administration and their evidence about WMD in Iraq? If that had never been discovered to be to incorrect (ie the war didn't happen or something) then hundreds of years from now, people just like you would say "well the reliable good old US government says this..." and you'd believe they would have weapons of mass destruction, for the same reason you believe the Chinese government sources from then.

It is evidently apparent that you have no understanding of the differences and intentions behind the writing of those "primary sources" nor have you any clue of what "propaganda" means, aside from your total lack of understanding of the fact that different information in the sources come from different intents, and that not all of them are based on "propaganda" and certainly not this case about Zhang Qian, Sima Qian, and the Yuezhi. Almost certainly, there is evidently some form of propaganda or another in the Chinese dynastic histories, as is the case for most primary sources available to us (because usually they are produced by people associated with the government) from any part of the world, certainly including the West. Yet you fail to see that the "Bush Administration and their evidence about WMD in Iraq" is clearly government propaganda meant to be used as a tool for uplifting the "moral superiority" of the US government, the US army, and attempting to justify its invasion of Iraq therefore the ridiculously wild claims. In Chinese sources, it would be akin to an emperor or commander remarking that his conquest of state x or state y was because "our friend had been attacked by a ruthless neighbor" (the propaganda behind Tang Taizong's war against Koguryo, ie that Tang needed to "punish" Koguryo for attacking Silla, Tang's ally but the Tang clearly had ambitions to attack Koguryo regardless of its attack on Silla, which it being so far away from the Tang the Tang could care less) or that an emperor's ascending to the throne was "fated to receive the mandate of heaven". No competent scholar or historian would take these statements seriously but would instead look at what prompted the source authorities to make such statements; in both cases, it was clearly propaganda to justify their war/conflict against another neighbor. No such case is even similar or paralleled in Zhang Qian's report on the Yuezhi; the Han was neither making war on the Yuezhi nor had they a reason to since they clearly wanted to attempt an alliance with the Yuezhi, and Zhang Qian evidently had no reason to exaggerate the numbers of Yuezhi troops or where they were. Precisely because the Yuezhi had once been a very powerful people on the northwestern borders of the Warring States and the Qin empire and that they had once been pressuring the Xiongnu on its west that Han Wudi and his court thought it wise to send Zhang Qian in an attempt to "recall" the Yuezhi back into the political scene on the northwestern frontiers of China. In conclusion, your "Bush" example is invalid.

How about another example, Julius Caesar, and his siege on Alesia. It has been claimed the relief army consisted of 80,000 Gauls, but who gives that number? The Romans? Well Caesar wouldn't look impressive if the force had only been 20,000 right? Rome surely is more impressed with 80,000. And he won the battle, right? Hmm... questionable sources arise again.

The problem is that the 100,000 - 200,000 was not acquired from the Xiongnu but from Zhang Qian's visit to Da Yuezhi and Daxia/Baktria. Again, your example is invalid and doesn't apply to Zhang Qian and the Yuezhi simply because this case is very different from your US and Romans case as I've outlined above.

Do you need more examples?

No, I don't because I speculate that they'll mostly be irrelevant BS and a waste of my time.

Can you prove your sources avoid this kind of bias, as well as corruption and are mistake free?

No, I've already given examples of this type of bias above and have already shown how they are absolutely irrelevant to Zhang Qian and his report on the Yuezhi.

Now I have access to peer reviewed journals and there is not much about the the Yuezhi in them, why you may ask? Because it is a topic that nothing can be said with relative certainly.

LOL. I see, so you think you are the total authority on the issue, eh? That you think your total ignorance on the topic of the Yuezhi can be representative of "nothing can be said with relative certainly". And you thought wrong. What is certain is that you don't know what the hell you're talking, as is evidenced by ignorance on geography, historiography, primary sources, archaeological evidence, and also your sweeping generalizations about history in general.

The one article I was able to dig out of a journal was that one from MIT. I'll reproduce it here if you would like to see it.

Then do so rather than continuing your rant. Show me the whole thing, including any annotations, notes, a long bibliographical list, and proper citations, and I will retract my statement about it lacking sources and will certainly take the time to look at the article indepthly and dig its sources up and analyze it when I have time.

Peer-reviewed journals have articles that have been written, then submitted to peers in the field for review, who then edit them. They go through many revisions until they are as factual as possible, and agreed upon by many people in the field of research.

And that doesn't at all justify your other sources as "reliable" nor does that justify the lack of proper citations, a bibliographical list at least, or a lack of annotations/notes if the article doesn't contain those.

That is why your education level becomes important, having access to peer-reviewed journals, is important.

LOL. I could care less if you made it as a history professor at a university because I wouldn't even think twice of considering your "theories" at all, as theories created out of a vacuum are pretty much garbage.

Also realizing this is important: Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it. It doesn't matter if I cite 50,000 primary sources, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. It doesn't matter if I cite no sources at all, if I'm right, I'm right.

LOL. What a load of BS. It is evidently clear that from this paragraph of yours that you need not participate anymore in this thread since it's also clear that you lack the knowledge to even properly debate on a scholarly level. "Right is right, and wrong is wrong" - what folly. How do you know what is right and what is wrong in history if one doesn't use proper sources or properly cites them and especially considering the controversial nature of history in which even you yourself had admitted? Apparently, you have no clue about what the study of history really is nor have you any clue how real historical research is done. Who do you think you are? The next Einstein? You've made a time machine that can travel back in time and you've travelled back in time to have seen the real history for yourself? There is not simply just "right is right, wrong is wrong". What is "right" and what is "wrong" in history requires evidence and it is exactly that which you are horribly lacking in. Apparently, there must be some criteria to judge what is "right" or what is "wrong" and the first step in separating the potentially "right" information from the "wrong" information is to see if the information properly cites its sources or has shown understanding of past scholarship on the subject. Since most of your sources you've shown to me have done none of this, they need not even be considered at all, and it is very clear that those sources have the "wrong" info. You apparently lack understanding of the primary importance of sources in the study of history, an error which will lead you to make very silly conclusions and look like a fool, as if you already aren't right now.

If you begin with that, instead of your little list of things, you'll find yourself looking for the "correct" history, instead of simply the best cited history, which may not be correct.

If I began with that, I would've reached nowhere and if every scholar/historian used that method, the scholarship and study of history would cease to exist. You evidently lack understanding of the methodology used in historical research and study, so you need not make anymore silly comments on the subject.

You should never believe anything that isn't based on both your experimentation, and rational reasoning.

All of the information I've presented was based on my analysis of the sources and evidence that I've acquired and was very based on logical, rational reasoning, something which you very much lack.

You shouldn't believe something because someone told you its true, even if you "trust" that person.

Does the word "hypocricy" not ring a bell? Did you not say that?

The above statement can be vouched for by two history PH.D professors at Clark University, and generally accepted in the scholarly world (though it doesn't mean this is correct).

Please, enough. You're just wasting my time and littering the thread with your nonsense.

You shouldn't believe something because things have been happening that way for many years and that is the way it is.

Right, and what about your:

right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it.

You shouldn't believe something that "feels" right.

And that was what you were doing all along. I provided proper and reliable sources. You've provided none. You "felt" that the Yuezhi had a presence in the Kashgar oasis. You "felt" that they should be included in EB even though it is clear that the Kashgar oasis wasn't even steppe and couldn't support the Yuezhi's 100,000 - 200,000 warriors or more and that is very clearly vouched for by the mention of them once being very powerful and these desert oases clearly couldn't support a steppe people such as the Yuezhi.

Unforunately those circumstances (known as authority, tenacity, and intitution respectively) are what your arguing.

On the contrary, that is really what you are rather than me. Evidence? Read above. Especially your very funny "because of the lack of agreement (which is really because of ignorance and misinterpretation of the information given) I think the Yuezhi would be in current Yuezhi Yabgu". And yet I was accused of "feeling it was right". LOL.

You submitting yourself to authority, stating these sources are so great and true because look all my little list of 4 requirements they fufill,

I am "submitting myself to authority" when I have digged through tons of books for reliable sources and have done analysis of the subject myself. You have not "submitted yourself to authority" even when you've done absolutely no research on the subject at all, gives me your little pathetic sources, one of which happened to have come from wikipedia, and thinks that sources without proper citations are more reliable than the primary sources or archaeological evidence. You believe in the biblical status of "peer-reviewed journals" and evidently the people who wrote them yet you hypocritically said that "one shouldn't believe something someone told you". You haven't the slightest clue of what do all these sources mean or what information from these sources is valid, how historical research and scholarship is conducted, nor have you the slightest clue on historiography and the importance of sources and proper citations in secondary sources. Yet you still think your sources, most of which one can easily grab online where all types of garbage can be found, is better and more correct than the primary sources and reliable secondary sources I've presented so far. Now I want you think about what all this means and what it means to be a fool.

and then intitution combined with authority because you use maps and sources to attempt to place the Yuezhi.

Yadayadayada....more and more BS as I've expected. I'm now accused of using "intuition" when it's you who has suggested that because of the lack of evidence that the Yuezhi should be in current Yuezhi Yabgu. Oh yes, maps and sources. And what have you presented? Wikipedia, britannica, and your beloved MIT article, all three which you have shown doesn't include any proper citations to the original sources from where they've gotten their info from. Pathetic.

But since we can't do "science" (experimentation and rational reasoning) we'll never know.

I've done my own experimentation with the maps and have consistently used rational reasoning and also attempted careful analysis of the sources available to me, something which you've shown to have absolutely no understanding about and am horribly lacking in.

When I said the dominant historical view, it is based of what I read in the Encyclopedia, yes you can deny that assertion by quoting me from above and because you love to pick apart everything I say, I'm sure you will, but it's a mute point, unimportant to the topic.

And what you've read in the Encyclopedia isn't the "dominant historical view" nor does that mean much at all, something which you even admitted yourself and which now only shows your real hypocricy. Especially considering it lacks proper citations to the primary sources or archaeological evidence it need not even be considered, your sources are truly pathetic. And yes, I will deny your assertion because it is a silly and inaccurate one and I love to pick apart everything you say because pretty much all of what you say is BS/garbage and I won't tolerate that stuff thrown against me, especially from someone like you.

I'd really like to hear about the quality of recording keeping in China, if you can prove it beyond a shadow of doubt, your work could be published and you will be compensated.

Just because you're ignorant and full of BS doesn't mean that everyone else is, nor does what you believe to not exist means it actually doesn't exist. I've not all the time to type up this extensive examination and review of the Chinese sources but, for starters, refer to the ntroduction and comments in the beginning of the book "Courtier and commoner in ancient China; selections from the History of the former Han." translated by Burton Watson. There's also an excellent review of the Han Shu by Hulsewe and Loewe in the introduction to "China in Central Asia: The Early Stage 125 BC – AD 23".

Now you can go off and believe the US government, believe the FDA is marketing safe drugs, believe what you want to believe, believe that Polish calvary charged German tanks, believe that ADHD is actually a disease, believe that 39 cent pet food provides a full days nutirtion for pets, believe that toothpaste actually works, believe the Chinese sources had no reason to lie, that the corruption that exists today in record keeping did not then because today we are just... (fill in the blank). That is your right.

Right, and you can continue ranting and believing in your own BS, ie that you think your pathetic sources that don't even have proper citations to the sources from which they got their info from are more correct than primary sources, archaeological evidence, or reliable secondary sources. That you think modern-day Western people living over 2,000 years removed in both time and space as well as geographical area from the events they are describing in parts of the world and who don't even cite any of the original sources they used to acquire their info are supposedly more correct about the Yuezhi than the ancient Chinese historians living perhaps a few years, a few decades at most, and some who were even contemporary with the events that happened to the Yuezhi and some who even personally fought with them or their neighbors. Yes, I'm sure that with your method of "discovering history" you'll go very far into the field of history - I'm just surprised that no serious and competent historian has catered to your views and I'm really wondering just how far your methods would lead us. Oh wait, I was wrong. Perhaps you have a secret time machine at home and that you or your "peer-reviewed journal writers" have seen the real history and have seen the Yuezhi occupy Kashgar to claim that "right is right and wrong is wrong" and that current Yuezhi Yabgu should have the Yuezhi in it.

But it is not your right to claim you beliefs, are facts without science.

You are right. It is not my right to claim that my beliefs are facts without science. History as we know it comes largely from the primary sources and archaeological evidence left to us, or ideally it should. However, I have yet to claim that my "beliefs" are facts, and I have certainly not put my own "beliefs" in as "facts" because what I've put in are conclusions based on extensive analysis of the evidence available to us. And these are certainly far more factual and far more historically accurate than anything spiel or BS that you've been able to spill on this thread.

Now whether or not the Yuezhi make it into EB doesn't matter.

Really? Then why bother posting on this thread then? Perhaps you came here to show your ugly nationalistic bias and throw a tantrum at me because you're simply annoyed at the reason why I'm using Chinese sources on the Yuezhi? That you think your internet online sources, one from wikipedia, which shouldn't even be considered, are more reliable than primary sources?

You simply can't be historically accurate about it.

LOL. I see. I "simply can't be historically accurate about it". And did you think you can? What have I done and what have you done? Let's compare.

You think your pathetic sources that don't even have proper citations to the sources from which they got their info from are more correct than primary sources, archaeological evidence, or reliable secondary sources. You think modern-day Western people living over 2,000 years removed in both time and space as well as geographical area from the events they are describing in parts of the world and who don't even cite any of the original sources they used to acquire their info are supposedly more correct about the Yuezhi than the ancient Chinese historians living perhaps a few years, a few decades at most, and some who were even contemporary with the events that happened to the Yuezhi and some who even personally fought with them or their neighbors.

But oh wait, I maybe wrong. Perhaps you have a secret time machine at home and that you or your "peer-reviewed journal writers" have seen the real history and have seen the Yuezhi occupy Kashgar to claim that "right is right and wrong is wrong" and that current Yuezhi Yabgu should have the Yuezhi in it.

Who's being far more historically accurate is clear and it isn't people who think that their pathetic sources "that don't even have proper citations to the sources from which they got their info from are more correct than primary sources, archaeological evidence, or reliable secondary sources". In fact, I dare venture to say ask any competent historian/scholar and they will certainly be amazed and shocked at your laughable theory. I've never said that the primary sources were the final word or are totally right but that they are usually the most accurate evidence available to us. Sources is of primary importance and it is exactly that which you are horribly lacking in.

If you think you are more adepth at deciphering Yuezhi history, then do type up your "revolutionary" history or, more appealing to you, "the correct history" and let's see how many professors and scholars would agree with your "correct history" once it's submitted and subjected to viewing in the scholarly community.

I think Jurchen Fury does good research, but puts far too much faith in sources simply because they "first hand" and "primary", but that doesn't mean they are right, certainly not, especially considering the unreliability of sources from that time period.

I think fallen851 is a remarkably amazing hypocrite full of ignorance and who makes way too many ahistorical assumptions without any sources. He doesn't believe in the primary importance of using the most reliable sources available to us for the study of history because of his own ignorance on those sources in particular. He doesn't seem to understand that failure in modern-day sources to refer or cite those primary sources or archaeological evidence means that those sources, which constitute the majority of online sources in which fallen851 has shown to be very adept at, especially "googling", means that those modern-day sources need not even be considered or are seriously questionable sources at best. He seems to think that the writers of his "peer-review journals" are the full and ending authority on the subject and that either fallen851 himself or his writers have somehow been able to travel back in time and seen the real history, hence his constant usage and application of "correct" or "right" to his silly little assumptions. He doesn't seem to understand that his own beloved "peer-review journal writers" may very well be using the primary sources, reliable secondary sources, or archaeological evidence as well when writing about said subject, for that is the basis of historical research and in which is placed a central focus on. He also doesn't understand that jurchen fury has not said that the primary sources are the ending authority and he has also ignored jurchen fury's bringing up of using archaeology and checking how well the primary sources collaborate with other forms of evidence to test its validity. Fallen851 seriously doesn't understand what it means to do historical research or how important properly citing the primary sources are when talking about such controversial subjects as those that can be found in history.

Urnamma

01-02-2006, 21:06

Guys, be nice. :book:

Jebus

01-02-2006, 21:36

See, now this is why I never went for my master degree in history.

khelvan

01-02-2006, 22:44

Play nice, or I will have to shut this down!

Hun

01-03-2006, 04:39

LestaT

01-03-2006, 09:38

Surprise that these kind of languages can be in a PC gaming forum , though seeing the initiator of the thread and seeing those kinds of arguments also in other gaming forums didn't quite surprise me.

Games is made to be enjoyed especially interractive kind like pc's. Even Hollywood couldn't create true histories. What else can.

As for the topic , I will wait for the gold version of EB with Yuezhi Faction strictly for reasons of gaming, fun and playibility.

O_Stratigos

01-03-2006, 14:04

fallen851

01-03-2006, 15:55

KingOfTheIsles

01-03-2006, 17:26

Would it be possible to create a script for the AI-controlled Yuezhi, which restricts their expansion (and perhaps other nations' expansion into the steppe area surrounding it) until the historic date, and then script an event where they get a bunch of nomad troops, representing their migration? Obviously, this wouldn't work for the player's faction, but it might be necessary to let a tiny bit of historical accuracy go, in favour of improved gameplay.

Hun

01-03-2006, 19:49

Hello O_Stratigos, thanks! Well correct me if I'm wrong but the whole argument is about having the Yuezhi faction in the mod or not based on Fury research evidence which no one really questioned here however the accuracy of the evidence is really in question as any ancient written document would be.

After reading couple of books about and from philology professors I am convinced that what we may learned in school about history today was far(well at least sometimes) from the truth.

Anyhow I dont really want to get between this two here so I just wanted to state that I personally want the Yuezhi in the mod, that's all.

Reenk Roink

01-03-2006, 21:31

:inquisitive:

Um...Wow, this is getting quite nasty now...

A request for :closed:

Ludens

01-03-2006, 21:33

fallen851, I suggest you remove or at least edit the quote from the research student. That is not allowed, not even as a quote. Although I think that Khelvan is going to close the thread down anyway. This discussion contains far too much ad hominem attacks.

fallen851

01-03-2006, 21:37

Done. Sorry about that.

Yeah well, this conversation didn't really go anywhere...this being closed would be no loss, but I think Jurchen is going to want to respond, then maybe close it?

Ludens

01-03-2006, 22:18

Done. Sorry about that.

Yeah well, this conversation didn't really go anywhere...this being closed would be no loss, but I think Jurchen is going to want to respond, then maybe close it?
Thanks, but I think it's still offensive. You can read what it said quite easily.

This discussion is indeed going nowhere. I agree with you that one should use all sources, even first-hand ones, carefully but ignoring them, as you seem to advocate, is going against historical practice.

Jurchen Fury is trying to establish the postion of the Yeuzhi based on limited evidence, so he has to take whatever he can get. I can easily believe his position is by no means certain, but as yet is seems to be the most reasonable alternative, and that was what EB is looking for.

ScionTheWorm

01-03-2006, 22:29

Taking fallen851's point to the extreme, we can essentially say that nothing is certain and opens for all possibilities. Depending on how we define a reliable source, we can pretty much get rid of all factions and replace them with hobbit mutants with silly hats. I think the discussion is going nowhere.

As far as I can tell there is no convincing aruments saying that the Yuezhi's should be included, which is sad since they add interresting stuff to the gameplay.

Chieftain of Seir

01-04-2006, 03:05

This argument has gotten sadly personal and the thread will probably be closed. But being a true nerd, the futility of it all will not stop me from posting my 5 cents.

Point One
It seems to me that no matter what the developers do, the game is going to be historically inaccurate at the eastern edge of the map. There is no way that you can make a clean break between east and west and have it be historically accurate.

Point Two
I would argue that any faction that is at the eastern edge or close to the eastern edge of the map historically was oriented at least as much to the east as it was to the west. We just don't think of their interactions to the east as much because most of us are from the west and grew up reading about the west. Also we draw lot of are information from them from sources who where based in the west.

Point Three
It seems to me that even if the Yuezhi were on the game map at the time that the game starts, their orientation would to the east. It is natural for people to be most influenced by the richest and most powerful of their neighbors. For the Yuezhi that would be to the east, even if they temporally had the upper hand at the time that the game starts. The only thing that would change that orientation would be if something from east pushed them to the west. This is what I understand to be what actually happened in the long run. Though I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Point Four
Most people seem to take all that as an argument for dropping the Yuezhi. But to me those points cut both ways. All of the factions on the eastern edge (and I use that term loosely, I don’t mean just at very edge of the map) of the game map are in a sense artificial because the game allows them not worry about what happens in the east of the border. I don't think anyone would argue that was really the case.

Point Five
It seems to me that the people in charge of this project have chosen to try for a historically accurate map as possible at the time the game starts. I wish they would try for as historically accurate game play as possible. I know that most people think the two are one and the same and I will admit that they could be. I am no expert. But it seems to me that to create a situation where the Pahlava do not have to worry about anyone coming at them from the east is a least as historically inaccurate as having the Yuezhi already on the map at game start.

the_handsome_viking

01-04-2006, 03:22

In many ways this conversation highlights one key problem about the limitations of RTW in general within relation to the reality of history.

That reality I'm referring to is this gigantic knock on effect that you can see through out history.

To portray the story of the Yuezhi would in many ways require the inclusion of the Xiongnu, and in order to portray their story, it would require the inclusion of China, see where im going with this? Faction limitations and the lack of a world map are big problems when the objective is to portray history as accuratly as possible.

This doesn't mean you can't learn something from the mod however... though the portrayal and focus may have to become more limited, and by limited I mean use the point of view of a single significant faction that is represented in the mod, and really that faction is Rome.

The real story to be told is the story of Rome and the key players it interacted with, ideally while representing those players as accuratly as possible.

That said, I don't see why the various Yuezhi units have to go to waste, I mean, would it be extremely historically inaccurate to assume that some of the Yuezhi were mercenaries? so that major factions can higher and use the Yuezhi models and therefore be able to learn a little bit about the Yuezhi on their information scrolls?

Just a suggestion heh...

It's important to remember that you guys have done a really good job and that this problem is more related to the faction limitations than the limitations of your historical knowledge.

Ludens

01-04-2006, 19:55

Chieftain of Seir and the_handsome_viking have good points. Whatever the solution, the edge of the map will always be artificial. Whether or not the Yuezhi are included there will always be a threathening faction to the east. Given this answer, I think we should look to history, and history tells us the Yuezhi were no factor of influence in the eastern theatre and can be safely ignored at the start of the game. That's just my opinion, though. Others may feel that their destruction of Baktria is sufficient to warrant inclusion.

mattholomew

01-05-2006, 04:32

I feel that if the Yuezhi are nomads, they might be better potrayed by eleutheroi. THe absence of solid, relatively undebatable evidence makes them a rather questionable group. I feel that a second germanic faction might be better, or a middle eastern faction. The germanic faction would prevent the Sweboz from eventually controling the entire baltic and expanding against the general direction of "barbarian" migration from east to west (if i am right to assume that these began well before the period in BI) as well as preventing the Sauromatae from expanding across germania easily (at least when their likelyness to expand increases in later mods). On the other hand an arabian faction might be nice to help counter the seleucid/ptolemaic conquest of arabia. It seems to me that the yuezhi are not in the best position for the start of the game, as their territories expand far but only off of the map. This makes them less powerful than they would have been historically. In addition, the eastern provinces are so scarce in number that very few of the factions in the east will survive long enough or become powerful enough to take on the seleucids without being turned against each other. I'd like to see baktria and parthia take on the seleucids without having to worry about the yuezhi. That area of the map already has too many factions and too few cities

jurchen fury

01-05-2006, 21:02

The undergraduate student I showed your arguement to said this and I quote directly from the email from her:

"This is one of those people who believes there is answer to everything. We do not NOT and likely never will not ever know where the Yuezhi lived, and for this [edited out] to claim it, is ridiculous"

Unfortunately, it seems I was a bit too late to see what the "[edited out]" text was but I suspect it was something nasty from the comments in later posts. Anyway, it's pointless quoting from her because it's clear that she either hasn't read the thread carefully at all or understood my points or, for the sake of being your friend, wants to establish me as an enemy because I went against your argument. I also doubt that she is really an undergraduate student of Chinese history from the looks of her posts but I could be wrong. Anyway, it doesn't matter - Why hide behind an e-mail conversation and cook up gossip when she could clearly join this forum and debate with me one-on-one? I suggest you tell her that or maybe she lacks the guts to do so.

Anyway, it's clear that she doesn't know a thing about me so she can stop her BS assumptions about me and my position on the Yuezhi. In particular, she seems to either have missed these points I had brought up on accident or on purpose or failed to understand them:

There also exists the possibility that the primary sources and archaeological evidence left to us was not so "different from what actually happened during the period." especially since we actually don't really know "what actually happened during the period." since no one in the present travelled back in time and saw the "real truth". What has come down to us as "history" is mostly based on primary sources and archaeological evidence, or should be ideally, and they, which unfortunately constitute a minority of readily available information, should be regarded as the most authentic sources; otherwise, if we just drop whatever scrap we have left to us and just deem them all crap, we will never know what really happened in history and the field of "history" will cease to exist. Those sources are there and do help in reaching that goal and progressing a step further is better than having nothing, and hence, you will see that in my arguments, I almost always try to refer to and even quote from primary sources or studies on archaeological evidence whenever possible and do my own analysis of it as well as looking at analysis done by other authorities in reliable secondary sources. Probably, many primary sources, if not most, are prone to some form of "governmental propaganda" but without logical evidence that directly concerns the context of the source itself, simply dismissing it as unreliable without any logical reason or backed up by reliable sources would be illogical and evidently shows that person's bias and irresponsibility as a historian.

Again, we don't really know how "accurately recorded" is a certain history simply because no one from modern times travelled back in a time machine to the past to see just how inaccurate the recording of a certain history is. You seem not to understand that; because no one still alive today has seen the "real" ancient history, there is nothing to compare the ancient sources available to us to to even make a statement "Any period, of any culture whose history is not accurately recorded, should not be trusted." Usually, the "accurately recorded history" is based on a textual analysis of the primary sources available to us and interpretations made by secondary source authorities.

If "wrong" here is meant as "contrary to what happened in real history", because there aren't any witnesses alive to saw what happened in ancient history, then I guess no one can be wrong but then again, that can be said for any history and there would be no conclusions for any type of historical debate. If "wrong" here is meant as "contrary to what we know about them according to the primary sources" or "contrary to what we now about them that is considered to be the most genuine, logical, and historical info", then the sources you cited from are indeed wrong because they don't cite from any original sources at all.

Quite frankly, the study of the "reliability" of pre-modern sources is really about the study and analysis of the context of those sources themselves and how well they collaborate with other sources contemporary to the period being described (archaeological evidence being one) more than the study of how the history was recorded itself simply because there isn't much "reliable" evidence on that method (because the method of recording history for that particular source we are talking about also comes from sources contemporary to the period and even they maybe "unreliable" - can you personally have vouched that you've clearly seen Francesco Petrarch "peer-reviewing" all post-14th century Western history sources or that all historical sources after his time were "peer-reviewed") and a bit of "faith" in the belief that sources contemporary to or near the period being described is accurate, ie statements that don't meet the criteria of being deemed "unreliable" (no statements that contain logistically impossible numbers or anything not possible relative to reality) are accepted as "reliable". If we simply deem all pre-modern or, in your case, pre-14th century sources as simply unreliable, then we have nothing, nada, zero information on pre-modern history - by that point, what is the point of historical study if you will doubt any pre-modern sources on it, and what is the whole point of the field of history as we know it today? As I've said before, unless there was a time machine, we would never know what "really" happened in history, but choosing that option would lead us nowhere and the whole field of history would cease to exist. However, by the study and analysis of primary sources and archaeological evidence, we reach somewhere and we know something about history, and that is a far better option than knowing nothing, even if the history we know may not necessarily be "truly accurate" and what is generally accepted to be the most accurate and knowledgeable information available to us are the primary sources and archaeological evidence contemporary to the said period - that is the basis of all historical research and the study of history really focuses on that.

It seems she was oblivious to those posts I wrote. Rather, she seems more intent on trying to prove me wrong and back you up than anything else, and it only shows her personal bias and irresponsibility as a historian. The title of "undergraduate student of Chinese history" doesn't mean much, if anything, at all.

I also emailed one of the professors about your thoughts of the recording of history before Petrarch, and history and I quote from the email: "Was not recorded in any way we would consider accurate today anywere. He is incorrect."

You still haven't done any of this at all:

In particular, you say:

It fact, it wasn't until the 14th century, when Francesco Petrarch and the humanist movement began recording history, that history was truly accurately recorded the way it is today. Before this time it was customary for monks (they were the ones who usually did the writing of historical texts) or scribes (or anyone else) to "edit" or "add" in information to history to make it more exciting, even in

The statement of "history" may only pertain to "Western history" and that I may not particularly disagree with. However, you only say "history" as if you knew about the historiography of every single culture that ever existed in human history. That is a very sweeping generalization to make. Besides your anonymous "vouched for by two history PH.D professors at Clark University", that is all you can cite as "sources". In order for that statement to make any sense or have any type of reliability or scholarly consideration as pertaining to all of human historical historiography, you would have to show from first hand primary sources as well as reliable secondary sources how all the historiography and historical sources from all cultures that existed before Francesco Petrarch's time are totally "unreliable" and "inaccurately recorded" - it means it would require an understanding of the historiography of all cultures, not just "Western" historiography in history - that is your major error, ie because of your ignorance of non-Western historiography you think that everything "bad" in Western history is perhaps double-accounted for for non-Western cultures which evidently shows your bias. Since you have done neither of that, the "unreliability of pre-14th century sources from across the world" statement, which I doubt you've even quoted accurately and which I doubt you have any understanding of historical historiography of non-Western cultures, is uncalled for. Making a valid historical statement doesn't mean simply putting up a baseless assumption and only giving anonymous "sources" (especially since it is unwritten material) and then if the other person can't counter that argument then that makes your statement "valid"; it requires careful, rigorous, exhaustive hours of analysis of the primary sources and archaeological evidence and, in your case of history as if it pertained to all of human history, it would be extremely exhaustive - I doubt you can seriously do any of that.

And I also love your statement about "monks" and all as if every culture in the world before Francesco Petrarch's recorded their history by hiring Christian monks to do it for them. From that statement and also your lovely "village chief peasants", it shows that you have absolutely no understanding of the historiograhy of non-Western cultures. In the case of "China", Zhang Qian as an imperial envoy and later Han commander and Sima Qian being a professionally trained court historian with access to the large imperial archives already proves wrong your statement of "monks".

Anyway, because I doubt you can actually do that and also because had you done so, it still wouldn't lead us anywhere in this thread (as I will shortly show below), I won't press the matter on any further on this thread. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread in the "Monastery" on this issue?

Anyway, let's assume that "It fact, it wasn't until the 14th century, when Francesco Petrarch and the humanist movement began recording history, that history was truly accurately recorded the way it is today." is true (for the sake of the discussion, though I still would leave out "accurately"). Great. Now please tell me how does that suppose to help your argument in anyway or make your unreliable sources reliable at all or supposedly more reliable than the primary sources? We should make it clear that "history was truly accurately recorded the way it is today" may (again assuming) only apply for modern-day sources that elaborate on very recent "modern-day" history. How does it in anyway apply for modern-day sources that elaborate on ancient history, in this case, the Yuezhi, which are the sources that you've presented to me so far (and the thread is clearly about the Yuezhi, I need not even remind you that)? How does history being "accurately" recorded today have anything to do with a modern-day source that elaborates on ancient history. I want you to think about that. How do modern-day people accurately record ancient history? That doesn't make any sense at all. That was why I was compelled to bring up my sarcastic joke about your time machine and all because what you're saying makes absolutely no sense at all. That you would think that your modern-day sources would be more knowledgeable about ancient history than ancient sources contemporary with the ancient history being described itself. That is very funny "logic". How else do modern-day sources get their information on ancient history if not the primary sources or archaeological studies? The fact that they don't properly cite them reveals: 1. The irresponsibility and carelessness of the author of that modern-day tertiary source, 2. He/she probably drew his information not from the primary or reliable secondary sources but very possibly from other misleading sources, 3. He/she might not even know what he himself/herself is talking about or he/she might be confused himself/herself about the subject (especially the place names and all, e.g. like you). Now do you not understand what is wrong with your sources? If you still insist on them being correct, I don't know what else to say; you might as well quit this thread and establish that history is clearly not for you. In any case, your logic of "because I believe that ancient sources are crap and precisely because of the lack of evidence on the Yuezhi's living place, I 'feel' that they should be in current Yuezhi Yabgu" makes no sense at all.

"Does the word "hypocricy" not ring a bell? Did you not say that?"

Never did I ever say "I trust these two professors, or I trust this undergraduate student".

Never.

That would violate the laws I live by. I simply quoted them.

From the way you presented their arguments (believing they were relevant at all or even supported your own rguments and presented them as "evidence") already suggests to me that you do indeed trust those two professors or that undergraduate student. I don't care what you say next or you denying your own hypocricy and lacking clarity in your own arguments - you need not say directly that you trusted them in order for the rest of us to see that you indeed do trust them, otherwise you wouldn't have taken all the time to defend your points and arguments and keep on continually quoting from them.

Believe what you want like I said above (you didn't respond to that piece oddly...)!

Because what I want to "believe" is the most reasonable, logical, and historically accurate (relative to what is said in the most historically accurate evidence available to us, which doesn't necessarily mean that that evidence is totally entirely historically accurate) information whenever possible. However, you will almost certainly ignore my "which doesn't necessarily mean that that evidence is totally entirely historically accurate" and then don't believe that the conclusion was logical, reasonable, or historically accurate (do I always have to say this "relative to what is said in the most historically accurate evidence available to us, which doesn't necessarily mean that that evidence is totally entirely historically accurate"? everytime I say "historically accurate"?) and pretend that I believe in the primary sources like it was a religion or blind ideology when I have clearly not shown such, the case in which these wrong assumptions of me are the basis of your entire rant.

You don't want to believe them? I don't care. Do I believe them? No. Do I believe you? No.

LOL. Great. You can believe in whatever you want, including your very amusing "modern-day Western people living over 2,000 years removed in both time and space as well as geographical area from the events they are describing in parts of the world and who don't even cite any of the original sources they used to acquire their info are supposedly more correct about the Yuezhi than the ancient Chinese historians living perhaps a few years, a few decades at most, and some who were even contemporary with the events that happened to the Yuezhi and some who even personally fought with them or their neighbors." because I can't change a thing about what you believe. However, what you believe and what you say doesn't change a thing about the reliability of the sources you've presented to me so far (which it isn't very reliable at all) nor does it change the very basis behind historical research and scholarship (based on the examination of all the evidence available to us, as in the primary sources and archaeological evidence).

My objective is to show you there are other opinions, and the way I live is very similar to philiosophical Taoism (which is why I really like your comment about me being "nationalistic", as you'll find out how nationalistic I am below), I don't teach you, I show you how to not-know,

Did you not think that I never considered the "opinions" of others? I've written pages long arguments on the analysis of the evidence available to us and you will see that in those midst of arguments that I have definitely cited and quoted from secondary sources (which quote from and analyze the primary sources available to them) and have read the arguments of other secondary sources as well. You don't seem to understand that there can be "opinions" and regardless of your philosophical beliefs, common logic already says that there are also "valid" and "invalid" opinions as well. "Opinions" (if you prefer that, I simply state "arguments from reliable secondary source authorities") that are "valid" include proper citing from the primary sources and archaeological evidence and analyzing them and can also include citing from the "opinions" of other reliable secondary-source authorities as well. These "opinions" are what is called historically-based. "Opinions" from modern-day sources that don't cite any original sources from where they acquired their information from is the same as "theories created out of a vacuum" and doing so is being irresponsible to the goal of trying to find out as much about the "real" history as possible from the evidence available to us, and is also the same as making up the history itself. It is obvious that the opinions that conform to the latter need not even be considered in any serious scholarly debate, and because your sources meet this criteria, I was compelled to believe that your sources conformed to the latter type of opinion as I've outlined above.

because when people think they know, their opinions are hard to change and they are dangerous.

My "knowledge" is based on conclusions done from reasonable, logical, and "proper" methods of historical research and scholarship. Your "knowledge" (at least on this issue) is based on unreliable sources and your own refusal to admit that you were wrong or that there was anything wrong with your unreliable sources. It is evidently apparent that conclusions based on extensive analysis of the primary evidence available to us is far more closer to the historical reality (though that doesn't mean that the primary evidence is entirely accurate, again a time machine would solve all the problems and kill the field of history as we know it today) than conclusions based on theories created out of a vacuum.

When they define right, something becomes wrong, when they define good, something becomes bad. If we didn't hold these beliefs, that someone was right (you in this instance) and someone wrong (me in this instance according to you) then there wouldn't be wars, there wouldn't be people enforcing their beliefs on others.

Funny. I'd like to say the same about you. Especially since it was you who started all the ad-hominem attacks (education level? who are you? etc.). Now you are trying to act like some sort of pacifist philosopher (which BTW isn't Daoism) as if it would give any weight to your arguments at all and, in any case, totally irrelevant to the issue. You want me to bring up more? What about you assuming that I only cared about "winning a debate", a wrong assumption you made about me when you've no clue about who I am and what I've been doing here.

So now its time for a quick education.

You're absolutely correct. I don't believe, because I choose to be ignorant. Because when you think you know, when you believe, deep down in your very "soul" that you are correct, it is the most dangerous thing in the world. That is why Jesus was hung from a cross, that is why crusaders massacred hundreds of innocent people, that is why the Nazi's killed millions, because they, like you, believed they were right. How can they be wrong? How can you be wrong? You better die defending what is right, and you might as well take a many heathens (or undesireables, terrorists, whatever) like me with you. Right? Because it must be right? I mean you believe it, right?

So what should we believe? That which is based in science? I suppose, but it isn't like science isn't perfect either, without it, anti-semitism would have never developed. So believe nothing, but this won't work for most people because humans are stupid, so just don't believe those who think they have the answers.

Enough with the philosophical lecture and the rest of your irrelevant stuff. It won't, in anyway, give your arguments any weight at all nor is it relevant to the topic in question on this thread at all. And I also love how you tried to compare my "beliefs" with the Romans, Nazis, and Crusaders, as if their "beliefs" have anything to do with historical accuracy, historiography, or the Yuezhi at all. You want to compare the logical belief in the methods of historiography with the beliefs of your "mass murderers"? Then why don't you bring your stuff to your 2 history professors at that university and then challenge the whole field of history itself because, why, for you, it shouldn't even exist. Apparently, from your above statements, you aren't a fan of logic, reason, evidence, and science so I don't know why you're even replying to this thread at all since it's clear that you don't know a thing about the issue in debate. Why bother? In fact, according to your "logic" (yes, you're also "believing" - I suppose that makes you as blind and faithful as those Nazis or Crusaders, but then again, it would only make you look like a hypocrite and the purpose and intent of your post was to oppose that view, right?), we should know nothing. To be honest, you're just simply trolling and wasting my time.

No I don't think I can place the Yuezhi, and that has been my arguement.

Let's examine what you've posted, in particular this statement:

There does seem to be a dominant historical view that the Yuezhi lived in the western Tarim basin, but just because it is dominant doesn't mean it is correct, and the evidence supporting it comes from Chinese texts, which as historical sources, are questionable as I outlined above.

You are simply slamming the Chinese sources just because you think that every pre-14th century source in the world is as questionable as all pre-14th century "historical sources" written by Christian monks in the West. You've shown no understanding of what I've said so far and makes baseless assumptions about both Chinese historiography and what had been said in the Chinese sources. Great, now that you're trying to say that all my sources are unreliable (which they aren't, as you will shortly see below and in accordance to the methods of historiography), what do you suggest? That the Yuezhi should be included in current EB Yuezhi Yabgu, aka the Kashgar oasis, with your own unreliable sources and simply your own "feelings" about the subject? I don't really see what you're trying to get out of me here on this thread other than simply trolling whether you have a dislike for me or simply because you've nothing better to do.

I'm not making any kind of arguement about where they lived, except that I think we can't say for sure. That is it.

No one has said that we are absolutely sure where they lived. Please read from above:

There also exists the possibility that the primary sources and archaeological evidence left to us was not so "different from what actually happened during the period." especially since we actually don't really know "what actually happened during the period." since no one in the present travelled back in time and saw the "real truth". What has come down to us as "history" is mostly based on primary sources and archaeological evidence, or should be ideally, and they, which unfortunately constitute a minority of readily available information, should be regarded as the most authentic sources; otherwise, if we just drop whatever scrap we have left to us and just deem them all crap, we will never know what really happened in history and the field of "history" will cease to exist. Those sources are there and do help in reaching that goal and progressing a step further is better than having nothing, and hence, you will see that in my arguments, I almost always try to refer to and even quote from primary sources or studies on archaeological evidence whenever possible and do my own analysis of it as well as looking at analysis done by other authorities in reliable secondary sources. Probably, many primary sources, if not most, are prone to some form of "governmental propaganda" but without logical evidence that directly concerns the context of the source itself, simply dismissing it as unreliable without any logical reason or backed up by reliable sources would be illogical and evidently shows that person's bias and irresponsibility as a historian.

Again, we don't really know how "accurately recorded" is a certain history simply because no one from modern times travelled back in a time machine to the past to see just how inaccurate the recording of a certain history is. You seem not to understand that; because no one still alive today has seen the "real" ancient history, there is nothing to compare the ancient sources available to us to to even make a statement "Any period, of any culture whose history is not accurately recorded, should not be trusted." Usually, the "accurately recorded history" is based on a textual analysis of the primary sources available to us and interpretations made by secondary source authorities.

If "wrong" here is meant as "contrary to what happened in real history", because there aren't any witnesses alive to saw what happened in ancient history, then I guess no one can be wrong but then again, that can be said for any history and there would be no conclusions for any type of historical debate. If "wrong" here is meant as "contrary to what we know about them according to the primary sources" or "contrary to what we now about them that is considered to be the most genuine, logical, and historical info", then the sources you cited from are indeed wrong because they don't cite from any original sources at all.

Quite frankly, the study of the "reliability" of pre-modern sources is really about the study and analysis of the context of those sources themselves and how well they collaborate with other sources contemporary to the period being described (archaeological evidence being one) more than the study of how the history was recorded itself simply because there isn't much "reliable" evidence on that method (because the method of recording history for that particular source we are talking about also comes from sources contemporary to the period and even they maybe "unreliable" - can you personally have vouched that you've clearly seen Francesco Petrarch "peer-reviewing" all post-14th century Western history sources or that all historical sources after his time were "peer-reviewed") and a bit of "faith" in the belief that sources contemporary to or near the period being described is accurate, ie statements that don't meet the criteria of being deemed "unreliable" (no statements that contain logistically impossible numbers or anything not possible relative to reality) are accepted as "reliable". If we simply deem all pre-modern or, in your case, pre-14th century sources as simply unreliable, then we have nothing, nada, zero information on pre-modern history - by that point, what is the point of historical study if you will doubt any pre-modern sources on it, and what is the whole point of the field of history as we know it today? As I've said before, unless there was a time machine, we would never know what "really" happened in history, but choosing that option would lead us nowhere and the whole field of history would cease to exist. However, by the study and analysis of primary sources and archaeological evidence, we reach somewhere and we know something about history, and that is a far better option than knowing nothing, even if the history we know may not necessarily be "truly accurate" and what is generally accepted to be the most accurate and knowledgeable information available to us are the primary sources and archaeological evidence contemporary to the said period - that is the basis of all historical research and the study of history really focuses on that.

The highlighted statements should be evidently clear. If not, then I don't know what is for you. As you can see, I've never claimed my conclusions were entirely 100% historically accurate for the reasons I've highlighted above and will not take the time to simply repeat myself. What is usually regarded as "historically accurate" or what type of statements and conclusions that should even be considered in the scholarly community are statements concluded based on the methods of historiography, and I'm simply using the methods of historiography and historical research as done by the experts in the field, something you have absolutely no clue about. Logically and reasonably, those methods are far more closer to attaining the goal of historically accuracy (not even suggesting that those methods are not flawed or anything) than your suggestions, ie your very amusing "because of the lack of evidence, we can simply speculate or feel that the Yuezhi should be in current EB Yuezhi Yabgu". They are more historically accurate than your apparently baseless assumptions, and this "historically accurate" is relative to the methods of historiography. You can only see everything as either "black" or "white" with nothing in between, ie no "gray". You think that simply saying "more historically accurate" means that I've claimed it to be 100% so, and that you cannot distinguish between what is more and what is less and that it's neither totally this way or totally that way. The logical method would certainly be to head for the far more historically accurate direction, the very opposite direction of your methods. You're simply telling me to drop a very reasonable and logical approach to history and use erroneous suggestions of approaching history. I'm sorry but I can't do that and I bet no serious historian or scholar would.

I also think that you are naive and arrogant to believe sources because you have a little guideline of what sources to believe and what to believe in such an arbitary fashion.

I think that you're not only naive and arrogant, but also ignorant, stubborn, and pompous to continually reply in a thread about a topic that you have absolutely no clue about, that you lack even a very fundamental understanding of how historical research and scholarship is done. It is really you who is absolutely clueless on sources and their validity, quality, and the methods to distinguish reliable from unreliable among them.

First hand accounts = unreliable. I'm sorry that is the truth.

The opinions of people without any understanding of historiography or even the basic subject matter shouldn't be considered in any potentially fruitful historical debate (I doubt that now).

I can find plenty of junk sources using your system. There is plenty of "first hand accounts of UFO's" so quick, lets go document those! There are plenty of people who have seen ghosts, seen God, seen worthless crap... sigh.

No person in their right mind would think that the methods of historiography can be universally applied to absolutely because these are clearly methods used to conduct historical research. UFO's, ghosts, and Gods are not history and their references in any historical source no competent historian/scholar, or even just a regular layman, in their right mind would even consider seriously (and that is why I've also acknowledged the possibility of doubting some statements in the primary sources if they contain these things, but so far none of what I've shown does, and that is very clear).

From a firsthand account of a member of the Einsatzgruppen "we murdered 10,000 people that day, but it has to be done". I'm sorry to tell you, and I know it's a first hand account, a primary source, a letter from a man to his wife, but I'm sorry Jurchen, it is incorrect, they did not murder 10,000 people that day. I'm sorry, not every primary source is correct, in fact, most are incorrect. They are incorrect often even they really want to be correct, remember that Crack Panzer Division that intelligence didn't account for in Holland? Opps, Market Garden was a disaster. Now if they had never attempted Market Garden, that division would have never existed in Holland, because German accounts wouldn't be correct for history, only good old Allied intelligence.

It would help immensely if you actually described in particular what event and which Einsatzgruppen member you're talking about, though I doubt it still has any relevance at all to the Yuezhi and the issue currently being debated here. In any case, you seem not to understand that one case of inaccurate primary sources may not necessarily be representative of all primary sources because individual cases may differ depending on what type of source they come from and we have to look at each case indepthly. As of now, you've yet to give me a good logical reason or even evidence, if any at all, that Zhang Qian's report on the Yuezhi was blatantly wrong. The fact that you love to make sweeping generalizations about something you know next to nothing about and especially without any evidence (or unreliable evidence to be more precise and correct) at all doesn't show your knowledge on the issue at all.

Furthermore, as unreliable as primary sources may potentially be (if we simply assume they are according to you), they are still far more accurate than any of the sources you've presented to me so far, which are empty theories created out of a vacuum (because they fail to properly cite their original sources). A statement based on potentially reliable evidence is far more historically accurate than a made-up statement based on nothing. So all the stuff you've brought up still doesn't help your case or give your arguments any weight at all.

But it would be the history you'd read, the history you wouldn't question, the history you'd quote, and it would be wrong, and that is why I don't believe anything.

Right, you can doubt all you want, but the fact remains that the sources I've presented so far are more reliable than the ones you've presented. I've shown reason to doubt some of the statements in the primary sources as in my previous posts but the doubts are not mirrored in the situation concerning Zhang Qian and the Yuezhi. I've never said that the primary sources were the final word or are totally right but that they are usually the most accurate evidence available to us in regards to ancient history, so I don't know what you're talking about when you think I never question them.

And this is exactly the problem. If you really want me to construct an arguement like Jurchen Fury, with all his pictures from google earth and such, I'll have someone do it. And using the sources they know about (being experts in this field) they can place them.

I also love the way you're trying to mock me here, "with all his pictures from google earth and such" even though the majority of them aren't actually mines and calling me "naive, arrogant, playing God". As if you or any of your "experts in this field" (experts in Western history perhaps, but in East Asian history, I'm afraid not, and certainly not your undergraduate girl-friend) can do better. Perhaps you can join EB and type up your "revolutionary" Yuezhi history based on empty theories created out of a vacuum. I would love to see your "revolutionary" Yuezhi history - no harm in bringing some fun into this thread although crushing your arguments was initially fun too! I also love how you seem to forget your own biblical "peer-reviewed journals" as if the mention will actually give any weight or support to your arguments at all. Hypocricy again, but what can I expect from you?

Except it will come with a big disclaimer "Sources may or may not be right", because we are not so naive, not so arrrogant, to play God and say "I have the answers and here they are based on these sources that can be trusted because they follow my guidelines!"

Please. Don't make me laugh. You're not even qualified to talk about sources, much less talk about Yuezhi history. I've presented my sources with the assumption (perhaps a very wrong one) that people who would attempt an argument against my case unquestionably knows the methods of historiography in mind. I felt it need no clarification, ie no big disclaimer. But it seems I was very wrong because a person who lacks even the fundamentals of historiography has attempted a case against me. I think that person is not only naive and arrogant, but also ignorant, stubborn, and pompous to continually reply in a thread about a topic that he has absolutely no clue about, that he lacks even a very fundamental understanding of how historical research and scholarship is done. It is really he who is absolutely clueless on sources and their validity, quality, and the methods to distinguish reliable from unreliable among them.

[B]Because we don't have the answers and niether does he.

You're right. Both of us don't have the "real truth" but my conclusions are certainly far more logical and reasonable than yours, at least relative to the methods of historiography. If we go with your assumptions and "philosophy", why this mod and history as a field of study should both cease to exist.

If you want the answers, my friends, you can find them by believing in western religion (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), Communism or Facism to name a few. (Please note that last sentence was written with sarcasm).

I love how you tried to compare my "beliefs" with the Romans, Nazis, and Crusaders, as if their "beliefs" have anything to do with historical accuracy, historiography, or the Yuezhi at all. You want to compare the logical belief in the methods of historiography with the beliefs of your "mass murderers"? Then why don't you bring your arguments to your 2 history professors at that university and then challenge the whole field of history itself because, why, for you, it shouldn't even exist. You aren't a fan of logic, reason, evidence, and science so I don't know why you're even replying to this thread at all since it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Why bother? In fact, according to your "logic" (yes, you're also "believing" - I suppose that makes you as blind and faithful as those Nazis or Crusaders, but then again, it would only make you look like a hypocrite and the purpose and intent of your post was to oppose that view, right?), all competent historians/scholars are faithful religious believers. You're just simply trolling and wasting my time.

Worse is when he says he can pick out the government propaganda from the "real sources".

What is far more worse is that fallen851 cannot "admit defeat", something which he amusingly accused me of in his initial post on this thread when in fact he had absolutely no clue of who I am. He believes his pathetic sources that don't even have proper citations to the sources from which they got their info from are more correct than primary sources, archaeological evidence, or reliable secondary sources. He thinks modern-day Western people living over 2,000 years removed in both time and space as well as geographical area from the events they are describing in parts of the world and who don't even cite any of the original sources they used to acquire their info are supposedly more correct about the Yuezhi than the ancient Chinese historians living perhaps a few years, a few decades at most, and some who were even contemporary with the events that happened to the Yuezhi and some who even personally fought with them or their neighbors.

But oh wait, I maybe wrong. Perhaps him, his undergraduate friend, and his lovely "peer-review journal writers" have access to a secret time machine hidden deep down somewhere and have all seen the real history in which the Yuezhi occupy Kashgar. Certainly so, otherwise he wouldn't have the audacity to claim that his modern-day sources which don't even cite the primary sources are more correct about the issue than the primary sources themselves, though he cannot seem to grasp the idea that just because primary sources are more reliable than his pathetic sources that that doesn't automatically mean that the primary sources are 100% correct.

Who are you?

I am a person who understands the methods of historiography. You don't. I strive for historical accuracy whenever possible. You don't and could care less, judging from your posts.

Who gives these powers?

Logic, reason, evidence, and a proper understanding of historiography gives me these powers, all of which you already admitted you lacked.

Just because you think "they have no reason to lie" should make you think they are lying.

LOL. After all this time and your lengthy rants, you still haven't given me a good reason why Zhang Qian's report on the Yuezhi is totally entirely wrong, inaccurate, full of bull, etc.

You cannot be certain, just like you can't be certain the sun will rise tomorrow, it probably will, but you never know. To claim it will rise without a doubt, is naive and arrogant.

Fallen851, please don't try to put words into my mouth. I've never claimed that the primary sources were the final word or are totally right but that they are usually the most accurate evidence available to us. You can't seem to grasp the idea that just because primary sources are more reliable than your sources doesn't automatically mean that the primary sources are 100% correct. I don't feel like repeating myself the 3rd time but go take a look at the beginning of this post in which I've highlighted my statements from previous posts.

Of course there are things in life that are certain, but that is another discussion. Now I'm not leaving us with a lot of answers here, and probably making people question why any nation should be included in EB, but this circles back to "who should we believe?". It is pretty obvious the Romans lived in Rome. I don't think any person who claims to be a historian, and makes educated guesses would doubt that. The only reason I don't believe, is because I don't believe anything (except a few things...).

Right, and it's pretty obvious that you either haven't read carefully or your "belief" in the Roman faction (yes, you are again "believing", perhaps having faith in the Romans like a religion or a blind ideology, ie your examples?), while being inconsistent with your logic of doubting all ancient sources, as ScionTheWorm has made clearly here:

Taking fallen851's point to the extreme, we can essentially say that nothing is certain and opens for all possibilities. Depending on how we define a reliable source, we can pretty much get rid of all factions and replace them with hobbit mutants with silly hats. I think the discussion is going nowhere.

, evidently shows your own nationalistic bias, and yes, I will repeat, nationalistic bias simply because you choose to believe in Western sources because you feel like it. You are indeed remarkable. Amazing. Bravo.

But from the people I've talked to, to the things I've read, the opinions on the Yuezhi are quite different, "Who should we believe?" now? Should we be believing people in general, that say "I have the answers!" on any controversial issue?

LOL. At this point, you still can't admit the truth (I don't care if you "believe" it or not), ie:

As is common in studies in the West on topics that derive most of its info from non-Western languages, probably because of the language-barrier, and also partly because most of the sources you've presented so far are unreliable tertiary sources with no references to the sources they derived their info from, and because of them coming mainly from the internet, therefore the "differences". According to my experience, this happens quite often on non-Western history topics (Chinese history topics for example), in contrast to the Western-history topics. It is generally almost useless and nothing conclusive nor leads one to anywhere when tertiary sources are used when researching non-Western history topics. Good source material on the Yuezhi or most non-Western history topics, ie reliable secondary sources or, even better, English translations of the primary source material, is extremely hard to find online. Because of thse problems, mistakes often being repeated over and over again like wildfire appear in many internet sources and you will get an abundance of sources that repeat the same mistake over and over again, while other sources don't repeat the mistake and thus leaves the internet reader confused as to the real reliability of both types of information. I generally don't waste my time trying to look at tertiary sources or unreliable secondary sources, especially if they are merely personal internet webpages.

My "answers" are based on methods of historiography (which I never claimed were 100% historically accurate at all, just that they logically and reasonably may be the most historically accurate method, at least far more than your suggestions), and while you leave no answers, your doubts and your sources need not even be considered. You also won't admit that you don't understand what I've been saying all along or have even a basic understanding of Yuezhi history; no one is telling you to agree with me 100%. I'm simply telling you to use logic, reason, and reliable sources in your arguments if you want to bring up a case against my argument. So far, you refuse to do so.

No, because you should know from reading this post what happens when people think they know, it is why the holocaust happened (be careful though, because trying to answer a question, and thinking you know the answer, are totally different things).

I should know by now from reading your posts that you don't know what you're talking about regarding historiography and historical research to even talk about historical accuracy. I'm sorry but that is the naked truth.

Following someone like that, is to believe authority, and I outlined the definition above. Don't follow that line of thinking ever, whether is it something as terrible as racist ideology, or something as innocent as this arguement, it is wrong in any case.

And that is why I don't believe.

Following someone like you leads to nowhere but only into confusion and misunderstanding.

By the way, Einstein was not a rocket scientist.

~:rolleyes: I never said he was.

I'm still waiting for your MIT article. BTW, it's "Tokharoi", not "Tokharoiare" ("Tokharoi are") which makes me doubt that you really do have access to the article.

Justiciar

01-05-2006, 21:38

Puffer fish?

jurchen fury

01-05-2006, 21:49

Greetings to all! (You know first post here! (maybe last?!)).

First I think this is the best looking and most promising mod out there IMHO.

Anyhow, back to topic I signed up here to support of this great community and to say a few world about this Yuezhi "crises".

It is unfortunate to see such an intelligent person like you Jurchen Fury missing the whole point of fallen851 argument. It is widely accepted even in the academic community that any historical source must be treated with the outmost care regarding accuracy. I'm just the amateur historian and I'm really sort of time to go into pages of argument with you about accuresy of historic sources, beside I don't think any one could put up a better fight than fallen851 did, so I wont even try! However you must ask yourself do you truly believe that everything they wrote back then were accurate to the last world? That's it, if you answer this question you shall see that fallen851 has a point after all.

Hello Hun and welcome!~;)

I am sorry but I believe that your "take" on the situation is quite faulty..
The main argument-statement by fallen851 that "one shouldn't believe 100% of what one reads" about everything in general and ancient history in particular is like one saying that night follows day, the response to which is…DOH! and nowhere in his posts does jurchen furry says that he does so or even that he believes such.

When one brings forward a proposition about something, one has to first present evidence-sources, then proceed to explain why one has arrived at a certain conclusion based on said evidence-sources and finally invite others to comment on the proposition.
That is exactly what jurchen furry has done; he is simply saying (well..not quite so simply…lol) "here is the conclusion I've arrived at and here is how and why".
Then others may respond by either arriving at different conclusions using some-all of said evidence-sources or by presenting different evidence-sources, both of which- I am sorry to say- fallen851 fails to do by a long country mile…

O Stratigos :bow:

Thanks O Stratigos.

I don't want to prompt another round of ad-hominem attacks, but "Hun", I would appreciate it very much if you actually took the time to read my arguments rather than simply just reading what fallen851 has said in his arguments. I have not taken a biblical religious approach to the primary sources, contrary to what he had suggested, but have simply indicated that the primary sources are generally the most reliable information available to us modern-day people in regards to ancient history. While it is true that no source can be 100% correct and that the primary sources can be prone to government propaganda or simply mistakes, there is no such indication found in the relevant info in Zhang Qian's report on the Yuezhi in the Shi Ji. You will find that fallen851's approach to history is very flawed because he thinks that every pre-14th century source is unreliable. He thinks that your average online internet article, ie stuff from wikipedia, or any modern-day source elaborating on ancient history but lacking proper citations and a bibliographical list, is more historically accurate than a primary source from the contemporary era. That he believes his peer-review journal writers know more about the Yuezhi than a Han envoy/later commander who personally visited the Da Yuezhi and 3 other states to the west of the Han and who was responsible for the information he gave is beyond me. I don't know - perhaps time travel is possible? That believing sources over 2,000 years removed from the time period being described and thousands of miles away from the area and that even lack proper citations or a bibliographical list to be more reliable than the primary sources at least one competent in history should know to be a major flaw and it shouldn't even become an argument that spans long and borderline-flame posts; I need not even remind him of that. He likes to bring up irrelevant stuff about the supposed unreliability of primary sources and also loves to generalize yet he fails to see that individual cases differ depending on the source and the intent of the source authority. I don't know why he's picking only on the Yuezhi; if he was consistent with his logic, the field of history and EB along with it shouldn't even exist.

GoreBag

01-05-2006, 22:08

Puffer fish?

Delicious.

Aaanyway, this will be a pretty one-sided debate until the pro-'Yuezhi in EB' faction is available.

Reenk Roink

01-05-2006, 22:25

In all honesty, Jurchen Fury has made an excellent case about the location of the Yuezhi. After reading through only some of his intial posts thoroughly (I merely skimmed through the flame war) he makes an excellent case, and nobody has been able to bring up sources that directly contradict his hypothesis. Now, of course, there was another EB member, Pedro, who did think that the Yuezhi should be included, so I suppose it would be best if he could show up, but that hasn't happened so far. Jurchen Fury, it has been stated by other EB members, was extremely important in the development of the Yuezhi faction for EB, therefore, I tend to look at his arguments with a degree of credibility, as aside from being very comprehensive and well-cited, you could say that he is one of the Yuezhi faction creators.

The argument against Jurchen Fury is quite queer and polemical, as you can apply such statements to any period of time, to any people, including today (Bush called the democrats "history rewriters"). There will always be biases and points-of-view whenever anyone writes history and the reader will bring his or her own bias and point of view as well.

khelvan

01-05-2006, 23:58

I believe this thread has outlived its usefulness.