The Yuezhi's Inclusion in EB - Debate

[jurchen fury]

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]

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]

lol touché

[Simmons]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Chester]

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

[Teleklos Archelaou]

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]

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/sil...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, “the first Indo-Europeans in history,� is discussed at some length in Mallory and Mair (2000), pp. 281-282. They explore Henning’s suggestion that the ancient pronunciation of ‘Yuezhi� could be approximately reconstructed as *Gu(t)-t’i and related it to the ‘Guti’ 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 “Gutian country� 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 ‘Kuchean-Agnean’ or ‘KA’ language “would 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, “Of greater detriment to such a theory is that Henning accepted a reconstructed Chinese pronunciation of Yuezhi as *Gu(t)-t’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]

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]

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.

[Sahran]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.
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.


.

[jurchen fury]

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]

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:



Map 2:



Map 3:



Map 4:



Map 5:



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/featur...pClickCheck=on, Lake Balkhash seems to be inaccurately depicted as well. Compared to the Encarta map, the Lake Balkhash on the EB map here:



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:



Map 7:



Map 8:



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]

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]

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!]

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:



Map 2:



Map 3:



Map 4:



Map 5:



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



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/featur...pClickCheck=on, Lake Balkhash seems to be inaccurately depicted as well. Compared to the Encarta map, the Lake Balkhash on the EB map here:



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:



Map 7:



Map 8:



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:



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".

The intelligence......

(The intelligence!!!)

*Dies from shock*

Blarg balrg balrg!!!!!! Bleh.... Take me!

This is spam, i know, so to stay on topic.....

Well, I thought that you were a troll too, same as jerby. It seemed like you were a cocky troll, saying you had the sources when you didn't. Meh.

[Ludens]

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.

[QwertyMIDX]

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

[khelvan]

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]

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 [barbarians] 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, 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 [barbarians] 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? 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]

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]

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.