Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Goguryeo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

now how 'bout it?

i found that the "military" section of the article was pretty much based on a paper by asmolov konstantin. i also found out it also happens to be the only credible english source that delves that deeply into the army of koguryo. the paras were utterly a mess so i switched out some stuff and gave it a facelift. i also added a few bits of my own based on an interesting book in my possession, (Peers, Cj. Soldiers of the dragon, osprey ‘06). the section suffered and still does from lack of citations, but i'll see if people approve of this anyway. Billy the ferret (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Military Main article: Military history of Goguryeo

Kokuryo was a dominant kingdom with its own sphere of influence separate from other east asian entities. Throughout its existence the Kingdom of Kokuryo exercised military action ranging from border skirmishes to punitive expeditions with its neighbors, mainly with the neighboring kingdoms of Baekje and Shilla. To a lesser extent Kokuryo were engaged in struggles with the Chinese to the West and the Hsien-pi to the north.

Kokuryo fielded five armies in the capital, mostly cavalry that were personally commanded by the king, numbering approximately 12,500. Military units varied in number from 21,000 to 36,000 soldiers, were located in the provinces, and were led by the governor. Provincial armies were virtually private armies of the lords acting as provincial governors. Military garrisons near the boundaries consisted mostly of soldiers and peasants, a first line of defense and early warning against foreign invasion. Goguryeo was able to maintain and utilize a standing force of 50,000 at any given time, and in times of emergency armies could be mobilized to figures as high as 300,000, sometimes as high as 650,000 on one occasion.

Few records remain regarding the military of Goguryeo. A Tang treatise of 668 records a total of 675,000 displaced personnel among 176 military garrisons after the surrender of King Bojang.

Goguryeo’s regular army consisted mainly of mounted units such as cataphract cavalry and cavalry archers. It is Widely speculated that the infantry was a closed battle order. Evidence that kokuryo maintained a significant naval force is demonstrated by large- scale naval engagements during one or more of the Sui-Goguryeo wars.

Military Equipment If not always, the Koreans often avoided engagements in open terrain. Throughout its five thousand year history battles involving walled cities and fortified towns were the most common, and Goguryeo was no exception. Most of the battles during the Sui and Tang invasions took place at or near a fortress. For this sort of static warfare the most common and recurring weapon used was obviously the bow, a quite standard weapon among both the peasantry and the elite. Kokuryo was a hunting culture with a distinguished reputation for fine mounted archers. Wall paintings of people identified as kokuryo nobles hunting on horseback found in North Korea back this claim. Two hunts per year were led by the king himself.

Goguryeo units were divided according to weapons: spearmen, halberdiers, archers whether it be infantry or mounted, and various types of cavalry ranging from light to heavy. Other groups like the catapult units, wall-climbers, and storm units were part of the special units and were added to the common. This suggested probably a closed battle order, and a common disadvantage with it that limited maneuverability.

Chinese and Korean sources mention a specialized cataphract cavalry (鎧馬武士, or Gaemamusa) and archeological finds of the armor used by these units are on display in the seoul war museum. Recently unearthed royal tombs of the kokuryo kings have found bronze spiked boots that probably may have been used by cavalry to trample opponents. Fortifications The most common form of the Goguryeo fortress was one made in the shape of the moon, located between a river and its tributary for natural defense barrier and was usually built on high ground for obvious tactical reasons. Ditches and ground walls between the shores formed an extra defense line. The walls were made from huge stone blocks fixed with clay. Examples survive all over Liaodong and the Korean peninsula. Walls were surrounded by a ditch to prevent an underground attack. A network of walled cities, fortified towns, and military garrisons along the liao and the amnok was called the Cheolli Jangseong .

Military Strategy The military formation had the general and his staff with guards in the middle of the army. The archers were defended by axemen. In front of the general were the main infantry forces, and on the flanks were rows of heavy cavalry ready to counterattack in case of a flank attack by the enemy. In the very front and rear was the light cavalry, used for intelligence, pursuit, and for weakening the enemy's strike. Around the main troops were small groups of heavy cavalrymen and infantry. Each unit was prepared to defend the other by providing mutual support. Goguryeo implemented a strategy of active defense based on cities. Besides the walled cities and fortified camps, this active defense system used small units of light cavalry to continuously harass the enemy, de-blockade units and strong reserves, consisting of the best soldiers, to strike hard at the end. Goguryeo also employed military intelligence and special tactics as an important part of the strategy. Goguryeo was good at disinformation, and on one occasion they did so much as sending stone spearheads as tribute to the Chinese court when they were already in the Iron Age. Goguryeo had developed its indigenous system of espionage. One of the most famous spies, Baekseok, mentioned in the Samguk yusa, was able to infiltrate the Hwarangs of Silla.

Edit war over "Empire"/"Emperor", &c.

I have protected the article for one week due to the edit warring. Please discuss the propriety of the use of "empire," "emperor," &c. here. Please try to make arguments backed up by logic. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nlu, btw... what is the convention in Wiki? Is 太王 ever translated as "Emperor" or is the only term (in the East Asian sense) translated as such 帝 (Je)? WangKon936 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Korean government, It is an empire and Goguryeo was the multi-ethnic country. if you wanna change to kingdom. we should remove such as CPOV, RPOV. Because kingdom means single nation. --Tnaniua (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

and Do you think Cydevil38, WangKon936 are more reliable than Oxford, Collins Cobulid, and the Korea's Offical Website? --Tnaniua (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell us what CPOV, RPOV, and KPOV mean? Spacepotato (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tnaniua, can you get a real user page so we can talk to you directly? WangKon936 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Although his user page is a redlink, you can still contact Tnaniua on his talk page. Spacepotato (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more from the editors actually involved in the dispute before I would give a more definitive opinion -- and note that my opinion is no more authoritative than anyone's. I protected the page because of the edit war, not because I believe that one side is necessarily more right than the other. In other words, again, logical reasoning is the key. I believe that I can be persuaded by good argument from either side. However, I think one thing that has to be explained by a proponent of the use of "emperor" or "empire" in the argument: is there a good reason to believe that the Goguryeo rulers' use of the title 王 (wang), rather than 帝 (di in Chinese, che in Korean) is not dispositive on the issue? Would one refer to Barack Obama as an emperor even if he uses the title of president? That is an issue that has to be addressed, although I realize not always dispositive. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nlu, the Samguk Sagi is available online and I believe it's also searchable as well. One could very easily query for 王 vs. 帝 and see if any Korean monarch during the period referred themselves as 帝. WangKon936 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I will post my thoughts on the matter this weekend. Some of us have jobs! WangKon936 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In describing the history, there is an important point. every countries having different situation and the nature. such as the language problem so as to see subtle differences that can bring up to a serious misunderstanding is the issue. What is difference between king and emperor? these words don't have any difference. emperor, king - It's just ruler. Goguryeo's ruler called 'Taewang'(太王) -- 王 is king? 帝 is emperor? It's only in CPOV. -- I said above, the language of the country is the most important element of uniqueness. In Goguryeo's view, Goguryeo is center of the world. So they called 'Taewang'(太王, Emperor), and Goguryeo was multi-ethnic country, According to Oxford, Collins Cobulid. single-ethnic monarchy country is kingdom but multi-ethnic monarchy country is empire. --Tnaniua (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Tnaniua, can you please provide web links to the sources you say refer to Koguryo as an Empire? WangKon936 (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets just take a vote and get it over with.

Goguryeo is a kingdom.

Goguryeo is commonly referred to as a kingdom in reliable sources. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gogurye is an empire.

Lets just take a vote? It's unfair, and reliable sources? According to Korean government and Oxford, Collins Cobulid(and many english dictionaries) - Gogurye is an empire. --Tnaniua (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's go for a vote. Besides myself, Cydevil and Tnaniua, who's voting? WangKon936 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tnaniua, what is typically referred to and translated as "Emperor" in the English language is 皇帝, or Hwang Je or more simply 帝 or Je. 太王 is Tae Wang or Great King. I believe that Silla and Paekje kings called themselves 太王 sometimes too. Do we go into the Silla and Paekje articles and replace all the references to "King" to Emperor as well? The only time 帝 was used for a Korean monarch was during the Korean Empire or the Daehan-jeguk (大韓帝國) period which was the brief time before the Japanese colonial period. There, Gojong is correctly referred to as "Emperor" or 帝 ("Je") in wikipedia. WangKon936 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is not decided by "voting" but by argument. Tnaniua, you have to show evidence that "Gogurye" is referred to as "empire" by Korean government and Oxford, Collins Cobulid(and many english dictionaries). Not separately arguing that Goguryeo was consisted of multiple ethnics, and empire is consisted of multiple ethnics. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I said above, the language of the country is the most important element of uniqueness(eg. see [1], Emperor of Ethiopia called king of king - and 太王 is the Greastest king.) also See [2][3][4][5].--Tnaniua (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki page can not be your back up when it comes to "reliable sources", and you've only brought "one" sources for your claim, the others are spuriousness that does not show "Goguryeo is referred to as empire".--Caspian blue 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the links provided by Tnaniua and I don't see any real evidence to support his POV. The Korea.net link refers to Koguryo sovereigns as "Kings" not emperors. I will quote:

"The founder of Goguryeo was King Chumo, or Gojumong, who originally came from the State of Buyeo."

"By the middle of the first century A.D., during King Taejo's reign..."

"It was King Gwanggaeto (r. 391-413), who greatly changed the map of Goguryeo..."

The burden of proof is still on Tnaniua's shoulders. WangKon936 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We can choose other things, For example removing all CPOV, because Goguryeo is a kingdom. - it was the most important issue for me. --Tnaniua (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, what "things" are "CPOV"? WangKon936 (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

such as chinese name box. --Tnaniua (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We had a VERY long discussion about it in the archives. I recommend you review those because a lot of issues have been hashed out and corrected in there. Ultimately it was decided that the Chinese name box should be included not because Koguryo "belongs" per se, to China but because it played such an important role in Chinese history. Furthermore, the name boxes of all the countries that currently occupy Koguryo land should be included, not just China, but that would also include Russian name box as well. WangKon936 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the arguments made. Here's my view: The United States is also often referred to as an empire. That doesn't make Barack Obama an emperor. If a Korean (or Vietnamese, or Japanese, or Nanzhao, or whatever nation in Asia) sovereign claimed imperial title, he/she should be referred to as an emperor/empress regardless whatever the regime in China at the time might view the matter. But if he/she didn't claim imperial title, for us, in the posterity, to impose a title on the person that the person never used, would be wrong. If the person used the title of king/queen, use that. If the person claimed the title of khan, use that. If the person used the title of president, use that. That's hardly a "Chinese POV"; that's a POV that whatever title the person claimed should be the one that is used in the article. --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nlu, I'm looking at the evidence here and it looks like Koguryo gave the title of 太王 posthumously, after the death of a king. This appears to be done for Gwanggaeto. He was 大王 while he was alive and 太王 at his death. I think this is what the Vietnamese did as well. Give an "emperor-like" titles posthumously. Wiki calls Vietnamese monarchs "Kings" not "Emperors." WangKon936 (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When Vietnamese monarchs claimed the title of 帝, they are referred to as emperors. See, e.g., Bao Dai. --Nlu (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes true, but as far as I know, Koguryo monarchs never used the title 帝. WangKon936 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The key for me is how do we translate the title 太王 and did Koguryo monarchs use that title while they were living rather than given that title posthumously at their death? WangKon936 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so that's why I don't favor referring to them as emperors, unless Tnaniua or someone else can make a convincing argument that 大王 is the equivalent of 帝. Note that referring to them as emperors would also create another issue -- how do you distinguish between their titles and those of the later Korean monarchs who did use the title of 帝? --Nlu (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I also have to concede this sua sponte: I myself treat the Chinese title of Tian Wang (天王) as emperor even though it is not 帝, but that's more out of necessity since the title holders were all posthumously referred to as 帝. --Nlu (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

However, it appears for Koguryo monarchs they are referred to as 大王 while they are alive and 太王 after their death. I don't think Koguryo monarchs are ever referred to as 帝 in any written materials. WangKon936 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Goguryeo Monarch did used 太王 as King of Kings, before this I don't think Koreans ever used "帝", and even "王" before adaption of class system from China. 太王 can be translate into something similar to Shah or Tsar. Great Britain empire never used the title of Emperor but did used King of Kings, so the main question is "Goguryeo is empire?", the answer is Yes during Gwanggetto & Jangsu resigns, both Silla, Malgal, and few other smaller states became their protectorate states. Goguryeo practically had five ruling tribes, which they elect leader to represent them to ruler of Goguryeo, very similar to British Empire.--Korsentry 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

帝 was only used twice in korean history. once in the early goryeo dynasty and once in late joseon dynasty. differences between the word "emperor" and "king" is somewhat ambiguous. a japanese emperor was bestowed a royal order by an english king. another instance an emperor of later yan submitted to the king of goguryeo. Goguryeo was an empire, but like Nlu said, you can't call a barack obama an emperor. Never once was the title 帝 ever used by goguryeo kings, never once was 帝 never enfeoffed by chinese emperors( the arrogant ***ks never would), and only once was the term "太王" ever used. in east asian history thereis no difference between 大王 and 王. The ming dynasty recognized the joseon monarch as 王, and the korean bureaucracy still wrote in their books 大王. so i always treated the preceding 大 or 太 as an adjective. some Christians refer to jesus of nazareth as "king of kings", but i've never heard even the most fundamentalist christian call him an emperor. rather they give him puny title "lord" which i think is 王 with a little slash on top. That just reminds me, the stone jade, which is also similar to the character 王, was a stone usually associating in royalty. hence it were chinese kings that were mummified in jade and korean kings that wore jade ornaments in their crowns. i feel like im jumping from topic to topic, but i wanted to add a little insight. 71.132.67.151 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

帝 never used before Korean empire in korean history. the goryeo's Gwangjong refered him as 帝 in official letter to Bohai, but that doesn't mean goryeo used 帝. 112.162.197.118 (talk)

Goguryeo is Manchurian !

where is evidence goguryeo is korean？ in foundation time, goguryeo were based in Manchuria and it's peoples also came from Manchuria. goguryeo used puyu-family language distinguished from silla. 112.162.197.118 (talk)

There is no conclusive evidence that Koguryo and Silla spoke a different language. There is discussion that Koguryo spoke a language that was once spoken by a people in the central Manchurian kingdom of Puyo. However, if this theoretical language did exist than it was also spoken by people in the Baekje kingdom, which was well within the Korean peninsula. There is a web site that talks in detail about how the Baekje kingdom may have also used the theoretical Puyo language (http://www.corea.it/kudara_1.htm). WangKon936 (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Peakche and Goguryeo's rulling class were discendent of fuyu, but Silla is not. i can't find the evidence notes Silla and Peakche, Goguryeo shared same culture. 61.99.38.227 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the completely your own original research and POV pushing. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What's a Manchurian? Koreans inhabited Manchuria. You fail. Akkies (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Koguro can be considered Korean because its legacy was carried on by Koreans. Koguryo was known as "Koryo" and not Koguryo toward the end of its history, as recorded in Chinese history books. After the fall of Koryo(Koguryo), many states claiming to be the successor of Koryo(Koguryo) emerged, such as Liao Dynasty, Bohai, and Je Dynasty, but none claimed to be Koryo itself, until the founding of Koryo by resident of Gaesung who are remnants of Koryo's capital Pyungyang citizens 233 years after the fall of Koryo(Koguryo). In fact, their insistence that they are the true resurrection of Koryo(Koguryo) was so strong that they kicked out their king who changed the name of their country to something else and reverted the name back to Koryo. During the first Liao-Koryo war, Liao acknowledged Koryo's claim to be the true heir to Koryo(Koguryo) and settled the war by returning the northern territory. So by their action Koryo proved that they are the reincarnate of Koryo(Koguryo).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.45.112 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Goguryeo was never treated as Manchurian. Here is the Chinese history records.

其人形似夫餘, 言語不與夫餘句麗同. <三国志>

(Manchurian tribe) are looks similar with Buyeo people (Note : Like Chinese and Japanese looks same), But, Their languages is completely difference from Buyeo, Goguryeo. --<Chinese history record, Records of Three Kingdoms>

挹婁, 古肅愼之國也. 在夫餘東北千餘里, 東濱大海, 南與北沃沮接, 不知其北所極. 土地多山險. 人形似夫餘, 而言語各異. <後漢書>

(Manchurian tribe) are originally Sushen. They located at (almost) 1000 ri from North East of Buyeo. Their East side is sea, Their south side is buyeo, They look similar with Buyeo people, But their language is completely difference from Buyeo. --<Chinese history record, Book of the Later Han>

勿吉國在高句麗北, 舊肅愼國也. … 言語獨異.<魏書>

(Manchurian tribe) locate at North of Goguryeo. They are originally Sushen. their language is completely difference from Goguryeo. --<Chinese history record, Book of Wei>

勿吉國在高句麗北, 一曰靺鞨. … 言語獨異.<北史>

(Manchurian tribe) They called as Mohe. their language is completely difference from Goguryeo. --<Chinese history record, History of Northern Dynasties>

Lineage: Manchurian Language was completely difference from Goguryeo. They are difference race.
Geographical reason: They located at different place. They located at North of Buyeo and Goguryeo. They are difference race.
Culture: Goguryeo and Manchu tribes were completly difference races each other. Also, There is absolutely no evidence that Goguryeo race haircutting like Manchurian Pig Tail Hair. They are difference race.
History records: Manchurian never treated as Goguryeo race. Even classic machurian history record never mentioned that Goguryeo was their ancestor. Even classic Chinese history record never mentioned that Goguryeo was Manchurian. They are difference race. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That don't saying Goguryeo is Korean. Buyeo/Goguryeo peoples was one race in Manchuria. that is, why Goguryeo is Manchurian(people/country in Manchuria). 61.99.38.219 (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Koreans originated from Manchuria long before other nomadic tribes appeared. There was no Manchuria during Goguryeo period. Proto-Korean origin pre-dates most of nomadic tribes that appeared well after Goguryeo. Balhae, Khitan and Koryo all proclaimed themselves as rightful inheritance of Goguryeo and even continued their legacy by unifying the today's modern Manchuria's territory and even tried to unify with Korean peninsula. Manchus are formed much later period during 17th century, so how can Goguryeo be Manchurian?--Korsentry 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Manchus did not 'form' during the 17th century. They are a continuation of the earlier Jurchen people, which ruled the Jin dynasty before the Yuan dynasty conquered them. The Jurchen people are a continuation of tribes that were in that area. You make it sound as if Manchus formed a civilisation overnight. 125.238.23.210 (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

one ref map from textbook. Evawen (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fake map provided Chinese government. It doesn't matter now, China claimed Goguryeo as Korean Kingdom.

Also, Goguryeo pre-dates even Sui Dynasty. So called Jurchen tribes only started to appeared well after 12th century. Btw, Manchus were not Jurchen but mixed Jurchen, Mongol, Korean and Chinese. During Qing Dynasty, Manchu made Han Chinese people as lowest ranking group out of Mongol, Jurchen, Korean and Khitan.--Korsentry 04:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Hey, stop it. Goguryeo existed before Jin Dynasty and before the Yuan Dynasty. Goguryeo existed during Sui and Tang Dynasty along with Khitans, Mohe(Malgal) for crying out loud. How in the world is Goguryeo MANCHURIAN if that entire area was called Goguryeo, Mohe(Malgal) or Khitan?? You don't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryunbaik (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobori (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Can anyone advise on the sources for *When the Khitans invaded Balhae, the majority of Goguryeo population fled back to Goguryeo*?

The Languages

The relationship between Tungus, Korean, Japanese, and the various extinct languages of the Korean peninsula are still unknown or have not been agreed upon by linguists. So please do not add any opinions or personal theories. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Goguryeo was the part of three kingdoms. Thus, their language was belong to the old Korean languages such as Silla language.--Historiographer (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote me linguistic sources which state that the various extinct languages of the Korean peninsula were genetically related without a doubt. I have only seen discussion and theories, but no for certain claims. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not certain claims, all Chinese, Japanese, Korean records show Goguryeo as Korean, Proto-Korean language is related to languages of all three Kingdoms of Korea (Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla). If Goguryeo language wasn't similar or related to other two Kingdoms then provide the proofs for this, if not it's no doubt that Goguryeo people and culture are very Korean related.--Korsentry 04:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Again these are claims or original research, why not quote me various sources from linguistic sources which claim this. From the academic materials I have read, I don't see such a consensus due to the lack of much data. Azalea pomp (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Language of Puyo ( Buyeo) is known as Proto-Korean or Old Korean language. Not related to Chinese or Japanese.--Korsentry 04:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so why would TWO unifications take place if the Three Kingdoms weren't Ethnically and Culturally similar or the same? First, Gwanggaeto the Great unified the peninsula under Goguryeo because he felt a unified people of the same culture and ethnic group was needed. Second, Shilla unified Goguryeo and Baekje for the second time. If you keep insisting to provide evidence that they spoke ancient Korean language, i want to ask you this question, why constantly unite the people that do not even speak the same language? If Goguryeo was so powerful and felt that ancient Chinese were part of them, why didn't they conquer them as well? Quite obvious that the "Great Wall of China" seperated and distinguished the Chinese and ancient Koreans. Also, Baekje was found by Jumong's fourth son, thus, Baekje spoke the same language as Goguryeo. Again, Baekje was unified TWICE, between Shilla and Goguryeo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryunbaik (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"why constantly unite the people that do not even speak the same language?" -- it's called territorial expansion and there may be lots of reasons behind it. I don't think Rome conquered Greece because they spoke the same language. They did however share elements of the same regional culture.

"I don't think Rome conquered Greece because they spoke the same language." Do not compare this with Rome. Rome expanded to conquer everything near it. Goguryeo, or any other ancient Korean kingdoms did not ever set out to conquer the world like ancient Greece or ancient Mongolians did. The war was constantly between Goguryeo, Shilla and Baekje. After the second unification, all three grouped together to drive out the Tang Dynasty because they did not belong there. Try to explain that one. Goguryeo drove off the Sui and Tang dynasties while claiming they were the succesor country of Buyeo, but both Shilla and Baekje claimed they were the rightful successor of Buyeo as well. NO CHINESE country claimed to the rights of Buyeo. So it means those that claimed the rights to Buyeo spoke the same language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryunbaik (talk • contribs) 03:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

There are many facts in the article overview, but there are no reliable sources. Shouldn't we do something about it? Jeremjay 24 21:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Reliable Source

First, Korean historians are limited to having access on Goguryeo artifacts and historical findings because most are located in North Korea and China. Second, oddly enough, China is blocking all access to Korean historians for further research on Goguryeo. Third, China was criticized by the world historians, very blatantly trying to distort Goguryeo archeological findings. Luckily, these access are granted to United States and Russia. If you want solid evidence, read MARK E. BYINGTON's book on Goguryeo, he thoroughly explains why Goguryeo is Korean history, culture, etc. even after studying in a Chinese university. Another professor from Oklahoma University (Gries) states this issue as well, along with many other scholars. Also, for the heads up, the term Altaic includes Korea with solid evidence by DNA tests done since 1999 (every 2 years since then) lead by Han Jun Jin. Taiwanese DNA testing also results that Koreans are of Altai Mountains/Siberia origin. Altaic warring tactics include cavalry archers, using bow and arrows while maneuvering on a horse, which is used by Goguryeo millitary, same with Turks and Mongols. This does not include China. Yet, for some odd reason, there are many distorted videos all over online saying that Koreans are South Asian. This blatant act of distortion shows that someone is lacking proof to claim Goguryeo as theirs. I say, Goguryeo is Korean. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryunbaik (talk • contribs) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryunbaik (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Names.

The names are sometimes in McC-R-Romanization and sometimes in Re-Romanization. Example Pyongyang (Pyeongyeng) Goguryeo (Koguryŏ.). --82.134.154.25 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe this has to do with M/R being used for North Korean terms and revised for South Korean. In some cases, like Pyongyang, it would depend on the context...i.e., if one were discussing the modern city or the Goguryeo capital. Sometimes it may be ambiguous and thus the alternate spelling.Straitgate (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Map

I suggest the map being used be altered so as to include the Goguryeo capitals; it would be much more helpful that way.Straitgate (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

good idea.--Korsentry 08:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)