AH Challange get the Han Dynasty to Invade Japan

Okay, thanks. I didn't know that about previous cities, especially the part in Liaodong. However, I think I might still be unclear. I was talking about Wanggom was like. This ties in to what I say earlier in the post; if it was near or was Pyongyang, wouldn't it have been discovered already? I point to Hyung-il Pai's "Culture Contact and Culture Change: The Korean Peninsula and Its Relations with the Han Dynasty Commandery of Lelang" which notes "Unfortunately, these historical narratives [the part about the fortress of Wanggom and treacherous ministers in the Shiji] have not been confirmed archaeologically, since no evidence of fortresses that date to this period and that could have withstood a year of siege by Han armies has yet been found in this region." I'm not sure what to make of this discrepancy between archaeology and history, and whether Wanggom was really this heavily-defended city or something more mundane. Again, I know about the possibility of evidence being destroyed, but then again, absence of evidence shouldn't be taken to mean destruction of evidence.

I see your point, although as FDW said, North Korea is unwilling to disclose any information regarding the structure of Wanggeomseong, and the Japanese were looking for evidence that Korea originated as a colony, so they would have ignored anything which suggested otherwise. The structures and weapons do suggest that a centralized state existed in the region, but as you said, the remains of the cities themselves have not been found yet.
 

FDW

Banned
One of the seven warring states before the Qin conquered the other six by 221 BC. It was located the furthest north, and its capital was probably around what is now Beijing.

I know that much, but weren't there some distinctions between Yan and some of the other warring states?
 
I see your point, although as FDW said, North Korea is unwilling to disclose any information regarding the structure of Wanggeomseong, and the Japanese were looking for evidence that Korea originated as a colony, so they would have ignored anything which suggested otherwise. The structures and weapons do suggest that a centralized state existed in the region, but as you said, the remains of the cities themselves have not been found yet.

Alright. Until further excavations, I'll assume Sima Qian was telling the truth that there was some fortress and city of Wanggom, though I will cautiously say that it hasn't been found archaeologically. Of course, archaeology isn't the only thing needed to prove something historically. I'm pretty sure Akkad has never been found, but nobody would say that city was a myth.

I'm not sure about the defectors though. I mean, now that I think about it, I'm a little doubtful because it seems to be a bit Confucian in mindset, playing into the typical Confucian tale regarding the end of a dynasty where the wicked last king dies because his advisers flee. Again, I don't know much more about the story, but I do know that Sima Qian was a bit of a Confucian.
 
I'm not sure about the defectors though. I mean, now that I think about it, I'm a little doubtful because it seems to be a bit Confucian in mindset, playing into the typical Confucian tale regarding the end of a dynasty where the wicked last king dies because his advisers flee. Again, I don't know much more about the story, but I do know that Sima Qian was a bit of a Confucian.

Well, as I stated before, the Shiji is the only extant semi-primary source that explains what happened during the conflict, so we can only assume that most of the events were true. For comparison, Yeon Gaesomun assassinated the ruler and took over his duties, which was considered unfilial in Confucian thought. As a result, Taizong criticized the prime minister's actions, which was somewhat ironic considering that he killed his brothers in order to gain the throne himself. Goguryeo then collapsed after his death when his three sons competed with each other, and the oldest ended up defecting to the Tang. However, this does not necessarily mean that the events were fabricated. It's possible that other events may have occurred as well, but just because the events seem to justify Confucian morals do not necessarily mean that they have no basis in fact.
 
Well, as I stated before, the Shiji is the only extant semi-primary source that explains what happened during the conflict, so we can only assume that most of the events were true. For comparison, Yeon Gaesomun assassinated the ruler and took over his duties, which was considered unfilial in Confucian thought. As a result, Taizong criticized the prime minister's actions, which was somewhat ironic considering that he killed his brothers in order to gain the throne himself. Goguryeo then collapsed after his death when his three sons competed with each other, and the oldest ended up defecting to the Tang. However, this does not necessarily mean that the events were fabricated. It's possible that other events may have occurred as well, but just because the events seem to justify Confucian morals do not necessarily mean that they have no basis in fact.

Well, I guess that works. I'm pretty sure later histories didn't add anything to the narrative, so that suggests that later historians thought there wasn't any reason to change it.
 
Top