"Norman Invasion" of Japan

At the same time, what is Korean territory? Temporary occupation like how Balhae did a hit and run on Shandong? In a way that COULD explain just what the record is about: A temporary occupation by Baekje which was attacked by Northern Wei in the midst of the constant warfare between Bakejae and Goguryeo that extended to the west of the Liao. Makes for an interesting TL.

I still don't see it. The territory around the Yellow Sea was occupied by Wei, so wouldn't they record being attacked first by Paekche? It wouldn't make sense for the Southern Qi history to describe Wei attacking a Paekche force on Northern Wei soil without mentioning how Paekche got there in the first place. The first source that describes a Paekche source comes from the embassy, and two later sources assert a Northern Wei victory, so there had to be some hazy details regarding this. And because the Southern Qi source relies on the embassy of Paekche, wouldn't it be easier to assume the embassy lied? If not, this implies that Paekche mounted a temporary land invasion of Northern Wei, defeated the counter-invasion, and withdrew; however, only the counter-attack makes it into the Southern Qi record. In addition, none of the sources involved mention the location of the battle, and none of them mention Paekche having territory on the Chinese mainland.

As for evidence of a Balhae attack on Shandong, I'm a bit skeptical of whether it happened. The only websites that seem to verify this are either clearly biased in favor of Korea, or untrustworthy. By untrustworthy, I actually mean "Wikipedia being Wikipedia." If I had a reputable translation of the Tzu-chih t'ung-chien, the source Wikipedia cites for the Balhae invasion of Shandong, I could say with more confidence whether it occurred or not.

But there's a good question about "Korean territory" anyways. Do you define Balhae as Korean? I understand that the urban culture and ruling family were from Goguryo, but I'm pretty sure the agrarian majority couldn't be considered Korean.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
As for evidence of a Balhae attack on Shandong, I'm a bit skeptical of whether it happened. The only websites that seem to verify this are either clearly biased in favor of Korea, or untrustworthy. By untrustworthy, I actually mean "Wikipedia being Wikipedia." If I had a reputable translation of the Tzu-chih t'ung-chien, the source Wikipedia cites for the Balhae invasion of Shandong, I could say with more confidence whether it occurred or not.

Check the following: 舊唐書, 新唐書, 渤海國志長編(金毓黻, 華文書局, 1934)

The commander who attacked Shandong was 张文休.


But there's a good question about "Korean territory" anyways. Do you define Balhae as Korean? I understand that the urban culture and ruling family were from Goguryo, but I'm pretty sure the agrarian majority couldn't be considered Korean.
I consider it as a Goguryeo successor. Goguryeo was a multicultural empire, and to say it is exclusively Korean is also sort of pushing it. In a way, Koreans came into existence as a complete ethnic group following the fall of Balhae, so what we can say is that Balhae is a proto-Korean/Tungus empire which claimed itself as a successor of Goguryeo. The only thing we can be sure of is that it wasn't a mere tributary of China, as PRC likes to claim.
 
Check the following: 舊唐書, 新唐書, 渤海國志長編(金毓黻, 華文書局, 1934)

The commander who attacked Shandong was 张文休.

Umm, I don't have a copy of the Old Book of Tang or the New Book of Tang with me, and even if I did, my Chinese isn't at the level I could read it easily. I'd prefer an academic source, because I'm skeptical of sources on the Internet.

I'm not really doubting a Parhae attack on the Shandong Peninsula any more, but I'm just skeptical of an occupation. I'm looking at Roger Tennant's A History of Korea and he says, and I quote, "Parhae, having won control of the south coast of Liao as far as Dalian, attempted to gain a foothold on the Shandong Peninsula . . . The extent to which they [Parhae] dominated the Yellow Sea . . . " He describes it in a way where I'm not sure if Parhae actually occupied parts of the peninsula or not. He says Parhae dominated the Yellow Sea, but never mentions if it controlled any parts of the coastline besides the Liaodong Peninsula.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
Umm, I don't have a copy of the Old Book of Tang or the New Book of Tang with me, and even if I did, my Chinese isn't at the level I could read it easily. I'd prefer an academic source, because I'm skeptical of sources on the Internet.

I'm not really doubting a Parhae attack on the Shandong Peninsula any more, but I'm just skeptical of an occupation. I'm looking at Roger Tennant's A History of Korea and he says, and I quote, "Parhae, having won control of the south coast of Liao as far as Dalian, attempted to gain a foothold on the Shandong Peninsula . . . The extent to which they [Parhae] dominated the Yellow Sea . . . " He describes it in a way where I'm not sure if Parhae actually occupied parts of the peninsula or not. He says Parhae dominated the Yellow Sea, but never mentions if it controlled any parts of the coastline besides the Liaodong Peninsula.
It was a complete hit and run operation. Basically, Jang landed at Deng (modern day Yantai), killed the governor, and then immediately went back to Liaodong.
 

amphibulous

Banned
Anyone who manages to produce a relatively plausible non-ASB timeline that culminates with the actual Normans invading Japan with a PoD post-Rollo of Normandy, you, sir, are a God!

That's easy.

It's 1274...

"Well," said Mongol Supreme Fleet Leader Khaghata Darmala Qongqotan. "I don't mind telling you that I was distinctly queasy for a while there with that storm. But that foreign missionary fixed things a treat."

"Too true, mate" said Mongol Penultimate Fleet Leader
Okin Barkak Uru'ut. "That foreigner's god was clearly a powerful one and worth currying favour with... shame we didn't ask the missionary what god he served before we chucked him over the side, really."

"B*****ks!" Khaghata Darmala Qongqota exclaimed. "That's just the sort of thing that would tee me off I was a god - using up a perfectly good missionary and not getting anything out of it. Doesn't anyone remember anything he said?"

"There was something that sounded like 'Please don't drown me'"

"Beside that."

"Well... his accent was atrocious, but I think he said something about being - oh, what was it? Normal?"

"Normal? In that dress thing he worse all the time? I don't think so!"

"No - wait - not normal - NORMAN! He was a Norman, that's it!"

"Brilliant!"
Khaghata Darmala Qongqotan beamed with relief. "Break out the alcoholic soured mare's milk and go kidnap several thousand mixed dancing girls and virgins - we're having a party. To celebrate our new alliance with Norman, Great And Powerful God Of Storms, Seas And Invasion Forces. Which shall be symbolized by our renaming our invasion force in his honour. What is that the locals call this dump again?"

"Japan, boss."

"Right: this is hereby ***officially*** the Norman Invasion Of Japan. Mine's a large dancing girl and an extra sour milk. Get on with it then, you Norman bastards!"
 
But personally, the existence of 百濟 in one of the cities in Southern Central China still nags at me. Why? I guess we'll never know until we get time machines or something.

We'll probably never know, especially because there were no major settlements around the area, as the Chinese did not fully settle the area until around the Tang dynasty.

Yeah.

But, not trying to have the last word, even if we had the records from Goguryo and Baekje, there still wouldn't be archaeological records or cultural artifacts or similar proof to prove there were Korean territories on the Chinese mainland. Though, I will concede that Goguryo did control parts of Manchuria east of the Liao River.

I agree, and we would have to know exactly where to look. For all we know, the remains could be buried under modern constructions, or have disintegrated a long time ago.

Also, I originally took it from Wikipedia, but 舊唐書 says 列傳 東夷 百濟 … 其地自此爲新羅及渤海靺鞨所分百濟之種遂絶, and the 新唐書 says 列傳 東夷 百濟 … 而其地已新羅及 渤海靺鞨所分 百濟遂絶. The website summarizes that these two statements say that Baekje's territories were split between Silla and Balhae. This suggests that Baekje was not limited to the southwest corner of the peninsula, and probably had territory around the Liao river. There are also very minor suggestions which hint that Baekje could have had territory in Shandong, and almost none along the remainder of the Chinese coastline, with most of them pertaining to place etymologies like the one that Sumeragi mentioned. Of course, these are not definitive, especially because they could just have been minor trading posts, but they are possibilities.

I consider it as a Goguryeo successor. Goguryeo was a multicultural empire, and to say it is exclusively Korean is also sort of pushing it. In a way, Koreans came into existence as a complete ethnic group following the fall of Balhae, so what we can say is that Balhae is a proto-Korean/Tungus empire which claimed itself as a successor of Goguryeo. The only thing we can be sure of is that it wasn't a mere tributary of China, as PRC likes to claim.

Goguryeo allied with various local tribes when they campaigned, some of which are shown in the Samguk Sagi. Also, it is highly likely that none of the Three Kingdoms were completely homogenous in ethnic terms. Goguryeo absorbed the four commanderies after the Han fell, probably incorporating a significant Chinese population, along with other local groups after expanding to cover most of southern Manchuria and ruling the entire Korean peninsula either directly or indirectly for about a hundred years.

Baekje was founded after two of King Dongmyeongsung's sons moved southward, probably bringing a significant amount of settlers from southern Manchuria/northern Korean peninsula, and it's likely that some of Silla's initial royal family and aristocrats moved from Central Asia, possibly related to the Xiongnu. Many Goguryeo refugees probably emigrated to the south after the state collapsed, and Balhae also probably incorporated tribes on the periphery of former Goguryeo territory.

As a result, a distinct ethnic group probably did not exist until Balhae collapsed, and the last crown prince moved some refugees to Goryeo.

It was a complete hit and run operation. Basically, Jang landed at Deng (modern day Yantai), killed the governor, and then immediately went back to Liaodong.

I thought a minor personal dispute, rather than a territorial conflict or ambition, caused the attack, but I may be wrong.
 
We'll probably never know, especially because there were no major settlements around the area, as the Chinese did not fully settle the area until around the Tang dynasty.

Actually, What is now Southern China had closer links to India than to China before the Chinese settled it.
 
We'll probably never know, especially because there were no major settlements around the area, as the Chinese did not fully settle the area until around the Tang dynasty.
Could be a coincidence. Or perhaps there's a story behind it. But, pray tell, where is this city? I've been trying to find it on Google Maps but I can't find "百濟" and have only gotten to "百崎" and "白旗" which are also written Baiqi in romanization.

I agree, and we would have to know exactly where to look. For all we know, the remains could be buried under modern constructions, or have disintegrated a long time ago.

Also, I originally took it from Wikipedia, but 舊唐書 says 列傳 東夷 百濟 … 其地自此爲新羅及渤海靺鞨所分百濟之種遂絶, and the 新唐書 says 列傳 東夷 百濟 … 而其地已新羅及 渤海靺鞨所分 百濟遂絶. The website summarizes that these two statements say that Baekje's territories were split between Silla and Balhae. This suggests that Baekje was not limited to the southwest corner of the peninsula, and probably had territory around the Liao river. There are also very minor suggestions which hint that Baekje could have had territory in Shandong, and almost none along the remainder of the Chinese coastline, with most of them pertaining to place etymologies like the one that Sumeragi mentioned. Of course, these are not definitive, especially because they could just have been minor trading posts, but they are possibilities.

But, there's no reason to assume that there is any evidence that such archaeological evidence existed. It would be akin to saying that there is the possibility of archaeological evidence for the Japanese colony of Mimana in South Korea, only that it's inaccessible or disintegrated. The remote possibility exists, but the possibility of evidence shouldn't be substituted for evidence itself.

I think it's okay to assume the possibility of evidence, and if a Baekje settlement in Hebei or Liaoning is discovered I'll reconsider my position. But, for now there's not enough evidence to suggest that those Baekje territories existed. The other alternative, that Baekje was limited to the southwest of the Korean Peninsula, is the more reasonable one.

The Jiu Tangshu and the Xin Tangshu were written about five centuries after the Northern and Southern Dynasties (if we're still referring to the Wei attack on Baekje). While the historians might not have been up to date about the remote fringes of China, they certainly would record Baekje territory on Shandong, an integral part of China.

And something I wanted to ask: what time period are we talking about? Because there definitely was no Parhae during the Northern Wei times.

If there was a border between Baekje and Tang China, since Tang China had territory in the region of Manchuria we're talking about, I'm sure that would be mentioned in the two Tang histories you cite. Also, if Baekje had territory on the Liao River, I'm sure this would have been mentioned in more sources too: after all, how could Sui and Tang armies attack Goguryo without passing through this Baekje territory? Unless they took some long-winded detour which I find unlikely.

So the possibility is this: assuming the Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu are true, the territory that belonged to Baekje was split between Silla and Parhae. Now, if Baekje had land around the Liao River, how would this territory be split between Silla and Parhae? I don't think you're trying to say there were colonies of Silla in Manchuria either, but I want to be sure. Would it be reasonable to think that those two lines mean that Parhae somehow took over unrecorded Baekje territory on the Liao River as well as known Baekje territory on the Korean Peninsula? To me, it makes more sense that Parhae and Silla would have split Baekje simply on the Peninsula. Or, because I'm not sure whether Baekje and Parhae even had a land border, perhaps those sources were mistaken. It happens.

Wikipedia has mistakes. That also happens. For example, Wikipedia also says Parhae didn't come into existence until 698 while Baekje ceased to exist in 660. If this is the case, it seems that Silla and Parhae did not as a matter of fact split Baekje's territory among them, and perhaps the Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu are referring to something else.

EDIT: Regarding Baekje again, I'll paraphrase Jonathan Best, who notes that several Chinese histories, like the Book of Song, describe how Baekje developed in Manchuria and occupied Liaoxi. He suggests these accounts confuse Baekje with Puyo. The Book of Jin and the Zizhi Tongjian describe Baekje participating in events north of the Yalu, which is hard to reconcile with the Baekje on the Han River. Kim Pusik thus doesn't include these mentions of Baekje in the Samguk Sagi though he draws on the Book of Jin and the Zizhi Tongjian elsewhere. Best also redirects the reader to Mark Byington's research, which I don't have.
 
Last edited:
Could be a coincidence. Or perhaps there's a story behind it. But, pray tell, where is this city? I've been trying to find it on Google Maps but I can't find "百濟" and have only gotten to "百崎" and "白旗" which are also written Baiqi in romanization.

I think Sumeragi and I were both referring to a YouTube post I made earlier in the thread. The city might not exist, or it might be a minor one not indicated on the map.

But, there's no reason to assume that there is any evidence that such archaeological evidence existed. It would be akin to saying that there is the possibility of archaeological evidence for the Japanese colony of Mimana in South Korea, only that it's inaccessible or disintegrated. The remote possibility exists, but the possibility of evidence shouldn't be substituted for evidence itself.

I think it's okay to assume the possibility of evidence, and if a Baekje settlement in Hebei or Liaoning is discovered I'll reconsider my position. But, for now there's not enough evidence to suggest that those Baekje territories existed. The other alternative, that Baekje was limited to the southwest of the Korean Peninsula, is the more reasonable one.

I agree, but I think it's more than a coincidence that several Chinese records indicated several locations. It's also possible that because they were temporary settlements, artifacts don't exist. But as you said, because there is no evidence, there is nothing to back up the claim.

The Jiu Tangshu and the Xin Tangshu were written about five centuries after the Northern and Southern Dynasties (if we're still referring to the Wei attack on Baekje). While the historians might not have been up to date about the remote fringes of China, they certainly would record Baekje territory on Shandong, an integral part of China.

And something I wanted to ask: what time period are we talking about? Because there definitely was no Parhae during the Northern Wei times.

I agree that they would have recorded more meticulously, but the problem is that the Northern Wei wasn't exactly a Chinese dynasty either. It was a Xianbei state that integrated Chinese customs. I also think they meant that Balhae took what was once Baekje territory, not that Balhae existed during the 400s or 500s.

If there was a border between Baekje and Tang China, since Tang China had territory in the region of Manchuria we're talking about, I'm sure that would be mentioned in the two Tang histories you cite. Also, if Baekje had territory on the Liao River, I'm sure this would have been mentioned in more sources too: after all, how could Sui and Tang armies attack Goguryo without passing through this Baekje territory? Unless they took some long-winded detour which I find unlikely.

So the possibility is this: assuming the Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu are true, the territory that belonged to Baekje was split between Silla and Parhae. Now, if Baekje had land around the Liao River, how would this territory be split between Silla and Parhae? I don't think you're trying to say there were colonies of Silla in Manchuria either, but I want to be sure. Would it be reasonable to think that those two lines mean that Parhae somehow took over unrecorded Baekje territory on the Liao River as well as known Baekje territory on the Korean Peninsula? To me, it makes more sense that Parhae and Silla would have split Baekje simply on the Peninsula. Or, because I'm not sure whether Baekje and Parhae even had a land border, perhaps those sources were mistaken. It happens.

Wikipedia has mistakes. That also happens. For example, Wikipedia also says Parhae didn't come into existence until 698 while Baekje ceased to exist in 660. If this is the case, it seems that Silla and Parhae did not as a matter of fact split Baekje's territory among them, and perhaps the Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu are referring to something else.

EDIT: Regarding Baekje again, I'll paraphrase Jonathan Best, who notes that several Chinese histories, like the Book of Song, describe how Baekje developed in Manchuria and occupied Liaoxi. He suggests these accounts confuse Baekje with Puyo. The Book of Jin and the Zizhi Tongjian describe Baekje participating in events north of the Yalu, which is hard to reconcile with the Baekje on the Han River. Kim Pusik thus doesn't include these mentions of Baekje in the Samguk Sagi though he draws on the Book of Jin and the Zizhi Tongjian elsewhere. Best also redirects the reader to Mark Byington's research, which I don't have.

As I said before, I think what the sources are stating are that Baekje temporarily held territory in what is now Manchuria, with a remote possibility of other cities in Shandong and the rest of the Chinese coastline, because the latter are not mentioned in the sources. I could be mistaken in the following assumptions, but Baekje probably held territory in the northern parts of the Liao river, or they could have lost effective control by the time the Sui unified China.

The problem with assuming that Baekje was mistaken for Buyeo is that Buyeo was probably limited to the southeast corner of Manchuria, and Balhae most likely never held territory in Shandong, much less the Liaodong peninsula. I agree that my assumption of Baekje having control around the Liao river is unlikely, but I think it is also not a coincidence that several Chinese sources state that Baekje probably held territory near or in Manchuria in addition to the southwest corner of the Korean peninsula.

Although the Samguk Sagi is a trustworthy source, the problem is that it was written about 6-700 years after the conflicts were over, and because Silla, which was confined to the peninsula, technically "unified" the three kingdoms, the source could have been biased toward the victorious states.
 
I agree that they would have recorded more meticulously, but the problem is that the Northern Wei wasn't exactly a Chinese dynasty either. It was a Xianbei state that integrated Chinese customs. I also think they meant that Balhae took what was once Baekje territory, not that Balhae existed during the 400s or 500s.

As I said before, I think what the sources are stating are that Baekje temporarily held territory in what is now Manchuria, with a remote possibility of other cities in Shandong and the rest of the Chinese coastline, because the latter are not mentioned in the sources. I could be mistaken in the following assumptions, but Baekje probably held territory in the northern parts of the Liao river, or they could have lost effective control by the time the Sui unified China.

The problem with assuming that Baekje was mistaken for Buyeo is that Buyeo was probably limited to the southeast corner of Manchuria, and Balhae most likely never held territory in Shandong, much less the Liaodong peninsula. I agree that my assumption of Baekje having control around the Liao river is unlikely, but I think it is also not a coincidence that several Chinese sources state that Baekje probably held territory near or in Manchuria in addition to the southwest corner of the Korean peninsula.

Although the Samguk Sagi is a trustworthy source, the problem is that it was written about 6-700 years after the conflicts were over, and because Silla, which was confined to the peninsula, technically "unified" the three kingdoms, the source could have been biased toward the victorious states.

Hmm, I think Balhae did have territory on or near the Liaodong Peninsula. I mean, did the Khitan Liao first gain a boundary with Koryo after they took over Balhae? Also, I feel like we need more people to discuss the issue. Besides you and Sumeragi, it doesn't seem like there are that many people who are passionate about Korean history.

I'm trying not to flog a dead horse here or sound like a broken record here. My position is fairly simple:

  • There is no archaeological evidence that Baekje held territory on the Chinese mainland. I think you agree with this.
  • There is no literary evidence that states Baekje held parts of the Chinese mainland. This is where I understand there's more disagreement.
My evidence is a bit more complex.

The Qi Shu and Zizhi Tongjian describes a battle between Northern Wei and Baekje in roughly 488. Not once do either texts describe the location of this battle. Wikipedia says that the generals who were awarded with areas that sounded like Liaoxi area names. It cites the Qi Shu, so there is no proof that the places cited are Liaoxi area names. Wikipedia also says Northern Wei could not have crossed through hostile Goguryo territory to attack the Baekje holdings in Korea. This is true. It does not logically follow, however, that Northern Wei was unable to attack Baekje via a naval force. It does not logically follow either that Northern Wei must have attacked Baekje territories in China, in Liaoxi or Hebei. The source for the Qi Shu is a Baekje embassy to the court of Southern Qi. It does not logically follow that this embassy must be telling the truth. I am not saying these sources are lying: the fact other sources mention this battle suggests it took place (some say it was a Wei victory). I am asserting, however, that none of these sources say that this battle took place on the Chinese mainland in Baekje territory.

Also, other sources from the same period do not describe Baekje holdings in China, not in Liaoxi, and not in Shandong, and not along the coastline either. Northern Wei was not ruled by native Han Chinese, but it was a Chinese dynasty in the same way as the Yuan or Qing. There is no reason to assume that its records would expunge entire Baekje holdings on the Continent.

(I know I say "Wikipedia says" several times, but I do not aim to make a strawman argument, it's just that you mentioned Wikipedia several times. However, I do not desire to rebut arguments drawn from there. If you have views separate from Wikipedia's statements, please tell me.)

I also agree, yes, that Balhae never controlled parts of Shandong. Nor is there proof that any other Korean states did either. Shandong is part of the Chinese heartland. Records can be lost, but the cultural memory of occupation is not so easy to lose. No records state that Shandong or the Chinese coastline was controlled by the peoples of Baekje or Balhae.

The last issue is the idea that Baekje held territory in Manchuria. As I mentioned earlier regarding the Baekje-Wei conflict, none of the five sources that describe this conflict state that it occurred on the Chinese mainland. However, Manchuria during this time was not exactly the center of civilization. The idea, then, is that Baekje might have had territory along the Liao River. This seems to be supported by the Song Shu, the Liang Shu and the Jin Shu, which all reference Baekje. Again, looking at Wikipedia, it becomes clear that this does not necessarily prove the idea Baekje held territory along the Liao. Apparently the Jin Shu says an alliance of Goguryo, Baekje, and the Xianbei took military action. But this is no proof of Baekje territory in the area. If the opposite was true, scholars in the future might argue that the Republic of Korea's ISAF contingent is proof that Korea had territory in Afghanistan! The Jin Shu says that in roughly 345 the people of Baekje posed a threat to the stability of Liaoxi. When this was written (in the seventh century) it was thought the rulers of Baekje were descendants of the Puyo. It would thus make more sense that the writer was projecting backwards, and made a mistake when he thought Baekje had territory in Liaoxi, when it was really the people of Puyo. The second example, from the Zizhi Tongjian, says that in roughly 346 the people of Baekje attacked Puyo and forced the people of Puyo westwards towards Liaodong and Liaoxi. Jonathan Best follows Mark Byington's suggestion that this attack was really by Goguryo or the Yilou. It makes no sense that Baekje attacks the Puyo, and the Puyo flee towards the Baekje and into Liaoxi. It makes much more sense that the Zizhi Tongjiang was mistaken. These are the two earliest references to Paekje. Kim Pusik, the author of the Samguk Sagi, uses the Jin Shu and Zizhi Tongjian often. He does not cite either of them in relation to the events of 345 and 346. I don't know his mental state when writing. He might have been biased, but he repeats the Zizhi Tongjian line that mentions the Baekje victory over the Northern Wei. I'll wager that he found the Jin Shu and Zizhi Tongjian statements about Baekje in Manchuria unlikely. Thus, the sources which mention Baekje in Manchuria are probably wrong. The other sources mentioned by Wikipedia, like the Liang Shu or the Song Shu, probably make this same sort of mistake.

The Qi Shu, the Zizhi Tongjian, the Jiu Tang Shu, the Xin Tang Shu, the Liang Shu, the Song Shu and other histories are not some sort of Tian Shu, or Book from Heaven. Historians wrote them. These scholars made mistakes. Sometimes they had bad sources. Sometimes they were ideologically influenced. Sometimes they were wrong.

Again, I'm not being dogmatic. I have nothing against the concept of a Korean state holding territory in China. In fact, I acknowledge that with Goguryo and Balhae this was the case. However, my stance is that Paekje did not hold territory on the Chinese mainland, and that references to Paekje in Manchuria are better explained by references to other similar peoples in the area. Now, I have presented my arguments based on what I believe to be are facts. If there are any mistakes you feel I have made, or if you believe I have misrepresented your positions, feel free to tell me. I know I haven't organized my facts very well. I am not here to argue what may be possible: perhaps tomorrow a grave might be discovered in China (maybe in Liaoxi!) with Baekje artifacts and copies of the annals of Baekje and Goguryo, and thus my entire post will look silly and academically outdated. Perhaps it was possible that Baekje controlled parts of the Chinese coast but left absolutely no evidence. Numerous possibilities exist, but only certain facts can be supported with evidence.
 
Last edited:

I usually would not have responded to your posts, because I agree with your main points, but I just wanted to know the specifics so that I can incorporate them directly in my current timeline, as you may know.

After looking over the posts on this thread, I'm going to assume that Baekje had an alliance with the Yamato after the former sailed to the latter and made contact in the 200s or 300s. They might have been more or less equal, but Baekje certainly transmitted Chinese characters to the islands and probably also some information on Chinese culture.

On the other hand, there is a slight possibility that Baekje held territory in or around Manchuria for a short amount of time, but because we have no way of verifying whether the Chinese records which provide the information are correct, especially because the northern dynasties were probably biased against the southern ones, we have no definitive proof. Goguryeo and Balhae controlled most of the area along the Liao river and Liaodong (the latter probably did not directly control the Liaodong peninsula) at their heights.

Regardless, thank you for your constructive input.
 
I wasn't going to post again, but I realized that I hadn't thoroughly addressed the OP.

England had originally been settled by Celtic tribes, but was conquered by the Romans, who settled the area for about 400 years, then invaded by Germanic tribes, and were subject to occasional Viking raids, then dominated by Denmark for about 30 years, and finally conquered by the Normans in 1066. In short, England had already been subject to numerous linguistic and cultural influences before the Normans invaded the island. Although it had been politically unified around 800, after the Romans left, various conflicts and invasions probably meant that it was not culturally unified as a whole.

On the other hand, Japan had only been influenced mostly by Chinese and Korean culture and language, which were either transmitted through Korea or had been brought directly from China after some travelers went there. Japan was also probably first politically unified around 500-700. As far as we know, there had been no "direct" invasions, mostly because Japan is generally farther than Korea or China than England is from Europe, and the same situation for capitals as well. In other words, Japanese culture and language was mostly left intact by the time that the Mongols attempted to invade, while England had gone though numerous political changes, causing cultural shifts as well, and English has a core Germanic vocabulary and grammar, with heavy vocabulary influences from Latin and Old French.

In other words, putting a Mongol invasion of Japan aside, you would need numerous butterflies beforehand in order to significantly influence the country. If Goguryeo had unified the peninsula, it could have invaded Japan and possibly influence it, but unless it removed most traces of the language, which is highly unlikely because their languages were indirectly or directly related, and eradicated most traces of the indigenous culture, then it is almost impossible for Japan to develop on a similar level as England did.
 
Top