Talk:Battle of Mount Jupil

If the Tang information is true
Goryeo let a military officer similar to modern day rank colonel to control the military that are equal to its entire force available in middle of multiple ongoing battles. How come no one is skeptical about this? Kadrun (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Li Shimin edited Tang Dynasty official records too hard
So he left so many holes and evidences about his lies on the detail of the battle. This happened throughout the entire Go-Tang War. There's almost no record for explaining his defeats while only exaggerating all his "victories". Kadrun (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible original research and over reliance on primary sources
Recent edits have made claims of propaganda related to Li Shimin's editing but I could not find a source for this. All the sources added so far also seem to be untranslated primary sources. Could the author of the edits please include English translations, more secondary sources, preferably academic, to fulfill WP:PRIMARY? Qiushufang (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is how he began writing fake history, from The Political Program in Zhenguan Times (貞觀政要) : http://db.cyberseodang.or.kr/front/alphaList/BookMain.do?bnCode=jti_2e0403&titleId=C85 Kadrun (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As the source describes, this Xuanwu Gate Incident event per "official" record from Tang is total FAKE. Li Shimin just butchered all his brothers, and every other family. He FORCED his father to abdicate the throne to him. Li Shimin even wrote the fake history of his father. Tang's history between Li Yuan to Li Shimin is heavily edited, thus "official" records of the era very unreliable from the beginning. Why wouldn't he edit the greatest military loss of his life time? Kadrun (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are using a primary source written in Classical Chinese with Korean translations and no English translations provided. Where does it say that the event is fake and where does it say the official records are unreliable? Interpretation of primary sources is against WP:PRIMARY and so is synthesis. Qiushufang (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is in the entire dialogue. http://www.ziyexing.com/files-5/zhenguanzhengyao/zhenguanzhengyao_28.htm for better English google translation. He looked into the official record and edited it despite it was "forbidden" act. Kadrun (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

http://www.ziyexing.com/files-5/zhenguanzhengyao/zhenguanzhengyao_28 (Google translation) In the fourteenth year of Zhenguan, Taizong told Fang Xuanling: "Every time I read the history books of the previous generation, I show the good and the evil, which is enough for the future. Do you see it?" He replied: "The history of the country is good and evil and must be written down, and it is not illegal for a few people to master it. It should not be seen if there is a decree." Taizong said: "My opinion is different from that of the ancients. If there are good deeds, there is no need to discuss them; if there are bad deeds, I also want to use them as a warning, so that I can make corrections. You can write them down." Xuan Ling and others omitted the history of the country as a chronicle, and wrote two records each of Emperor Gaozu and Emperor Taizong. Ten volumes, on the table. When Taizong saw the incident on June 4th, he said a lot of micro-texts, and he said to Xuanling: "In the past, Zhou Gong Zhuguan, Cai and Zhou Shi'an, Ji You's Shuya and Lu Guoning, what I did, the righteousness is the same. Therefore, the peace of the society is beneficial to the ears of thousands of people. When the historian writes the book, why bother to hide it? Only the history of the country is used to punish evil and encourage good, and the book is not truthful, so what is the view of the heir?

http://ewenyan.com/articles/zgzy/29.html (Google translation) In the fourteenth year of Zhenguan, Tang Taizong said to Fang Xuanling: "Every time I read the history books of the previous dynasty, punishing evil and promoting good is enough to persuade and warn future generations. But I don't know why the history of the country since ancient times has not been How about letting the emperor see it in person?" Fang Xuanling replied: "Since the history of the country must be written, good and evil must be written, and the emperor can be warned not to do illegal things. I just worry about something that contradicts the monarch's opinion, so the monarch himself is not allowed to see it. Taizong said, "My thoughts are different from those of the ancients. Now I have to look at the history of the country in person. If I remember something good, I don't need to say it; if I remember something bad, I can take it as an example and correct it. Send it over here.” Therefore, Fang Xuanling and others cut the history of the country into a chronology of events recorded in chronological order. They were written in twenty volumes each of the “Records” of Emperor Gaozu and Emperor Taizong, which are presented in the table above. When Taizong saw the change in Xuanwumen recorded on June 4th, he said it very implicitly, and said to Fang Xuanling: "Once upon a time, Duke Zhou went on an expedition to kill Guan Shu and Cai Shu, so that the Zhou family could be stabilized. Ji You used poison. I killed Shu Ya and brought peace to the state of Lu. What I have done is the same as that of the ancients, all for the sake of stabilizing the society and the people and benefiting the people. Why should the historian write, why should it be cryptic? Write down the whole story of this matter clearly." Afterwards, Wei Zheng, the waiter, said: "I heard that the monarch is in the supreme position and has nothing to fear. Only the history of the country is enough to punish evil and encourage good. If the writing is not true, So what do you want future generations to see? Your Majesty now asks the historian to revise the "Records", which is in line with fairness."

You think this is unfair to Li Shimin? He shouldn't have revised the history in the first place. This revision act was criticized even by the compilators of Samguk Sagi. Can I use this and other complains created over 1400 years of history as secondary sources? Kadrun (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Your first link doesn't seem to lead to anything and brings up an error. These are all primary sources written in Chinese Classical Chinese. A google translate of the Chinese zhengguanzhengyao says it was written during the Tang dynasty which makes it a primary source. Furthermore it is Classical Chinese which cannot be easily verified by those without specialized knowledge. I suggest adding modern secondary sources as well as primary sources regardless of what might seem obvious. Qiushufang (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway I need time to update this article. I believe it will take 1 more week to finish. Kadrun (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will be moving some words from article -> talk along with construction of the article. Those charts and studies will be brought here. Trust me the article will be fair for both side ;-) Kadrun (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle
The battle was joined on 23 June when one of the Goguryeo generals, Go Yeon-su, sighted that the Tang army was seemingly smaller and had its lines thinly held. With this, he decided to attack with the cavalry and attempt to dislodge the large Tang army in front of his army. What he did not know is that it was actually a ploy by the Emperor Taizong to lure the Goguryeo army into a trap as earlier planned by his subordinates. The Goguryeo cavalry led by Go Yeon-su charged across the plain dominating the battlefield at the foot of Jupil Mountain just south of Ansi, towards the Tang infantry that was awaiting them in a shield wall formation. The other general, Go Hye-jin, followed suit and also joined the attack. Despite mass projectile shots from archers, crossbowmen and catapults just within the Tang formation, the cavalry charge kept up its momentum until it finally impacted the shield wall with many Tang soldiers dead in the process as the cavalry charged across. But it soon came as a shock for both generals that behind the long shield wall of the Tang army were massive and dense amounts of infantry with Emperor Taizhong and his entourage far behind observing the scene, and yet despite it they continued the assault on the Tang army. The massive Tang battle line thus slowly developed from a straight line into a U-shaped formation as its army purposefully gave way to the Goguryeo attack, giving the Goguryeo a false sense of victory at this stage.


 * Goguryeo force was commanded by Go Jeongeui, the 1st rank official Dae-Daero (prime minister). Go Yeonsu was 4th rank official Widu-Daehyung and also was a regional military governor, while Go Hyejin was 6th rank official Daehyung and is also a Yoksal. Their commanding troops are limited. Each represent North and South. Then where's West and East as Go Jeongeui being the Center? Highly likely the vanguard of the army.
 * There are more sources that describes the battle besides revised Tang official records. On the other hand, I don't know where these descriptions come from: shield wall, U shape, false sense, etc. Enlighten me if you find source for this.

When Emperor Taizhong finally deemed the time right to spring his trap, he ordered to sound the drums and horns to signal the flanking attack by Zhangsun Wuji and other generals with a 11,000-strong cavalry detachment from behind hidden in a hill north of Mount Jupil until now. In what seemed to be a Cannae-like event, the Tang cavalry finally closed in into the rear of the Goguryeo cavalry, hitting it through its rear. The Tang army started pushing and tightening the encirclement even as the two Goguryeo generals tried to rally their men to fight on, but the one-sided mass slaughter continued. Seeing that they could not salvage the situation, the two Goguryeo generals tried as best as they could to get what was left of their force out of the encirclement to rejoin the main body of their army across the river to the south, but 30,000 of their men died trying to do so. Worse came when they found out that the bridges in the river that leads them back to the main body of their army were already torn down by the Tang commander Zhangsun Wuji under orders from Emperor Taizhong who already foresaw the event. Finding no other way to rejoin the main body of their army, the two generals rallied whatever remained of their force northwards to the peak of Mount Jupil with the Tang army in hot pursuit. The Tang army then caught up and encircled the remaining Goguryeo force atop Mount Jupil once again. In an attempt to save their beleaguered comrades atop Mount Jupil, the main body of the Goguryeo army finally joined the battle by fording the river and attacked the Tang army. However, soon they soon found themselves counterattacked on three sides by the Tang army, having failed to reach their comrades atop the mountain.


 * It wasn't one sided per provided sources in the article.
 * There were more units involved
 * The number of Tang forces unlikely 30K. Due to the reason that you can find more generals involved in battle per sources, and the sheer number of high ranking officials involved in the fight. Only way to explain is that the engaged Tang force was also a vanguard.

Seeing that all was lost, Go Yeon-su and Go Hye-jin surrendered what remained of their command that was stranded atop the mountain, now reduced to just 3,800 wounded and famished men. What remained of the Goguryeo army that had not yet surrendered, that is, the force that tried to save their comrades atop Mount Jupil but failed, is now also subjected by attacks of the Tang army on three sides, pummeling it into a pulp until they finally retreated and dispersed southwards, only to be chased down by the pursuing Tang army with most of them dead during the chase and captured 33,000 Goguryeo soldiers prisoner. Among these, the Tang forces sent 3,500 officers and chieftains back to China, executed 3,300 Mohe troops, and eventually released the rest of the ordinary Goguryeo soldiers. As part of the war spoils taken from the enemy, the Tang army captured from the vanquished Goguryeo army 50,000 horses, 50,000 cows, and 10,000 metal body armor.


 * Li Shimin claimed he killed about 10K and 5K armor count. He also claims 150K captured then released safely without collecting the arms. He likes to exaggerate, so 10K killed, and 5K armor is the maximum count.
 * Obviously 150K captured then released doesn't make sense at all (and is revised by Li Shimin), the number gets revised in the New Book of Tang by reducing the captured to 36,800 and releasing 30K, while increasing the casualty. What is this, a joke of credibility?
 * Releasing the captured without any purpose (or even without surrendering arms) doesn't make sense at all. No source explains the reason or strategic behind the release of captured. It should be understood as among the trapped Goguryeo forces 30K were able to escape the scene.
 * Tang understood it needs to penetrate the defense before their supplies run out. Releasing of POW will only increase the burden. Why self-destruct? In fact, unlikely happened.

Kadrun (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Tang Army Size
http://db.history.go.kr/item/bookViewer.do?levelId=ko_091_0070_0110

Li Ji commanded total of 14 總管, similar to brigadier general, each commanding around 5,000 soldiers. So that's 70,000 alone maximum.

Zhangsun Wuji commanded total of 26 總管, 26 x 5,000 = 130,000

This is without counting Li Shimin's main force + more. Those two alone is already 200K troops. Two army group suffered losses on prior battles, so lower than 200K unless replenished or reorganized prior to the battle.

Original research and speculations
What Kadrun wrote in this article is essentially the textbook definition of WP:OR. All the arguments are questionable interpretations of historical sources, and all the conclusions are unsourced and made up by the editor himself. Ironically, casualty figures for individual events or phases of the battle are taken out of context and added here as overall casualties, while the total casualty counts from literally the same sources are dismissed as "Li Shimin propaganda".

Li Shimin's influences on historiography has been discussed for more than a thousand years and yet most of it remains nothing but speculations and conspiracy theories. The editor might as well add the "disclaimer" paragraph to every Wikipedia article on events before 650 AD if he distrusts historical sources that much. Esiymbro (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Secondary source. This actually has a lot of detail of the battle. The report concludes with 30K Tang forces with reasonable explanation of the possibility as well as estimate of Goguryeo forces during the battle.