Talk:Goguryeo–Sui War

Untitled
According to Graff, the size of the Sui army is most likely exaggerated; he points out that the Tang chroniclers, who wrote the History of the Sui Dynasty, tried to dissuade the Tang emperors from invading Korea by exaggerating the magnitude of the Sui defeats. In addition, by comparing the size of the army against the size of the population, he shows that this figure was most likely implausible. His estimated figure is a total army of half the size, comparible to the army that invaded the Chen Dynasty.--Confuzion 22:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the History of the Sui Dynasty, 1,138,000 combat troops were mobilised.

According to ki-hun Lee also {(korea historian)(1997). 전쟁으로 보는 한국 역사}. , the size of the Sui army is exaggerated ki-hun Lee.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lee_ki_hun.jpg (1997). 전쟁으로 보는 한국 역사.

korea army talk tv program [토크멘터리 전쟁史] 43부 고구려-수나라 전쟁편 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxXHnQuL87k estimates to only military troops 300,000 Including Supply Corps 1,133.000


 * Of course these ancient sources wildly exaggerate army sizes. The logistics of a million men on the move - feeding them alone would be beyond the capabilities, technically, at that time - are easily dismissed. Reducing the size of forces due to modern analysis - which include computer programs designed to use historical methods - does not negate any Korean victory (or loss). An encyclopedia should be as accurate as possible, and this article needs work. 50.111.4.123 (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The article mentions that that the numbers may have been "deflated" by Tang, from this talk page it sounds more like the numbers were "inflated" by Tang 173.71.97.185 (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Move to Goguryeo-China Wars
As visible in the history (here), the wars of the Sui and the Tang dynasties it's a serie of wars in the same geopolitic line. Chinese new Empire wanted to submit all it's neighbourgs. For the case of Goguryeo, the Cambridge history of China say that [translate from french:]"Taizong became more and more concerne by Goguryeo and the Sui campaign. Taizong wanted submit the only kingdom which resisted to Chinese expansion."

The fact seem clear to me that it's a story about Chinese proudness and Goguryeo proudness. Not about Sui dynasty.

Yug (talk)  17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Goguryeo-Sui Wars is a distinct topic, and should not be merged into the later Tang wars. The later wars were in significant different context, in alliance with Silla, and involving attacks on Baekje. Besides, if this article was truly about Goguryeo-China wars, it would have to go back to the founding of Goguryeo and cover all wars between Goguryeo and the Han colonies and every Chinese battle since that. This article is clearly more limited and specific. OpieNn 17:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Commonly, the wikipedia policy is to divide articles when they are too big and dividable in two or three. That's not the case. Make an article "Goguryeo-Sui wars" and an other "Goguryeo-Tang wars" is, currently, not the best way.
 * Yug (talk)  18:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yug has renamed Goguryeo-Sui Wars to Goguryeo-China Wars, because he wants to include later Tang-Silla invasions of Baekje-Goguryeo, which I think is really a separate war. It doesn't make sense, because if you call it Goguryeo-China Wars, the article should include all wars between Goguryeo and China, including the wars against the Four Han Colonies, all the way through Goguryeo's fall. The article as-is, is not about that, it's really about the war between Goguryeo and the Sui Dynasty, which itself is a major, specific topic that should have its own article. If he wants to create another article on the Tang-Silla invasions of Baekje-Goguryeo, that's fine, but don't hijack an existing article on a different topic. Please see and say what you think about it. Thank you. OpieNn 19:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I know, my choice is the best one : it's one idea => the Chinese will to submit/conquest Goguryeo.
 * I also suspect that Pro-Korean users may prefer divide in 2 articles to show one beautifull article "Goguryeo-Sui wars" where Korean people is amazingly strong with a final victory. And don't want show the final defeat.
 * The Cambridge history of China doesn't seem to say that the Sui's wars/campaigns (598,612,613,614) are different from the Tang's wars/campaigns (645,661,667,668).
 * What are your sources ? What is your school studies ? The fact that you are a new user (4 edits) doesn't help me to trust you or what you will say.
 * Yug (talk)  19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One idea to consider—indeed, the more common way of dealing with situations like this—would be to leave this as an overview article covering all the wars between Goguryeo and the various Chinese states, and then to break out each individual (major) war into its own article to allow for more detailed coverage. (See, for example, the Italian Wars article & child articles.) This would be much easier than trying to break the wars into "series", since the beginning and end of each individual war are usually fairly clear, even when the connection between successive wars is not. Kirill Lokshin 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kirill. After this article is expanded more further, we can start a sub-article on Sui's campaigns on Gogueyeo. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody objects to creating new articles, on Goguryeo-China wars, Goguryeo-Tang war, or whatever. But just changing a long-established article messes up a lot of links.

Since there was a fully developed article on the specific topic of Goguryeo-Sui Wars, I have restored that specific article, so that the links will be correct. There are many links to that article from other articles already, which intend to refer to the Goguryeo-Sui war, not all Goguryeo wars with China. It's a very long-standing article many people have worked on, and it's on the Korean History box too.

I have just cut-and-pasted some information from the Goguryeo article to fill out this page with information on Goguryeo's battles with various Chinese dynasties. You can see that it's more than just Sui and Tang. Anybody with more information should be welcome to make this article more complete, but don't mess up the existing article, please. OpieNn 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Split this article into subarticle
Reason:the span of this article is too long.abount 500 or 600 years.It's not suitable to put all the odds in the same article.Just like the war between German and France,we cann't put together all the 3 majors conflits between the two countries.see Franco-Prussian War,Western Front (World War I) and Battle of France.--Ksyrie 00:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

I completely agree. Goguryeo / China wars are just too long. Goguryeo fought again the Han dynasty, Wei, Sui and Tang, that's 600 years. WangKon936 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by OpieNn
Then OpieNn come back : Comment : It's the second time that this user use this way : he restore old version, without looking on what he delete. (n^1).
 * Version by Ksyrie : China-Goguryeo wars, long history (about 600 years). I agree with this improvement.
 * Modif by OpieNn : restaure an old version about Sui's campaigns, delete content (Han + Tang Campaigns) without moving it to an other article.
 * 21:56, 26 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Goguryeo-Sui Wars (Split from the newly created Goguryeo-China wars) - he said "Split", but just keep what he protect (Sui wars), and forget to move what he don't like (Tang wars).

Two solutions : First, he is a good user who act too fast. Second, he is a pro-korean user, using a new account and many revert, to keep divide the subject.

I continue to think, as the Cambridge history of China, that Sui and Tang campaigns are the same line. I ask it again : What are your sources ? What is your studies ? Yug (talk)  11:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am Ksyrie,I just want to say,I am not OpieNn.And I am Chinese,not a pro-Korean.I can see full your justification for restoring your edits concerning Han and Tang.It's I who add the Split.Surtout,t'as raison de continuter des guerres dans des nouveau stubs au titre de Goguryeo-Tang Wars.Il est vivement conseille de ne pas t'inquieter trop.qlq fois,on trouve des coreens sont assez fiers de ne vouloir pas changer ses idees.Ok,si on ne peut pas les changer ,on change nousmeme.Essaie toi de creer stubs.Bonne chance et joyeux noel!--Ksyrie 15:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Ksyrie, I agree with your edits. But I disagree with OpieNn's edits, who destroyed your work too. Yug (talk)  16:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about, Yug. The current state is the way the article was before your changes. I didn't destroy anyone's work. As I already explained above, when you moved Goguryeo-Sui to Goguryeo-China, I made changes so that Goguryeo-Sui remained about Goguryeo-Sui (by keeping the original, before your addition of Tang), and I (not Ksyrie) expanded your new Goguryeo-China with Han, Yan, Tang and other information which I copied from the Goguryeo article. When Ksyrie reverted your move (he didn't add the part about Han, I did), I restored everything as before, by undoing my own changes, since there was no Goguryeo-China article anymore.

Again, please feel free to make a NEW article about Goguryeo's wars with all Chinese dynasties, or all Korean dynasties with all Chinese dynasties, or whatever. Just don't change this long-standing, widely-linked article into something else. Thanks. OpieNn 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As of 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC), you still haven't provide your source to explain your controversial edits.
 * As I said it, my edits are based upon The Cambridge history of China.
 * 2/ look on the bottom what you deleted without move it in a new article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yug (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * In my opinion, your edits aim to divide the topic in two, to keep a proud, victorious and pro-korean Goguryeo-Sui Wars article.
 * Your contributions -still unsourced- doesn't seem to look on the full semantic story.
 * So : I will set up a "NEW article" Goguryeo-Tang Wars, then, I will ask the opinion of an administrators-historian : Nlu, and he will decide. --Yug (talk)  23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge historics
Please, an Admin may him merge : --Yug (talk)  23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo-Sui_wars&action=history
 * and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo-Sui_Wars&action=history

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Sino-Xiongnu War - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to add the Battle of Yoha river and to change the number of troops in Sui and the number of troops that died after the war in Sui.
The Battle of Yoha river is in both the Book of Sui and the Samguk Yusa. It was the first battle between an army of 10,000 goguryeo and the army of 100,000 Sui forces in present day Hebei province. It is a battle i want to put in the war. I also researched the numbers of Sui that invaded Goguryeo. If the main army is 1,130,000 then there must be a logistics force twice the size and it was recorded in both historical texts that there were at total of 3 million sui men that invaded Goguryeo. The number of deaths were also recorded to be atleast 2 million for the Sui.Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samgungnyusa
 * The Samgungnyusa is not a reliable source as it is a work of propaganda. We need reliable sources, which means secondary sources. Ogress smash! 04:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There Samguk Sagi. If your going to say Samguk Sagi is false then youre basically saying the entire history of the three kingdoms period is false. And it says in Samguk Sagi of the battle of yoha river. Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * reliable sources Ogress smash! 06:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a documentary on the Goguryeo Sui war that has profesors of both sides claiming the chinese invaded with a force of 3 million men.Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Claiming that the Samgukyusa and Samguksagi is not reliable isn't a refutation. It is just your own opinion. You don't have any reliable evidence that the two books aren't reliable or that it is a propoganda work. Therefore, i will change it back. Rewriting History Channel (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

-According to ki-hun Lee also {(korea historian)(1997). 전쟁으로 보는 한국 역사}. , the size of the Sui army is exaggerated Samguksagi for  goguryeo–Sui War   It is supposed to be copied book of sui The contents are exactly the same korea army talk tv program [토크멘터리 전쟁史] 43부 고구려-수나라 전쟁편 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxXHnQuL87k estimates to only military troops 300,000 Including Supply Corps 1,133.000 <-? not signed

Apparently you don't know how to sign your editorials. 'Samguksagi' claims the size to be "mutiple times bigger then 1,133,000 - higher then 2,000,000", As for Ki-hum Lee, I asked you to provide the information. [토크멘터리 전쟁史] is a talk show, but even within that they claim the size to be "over 1,000,000". 300,000 is said to represent a division of the army, not the entirety of all 'military troops'. Wandrative (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

[토크멘터리 전쟁史] it is korea official army program https://www.youtube.com/user/kfnmaniagoon 국방tv

국방TV https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%B5%AD%EB%B0%A9TV

국방TV (구 국군방송)(國防TV)는 대한민국 국방부에서 관할하고 있는 방송국이다. 현재 하루 24시간 동안 군인과 군사 정보에 관한 매체물만을 방영하고 있다

ki-hun Lee.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lee_ki_hun.jpg (1997). 전쟁으로 보는 한국 역사.

《삼국사기》 삼국사기 Samguk Sagi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samguk_Sagi its compilation was ordered by Goryeo's King Injong (r. 1122-1146) and undertaken by the government official and historian Kim Busik

it is not modern estimate   삼국사기 samkuksagi  It was made in 1146

also in book, not estimate to 3.000.000 estimate to 1.133.000

dldusgml1234

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goguryeo–Sui War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040412021950/http://filebox.vt.edu:80/users/jojacks2/words/grandcanal.htm to http://filebox.vt.edu/users/jojacks2/words/grandcanal.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 October 2017
Hello I am korean. I am not good at English. Please understand. I think history must be correct and honest. Unfortunately, many Koreans exaggerate Korean history because of the inferiority of history. user Wandrative It looks like such a person. He wrote "Modern estimates vary 3,000,000 in Samguk Sagi 삼국사기"《삼국사기》고구려본기 영양왕 三國史記 卷第二十 髙句麗本紀 第八 This is a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samguk_Sagi The Samguk Sagi is written in Classical Chinese Script, the written language of the literati of ancient Korea, and its compilation was ordered by Goryeo's King Injong (r. 1122-1146) and undertaken by the government official and historian Kim Busik The Samguksagi was made in 1145 it is not modern time And there's no figure of 3.000.000 in that book. only 1.133.000 and Delete records that reveal their source at will  He is afraid that people will see the record (When in the world did this happen?). ki-hun Lee's book 전쟁으로 보는 한국 역사  year=1997   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lee_ki_hun.jpg in book estimate 600,000 Korea official Army history program[토크멘터리 전쟁史] 43부 고구려-수나라 전쟁편 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxXHnQuL87k in program estimate only military troops 300,000  Including Supply Corps 1,133.000 Despite the exact source, he unconditionally deletes the records. He does not like modern historians to point out the exaggeration of the record and to make realistic guesses Crucially, a few months ago he had a very dirty lie. He wrote "ki-hun Lee's book 전쟁으로 보는 한국 역사   in book estimate with 삼국사기 samguksagi to 3,000,000 " This is a crime. This document Goguryeo–Sui War contains very strong exaggerated comments from the Korean side. I know it because I am Korean. In Korea, this is called "국뽕 • (gukppong)"            https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%EA%B5%AD%EB%BD%95 in history part  It exaggerates Korea's history very much. History is not for the pride of the nation History must be accurate and honest I hope this document will be an objective document, not an exaggerated document by Korea Dldusgml1234 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to put an exaggerated interpretation 3,000,000, write where someone claims it. 3millon? 5milion? who ? where? when? There is no reason to just record exaggerated claims by simple rumors and ultra nationalists about history Do not delete it   David A estimate to 600,000 lee ki hun estimate to 600,000 Korea official Army history program[토크멘터리 전쟁史] 43부 고구려-수나라 전쟁편 estimate to only military troops 300,000 Including Supply Corps 1,133.000 by dldusgml1234 i didqjemf1234 i'm korean  I'm a beginner wiki  Do not speak English well I wonder how can discuss and edit the document I also wonder why user Wandrative's incorrectly edited document is protected I am Korean, but I want to correct exaggerated Korean history by ultra-nationalistic Korean user help me plz   Give me advice How can I change this document to an objective, accurate and honest historical document, not an exaggerated Korean history? by didqjemf1234 (please properly sign your editorials)

---

Its so humorous to see an individual using derogatory terms via clumsy assumptions. One does not have to heavily insist that one is 'Korean', unless one feels that the claim is not standing on solid grounds. You harassed me and many other groups of people multiple times, so i will clarify your obvious truth in relation to your claims of being 'Korean'. 1-you are not Korean, but a Chinese ultra nationalist. 2-If you are indeed Korean, you are a South Eastern extreme right wing Silla decedent (who are renowned for fabricating the history of Goguryeo whilst enlarging the history of Silla - primarily because they feel that their history is inferior to that of Goguryeo). I will not include any derogatory terms for there groups of people unlike how Dldusgml1234 did continuously to harass me. The conflict at hand is about the army count estimation of the Second Sui Invasion (Traditionally accepted sources, such as the Book of Sui writes the army count to be 1,133,000). The original statement presented the lowest extreme estimate to the highest extreme estimate (600,000 to 3 million). Dldusgml1234 attempts to erase the highest extreme estimate whilst leaving the lowest extreme. This makes the article extremely biased to say the least. He added the source, 'ki-hun Lee.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lee_ki_hun.jpg (1997). 전쟁으로 보는 한국 역사' to support the claim of 600,000 (Which is already sourced and I have no intention of erasing it). However, ki-hun Lee states that the army was 1,133,000, composing of the main assaulting army of 650,000 and the auxiliary armines composing the rest. Because of this reason, I removed it from supporting the claim. Dldusgml1234 additionally attempts to add TV talk show episodes on Youtube as a credible source. As for the source supporting the highest estimate, it clearly supports the statement:

《삼국사기》고구려본기 영양왕 三國史記 卷第二十 髙句麗本紀 第八

(Original)

八 年 夏 五 月 遣 使 入 隋 朝 貢 . 三 年 春 正 月 遣 使 入 隋 朝 貢 . 夏 五 月 遣 使 謝 恩 . . 三 月 䇿 封 爲 髙 句 麗 王 仍 賜 車 服 進 奉 因 請 封 王 帝 許 之 . 二 年 春 正 月 遣 使 入 隋 奉 表 謝 恩 三 司 襲 爵 遼 東 郡 公 賜 衣 一 襲 . 隋 文 帝 遣 使 拜 王 爲 上 開 府 儀 同 太 子 三 十 二 年 王 薨 太 子 即 位 . 民 自 任 . 平 原 王 在 位 七 年 立 爲 王 長 子 也 . 風 神 俊 爽 以 濟 丗 安 嬰 陽 王 陽.一云平諱 元 元.一云大平 原 髙 句 麗 本 紀 第 八 建武王嬰陽王·	宣 撰 . 史 · 上 柱 國 致 仕 臣 金 富 軾 奉 部 事 · 集 賢 殿 太 學 士 · 監 修 國 太 保 · 門 下 侍 中 · 判 尚 書 吏 禮 開 府 儀 同 三 司 · 檢 校 太 師 · 守 輸 忠 定 難 靖 國 贊 化 同 德 功 臣 ·

集 五 卷 . 國 初 始 用 文 字 時 有 人 詔 大 學 愽 士 李 文 眞 約 古 史 爲 新 十 一 年 春 正 月 遣 使 入 隋 朝 貢 . 之 . 王 知 其 事 侵 掠 百 濟 之 境 . 赦 之 不 可 致 伐 . ” 厚 其 使 而 遣 帝 下 詔 諭 以 “ 髙 勾 麗 服 罪 朕 已 百 濟 王 昌 遣 使 奉 表 請 爲 軍 導 . 初 . 土 臣 某 . ’ 帝 於 是 罷 兵 待 之 如 恐 懼 遣 使 謝 罪 上 表 稱 ‘ 遼 東 糞 秋 九 月 師 還 死 者 十 八 九 . 王 亦 舡 多 漂 沒 . 睺 自 東 萊 泛 海 趣 平 壤 城 亦 遭 風 不 繼 軍 中 乏 食 復 遇 疾 疫 . 周 羅 漢 王 諒 軍 出 臨 渝 關 値 水 潦 餽 轉 夏 六 月 帝 下 詔 黜 王 官 爵 . 爲 元 帥 將 水 陸 三 十 萬 來 伐 . 聞 而 大 怒 命 漢 王 諒 · 王 丗 績 並 營 州 㧾 管 韋 冲 擊 退 之 . 隋 文 帝 九 年 王 率 靺 鞨 之 衆 萬 餘 侵 遼 西 來 朝 勿 自 疑 懼 . 存 育 之 禮 當 如 當 往 𣵠 郡 . 爾 還 日 語 爾 王 冝 早 啓 民 誠 心 奉 囯 故 親 至 其 帳 明 年 帝 從 之 . 勑 牛 弘 宣 旨 曰 “ 朕 以 化 . 可 因 其 恐 懼 脅 使 入 朝 . ” 乎 . 今 其 使 者 親 見 啓 民 舉 國 從 不 取 使 冠 帯 之 境 遂 爲 蠻 貊 之 郷 肖 師 出 無 㓛 . 當 陛 下 之 時 安 可 域 先 帝 欲 征 之 久 矣 . 但 楊 諒 不 晉 皆 爲 郡 縣 . 今 乃 不 臣 別 爲 異 “ 髙 勾 麗 本 箕 子 所 封 之 地 漢 · 之 見 帝 . 黄 門 侍 郎 裴 矩 說 帝 曰 使 者 在 啓 民 所 . 啓 民 不 敢 隠 與 十 八 年 初 焬 帝 之 幸 啓 民 帳 也 我 克 而 退 . 皷 噪 相 應 . 勝 以 彼 衆 我 寡 恐 不 漢 山 城 . 羅 王 率 兵 過 漢 水 城 中 十 四 年 王 遣 將 軍 髙 勝 攻 新 羅 北 . 記 事 一 百 卷 名 曰 留 記 至 是 刪 修

歷 年 永 久 惡 稔 旣 盈 . 天 道 禍 淫 繁 以 訖 今 . 睠 彼 華 壤 翦 爲 夷 類 阻 種 落 還 集 萃 川 藪 於 徃 代 播 寔 復 漢 · 魏 誅 戮 巢 穴 暫 傾 亂 離 多 · 碣 之 間 荐 食 遼 · 濊 之 境 . 雖 “ 髙 句 麗 小 醜 迷 昏 不 恭 崇 聚 勃 二 十 三 年 春 正 月 王 午 帝 下 詔 曰 方 兵 皆 集 𣵠 郡 . 夏 四 月 車 蓋 至 𣵠 郡 之 臨 朔 宫 四 句 麗 . 二 十 二 年 春 二 月 焬 帝 下 詔 討 高 夏 四 月 拔 新 羅 牛 鳴 山 城 . 虜 獲 八 千 人 . 十 九 年 春 二 月 命 將 襲 新 羅 北 境 . . 移 襲 石 頭 城 虜 男 女 三 千 而 還 夏 五 月 遣 師 攻 百 濟 松 山 城 不 下 之 . 啓 民 突 厥 可 汗 也 . 彼 土 . ” 王 懼 藩 禮 頗 闕 帝 將 討 啓 民 . 苟 或 不 朝 將 帥 啓 民 徃 巡 徭 役 無 期 力 竭 轉 輸 身 塡 溝 壑 百 以 仍 歳 災 凶 比 屋 饑 饉 兵 戈 不 息 之 成 俗 賄 貨 如 市 寃 枉 莫 申 . 重 強 臣 豪 族 咸 執 國 鈞 朋 黨 比 周 以 不 可 容 . 且 法 令 苛 酷 賦 歛 煩 重 之 心 豈 爲 臣 之 禮 . 此 而 可 忍 孰 境 而 擁 塞 道 路 拒 絶 王 人 無 事 君 奉 使 爰 曁 海 東 旌 節 所 次 途 經 藩 徃 來 虐 及 弗 辜 誠 而 遇 禍 . 輶 車 同 禀 正 朔 . 遂 復 敓 攘 琛 責 遏 絶 又 青 丘 之 表 咸 修 職 貢 碧 海 之 濵 劉 海 戍 習 靺 鞨 之 服 侵 軼 遼 西 . 懐 恩 翻 爲 長 惡 乃 兼 契 丹 之 黨 處 緩 前 禽 之 戮 未 即 後 服 之 誅 曽 不 之 廢 業 . 在 昔 薄 伐 已 漏 天 網 旣 勞 烽 候 . 關 柝 以 之 不 靜 生 人 爲 誘 納 亡 叛 不 知 紀 極 充 斥 邊 垂 亟 未 甞 面 受 朝 覲 之 禮 莫 肯 躬 親 . 掩 慝 懐 姦 唯 曰 不 足 . 移 告 之 嚴 亡 徵 已 兆 . 亂 常 敗 徳 非 可 勝 圖

(Transcription of the topic of debate into Korean Hangul/Joseongul)

"모두 1백 13만 3천 8백 명인데 2백만 명이라 하였으며, 군량을 수송하는 자는 그 배였다. (중략) 매일 1군씩을 보내어 서로 거리가 40리가 되게 하고 진영이 연이어 점차 나아가니, 40일만에야 출발이 완료되었다. 머리와 꼬리가 서로 이어지고 북과 나팔소리가 서로 들리고 깃발이 960리에 걸쳤다. 어영(御營) 안에는 12위(衛)·3대(臺)·5성(省)·9시(寺)를 합하고, 내외 전후 좌우(內外前後左右) 6군을 나누어 예속시키고 다음에 출발하게 하니 또한 80리를 뻗쳤다."

(Partial Translation into English)

"In total there are 1,133,800, but is actually said to be 2 million, and the axillary army was multiple times that number. (ommited) It took 40 full days to begin the march the total army continuously, sending 1 army per day, 40 li's apart. (ommited)

Dldusgml1234 continuously removed this highly accredited source, and his reasons for doing so was, 'because it is too old and cannot be a modern estimate'. One should realize that numerous modern estimates are based on primary/secondary historical sources. I cannot believe how Dldusgml1234 can straight up lie repeatedly, harass people all the time, and has not grasp of the topic whatsoever.

I believe that both of the extremes should be well represented within the article, or both not be represented at all. Leaving only one part is highly biased. Wandrative (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The 600,000 number is a modern estimate. Where does your estimate of 3,000,000 come from? Your source appears to be a medieval primary source, and even within this source your exact claim is missing. The statement "in total there are 1,133,800, but is actually said to be 2 million, and the auxiliary army was multiple times that number" is not from the text you quoted, but appears to be a translation of the Book of Sui, Book 4: "總一百一十三萬三千八百，號二百萬，其餽運者倍之" 隋書/卷04. Since you do not seem to know how to read classical Chinese, I suggest you not quote it. Besides, Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources, not primary sources. The statement should be rewritten as: "1,133,800 with additional auxiliaries, according to the Book of Sui; modern estimates range from 600,000 to 1,133,800" citing Graff, Lee, and Michael J. Seth, who was previously removed in the course of the edit war. This is a clear case of disagreement between both primary historical sources and secondary historical sources, and thus all sides should be presented but not by conflating primary sources with secondary sources, or by making up numbers that are not directly referenced in the sources, which falls under original research. Lathdrinor (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

hi i didqjemf1234 I say it again Samguk Sagi 삼국사기"《삼국사기》고구려본기 영양왕 三國史記 卷第二十 髙句麗本紀 第八 The Samguksagi was made in 1145 it is not modern time The current document is recorded by Wandrative "Modern estimates vary from 3,000,000[12] 《삼국사기》고구려본기 영양왕 三國史記 卷第二十 髙句麗本紀 第八 to 600,000.[13]" This is history distortion. Korea's History Textbook Compilation Committee . It says 1,130,000 only There is also an English version http://contents.history.go.kr/front/kh/view.do?category=english&levelId=kh_001_0020_0030_0020 If you want to put an exaggerated interpretation 3,000,000, write where someone claims it. There was no original record of 3000000 in this wiki this wiki is distorted by Wandrative And he deleted everything he did not like. He tries to distort the exaggerated history of Korea as if it were true. Do not delete it David A estimate to 600,000 lee ki hun estimate to 600,000 Korea official Army history program[토크멘터리 전쟁史] 43부 고구려-수나라 전쟁편 estimate to only military troops 300,000  Including Supply Corps 1,133.000 by dldusgml1234

Lathdrinor, I understand clearly from where you are coming from. Just to begin with the basics, 삼국사기 is written in Korean Vernacular Idu. Since the topic at hand is the same, the source has a similar army count from the Book of Sui. Considering that you do not know how to read Korean Vernacular, or understand the grammatical difference between Classical Chinese and Korean Vernacular, I suggest you to think twice before criticizing or from implying others as incapable. You can clearly understand the information behind the translated phrase; "in total there are 1,133,800, but is actually said to be 2 million, and the auxiliary army was multiple times that number", so having doubts about its meaning or authenticity only seems to be driven by groundless pathos. It is very doubtful to see if your conclusions on 'Wikipedia generally preferring secondary sources', is actually completely solid or if it is simply your opinion. Even if that is the case; As dldusgml1234 mentioned previously, 삼국사기 is a Secondary Source from the Goryeo Dynasty (Don't confuse with Goguryeo that also used the same name). I did not read the source from Graf properly, but I can now I understand that his source has the same information with Lee, according to your analysis (Lathdrinor). Lee writes that the army count is, '1,133,800 with additional auxiliaries' - not 600,000. So if Graf is on the same page as Lee, then his source should not support 600,000 also. I do not understand why you suggest to have a source bias on keeping the lowest estimate while leaving the moderate source as if it is the highest. It seems like you are discrediting 삼국사기 all together for no authentic reason. The phrase, 'Multiple times of 2 million' is clear, and there are documentaries that describe it to mean 3 million in accordance to it; if the source of the documentary is somehow wrong or manipulated to be invalid, then the phrase: 'Multiple times of 2 million' should represent the highest estimate. Both of the two extreme sides should be presented, or not be presented at all. Leaving only one side is highly biased. Wandrative (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Samguk Sagi was written in Classical Chinese. The Korean you quoted is not the Idu script but modern Korean Hangul. I don't know where you got the idea that the primary source for the war was Vernacular Korean because it is not. I disagree with dldusgml1234 or anyone else who believes Samguk Sagi's account is a secondary source. Per Wikipedia standards, historical records are primary sources, and in this case the numbers given in Samguk Sagi are a direct quote of the Book of Sui, which is the earliest primary source. Secondary sources refer to scholarly analysis, which the Samguk Sagi was not. The number 1,133,800 cited by Samguk Sagi refers to the invasion force of soldiers. The "multiple times" phrase refers to logistical support 餽運 - ie people who bring food to the army, cook for the army, etc. They are not combatants. This is why I suggested "1,133,800 with additional auxiliaries" or "1,133,800 with additional logistical support." You have not provided a source for the "3 million" combatants claim and it is not customary to include the logistical support numbers in the army size, which is why historians generally prefer 1,133,800.


 * I also checked Graff's source. This is what he says, exactly: "Even if the early Tang historians did not "cook the books" in this way, it is likely that the figure of 1,133,800 combat soldiers given in the History of the Sui Dynasty represents the total number of men that the government summoned for service in 611, rather than the number that actually arrived at Zhuo commandery and Donglai and then participated in the campaign against Koguryo the following year. An army roughly half this size, the figure suggested by addition of the reported strengths of the contingents that made up the Sui host, is much more plausible and is also in line with the reported size of the Sui force that moved against Chen in 588." The justification for the 600,000 lower estimate - ie "roughly half" the size of 1,133,800 - should be obvious.


 * One of the most important principles of Wikipedia is to cite reliable sources and to follow them, not to present your own analysis, original research, or to insist on the use of less reliable sources because it supports a conclusion you support. I don't know what documentaries you are referring to but unless you cite them so that others can verify their reliability, it's not very useful. Lathdrinor (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

dldusgml1234, I have already warned you nine times, and I warn you again. You have 1- posted completely incredible sources as cover up (such as YouTube talk show videos) 2- lied about the content of the sources repeatedly 3- created new information at one's own will 4- used derogatory words repeatedly 5- lied that I did certain things, when I did not 6- continuously harassed certain groups of people 7- blamed people from 'distorting' information, when it was actually himself doing so. 8- Disguising your writing within someone else's editorials as if they have written it. Wandrative (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Wandrative What does your warning mean? Your warning is worthless You only warn about the deletion and modification of Korean history exaggerated by you Clearly speaking, the Korea's History Textbook Compilation Committee says 1130000 http://contents.history.go.kr/front/kh/view.do?category=korean&levelId=kh_001_0020_0030_0020 English version http://contents.history.go.kr/front/kh/view.do?category=english&levelId=kh_001_0020_0030_0020 You have distorted the historical document by relating the exaggerated presumption of an extreme nationalist to the Samguksagi. Originally this document was clean. Problems began to arise from your modification. If you look past your wiki, you will see an exaggerated document revision record for Goguryeo. History must be honest and objective. South Korea is ridiculed by foreigners because of people who exaggerate Korean history like you do. The 600,000 troop estimates are obviously estimating historians and their opinions. On the contrary, the 3 million troop estimates you have recorded are not clear as to who, where, and when the 3 million troops were estimated. You just wrote that the source was Samguksagi. this is definitely different. You just do not like the fact that modern historians estimate a realistic number of troops. So you somehow want to hide or erase that fact. by dldusgml1234

Lathdrinor, of course the Korean transcription is in Hangul; and the English translation is in the Latin alphabet... What was that assertion for? And back to the basics again: Samguk Sagi is written in the Korean Vernacular Idu system, and the Korean Vernacular Idu system uses Classical Chinese Characters. It obviously does not use Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Some versions of Samguk Sagi were written in Korean Vernacular Hyangchal (also uses Classical Chinese Characters). During the Joseon dynasty, a new version of Samguk Sagi, (which used the actual Han Chinese grammatical system (漢語)) was written by 진의귀 (EwuiGewui Jin) on 1393. I already posted the original text from the Samguk Sagi on this page. I assumed that if anyone had a great understanding of "Classical Chinese", then one would able to read it, or is it because its in Korean Vernacular? Here is the repost of the original of the parts that are translated:

《삼국사기》고구려본기 영양왕 三國史記 卷第二十 髙句麗本紀 第八

凡一百十三萬三千八百人號二百萬其餽輸者倍之.冝杜於南桑乾水上類上帝於臨朔宫南祭馬祖於薊城北.帝親授節度每軍上將·亞將各一人騎兵四十隊隊百人十隊爲團歩卒八十隊分爲四團團各有偏將一人.

As mentioned in the opening pages of the source, the sources of the Samguk Sagi itself are the books;《고기》(古記), 《해동고기》(海東古記), 《삼한고기》(三韓古記), 《본국고기(本國古記)》, 《신라고기(新羅古記)》, and 《구삼국사》(舊三國史). Clearly the numbers overlap with the Book of Sui because its talking about the same event, and it has not been sourced in the Samguk Sagi. Yes it is clearly a 'historical record', but you were to radically decide that it was not a scholarly analysis. You are going into a very vague border here. It wrote 1,133,800/2 million because it was trying to represent differing information from different books (which is quite common in the Samguk Sagi). "A multiple times of 2 million" does refer to the auxiliaries and the logistics, as it was indicated in the source itself. It ultimately comes to the question as to why you are so eager to completely ignore the auxiliaries and the logistics. Other pages involving other army counts does not seem to see this as an issue worthy of ignorance. You were to do your own analysis that, "The justification for the 600,000 lower estimate - ie "roughly half" the size of 1,133,800 - should be obvious.", whilst making a problem out of '3 million'. 3 million is in fact, a very conservative picture. It should be obvious that, "multiple times of 2 million" would be over 4 million - only in accordance to the source. As for the source of '3 million', you are making it a problem because the source does not exactly write the exact number, 3 million - and I did not see that a statement had to always have two different sources supporting it. I can always add "KBS 역사스페셜 021 세계전쟁사의 수수께끼, 고구려 수당전쟁 [Documentary]. (2005). ROK: KBS1.", if this continues to be a problem. Your suggestion; "1,133,800 with additional auxiliaries" is quite misleading. It sounds like it includes the auxiliaries within the 1,133,000. The correct method will be "(number) including auxiliaries". On the other hand, the minimum count of 600,000 should be represented by "(number) excluding auxiliaries", since it is clear that they excluded them in these sources. I will also write that it is not ideal to present your own analysis, do original research, or to insist on the use of less reliable sources because it supports a conclusion you support. It is quite surprising to read this from whom who did all these three things. I will also indicate that discrediting a highly accredited source according to your opinion is also not ideal. Wandrative (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Deciding on the content of the document is not what you(Wandrative want You wrote down the 3 million troop numbers that were exaggerated by ultra nationalists about history and erased the 600000 estimated troops on the Korean historian's book. "KBS 역사스페셜' kbs history program  There are many problems with the program. in a program that talked like  fact 환단고기 ( Hwandan Gogi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwandan_Gogi) Your claim is delusional."3 million is in fact, a very conservative picture" Your wiki record shows an exaggeration about Korea's history of Goguryeo. Anyone watching this discussion will know who is looking at history normally and objectively. You think your actions are for Korea, but actually you  Action is embarrassing Korea. You believe and claim 'Nationalist pseudohistory' can not record a history  as 'Nationalist pseudohistory'  wiki by dldusgml1234 Besides me Other users point out the fault of Wandrative by dldusgml1234 Do not touch My discussions view history  Wandrative is editing Do not touch

Stop double spacing your entire content, its becoming overly obnoxious. You seem to repetitively erase all your accumulations of official warnings from your page also. Sign your editorials and don't try to make it appear as if someone else wrote it instead. Wandrative (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Goguryeo–Sui War
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Goguryeo–Sui War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Nahm": From South Korea:  From Battle of Salsu: "China, which had been split into many states since the early 3rd century, was reunified by the Sui dynasty at the end of the 6th century. Soon after that, Sui China mobilized a large number of troops and launched war against Koguryŏ. However, the people of Koguryŏ were united and they were able to repel the Chinese aggressors. In 612, Sui troops invaded Korea again, but Koguryŏ forces fought bravely and destroyed Sui troops everywhere. General Ŭlchi Mundŏk of Koguryŏ completely wiped out some 300,000 Sui troops which came across the Yalu River in the battles near the Salsu River (now Ch'ŏngch'ŏn River) with his ingenious military tactics. Only 2,700 Sui troops were able to flee from Korea. The Sui dynasty, which wasted so much energy and manpower in aggressive wars against Koguryŏ, fell in 618." From Korea: "China, which had been split into many states since the early 3rd century, was reunified by the Sui dynasty at the end of the 6th century. Soon after that, Sui China mobilized a large number of troops and launched war against Koguryŏ. However, the people of Koguryŏ were united and they were able to repel the Chinese aggressors. In 612, Sui troops invaded Korea again, but Koguryŏ forces fought bravely and destroyed Sui troops everywhere. General Ŭlchi Mundŏk of Koguryŏ completely wiped out some 300,000 Sui troops which came across the Yalu River in the battles near the Salsu River (now Ch'ŏngch'ŏn River) with his ingenious military tactics. Only 2,700 Sui troops were able to flee from Korea. The Sui dynasty, which wasted so much energy and manpower in aggressive wars against Koguryŏ, fell in 618." From History of Korea:  

Reference named "Lee": From Goguryeo:  From Battle of Salsu: "Koguryŏ was the first to open hostilities, with a bold assault across the Liao River against Liao-hsi, in 598. The Sui emperor, Wen Ti, launched a retaliatory attack on Koguryŏ but met with reverses and turned back in mid-course. Yang Ti, the next Sui emperor, proceeded in 612 to mount an invasion of unprecedented magnitude, marshalling a huge force said to number over a million men. And when his armies failed to take Liao-tung Fortress (modern Liao-yang), the anchor of Koguryŏ's first line of defense, he had a nearly a third of his forces, some 300,000 strong, break off the battle there and strike directly at the Koguryŏ capital of P'yŏngyang. But the Sui army was lured into a trap by the famed Koguryŏ commander Ŭlchi Mundŏk, and suffered a calamitous defeat at the Salsu (Ch'ŏngch'ŏn) River. It is said that only 2,700 of the 300,000 Sui soldiers who had crossed the Yalu survived to find their way back, and the Sui emperor now lifted the siege of Liao-tung Fortress and withdrew his forces to China proper. Yang Ti continued to send his armies against Koguryŏ but again without success, and before long his war-weakened empire crumbled."</li> <li>From History of Korea: </li> <li>From Three Kingdoms of Korea: Lee, Sung-joo. (1998). Silla–Gaya Sahwoe-eui Giwon-gwa Seongjang [The Rise and Growth of Society in Silla and Gaya]. Seoul: Hakyeon Munhwasa.</li> <li>From Jangsu of Goguryeo: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Date Terminology
Since this is a non-European, non-Christian conflict, should we switch from AD to CE? Tpsreport84 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice you have been adding CE to other articles that have got only European, Western themes, so what's your story really?--154.59.156.78 (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)