Talk:Qin (state)

Anachronism
Shang Yang couldn't have been a "firm believer in the philosophies of Han Fei;" he lived & died a full century before Han Fei. -Bill Henderson

This statement was not dated but was already resolved when I looked at it.FourLights (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

King list
Why are the king list broken into chunk of three? --Menchi 03:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Dunno but I guessed Spring and Autumn Period, the spot in between, and Warring States Period. Then I thought the spot in between wasn't that long, and my theory was mush.  Well ... still waiting for an answer! :) --Pratyeka 05:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * The breaks make it look that there are three sub-dynasties though (especially the fact that the numbers get re-initialized to one twice!), when the succession was continuous. It is worth noting when the Warring States Period began in the list; here are the years: . However, I don't know if it is true that the five ancestors of Feizi were "rulers of Qin", as shown on that table. My understanding is that Qin City was not rewarded to this family until Feizi. --Menchi 05:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that those 5 ancestors were closer to mythological rulers than actual. Starting the lists with Qin Zhong is appropiate since he fought the western barbarians for the protection of King Li of Zhou. kt2 06:45, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Actually King Xiao of Zhou was pleased with Feizi's ability to bread horses between the Wei and Qian Rivers and assigned him with the town of Qin and the name of Qin Ying "setting asside land for him so that he may become a dependant domain". And it was from him that the Qin lineage began: Qin Ying, his son Qin Hou (10 years of rule), his grandson Gongbo (3 years of rule), his great-grandson Qin Zhong (23 years). And it was really King Xuan of Zhou (successor of King Li) who after sucurring his place on the throne, sent Qin Zhong to push back the Quanrong people, but he was killed in battle and his son was sent in to replace him and he succeded in defeating the Quanrong so from there King Xiao officially made him Duke Zhuang of Qin. So personally, I think the list should start from either Feizi or Duke Zhuang. --Master Liang 01:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

King Zheng
Did the state cease to exist when King Zheng proclaimed himself emperor? --Jiang 07:12, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Answered in the article kt2 07:27, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Deleted kings
Why are there several kings deleted?Pookleblinky 03:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Size of armies
This article seems to take ancient sources of the sizes of armies at face value. Ancient sources place the army of the contemporary Persian Empire at 500,000 men, but nobody believes that today. But I am not expert enough to say more. Can someone check it? David s graff 03:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please check the numbers on these armies?? They seem impossibly huge. The greatest empires in history never managed to have armies that numbered as large as the ones described in this article. How can a mere state raise an army that took the entire Roman Empire to raise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.120.233 (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the change of army system during that time. Warfares between feudal states upto around mid Spring and Autumn period had been consisted of chariots battles and the sizes of armies were accounted for in terms of number of chariots, where each chariot was accompanied with approximately 30 foot soldiers.  Large battles during the Spring and Autumn period such as the battle of Chengpu (632 B.C.) between Chu and Jin each side manuvered around 700 chariots, i.e. ~21,000 men.  All these men came from the noble families, where slaves and ordinary citizens (farmers) were not enlisted.


 * As the scale of war escalated into late Spring and Autumn and early Warring States, the need for larger and large army stretched the noble population to its limit for providing an elite educated fighting force and conscription of ordinary citizens became the new system, which resulted in a huge jump in army sizes. The state's survival requirement for large armies also promoted the developments of human settlement in previously unoccupided lands and agricultural practices were put into full force in these newly developed lands in order to stock up food and supplies during peace years and provide urgent frontline needs during wartimes.  Besides foods and supplies, the most critical benefit of land development was the increase in population, as the same manpower for land cultivation was also fully utilized in battle.  Based on the Discourses of the Warring States, Book Zhao, General Zhao Tu mentioned "in acient times (pre-warring states), cities despite large, still no more than 300 zhang (measured across, where 1 zhang = 3.33 metres); (in the city) population despite large, still no more than 3,000 families.  Nowadays (warring states), cities of 1,000 zhang wide, 10,000 families (have developed to the point that they) can see each others (on their smoke towers)."  If we assume each family has 10 members, which is extremely conservative in a Chinese family, there is already a city with population of 100,000, and when cities this size can see each other on the horizon, these states did have the manpower to sustain centuries of warfare of a slautering nature.  An estimate of the population of the then central China (i.e. north to great wall, south to Yangtze, west to Qin, east to sea) was approximately 20 million.


 * As we look at Qin's army system after Shang Yang's reform, which impleted conscription and enlisted every 50 of 100 farming male above 23 years old (merchants class exempted). Services started in hometown for 1 month, then change base to the capital for 1 year, and then change base at the border for 1 year.  The rest of the weaker 50 men stayed home for agricultural production.  During the battle of Changping, the conscription was temporarily changed to every male above 15 that lives east of the Yellow River.  At the eve of uniting China, Qin has an army of approximately 600,000.  After unification, instead of reducing the size of the army, Qin chose to expand it further with the resources it acquired from the six fallen states to expand the Empire up north and down south, which led to its overthrown in merely 15 years due to social unsustainability.


 * It must be most inappropriate to compare Rome to China even at the same period, especially Mediterranean Europe, near east and north Africa never have the same amount of population to back an army that size. It does not have the fertile land as in central China to produce agricultural yields that can sustain that kind of population.  It was also spread across 3 continents with a sea in the middle whereas in China the stage was focus in 10 provinces in today's map, often enemy cities were within tens of kilometers in today's measurement and these states must out-grow its component and to prevent from being out-grown (i.e. slaugter when possible) in order to defend itself.  Maoyingkiu 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most historians will use the historically given figures to at least give a sense of magnitude, with the caveat of admitting that they are almost certainly exaggerated. Perhaps such an approach is best here.129.110.116.65 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
This article has a good history section, but it needs to look at other aspects of Qin too. --Danaman5 06:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

References and Quotes
Why are there no references? And no quotes? Or any box saying this article needs more references? 213.114.210.23 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no references. It looks great, but who includes no references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.219.43 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ts'in
another name... Böri (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Feizi
秦非子is not a viscount.All Chinese source have not this explain.—星光下的人 (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 看起来您不明白我的意思，中国古代有“五等爵位”，就是公、侯、伯、子、男. 一般英文的翻译是Duke, Marquis, Count, Viscount, Baron
 * [Translation: It looks like you don't understand my meaning. In ancient China the five orders of nobility in common English usage are Duke, Marquis, Count, Viscount and Baron.]
 * 会中文早说，五等爵不是你想的那么简单，更重要的是，非子的“子”不是子爵，懂了吗？—星光下的人
 * [Translation: As regards the previous comment, the five orders of nobility are not as simple as you think. More importantly the "子" here does not mean Viscount. Do you understand?] (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, firstly this is the English Wikipedia so discussions should be conducted in English ( I have added translations for the above exchange). Please give a reference that confirms "Viscount" is not the meaning here - I am not disagreeing with your point of view but it needs to be verifiable. Philg88 (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 开什么玩笑，这种东西应该你提供，你凭什么认为非子的子是子爵的意思，你的来源在哪？没有来源，自然是用拼音. 《史记·秦本纪》：“有非子居犬丘. ”这个时候非子是没有封地的，没封地会是子爵？非子乃名!—星光下的人
 * [Translation: Are you joking? You should provide the reference. Why do you think the 子 of 非子 means viscount? What is your source? There is no source. It is natural to use pinyin.  "Feizi lived in Quanqiu" At this time he did not have a fiefdom so how can he have been a viscount? Therefore Feizi is his name.] (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm happy to come in and contribute to this discussion at Philg88's request. I've read the first few back-and-forths: what is the original disagreement?  Philg88 mentioned early usage(s) of the term '子', but it seems like that's not the original issue...or is it?  Thanks.    White Whirlwind  咨   16:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks White Whirlwind. In fact "子" is the crux of the issue. The quote he cites above from the Shiji only says that he lived in a place called 犬丘 - not that he wasn't a viscount. That said, I am starting to have some concerns about the use of 子 and 伯 as de facto titles for nobility rather than just names but there are an awful lot of WP articles that use them. Philg88 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 因为有自动翻译机在，我还是中文了. Philg88阁下对先秦历史的不熟悉，直接造成你把子理解为子爵，其实只要用《左传》的例子就够了，郜子，吴子，楚子、郧子，这些都是以国+“子”称呼该国国君，也有以国+“子”+名的方式，如邾子克，莒子狂. 那么好了，如果非子是子爵，那么非即他的封地，敢问非在哪？—星光下的人 (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm looking into this dispute but will be travelling to Hong Kong this weekend and won't be able to write my full opinions until next week. I'm fairly certain I can resolve this problem now but I'd better wait and be certain. Philg88, can you link to some other articles that translate the name-suffix 子 in its 子爵 viscount sense?  That's rather unusual, and I'd like to see what how they source those instances ('The Man Under Starlight' has a good point in that other Wikipedia pages are not inherently reliable sources, although they will certainly link to them in ideal situations.)  Also The Man Under Starlight (星光下的人), you need to be more respectful and less combative in your communications.  Your reasoning and arguments are very good, though. As Philg88 mentioned earlier, even though it is not easy for you, please do your best to use good English when working on this version of Wikipedia.  I understand your Chinese perfectly, but that's not the point.  Thanks to both of you gentlemen.   White Whirlwind  咨   09:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose what The Man Under Starlight says makes certain sense. Han Feizi means something like Master Han Fei, not Viscount Fei of Han. The issue seems to be how do we identify whether 子 is used as a name or a title of nobility or a title of respect (like 孔子)? In Han's case, each of the pre-state sovereigns is referred to as _ _ 子 and also has a given name(韓獻子 == 韓厥). Considering they were heads of a powerful family and not exactly known in history as influential writers suggest the 子 here is a title of nobility to me. Hanfresco (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The generation before 韓厥 is Hanyu(韩舆) son of Han Jian(韩简，韩定伯) is son of Han Qiubo (韓赇伯) is son of Hanwan (韓万,韩武子) is son of Quwo Huanshu（曲沃桓叔）,this line come from The Book of Lineages (世本).Do you want to translate them to Earl and Viscount?
 * “据我们对现有文献记载调查，在一个同氏集团内，大体上只有继位为大宗的人才称“伯”或“子”. 比如鲁国季孙氏的季文子、季武子、季悼子、季平子、季桓子、季康子等，皆季孙氏大宗. 孟孙氏的孟穆伯、孟孝伯、孟武伯和叔孙氏的叔孙戴伯、叔孙宣伯亦分别是孟孙氏和叔孙氏大宗. 因此子服氏的诸“伯”，亦同孟穆伯、孟孝伯、孟武伯、叔孙戴伯、叔孙宣伯、臧哀伯等一样，是子服氏集团大宗的称号”——谢维扬《周代家庭形态》ISBN:7-207-06426-8—星光下的人 (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fundamental issue here is that early Western historians thought that they understood the Chinese societal hierarchy then grafted the five grades of nobility from the British system onto it despite China’s completely different culture. Unfortunately this stuck and has led to the propagation of nomenclature errors ever since.


 * Dictionaries of classical (i.e. old) Chinese all seem to have definitions of 子 that state it was both an honorific as well a title of nobility. For example, the says on page 490:  (Definition 4) 子 – 古代男子的美称或尊. 如：孔子；孟子；荀子；韩非子.也用作表敬的第二人称代词. 《左传 • 鲁僖公三十年》:“吾不能早用子，今急而求子. ” 古代能师长. 如：子日；子墨子.  Translation: In ancient times a male laudatory or honorific title, e.g. : Confucius, Mencius, Xun Zi, Han Fei. Also used as a respectful second person pronoun.  “Early on I could not use zi but now it is an urgent request.” Can also be used as part of a teacher’s name, e.g. Zi Ri, Zi Mozi.  (Definition 6) 古代爵位名. 为五等爵的第四个. 直至清代仍沿用. Translation: An ancient order of nobility, fourth of the five ranks. Still used up to the time of the Qing Dynasty. Based on the above, it is clear that Confucius was not Viscount Kong nor Han Fei Viscount Fei of Han. However I think that in Zhou Dynasty China Viscount/Honorable were possibly interchangeable as an indication of hierarchical status.


 * In defense of using the English ranks of nobility generally, I don’t think anyone would agree that the Duke of Zhou should become Zhougong or the Marquess of Shen Shenhou. Sources concur that the five orders of nobility were created by King Wu of Zhou, who was most definitely pre-Qin Dynasty.


 * It seems to me that the crux of the issue is to decide on an individual basis whether the子 is an honorific or a title of nobility which is not in itself an easy task. As for examples of the use of the (pre-Qin) title viscount see Marquess Jing of Han, and the article Viscount, along with any Chinese/English dictionary. Philg88 (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of zi 子 to mean "Viscount" is without question the less common of its two or three main usages (the exception, not the rule, so to speak). I do not think we should render "Feizi" as "Viscount Fei", and I think the "Man Under Starlight" user has made the best case in the discussion.


 * Although we have had some good arguments for and against its use, including Philg88's dictionary references, I think it might be helpful if I gave a short history of the word zi 子 as best as I understand it, as it will shed some light that will not be found in any dictionary. (Note: I'm not going to talk about oracle bone usage or bronzes here, as I don't know much about them aside from the oracle bone dictionary PDF I have.)


 * First we have, of course, its original "child" meaning, from which its other meanings flow, as I'll treat below using just the ancient and very reliable Book of Songs (Chinese).


 * The word zi 子 appears in the Book of Songs (Chinese) nearly 400 times, at least half of those times used in the term junzi 君子 (or kjun tsjəʔ, as Prof. Baxter reconstructs it). Now, this is a term nearly anybody who knows some Chinese will have heard, and as you all know it's generally translated into English as "gentleman" or "superior man" because of its usage in the Confucian classics.  That is not quite its true meaning.  It literally means "son of prince" - in ancient times, the sons of royalty were probably more educated, refined, and cultured than other men, and parents of common background likely encouraged their sons to act gentlemanly, like a kjun tsjəʔ 君子.  Confucius seems to have emphasized that regardless of a man's birth status in society, he could choose the noble path of the kjun tsjəʔ 君子 for himself. (I learned this from Dr. David Honey, my first formal Classical Chinese teacher, who I think learned it from the great Peter Boodberg.)  The name-suffix usage (e.g. Kongzi, Zhuangzi, Feizi, etc.) almost certainly derives ultimately from this usage, and not from the Zhou ranks of nobility.


 * This then is also probably the origin of zi 子's other usage in the Book of Songs as the second-person pronoun "you" or "thou" that seems to be used by girls toward a boyfriend or husband (like in 《子襟》：青青子襟，悠悠我心 "The vest thou wear'st, viridian dark / [inside] my sad and longing heart." - My rough translation). It's probably literally more like "[noble] man".  I think it's similar to the use of "My Lord" as "husband" in archaic English, a form that is very common in the modern Mandarin laogong 老公 "husband".  We could go on to discuss other usages if we wanted to.


 * Now, the "viscount" meaning is indeed given in many dictionaries, though it's evident from the one Philg88 gave alone that it's a rarer meaning (note that it doesn't quote an example - the Cihai 辭海 doesn't either, see page 2557). I am not a Classical Chinese guru, but I wouldn't feel comfortable translating this into "viscount" unless it expressly appears as zijue 子爵.  Incidentally, the link Philg88 sent to Viscount lists Japanese shishaku and Korean jajak as "viscount"  equivalents, and note that both of those are simply transliterations of the original Chinese term 子爵.


 * I hope this expressed my views on the discussion clearly, and I thank Philg88 for the honor of inviting me to add my two cents.  White Whirlwind  咨   14:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your sterling effort on this one White Whirlwind. I think you've made it quite clear that Zi is not Viscount in this article. Best, Philg88 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you White Whirlwind and Philg88. I did a bit of my own research and corroborated the above. Han (state) article was modified accordingly. Hanfresco (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitals
From a number of maps I get the following list of capitals for Qin:

1) Xiquanqiu (西犬丘)

2) Pingyang （平阳)

3) Yong (雍)

4) Xianyang (咸阳）(which from its location looks like it was previously Pingyang)

which does not match what the article has right now. Also, Chinese WP says that the Qin capital was unknown (which seems a bit odd to say the least). Can anyone confirm this list? Philg88 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Xichui was a vague area ("Western March") headed by the Ying clan of Quanqiu. It's always been typical in Chinese to refer to the capital by the region's name. Other than that, the list did match yours. (I'll check to see how big the difference between Xiquanqiu and Quanqiu is.) — Llywelyn II   14:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Qin Hou or Marquis of Qin?
Since we've already got several long-timers' attention here, I'd like to invite everyone to join the ongoing discussion at Talk:Marquis of Qin, on whether or not to translate the title of the second ruler of Qin, 秦侯 (Qin Hou), to Marquis of Qin. --Zanhe (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Zhongyu or Zhongjue?
The character can have both readings. Accounting for the Wade transcription, Nienhauser's translation of the Shiji uses Zhongjue, presumably for good reasons. Do we have any equally good source reading it as yu or is it conventional in pinyin versions? — Llywelyn II   02:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Watson Burton and Feng Li also use Zhongjue. But some dictionaries, such as zdic.net, don't even show the jue pronunciation. Maybe it's the archaic reading, which scholars sometimes prefer. -Zanhe (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yueyang or Liyang?
While we're on the subject, the capital 櫟陽 appears on various Wikipedia pages as Yueyang (as here), Liyang (as here)... and nevermind. Zdic seems pretty clear that Yue is the ancient placename. (Someone double check for me that it's the right place name.) — Llywelyn II   04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely Yueyang. -Zanhe (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like the Tang dynasty articles were especially partial to Liyang (while still obviously talking about a community within modern Xi'an). Is there any reason to think that it changed its name in Middle Chinese or those editors just didn't know that the placename was a special case? — Llywelyn II   12:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Most people are simply not aware of the special pronunciation for the ancient place name. But all dictionaries I've seen note the special Yueyang pronunciation. -Zanhe (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Origin
Also, I saw that you added content on the origin of Qin based on the Shiji. Please be aware that Sima Qian's account is disputed by many modern historians. Archaeological evidence seems to support the theory that they originated in the east and were moved to the west after Duke of Zhou's suppression of the Rebellion of the Three Guards. See articles by Li Xueqin and by Wu Rui. -Zanhe (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. Didn't even have to add the cite, since it was already part of the text: just expanded what was already there. Especially if it's disputed, we should include both theories; you seem better versed in the eastern origin one. Feel free to add it, along with whatever caveats about "the traditional story...", "Sima Qian claimed...", whathaveyou. — Llywelyn II   12:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chen (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Overthrow of Zhou
19th and early 20th century sources obviously go too far in considering the Qin Empire to have begun in 255 but we still need to move over a block of text and sources from "King Zhaoxiang of Qin" to discuss Qin's ending of the Zhou dynasty, which is now barely even touched by the article. Even if the Nan King was a scarsely-respected figurehead, it was still the end of hundreds of years as the sons of Heaven and a major moment in retrospect.

Similarly, the Huiwen King's assumption of royal dignity and rituals needs more treatment in the article. — Llywelyn II   13:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

identity issues
Chu (state), Qin (state), Yan (state)

It is illustrated in the sources provided that these three states were frequently called "barbarian" by those in the Central Plains, just as Wu and Yue also were. Whether this view is caused by genuine difference in ethnic identity or just snobbery should be addressed. Why are they removed or toned down without any discussion? If you don't believe me, check the sources yourselves. I can go quote it for you if you want. If not I'm going to revert everything. 42.61.172.8 (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Establishment 897 BC?
The first sentence in this articel dates the state of Qin to 897 BC (traditionally dating) with reference to The Cambridge History of China. The source actually say that Feizi that year was given a small attached appanage to breed horses for the Zhou royal hose, but according to my understanding this is not to be equated with the formation of a state. The same source also say that Qin 770 BC was rised to full principality, and Qin 750 BC asserted sovereignty. I would propose that the article state the establishment date for the state of Qin to 750 BC or 770 BC. I think 770 BC is the date that correspond most to how establishment dates have been selected for the other feudal states during this period. Best regards, --Bairuilong (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Im fixing the kings of states during the warring states period.
Im fixing it right now. Unfriendly770 (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Guys help why the kings after the 15th was not going to show up?
Can anyone know what happened to the king category? Unfriendly770 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete any other of the script,i just added some kings, but the kings after the 15th wasn't going to show up, can someone teach me how to fix it? Unfriendly770 (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Its says unknown parameter when im previewing it,can someone help me? Unfriendly770 (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Unfriendly770, the lists of leaders and deputies in Infobox former country are intended to hold first and/or last and/or particularly notable examples. They're not designed to contain every single person who filled one of the roles. That's why the template parameters only go to fifteen, which is honestly already probably too many. Folly Mox (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This taught me a lesson! Unfriendly770 (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Need we include "Ch'in" in the first sentence?
Rather shocking (probably affected somehow) and obligatory Ngrams results to be treated with a grain of salt

It seems that the contemporary use of Wade Giles for most political entities (versus, say, Tao or kung fu) is pretty negligible; it does pop up in quotes and refs later but it seems intuit-able enough for a general audience, could certainly front WG in the. Remsense 诉  15:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I personally have no strong opinion about the addition of the Wade Giles spelling. I added it simply because similar articles such as Qi (state), Chu (state) or Qin dynasty have also included Wade Giles spellings in their very first sentences. If there is indeed no such a need then I think Wade Giles spellings can be removed from all such articles. --Wengier (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This would be my gut feeling but I wanted to check first. Remsense  诉  15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do notice that most other dynasties do not show Wade Giles spelling bolded in the first sentence though. I think perhaps we can indeed fix above-mentioned articles somehow.--Wengier (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, there's this gut feeling I have that certain historical figures (i.e. Warring States and maybe Tang really) should have more weight to displaying WG as they were the focus of Western scholarship and those spellings will likely be more familiar to more people? Remsense  诉  15:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is certainly interesting. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with such historical figures may provide a good answer for this. --Wengier (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)