This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Salsu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OK, I'll start this talk.
I see that 612 is the year of this battle. That's nice, but '612' hardly defines any time in particular -- '612' requires a reference date.
Will those with less ignorance than I please supply an appropriate 'zero year' for this '612'? A BCE or CE would be nice, but other forms are fine, too. Don 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The article seems to be based on Korean sources. Can someone provides Chinese or third party sources or statistics so the neutrality of this article will not be disputed? Kc0616 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
時, 帝以<仲文>有計劃, 令諸軍諮稟節度, 故有此言. 由是, <述>等不得已而從之, 與諸將, 渡水追<文德>. <文德>見<述>軍士有饑色, 故欲疲之, 每戰輒走. <述>一日之中, 七戰皆捷, 旣恃驟勝, 又逼群議, 於是, 遂進東濟<薩水>, 去<平壤城>三十里, 因山爲營. <文德>復遣使詐降, 請於<述>曰: “若旋師者, 當奉王, 朝行在所.” <述>見士卒疲弊, 不可復戰, 又<平壤城>險固, 度難猝拔, 遂因其詐而還. <述>等爲方陣而行, 我軍四面鈔擊, <述>等且戰且行. 秋七月, 至<薩水>, 軍半濟, 我軍自後擊其後軍, 右屯衛將軍<辛世雄>戰死. 於是, 諸軍俱潰, 不可禁止. 將士奔還, 一日一夜, 至<鴨淥水{鴨綠水}>, 行四百五十里. 將軍<天水><王仁恭>爲殿, 擊我軍却之. <來護兒>聞<述>等敗, 亦引還. 唯<衛文昇>一軍獨全. 初, 九軍到{度}<遼>, 凡三十萬五千, 及還至<遼東城>, 唯二千七百人, 資儲器械巨萬計, 失亡蕩盡.
Samguk Sagi vol. 20, 三國史記 高句麗本記 瓔陽王條 23年.
This article is enough evidence. 三十萬五千 also 二千七百人 was deserve attention.
Korea history 14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It says that about 3,000 escaped from the original 300,000 [1] Good friend100 15:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We should not take primary sources from fourteen centuries ago at face value for casualty numbers, if we don't have corroborating evidence.
Agreed, although I would go further, this article should either be rewritten or deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.188 ( talk) 12:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we should at least add an NPOV tag, because this article clearly isn't based on reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.115.10 ( talk) 06:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it highly unlikely that an army of 10,000 troops could defeat an army of 300,000 soldiers, with the second army having all but 3,000 die. Perhaps 100,000 is the correct number instead of 10,000?
This article doesn't reference a single reference that could be considered a critical historical account of this battle. There needs to be a minimum of serious, neutral examination of primary sources for a secondary source to be considered reliable. The ones linked from this article don't even bother with which sources they're relying on and are for the most part clearly rather nationalist in their POV in describing the battle as "the most glorious military triumph in Korea's national history" [2] and "The forgotten glory of Koguryo" [3]. One of the links [4] doesn't even cite any figure at all, but is cited to look like it does. -- 85.227.238.121 ( talk) 08:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm Korean. so i I'm not good at English
in chinese records. Battle of Salsu could be found in Book of Sui and Zizhi tongjian
and Goguryeo's record is based on Chinaese record.
in Samguk Sagi. Writer reveal Goguryeo's record is based on Chinaese record.
( 雖有乙支文德之智略張保皐之義勇微中國之書則泯滅而無聞 ) - Samguk Sagi -volumes 43
At last. Chinese Wikipedia ( http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%96%A9%E6%B0%B4%E4%B9%8B%E6%88%B0 ) is counterevidence 'nationalist in their POV' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.118.4.204 ( talk) 08:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of this battle in Korean is 살수대첩 meaning great battle of Salsu (there are only two other battles that have this suffix 대첩 in Korean war history. I feel as though the name should be more reflective of this i.e. "the Great Battle of Salsu" thought??? 07:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)ICIWORLD
From many of the Korean sources I've read (including the Korean wikipedia article for the Battle of Salsu, the Sui troops were not actually caught in a massive trap involving damming a river. According to the Korean wikipedia article (with its proper reference), this is a popular misconception (even among Koreans) that arose in relatively recent records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.109.45 ( talk) 16:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Salsu. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
What does "secret disposal" mean? It's in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the History section. Stara Marusya ( talk) 22:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Salsu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OK, I'll start this talk.
I see that 612 is the year of this battle. That's nice, but '612' hardly defines any time in particular -- '612' requires a reference date.
Will those with less ignorance than I please supply an appropriate 'zero year' for this '612'? A BCE or CE would be nice, but other forms are fine, too. Don 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The article seems to be based on Korean sources. Can someone provides Chinese or third party sources or statistics so the neutrality of this article will not be disputed? Kc0616 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
時, 帝以<仲文>有計劃, 令諸軍諮稟節度, 故有此言. 由是, <述>等不得已而從之, 與諸將, 渡水追<文德>. <文德>見<述>軍士有饑色, 故欲疲之, 每戰輒走. <述>一日之中, 七戰皆捷, 旣恃驟勝, 又逼群議, 於是, 遂進東濟<薩水>, 去<平壤城>三十里, 因山爲營. <文德>復遣使詐降, 請於<述>曰: “若旋師者, 當奉王, 朝行在所.” <述>見士卒疲弊, 不可復戰, 又<平壤城>險固, 度難猝拔, 遂因其詐而還. <述>等爲方陣而行, 我軍四面鈔擊, <述>等且戰且行. 秋七月, 至<薩水>, 軍半濟, 我軍自後擊其後軍, 右屯衛將軍<辛世雄>戰死. 於是, 諸軍俱潰, 不可禁止. 將士奔還, 一日一夜, 至<鴨淥水{鴨綠水}>, 行四百五十里. 將軍<天水><王仁恭>爲殿, 擊我軍却之. <來護兒>聞<述>等敗, 亦引還. 唯<衛文昇>一軍獨全. 初, 九軍到{度}<遼>, 凡三十萬五千, 及還至<遼東城>, 唯二千七百人, 資儲器械巨萬計, 失亡蕩盡.
Samguk Sagi vol. 20, 三國史記 高句麗本記 瓔陽王條 23年.
This article is enough evidence. 三十萬五千 also 二千七百人 was deserve attention.
Korea history 14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It says that about 3,000 escaped from the original 300,000 [1] Good friend100 15:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We should not take primary sources from fourteen centuries ago at face value for casualty numbers, if we don't have corroborating evidence.
Agreed, although I would go further, this article should either be rewritten or deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.188 ( talk) 12:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we should at least add an NPOV tag, because this article clearly isn't based on reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.115.10 ( talk) 06:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it highly unlikely that an army of 10,000 troops could defeat an army of 300,000 soldiers, with the second army having all but 3,000 die. Perhaps 100,000 is the correct number instead of 10,000?
This article doesn't reference a single reference that could be considered a critical historical account of this battle. There needs to be a minimum of serious, neutral examination of primary sources for a secondary source to be considered reliable. The ones linked from this article don't even bother with which sources they're relying on and are for the most part clearly rather nationalist in their POV in describing the battle as "the most glorious military triumph in Korea's national history" [2] and "The forgotten glory of Koguryo" [3]. One of the links [4] doesn't even cite any figure at all, but is cited to look like it does. -- 85.227.238.121 ( talk) 08:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm Korean. so i I'm not good at English
in chinese records. Battle of Salsu could be found in Book of Sui and Zizhi tongjian
and Goguryeo's record is based on Chinaese record.
in Samguk Sagi. Writer reveal Goguryeo's record is based on Chinaese record.
( 雖有乙支文德之智略張保皐之義勇微中國之書則泯滅而無聞 ) - Samguk Sagi -volumes 43
At last. Chinese Wikipedia ( http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%96%A9%E6%B0%B4%E4%B9%8B%E6%88%B0 ) is counterevidence 'nationalist in their POV' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.118.4.204 ( talk) 08:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of this battle in Korean is 살수대첩 meaning great battle of Salsu (there are only two other battles that have this suffix 대첩 in Korean war history. I feel as though the name should be more reflective of this i.e. "the Great Battle of Salsu" thought??? 07:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)ICIWORLD
From many of the Korean sources I've read (including the Korean wikipedia article for the Battle of Salsu, the Sui troops were not actually caught in a massive trap involving damming a river. According to the Korean wikipedia article (with its proper reference), this is a popular misconception (even among Koreans) that arose in relatively recent records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.109.45 ( talk) 16:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Salsu. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
What does "secret disposal" mean? It's in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the History section. Stara Marusya ( talk) 22:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)