Why is the map scope of China hegemony unreasonable?

[DiabloDeVille]

I think we should discuss based on specific facts. Obviously, that's how Paradox did it.
If you express an inappropriate opinion, you should present your specific facts, and then we can compare the facts.

An inappropriate opinion? Whats inappropriate about disagreeing on de jure borders? Inappropriate is more about posting something nsfw or 18+ than disagreeing with someone

You cannot simply infer the situation 1200 years ago based on modern national concepts.

You cant, but you can infer what the situation in 867, 1066 and 1187 start dates should be, by what happens within the game period of 867 to 1453. Thatwhich being; Northern Vietnam going independent between start dates, the Vietnamese speaking a different language family even if they adopted other parts of chinese culture. The Qin never conquered Northern Vietnam, and after the Song, no other Chinese empire would come to hold it long term either

Moreover, you may not know that the "YUE Empire" in the game is within the territory claimed by the Vietnamese people today, because the "Nanyue Kingdom" advocated by the Vietnamese at that time was the origin of Vietnam, which was a colonial country established by General of Qin empire with its capital in Guangzhou. （During the Sino Vietnamese War in 1979, this was also political propaganda on the Vietnam side.）

And being a colony probably isnt a good reason to be de jure part of the whole

In Vietnamese, vietnam's 【viet】 means 【yue】, which is the name of the "yue empire". Nam is nan, you can try pronouncing it, it's just a different expression of the same Chinese character between two different languages.
Vietnamese people claim Chinese territory, call themselves Chinese, and have ambitions to tame dragons, which is a historical fact.

Have ambitions to tame dragons? When would you say they had plans to conquer the whole of China and become emperor there too?

Perhaps you just can't distinguish between the north and south of Vietnam?

i can, which is why practically every comment of mine says North Vietnam or Northern Vietnam

Because the Champa culture in the south belongs to another cultural circle, they do not have much to do with China, and they should indeed belong to another empire outside of China.
But in the year 867 when our game began, the Vietnamese did not advance into Champa. In 1066, the Vietnamese had just launched their first expedition to Champa and were unsuccessful.
Vietnam completely occupied Champa in 1402, when the Middle Ages were almost over.
So in the process of our game, Champa's influence has not yet affected Vietnam.

So its in period, just as the English conquest of Ireland would only have started in the 3rd bookmark, but Ireland is de jure part of Brittania in 867, where Irish culture has no anglicisation

Vietnam does not have a Southeast Asian origin, and their focus is on the north rather than the south.

? Vietnam literally is indochina, and Southeast Asian, as its South of China, and East of India. Their language is not sinitic. Their focus post independence was largely on conquering more and more to their south

I have emphasized many facts to you, and you can find them on the wiki encyclopedia.

Wiki encyclopedia? You can just say wiki or wikipedia, both are far faster than saying the etymology of the website

I hope you can also present your own facts.

I hope this is helpful to you.

Besides Qin not conquering the region, they've all been laid out before, yet you deemed them to be "inappropriate opinions"

 

[DiabloDeVille]

It seems that you have no idea about the history of Vietnam at all. Vietnamese has been speaking Chinese for a long time. It was not until the Hu Dynasty (1400-1407) and the Xishan Dynasty (1778-1802) that the Hán Nôm／漢喃 was adopted to replace classical Chinese, and the Chữ Nôm／喃 was designated as the official documents.

We're talking about speaking (your voice) not about script (your writing style). If you wish to claim that all of Northern Vietnam was speaking in Chinese, then you should provide evidence for that. The latin script spread far wider than the roman empire ever did, and even wider than the romance languages. Cunieform and greek also see similar widespread uses without people necessarily being sumerian or greek

I believe that the above opinions do not have any offensive content. Gansu was under the rule of the Tang Dynasty in 867, while Liaoning was half under the rule of the Tang Dynasty and half under the rule of the Bohai Kingdom. Historically, these two regions (whether Chinese or people from neighboring countries, or even Europeans) have always been regarded as part of China's mainland, and countless materials can prove this.

If its only half under tang rule in 867, that doesnt sound like a strong argument that it should be part of the chinese hegemony's de jure, but I'd be fine with getting those 2 added.

So I am curious if some people who "respectfully disagree" with my view can offer some constructive suggestions, especially for a friend whose ID clearly contains malicious political elements related to China (for the sake of respecting your privacy, I will not disclose your ID).

Why the threat man? Just @ him, rather than have everyone second guessing. @ChowMeinDelivery has a funny name but he seems to be on your side for increasing the map.

I thought that going from conflicting opinions to mutual understanding and reaching consensus was a reasonable way of communication

People dont always want consensus, sometimes they just want to have their vision fully implemented

. Most of the people on this post were discussing normally, and I don't want some people's opposition to be solely based on their nationality, which can only show your own narrowness.

Who do you think is doing this? There was no need to point such fingers in the first place though.

Or is this forum prohibiting any Chinese person from expressing their opinions? Even though this is a DLC about China?

Many many threads are made on these topics by chinese people, except when they post in untranslated chinese, there posts are not prohibited in anyway. The dlc is meant to be about all thats getting added, but I think besides China, Japan, and some of Khmer, everyone else will probably be shafted for content until another dlc comes around.

As I mentioned earlier, forcibly associating game content with real-life politics will only make you appear narrow-minded and arrogant. Especially when opposed without any reason.

Just like the issue in northern Vietnam, the Vietnamese people's identification with the Nanyue Empire was formed after independence. Therefore, in 867, northern Vietnam was included in the scope of Chinese hegemony, but it was not included in the subsequent time, allowing Vietnam to establish the Vietnamese Empire after occupying parts of mainland Southeast Asia. This is in line with historical development (Vietnam had already defeated the Champa Kingdom in the south when it first declared emperor). I am curious about the views of those who oppose this design and whether their views can better reflect history.

Or they did not expect to restore history, but only out of malice towards the Chinese, especially someone had previously described my proposal as an expansionist trend of modern nationalism. I can only express my regret that I will not discuss any modern political topics. If someone needs to showcase their national superiority and point fingers at other ethnic groups in the DLC game, it will only make me feel sad and ridiculous.

National superiority?

 

[zeruosi]

You cant, but you can infer what the situation in 867, 1066 and 1187 start dates should be, by what happens within the game period of 867 to 1453. Thatwhich being; Northern Vietnam going independent between start dates, the Vietnamese speaking a different language family even if they adopted other parts of chinese culture. The Qin never conquered Northern Vietnam, and after the Song, no other Chinese empire would come to hold it long term either

"Evidence actually exists to suggest that Qin Dynasty's Xiang Commandery was located in northern Vietnam. However, the CCP relocated it to Guangxi for the sake of Sino-Vietnamese friendship - just as deteriorating Sino-Soviet relations led Chinese Yuan Dynasty maps to claim the entire Siberia, using Mount Beilu as justification to incorporate all of Siberia into Yuan territory.

This represents modern political interference in historical research. Archaeological findings indicate that: 1) The Qin Dynasty likely governed parts of northern Vietnam, and 2) After the Qin collapse, Zhao Tuo fully annexed the remaining northern Vietnamese territories."

 

[ChowMeinDelivery]

Why the threat man? Just @ him, rather than have everyone second guessing. @ChowMeinDelivery has a funny name but he seems to be on your side for increasing the map.

I don't think he was referring to me. I haven't used the "respectfully disagree" reaction on anything since joining the forum.

I am of the opinion that such a reaction is essentially useless for any sort of constructive discussion and is mostly a "blind social signalling" button. Of course, @luo can correct me if I'm wrong and he was in fact referring to me.

 

[pCWentY]

and after the Song, no other Chinese empire would come to hold it long term either

Before the Song, Vietnam had been a province of China for thousands of years, so it must have been de jure land of the Tang.

Whether it is history or ruling facts (and it is a long history and close rule)

 

[DiabloDeVille]

"Evidence actually exists to suggest that Qin Dynasty's Xiang Commandery was located in northern Vietnam. However, the CCP relocated it to Guangxi for the sake of Sino-Vietnamese friendship - just as deteriorating Sino-Soviet relations led Chinese Yuan Dynasty maps to claim the entire Siberia, using Mount Beilu as justification to incorporate all of Siberia into Yuan territory.

This represents modern political interference in historical research. Archaeological findings indicate that: 1) The Qin Dynasty likely governed parts of northern Vietnam, and 2) After the Qin collapse, Zhao Tuo fully annexed the remaining northern Vietnamese territories."

How much did this cause western maps to be changed, rather than just chinese maps?

Before the Song, Vietnam had been a province of China for thousands of years, so it must have been de jure land of the Tang.

Whether it is history or ruling facts (and it is a long history and close rule)

And in 1066, enough time has passed that at least italy, should be alot more de jure integrated into the HRE than it is, but paradox wants it to be part of e_italia to help it chafe under imperial rule and try to break free

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

why does your translator keep translating decisions as "resolutions"

B/c 决议 isn't hardcoded to "decisions" when going through machine translation. Besides, they're synonyms, small problem for forum discussion.
"Legal territory" and "de jure" come to mind.

 

[berjui]

The reason Koreans don't bother to answer this thread is that many developments have yet to be revealed.

The first rulers of Liaodong were the Koreans, the territory that had been occupied since Gojoseon, and after Gojoseon was destroyed by the Han Dynasty, the Chinese occupied it

Goguryeo also took over the Liaodong Peninsula, and Balhae, too. Goryeo and Joseon also made "serious" attempts to advance to the Liaodong Peninsula, although they ended in failure. So Koreans also have a lot to file a claim against Liaodong, but they will probably remain mostly silent until it turns out that something developers have not told us, such as the Hegemony system or Andong's de jure.

The additional East Asian content is the last content in Chapter 4, and it is still under development and there is a lot of time left. I think it is a priority to understand the developer's intentions rather than causing conflict

 

[zeruosi]

How much did this cause western maps to be changed, rather than just chinese maps?

Almost entirely, considering the fact that most European maps don't even grant the Qin Dynasty control over the complete southern territories, reduce the Han Dynasty to only Sichuan, and completely erase the Yunnan-Guizhou region.

 

[zeruosi]

The first rulers of Liaodong were the Koreans, the territory that had been occupied since Gojoseon, and after Gojoseon was destroyed by the Han Dynasty, the Chinese occupied it

Historical records trace Liaodong's earliest ruler to Ji Hou, whose initial fiefdom likely lay in western Liaodong before disappearing from documentation for an extended period. The next mention appears in Yan State's chronicles, describing its eastern expansion into "Ji Zi's territory."

Ji Zi was a descendant of the Shang Dynasty rulers, debunking claims that Liaodong's first rulers were Korean. Furthermore, Wei Man's Joseon (established by a Qin Dynasty general fleeing south) succeeded Ji Zi's lineage—also distinctly non-Korean.

Goguryeo's rise emerged during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period—a timeline irreconcilable with early Korean narratives.

 

[zeruosi]

I don't think he was referring to me. I haven't used the "respectfully disagree" reaction on anything since joining the forum.
View attachment 1316177
I am of the opinion that such a reaction is essentially useless for any sort of constructive discussion and is mostly a "blind social signalling" button. Of course, @luo can correct me if I'm wrong and he was in fact referring to me.

I think he was referring to this person.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

B/c 决议 isn't hardcoded to "decisions" when going through machine translation. Besides, they're synonyms, small problem for forum discussion.
"Legal territory" and "de jure" come to mind.

Id say theyre not quite synonyms, but still they should use the english term rather than just the machine translation. If the onager siege engines were always called donkeys by ESL, then the rest of the forum would be briefly confused

View attachment 1316235
I think he was referring to this person.

What would the malicious political part be?

 

[zeruosi]

Id say theyre not quite synonyms, but still they should use the english term rather than just the machine translation. If the onager siege engines were always called donkeys by ESL, then the rest of the forum would be briefly confused

What would the malicious political part be?

xidada It's a nickname for China's current leader.

 

[zeruosi]

Hey, don't get upset—I wasn't commenting on your actions.

 

[treb]

Vietnamese people claim Chinese territory, call themselves Chinese, and have ambitions to tame dragons, which is a historical fact.

forgive my ignorance as a former subject of Daqin, but what does taming mythical fantasy creatures have to do with this?

In Vietnamese, vietnam's 【viet】 means 【yue】, which is the name of the "yue empire". Nam is nan, you can try pronouncing it, it's just a different expression of the same Chinese character between two different languages.

You are half right, Viet does men Yue, but nam you dismiss means south so its more accurate to say they they call themselves "southern Yue", not Han Chinese. and before you say the Yue are Chinese they are not. Most Yue today are subjects of a Chinese state, except the southern Yue.

which was a colonial country established by General of Qin empire with its capital in Guangzhou.

I guess that must mean Americans, Indians and Irish are just autonomous subjects of the English then /s I'm sure they will be thrilled if you go around implying you think former colonies are just rouge extensions of the motherland waiting for rightful rulers to intercede...

 

[berjui]

Historical records trace Liaodong's earliest ruler to Ji Hou, whose initial fiefdom likely lay in western Liaodong before disappearing from documentation for an extended period. The next mention appears in Yan State's chronicles, describing its eastern expansion into

Ji ZiShang Dynasty rulers, debunking claims that Liaodong's first rulers were Korean. Furthermore, Wei Man's JoseonQin Dynasty general fleeing south) succeeded Ji Zi's lineage—also distinctly non-Korean.

Goguryeo's rise emerged during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period—a timeline irreconcilable with early Korean narratives.

It's also hard to prove that there's not as much as there's nothing there

If you want, you can look at the papers of scholars, but if you want to know more simply, you might want to search Wikipedia

Unfortunately, I'm reminded once again why Koreans don't want to answer these threads.

 

[treb]

This represents modern political interference in historical research. Archaeological findings indicate that: 1) The Qin Dynasty likely governed parts of northern Vietnam, and 2) After the Qin collapse, Zhao Tuo fully annexed the remaining northern Vietnamese territories."

The earliest archeology in northern Vietnam shows native chiefdoms increasingly coalescing and centralizing from 500bc witch roughly coincides with Au lac and more debatably the ending of folkloric Van Lang polity.

 

[zeruosi]

The earliest archeology in northern Vietnam shows native chiefdom increasingly coalescing and centralizing from 500bc witch roughly coincides with Au lac and more debatably the ending of folkloric Van Lang polity.

You must be Vietnamese？

I argue that the Văn Lang civilization existed earlier—archaeological evidence points to a more advanced society in Vietnam predating 1000 BCE, surpassing all contemporary Yue tribes north. The mythological resistance against the Shang Dynasty further supports this.

I place the Văn Lang period between 1500 BCE–700 BCE, based on these historical and cultural markers.

This aligns with the Dong Son culture's bronze drum artifacts (c. 1000–1 BCE) and Chinese records of 'Baiyue' tribes' early state formations.

 

[treb]

You must be Vietnamese？

I argue that the Văn Lang civilization existed earlier—archaeological evidence points to a more advanced society in Vietnam predating 1000 BCE, surpassing all contemporary Yue tribes north. The mythological resistance against the Shang Dynasty further supports this.

I place the Văn Lang period between 1500 BCE–700 BCE, based on these historical and cultural markers.

This aligns with the Dong Son culture's bronze drum artifacts (c. 1000–1 BCE) and Chinese records of 'Baiyue' tribes' early state formations.

Nope, I can 100% guarantee you I am most surely not in any conceivable way Vietnamese lmao. I'm English, with the majority of my family tracing roots to Wales or Ireland. I joke in the thread somewhere I'm a former subject of Daqin

 

[zeruosi]

Nope, I can 100% guarantee you I am most surely not in any conceivable way Vietnamese lmao. I'm English, with the majority of my family tracing roots to Wales or Ireland. I joke in the thread somewhere I'm a former subject of Daqin

Exactly that made me assume you were Vietnamese—haha~