뉴스레터

A Basic View on the History of Tang Dynasty

The basic perception of the history of the Tang Dynasty is well expressed in the preface of 『Perspectives on the Tʻang』 by Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett, published in 1973.

The Chinese Empire has a history of thousands of years. Among them, the Tang Dynasty is one of the great times. … How can we explain this tremendous vitality? The first is the eclecticism of the Tang dynasty. This was the way the Tang Dynasty gathered various cultures in one place from the confusing history of the last 400 years. The second is the internationality of the Tang Dynasty. In other words, this was openness that accepted all kinds of foreign influences. Due to these characteristics, the Tang civilization has a universal appeal.

Eclecticism and openness made the Tang great. This perception can be found in 『China’s Cosmopolitan Empire: The Tang Dynasty』, written by Mark Edward Lewis, published in 2012.

Two key elements that symbolize the vitality of the Tang dynasty are eclecticism(The ability to utilize all cultural traditions that make up the history of the previous era) and globalism(Openness to foreigners, and their various ways of life). (328 pages)

This understanding is inevitably reflected in describing the international relations of the Tang Dynasty. Especially, it is well revealed in 『The Cambridge History of China』 ‘Sui and T'ang’(1979), which represents Western academia.

The recognition of Goguryeo before the Northeast Process

『The Cambridge History of China』 ‘Sui and T'ang’ described the international relations in detail during each period. The national names include Eastern Turkic Khaganate, Western Turkic Khaganate, Tibet, Tuyuhun, Japan, Goguryeo, Silla, Baekje, Balhae, Uyghur, and Nanzhao. The description of these in 'international relations' refers to the recognition of all of them as independent countries. Then, the preface to the Chinese translation of 『The Cambridge History of China』 ‘Sui and T'ang’ published in China in 1990 was criticized. It is wrong for Tibet and Balhae to be treated equally with Japan and Silla. On the other hand, there is no comment on Goguryeo. This is because Goguryeo did not belong to the history of China.

In this book, the chapter of 「Sui, Tang, and the Outside World」 comprehensively describes the diplomatic relations of the Sui and Tang eras. Interestingly, China said, "Goguryeo is the only country with a large population and well-organized population among neighboring countries. All of the other countries were behind us, so it was easy to deal with." Interestingly, China said, "Goguryeo is the only country with a large population and well-organized population among neighboring countries. All of the other countries were behind us, so it was easy to deal with." For example, in the chapter of Foreign Relations, the relationship between Tang and Goguryeo is described as follows. It is clear that the history of Goguryeo is not regarded as the history of China.

Taejong of Tang Dynasty hoped that the battle of 649 would be the final war of conquest against Goguryeo. However, he canceled this attack directly on death. ... In 678, King Gojong accepted persuasion to stop the attack on Silla. This is because Tibetan Empire had to be defended more urgently than the Korean Peninsula. ... The Tang Dynasty has put a large force into the battle against Tibetan Empire. So, because they could not send more troops to the Korean peninsula, they could not suppress the aggressive expansion of their former allies. Eventually, the Tang Dynasty canceled plans to occupy and rule the Korean peninsula.

The recognition of Goguryeo after the Northeast Process

Even after the Northeast process, the perception of Western academia about Goguryeo remains almost unchanged. Chapter 6 of 『China’s Cosmopolitan Empire: The Tang Dynasty』 has the following descriptions:

The submission of the leaders of Goguryeo, Baekje and Japan was formal. The figures who received the position actively opposed China's influence and the military. ... The Tang Dynasty focused on Tibetan threats; they could no longer continue their conquest of the Korean Peninsula. Korea still remained a subordinate state of the Tang Dynasty, nominally imitating China's national system. ... because Silla unified the Korean peninsula, the Tang's intention to merge the Korean peninsula ended.

What is noteworthy is that 'investiture(冊封)' is at the heart of the historical attribution problem. In other words, it is subordinate that Goguryeo and others received the orders of the emperor, but it is purely formal and nominal. This is the same context as described in 『The Cambridge History of China』 ‘Sui and T'ang’: “Silla and Balhae became politically independent from the Tang Dynasty. But they were permanently incorporated into Chinese culture.”

In this way, Western academia generally recognizes Goguryeo as an 'independent state', not as it is included in Chinese history. Yoo Yong-tae said in his book 『The Eyes on East Asian History』. “The American academic community criticizes China’s desire to incorporate Goguryeo into Chinese history. Goguryeo is an independent state from China, and belongs to the history of Korea."(186p) Meanwhile, in 2017,US President Trump reportedly heard from Chinese President Xi Jinping saying: “Korea was actually part of China, not North Korea, but the whole of Korea.” This remark has been known and controversial. This is different from the general view of Western academia. The perception of Western academia about Goguryeo is almost similar to that of Korean academia. This is consistent with the fact that Chinese academics claim Chaekbong has a substantial meaning, but Korean academics say it is only formal.