Battle of Bach Dang River (938) | Vietnam-China Sea Battle

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

At least you give China credits for two wins other than the two skirmishes, perhaps your experiences outside Vietnam give you some real knowledge on the matter and a sense of fairness, however small. You also have a good habit on reading others opinions carefully too. Unlike some of your compatriots at home, whose only knowledge are what the party feeds them on top of their own ingrained warmongering natures, just glanced over my post and gave me an answer opposite the ones I seek. ( see two posts below yours)

In the fact, the conflicts in 1974 and 1988 were not real wars, they was the robberies:

In 1974 China's navy attacked Navy of South Vietnam to invade Paracel Islands while South Vietnam was flooding in Vietnam War on mainland.

In 1988 Chinese attacked transport ships of Vietnam Navy and transport-building soldiers who did not have any weapons, at Spratly Islands.

LOL you just love these delusional viets and pinos in PDF

Banana growers still suffer from China ban

Banana growers still suffer from China ban | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

china small market for philipines bananas then why this suffering

Philippines gov't representatives head to China to discuss banana ban

Philippines gov´t representatives head to China to discuss banana ban CCTV News - CNTV English

there you go your government went to beg us to buy your bananas

sorry mate your argument just dont hold up

Bananas cannot help you to invade the island of the Philippines.

 

[Fanling Monk]

In the fact, the conflicts in 1974 and 1988 were not real wars, they was the robberies:

In 1974 China's navy attacked Navy of South Vietnam to invade Paracel Islands while South Vietnam was flooding in Vietnam War on mainland.

In 1988 Chinese attacked transport ships of Vietnam Navy and transport-building soldiers who did not have any weapons, at Spratly Islands.

Still crying, hey? Keep giving something I didn't ask for.

 

[NewCastle2012]

You guys keep mention the Battle of Bach Dang River (938) and the biggest selling point is “killed over 100,000 Chinese”. The number actually puzzled me a lot: which country could support such a large NAVY (over 100k) in the 10th century? I spent (waste) some time reading different online articles and here is your reality check:

1. I know many of you regard it as Vietnam’s independence war and I have to admit that it is a clear victory for the Vietnamese.

2. You called it a war between China and Vietnam. But the more accurate version is that it is a conflict between Southern Han (a regional kingdom) and a rebellion force led by Ngo Quyen (Vietnamese). So what is Southern Han? In order to answer this question, we need to learn the history of China in the 10th century.
The 10th century in China is called the “Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period”. During this period, five dynasties quickly succeeded one another in the north, and more than 12 independent states were established, mainly in the south. However, only ten are traditionally listed, hence the era's name. It is considered by many historians as the most chaotic era in Chinese history. Southern Han is one of the 10 Kingdoms located along China’s southern coast (the blue region in the map below). File:Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms 923 CE.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Since Southern Han is just a small country, how could it support a large fleet? I tried to find the size of Southern Han’s army and did not get any results. A relative number is Southern Han’s total population, less than one million (source: »ÄÌÆ¿ÉЦµÄÄϺºÕþȨ£¨15£©_ÂÒÊÀ·éÑÌ_½ªÀDzò¾¡_ÎÄ»¯¶ÁÊéƵµÀ_ÐÂÀËÍø. I am sorry I cannot find an English version. The story is about eunuchs in Southern Han and the total number of eunuchs in Southern Han is around 20k, more than 2% of the total population). If Vietnamese’s claim of casualty (over 100k) is accurate, Southern Han’s king must send more than 10% of his citizens to this battle. It is odd.

4. So what is the actual casualty of the 938 battle? It is difficult to find out since the battle happened more than 1000 years ago and it is a NAVY battle (how did you count the bodies in water). I looked at the wiki link you provided previously (Battle of Bach Dang River (938) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The English version says that the Viet man’s force is 150K plus (citation needed) and the Chinese’s force is 100K plus (citation needed). The article did not mention the casualties. You Vietnamese must assume that none of the Chinese warriors survived that battle in order to get the “over 100k” number. Then I checked the Japanese version and the Chinese version: the Chinese force was around 10k and lost about 5k in the battle. I am not saying that 5k is a better estimate. But it is clear that the Vietnamese exaggerate the outcome of this battle. I am not sure if you noticed: the cartoon says Chinese sent 20k troops to invade Vietnam. Again, how did Chinese loss more than what they sent to the battle?

Even your version of the most famous battle in your history is not totally accurate, how could you convince us to believe the other “historical evidences” you provide?

A Side Note: wiki is not your history book. If you insist on learning your history from wiki, you will become the Laughing-stock of others.

Yeh, it is just a reminder for the Chinese. They love to post fancy men toys to the world in order to scare the people.


Vietnam People's Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3 Bach Dang Naval battles:

The largest battles (officially recorded in history) were three naval battles (all three are called Battle of Bạch Đằng): Ngô Quyền against the Chinese Southern Han forces in 938 (killed over 100,000 and captured a thousands Chinese sailors, killed Chinese Prince Liu Hongcao);
[4] Lê Hoàn against Song Dynasty in 981;
and Trần Quốc Tuấn against Yuan Dynasty (Mongol) in 1288 (killed over 80,000 Yuan Mongol sailors, destroyed more than 400 Yuan ships, killed Sogetu, and captured Yuan Admiral Omar).

 

[NewCastle2012]

Since none of the active Vietnamese members express different opinions on my conclusion, we finally reach a consessus on the veracity of Vietnamese historical evidences: not accurate and misleading.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

You guys keep mention the Battle of Bach Dang River (938) and the biggest selling point is “killed over 100,000 Chinese”. The number actually puzzled me a lot: which country could support such a large NAVY (over 100k) in the 10th century? I spent (waste) some time reading different online articles and here is your reality check:

1. I know many of you regard it as Vietnam’s independence war and I have to admit that it is a clear victory for the Vietnamese.

2. You called it a war between China and Vietnam. But the more accurate version is that it is a conflict between Southern Han (a regional kingdom) and a rebellion force led by Ngo Quyen (Vietnamese). So what is Southern Han? In order to answer this question, we need to learn the history of China in the 10th century.
The 10th century in China is called the “Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period”. During this period, five dynasties quickly succeeded one another in the north, and more than 12 independent states were established, mainly in the south. However, only ten are traditionally listed, hence the era's name. It is considered by many historians as the most chaotic era in Chinese history. Southern Han is one of the 10 Kingdoms located along China’s southern coast (the blue region in the map below). File:Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms 923 CE.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Since Southern Han is just a small country, how could it support a large fleet? I tried to find the size of Southern Han’s army and did not get any results. A relative number is Southern Han’s total population, less than one million (source: »ÄÌÆ¿ÉЦµÄÄϺºÕþȨ£¨15£©_ÂÒÊÀ·éÑÌ_½ªÀDzò¾¡_ÎÄ»¯¶ÁÊéƵµÀ_ÐÂÀËÍø. I am sorry I cannot find an English version. The story is about eunuchs in Southern Han and the total number of eunuchs in Southern Han is around 20k, more than 2% of the total population). If Vietnamese’s claim of casualty (over 100k) is accurate, Southern Han’s king must send more than 10% of his citizens to this battle. It is odd.

4. So what is the actual casualty of the 938 battle? It is difficult to find out since the battle happened more than 1000 years ago and it is a NAVY battle (how did you count the bodies in water). I looked at the wiki link you provided previously (Battle of Bach Dang River (938) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The English version says that the Viet man’s force is 150K plus (citation needed) and the Chinese’s force is 100K plus (citation needed). The article did not mention the casualties. You Vietnamese must assume that none of the Chinese warriors survived that battle in order to get the “over 100k” number. Then I checked the Japanese version and the Chinese version: the Chinese force was around 10k and lost about 5k in the battle. I am not saying that 5k is a better estimate. But it is clear that the Vietnamese exaggerate the outcome of this battle. I am not sure if you noticed: the cartoon says Chinese sent 20k troops to invade Vietnam. Again, how did Chinese loss more than what they sent to the battle?

Even your version of the most famous battle in your history is not totally accurate, how could you convince us to believe the other “historical evidences” you provide?

A Side Note: wiki is not your history book. If you insist on learning your history from wiki, you will become the Laughing-stock of others.

1) It's not a clear victory?
2) LOL, China is always "separated" like that because China today is just a combination of many nations/ethnics which have been dominated by Manchurian in 17th Century So if you refuse our victory with that reason, we can simply say that you also have never won because you haven't defeated Champa kingdom
3) It happened 1000 years ago and we didn't have historian that time so no one know the real strength, it is just estimated. Do you know the real strength of Spartan and Persian in Battle of Thermopylae?
4) He was just misunderstanding "strength" and "casualty". It happens a lot in reading you know. It's not a reason to refuse all other evidences.
About the casualty, all numbers people can get today is estimation. Our earliest history book (13th Century) says only a general estimation: "half of the invaders", and even doesn't provide the strength. Don't say that you are waiting for "real calculation" when we didn't have historian
5) You are cool, because we didn't have historian in 10th Century and today we have to estimate the casualty of a 1000-year-old battle, so you refuse all of other historical evidences when we do have historians

 

[Fanling Monk]

Since none of the active Vietnamese members express different opinions on my conclusion, we finally reach a consessus on the veracity of Vietnamese historical evidences: not accurate and misleading.

Brother, there's no needs to spend one minute of your time to do researches for these people because they are spoon fed by their party as their minds are already made up. And, to be frank, most probably don't even bother to read or go into the details of your hard work. However, if you want to improve yourself and benefit lazies like me at the same time, we're are greatly appreciated.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

Brother, there's no needs to spend one minute of your time to do researches for these people because they are spoon fed by their party as their minds are already made up. And, to be frank, most probably don't even bother to read or go into the details of your hard work. However, if you want to improve yourself and benefit lazies like me at the same time, we're are greatly appreciated.

That's what people really want to say with Chinese
Come on, your gov lies you, you have no right over Paracel and Spartly! Invisible evidences? Just get out!

 

[NewCastle2012]

You are right. I really don't understand Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ reply. They cannot think logically and have issues in effective communications. Most of all, the Viet members here belong to one category "你不操他妈，就不知道你是他爹".

Brother, there's no needs to spend one minute of your time to do researches for these people because they are spoon fed by their party as their minds are already made up. And, to be frank, most probably don't even bother to read or go into the details of your hard work. However, if you want to improve yourself and benefit lazies like me at the same time, we're are greatly appreciated.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

You are right. I really don't understand Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ reply. They cannot think logically and have issues in effective communications. Most of all, the Viet members here belong to one category "你不操他妈，就不知道你是他爹".

Yeah yeah yeah that's a good excuse for your shortage of argument
Most of all, the Chinese members here belong to one category "đã ngu còn tỏ ra nguy hiểm"

 

[Shardul.....the lion]

Very good video.
Kudos and Respect to vietnamese people. They are brave people defending their freedom from bully nation named China.

 

[NewCastle2012]

Are you waiting for a reply on your arguments? Please ask someone to edit your post and make it reasonable and logical since you were talking nonsense. Look at your bullet point 1. You don't even understand what I said.

By the way, why did you use the smiley face a lot? Do you try to be sarcastic or it is fake laugh to cover your inability to speak normally?

Yeah yeah yeah that's a good excuse for your shortage of argument
Most of all, the Chinese members here belong to one category "đã ngu còn tỏ ra nguy hiểm"

 

[Viet]

You guys keep mention the Battle of Bach Dang River (938) and the biggest selling point is “killed over 100,000 Chinese”. The number actually puzzled me a lot: which country could support such a large NAVY (over 100k) in the 10th century? I spent (waste) some time reading different online articles and here is your reality check:

1. I know many of you regard it as Vietnam’s independence war and I have to admit that it is a clear victory for the Vietnamese.

2. You called it a war between China and Vietnam. But the more accurate version is that it is a conflict between Southern Han (a regional kingdom) and a rebellion force led by Ngo Quyen (Vietnamese). So what is Southern Han? In order to answer this question, we need to learn the history of China in the 10th century.
The 10th century in China is called the “Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period”. During this period, five dynasties quickly succeeded one another in the north, and more than 12 independent states were established, mainly in the south. However, only ten are traditionally listed, hence the era's name. It is considered by many historians as the most chaotic era in Chinese history. Southern Han is one of the 10 Kingdoms located along China’s southern coast (the blue region in the map below). File:Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms 923 CE.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Since Southern Han is just a small country, how could it support a large fleet? I tried to find the size of Southern Han’s army and did not get any results. A relative number is Southern Han’s total population, less than one million (source: »ÄÌÆ¿ÉЦµÄÄϺºÕþȨ£¨15£©_ÂÒÊÀ·éÑÌ_½ªÀDzò¾¡_ÎÄ»¯¶ÁÊéƵµÀ_ÐÂÀËÍø. I am sorry I cannot find an English version. The story is about eunuchs in Southern Han and the total number of eunuchs in Southern Han is around 20k, more than 2% of the total population). If Vietnamese’s claim of casualty (over 100k) is accurate, Southern Han’s king must send more than 10% of his citizens to this battle. It is odd.

4. So what is the actual casualty of the 938 battle? It is difficult to find out since the battle happened more than 1000 years ago and it is a NAVY battle (how did you count the bodies in water). I looked at the wiki link you provided previously (Battle of Bach Dang River (938) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The English version says that the Viet man’s force is 150K plus (citation needed) and the Chinese’s force is 100K plus (citation needed). The article did not mention the casualties. You Vietnamese must assume that none of the Chinese warriors survived that battle in order to get the “over 100k” number. Then I checked the Japanese version and the Chinese version: the Chinese force was around 10k and lost about 5k in the battle. I am not saying that 5k is a better estimate. But it is clear that the Vietnamese exaggerate the outcome of this battle. I am not sure if you noticed: the cartoon says Chinese sent 20k troops to invade Vietnam. Again, how did Chinese loss more than what they sent to the battle?

Even your version of the most famous battle in your history is not totally accurate, how could you convince us to believe the other “historical evidences” you provide?

A Side Note: wiki is not your history book. If you insist on learning your history from wiki, you will become the Laughing-stock of others.

Good research. The point goes to you. That is right: the video shows the number is 20.000. You are welcome to send your findings to Wiki for correction proposal.

these students made the cartoon.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

Are you waiting for a reply on your arguments? Please ask someone to edit your post and make it reasonable and logical since you were talking nonsense. Look at your bullet point 1. You don't even understand what I said.

You have to try to understand, because English is neither my first language nor yours.
You think I understand your compatriots clearly? I have to try to understand, then you have to do it too.
"Misunderstanding" is not a good excuse for your shortage in arguments.

By the way, why did you use the smiley face a lot? Do you try to be sarcastic or it is fake laugh to cover your inability to speak normally?

Ad hominem Is there any rule which prevent me from using ? Now focus on the argument.

 

[ephone]

For a small country being fxxked back and forth for thousands of years by strong powers, vn still like to boast its so-called victories.

If you have been so powerful, why the heck you are the one being fxxked all the time???

Look at your history, your books, your literature, your architecture, medicine and etc, just like korea, all learn and import from China.

The latest french domination got your change your written letter. However, without knowing Chinese, you could not even study your old literature. Look at those temples, still all with Chinese all written there.

Still think so great of yourself???

Still enjoy your so-called victory over U.S.??? Sure, U.S. gave up south vn in the end. However, who is the ultimate loser??? Who had millions of death and even today there are those children deformed by those U.S. bombs???

Well, even being fxxked so hard by U.S., vn nowadays begs U.S. to come back. Well, good for you.

At the same time, if you hate China that much, why your vn leaders keep begging China for all types of aids, money, electricity, investment and etc???

He wants to help you visualize what happened at estuary Bach Dang River in 938.
If you dont want to see the cartoon, just look at the numbers:





Abstaining from bananas also could not help you invade Scarborough Shoal of the Philippines...




This proves that you lied when you had put the number 6 billion USD.
Now who can believe in your number 16 bil?

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

You guys keep mention the Battle of Bach Dang River (938) and the biggest selling point is “killed over 100,000 Chinese”. The number actually puzzled me a lot: which country could support such a large NAVY (over 100k) in the 10th century? I spent (waste) some time reading different online articles and here is your reality check:

1. I know many of you regard it as Vietnam’s independence war and I have to admit that it is a clear victory for the Vietnamese.

2. You called it a war between China and Vietnam. But the more accurate version is that it is a conflict between Southern Han (a regional kingdom) and a rebellion force led by Ngo Quyen (Vietnamese). So what is Southern Han? In order to answer this question, we need to learn the history of China in the 10th century.
The 10th century in China is called the “Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period”. During this period, five dynasties quickly succeeded one another in the north, and more than 12 independent states were established, mainly in the south. However, only ten are traditionally listed, hence the era's name. It is considered by many historians as the most chaotic era in Chinese history. Southern Han is one of the 10 Kingdoms located along China’s southern coast (the blue region in the map below). File:Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms 923 CE.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Since Southern Han is just a small country, how could it support a large fleet? I tried to find the size of Southern Han’s army and did not get any results. A relative number is Southern Han’s total population, less than one million (source: »ÄÌÆ¿ÉЦµÄÄϺºÕþȨ£¨15£©_ÂÒÊÀ·éÑÌ_½ªÀDzò¾¡_ÎÄ»¯¶ÁÊéƵµÀ_ÐÂÀËÍø. I am sorry I cannot find an English version. The story is about eunuchs in Southern Han and the total number of eunuchs in Southern Han is around 20k, more than 2% of the total population). If Vietnamese’s claim of casualty (over 100k) is accurate, Southern Han’s king must send more than 10% of his citizens to this battle. It is odd.

4. So what is the actual casualty of the 938 battle? It is difficult to find out since the battle happened more than 1000 years ago and it is a NAVY battle (how did you count the bodies in water). I looked at the wiki link you provided previously (Battle of Bach Dang River (938) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The English version says that the Viet man’s force is 150K plus (citation needed) and the Chinese’s force is 100K plus (citation needed). The article did not mention the casualties. You Vietnamese must assume that none of the Chinese warriors survived that battle in order to get the “over 100k” number. Then I checked the Japanese version and the Chinese version: the Chinese force was around 10k and lost about 5k in the battle. I am not saying that 5k is a better estimate. But it is clear that the Vietnamese exaggerate the outcome of this battle. I am not sure if you noticed: the cartoon says Chinese sent 20k troops to invade Vietnam. Again, how did Chinese loss more than what they sent to the battle?

Even your version of the most famous battle in your history is not totally accurate, how could you convince us to believe the other “historical evidences” you provide?

A Side Note: wiki is not your history book. If you insist on learning your history from wiki, you will become the Laughing-stock of others.

I agree with you some points. However, you did not use another source to refute the information of Wikipedia, instead, you also only use the information on Wikipedia.

I read an official history book of Vietnamese feudal dynasties, Đại Việt Sử Ký Toàn Thư, [Original book written in Chinese characters, translators: Social Science Institute of Vietna] Booklet No.4, has written:

- In 931, Dương Đình Nghệ (a Vietnamese - BBDR) defeated Li Tien (a Chinese - BBDR) of Southern Han. Southern Han sent Tran Bao led troops to save Li Tien, but was defeated and killed by Dương Đình Nghệ. Then Dương Đình Nghệ called himsefl "Tiết Độ Sứ". ruled over Giao Chỉ country (now known Vietnam).
- In 1937, Dương Đình Nghệ killed by Kiều Công Tiễn, an army general. Then Kiều Công Tiễn replace Dương Đình Nghệ, ruled over Giao Chỉ.

- In 1938, Ngô Quyền, an army general under Dương Đình Nghệ, led his troops to fight against Kiều Công Tiễn. (So, some books said that Ngô Quyền was a general rebelled - BBDR)
Kiều Công Tiễn sent a messenger went to Southern Han to call for help. Southern Han saw this as a good opportunity to re-invade Giao Chỉ, so king of sothern Han sent his son, Hongcao, led a fleet into Bach Dang River to fight against Ngô Quyền. When Hongcao still not yet arrive Đại La (now known Hanoi), Kiều Công Tiễn was defeated and killed by Ngô Quyền.
Then Ngô Quyền had time to set up a trap waiting the fleet of Hongcao in Bach Dang estuary.

The next describes in this book is like what the Wikipedia described. However, this history book did not say how many Han troops led by Hongcao, it has only said that more than half of the fleet Hongcao killed, Hongcao arrested and killed. So the true number of Han troops led by Hongcao, as well as the number of Han troops were killed, still unclear.