Talk:An Dương Vương

Dynasty

Can it really be considered a Dynasty if it had only one ruler? Dynasty would suggest more than one. Chris 01:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can if the rule was established on the hereditary principle but the line died out. Usually dynasties have more than one ruler but not always. Itsmejudith 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Qin Dynasty called a "Dynasty" when its ruler only ruled for a short time?

The escape

In folktales, Trong Thuy gave My Nuong a cape made of goose feathers, and told her to pluck it to leave a trail when running away from Co Loa citadel so he could come to find her. When An Duong Vuong took his only daughter, My Nuong, and fled on a horse. My Nuong, sitting behind her father, leave a trail of goose feathers. No matter how fast An Duong Vuong ran, the enemies seemed to be able to follow him. Finally, at the shore, on his knees, he cried out in defeat. The Golden Turtle appeared again in front of him and said "the enemy is right behind your back" and quickly disappeared. An Duong Vuong understood and killed My Nuong for her betrayal. Trong Thuy arrived soon after to find his wife dead. He committed suicide to be with her. An Duong Vuong was no where to be seen.

Missvickii (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)missvickii

Kinh Duong Vuong

Kinh Duong Vuong was just removed as an alternate name, in this edit. If he isn't the same person, who was he? Badagnani (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

According to legend, Kinh Duong Vuong is the ruling title for Loc Tuc, father of Sung Lam or more well known as Lac Long Quan. Yellowtailshark (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh, a lot of redlinks. Can you help? Badagnani (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, they'd all be stubs though. The Lac Long Quan and Au Co articles are already short. Perhaps we should consolidate it to a Mythical origins of the Vietnamese people article with all the mythical names redirecting to this section. I think it'd be a good idea to separate myth from archeology. I'd do this except I'm not sure what would be a good primary source. I only know that this myth wasn't written down until the 14th century or so. If I can figure out the name of the original literature that penned this oral tradition and use it as a reference, then it would have more credibility than a hack job of different interpretations by different writers self-publishing on their own website. Yellowtailshark (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are added two Vietnamese sources + an unfinished genealogy. Have fun, ----Erkan Yilmaz 13:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Âu Việt

A Google Books source states that the Âu Việt were the Xi Ou (西甌; Vietnamese: Tây Âu), who lived in part of what is today Guangdong and Guangxi. We need an article on Âu Việt. Badagnani (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Article begun at Âu Việt. Badagnani (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lạc Việt also begun. Badagnani (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this part of Vietnamese of Chinese History?

Don't want to start a nationalistic war here BUT a) An Duong Vuong was a Prince of Shu, a Chinese state. b) the Au Viet people were descendants of the state of Yue, a Chinese state.

So, why would this be part of Vietnamese history?

Historicalchild (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Because he established the kingdom in what is now Vietnam. Similarly, Yuan dynasty is considered part of Chinese history and Mughal empire Indian history, even though they were both established by foreigners. -Zanhe (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete my contribution?

Hi User:152.133.15.6,

Your edit seems very problematic. It is very improbable that this king had a reign of 78 years. In contrast, Louis XIV's reign of 72 years is the longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign country. Thus, it's very unlikely that this king beat Louis XIV's record. Even the Vietnamese Wikipedia considers this king's story before 200 BC to be legendary. Therefore, I added "semi-legendary" in the lead paragraph because the first 57 years of his reign have not been attested by archeology or credible contemporary sources. I do not wish to start an edit war with you, so please add back the "semi-legendary" in the lead paragraph. Thank you.

Best regards, Steve RealIK17 (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Why this part?

Can someone explain me this part and why it's here? "However interpretation and reconciliation of the history of the period has been set in, and sometimes against, the history of Soviet interpretation of history"

Why Soviet of all things? What's the importance of adding this? 166.62.226.9 (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)