Talk:Later Paekche

Samguk Yusa

The text as it currently stands is at odds with the Samguk Yusa in a number of points (e.g., omitting various battles, whether the eldest son conspired or was closer to being a puppet, and, I believe, the running of the last battle, in which the K armies attacked the flanks, whose generals immediately surrendered, before the all-out attack on the main Hb body). Kdammers 07:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, it reads, [after T'ajeo had ordered his Koryeo forces to attack] " the right and left wings of the later Paekje force.... Learning that he [i.e., Sin-geom] was with the central body of his army, the King ordered general Kong-hwon to launch an attack on both flanks. This Kong-hwon did.... "King T'aejo treated them [Sin-geom and another brother] kindly and permitted them to come and lie with their families at his capital..." ( p. 156). Thus, Chin-hwon is not mentioned after it is said that he had accompanied the king in reviewing the troops just before the attack. Later (p. 157), Ilyon writes that Chin-hwon "died of rage, an ulcer bursting on his back" when T'ajeo accepted Sin-geom's surrender and repentance (since "he had not usurped the throne voluntarily but had been cajoled and forced into it by his villainous companions) and spared his life. Kdammers 02:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move—No opposition. (non-admin closure) —JennKR | ☎ 18:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Hubaekje → Later BaekjeLater Baekje – The word "hu" or "later" was not part of the state's original name. It was added by historians of later dynasties to distinguish this state from the much earlier Baekje, which this state claimed to be a successor of. This practice of naming a new dynasty exactly after an earlier one (to make it seem more legitimate) was quite common in East Asian history; see the pages Later Yan, Later Zhao, Later Qin, Later Liang, Later Han Dynasty (Five Dynasties), Later Zhou Dynasty, Later Jin Dynasty, Later Liang Dynasty, Later Tang Dynasty, etc. etc., or in another "Korean" case, Later Balhae. A New History of Korea by Ki-baik Lee (1984; transl. Edward W. Wagner) also has this state called "Later Paekche" rather than "Hupaekche/Hubaekje". Timmyshin (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom, i.e per general practice at Wikipedia and per sources. Although there is a lot of overlapping usage, perusal of some Google Books results confirms wider usage of "Later Baekje/Paekche". See "Later Baekje": 41, "Later Paekche": 110, and "Later Paekje": 21 versus "Hu Baekje/Hubaekje" 4+30=34, "Hu Paekche/Hupaekche": 35+7=42, and "Hu Paekje/Hupaekje": 8+1=9. —  AjaxSmack  00:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 August 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Later Baekje → Later Paekche – Per recent successful move at Paekche, also proof of COMMONNAME here: grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Is "Later Paekche" the decisive comnom compared to other possible renderings of the name, like Hupaekche, for instance?" -- 00101984hjw (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Concur per rationale — 00101984hjw (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.