Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Japan was ambitious

Well what should be appreciated is the determination of japanese. after all a bunch of infighting people seperated by islands,were brought to the understanding,that they belonged to one nation called japan.and all these was possible due to people like noobunaga and hideyoshi.and a considering the numbers i think it was extremely courageous of japan to have ambitions to conquer vast lands of Manchuria and other areas controlled by the ming. though,this campaign lost steam twice,one should know that the feeling still remained with the japanese till world war 2. of course,efforts of yu-soon-shi should also be appreciated for thinking ahead of the times. another thing being,hideyoshi requested the ming for a partition of korea,one south and the other north,well you know what korea is today. --Jayanthv86 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is unlikely the Japanese, even if allied with the Manchu, could defeat the Ming at this date. It was more than 20 years later that the Ming was overthrown by rebels and the Manchu took advantage of the chaos, remember? In addition, the Green standard army which defected to the Manchu from the Ming, played a very large role in the conquest of China.

> Japan was ambitious? Yes they were ambitious but that is not a thing you can respect them for. The Seven Year War destroyed Korea's economy and took a long time to rebuild Korea. Also, if you didn't know, Japan has been doing their war crimes back then. During the Seven Year War, Japanese soldiers, looted, raped, pillaged, and kidnapped thousands of Koreans. What Japan did is not courageous. The war also resulted in the destruction of the Ming later when they were invaded by Manchu raiders.

Good friend100 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Article disappeared?

What in the world happened to the Yi Soon Shin's article?

It's under Yi Sun-sin. LordAmeth 00:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So, I said "muskets" to clearfy. Well, I edited that portion(and many others) before creating the account. :)

The only firearm available to the Japanese at this time was the Tanegashima gun, which was based on a Portuguese matchlock design. There is no evidence to suggest that this was anything but a smooth bore weapon. Thus it was not a rifle. Eclecticology 08:41, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article says, "The long war reduced the productive capacity of farmlands from 1,708,000 kyol to 541,000 kyol.". Is a kyol anything like the Japanese koku?--Yuje 11:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

> The firearm Japan used was the arquebuse. It was probably the main reason why the Koreans were aniihilated by the Japanese in the beginning of the war.

Good friend100 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Invasion chronology

Thank you for your detailed article on the Imjin War. I cannot reconcile the chronology for the initial invasion. In the main article, it is stated that the Japanese landed from 25-26 May, and captured Seoul on 12 June. Yet the articles for individual battles have the siege of Busan on 13 April, the battle of Sangju on 24 April, and battle of Chunju on 28 April. All of these battles shoud be, I presume, subsequent to the initial invasion landings. The two chronologies appear in conflict. Is this because different calendars are being used? --Iacobus 02:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Hi Iacobus, two calendars were used on wikipedia In the main article it is stated that Japnese landed on May 25-26 1592 i guess that it seems to be reliable... i've been told that Japanese landing ocured on may 1592 according to SOLAR CALENDAR but according to Korean accounts Japanese landed on April 13th (or more exactly the 4th month and the 13th day according to CHINESE LUNAR CALENDAR, noted by an asterisk) I will later make reconvert those dates according to SOLAR CALENDAR.Whlee 18:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits

The article called Oda Nobunaga "shogun." That is a title neither he nor Toyotomi Hideyoshi held, so I deleted it.
Also, I'm uncomfortable with the phrase "the court of Hideyoshi" in the section titled "The Interlude." It implies royalty, which Hideyoshi was not. When used in a Japanese context, "court" refers to the Imperial court. Any suggestions? Squidley 20:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Despite not holding the title of shogun, I am sure that Hideyoshi held some sort of equivalent to the bakufu court. I am not sure what term one should use; I'd prefer "court" over "cabinet," though, depending on the context, "circle of advisors" or the like might work. LordAmeth 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Troops from Ryukyu?

There's reference in this article about Ming Troops from Ryukyu, however, the Ming never had troops stationed in the Ryukyu islands. This must be an error. Concerning the Ryukyus, Hideyoshi requested they send troops to help the invasion of Korea, but the King refused, citing their lack of resources (although the greatest factor was their allegiance to the Ming).

I agree. (Wikimachine 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Ming action

There seem to be a lot of missing details about Ming fighting. Were they not supposed to have destroyed the Japanese main food and supply depots to force the invaders to halt their first campaign?

It seem rather strange in the article if the Japanese are winning on the land and suddenly decided to stop.

That could be in process of participating in battles itself. Admiral Yi cut down all the Japanese supplies because he was protecting the west side of the peninsula, and that is the confluence of most of the rivers from the peninsula. (Wikimachine 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Insults...

Is there documentation to back up the claim that the Ming insulted the Japanese Emperor and Hideyoshi? I have just never heard of this element is all, and it seems like the sort of thing one might add as a subtle vandalism... Maybe if you got a user account, instead of continuing to post by IP, I'd be less likely to think you a vandal. Sorry to come off so accusatory - it wasn't my intention. LordAmeth 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Japanese and have read a lot of books on Japanese history, but I haven't seen such thing. -- Ypacaraí 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Foreshadow of Japanese invasion in WW2

Would it be suitable if added some info of reviving the invasion of China and Korea during Japan Imperialism in World War 2? I remember I read somewhere before that the reason why Japan wants to conquer China was to honor Hideyoshi's dream of conquer China.

I disagree. Pretty vague. (Wikimachine 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Ears or Noses?

Was it 38,000 ears or was it 38,000 noses? There are a number of sites that say noses. Are they still in Japan or have they been returned to Korea?

Both. Japanese generals were pretty barbaric back then and believed ears and noses were honorable prizes to the emperor Good friend100 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

48,000 Ears and 28,000 noses. It was 48,000 ears because the japanese generals sent both ears of the person and when Hideyoshi knew this, he wanted noses since the japanese generals are sending 2 ears of the same person and that gave them extra credit. So Hideyoshi ordered to cut off noses since there is only one. -KoreanHistorist

Request for images

The article protrays a great deal of detail and chronological events, but it would be helpful for readers to understand the odds through PICTURES and MAPS. Also, more references would be helpful. Colonel Marksman 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but many of the accessible maps are copyrighted in ways that we cannot use them. (Wikimachine 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Jinju Fort

In 1593 General Wakizaka of Japan was beaten by Yi Soon Shin and humiliated. So he was ordered to lead the forces to capture Jinju Fort which was a bridgehead to conquering Chosun. Wakizaka attempted his men to climb over the walls of Jinju Fort, but the garrison commander Hwang Chin led his men bravely by shooting arrows at the incoming japanese, throwing rocks at the climbing japanese and pouring hot water over the japanese. The women and children supplied the soldiers guarding the wall with rocks. After 6 days the seige of Jinju was over and Wakizaka became frustrated and fell back a few miles back. But sadly even though Jinju Fort won and survived its seige, Hwang Chin was dead, he was shot by 2 bullets in the chest and died a day later. He is famous for guarding Jinju Fort well and survivng 2 bullets in the chest when no less man of Chosun could have withstand a single bullet. Hwang Chin was 22 years old when he died. Go search Hwang Chin in the Wikipedia searchbox and you will see a article written by me. -KoreanHistorist

thanks. try to use "(~ ~ ~ ~)" (w/o spaces) (Wikimachine 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Koreans fighting on the Japanese side?

I don't see any mention here about the numerous Koreans (mostly slaves and lower classes) who joined the Japanese to fight against Joseon? I'm no expert on the matter, but Jinju's National Museum mentioned this despite their otherwise extremely jingoistic tone, so I can only presume there's some truth to the matter. Jpatokal 15:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably there were some. (Wikimachine 02:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

I don't know about Korean defectors but I have read in a book that there were hundreds of Japanese soldiers that have joined the Koreans side. Korean defectors were probably slaves or Japanese sympathizers. Japanese defectors joined the Koreans because they were suffering from the Japanese camps and believed that the Koreans would care for them better. Good friend100 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fall of Busan and Seoul

"In a couple of hours, Busan and Tadaejin fell."

As far as I remember, Busan fell the next day at dawn when the Japanese destroyed the gate and rushed in. Isn't that right? Thanks. I can't find the battle details right now. (Wikimachine 03:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Well...maybe Tadaejin fell in a couple of hours since it was a medium sized castle with a small garrison. Busan probably took a longer time to fall but I don't think it took over a day get captured. Good friend100 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Another question. Was Hanyang really undefended? I thought that a general was in charge of defending Hanyang. (Wikimachine 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

Yes Seoul was undefended. It was empty because King Seonjo fled to Pyongyang the day before. There were no soldiers defending Seoul (what a shame...) Good friend100 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename

from a cursory search, i can't find any major sources that refer to this war as "seven year war." the far more common name seems to be "imjin war," unless i missed something obvious? Appleby 21:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I bought a game that was titled "Seven-Year War". That was around 1998. We ought to keep "Imjin" in redirects. (Wikimachine 02:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

This article needs to be renamed into Imjin War. Looking up 'Seven Year War' on search engines shows up websites about the war in Europe while looking up 'Imjin War' shows up websites about the Japanese invasion of Korea. Taeguk Warrior 12:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

True you are correct. But we should make a section in the article about what it means. also we should put the Korean (임진왜란), Chinese, and Japanese way of saying it. Good friend100 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to second what "Goodfriend" has said. We ought to include a section on what the war is called in Korean, Japanese, and Chinese, if for no other reason than because it is interesting. However, I would like to point out that just because Google has trouble distinguishing the Seven-Year War and the Seven Years' War, it doesn't mean that "Seven-Year War" has no merit or validity as a name for this conflict. LordAmeth 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the Imjin War (Korean: Imjin Waeran) or the Bunroku Campaign (Japanese: Bunroku no ~~Ran~~Eki) only refers to the first invasion and the Jeongyu War (Jeongyu Jaeran) or the Keicho Campaign (Keicho no ~~Ran~~Eki) refers to the second? "Seven-Year War" is better because it includes both. "Japanese invasions of Korea" (a la Mongol invasions of Korea and Mongol invasions of Japan) might be a good name as well. --Kusunose 00:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC) fixed Japanese terms --Kusunose 03:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

good point. but "Japanese invasions of Korea" also has a disambiguation problem ... Appleby 01:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

While we are discussing, I suggst reverting to the "Seven-Year War". It may be ambiguous but more accurate than "Imjin War". --Kusunose 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

~~I agree with Taeguk Warrior about renaming the article to other than Seven Year War. Here are the three grounds that I present:~~

~~The name Seven Year War is confusing, and can be mistaken for Seven Years' War. There are so many seven year wars that this is not the appropriate title.~~
~~Although, Imjin-waeran refers to the first half of the war, the term Imjin is oftened used to describe the entire war, in Korean.~~
Japanese terms Bunroku no ran and others do not show a single hit on Google search. 1 hit is about Toyotomi Hideyoshi, in which the term Bunroku shows up to indicate the time period, not the war itself.

~~(Wikimachine 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC))~~

1. It may be confusing but it is accurate and commonly used term. Searching '"Seven-Year War" Korea' (excluding "wikipedia" of course) outnumbers "Imjin War" . We just need disambiguation. 2. This is English Wikipedia. How common in Korean has less importance than the English usage. 3. Sorry, I erred Japanese terms. And to clarify, I'm not proposing Japanese terms as the page title. --Kusunose 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

boy, these google searches are not easy, are they. although seven year war does return more results, from [1] it seems most mentions of "seven-year war" are descriptive (uncapitalized) rather than a proper noun, & the bunch of results at the middle of page do not seem to be about this war. from [2], it seems Imjin War in english does encompass both invasions. anyone have better ideas? Appleby 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the article should be kept as "Imjin War" First, the "Seven Year War" can be confusing with the one in Europe and Imjin War sounds more interesting (in my opinion). Good friend100 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I change my stance. This would be unfair to any Japanese, seeing that the article's name is in Korean. (Wikimachine 02:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

it's not a matter of us deciding what's fair. it's always about references. what do the most reputable english sources call the subject? first step is to find the sources, then we consider the quantity & quality of those sources. that's the neutral process, whatever name it leads to. Appleby 05:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Appleby. Plus the war is a bigger part of Korean history and it took place eintirely in Korea. Good friend100 13:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazon.com's only book about the Japanese invasion of Korea is called The Imjin War. Searching for Seven Year War only shows up books about the war in Europe. The third paragraph of the book description says, ""The Imjin War" is the most comprehensive account ever published in English of this important event..." That is good enough reason to keep the name of this article as 'Imjin War'. The book is 45 dollars hardcover so it must be reliable! Taeguk Warrior 21:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing issues

Somebody seriously needs to stop editing this article without thinking. There is a entire paragraph in the "Chinese Intervention" section describing a battle. This is the article about the Seven Year War! Not about a single battle. Battles can be described in the battle articles at the end of the article.

Also, some users do not revise their work. I have just completed a bunch of grammer problems in the article. People!!!! Revising an article is to make it better, not make it worse. Please discuss anything in the discussion page. Good friend100 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is to all users editing the Seven Year War article and battle articles...

Please do not attack the articles and editing them heavily. I have carefully written them and a lot of them are in worse shape, especially the maturity of the tone of the articles and the grammer and mispellings.

I am not neccesarily trying to protect my works, but aren't edits supposed to strengthen the articles, not make them worse?

I know there are several Korean users editing the Imjin War and all related articles. I also know that the Imjin War is a dark period of Korean history and it makes Koreans feel bad and feel hateful toward the Japanese.

But this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not an all out war. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant for other internet users to use. The articles should be kept at a normal tone without any Korean POVS (example: "the Koreans utterly destroyed and annihilated the weak Japanese soldiers" or "The Japanese should be shameful for what they did") The articles should be NPOV and written as if it were a formal paper or book, not a speech or something.

If you want to discuss your feelings please do it at the discussion page instead of staining emotions onto the articles themselves. Good friend100 22:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Need some help

I just finished rewriting the entire section of the "Second Invasion" It took me a while but i think it made the article a whole lot better. I still need some help for editing the "Siege of Ulsan" article and the "Sacheon" article, both from the Second Invasion.

Also, I need some help on reorganizing the structure of the article itself.

Thanks guys Good friend100 04:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I need help

Hello users editing the Imjin War

I just started the timeline of the Imjin War... It is very incomplete and I ask for support and some help modifying the timeline section.

Thanks guys, Good friend

Split article

This article is getting very long, and therefore should likely be split into two or more articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I say it's all right. Good suggestion though. We are all aiming to make this into a featured article, and all featured articles are long. (Wikimachine 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Yes, featured articles are generally longer, but they are not wordy. There's a difference between having a long article that is clearly formatted and full of good information, and an article that is just long. This one is just long and needs some tightening up in ordeer to have a chance at FA status. It will take a little work, but I think you can do it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

i think nihonjoe has a good point. most of the battles have daughter articles, so many details can be moved out of this article. i will make a separate page of the timeline, if there's no objections.

although it's nice to have editors putting in such hard work, a concise overview on this page will attract more people to actually read your work. i can't imagine many casual visitors sitting down to read the entire article as it is. Appleby 22:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

the "Battles of the Imjin War" section at the end seems unnecessary, pretty much duplicating the timeline as well as the table of contents. the weapons list can probably be integrated into the "see also" section. Appleby 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

i just created Imjin War Timeline from the timeline & list of battles in this article, which should now be deleted. i wasn't sure of the chronology of some of the battles, so please check for accuracy. i also deleted some trivia (such as yi sunsin's marriage). Appleby 01:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree removing the "Battles of Imjin War". This article is about a war, and battleas are the most important part of the war because everything happened around them. Good friend100 18:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

just to clarify, i don't mean removing all content about the battles, obviously. i meant only the repetitive list of battles at the end of the article. the table of contents at top basically acts as a list of battles, the body of article is all about the battles, and we can place a prominent link here to the separate timeline/battle list page. i don't think most other war articles have a list of battles after a full description of the battles in the body of the article. i'm just trying to make this article more digestible & appealing to more readers. any suggestions? Appleby 04:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

But the main article does not have headings for all the battles during the war. There are no naval battles in the article either. This is where I am worried about the structure of the article. We cannot write captions of all the battles but we cannot leave out any battles either. Also, we need to discuss what Korean/Japanese citizens were doing, or modern portrayals, etc etc. The article only contains several battles. Also, we must remember that the list of battles are still incomplete. We need articles on Battle of Hwangsoksan, Battle of Pyokje, Battle of Uiryong, etc etc. The timeline is incomplete as well. Good friend100 13:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

since the timeline and list of battles will expand even further, doesn't that make a separate page even more sensible? do you have any other suggestions? honestly, i just don't want to lose readers for everyone's hard work because of the imposing length. Appleby 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the increasing length of the article. I also agree with creating a separate page. But the link to the timeline and battles should be very clear, because, in my opinion, the timeline and battles are the most important about the article. The timeline helps the reader understand the flow of the war. Good friend100 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

Thanks again for editing the article. I think the most important thing is to reorganize the entire structure of the article. When I read through the article, it was hard to understand the flow of the war through 1592-1598. We need more dates and we need to arrange the article a little more chronologically as well.

We need to edit the article. It looks complete because I just finished adding the "Second Invasion" section but it is severely incomplete. The structure of the article is messy and the article itself is not very smooth like other articles.

The best part of the article is the beginning section of the article with descriptions of the Korean and Japanese armies and war preparations so I don't think we need to really concentrate on that section.

Good friend100 19:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Good friend100. I did some clean up. Looks nice?:) (Wikimachine 21:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Korean soldier

The picture is better than the one before but it can do better because we only get to see one side of a Korean soldier. Is there anyone that can get a good picture of a frontal picture? thanks. Good friend100 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the site where I got the picture. You can pick the one you like. Thanks. (Wikimachine 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)) [3]

Merge 2 sections

There's a comparison of the Korean army w/ Japanese army and then at the bottom of the article is a list of weapons used by the two forces.

I think it's a little too repetitive. (Wikimachine 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

I deleted the list of the weaposn used by two forces.

Also, let's merge the timeline of the Imjin War with the list of the Battles. (Wikimachine 01:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)) PS: I noted that there was a significantly large part of the chronological timeline dedicated to Admiral Yi's life. I think it's best to remove it. (Wikimachine 01:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

No i disagree. Admiral Yi greatly influenced the course of the Imjin War. Information about Admiral Yi is important. Good friend100 18:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort in making the timeline. But I think that who's important is based on perspective. Japanese could write about Toyotomi Hideyoshi or other Japanese generals as well into the war. Admiral Yi's life includes events before the war as well. Events in the war -aren't they battles or important political decisions? (Wikimachine 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

Note to all Wikipedians

Hey guys. I would like to comment that there's a tendency among the Wikipedians here to make this article like a... movie or a story.

And it sounds too POV. There are too many junks like

"Koreans fought bravely..." "capturing Seoul was now imminent..." "Admiral Yi is a symbol of great pride for Koreans..."

Let's state the fact clean and move on. Right? Thanks. (Wikimachine 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

Not only that, the tone of the article is not formal. We need to write in a more formal tone because this is an article in an encyclopedia, not a script for story-telling to little 6 year olds. Good friend100 11:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100, aren't you the one who is always adding 'unfortunately' and 'it is interesting to note' all over the Imjin War articles? You are not going to find that in an encyclopedia. Taeguk Warrior 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some proof to your accusation. Also, even if I am writing a bunch of POV things, who's the one that has contributed most to the Imjin War article? I rewrote the entire First and Second Invasion sections into what it is now. I added a lot of information to the battle articles that were all stubs. Also, I'm trying to make the timeline of the Imjin War which I have started to write. Everyone else is just editing, adding, deleting, etc etc. It took a lot of time gathering that information and took a lot of time writing it too. And all you do is accuse me of writing badly? All you are doing is editing all the articles that I have written down! At least you guys can be a little more helpful or appreciative? Good friend100 18:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all of your contributions! (kisses) (Wikimachine 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

1 error detected

The section about Japanese Naval Retreat discusses how Chen Lin was assigned to lead the Chinese forces.

But in the Chen Lin article, it shows that the person lived around the Three Kingdoms Period.

We're totally anachronistic here. I don't think it was Chen Lin. Does anybody know about this extensively? Thanks. (Wikimachine 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

By the way, we really need the citations. And if anybody doesn't know how to do citations...

just do this (take out all the "_")

<_ref>insert reference or website<_/ref>

Someone has trouble finding true facts. I found a picture for Li Rusong and that picture was really a picture of Admiral Yi Sun-sin. It really annoys me to find that users are writing down false information about an article. Good friend100 11:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100, check out the Battle of Noryang Point. In that article, I wrote that only 200 Japanese ships were destroyed and gave the source for that information. Thanks. (Wikimachine 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

Ratings

At the top of the discussion page, it shows that the Imjin War is part of Wikipedia's Military history project. But how come it doesn't have a rating on its quality and importance? Does anybody know who rates the article? thanks Good friend100 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC) It has been rated. (Wikimachine 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Categories: Talk archives