Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 16th, 2017, 11:04 AM   #51

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,260

I told you that if you continued to post personal attacks and rudeness, you would be banned.

You will find that I was not joking.

When you return, if you continue to do so, your suspension will be much longer. If you create a second account, it will be permanent.

I have neither the time nor the patience for East Asian nationalist crap in this forum. I don't intend to allow it to continue, whether it's Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian or Martian.

This is a HISTORY forum. You want to spout this nationalist bull, go and do it somewhere else.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 16th, 2017, 11:17 AM   #52

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Canada
Posts: 3,939

Something to distract from the heat

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KiLA6Bk_ivs

Edit: it's a marketing ad for a Korean pizza chain.
YouLoveMeYouKnowIt is offline  
Old December 16th, 2017, 05:35 PM   #53

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,635

Why should we count Japanese naval losses when talking about the losses suffered by the Japanese land army? And on land, there simply wasn't enough large-scale battles to inflict 100,000 casualties on the Japanese, especially in most early battles it were the Koreans who lost more.
Maki is offline  
Old December 16th, 2017, 05:58 PM   #54
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,073

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Why should we count Japanese naval losses when talking about the losses suffered by the Japanese land army? And on land, there simply wasn't enough large-scale battles to inflict 100,000 casualties on the Japanese, especially in most early battles it were the Koreans who lost more.
I guess Korean armies could have suffered less because plenty of them just left and melt away.

It's kind of like saying how the Ming forces didn't suffer that much from Qing, because no one fought back.
mariusj is offline  
Old December 16th, 2017, 06:04 PM   #55

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,635

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
I guess Korean armies could have suffered less because plenty of them just left and melt away.

It's kind of like saying how the Ming forces didn't suffer that much from Qing, because no one fought back.
Well, in battles like Chungju or Sangju, most of the Korean forces were destroyed and sometimes generals were lost like Shin Rip and Jeong Bal.
Maki is offline  
Old December 16th, 2017, 06:33 PM   #56
Loser
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: 'Maircuh
Posts: 2,896
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Well, in battles like Chungju or Sangju, most of the Korean forces were destroyed and sometimes generals were lost like Shin Rip and Jeong Bal.
Well in those two battles the vast majority of the "soldiers" were peasants recruited as late as the day before and given essentially no training. Even then they were tremendously outnumbered. Not that the Choson army could have changed the outcome.
Haakbus is offline  
Old December 16th, 2017, 06:49 PM   #57

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,635

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakbus View Post
Well in those two battles the vast majority of the "soldiers" were peasants recruited as late as the day before and given essentially no training. Even then they were tremendously outnumbered. Not that the Choson army could have changed the outcome.
Still the Koreans were obliterated and suffered more casualties than the Japanese. There is no way the Koreans killed a 100,000 Japanese by the time of the Japanese evacuation of Seoul.
Maki is offline  
Old December 16th, 2017, 07:36 PM   #58
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2015
From: Japari Park
Posts: 206

Quote:
Originally Posted by common sence View Post
Re-invasion of Japan
90 1597 8.15 Chosun army golyeong
94 1597 9.14 Chosun army geumgu
96 1597 12.28 Japan Gwangyang failure to attack Supply army
98 1598 3.24 chosun,ming samga
99 1598 4.8 chosun,ming Mujuju repel to japan attack
100 1598 4.2 chosun,ming hamuyang repel to japan attack
101 1598 6.? Chosun Army Suncheon repel to japan attack
102 1598 9.25 Chosun,ming Ulsan total attack
Speaking of which, I do like to learn more about these battles.
wolflance is offline  
Old December 19th, 2017, 03:12 AM   #59
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2015
From: Japari Park
Posts: 206

I suppose there isn’t many Japanese member here?

Anyway, some Japanese persective on the Imjin War I managed to dug up:

1) Jiksan was a Japanese victory. Not only they managed to beat the Ming back, they occupied Jiksan afterwards.

2) Battle of Myeongnyang was a Japanese victory as well. They consider casualties claimed by Koreans as massive exaggeration, they only suffered minimal losses, but managed to capture Jeolla province and destroyed Yi Sun Sin's naval base - something they were unable to do during the first invasion.

Note: ENTIRE Japanese navy during the invasion only numbered 7,200.


3) Battle of Noryang was ALSO a Japanese victory. Despite heavy losses, all Japanese generals managed to retreat to safety, and they killed two of the highest ranking Ming/Joseon commanders during the battle.

In short, Japan suffered precisely ZERO defeat during the second invasion, and Hideyoshi's death was solely responsible for them to "not succeed".

Rebuttal anyone?

Last edited by wolflance; December 19th, 2017 at 03:18 AM.
wolflance is offline  
Old December 19th, 2017, 05:58 AM   #60

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,635

1. Chiksan was a tactical Japanese victory, but it was only their furthest point of advance in the second invasion. After that battle it became clear that a Ming army was guarding Seoul, and this, combined with Yi's victory forced the Japanese to return to the wajo.

2. The Japanese invasion of Cholla was a result of the battle of Chilcheollyang and Won Kyun's defeat there, not a result of Myongyang. The Japanese victory in the first battle opened a road to Cholla. Perhaps the Koreans did exaggerate casualties of Myongyang, but its effect on the Japanese command and army was big. Morale fell and the Japanese leaders decided that an attack on Seoul was impossible. The fleet defeated by Yi was given the task of resupplying and reinforcing the Japanese army for the attack on Seoul, but after the defeat, the reinforcement of the Japanese armies became impossible.

3. The Japanese generals fled, but the fleet was decimated. At the very least, the half of the Japanese fleet was destroyed, and there are sources that say that only 50 Japanese ships saved themselves, though this could very likely be an exaggeration.

No, the Japanese didn't lose just because Hideyoshi died. Yes, had the Taiko lived, he might have continued the Korean venture, but the chances of success were slim, almost non-existent.
Maki is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
1592, japanimjinwaeran, joseon, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The 1592-1598 Japanese war in Korea Salah Asian History 7 September 6th, 2013 11:38 AM
Glamour in the first year of the Great war jeroenrottgering War and Military History 3 June 19th, 2012 01:25 PM
How did the Seven Year's War help Frederick the Great? Marshal Ney History Help 10 March 26th, 2011 03:30 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.