Talk:Korean War of 1592-1598

	NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
	I worked on this article on Wikipedia, and intend to maintain and develop it on the Citizendium.
	Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

NOTE: The {{editintro}} template atop the article page should be removed prior approval.

Intro

I've talked with Dr. Jenkins about this edit that he made. While some parts of the edit are fine, some other parts are disagreeable for one reason or another.

1) "waters; Korea was devastated." this shouldn't be much of a problem, we just need to elaborate on this b/c it sounds too abrupt. Also, it makes it sound as if the Korean military was defeated all the way - when there were few major victories on land & complete dominance at sea. It should be about the economic, cultural, & human losses.

2) "The Japanese leader Shogun Toyotomi Hideyoshi" I had originally worded it as "Japanese leader" and then gave the link to "Shogun". I think that "leader shogun" is not proper, it sounds too awkward. If we were to refer to Hideyoshi as a Shogun, then we'd sound too ambiguous/erudite to people who have absolutely no idea about Japanese history. I think that "Japanese leader" or something equivalent is good enough.

note:I found out that Toyotomi Hideyoshi was not a Shogun. (Chunbum Park 15:11, 22 December 2007 (CST))

3) "; he fought Korea when it denied him passage." Stephen Turnbull in his Samurai Invasion & Kenneth M. Swope in his "Deceit, Disguise, and Dependence: China, Japan, and the Future of the Tributary System, 1592-1596" indicate otherwise - that So Yoshitoshi, the lord of Tsushima, in charge of communicating with Korea, lied to Hideyoshi that Korea was part of Tsushima & since Tsushima had submitted to Hideyoshi, that Korea would be part of Japan (all because he wanted peace between Korea & Japan so that his So family would keep their monopoly on the "lucrative" trade b/w the 2 countries). So it's more than just "denying Japan the passage"... Also, Hideyoshi did not fight in Korea - I think that the wording is too broad, like "Hideyoshi was leading the troops, & he was denied passage to Korea"

I see where Dr. Jenkins want to go - the effect on the Korean peninsula, & the whole storyline about how the war began could be summarized in the intro & make the intro more comprehensive. But we need to word them better so that they don't cause any misunderstanding. I'm not sure how to do that. (Chunbum Park 14:01, 14 November 2007 (CST))

historiography

The narrative for this article is fine. The historiography is problematical. Phrases like "against the predominant western view" and "popular belief regarding the history of gun" and "easily surpassed any of the contemporary conflicts of the European theater in terms of the size of the armies, the technologies, and the tactics deployed" should be avoided. To handle that material it is necessary to read a LOT of scholarship. In any case it's not very relevant. Richard Jensen 19:51, 21 December 2007 (CST)

I can see it that way too. Kenneth M. Swope presented the war against the thesis "Military Revolution" - I didn't make any of the words up. I'd also like a professional specializing in this field to handle this article. I did read in English some 10 articles from journals & a book + many websites. Oh & thanks for the compliment - I've worked a lot to make the narrative flow. (Chunbum Park 15:02, 22 December 2007 (CST))

Nice Work!

Its about time we had some Oriental articles! Nice work Chunbum! Denis Cavanagh 10:34, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Thank you. (Chunbum Park 16:18, 28 December 2007 (CST))

Indeed, this article is developing nicely. It's just the kind of military history CZ needs, so keep going! Richard Jensen 19:37, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Thank you. (Chunbum Park 15:45, 22 January 2008 (CST))

It's "draft of the week"! Hooray. Thank you for accepting my work. (Chunbum Park 11:12, 24 January 2008 (CST))

Wow, good work Chunbum, you've done an excellent job with this. Keep them coming! D. Matt Innis 18:51, 26 January 2008 (CST)

ambiguities & possible original research

1) Did some of the Japanese ships that carry cannons suspend them in air with ropes b/c the ships were too weak?

My dad told me that.... some drawings show Japanese cannons hanging on ropes.

2) Japanese wore armor? Many texts just describe the Japanese armor but doesn't really tell how much of the Japanese infantry were wearing metal/leather armor.

3) Was Lord Obunaga the only 1 to concentrate fire w/ muskets? I think he wasn't the only one.

(Chunbum Park 18:48, 26 January 2008 (CST))

Article title

I think that the title above is okay, but is there anything better - simply because I dont want people to think that this is some wikipedia page. The Wikipedias entry is also named "Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Also, the title leaves several other participants out when in fact China was a big participant in the war, and along with China came its tributary members like Ryukyu, Taiwan, etc.

Here are my suggestions:

• "Korean War of 1592-1598" (similar to Korean War of 1950-1953) (Google)
• "Seven-Year War (1592-1598)" (thinkquest entry)

(Chunbum Park 21:17, 3 February 2008 (CST))

I would be more worried about what it is most commonly referred to in history books, rather than what Wikipedia calls it. If it is most commonly known as the Japanese invasions of Korea, then that's where it should reside. --Todd Coles 21:44, 3 February 2008 (CST)

There is no established English title for this war. Many history books give a "description" (i.e. a biography about Hideyoshi would describe it as "The Invasion"). Others give a name along the line of "Japan's War with Korea". Wikipedia's title came after a long dispute focusing on neutrality. I think that Wikipedia's title is overly descriptive & it's a mistake b/c 1)it points out Japan & Korea as 2 participants but leaves out China & the international coalition of 5,000 troops 2) it's slightly more shifted toward Japanese historical context - the opposite (in Korean context) would be something like "Korea's Conflict with Japan".

Seven-Year War is my favorite because it's vague enough but it is at least used, somewhat, as a title rather than a description. Korean War is justified in the sense that it draws a parallel to the Korean War of 1950-1953, where there were many participants (UN under the leadership of US, USSR also secretly helped, China) but it happened on the Korean peninsula.

This book uses the phrase "Korean War", this book uses "Korea-Japan War", this book uses "Japan's Sixteenth Century Invasion of Korea", this journal article uses "Seven-Year War", and this too uses "Seven-Year War".

(Chunbum Park 23:04, 3 February 2008 (CST))

I recommend "Korean War of 1592-1598" because it has the dates and the geography so no one can possibly be confused. Richard Jensen 06:32, 4 February 2008 (CST)

Thank you, then I'll proceed with the article move. (Chunbum Park 16:07, 4 February 2008 (CST))

I know this is settled already, but just for the record, another reason not to use "Seven-Year War" is that it could cause confusion with the mid-18th-century conflict in Europe, North America, and elsewhere, often referred to as the "Seven Years' War." Bruce M.Tindall 13:25, 20 February 2008 (CST)

odd sentence

"Consequently the Chinese diplomats went to Japan and invested Hideyoshi, whose subordinates misled him into believing that the Chinese had come to surrender in person."

Is the verb "invested" correct? Should it be investigated, or arrested or something? I am confused by this sentence. David E. Volk 13:03, 20 February 2008 (CST)

"Invested" seems to be the correct verb -- it means "to install (someone) in office" or "to give a title to (someone)" -- although perhaps it should say "intended to invest" or "purported to invest". That is, the Chinese diplomats brought along documents in which the Ming emperor named, or "invested," Hideyoshi as "King of Japan." In other words, it was tantamount to a claim that the Ming had the authority to decide who was the legitimate ruler of Japan; that is, a demand by the Ming that Japan subordinate itself as a tributary state. Bruce M.Tindall 13:15, 20 February 2008 (CST)

Hello. Did you write any of the scholarly articles that I'm using here? I think your name sounds familiar to me. Do you have degree in East Asian history & would you be able to approve this article once it is complete?

From what I read, the Ming diplomats performed the ceremonies necessary to invest Hideyoshi & Hideyoshi found out about the investiture after it occurred --> huge embarrassment. Isn't that correct? (Chunbum Park 16:33, 20 February 2008 (CST))

(I replied at more length via e-mail. I'm not academically qualified to be a CZ history editor. I don't know the details of what happened when the Chinese mission visited Hideyoshi, but it's very amusing to imagine the scene if they pronounced some legalistic formula "creating" him as a tributary of the Ming and he didn't even know what was going on! Great fodder for a scene in a historical film.) Bruce M.Tindall 18:32, 20 February 2008 (CST)

formatting

Something I really love about Citizendium is that the articles are very clean - and you have a clear idea of where the paragraph starts & where it ends.

However, on this article, just the nature of the content & the common appearance of images make it really hard to keep the paragraphs look neat.

So, I'd like to have the article go this way: text..... then a set of images & explanations. then text...... then set of images & explanations

Does anyone know how to do that? Thanks. (Chunbum Park 13:42, 22 February 2008 (CST))

I can probably help, but can you give me some examples of where you want breaks? The first step will be subsection headings, and then we can work with the layout of the images. In general, I find getting the images where I want them will involve a combination of:

• Setting the px value in the image template
• Blank lines before or after the article
• Left, center or right, set in the template. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Firearms

I know nothing of Asian tactics and firearms, but the effective range of western firearms of this time period was much less than the range of 600 yards mentioned in this article. Richard Williams 15:03, 20 July 2008 (CDT)

Was that really the case? What would have been the maximum range of the western arquebuses at the close of the 16th century?

The 500 yards vs. 600 yards comparison is found in several sources - including the Imjin War by Samuel Hawley, Samurai Invasion by Stephen Turnbull, and "Crouching Tigers, Secret Weapons: Military Technology Employed During the Sino-Japanese-korean War, 1592-1598" by Kenneth M. Swope.

(Chunbum Park 20:01, 21 July 2008 (CDT))

I think I remember reading somewhere that the Japanese modified the western muskets to be usable during rainy days, but I don't think they improved the performance of the guns. (Chunbum Park 20:03, 21 July 2008 (CDT))

I don't have a handy reference on this subject, but here's a random webpage: link which states the arquebus had a range of 100 yards and the musket 200 yards. Even a couple hundred years later during the Napoleonic wars the infantry typically shot at each other at ranges of around 100 yards. With a bit of effort I could likely find a better reference. I don't have a theory for the differences in stated ranges. Richard Williams 21:33, 21 July 2008 (CDT)

It may have something to do with what people define "range". The usual range they're fired at or the maximum they can go maybe? Here @ Britannica Encyclopedia on Google Books, it reads "Musket... from about 1550 up to...much heavier and more powerful than the arquebus...stop a horse at 500 and 600 yards... (Chunbum Park 10:08, 22 July 2008 (CDT))

Yes, there are multiple "ranges": A musket ball will travel more than 600 yards, but it is only lethal up to about 400 yards, it is totally inaccurate over 200 yards, and engagement ranges are around 100 yards. Probably the most relevant range is the range at which opposing armies when approaching each other start shooting at each other. A colonel wrote in 1814: "A musket will strike a figure of a man at 80 yards... and as to firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket you may as well fire at the moon and have the same hope of hitting your object. I do maintain and will prove whenever called upon that no man was ever killed at 200 yards by a common musket by the person who aimed at him." Richard Williams 06:09, 23 July 2008 (CDT)

These are all valid distinctions. I have a brief article on range in a military context, but it dealt with a very narrow mathematical part of describing trajectories, often for long-range weapons. If people are interested, perhaps we can continue this and extend it under range

With modern, reasonably accurate infantry weapons, there are several separate and useful definitions of range, including:

• General combat range. This is the maximum distance at which a soldier of ordinary range should be able to use the weapon. For example, the U.S. M-16 in Vietnam was intended for use within a few hundred meters; the doctrine called on artillery and air to take on more distant targets.
• Mass fire: more or less your musket at 200 yard range example; a dangerous but not precise distance
• Precision/expert direct range: the maximum distance at which an expert of the weapon can reasonably expect to get hits. This might involve a selected or modified version of the weapon. For example, when looking for a rifle that would then be customized for a sniper, a number of rifles would be taken to a test range, clamped into a test rig, and fired. Those that came within a specific distance of the target were stamped "star gradue" and moved along. Additional customization could involve padding or cutting down the stock to give the optimal length for a specific shooter, adding telescopic sights, etc.
• Indirect lethal range: this has two very different meanings. Especially with machine guns, it is a range at which there will be casualties in a "beaten zone", but the difference here is that the gun does not aim directly at the target, but is fired at a 45 degree elevation for maximum range; it is the bearing/azimuth that is carefully selected. A variant of this is the distance at which a random shot is dangerous: while a rifle chambered for .22 Long Rifle cartridges has an accurate range in the low hundreds of feet at best, there are numerous cases when someone randomly fired into the air, and the bullet came down and killed a random person over one mile away.

Howard C. Berkowitz 11:53, 23 July 2008 (CDT)

Working to approval

First, this is an excellent article. I'd like to be involved, as a Military Workgroup Editor, in getting it to approval. My immediate concerns are things that will make it physically easier to review.

Some things do need attention. The simplest is that there need to be some subsection headings in blocks of text, which, at the present time, scroll through several screens.

There are also section headings with no text under them. It may be that those are properly the subjects of new articles, and should be used to create them, with redlinks from this one to the new articles. If they won't make articles, either put some text under them or delete them; perhaps they can merge somewhere else.

Should I move the "range of firearms" discussion above to an article that you can link?Howard C. Berkowitz 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool article

Didn't even know this war existed. With cannons and naval ships too. --Thomas Wright Sulcer 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it? A lot of exciting drama played out during this war. In one naval battle, just 13 ships defeated a fleet of 333! An American grad student got really carried away by it and started a comic.(Chunbum Park 14:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC))