Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Myeongnyang

Latest comment: 1 year ago by John21716 in topic A Japanese strategic victory?
Learn more about this page

Disputes about usage of chain

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Although it is minor detail, the usage of the chain is questioned by Korean naval academy history professor Lee Min-Woong. He maintains that Myeongnyang has too strong current to install the such things, and the literature that mention the chain was Kim Uk-Choo's diary, which is considered to have too many exaggeration to be a reliable source. --Parkyere (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Biased Language

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The language is very biased and "un-encyclopedic". Is this a translation issue? It seems to be effecting a lot of the Korean entries in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.140.138 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Number of Japanese Dead

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is probably unlikely that there were ~18,000 Japanese deaths in this battle and here is why. There were 133 Japanese warships and they were probably divided into three classes: large, medium and small. The ratio is roughly for every 4 or 3 large ships there are 2 medium ships and one small ship. I would imagine a similar ratio to logistical ships, for which there were about 200. If we assume that a large warship would have 80 sailors and 70 marines (about as many people as you can cram into a 120 foot long ship) that would be about 150 people. Of course those numbers go down when the ships get smaller. All put, I estimate the total number of Japanese in the battle, both sailors and marines, at about 18,000 to 20,000, thus 18,400 casualties cannot be right. The total number of actual Japanese that fought in the second invasion of Korea was 142,000. 18,400 casualties would be 13% of the total Japanese in Korea! To lose this many troops in a single day would cripple any invasion force. However, as history tells us, the Japanese fought pretty hard after Myeongnyang and gave ground slowly. -- WangKon936 3:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The most important point(Essence of then naval battle):
There are a lot of people who guess the ability of the warship in this war with the ability of the same row with the modern ages navy such as steamships and sailers though whether it is verification shortage is not understood deliberate.
The mobility of then ship was basically done by human strength, and navigation was impossible only by the surface of the water of quietness in the inland sea. Moreover, the command of the sea decided the fleet which did by the suppression of the naval base by the regulations army in the naval battle.
The fleet which makes a sortie to the coast which the enemy rules can stay only for a short time.
Powers was few and in this naval battle, small-scale to turning on in Korea and Japan.
The command of the sea was not able to be taken though the naval battle was victory of the Korean navy.
Because, a Japanese army suppressed the yellow sea coast part.
Being abandon the naval base from the next day of the victory of the naval battle, retreating to Gunsan(North Jeolla Province) in about 200K north, and having advanced to the sea area of the naval battle again were later for one month and Yi was after the army and navy in Japan had left.
Moreover, the Sea of Japan army retreated by Yi, advances to the yellow sea side, and to straighten the interception system with the army, is withdrawing in premeditation according to the schedule of a prior conference.
The schedule and the charge decided at the Jeonju conference on 8/20(old calendar) are almost corresponding to the advance and the withdrawal of a Japanese army by the second campaign in 1597.
A Japanese army made the best use of the lesson of the first campaign and had the plan to resist in a Korean south coast when the Min army went in the winter of 1597.


The text is written by a one-sided South Korea aspect.
The total of the navy forces which a Japanese side turned on by the second campaign in 1597 is 7200 people or less, and the presumption of the number of the dead is overvalued. 133 ships of the Sea of Japan army are reports by the scout of Yi.
Moreover, the number of Japanese ships defeated as there is a description in the diary of Yi is 31.
The damage of a Japanese fleet is evaluated from the Korea record and damage is interpreted excessively in the text as for bright.
In record (Wakisaka-Ki, Kouzankou-Jitsuroku, etc) of a Japanese side, moved an inferior, large-scale ship was not used for the naval battle for a violent tendency . When medium ship (Seki-Fune) was about 40, having been used for the naval battle instead remains in the record.
Kurushima Michifusa is a part of a Japanese fleet killing and the injury and the fight of Todo Takatora, and after the naval battle, keeps acting in this naval battle.
Moreover, Yi was able to be used to reinforce two months to the naval battle though the warship which Yi succeeded after of the doubtful defeat of Battle of Chilchonryang was 13. Yasumi 05:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Again, I don't know why you write "The text is written by a one-sided South Korea aspect."
First of all, I'm not even a Korean citizen. Second of all, most of my sources are not even Korean in origin. Admiral Yi in his diary said that he sunk 31 ships in this battle, however Dr. Turnbull says the number of Japanese ships sunk were "probably much higher." I've actually elected to be conservative as the OFFICIAL South Korean position is that there were 18,000 casualties. If you have a problem with my casualty estimates take it up with Stephen Turnbull, don't take it up with me. You can email him at stephenturnbull@ntlworld.com. Write it in Japanese. I think he can read Japanese. WangKon936 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Validity of WangKon936's Rewritten Article

edit

I have had Dr. Eric Niderost, professor of History at Chabot College and the author of several Admiral Yi articles written in Military Heritage magazine and Osprey Military Publications, read and review my work. He attests to its accuracy. I respectfully ask anyone else to please notify me next time they completely go half-cocked and change my entries. It's a pain to come back and fix them. -- WangKon936 4:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary Rewrites and Additions of Historical Inaccuracies

edit

Okay... I'm upset. Which nationalist changed my article and made it more inaccurate? Someone added "Bae Seol" as one of the commanders in the battle. However, that guy flaked out and deserted the day BEFORE the battle. -- WangKon936 2:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Date of Battle of Myeongnyang

edit
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Admiral Yi in his war diary gives the date of the battle as the 9th moon, 16th day, based on the Chinese lunar calendar. Converted to the western solar calendar, that would be October 26th. Most people read 9th month, 16th day in Yi's war diary and do a direct solar conversion, which is wrong. Amateurs. Anyways, still doubt me? Read Stephen Turnbull's "Samurai Invasions." He correctly converts the dates and also has October 26th, 1597 for the battle. -- WangKon936 12:55, 02 October 2005 (UTC)Reply


The date of the Battle of Myeongnyang on the Yi Sun-sin page is 1597 September 16, but this page says it's October. Can someone familiar with this battle confirm the date, please ? -- PFHLai 14:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Turtle Ships?

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Admiral Yi did not have any turtle ships at Myeongnyang. All 13 ships were Panokseons, the large Korean-style battleships during Joseon Dyansty. No source say that Admiral Yi had turtle ships during the battle, since all turtle ships were destroyed in Chilchonryang. Altikriti 22:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Battle Box

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mr.historiographer, it seems that you have not read Yi Sunshin's diary. As to military gains, he wrote "賊船三十一隻撞破" only. What are grounds of "92 disabled" and "12000"? As far as the diary is concerned, I've not ever seen the grounds. And as to the damage of Korea, surely, he indicated "2 killed, 3 wounded (on his ship)", and named these casualties. However, Yi hadn't written that "these had been all damage". In addition, in original text of September 17, he wrote, 7 or 8 Korean soldiars had fallen from ship, but he couldn't have helped them. This interpretation has nothing to do with "Westerner". Reading the diary exactly, it's obvious. Isebito (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Little citation, grammar/punctuation errors

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"But from beginning to mid-time, only commandship fought in the battle. other 12 ships were in backfront of the field, didn't fight and waited for time to ran away."

"After that, Finally Ahn Wi (안위) overcome fear and joined the battle, and then other ships except Kim Eok-Chu's ship were also joined."

"Admiral Yi ordered his ships to advance and press the attack, destroying ships out of all proportion to their relative numbers."

And more errors, with no citations! The article needs significant revision, preferably by an expert with access to primary sources. 208.251.180.35 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for my poor grammar.. Reference of these are Nanjungilgi, the diary of General Yi himself, that I couldn't find english translated version.

Apparent Japanese advance into Yeonggwang County

edit

Has been deleted. Originally, the addition was in the "Aftermath" section and said, "Despite the tactical victory, however, the Japanese Navy would continue to advance, and Japan would complete the occupation of the Yeonggwang County on October 13."

Source cited was: "Annals of the Joseon Dynasty". 93 (宣祖 30年 10月 13日 / October 13, 1597). Retrieved 2013-12-09. "靈光避亂儒生李洪鍾等船隻, 忠淸營前浦到泊, 問水路賊勢, 則洪鍾言內, 在海中時, 連遇上來鮑作人, 詳問下道賊勢, 則賊船或三四隻, 或八九隻, 入靈光以下諸島, 殺擄極慘, 靈光地有避亂船七隻, 無遺陷沒。"

However, I had this translated and the passage from the Sillok does not say that the Japanese took Yeonggwang County. It says instead:

"Yi Heong-jong and [some] ships went to investigate where the “water pirates” (i.e. Japanese) went, bumped into some people at sea and asked for details of the pirate’s whereabouts. The pirates with 3-4 or 8-9 ships raided islands nearby Yeonggwang to slaughter. 7 ships from Yeonggwang attempted to flee but were not found/destroyed."

So, the passage does not say that the Japanese occupied Yeonggwang. It says they raided some islands off Yeonggwang county (which is on the mainland) and fled before Yi Heong-jong could engage them. Given this correct translation, the statement cannot stand and should be deleted-- WangKon936 2:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dates needed

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "Background" and "Prelude" sections would benefit greatly from dates. Right now, I'm left without a sense of when any of these events happened, or even what sequence they took place in--Admiral Yi is demoted, then he's fighting the Japanese, then he's restored to command. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Myeongnyang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Battle of Myeongnyang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fisherman

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It says "by local fisherman". How many? If there was only one fisherman, it should be "by a local fisherman". If there was more than one fisherman, the plural form is "by local fishermen". Art LaPella (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

A Japanese strategic victory?

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago29 comments3 people in discussion

Someone argued in the origianl article that the battle was a strategic victory of the Japanese navy because the Korean navy retreated after the battle. If the battle is a strategic victory of the Japanese navy, why they have failed to invade and control the western coast of the Korean Peninsula and the Yellow Sea as a whole until the end of the second Japanese invasion (aka. Keichō no Eki) in December 1598? Was not Toyotomi Hideyoshi's goal to occupy and control the whole Korean Peninsula when he decided to break the truce and provoke the war in 1597?

The victory of the Joseon, or Korean, navy heavily impaired the Japanese navy's ability to supply warfare commodities for advancing northward in Korea, so the Japanese had come to a standstill in the southern region of Korea and eventually have failed to advance to the upper places including Hanseong until the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the complete retreat of all Japanese troops from Korea and the end of war in September and December 1598. Therefore, this battle cannot be regarded as a Japanese strategic victory. It is rather a Korean victory in terms of both tactical and strategical ways. If someone cannot agree with such suggestion, then there should be a bunch of references proving that the Japanese have successfully escaped the standstill and occupied the upper places, such as Hanseong, rather than southern region. -- John21716 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I wrote in Talk:Battle of Busan (1592), Yi Sun-shin never had a devastating effect on Japanese supply lines. Moreover, the Korean side may have overestimated the results of the war, and in fact, the activities of the Japanese Navy did not noticeably stagnate after the battle. After the naval battle, the Korean navy retreated and the Japanese navy took control of the Myeongnyang Straits. This can be called a strategic victory for Japan. --たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Japanese Navy did not noticeably stagnate after the battle? If there was no stagnation of the activities of the Japanese navy, there should have been a progress of the battle by the Japanese navy and the army in the upper regions of Korea (ex. Hanseong, Chungju) and the Yellow Sea, rather than southern regions, after the Battle of Myeongryang as you argued in the talk page of Battle of Busan(1592) that 'the supply failure did not occur in the invasion operations of the Keicho War, which had completed preparations'.
However, when looking at the Timeline of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598), all the major battles occured after the Battle of Myeongnyang are restricted to southern regions such as Ulsan, Suncheon, Sacheon, Noryang ever after the winter of 1597/1598 ended, and eventually they instead had to completely retreat all troops from Korea after Hideyoshi Toyotomi died in September. These results are even worse than the results during the first year of the Bunroku war as, unlike the Keicho war, the Japanese troops successfully reached Hanseong then. This is not an appearance of the navy and the army having solved the supply failure during the second invasion, but rather an appearance of the navy and army suffering another supply failure with stalemate for more than a year, and the control of the Myeongryang straits did not change such Japanese stalemate in the southern region of Korea. That cannot be called a strategic victory of the Japanese navy rather than the strategic victory of the Joseon navy by weakening the suppling ability and the military power of Japanese forces within Korea.
If you still cannot agree with my rebuttal, then name any battle that the Japanese navy or the army won in the upper regions of Korea, not the southern regions of Korea such as Jeolla (including Suncheon) and Gyeongsang (including Ulsan, Sacheon, Noryang). If not, that's what is called the stagnation of the Japanese forces in the southern region. John21716 (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I mean any battle that the Japanese navy or the army won in the upper regions of Korea, not the southern regions of Korea such as Jeolla (including Suncheon) and Gyeongsang (including Ulsan, Sacheon, Noryang) after the Battle of Myeongryang. John21716 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
The reason why the Japanese army did not invade as much during the Keicho War as it did during the Bunroku War was that they withdrew to the coastal area in order to stabilize supplies, and instead moved to the outer edge of the castle complex built during the Bunroku War as planned. This is because they aimed to build a new castle group and make it a permanent territory. The day after the Battle of Myeongnyang, the Japanese navy occupies Jeollawusuyeong, where the Korean navy left. Furthermore, when the Japanese army conquered the west coast of Jeolla-do, the Korean navy lost its base, Yi Sun-shin retreated to the northern tip of Jeolla-do, and the Japanese navy invaded the west coast of Jeolla-do and conquered it in response to the army. If Toyotomi Hideyoshi's death had been delayed, there is a high possibility that he would have been able to invade further inland areas during the Keicho War as he did during the Bunroku War. Source: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/936356/1/117 (征韓録) --たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Precisely which naval battle did the Japanese navy win to conquer the whole west coast Jeolla-do after the Battle of Myeongryang? Jeollawusuyeong is at the Southwestern end of Jeolla-do, not the Western coast. The western coast of Jeolla-do stretches from the southwestern end of Jeollawusuyeong, which is in the southern tip of Jeolla-do, to the city of Gunsan and Jeonju from northern tip of Jeolla-do. You should suggest any remarks from the source you suggested that proves that the Japanese navy not only occupied the southwestern end of the Jeolla-do, but also the whole west coast of Jeolla-do, not just linking the website and make an argument without any remakrs that prove it.
Plus, if the Japanese navy conquered the whole west coast of Jeolla-do after the Battle of Myeongryang, why the Japanese navy have been defeated by the Joseon navy in the Battle of Gogeum-do(고금도) in the summer of 1598?

統制使李舜臣大破賊兵于康津之古今島。 舜臣與陳璘方宴, 聞賊欲襲之, 使諸將整束以待。 俄而賊船大至, 舜臣自領水軍, 突入賊中, 發火砲, 燒五十餘艘, 賊遂遁。(Admiral Yi Sun-sin (李舜臣) defeated the enemy troops at Gogeum-do (古今島) in Gangjin (康津). Sun-sin was about to have a banquet with Jin-rin , but when he heard a report that the enemy was about to attack, he ordered the chief of staff to arrange the troops and stand by. After a while, when the enemy ships arrived in great numbers, Sun-sin led his navy and charged into the center of the enemy, firing cannons and burning more than 50 ships, and the enemy finally fled.)[1]

Considering that Gogeum-do is near Wando, which is on the right side of Myeongryang and Jeollawusuyeong, such Japanese defeat proves that the Japanese navy have failed to conquer the whole west coast of Jeolla-do after the Battle of Myeongryang because the Japanese navy could have otherwise won the battle if they actually conquered the whole west coast of Jeolla-do and supply troops as well as fleets from any likely Japanese bases in the west coast of Jeolla-do, and it actually never happened during that battle. John21716 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I didn't know about the Battle of Gogeum-do, but I couldn't find any useful information in Japanese or English. It probably didn't have much of an impact on the battlefield. The grounds for the conquest of the west coast of Jeolla-do include the fact that on September 23, Kang Hang was taken prisoner by Todo Takatora on the west coast of Yeongwang in Jeolla-do. If you are still claiming that this was a strategic victory for Joseon, please cite examples of Joseon victories in large-scale naval battles before the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi that are described in documents from both Japan and Joseon. -- たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
"翌年六月、明水師提督陳璘、南下して海軍を督し、八月、李舜臣は日本海軍と古今島 【全羅南道の南海中莞島の東方にあリ】 の附近に戰うて亦之を破り、首級百餘を得たりしが、陳璘其の大半を奪うて以て己の功となせり。(In June of the following year, Admiral Jin Rin of the Ming Dynasty moved south and commanded the navy, and in August, Yi Sun-sin defeated the Japanese navy and obtained over a hundred heads of the enemy in Gogeum-do, but Jinlin took most of them and attributed it to himself.)"[2][3][4]
"統制使李舜臣大破賊兵于康津之古今島。 舜臣與陳璘方宴, 聞賊欲襲之, 使諸將整束以待。 俄而賊船大至, 舜臣自領水軍, 突入賊中, 發火砲, 燒五十餘艘, 賊遂遁。(Admiral Yi Sun-sin (李舜臣) defeated the enemy troops at Gogeum-do (古今島) in Gangjin (康津). Sun-sin was about to have a banquet with Jin-rin , but when he heard a report that the enemy was about to attack, he ordered the chief of staff to arrange the troops and stand by. After a while, when the enemy ships arrived in great numbers, Sun-sin led his navy and charged into the center of the enemy, firing cannons and burning more than 50 ships, and the enemy finally fled.)"[5][6]
These are the references explaining the Battle of Gogeum-do as an example of Joseon victories in large-scale naval battles before the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi that are described in documents from both Japan and Joseon.
Additionally, if the imprisonment of Kang Hang is a proof for your rebuttal, then why Todo Takatora did not fight against Yi Sun-shin afterwards? You should bring any references that prove that the Japanese navy won the battle against the Joseon navy. Otherwise, the case of Kang Hang is just a case of the Japanese navy acting as if they were pirates, rather than actually controlling the whole west coast and couquering it, including Gochang upwards, and your argument that the Japanese navy took a strategic victory in the Battle of Myeongryang and conquered the whole west coast is just a fringe theory without any trustful references that prove it. John21716 (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
則賊船或三四隻, 或八九隻, 入靈光以下諸島, 殺擄極慘, 靈光地有避亂船七隻, 無遺陷沒。
Japanese ships entered the islands south of Yeonggwang in groups of 3-4 or 8-9 and killed and captured Koreans, which was extremely tragic. In addition, seven evacuation ships in Yeonggwang also sank without a trace.
“True story of Seonjo”
The above shows that the Japanese navy had reached Yeonggwang. The reason why the Japanese navy was defeated in the Battle of Gogeum-do was that, as mentioned above, the Japanese side tried to retreat and concentrate on building castles in order to stabilize the supply. (This was planned.) In addition, the Battle of Gogeum-do did not have a big impact on the war situation, and the Korean navy was defeated in Suncheon immediately after. たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

則賊船或三四隻, 或八九隻, 入靈光以下諸島, 殺擄極慘, 靈光地有避亂船七隻, 無遺陷沒。(Japanese ships entered the islands south of Yeonggwang in groups of 3-4 or 8-9 and killed and captured Koreans, which was extremely tragic. In addition, seven evacuation ships in Yeonggwang also sank without a trace.)[7]

What you have quoted above is the quote from the Sonjo sillok (aka. True story of Seonjo) is written in October 1597, not 1598, which is way before the Battle of Gogeum-do occured in August 1598 just prior the the death of Hideyoshi Toyotomi (died in Septeber 1598). That reference only mentions that the Japanese reached Yeonggwang, not conquering it as well, and this is not the reference that proves that the Japanese actually controlled the whole west coast and couquering it, including Gochang and above, after the Battle of Myeongryang. Yeonggwang is the place just below Gochang, and the west coast of Jeolla-do stretches from Myeongryang to Gunsan, not Yeonggwang. Where is the Japanese navy in between the coast of Yeonggwang and Gunsan[8]?
The Japanese side's decision to retreat and concentrate on building castles in order to stabilize the supply was made between October 1597 and early 1598, and that period was during the fall and winter. However, the Battle of Gogeum-do occured in August 1598, when it was summer, not winter. If you want to argue that there was a similar plan during the summer, bring any references that prove it, not the references like 征韓録 that does not show that such plan also existed during the summer. Otherwise, show any remarks from 征韓録 that show the existence of the plan in summer 1598.
Plus, the city of Suncheon is much further from the west coast than Gogeumdo[9], Myeongryang and Jeollawusuyeong so the Japanese victory in Suncheon is not a proof of the Japanese navy conquering the west coast, which Yi Sun-shin prevented by destroying abilities of Japanese fleets to supply troops to even prepare for the next attack to conquer the whole west coast of Jeoll-do when the spring comes. John21716 (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
P.S. It's Jeolla-do, not Jeoll-do. John21716 (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
A plan devoted to the construction of the castle was drawn up in early 1598. That was plan about don't make major battle in 1598 and a major offensive from 1599. (Recorded in 征韓録) In fact, the battles of Suncheon and Ulsan after the summer of 1598 were defensive battles. (Japanese won those battles, and I don't think they were in short supply as you say.) たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Then why the Japanese decided not to make any major battles even in Summer 1598, prepare for the offensive in 1599 instead, and only had defensive battles throughout 1598? If it is not because of the supply shortage, you should have suggested any references that prove that the Japanese conquered and controlled the whole west coast of Jeolla-do, including Gochang, Yeonggwang, and Gunsan, and established plans to construct castles there for a major offensive in 1599, but you did not and only showed the reference that only mentioned the short-term Japanese attack in Yeonggwang without any clues of certain Japanese conquest there.
Without such evidence that I requested above, the actual reason would be that the Japanese abandoned the tactics to conquer the west coast as well as the Yellow Sea, and altered their tactics to execute a long war by building castles near south coast of Korea because the Japanese supply routes in the west coast of Jeolla-do have been strategically damaged in several naval battles including the Battle of Myeongryang.
Plus, Suncheon and Ulsan are not the cities of the western coast of Jeolla-do, but rather the cities of the south and southeastern coast, so the battle in Suncheon and Ulsan are not the cases to prove that there wasn't a supply shortage and the supplying ability of the Japanese navy was not insufficient for conquering the west coast of Jeolla-do. John21716 (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Since the word "conquest" seems to be misleading, I would like to change it to "clear the enemy forces". As I have said many times, the reason why only defensive battles were conducted in 1598 was to improve the supply routes so that the supply lines would not be stretched too much at once. At that time, there was no clear division between the army and the navy, so Takatora Todo and others returned to land. It has been almost a year since the Japanese navy cleared Jeolla-do, so the situation cannot be considered the same.You claim that the supply shortage was due to the damage to the Japanese Navy, but the Nanjung ilgi only mentions "賊船三十隻撞破" (30 Japanese ships were broken through), and there is no mention of sinking, or severely damaged. There is no record to that effect, neither the size of the enemy ships that fought, nor the number of casualties on the Japanese side, which was the enemy army. In addition, even in the Japanese documents, there is no description that the supply is insufficient due to the shortage of ships. たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
1) Which clearance of Jeolla-do by the Japanese navy? There is no any record from either Korea or Japan that that prove the Japanese navy cleared or even reached any costal places above Yeonggwang, and costal places like Gochang and Gunsan are also within the west coast of Jeolla-do as I mentioned above, and you are not suggesting
What's more is that, as Yi Sun-shin’s fleet made its strategic withdrawal to the Gogunsan island right after the battle of Myeongnyang, the Japanese navy had a chance to attack and clear General Yi’s fleet until the moment of the Japanese retreat to the castles in the end of 1597. What happened instead is, though, that they failed to attack and clear, and left Yi Sun-shin’s fleet intact, giving the chance for General Yi’s fleet to reconstruct, return to the southwestern end of Jeolla-do in October 1597 and prevail the battle of Gogeum-do in the summer of 1598.
There should be a reason to clearly explain why the Japanese have eventually failed to chase and attack the remaining Yi Sun-shin's fleet when they had a chance to do before a planned retreat to castles on the southern coast of Korea. If that is because of the overstretching of the supply line, explain clearly of what factor actually caused such overstretching, rather than the food shortage in Korea that the Koreans were also equivalently suffering. Otherwise you cannot claim a strategical victory only which a few of minor incursions, including the Kang Hang case and the Yeonggwang case, when the enemy general to the Japanese navy (Yi Sun-shin) have successfully attacked Japanese fleet at Myeongryang and strategically retreated to the Gogunsan Island without a serious attack from the Japanese chasing Yi Sun-shin.
https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1390853879733550592
I checked this Japanese source, but unfortuanely even this source did not explain the clear reason of why the Japanese have failed to chase and attack the remaining Yi's fleet near Gunsan. Please bring other Japanese sources as well as non-Japanese sources that clearly explain why such Japanese counterattack had failed and, rather than the food shortage in Korea, what caused the Japanese overstretching of the supply line ra
2)

是に於て李舜臣再び用ひられて統制使となり、九月日木海軍と珍島 【全羅南道の】 碧波亭に戰ぅて之を破り、其の三十餘隻を毁つ (Yi Sun-sin was re-appointed and became a governor, and in September, he fought with the Japanese Navy at Byeokpajeong in Jindo [Jeollanam-do] and defeated the Japanese Navy and destroyed their 30 battleships.)[10][11][12]

近又據陪臣兼三道水軍統制使李舜臣馳啓…於珍島 碧波亭前洋, 與賊交鋒, 冒死力戰, 以大砲, 撞破賊船二十餘隻, 射殺甚多, 賊衆漂溺海中, 斬首八級…繼至力戰, 又破賊船一十一隻, 賊大挫, 餘賊遠退 (Recently, according to Yi Sun-sin, a vassal and commander of the naval forces of the three provinces...(Yi Sun-sin) arranged each military ship and fought hard against the enemy near Byeokpajeong, Jindo, risking death. He destroyed about 20 enemy ships with cannons, while beheading 8 enemy soldiers, and there were so many shootings that all the enemies attacked sank into the sea…He fought hard and destroyed another 11 enemy ships, and the enemy was greatly defeated, and the rest of the enemies retreated far away.[13]

Here are the Japanese reference as well as non-Japanese reference claiming the Joseon victory. John21716 (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
[[2]] Note this reference is from Sonjo sillok, or the true story of Sunjo, written in November 10th Sunjo-30, or December 18th 1597. John21716 (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is based primarily on secondary or tertiary sources. Given the partisan push being introduced, unless there is substantial non-Japanese or Korean sources which support it, I disagree with the changes. Arguing over primary source material does no good here. Qiushufang (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1390853879733550592
Although this paper is in Japanese, it proves that the Battle of Myeongnyang was a strategic victory for Japan based on numerous primary sources. たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Given that you cannot find a non-Japanese source to support the changes and the partisan nature of the changes as well as topic, I am against it. Qiushufang (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I read sources claiming that this battle was a victory for Joseon. However, none of them clearly read "Joseon's Victory".
[14] This document describes the course of the battle, but does not make any conclusions about the outcome, nor does it say that the Battle of Myeongnyang had a significant impact on supplies, as claimed in the article.
[15] This document likewise does not specify the results. In addition, he touches on the withdrawal of the Korean navy and the subsequent mopping up of the western coast of Jeolla Province by the Japanese navy, which are the grounds for claiming that the Battle of Myeongryang was a strategic victory, and rather confirms Japan's strategic victory.
Because of these reasons, result should be described as "Joseon tactical victory, Japanese strategic victory.". たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Considering that you can't even fill in author parameters properly mixing up the name and publisher while citing only a Japanese language source without any other support for contentious additions, I am going to say this is a non-consensus situation. I do not agree with the additions. Qiushufang (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I am not arbitrarily quoting only Japanese sources. As you can see from the actual article, the source of the result column is all in Japanese. I don't think it's neutral to write only one opinion when there are conflicting opinions. There is also a document that directly writes that it was actually a strategic victory for Japan. [16] たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Your behaviour so far has been to push contentious changes regarding Japan-Korea battles and to use whatever source you can scrounge up to push for the changes. For example at Talk:Battle_of_Noryang#Joseon_and_Ming_Empire_victory? when it was pointed out that the sources overwhelming disagree with your point of view, you merely argued that your view was the correct one without any reference to sources. Here you managed to find one Japanese source which even admits in its abstract that it is in the minority opinion. That you are editing so tendentiously with poor citations, poor grammar, and with a one purpose intention makes your argument disingenuous. Even when one source disagrees with another, Wikipedia policy is to describe both: WP:BALANCE should they be of equal quality in source. Qiushufang (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
So you're saying that wikipedia is a place to kill minority opinions? (In the first place, you have not provided evidence that my claim is in the minority.)
Also, you haven't given any clear evidence that the sources I'm presenting are unreliable.
As I said earlier, there is no document describing Joseon's victory in the result column of this page. Before reverting, shouldn't you present materials that show Joseon's victory, and think of a way to describe them neutrally with the both claims? たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please don't feign ignorance. Here the source you added yourself states that it is in the minority. At talk you ignored another user's quotations from English sources. At Talk:Battle_of_Noryang#Joseon_and_Ming_Empire_victory? you offered no source and merely argued that your personal POV was correct. If what you say about the sources on this article is correct, they you are adding WP:OR which is against Wiki policy. Your edit summary directly supports that considering you interpreted the sources yourself rather than base them off of WP:RS. Qiushufang (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
None of the source in the results column indicates “Joseon victory”. Therefore, if my edit is original research, your edit is also original research. (But I'm giving the source, you're not.) Also, please don't bring the Battle of Noryang discussion into the discussion here. I apologize for not showing the source in the Battle of Noryang. たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
"I" never made the edit in the first place. I only reverted yours because you described the logic behind it in terms of personal interpretation. Your addition is also against MOS to use such a format in the battle infobox as described in another talk page. Qiushufang (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
But the notation "Joseon victory" is from original research, if not yours. If tactical/strategic isn't the right word, you should think of the right word instead of edit war. たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is no such victory called a 'strategic victory' when you have been attacked by the enemy and have failed to counterattack the same enemy fleet before your retreat. That's what exactly happened to the Japanese navy led by Takatora Todo, attacked by Yi Sun-shin's fleet in the battle of Myeongryang, and other Japanese fleets when they had a chance to counterattack Yi Sun-shin's fleet in Gunsan at any time prior to the planned retreat. This is also what a few of Japanese who claim a so-called 'strategic victory' of the Japanese navy ,including you and the author of one of your sources who published a paper in 2021, continuously ignore.
As long as Todo's fleet had failed to counterattack Yi's fleet before the planned retreat and as long as Yi's fleet have successfully recover its wartime resources by the time of the Battle of Gogeumdo in the summer of 1598, noting Japanese strategic victory in the infobox is an original research with the possible violation of WP:OR and WP:BALANCE. Please suggest any non-Japanese resources that admit the Japanese strategical victory of this battle which includes the consideration of the Japanese failure to counterattack Yi Sun-shin's fleet after the battle. John21716 (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ https://sillok.history.go.kr/id/knb_13108001_003
  2. ^ 尋常小學國史補充教材教授參考書巻二, 一五九
  3. ^ http://contents.history.go.kr/front/ta/webBook.do?md=3&levelId=ta_p42r_0060_0030_0030_0020, p.6
  4. ^ 高麗船戰記·脇阪家記·朝鮮征伐記·征韓偉略·鍋島直茂譜考補·李朝宣祖實錄·李忠武公全書·懲毖錄·朝野僉載
  5. ^ Sonjo sujong sillok, vol. 32, 5 (01/8/Sonjo 31; September 1, 1598).
  6. ^ https://sillok.history.go.kr/id/knb_13108001_003
  7. ^ https://sillok.history.go.kr/id/wna_13010013_006
  8. ^ The location of Gunsan
  9. ^ The location of Gogeumdo(고금도)
  10. ^ 尋常小學國史補充教材教授參考書巻二, 一五九
  11. ^ [1],p.6
  12. ^ Note that Byeokpajeong is just near to the Myeongnyang strait.
  13. ^ https://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kna_13011010_005
  14. ^ 山内譲, 松山大学論集. "来島村上氏と文禄・慶長の役" (in Japanese).
  15. ^ 川村一彦, 歴史研究会. "藤堂高虎の群像" (in Japanese).
  16. ^ "鳴梁海戦に関する文献総覧：海戦の実相を求めて".
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Myeongnyang&oldid=1212603157"