Talk:Battle of Hansan Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

The following is copied from my own talk page, so as to make the discussion more visible and available to all. LordAmeth 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LordAmeth. I've made some extensive edits to the Turtle Ship article and the Battle of Hansan article. Please check them out and give me any useful comments. Also forgot to answer your question about the nature of Chosun politics. For most of its history its been pretty fractious. The first Chosun king was a general who took power via coup from the Koryo King. This guy apointed a younger son as sucessor then the older son killed the younger son and exiled the father. Korean politics is so regional and different sides always ally themselves with different sucessor candidates. Even the Chosun king during the Imjin War was not the oldest son, he was like the second or third son from a favored concubine.

Thanks for bringing these articles, and your changes, to my attention. I made some grammatical and stylistic changes; I hope you do not mind. But overally, your changes and expansion were wonderful. I'm really glad this fairly obscure topic is being explored and explained.
I do have a few questions about the Battle of Hansan article. Firstly, you assert that this was the first time a Japanese commander of Wakizaka's caliber is recorded as fleeing a battle. You may be correct; I cannot think offhand of any particular examples of earlier retreats. But I find it hard to believe that this assertion is true. Secondly, I wonder if your assertions in the "Aftermath" section, comparing Hideyoshi's plans to those of Imperial Japan hundreds of years later, are not assuming too much. While it certainly seems feasible, and a number of scholars may even have put forward the same theory, it seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Well, in any case, a great job overall. Thanks again. LordAmeth 03:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting point. Could you please move this to the discussions part of the Hansan article? I'd like my responses to be viewed by other wikitopians. WangKon936 03:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LordAmeth 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Aftermath Section[edit]

"I wonder if your assertions in the "Aftermath" section, comparing Hideyoshi's plans to those of Imperial Japan hundreds of years later, are not assuming too much. While it certainly seems feasible, and a number of scholars may even have put forward the same theory, it seems like a bit of a stretch to me."

Do you mean all the comments about Hideyoshi's designs on Asia? That's very well documented in letters to not only daimyo, but also minor kings of islands and even the Spanish governor of the Philippines. He threatened to invade the Philippines several times. To historians that understand the era and Hideyoshi's ambition in 1592 it's not far fetched. Had he have conquered Korea and Northern China, he would of made a move to conqure the Philippines, EXACTLY what happened just before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. WangKon936 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wakizaka's Retreat[edit]

"Firstly, you assert that this was the first time a Japanese commander of Wakizaka's caliber is recorded as fleeing a battle. You may be correct; I cannot think offhand of any particular examples of earlier retreats. But I find it hard to believe that this assertion is true."

I had a former Indiana University professor who now works for the Department of Defense confirm the statement for me. It's true. WangKon936 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the references to Wakizaka's retreat as it is not very informative even if it was true. WangKon936 08:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Casualty Estimates[edit]

There is no conclusive evidence exists for the loss of 9,000 men, but it is by no means an improbable estimate. The Japanese Navy lost 35 large-sized ships, each of which would have typically held 200 men, as well as 17 medium-sized and 7 small-sized ships which would have carried 100 and 40 men each respectively, producing a total of 8980, a figure which is supported by the account of Je Man-chun, an eye-witness of the battle who, while held as a prisoner-of-war in Japan, was able to inspect the “Official Record of the Number of Personnel Recruited and Sent Overseas” (兵糧調發件記), in which it was recorded that Wakisaka had initially 10,000 men under him but later 1,000. WangKon936 08:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number of the scales of the Wakizaka navy is a maximum of 1500 including a combatant and a sailor. Although the Wakizaka navy was defeated, it is not total destruction. Even after being defeated in July, 1592, the battle was continued, and at least 900 persons' military power was held as of May, 1593. Therefore, the success in battle of Korea is one-sided, and is overestimated very much.Yasumi 10:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Turnbull, the west's formost expert in Samauri Warfare uses primarily two sources to write his account of the Battle of Hansando: Admiral Yi's War Diary and the Wakizaka Ki (the Wakizaka clan's family history).
Regarding the Crane Wing formation, the Wakizaki Ki says: "The guard ships passed through the middle of the strait and out into a wide area. We took to our oars, at which they spread out their ships like a winnowing fan, drew our ships on and enveloped them"
Regarding the retreat and casualties the Wakizaki Ki says:
"However as Yasuharu was on board a fast ship with many oars he attacked and withdrew freely to safey. Arrows struck against his armour but he was unafraid even through there was ten dead for every one living and the enemy ships were attaching all the more fiercely."
The Wakizaki family's own history admits 9 out of 10 casualties. The Wakizaki Ki also said that Wakizaki Yasharu's main sub-commanders, Wakizaka Sabei and Watanabe Shichi'emon, were killed.
Turnbull maintains that there were 36 large, 24 medium and 13 small ships. A large Japanese ship would be a adake bune, a medium would be seki bune and the small ships would be the kobaya. A adake bune carries 200 to 300 sailors and soliders. A seki bune carries about 80-100 and a kobaya 30-40. Add that all together and you have anywhere from 8,000 to 12,000 men total. According to Turnbull, only 14 ships survived, and most of these ships were fast, smaller ships. Most of the Japanese aboard the sunken ships drowned because, as the Wakizaki Ki admits, the Japanese fleet was surrounded.
The weight of the evidence points to this article being accurate the way it is. There is no reason to question its objectivity or accuracy. WangKon936 12:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not written that 90 percent of the forces was lost with the sideward slope record in the disadvantage. The subject of ten dead for every one living " Ten dead for every one living " is Wakisaka Yasuharu. In a word, it is written that a sideward slope who was the commander returned alive from a critical situation.
I think that it is appropriate to presume that half the number of the number of general mobilizations stays in the level even if it is the maximum in the loss though it is certain that the sideward slope fleet is defeated and the general killed.
I think that it is a logical action the text is not suddenly deleted by your arbitrary decision but to describe the both theories in parallel.
The number of losses which you wrote is presumption and is not accurate. Because, it is difficult to catch the war potential of the enemy force accurately.
Only the number and the size of the found ship are recorded in the diary of Yi Sunshin, and one-sided presumption of the number of people. Originally, the sideward slope fleet is the one that the force which took charge of the land combat until last month in haste became the navy.


Only small number of people had the ship for the combat to then Japanese army. Especially, Atake-fune is used only for the flagship etc. which a large name takes. Therefore, it cannot be said it is appropriate to conversion into Atake-fune ship and Seki-fne ship.


In conclusion, being possible to say objectively is as follows.
  1. The navy in then the Orient was very inferior the navigation ability and the attack ability compared with the modern ages navy, and greatly received the limitation by power which ruled the coast because dependence on land was very strong . Therefore, when land was suppressed, the navy cannot act.
  2. Most of 160,000 people which Hideyoshi dispatched was armies, and the navies were about 10,000 people. The chief Tsutomu of the navy was transportation from Kyuushuu in Japan to Pusan, and most navies were turned on to the transportation duty.
  3. There was no land and water keep abreast of operation on a Japanese side, and Pusan was not prepared for the fleet for the water combat to go west in a Korean south coast as a starting point for the land combat.
  4. After June, 1592 when the attack damage of the Yi Sunshin fleet had grown had come, a Japanese side in haste organized the navy (sideward slope, Katou, and Kuki) for the water combat.
  5. The sideward slope fleet of the Hansan Island naval battle makes a sortie alone, and is power of 1500 people or less.
  6. The description described to the diary of Yi Sunshin: 73(36 Oofuna, 24 inside ships, and 13 shallops) Japanese fleets are the numbers of reports which the scout ship found before the naval battle, and the number of ships turned on to the combat is not written . It is written that 59 sideward slope fleets were sunk as military results.
  7. The record of the number of ships which participate in the naval battle organizes the navy to a Japanese side with a ship which seems to be able to be used to combat with the transportation ship for the preparation period of one month and very few combat warships. (It is considered that 73 ships every 1500 people are excessive)
The mobilization forces of sideward slope army
1592.03: 1500 people and mobilization capacity
1592.06: A Korean army repulses 50,000 or more in Seoul outskirts.
1592.07: The sideward slope fleet is defeated by Hansan Island naval battle.
1593.05: 900 people and Susumu state castle attacks
1597.08: 1200 people and the south field castle attacks
1600.09: Fight of 990 people and Sekigahara (reference)
Yasumi 02:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yasumi, I respect your viewpoint, but the weight of non-nationalistic, impartial and international scholarship outside of Japan AND Korea supports Admiral Yi's account of the Hansan battle. Besides Turnbull (who you must agree is the foremost non-Japanese expert in Japanese warfare of the 15th and 16th centuries) there is Barry Strauss, the author of the best selling book "The Battle of Salamis," Dr. Eric Niderost- professor of history and author of several Osprey Military publications on Imjin War naval battles, and Dr. Edward Rockstein- who has authored several monographs on the Imjin War for the Naval War College. Dr. Niderost and Dr. Rockstein have even proofed my article for accuracy. Again, the article represents the viewpoint of the majority of expert scholars internationally. Unless you have a majority of international, non-Japanese and non-Korean scholars to support your viewpoint, then I don't know if anyone can consider it more accurate. WangKon936 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear WangKon936, the opinion of WangKon936 is non-logical. Because, WangKon936 is obtained to scholar's authority without requesting grounds of consideration to the history material.
Moreover, the delay by which the analysis of the history material written by the Chinese character is assumed to be a factor stands out as for the research of this war in the West.
WangKon936 insists that being written not be even in "Diary of Yi Sunshin" and "Wakasaka-Ki(Record of family)" either.
In the territory of then Wakisaka, there was agricultural production only of supporting 20,000 people.
It is appropriate that the number of ships of the Wakisaka fleet is uncertain and the possession forces were 1500 people or less.
Yi does not correctly know enemy's forces, and there are a lot of numbers of ships which report and defeat finding.
Please refute the transition and the historical materials of the war to grounds.Moreover, I hope to restore objective sentences from sentences which WangKon936 deleted. Yasumi 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WangKon has asked me to come in and attempt to help mediate. I really think the best idea is to leave the numbers as WangKon has them, and to include an objectivity clause, but I do think the one Yasumi has written needs some work (英語の文法は難しいね。). I use Prof Turnbull as one of my primary sources in all my Wikicontributions, and I trust his analysis of the events; nevertheless, Yasumi does make the good point that Wakisaka, being on the losing side and quite possibly greatly outnumbered, would have overestimated the number of his enemies, and thus the number of casualties inflicted. Much of the focus of my research comes from earlier (11-12th c Heian period) battles, where the only information we know is from epic legend stories like the Heike Monogatari, and the troop numbers in that are blatantly overexaggerated, but it's also all we have to go on. I don't think it should be too hard to reach a compromise on this... And if I can help at all, such as by writing the objectivity statement myself, just ask. LordAmeth 12:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up. I'm going to have a person who's fluent in Korean and Japanese help mediate this. He's a long time Wikipedia contributor and he's got a solid academic background. Thanks for your help LordAmeth.
Also, even if the estimate of casualites is not correct, why would my objectivity be in question as I'm using many non-nationalistic sources? Would you question Dr. Turnbull's objectivity? It's apparent that Turnbull got info on the size of Wakizaka's fleet from The diary of Admiral Yi, but the Admiral's diary was not a document transmitted to court or a family chronicle. It was a personal record of an eye witness and meant to be used for military purposes, so there was no motivation on his end to inflate the numbers. It is the opinion of many Imjin War scholars, Turnbull not the least of them, to deem Yi's diary as highly reliable, particularly in describing the naval battles. WangKon936 8:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


I think that it apologizes that there is unsightly English.
However, if you follow to the word of the authority, and the consideration of validity is stopped, it is a religion supported by not objective study but the belief core.
The original of the record of Korea concerning yes and this campaign, Japan, and Ming is read, and will be considered by me basing the thesis and the research book as I read the book by Dr. Turnbull.
If the tone of argument of Dr. Turnbull is guessed, it seems to be influenced by the research of the Sea of Japan army in front of WW2 and the research of South Korea after WW2.
The characteristic of the research of both is valuing of the navy.
South Korea overvalued the specific gravity of Yi Sunshin and the naval battle to the Sea of Japan army for the hero imagination for nationalism for the warship and the organization expansion.
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.
Enemy's forces assistant wisdom ること is very difficult while combatting compared with the forces of the ally who should always do the maintenance management. The reason for the number of soldiers of enemies is that the guess relies on watching and hearsay can do nothing but be done.
The number of soldiers and the numbers of defeating of enemies can be overvalued even by the modern ages war.
The figure recorded in Korea is the same character as this.
The number of ships of the ally on whom Yi reported will be able to be trusted considerably, and they replenish with the forces because, supply the food to strength, and often receive the inspection at the dynasty.
The ability to know the number of Japanese armies who are the enemy accurately is low, and the reported number of finding and the numbers of defeating are temporary and the responsibility of the excess and deficiency is not pursued oppositely by Yi.
The damage forces do not exceed the turning on forces, and all the possession forces do not participate in the combat even if the subjectivity of Yi is correctly recorded.
The mobilization forces based on the territory of Toyotomi Hideyoshi are left for a lot of document records, and the inspection record of the existing forces after the naval battle is reported by Ishida Mithunari.
Moreover, it is impossible to adopt the report of Yi for no verification, and to guess the forces from the size of the ship in addition.
The reason why maintenance and the management of a Japanese fleet were done is that it is a Japanese army.
As for the forces which a Japanese army turned on to the marine transportation, they are about 10,000 people, and those most works for transportation as already written even if it is the maximum . Upper bounds of the forces to which Wakisaka can be moved are 1500 people.
Originally, only small number of Japanese armies had the ship for the sea combat.
Therefore, the Wakisaka fleet, the Kuki fleet, the fleet should consider the fact organized with the improvisation later, and the Kato fleet also has the record without a large-scale ship especially.
They could do nothing but collect warships for very few combats, and an insufficient amount remodel the transportation ship for the combat.
These Japanese fleets were inferior to the speed compared with the powerful Korean fleet prepared for the pirate extermination.
It is in following and the number of ships of a Japanese fleet is first the doubts, and converting the number of the ships into the number of people of full armament has impossibility.
Moreover, because goods for the combustion killing which was the most effective attack means had not required the naval battle, it was insufficient.
In Japan with this naval battle to the lesson, it is since the second campaign in 1597 that they were used began the preparation for the fleet which requires the sea combat. Yasumi 07:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference in the marine transportation force for the navy which requires combatting and transportation.
Hideyoshi was ordered to three generals to become the navy as the combat force for the damage of the marine transportation force because of the attack of Yi.
Wakisaka Yasuharu 1500 soldiers and support member(his territory 30,000 Koku)
Kuki Yoshitaka 1500 soldiers and support member(his territory 30,000 Koku)
Kato Yoshiakira 750 soldiers and support member(his territory 15,000 Koku)
1.10,000 Koku is an area of the territory in which about 10,000 person' worth is produced the food.]
2.Soldiers and support member count is the mobilization obligation by 1592.03.13(The moon Calendar of Japan) HIdeyoshi instruction.
Hideyoshi ordered to cooperate in three generals . However, the great exploit made the fleet make a sortie sincerely alone as for wakazaka . The naval battle that this Wakisaka fleet and the Yi fleet fought is naval battle of Hansan Island.
Therefore, it is thought that the thing to evaluate the forces which wakazaka uses for this naval battle as 1500 people is appropriate. When it is possible to think about the participation forces of wakisaka, number (59 ships) of Yi of defeating reports is excessive evaluations. The calculation of number (9,000 deaths) of people of killing is an excessive evaluation any more to annihilate the Wakisaka army about four times.Yasumi 08:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Hansan Island. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Hansan_Island&oldid=1212597679"