By Mark Peterson
My frog-out-of-the-well view of Korea is one that sees more peace and stability in Korea more than what I call the frog-in-the-well view of Korea that sees multiple invasions as a hallmark of Korean history.
The standard history of Korea focuses on invasions and the student comes away with the view that there were many invasions, numbering in at least the tens, if not the hundreds. I wrote last time of the scholar who had tracked over 9,000 invasions.
My counterargument is that if one counts every minor incident, like a pirate raid, as an invasion, the term soon loses its meaning and is only used to portray Korea as a victim.
My view, however, is that aside from the first half of the 20th century and the middle of the 13th century, Korea was the master of its own fate ― rather than the portrayal of Korea as the weak and hapless victim of the machinations of other countries.
It was only these two times, when the Japanese took over control of Korea in the early 20th century, and when the Mongols conquered Korea but only took over partially ― they forced marriage of the king with a Mongol princess. Other than that, the Korean king had more or less autonomy in running the country.
My view is that aside from two major invasions, the Mongols in the mid 13th century and the Japanese in the late 16th century, Korea was a peaceful, stable country. Notice that the 16th invasion was a failure for Japan ― Korea won the war. But when the Japanese came back in the late 19th and early 20th century their approach was more political and less military.
Some who hear my presentations, counter my narrative by pointing out that one of the major invasions was that of the Manchus, who invaded twice in the early 17th century, once in 1627 and again in 1636. My response is that these invasions ― yes, if you insist, we can call them invasions ― were very different.
The Manchus were trying to make Korea an ally, prior to their planned move into China. The Manchus wanted Korea to be their friend, you might say. And therefore, their two invasions were very different from the Mongols and the Japanese.
The Mongols and Japanese were marauders ― "rape, pillage and burn," as the phrase goes. For their purposes, the soldiers that were first to go into a village, were the first to steal all the goodies they could steal.
In the case of the Mongols and the Japanese, the soldiers were turned loose to steal and kill at will. Such was not the case for the Mongols. One general led his soldiers on a plundering run one time and was reprimanded.
The rule of battle for the Manchus was to get access to the king and have him surrender and pledge loyalty to the new Qing dynasty ― and then leave. The purpose was entirely different from that of the Mongols and the Japanese.
There were two invasions by the Manchus. The 1627 invasion saw the Korea king pledge loyalty to the Qing "emperor," but then the Korean king, sent a secret emissary to the Chinese Ming court to tell him that he was force into the alliance.
The Korean king called for a joint attack on the Manchus ― in Korean the "bukbeol" (northern attack) never came about. Both Ming China and Joseon Korea were still recovering from the Japanese attack of the 1590s and they couldn't muster the armies to attack the Manchus and disable them from attacking China.
The Manchus found out that Korea had gone backdoor to China and invaded again in 1636. This time, again, they only sought the allegiance of the Korean king, but this time, to assure compliance, the Manchus took as hostages the King's three sons, the crown prince and his two brother princes.
Once the Manchus conquered China, and took over politically, and set up the Qing dynasty court in China, they released the hostages, and they came home, and one of them became the next king.
The Manchu invasions, yes, let's call them invasions, were very different from the invasions of the Mongols and the Japanese. But therein lies the problem, if one starts counting invasions at that point, one sees more and more invasions. My position is to stop counting invasions there. And look at the other conflict in a new light.
What about invasions from China? The Sui and Tang dynasties tried several times to conquer the Goguryeo Kingdom, but failed.
The famous general Ulchi Mundeok was victorious in driving back one of these invasions. These seventh century invasions were all failures on the part of the Chinese. Yes, we can call them invasions, if you'd like, but again, these were failures, and very different from the Mongol and Japanese invasions.
More on the invasion "controversy" next time.
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is associate professor of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
The standard history of Korea focuses on invasions and the student comes away with the view that there were many invasions, numbering in at least the tens, if not the hundreds. I wrote last time of the scholar who had tracked over 9,000 invasions.
My counterargument is that if one counts every minor incident, like a pirate raid, as an invasion, the term soon loses its meaning and is only used to portray Korea as a victim.
My view, however, is that aside from the first half of the 20th century and the middle of the 13th century, Korea was the master of its own fate ― rather than the portrayal of Korea as the weak and hapless victim of the machinations of other countries.
It was only these two times, when the Japanese took over control of Korea in the early 20th century, and when the Mongols conquered Korea but only took over partially ― they forced marriage of the king with a Mongol princess. Other than that, the Korean king had more or less autonomy in running the country.
My view is that aside from two major invasions, the Mongols in the mid 13th century and the Japanese in the late 16th century, Korea was a peaceful, stable country. Notice that the 16th invasion was a failure for Japan ― Korea won the war. But when the Japanese came back in the late 19th and early 20th century their approach was more political and less military.
Some who hear my presentations, counter my narrative by pointing out that one of the major invasions was that of the Manchus, who invaded twice in the early 17th century, once in 1627 and again in 1636. My response is that these invasions ― yes, if you insist, we can call them invasions ― were very different.
The Manchus were trying to make Korea an ally, prior to their planned move into China. The Manchus wanted Korea to be their friend, you might say. And therefore, their two invasions were very different from the Mongols and the Japanese.
The Mongols and Japanese were marauders ― "rape, pillage and burn," as the phrase goes. For their purposes, the soldiers that were first to go into a village, were the first to steal all the goodies they could steal.
In the case of the Mongols and the Japanese, the soldiers were turned loose to steal and kill at will. Such was not the case for the Mongols. One general led his soldiers on a plundering run one time and was reprimanded.
The rule of battle for the Manchus was to get access to the king and have him surrender and pledge loyalty to the new Qing dynasty ― and then leave. The purpose was entirely different from that of the Mongols and the Japanese.
There were two invasions by the Manchus. The 1627 invasion saw the Korea king pledge loyalty to the Qing "emperor," but then the Korean king, sent a secret emissary to the Chinese Ming court to tell him that he was force into the alliance.
The Korean king called for a joint attack on the Manchus ― in Korean the "bukbeol" (northern attack) never came about. Both Ming China and Joseon Korea were still recovering from the Japanese attack of the 1590s and they couldn't muster the armies to attack the Manchus and disable them from attacking China.
The Manchus found out that Korea had gone backdoor to China and invaded again in 1636. This time, again, they only sought the allegiance of the Korean king, but this time, to assure compliance, the Manchus took as hostages the King's three sons, the crown prince and his two brother princes.
Once the Manchus conquered China, and took over politically, and set up the Qing dynasty court in China, they released the hostages, and they came home, and one of them became the next king.
The Manchu invasions, yes, let's call them invasions, were very different from the invasions of the Mongols and the Japanese. But therein lies the problem, if one starts counting invasions at that point, one sees more and more invasions. My position is to stop counting invasions there. And look at the other conflict in a new light.
What about invasions from China? The Sui and Tang dynasties tried several times to conquer the Goguryeo Kingdom, but failed.
The famous general Ulchi Mundeok was victorious in driving back one of these invasions. These seventh century invasions were all failures on the part of the Chinese. Yes, we can call them invasions, if you'd like, but again, these were failures, and very different from the Mongol and Japanese invasions.
More on the invasion "controversy" next time.
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is associate professor of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
![[INTERVIEW] Bae Suzy shows another side in 'Anna'](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/784d86bfce77453ba381374ff3189b49.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Filmmaker points lens at North Korea's political prison camps](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/2fe5c7df5dba4805b27e81389e53807a.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
