Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Busan

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

Exaggeration on strength and casualties of Japanese forces

[edit]

Since the Japanese naval forces only had less than 10,000 personnel, the statement of 70,000 of naval strength of Japanese forces in this battle is quire an exaggeration. Also, 5,000 casualties is not recorded (as far as I read). Comparing the original strength and the damage Japanese naval forces caught (128 or 400 "empty" ships), the statement of 5,000 casualties is quire unlikely. Wiki Humanities Arao (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics of both naval forces

[edit]

In the previous naval battles, the Japanese naval forces realized that they needed to avoid the battles over sea against the Josen naval forces due to difference on the tactics between them. Japanese naval forces' tactics was boarding, on the other hand, the Josen naval forces' tactics was utilization of fire arrows. Although the Josen naval forces introduced cannons on their ships, their firing rage was limited only around 100 meters and was not the main force. Due to such background, the Japanese forces avoided naval combat. Wiki Humanities Arao (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combat in the battle

[edit]

Since the Japanese forces avoided naval combat and preferred on land combat, and since the objective of the Josen forces was recovery of Busan bay then cutoff of the Japanese supply lines, the main combat was taken place on land. Then since the Japanese forces attacked the Josen forces from the higher place, the Josen forces were not able to defeat the Japanese forces then were needed to retreat. Firing empty 128 or 400 Japanese ships was collateral in this combat. Wiki Humanities Arao (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanes withdrawal from their navy forces were missing.

[edit]

Once Japanese navy saw Korean navy, they withdrawed from navy while abandoning their own ships. They tried to withdraw and protect in land.โ‰  โ€”ย Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichrio Nazuki (talk โ€ข contribs) 08:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battle of Busan (1592). 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.โ€”InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title

[edit]

Shouldn't it be, like, Battle of Busan (1594)?--Smashfanful (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Japanese strategic victory?

[edit]

Someone continuously argued in the original atricle that the Battle of Busan (1592) was a strategic victory for the Japanese navy because the Korean navy failed to occupy Busan and withdrew. It seems, however, that the argument is based on the misunderstandings about the battle and the Imjin War (aka. Bunroku no eki). If this battle is a strategic victory for the Japanese navy because the Korean navy decided not to occupy Busan and withdrew it, why the Japanese navy have failed to control the coast of Korean peninsula until the end of the first Japanese invasion (Bunroku no eki) in 1593?

Furthermore, the Japanese losses of their fleet in Busan impaired their ability of supply troops and warfare commodities very heavily, which led to other Japanese defeats in Korea such as such as Siege of Pyongyang (1593) and Battle of Haengju, and eventually the Japanese had to withdrew their troops from the Korean peninsula to Japan in the end of the first invasion. Is this really a strategic victory of the Japanese navy to claim? I guess people who argue that the battle was a Japanese strategic victory should read the whole contents of the article before arguing it, unless they prove that all references in the original article showing the Joseon, or Korean, victory are wrong references. -- John21716(talk) 05:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, it was often interpreted that the supply shortage of the Japanese army was caused by Yi Sun-shin's cutoff of the supply route, but the supply shortage occurred only for the units that advanced to the inland areas, and throughout the campaign. There was never a decisive supply shortage in the distribution of goods and people on the sea route from Kyushu to Busan, so it would be wrong to interpret that the Japanese army's supply route was 'cut off' by the Korean navy led by Yi Sun-sin. The erroneous view has prevailed in recent years. The main reasons for the lack of food for the Japanese army were that the Korean army was weaker than expected in the early stages of the war, and because it occupied almost the entire country at once, the supply line was stretched out. The Japanese side assumed that food would be procured locally, but there was a considerable food shortage on the Korean Peninsula at the time. These problems were solved by the start of supply operations from the mainland of Japan in 1593 and the withdrawal of the main army from South Korea, and supply failure did not occur in the invasion operations of the Keicho War, which had completed preparations. Source: โ€™ๆญดๅฒ็พคๅƒโ€™ 2010 April โ€ๆœ้ฎฎๅ‡บๅ…ตๆธกๆตทไฝœๆˆฆโ€ --ใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใฃใŸใƒใƒณใ‚ฟ (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the Korean Navy not only failed to capture Busan, but also suspended its activities until February of the following year. --ใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใฃใŸใƒใƒณใ‚ฟ (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The supply line was stretched out as well when the Japanese occupied almost the entire country at once, as you said. Why? Because of the impairment that occured along the supply route of the Japanese navy and the army including the route between Kyushu and Busan. If there was never a decisive supply shortage in the distribution of goods and people on the sea route from Kyushu to Busan, then there should not have been Japanese defeats in battles like Siege of Pyongyang (1593) and Battle of Haengju as well as the retreat of the Japanese from Hanseong after the Battle of Busan. The fact, though, is that the opposite occured, and the Japanese never recovered its formal occupation of Hanseong and upwards until the complete withdrawal of Japanese troops at the end of the Bunroku war.
The food shortage on the Korean Peninsula at the same time, as you mentioned, also heavily affected Koreans as well as Japanese, so there were not much differences in terms of food supply between Koreans and Japanese. Rather, the Japanese could use the food shortage on the Korean Peninsula if the supply route had not been impaired because the Japanese could hold the advantage of the food supply from Japan against the Koreans with the internal food supply heavily impaired. John21716 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the Korean navy? After they resumed its activities, their navy battles against the Japanese navy until the end of the Bunroku war were only the victorious battles, such as Battle of Ungcheon[1][2][3] and the Second Danghangpo Battle[4][5][6]. Just because of withdrawing Busan after the Battle does not necessarily mean the strategic defeat of the Korean navy afterwards when considering the victories of other naval battles continued after the Battle of Busan. John21716 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am debating the outcome of this battle. The victory of the Korean navy after the resumption of activities in February of the following year is irrelevant. Also, the Korean navy never made another sortie in Busan during the Bunroku War, so it is difficult to relate it to the inland supply shortages. You mention all the battles that Japan lost, but there are also battles that Japan won, such as the Battle of Byeokjegwan and the Second Siege of Jinju. -- ใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใฃใŸใƒใƒณใ‚ฟ (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Byeokjegwan was before the Battle of Haengju, not after it, and, as I mentioned above, the Japanese never recovered its formal occupation of Hanseong and upwards after the Battle of Haengju as well as until the end of the Bunroku war and Keicho war. The Second Siege of Jinju? So did the Japanese troops advanced to and occupied Hanseong and upwards again after that battle? No. They just kept the stalemate even after the victory in Jinju.

"...the victory at Chinju changed nothing. Instead of following up their triumph with a counterattack against the advancing armies the Japanese retreated still farther."[7]

And because of such limitation, western scholars like Stephen Turnbull regard the Japanese victory in Jinju as futile since the victory 'changed nothing'.
If there had never been a supply faliure, you should suggest that the Japanese advanced and occupied northwards after the victory in Jinju and until the end of the Bunroku war, but you are continuously failing to do so. As long as you fail to suggest the case, your argument that there was never a supply failure within the Japanese navy and that the Japanese took the strategical victory in the Battle of Busan is just a fringe theory to just disguise failures of supply routes that the Japanese navy had between Busan and other battlefields which led to the failure of accomplishing Hideyoshi Toyotomi's goal of conquering Korea and advance to China. John21716 (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the Battle of Haengju, the Japanese army failed to capture the fortress, but Gwon Yul feared a second attack and abandoned the fortress, retreating to Paju. And the reason why they could not invade north of Hanseong during the Bunroku War was not because of the Battle of Busan or the Battle of Haengju, but because the Ming army burned the food storehouse of the Japanese army in Hanseong. -- ใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใฃใŸใƒใƒณใ‚ฟ (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So...where are the Japanese naval supply routes within the Korean peninsula to recover such losses of food supply gone? You said that there was never a supply shortage during the war, but you are not showing any references to prove that there were Japanese naval supply routes to recover such food losses in Hanseong afterwards until the end of the Bunroku war.
The Japanese failure of conquering Hanseong and northwards cannot be done only because the Ming army burned the food storehouse of the Japanese army in Hanseong, since such food losses could have been recovered by naval supply routes surrounding the Korean peninsula from the Japanese navy if these routes were never impaired. What happened in reality, though, is that the Japanese troops just merely did not recover their occupation of Hanseong and northwards ever after. The reason? The impairment of the Japanese naval supply route along the Korean coasts occured by the Japanese defeats of naval battles, including the Battle of Busan.
If not, show me any references that the Japanese naval supply routes along the Korean coasts were never impaired and had enough abilities to support troops to prepare for the next wave of attack northwards until the end of the Bunroku war. Otherwise, I would regard your argument as just a mere denial of another weakness from the navy that led Japanese not to recover from food losses in Hanseong. John21716 (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of food for the Japanese army was due to the fact that the supply line was stretched out by occupying a large area at once. In the Keicho War, he planned to make use of this reflection and improve the castle and launch a large-scale offensive from 1599. (Due to Toyotomi Hideyoshi's death, it was never done.)If you claim the Battle of Busan as Japan's defeat because it was unable to conquer the entire Korean peninsula, then you can claim the Battle of Kiev (1941) during the German-Soviet War as a Soviet victory. . ใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใฃใŸใƒใƒณใ‚ฟ (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Kiev (1941) claimed way more soviet lives as well as tanks and aircrafts than the Germans, but at the end of the German-Soviet war, the Soviet actually won the war. On the other hand, in the Battle of Busan (1592), the Korean navy destroyed more than 100 Japanese ships, while the Japanese attack only a few of Korean ships. The winner of the whole Imjin war, or the Bunroku-Keicho war was Joseon and the Ming China as well. So, your comparison between the Battle of Kiev (1941) and Battle of Busan (1592) is a bogus one with two key differences omitted. John21716 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the supply line, I already suggested that the stretching out of the supply line during the Bunroku war is due to the impairment of the Japanese naval supply route along the Korean coasts occured by the Japanese defeats of naval battles, including the Battle of Busan, and continuously asked you to suggest counterevidence proving that the Japanese had enough abilities to support troops to prepare for the next wave of attack northwards until the end of the Bunroku war, not the Keicho war. But you have failed to do so. Please suggest any counterevidence that proves Japanese abilities to support troops to prepare for the next wave of attack Hanseong and above until the end of the Bunroku war. John21716 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, Korean historical documents claim that the Japanese Navy lost 128 ships, but there are no Japanese historical documents that prove this.
According to Nanjung ilgi, โ€œ่ˆœ่‡ฃ่ฌ‚่ซธๅฐ‡ๆ›ฐใ€ใ€Œ้‡œๅฑฑใ€่ณŠไน‹ๆ นๆœฌไนŸใ€‚้€ฒ่€Œ่ฆ†ไน‹ใ€่ณŠๅฟ…ๅคฑๆ“šใ€‚ใ€โ€ (Yi Sun-sin called generals and said, โ€œBusan is the base of the Japanese navy. If you advance and overturn this, the Japanese army will lose the base.โ€) Yi Sun-sin's strategic goal was not to cut off supplies, but to occupy Busan. Yi Sun-sin and others tried to capture Busan by using army and navy, but they failed to capture Busan. And Yi Sun-sin was forced to suspend his activities for several months, and was unable to launch another attack on Busan during the Bunroku War. If there is a Korean historical document stating that Yi Sun-sin attacked Busan with the aim of cutting off supplies and a Japanese historical document stating that Yi Sun-sin's activities were the caused lack of supplies, please show them. ใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใฃใŸใƒใƒณใ‚ฟ (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a later engagement more than seventy Japanese vessels, including warships and transports were encountered by the Allied fleet and were sunk. The devastating blow which has been dealt to the Japanese fleet has isolated the enemy armies in Korea and has cut them off from their home bases. The naval action, which stretched over a period of several days, was broken off in the mid-summer of the year 1592. The naval forces were under the command of the Korean Admiral Yi Sun-sin.[8]

It is important in the history of Joseon's naval warfare, since it was the only sea battle, out of the ten fought during the year, in which Joseon attacked the Japanese naval base with relatively inferior fire power. In spite of the loss of Chong Woon, one of Yi's staff who was shot during the battle, Yi achieved an enormous victory in sinking over 100 ships in this one battle alone. As winter crept in, the two parties found naval operations impossible and rode at anchor for the duration of the season.[9][10]

The Korean navy's attack on Busan had been astonishingly successful. It had destroyed fully a quarter of the Japanese fleet at a cost of just five men killed, twenty-five wounded, and no ships lost.[11]

Western scholars like James B. Lewis, Samuel Hawley, and a western general who is General Chester W. Nimitz all evaluated that the Battle of Busan was a Joseon victory with the following mentions above.
Before requesting me 'a Korean historical document stating that Yi Sun-sin attacked Busan with the aim of cutting off supplies and a Japanese historical document stating that Yi Sun-sin's activities were the caused lack of supplies', would you please show any Japanese and Korean, as well as Western, references that prove that the real cause of the overstretching of the Japanese supply line since the Battle of Busan until the end of the Bunroku war is neither because of the impairment of the abilities prompted by naval attacks from the Joseon navy, nor the famine in Korean peninsula that caused food shortages of both Japanese and Korean side, but instead because of any other clear factors? John21716 (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using non-English sources on Wikipedia is allowed but this is the EN wiki and to wilfully ignore the overwhelming consensus among English sources while pushing for contentious changes using only Japanese language sources does not inspire confidence. I do not agree with such changes in this instance. Qiushufang (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "Joseon victorynavy destroyed part of the Japanese navy, but failed to capture Busan and withdrew" without using the expression "victory" in order to incorporate both claims. This is not ignoring consensus. ใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใฃใŸใƒใƒณใ‚ฟ (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how the infobox works. Please consult Template:Infobox military conflict. this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Qiushufang (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Then, should I write "Inconclusive" in the result column and "Joseon navy destroyed part of the Japanese navy, but failed to capture Busan and withdrew" in the annotation? ใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใŸใฃใŸใƒใƒณใ‚ฟ (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is clear that you are fighting against consensus over the past few days and your behaviour of tendentious editing needs to stop. Qiushufang (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Watching randomly articles I've tweaked in the past, kinda interesting act y'all're engaging here?
I'm curious about how you can make the battle where the Joseon Dynasty herself recognized "not won" to her victory.
According to the Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty[1], "ๆŽ่ˆœ่‡ฃ็ญ‰ๆ”ป้‡œๅฑฑ่ณŠๅฑฏ, ไธๅ…‹", and also "ๆฐดๅ…ตไธ่ƒฝไธ‹้™ธใ€ไนƒ็‡’็ฉบ่ˆนๅ››็™พ้ค˜่‰˜่€Œ้€€", Joseon navy couldn't land Busan and what they could was to burn amazingly over 400 vessels!! And it also sais "้นฟๅณถ่ฌๆˆถ้„ญ้‹ๅฑ…ๅ‰ๅŠ›ๆˆฐ, ไธญไธธๆญป", one of their general killed by enemy's bullet, during just burning unmanned ships there.
The references which are your fave say such battle is Joseon's victory don't they? Wow! Today I knew the lowly self-consciousness of participants whether victory or defeated can be negligible in front of the great books written by people of later times who can become judges beyond the time space, regardless of the participants!!
Anyway I'm still curious about how they goes and have researched some of them.
  • At the first, I checked the Nanjung ilgi (ไนฑไธญๆ—ฅ่จ˜) translated by Kitajima, the sole edition which is accessible by laymen in Japan; as the result, the book lacks the 9th month of 1592 to the 1st month of 1593. This battle is occurred in the 1st day of the 9th month, and it doesn't tell anything about this battle.
  • On "Chester W. Nimitz, New York Times, Oct, 10, 1944"[2], at least there aren't any mention of battle of Busan on the part we can read without payment.
  • James B. Lewis (2014) goes "In spite of the loss of Chลng Un, one of Yi's staff who was shot during the battle, Yi achieved an enormous victory in sinking over 100 ships in this one battle alone." This part doesn't have any references, I think whether the author think that is victory or not is personal freedom, but when the time he asserts it is superior than thoughts of belligerents themselves, I shall make an objection.
  • https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138786639 is dead copy of the above. Never dilute man. ๐Ÿ˜“
  • Samuel Hawley (2005) is inaccessible from web, I can't confirm the page 251. Could you please present how Hawley judged this is Joseon victory? I suspect it is a historical novel, or not descent research though...
  • http://iss.ndl.go.jp/books/R100000002-I000008547764-00 is dead copy of the above. No again! ๐Ÿ‘ฟ
  • This Korean text is the letter attached to the Nanjung ilgi. As regards damage to the enemy it just says"์ ์„ 100์—ฌ์ฒ™์„ 3๋„๋กœ ์—ฌ๋Ÿฌ ์žฅ์ˆ˜๋“ค์ด ํž˜์„ ๋ชจ์•„ ๊นจ๋œจ๋ ธ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค (โ†’Generals of the 3 provinces combined their power and destroyed over 100 enemy ships)". They constantly never say it was victory against Japan.
  • ไบ‚ไธญๆ—ฅ่จ˜่‰ย ; ๅฃฌ่พฐ็Šถ่‰ is based on same manuscript of the Nanjung ilgi mentioned above, which is once owned by Governor-General of Korea, and must lack the 9th month of 1592 through 1st month of the next year too.
  • Turnbull (2002), ้‡‘ๆฐธ (2008), ็‰‡้‡Ž (1983) and ่—คๅฑ… (1982) don't show the page where whether and how they won or lose is written. They are unrecognizable as a reference.
I wonder do you yet can think these are the absolute insurance certificates that guarantee victory of the glorious Joseon dynasty?--่’ๅทปใƒขใƒญใ‚พใƒ• (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hawley, Samuel (2005), The Imjin War, The Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch/UC Berkeley Press, 326, ISBNย 89-954424-2-5
  2. ^ Diary entry for 18/2/Kyesa (Mar. 20, 1593), Yi Sun-sin, Nanjung ilgi, 16.
  3. ^ 51 Japanese ships destroyed while less than 5 Korean ships destroyed
  4. ^ Hawley, Samuel (2005), The Imjin War, The Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch/UC Berkeley Press, 376, ISBNย 89-954424-2-5
  5. ^ The Collection of Yi Chungmugong(ๆŽๅฟ ๆญฆๅ…ฌๅ…จๆ›ธ), volume 4, report 3
  6. ^ 31 Japanese ships destroyed while none of Korean ships destroyed
  7. ^ Turnbull, Stephen. The Samurai Invasion of Korea 1592โ€“98 (Campaign) (p. 157). Bloomsbury Publishing.
  8. ^ Times, Telephone To the New York (1944-10-10). "Nimitz Startles Reporters With Communique Of Victory Off Korea, Adds It Was in 1592". The New York Times. ISSNย 0362-4331.
  9. ^ James B. Lewis, The East Asian War, 1592-1598ย ; International relations, violence, and memory, Routledge Press, 126p (2014)
  10. ^ "Routledge".
  11. ^ Samuel Hawley, The Imjin War, Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branchย ; Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 251p (2005)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Busan&oldid=1205826122"