Talk:Ōei Invasion

Reference

 * Nakamura Hidetaka &#20013;&#26449;&#26628;&#23389;, Ch&#333;sen Seis&#333; Kigai no Tsushima seibatsu --&#332;ei no gaik&#333; wo Ch&#333;sen kara miru &#26397;&#39854;&#19990;&#23447;&#24049;&#20133;&#12398;&#23550;&#39340; &#24449;&#20240;&#8213;&#24540;&#27704;&#12398;&#22806;&#20902;&#12434;&#26397;&#39854;&#12363;&#12425;&#35211;&#12427;&#8213;, Nissen kankeishi no kenky&#363; (Jo) &#26085;&#39854;&#38306;&#20418;&#21490;&#12398;&#30740;&#31350; &#19978;, pp. 227-289, 1965.

This paper reports in-depth research on this invasion. If you don't agree with his reasoning, his citations from and references to primary sources are surely useful. If you want to see all related sources, I recommend to read other papers by Akiyama Kenz&#333; &#31179;&#23665;&#35609;&#34101; and others.

I put dates in detail because some events occurred simultaneously. They are of the old lunisolar calendar as they are in my sources. If you prefer the Gregorian calendar, please fix them. --Nanshu 02:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
This article needs a Military Conflict infobox! LordAmeth 10:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong
Windybluesea, Did you read source really? P.L.E.A.S.E all source are distorted. Then a Korean cabinet official claimed that we cannot return them to China????? Please tell us, what is the exactly interpret. I already said, That is the distorted interpret. Notepcnako (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ōei Invasion. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120524174828/http://dispatch.opac.ddb.de/DB=4.1/PPN?PPN=128842709 to http://dispatch.opac.ddb.de/DB=4.1/PPN?PPN=128842709
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100122092545/http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/index.htm to http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014735/http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm to http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051104163344/http://monthly.chosun.com/reporter/writerboardread.asp?idx=108&cPage=2&wid=dragon03 to http://monthly.chosun.com/reporter/writerboardread.asp?idx=108&cPage=2&wid=dragon03
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214154213/http://100.nate.com/EnSrch.asp?KID=12453300 to http://100.nate.com/EnSrch.asp?KID=12453300
 * Added tag to http://monthly.chosun.com/special/view.asp?sp_key=200604100213&catecode=1001
 * Added tag to http://search.hankooki.com/times/times_view.php?term=tsushima++&path=hankooki1%2F14_6%2F9811%2Ft465141.htm&media=kt

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2021
B.C.Mayfield The sources that were used to state so sadamori's surrender were valid and clearly state it. You cited one entry of a lost battle on tsushima as explanation for the loss of the entire invasion. however the intent was not to take and control the island it is clearly stated several times as a "punitive expedition" for the pirate raids that occurred. In addiction to the fact sadamori is recorded to have sent a letter of surrender to the joseon court as well as send various tribute this conflict should not be simply stated as a "defeat". Several other entries indicate intent to launch a second attack which would have occurred had sadamori not sent the letter of surrender. This invasion achieved its intended result and was not an invasion of conquest, it is logical to me that it should be considered a victory for joseon. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%8Cei_Invasion&oldid=1001618074 review the sources again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayleks (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is a problem from a neutral point of view to conclude that Korean victory. In B.C.Mayfield's reference and previous reference, there are descriptions in which Koreans at that time admitted that Korea was at a military disadvantage and that Korea was ultimately defeated. Also, the Korean army has more deaths. In addition, the activities of pirates continued even after this war, and finally they calmed down by the treaty after 24 years. In addition, the Sō clan has obtained exclusive rights to trade. Another problem is that you insist on using the word "retreat" only when the Japanese withdraw, and to use the word "victory" when the Korean forces withdraw.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my late reaction, let me divide my contention into two parts for the convenience of the discussion.
 * I suppose the account Ayleks presented for me to read is this.
 * It is true that on the 20th of 9th month 1419, a man called Toitatorō who purported to be an envoy of Sō Sadamori came with a letter proposing a surrender, but the Joseon court were suspicious about his legitimacy and honesty and rejected his proposal.
 * On the 10th day of 1st leap month 1420, another man called Jiōkaito (or Shin Kaidō) who claimed to relay Sō’s willingness of his surrender and this time, even an incorporation of Tsushima to Joseon.
 * This time, the Joseon court accepted his proposal and placed Tsushima under the subordination of one of Joseon’s provinces.
 * However, the Sō clan’s attitudes and dialogue persistently irritated the Joseon court for they were not of the surrendered nor of the subordinated.
 * They seemed to negate the incorporation of Tsushima to Joseon.
 * These inconsistencies led the Joseon court to interrogate the envoy of the Sō clan called Kurian (or Kyurian) to clarify the situation.
 * Upon interrogation, Kurian denied the legitimacy of Shin Kaidō (Jiokaito)’s request for incorporation.
 * Kurian additionally stated, "Tsushima is a Japanese border land, thus to attack Tsushima means to attack the main country (Japan)." The Joseon court replied, "The Court did not mean to contend your territory."
 * After the situation had clarified, the Abdicated King of Joseon made a conciliatory proposal to restore the relationship between Joseon and Tsushima back to normal.
 * These are what we can learn from the Record of the Joseon Dynasty. Taking those series of events into consideration, I cannot conclude it was a victory of the Joseon troops.
 * I suppose you should take account of the original Record as a whole, not extracting a piece.


 * —B.C.Mayfield (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding Ayleks comment above, I’d like to point out the following,
 * • Sending tribute to the Joseon court had been a long standing custom in exchange for the Sō clan to maintain their exclusive trading privilege with Joseon, not the result of the invasion. It had started well long before the invasion even took place.
 * • Ayleks pointed out the account I presented was only about a single lost for the Joseon troops, but that defeat has a decisive meaning, for it resulted Joseon troops to be expelled from the most part of the island and triggered the whole troops retreat from Tsushima. And that’s the reason why the Joseon court were worried about the impression it would give to their Chinese hostages.
 * • If the Joseon troops were so victorious, why had they withdrawn their troops before accomplishing the mission, the surrender of the Sō clan? It’s illogical to see raiding a few ports on Tsushima makes the whole invasion victorious, especially they later met a counter-attack and repelled by the Tsushima side.
 * • I do not believe we should evaluate a historical incident by their inward intention, but outward action. I assume Ayleks’ point is, because it was a punitive expedition, their intention was at punishing the Sō clan, and it actually gave a certain amount of damage to the clan, their whole "Eastern Punitive Expedition" is entitled to be called victorious, how they retreated does not matter. But, in the medieval period, the invading side calling their own action "punitive" is common practice to justify their action. If that logic applied, all of the invasions, however defeated, could be called victorious for the invading side since their "punitive" nature of some kind.—B.C.Mayfield (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The pirates' activities have ceased, which cannot be called a defeat.
 * How was this a "defeat" when the Koreans ultimately obtained their objectives? Tprtm (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Primary Source Maintenance Tag
@Qiushufang I believe all the cited information using primary sources are related to either direct casualty numbers or death numbers and no longer an issue of original research. Seeking feedback on the necessity of the maintenance tag Ayleks (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this article is no longer primarily primary source but it could use more inline citations. Large portions of the article contain no inline citations. Qiushufang (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)