By Mark Peterson
I realize that I am about to contradict the summary of Korean history told by 95 percent of my friends in Korea, but I am of the opinion, based on my studies, that my contrarian view is more accurate. Most of my Korean friends are of the opinion that Korea has been invaded numerous times. I don't buy it. I see relatively few invasions in Korean history, and long periods of peace and stability.
Where does the multiple invasion point-of-view come from? Unfortunately, much of the reason for thinking that Korea has been invaded often comes from the Japanese period. And it was to the Japanese administration's advantage to advocate multiple invasions, thus making the Japanese invasion less of an oddity, "why, it's just another invasion!" "You've been invaded so many times, what's one more?"
When I was a student, I met a retired high school teacher in Gangneung who was an expert on invasions. He had gone through all kinds of historical sources and had tabulated an exact number. I can't remember his exact number, but it was like 983 or so. He counted every pirate raid on the coast and every border skirmish he could find. I think that such an approach trivializes the idea of an invasion.
I am of the opposite point-of-view. I see very few invasions, and I see long periods of peace and stability between invasions. And I see two invasions as distinct from all the others ― the Hideyoshi Invasion (Imjin Waeran) of 1592, and the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. In the former, between two and four million people died; in the later, between one and two million died. No other invasion or skirmish comes anywhere near those numbers.
Well, you ask: "What about the Manchu Invasions of 1627 and 1636?" Those had an entirely different purpose ― the Manchu's wanted Korea to be their ally as they planned to march into China. Korea, still not recovered from the Japanese invasion, was not ready to resist the Manchus and agreed to recognize them. But Korea went secretly to China to propose that Korea and China attack the Manchus, but the Chinese were similarly beaten up by the Japanese war and never marshalled the troops to attack. That's why the Manchus came into Korea again, and this time when the king agreed to recognize them, the Manchus took two princes as hostages ― a time-honored strategy in East Asia. The Manchus did not run amok killing and plundering at will ― with one exception, but that general was relieved of his command and sent home. The Manchus wanted Korea on their side. So, these two invasions were very different from the Japanese and the Mongols.
What about the Japanese takeover in 1910. There was no invasion against the Koreans at that point. The Japanese very cleverly took control of Korea in a measured, step-by-step process. They landed troops in 1894 to fight the Chinese, not the Koreans. They assisted the Korean court in suppressing the Donghak Movement, but their objective was not like the 1592 invasion, but rather, reform, modernization, and eventually takeover by Japan.
What invasions were there from China? There were the famous seven invasions by Sui and the Tang against Goguryeo, but the important part of that story is that Goguryeo won! They repelled each invasion from China. Thereafter, Tang came to Korea as an ally of Silla. Silla's idea was to attack Baekje first and then go after Goguryeo. The strategy worked, but China's involvement was not as an invader, but as an ally. True, Tang and Silla fought each other after they defeated Baekje, but they fought to a stalemate and agreed to a political conclusion of hostilities.
Why is there a multiple invasion point-of-view that is so strong in Korea? It's a 20th century phenomenon. Between the Japanese takeover in the early 20th century, the mid-20th century saw Korea as a true victim in the afterward of World War II. Victimized by Japan, and then revictimized by the U.N. and the U.S. in the unintended 70-year division of Korea, victimization is a major theme in Korean history. But my position is that this is only a 20th-century issue.
South Korea, now, in the 21st century, is a very different country from the poverty-stricken Korea of the mid-20th century. Korea, today, is not a victim of other countries, but a powerful player on the world scene. The saying, "When whales fight, shrimp get their backs broken," is no longer an appropriate saying.
And Korean history in the long view has experienced very few invasions, interspersed with long periods of peace and stability. This then, is section 3 out of 10 articles on "Peaceful Korea." More to follow. Skeptics, keep reading.
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is professor emeritus of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
 |
Where does the multiple invasion point-of-view come from? Unfortunately, much of the reason for thinking that Korea has been invaded often comes from the Japanese period. And it was to the Japanese administration's advantage to advocate multiple invasions, thus making the Japanese invasion less of an oddity, "why, it's just another invasion!" "You've been invaded so many times, what's one more?"
When I was a student, I met a retired high school teacher in Gangneung who was an expert on invasions. He had gone through all kinds of historical sources and had tabulated an exact number. I can't remember his exact number, but it was like 983 or so. He counted every pirate raid on the coast and every border skirmish he could find. I think that such an approach trivializes the idea of an invasion.
I am of the opposite point-of-view. I see very few invasions, and I see long periods of peace and stability between invasions. And I see two invasions as distinct from all the others ― the Hideyoshi Invasion (Imjin Waeran) of 1592, and the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. In the former, between two and four million people died; in the later, between one and two million died. No other invasion or skirmish comes anywhere near those numbers.
Well, you ask: "What about the Manchu Invasions of 1627 and 1636?" Those had an entirely different purpose ― the Manchu's wanted Korea to be their ally as they planned to march into China. Korea, still not recovered from the Japanese invasion, was not ready to resist the Manchus and agreed to recognize them. But Korea went secretly to China to propose that Korea and China attack the Manchus, but the Chinese were similarly beaten up by the Japanese war and never marshalled the troops to attack. That's why the Manchus came into Korea again, and this time when the king agreed to recognize them, the Manchus took two princes as hostages ― a time-honored strategy in East Asia. The Manchus did not run amok killing and plundering at will ― with one exception, but that general was relieved of his command and sent home. The Manchus wanted Korea on their side. So, these two invasions were very different from the Japanese and the Mongols.
What about the Japanese takeover in 1910. There was no invasion against the Koreans at that point. The Japanese very cleverly took control of Korea in a measured, step-by-step process. They landed troops in 1894 to fight the Chinese, not the Koreans. They assisted the Korean court in suppressing the Donghak Movement, but their objective was not like the 1592 invasion, but rather, reform, modernization, and eventually takeover by Japan.
What invasions were there from China? There were the famous seven invasions by Sui and the Tang against Goguryeo, but the important part of that story is that Goguryeo won! They repelled each invasion from China. Thereafter, Tang came to Korea as an ally of Silla. Silla's idea was to attack Baekje first and then go after Goguryeo. The strategy worked, but China's involvement was not as an invader, but as an ally. True, Tang and Silla fought each other after they defeated Baekje, but they fought to a stalemate and agreed to a political conclusion of hostilities.
Why is there a multiple invasion point-of-view that is so strong in Korea? It's a 20th century phenomenon. Between the Japanese takeover in the early 20th century, the mid-20th century saw Korea as a true victim in the afterward of World War II. Victimized by Japan, and then revictimized by the U.N. and the U.S. in the unintended 70-year division of Korea, victimization is a major theme in Korean history. But my position is that this is only a 20th-century issue.
South Korea, now, in the 21st century, is a very different country from the poverty-stricken Korea of the mid-20th century. Korea, today, is not a victim of other countries, but a powerful player on the world scene. The saying, "When whales fight, shrimp get their backs broken," is no longer an appropriate saying.
And Korean history in the long view has experienced very few invasions, interspersed with long periods of peace and stability. This then, is section 3 out of 10 articles on "Peaceful Korea." More to follow. Skeptics, keep reading.
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is professor emeritus of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
![[INTERVIEW] Asia expected to be key driver of ESG growth: Deloitte ESG Partner](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/87802ead2db34304ae4b653f8982cbb4.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Lee Jun-hyuk unrecognizable in 'The Roundup: No Way Out'](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/77a9da6df7da4284adbee249a87307c1.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
