AHC/WI: Stronger emphasis of Japanese monarchy's Korean origins

Didn't know this until recently.
According to Emperor Akihito:
On 23 December 2001, during his annual birthday meeting with reporters, the Emperor, in response to a reporter's question about tensions with Korea, remarked that he felt a kinship with Koreans and went on to explain that, in the Shoku Nihongi, the mother of Emperor Kammu (736–806) is related to Muryeong of Korea, King of Baekje.[6]
So let's say the Korean origin of their Emperor is more recognised and emphasised by Japan and continues throughout the centuries. How does this change Japan's perception of Korea? How does this change politics within Korea? Or any at all?
Some things to note, for users not familiar with Korean history:
Kingdom of Baekje
Yamato Dynasty
 
A Yamato / Japanese emphasis on their relations with Baekje is implausible as long as the horrible defeat of Baekje and Yamato against the Tang-Silla coalition in 662/3 remains unchanged.
This battle changed the course of Japanese history significantly. The islands began to fortify, the common fleet was destroyed, nascent centralisation and bureaucratisation as it happened on the continent was nipped in the bud, so the islands which Europeans would later call Japan began their long history of feudalism. Baekje was no longer a force and became absorbed by Unified Silla, with whom Yamato had no relations. The seas were controlled by Silla and Tang. Japan remained a backwater for a long, long time.

If you want to change this - and, as an EFFECT, not a CAUSE - keep close relations between Baekje and Yamato around, you can have a massively diverging timeline. But you`d have to avoid a defeat like the Battle of Baekgang, and yet keep Baekje in existence. If you can come up with an idea how to do that, that might be interesting. (A century later, this is not so implausible, with the Tang Empire weakened. But in the 660s, you need some creativity. Mind you, it´s not undoable: Silla later went on to push Tang forces out of the peninsula, thus turned against their ally. If the Chinese had anticipated that...)
 
Why not have Baekje unite Korea?
Interesting idea.
Baekje did try that IOTL, in an alliance with Goguryeo. This was what started Silla`s alliance with Tang in the first place.

But I believe that if Baekje had indeed unified Korea, it would have had to nominally submit to Tang at some point, send tributes and the like, like Unified Silla did, too. A strong Chinese influence would not have been possible to avert - but Baekje could have tried to counterbalance this with its ties to Japan.

So, how do you have Baekje - the smallest of the three Korean kingdoms - unite the peninsula?

With or without Chinese aid?
 
Didn't know this until recently.
According to Emperor Akihito:

So let's say the Korean origin of their Emperor is more recognised and emphasised by Japan and continues throughout the centuries. How does this change Japan's perception of Korea? How does this change politics within Korea? Or any at all?
Some things to note, for users not familiar with Korean history:
Kingdom of Baekje
Yamato Dynasty
The issue with this is that by the mid-8th century, in an age of imperial family endogamy and the emergence of the Fujiwara family, Korean ancestry isn't very impressive, and is actually more of a hindrance. If you want a Japanese imperial family proud of Korean roots, you'd need to go earlier, to before the fall of Paekche, and maybe a bit earlier than that.
 
The issue with this is that by the mid-8th century, in an age of imperial family endogamy and the emergence of the Fujiwara family, Korean ancestry isn't very impressive, and is actually more of a hindrance. If you want a Japanese imperial family proud of Korean roots, you'd need to go earlier, to before the fall of Paekche, and maybe a bit earlier than that.

Certainly, a surviving Baekje is necessary.
 
Certainly, a surviving Baekje is necessary.
I'm not sure we have enough information regarding Paekche to speculate how it might have interacted with Japan. Did Paekche even practice marriage alliances with other Korean states? If not, the only way I can see the Paekche royal family (of course, let's not even pretend that any other Paekche family is even a contender) marrying into the Japanese one might involve maybe the son of a hostage: but if Paekche survives, it wouldn't be dependent enough to send a hostage. And if it unifies the peninsula, it definitely wouldn't.
 
I'm not sure we have enough information regarding Paekche to speculate how it might have interacted with Japan. Did Paekche even practice marriage alliances with other Korean states? If not, the only way I can see the Paekche royal family (of course, let's not even pretend that any other Paekche family is even a contender) marrying into the Japanese one might involve maybe the son of a hostage: but if Paekche survives, it wouldn't be dependent enough to send a hostage. And if it unifies the peninsula, it definitely wouldn't.

The 'hostage' part is still open to interpretation since we don't really know. I chose to take the interpretation that they were sent as ambassadors, and I don't have to take yours as my opinion. Thus the entire assertion becomes moot.
 
The 'hostage' part is still open to interpretation since we don't really know. I chose to take the interpretation that they were sent as ambassadors, and I don't have to take yours as my opinion. Thus the entire assertion becomes moot.
That might be a plausible explanation for some early Paekche-"Japan" relations, like the situation involving Chŏnji around year 400 (when saying Japan even existed becomes a point of contention), but I was only talking about Puyŏ Pung. It's hard to imagine that this prince was an ambassador given that: 1) Japanese records used a different term for ambassadors (使), while Pung was called a hostage (質) in the Samguk Sagi and Nihon Shoki, 2) he was probably but not necessary a child when he was sent, and 3) he stayed over thirty years, which is a very, very long time for an ambassador (I've never heard of an ambassador being stationed at one country for more than 25 years). The circumstances why he was sent are honestly a bit unclear: was he sent because Paekche thought it was militarily weak and he was sent to guarantee Japanese help? Or was he sent to prevent a Japanese attack? But the notion that he in particular was sent as a hostage, a human guarantee of something, is a lot less disputable.
 
That might be a plausible explanation for some early Paekche-"Japan" relations, like the situation involving Chŏnji around year 400 (when saying Japan even existed becomes a point of contention), but I was only talking about Puyŏ Pung. It's hard to imagine that this prince was an ambassador given that: 1) Japanese records used a different term for ambassadors (使), while Pung was called a hostage (質) in the Samguk Sagi and Nihon Shoki, 2) he was probably but not necessary a child when he was sent, and 3) he stayed over thirty years, which is a very, very long time for an ambassador (I've never heard of an ambassador being stationed at one country for more than 25 years). The circumstances why he was sent are honestly a bit unclear: was he sent because Paekche thought it was militarily weak and he was sent to guarantee Japanese help? Or was he sent to prevent a Japanese attack? But the notion that he in particular was sent as a hostage, a human guarantee of something, is a lot less disputable.

Point noted. It became more distinct as time progressed.
 
Top