Can the Koreans pull off an Ethiopia

IOTL 1895 there was a war between Ethiopia and Italy. Italy was brutally defeated in the war, with Ethiopia having firm support from both France and Russia.

Can the Koreans pull off a similar feat, in which they face the Japanese in open combat and defeat them? The reason I believed this may make an interesting discussion was due to the following:
1. Korea, similar to Ethiopia, was "on the ropes" of neutrality between different imperialist powers, i.e. China, Russia and Japan IOTL. Now, if we can involve several more powers due to slight changes in diplomacy, i.e. Britain, Germany or the US, I believe there is more possibility of this being successfully pulled off.
2. The wikipedia page for the Ethiopian Empire says the following: "In 1868, following the imprisonment of several missionaries and representatives of the British government, Britain launched a punitive expedition into [the capital of] Ethiopia. The campaign was a success for Britain and the ruler of Ethiopia committed suicide." There was a similar expedition in Korea, all of which were done by France and America respectively in 1866 and 1871(all strategic failures); only in 1875 was Japan able to force open Korea. Although one may argue that the Koreans are too militarily weak to do anything similar to that of Ethiopia, I believe these examples prove that the Koreans have an overall military capability on tier with that of Ethiopia.

POD should be around the 1870s and 1880s. Korea does not need to claim strategic victory - just tactical victory, where they neutralise a full-flung enemy expeditionary force. Japan is preferable as the opposing force, but other imperial forces are also okay I guess(i.e. China, Russia, etc). Even if you believe this is unbelievably impossible please argue why you believe so.
 
Ethiopia

In order for this to happen the Imperial Japanese Army would have to be as inept as the Italians and I don't think that's possible.
 
Just taking a peek at what the Battle of Adwa entailed, it seems like Italy's most glaring problem was that they committed way too few troops relative to the opposition they were facing. If it came to force, I just don't think it's plausible for the Japanese to settle for just 20,000 troops. That said, if it did come to military conquest, a legitimate Korean government determined to fight on even after the cities have fallen could probably support a much more effective guerrilla resistance than what we saw IOTL. The Russians might support this to tie down what they'd see as a British lackey while they pursue their own interests in China. I'm still not sure that this would work, since the Japanese would probably be willing to pay the physical and moral costs needed to stamp out rebels, but it's the best scenario I can come up with for Korea to drive out the Japanese militarily.
 

With all things taken into account I suppose this means, other than what we require the Koreans to do, the Japanese need to "achieve" some things:
1. Less military deployment. Either due to international pressure(attacking a neutral nation would make them target to criticism? I don't know how the dynamic would work out) or there is enough trouble at home. Maybe even overconfidence.
2. Not so much of decreasing Japanese military capability but more like finding examples where the Japanese were much less than efficient. I can certainly say they don't like changing once they already changed, and this goes for so many things in the Japanese Empire - like trying to fit allergies into a category of bacterial disease(started in the early 1900s, continued to the 1940s) and following strict military tradition(last modified during WWI and continued until their demise in WWII).
And with the given POD I don't think this is unachievable. Japan already has fundamental flaws in its military, and it just needs to deploy less troops, I guess. Or maybe the Japanese government runs out of budget?
 

abc123

Banned
In order for this to happen the Imperial Japanese Army would have to be as inept as the Italians and I don't think that's possible.

This.

Also, Ethiopia has much more mountain terrain than Korea. Also, distances from Italy to Ethiopia are much larger than Japan to Korea.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Korea has at least as much going for it as Ethiopia.

I had heard that by 1890 Seoul had a better electrical and trolley system than any city in Japan. Korea's got mountains, and Russia and China as potential allies.

The thing going against them was Japan's proximity and single-mindedness about Korea. Italy was nosing around a variety of locations, and Ethiopia wasn't very close. Italy could walk away from the fight for 40 years, something difficult for Japan to do unless beaten real badly once, or multiple times.
 
Korea has at least as much going for it as Ethiopia.

I had heard that by 1890 Seoul had a better electrical and trolley system than any city in Japan. Korea's got mountains, and Russia and China as potential allies.

The thing going against them was Japan's proximity and single-mindedness about Korea. Italy was nosing around a variety of locations, and Ethiopia wasn't very close. Italy could walk away from the fight for 40 years, something difficult for Japan to do unless beaten real badly once, or multiple times.
I think it would certainly be realistic for Japan to be beaten once and only once. They go in, get beaten to shimereens, go away and try again.
 
Italy was a far flung colonial adventure that would bring a bit of prestige to Italy but wasn't that important.
Korea being friendly to Japan was practically utterly vital goal number 1 of Japanese policy.

Things are also made a bit tricky for creating an analogy by Korea being a Chinese vassal. Korea beating off Japan will likely be far more China beating Japan.
 
Italy was a far flung colonial adventure that would bring a bit of prestige to Italy but wasn't that important.
Korea being friendly to Japan was practically utterly vital goal number 1 of Japanese policy.

Things are also made a bit tricky for creating an analogy by Korea being a Chinese vassal. Korea beating off Japan will likely be far more China beating Japan.

And it did happen with the First Sino-Japanese War when Japan stove off further Chinese influence. But I wasn't discussing how possible things were, much more so on how one could bring Korea against Japan and how Korea could succeed.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
The biggest difference between Ethiopia and Korea is access. Korea is a small peninsula just next door to Japan. The Japanese can land troops at will and they don't have to march very far into the interior.

Ethiopia is up in the hills and the roads are awful. The armies are going to eat massive supplies (the Ethiopians were planning on breaking camp after they celebrated a church holiday when the Italians attacked) and it won't be long until the Italians reach the physical limit (that the horses eat more than they can carry)

That the Italians are being cheap and don't supply their men with modern rifles and ammunition (wanting to use up the old supplies first) doesn't help
 

LordKalvert

Banned
I think it would certainly be realistic for Japan to be beaten once and only once. They go in, get beaten to shimereens, go away and try again.

I would doubt that very much. The only way the Japanese are beaten in this war is for China to win the Battle of the Yalu- quite possible. With her fleet beaten and no indemnity the Japanese are going to be hard pressed to rebuild assuming that the Chinese even allow it.

The Chinese hated the Japanese and once the Japanese fleet is destroyed, her Islands are easy prey to landing parties conducting punitive expeditions. Expect a rather harsh treaty along the lines that the Japanese imposed upon China or even harsher. The Chinese are likely to be taking out their frustrations of a century of humiliations on the Japanese

The Japanese would need to get an ally- meaning Russia or Britain to be able to launch another attack. Both are doubtful. The Russians share a four thousand mile border with China and have other things to do than infuriate them. Britain would stick to its old policy of supporting China as a bulwark against Russia in the Far East
 
Top