Korea, why always conquered?
- Thread starter Finn
- Start date
General Mung Beans
Banned
My sentiments exactly. In every single freaking timeline with a POD of before 1945 Korea is always a part of some other nation.
Right now, Korea is in a bad strategic location, sandwiched between China, Russia and Japan. In the past, the Middle Kingdom has almost always been more powerful than small Chosen. It is a peninsula, where China has far more vast resource bases and populations. Now, perhaps Chosen could invade the Middle Kingdom and create a Korean Dynasty the same way the Mongols esabilshed the Yuan Dynasty and the Manchu established the Qing Dynasty.
Yeah, maybe, but the thing is that if a Korean dynasty were established after a few generations the ruling dynasty would adopt Chinese customs in favor of its native roots (like the Qing) or be kicked out by a peasant rebellion (like what happened to the Yuan which was replaced by the Ming). In any case, it would be Korea becoming absorbed by China.
The Sandman
Banned
Have Korea take Manchuria somehow. perhaps by the Qing seeing Korea as a more attractive target, heading southeast instead of southwest, and then assimilating into Korean society as they did into Chinese. Meanwhile, Japan is heading into isolation and the Ming dynasty is still probably going to come apart sooner rather than later, except from internal revolt instead of external invasion. So Korea/Manchuria is going to have at least two centuries of relatively minimal interference, except maybe from the Russians.
Because most people are unaware just how sophisticated and prosperous Korea was before the 1800s (as well as the rest of Asia for that matter ... please read "The Great Divergence" by Kenneth Pomeranz; though not an easy read, provides a lot of data and statistics to back up his assertion that Asia - particularly China, but mentions Korea, Japan, and SE Asia as well - was on par with Europe on a per capita basis prior to the 1800s)
Though China invented movable type, Korea was able to use it a to a wider degree, greatly aided by the eventual adoption of hangul. Korea perfected the use of metal type, as noted by historian Henri Jean Martin. Martin, who specializes on the history of the book and printing, notes that Korea's system of metal type was as sophisticated as Gutenberg's but developed over 50 years earlier.
Militaristically, Korea was on par with China and Japan from the 15th-17th centuries (as well as Europe ... most likely surpassing Europe in certain areas). Turtle ships, anyone ... iron clad ships roughly 300 years before their development in the West. Not to mention cannons, guns, and rocket artillery. That is why Korea, despite having a lower resource base than China (though arguably not Japan), was able to maintain independence for so long.
It was only until Japan industrialized was it able to surpass Korea technologically and colonize it. Of course, to be fair, Japan was probably more culturally and economically advanced than Korea.
Japan was definitely not a backwater, as some people on this board like to paint it before the Meiji Restoration. During the Tokugawa period, Japan's wealth per capita was one of the highest in the world. Reference is a PBS documentary on the Tokugawa period as well as references by Pomeranz ... I know Angus Maddison is widely referenced, but I question his method ... I believe he does not take into consideration PPP (which is a much better method when doing historical comparisons) and instead does a straight nominal comparison, which honestly, how can you do that with historical data? Pomeranz uses a PPP method as well as comparison in consumption. Japan definitely was economically developed, in a pre-industrial sense (prior to 1800, the most prosperous nations/regions in the world were China, Japan, England, France, Netherlands, US, Korea, and SE Asia).
Furthermore, culturally, Japan was very developed, as evidenced by kabuki, noh, and the tea ceremony.
However, in general Korea was as capable as its two "neighboring giants". In fact, if you were to look at Asia from a 1700s/1800s perspective, Korea would widely be seen as an equal to its neighbors, depsite its relative small size ... think Netherlands surrounded by France and England.
Though China invented movable type, Korea was able to use it a to a wider degree, greatly aided by the eventual adoption of hangul. Korea perfected the use of metal type, as noted by historian Henri Jean Martin. Martin, who specializes on the history of the book and printing, notes that Korea's system of metal type was as sophisticated as Gutenberg's but developed over 50 years earlier.
Militaristically, Korea was on par with China and Japan from the 15th-17th centuries (as well as Europe ... most likely surpassing Europe in certain areas). Turtle ships, anyone ... iron clad ships roughly 300 years before their development in the West. Not to mention cannons, guns, and rocket artillery. That is why Korea, despite having a lower resource base than China (though arguably not Japan), was able to maintain independence for so long.
It was only until Japan industrialized was it able to surpass Korea technologically and colonize it. Of course, to be fair, Japan was probably more culturally and economically advanced than Korea.
Japan was definitely not a backwater, as some people on this board like to paint it before the Meiji Restoration. During the Tokugawa period, Japan's wealth per capita was one of the highest in the world. Reference is a PBS documentary on the Tokugawa period as well as references by Pomeranz ... I know Angus Maddison is widely referenced, but I question his method ... I believe he does not take into consideration PPP (which is a much better method when doing historical comparisons) and instead does a straight nominal comparison, which honestly, how can you do that with historical data? Pomeranz uses a PPP method as well as comparison in consumption. Japan definitely was economically developed, in a pre-industrial sense (prior to 1800, the most prosperous nations/regions in the world were China, Japan, England, France, Netherlands, US, Korea, and SE Asia).
Furthermore, culturally, Japan was very developed, as evidenced by kabuki, noh, and the tea ceremony.
However, in general Korea was as capable as its two "neighboring giants". In fact, if you were to look at Asia from a 1700s/1800s perspective, Korea would widely be seen as an equal to its neighbors, depsite its relative small size ... think Netherlands surrounded by France and England.
@bngo: No one is saying Korea was a backwater, but as you pointed out until the 1800s Asia was the huge behemoth economically. And that means China. So in order to have Korea dominate as opposed to China for a significant period it's not that easy.
That said in line with what you've written.... I've been planing a more dominant Korea for some time as part of RoS beginning with pre-Mongol Goryeo.
That said in line with what you've written.... I've been planing a more dominant Korea for some time as part of RoS beginning with pre-Mongol Goryeo.
Oh, in that case, that might actually be harder. I had read the thread as why is Korea always swallowed up/marginalized by China and Japan, and I was presenting arguments that prior to 1800 it was not weak relative to its neighbors. However, if you want Korea to be dominant in Asia (i.e. - stronger than China), than yeah, you will have to do some AH ... interested to read what you have in mind with pre-Mongol Goryeo.
I have always been interested to see an AH where Asia as a whole (not just China) is dominant and multiple Asian nations are in a similar position as OTL European nations are. An AH where China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Siam, Malaysia/Majapahit, India, and the ME nations are dominant ... because honestly, as someone mentioned in the "Which is Better before 1900" thread, OTL is Europe-wanked to the extreme. Would try to write one a la Tony Jones' Gurkani Alam, but don't have the time ... work trumps AH.
Also, you have now almost doubled the number of posts I have made. I always liked my lurker status. Thanks
.The Sandman
Banned
Things that might help with this one: as of 1800, Korea has Manchuria (including the bit that's nowadays Primorsky Krai), Japan has Sakhalin and Taiwan, China is split into at least two competing states, none of the European powers have been able to establish sole authority over India, the British managed to gank all of the Dutch East Indies and merged it and their Malayan and Bornean holdings into a single larger colony, Annam and Siam have agreed to form some sort of loose compact to avoid being devoured by their more powerful neighbors, and Persia is actually modernizing successfully.
Yes they do. It has proven a succesful tactic. This is one good reason not to invade Zhonggou.
It's not really true that Korea always ends up conquered. Of course in the timelienes of many inexperienced and/or poorly read authors, it does, simply because they project back the pattern of the twentieth century.
Of course 'not conquered' means you have to start thinking about things, so Korea as part of China or Japan may just be the local equivalent of the African Spacefilling Empire. But having an independeent, prosperous Korea, well, that might just be boring given it's pretty much half of OTL.
As others have pointed out, the problem with a great Korean Empoire is much the same as that with a great Dutch Empire - the neighbourhood. Korea can take Japan (I do that so often it's become kind of cliched), but nobody can take on China.
Of course 'not conquered' means you have to start thinking about things, so Korea as part of China or Japan may just be the local equivalent of the African Spacefilling Empire. But having an independeent, prosperous Korea, well, that might just be boring given it's pretty much half of OTL.
As others have pointed out, the problem with a great Korean Empoire is much the same as that with a great Dutch Empire - the neighbourhood. Korea can take Japan (I do that so often it's become kind of cliched), but nobody can take on China.
I could think of worse fates than being assimilated into the Chinese ruling class.
Neroon
Banned
I think the reason why the deck is stacked against Korea with a PoD later than beginning of the 19th century is that it has many of the same instutional problems that China has but much less room for error since there is a lot less Korea and Koreans to go around than there is China.
Simply put China can afford to loose repeated wars against several European powers and Japan and there'll still be a China around afterwards since it's too big to take over. All it takes for Korea is ONE lost war against any wanna-be empire builder and it's game over.
At the same time without any kind of national humiliation akin to the unequal treates inflicted on it there probably wont be enough pressure for reform to overcome the entrenched Civil Servant aristocracy benefitting from maintaining the status quo.
Unless you go back with a PoD to before the Mongols and have for example Goguryeo unify Korea as well as keep Manchuria, then maintain it's independence throughout the centuries against China (forcing it to keep it's military edge since China will always have more manpower), then you basically need an UBER Yi San to shove through a massive reform and modernization program.
Simply put China can afford to loose repeated wars against several European powers and Japan and there'll still be a China around afterwards since it's too big to take over. All it takes for Korea is ONE lost war against any wanna-be empire builder and it's game over.
At the same time without any kind of national humiliation akin to the unequal treates inflicted on it there probably wont be enough pressure for reform to overcome the entrenched Civil Servant aristocracy benefitting from maintaining the status quo.
Unless you go back with a PoD to before the Mongols and have for example Goguryeo unify Korea as well as keep Manchuria, then maintain it's independence throughout the centuries against China (forcing it to keep it's military edge since China will always have more manpower), then you basically need an UBER Yi San to shove through a massive reform and modernization program.
There is a small window in the 19th century in which if properly "convinced" it could end up a monderized sate. The basic premise is you would need pro-Western factions, which I remind you did exist, some how take control of or atleast have great sway in the court of the Joseon Dynasty. Now three options are have the US pull a Commodore Perry on Korea like it did on Japan (a very realistic option) and maybe "buy" Jeju island as a naval base from the Koreans in return for American industrial and technological support to modernize Korea (seems kinda ASB but with the right POD it is actually very possible). Opening Korea early and have it gain Western support it could allow the Joseon to maintain controll and avoid the internal struggle it faced in the latter part of the 19th century which eveutally lead to its absorbtion. Now it will never be powerful enough to conquer Japan or China at this late a date but with a powerful Western backer like the US and with a modern military and economy they could easily hold their own against the hungry powers that encircle them.
I toyed with an indea along the premise of what I said above, but it also involved an American Formosa, a French Hainan and Siam, and a British Indonesia.
I toyed with an indea along the premise of what I said above, but it also involved an American Formosa, a French Hainan and Siam, and a British Indonesia.
The main problem for Korea is that in order to prosper as a modern state it has to break away from Chinese vassalage, which in general it did not want to do, and only someone smashing China can achieve this - OTL this was Japan, but of course once it was done, and Korea declared herself an empire, she was now squeezed between the other two competing powers, Russia and China, who saw her as a battleground for influence. Korea has to escape vassalage to one power, and then avoid being dominated by at least another two which is quite a hard sell
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf