azazel1944's avatar

Decisive battle in Korea

By azazel1944
1K Favourites
A.D. 16th century, Japan invades Korea, China's Ming Dynastyaccepts Korea to invite, to send out the army to help Korea to resist Japanese the aggression, this picture was theperformance then war scene。And commemorates the Chinese servicemen which these has not seen thevictory
Image size
1181x719px 278.61 KB
© 2007 - 2020 azazel1944
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Ellrc's avatar
EllrcHobbyist Digital Artist

Very impressive piece of art.

Uncomfortably political, but very impressive.

Matteo1993's avatar
Beautiful picture; The intensity of the colors and the plasticity of the subjects are commendable, worthy of the painters of Romanticism. Still many congratulations !!! ;D
Yuki-Hirono's avatar
Korea always lose hahaha
LieLemons's avatar
또 명나라는 한거 없습니다.
조선이 일본을 건너오지 못하게 바다에서 격퇴시킨건 우리 조선국이 다 한 것입니다.
또 우린 수적으로 매우 불리했지만 훌룡한 전략으로 어리석은 일본군들을 다 격파시켰는데 
중국 명나라는 저희 땅 내주며 휴전 하자고 했습니다.
LieLemons's avatar
저거 임진왜란때인데.
왜? 조선군은 않넣요?
왜? 중국군 만있나요?
아무리 연합 해서 싸웠지만 중국이 조선한테 해준건 얼마 없어요.
rugbygypsy's avatar
I'd like to add that when discussing history in a forum like this, we should avoid words like "Japs" if we want to make a point.  When we add racial epithets, it colors the points we make with a feeling of ethnic prejudice which is exactly what makes discussion of this conflict so contentious at times.  To make a parallel example, if I was discussing the Rhodesian campaign in the bush wars and I said "the niggers" in reference to ZANLA or ZIPRA, any reasonable person would stop taking me seriously and see any points I was making as garbage. We are all entitled to our own opinions, to include racism, if that's the kind of person we are. But when it enters into a historical discussion it takes value from the conversation. Thanks!
rugbygypsy's avatar
From a purely aesthetic perspective, this is a beautiful piece of art. As far as accuracy, my only comment would be that the curve on the Japanese swordblade is a bit extreme. After the Mongol Invasions, Japanese sword design changed significantly and began tending towards relatively straighter blades.
As a historian, I would not go so far to say that the Ming troops were a non-issue.  Yet, most would agree that the single greatest factor in the Japanese defeat (in both campaigns) was the work of Yi in defeating the Japanese fleet and interdicting Japan's ability to resupply/reinforce her troops.  Of course there were many other issues (the Korean irregular forces, the resurgence of Buddhism in vis-à-vis Korean resistance, Japanese generals refusing to cooperate with each other, etc.), and in any event, it would have been impossible for the Toyotomi Hideyoshi to ever accomplish his ultimate goal of conquering China and going on to India.  Yi's campaigns simply hastened this. 
Ming troops did cause a good deal of trouble in pillaging/looting, though we must be careful not to decontextualize this - this was a fact of war in this era as modern-day notions of logistics did not yet exist.  The level of pillage and it's ferocity must be couched in relative terms - i.e.: the rapaciousness of the Japanese troops, especially in the second campaign, was on another level altogether.  During the first campaign, the Ming troops' campaign was mostly a series of sieges in which they pursued Japanese troops who conducted a tactically brilliant fighting retreat as the were forced from their strongholds in succession by combined Ming/Joseon forces.  It should be noted that in most encounters with Japanese forces, the Ming troops took quite a beating.  So, I wonder what specific battle, if any, this painting depicts.  Is it the encounter of the Kuroda troops with Ming cavalry at Jiksan in the second campaign?  If it is intended to be an overall impression of the Ming campaign in either of the Japanese invasions, then the image of Ming troops smashing the Japanese is a bit misleading, to say the least.  Let us all keep in mind (our respective patriotic sentiments aside), that Japan at that moment in history had the largest standing army in the world (yes, this includes the West) and was technologically the rival of any Western army (with the exception of field artillery).  Japan had just ended a long period of civil war that had seen her reach the peak of a hyper-militarized society that allowed for a massive population of men trained and blooded in combat, as well as a sort of social Darwinism that saw the strongest and most skilled combat leaders survive the period.   This is not a statement intended to glorify the Japanese invasion, by any means, but to simply observe the facts.  That being said, I compliment the artist on a visually beautiful and for the most part technically accurate piece of work. 
NWTC's avatar
This is brilliant! Reminds me of those old pictures depicting the Battle of Waterloo, especially colour wise.
MarcusCrassus's avatar
Gorgeous. And it illuminates a war not very well known in the west.  
seobumsu's avatar
i'm korean, so i see like this planty, but this is cool!!!
Neotokyo6's avatar
ironic few year later korea have been invade by very same army that come to aid them.

(by manchu dynasty BTW which overthrow ming not long after war with japan)
xhagast's avatar
I have heard of this. Toyotomi Hideyoshi's blunder. He wanted to conquer China and Korean and Chinese troops beat the crap out of him. Typical Japanese arrogance to think he could just go and become emperor of China.
PrinzLuzifer's avatar
Is that Katou Kiyomasa?He looks in trouble…很喜欢你的《阎浮提行记》和《悼武》
siwawuth's avatar
siwawuthHobbyist Digital Artist
this pic is powerful
sinosphere's avatar
To Crabtasterman
My point isn't that Korea should just take it or suggesting they were too feeble, it was that in the context of war, undesirable things are bound to arise even from one's own allies, or even from one's own forces. You do know Koreans also looted and stole from each other during the war, as well as rape. Yet, by your logic we should denounce all of Korea for the actions of a few assholes. That is my entire point: In war atrocities will happen from both sides, but to denigrate the total contributions of people who were sent to defend land that wasn't even their own is low imo. This really has nothing to do with Sun Yat Sen or qing revolutionary thought. The arguments you gave for that is abstract from the context, even random. But after what you said : "Let me make myself clear. It's been quite a while since the first post and I've seen new things and buried the old. The Ming did fight well, but in general they had a bad image and there are quite some people that thought they didn't fight all that well because of several reasons." I have a little better understanding on your position and I'm willing to try to discuss this rationally with you in the hopes that you aren't the complete shitbag that I thought you were trying to be.

Equating this with the Nanjing massacre is also a poor comparison. The goal of the Japanese were to kill and torture as much civilians as they can, and were given these orders from their chain of command. No Ming officer ordered their soldiers to rape or kill Korean civilians. As I've said, I'm not naive to think that no atrocities occurred, but rather it was from the few despicable soldiers in the ranks, not the entire army. You say it was a stupid idea to resupply from Korean lands, and that the Ming resupply was basically pillaging. You should understand the logistics available during that time period, and military maneuvers contemporary of that time. Armies back then would be mainly resupplied from the allied lands, rather than be mainly supplied from their own home base. Also you should realize that the joseon court gave permission for allied troops to resupply from Korean lands, and were responsible for allocation of supplies to the coalition army. Either supply was not abundant during the war because of a difficult mountaneous overland route into Korea, and because of an already war scarred Korean landscape. The Chinese official Song Yingchang and general Qian Shizheng would write about the tremendous difficulties of resupplying the allied forces in their records, the failure of the korean court and adjutancy in managing supplies, and that in some cases, Chinese armies had to take grain and rice from village reserves. It is unfortunate and caused further suffering to the people, but there absolutely was no other choice. This is in no way shape or form similar to the nanjing massacre at all.

Like I said previously, I am not shitting on Admiral Yi's achievements. He performed miracles during the war, but it is overly gross exaggeration to literally say that it was him alone that won the war. You give me examples of that finnish sniper getting 600+ kills against russians, but did the outcome of that finnish-russo war turn out the way it did just because of him? No he played only a part of an effort that was undertaken by a whole nation. Admiral Yi did wonders against the Japanese navy, and wrecked havoc on Japanese supplies. But he did not have the manpower or land assets to dislodge or push back the Japanese occupation. His actions slowed the Japanese land advance, but could not defeat it just by himself and at sea. Chinese and Korean forces on land had to also achieve victories and push back the Japanese forces in order to gain any kind of meaningful outcome. It was the retaking of Pyongyang and Kaesong, and the land sieges of 3 other cities that put the Japanese land commanders into a desperate situation and convince hideyoshi that a ceasefire was the best option. I agree with you that Korea should have been consulted during the ceasefire talks, but it wasn't a deliberate slight at Korea. It was Japan that came only to negotiate with China, and since Ming China was involved in 2 other wars at the western frontiers at the time, Emperor Wanli wanted a fast resolution to the Korean conflict so he could focus his resources back to the west. The diplomats handling the negotation terms both had misunderstandings and interests to prolonge the ceasefire long as possible, this is why you have different correspondences between the envoys to their leaders. The bit about Chen Wei Jing is misleading as it was just a defection story blown out of proportion by Japanese nationalist historians during the 19th century to make themselves feel good. The actual truth (from the historical archives and peer reviewed analysis between the top international east asian historians) is that Song Yingchang and Li Rusong did not open negotians with the japanese, The Japanese came to them offering ceasefire on the table, since the Japanese command had vastly underestimated the scale of a war on mainland asia, and the actual effective military power of China, along with a surprisingly stubborn Korean resistance. All the Japanese generals (except Kato Kiyomasa, he was a bit of a war addict) wanted to end the war, and tried to get the best deal to end. This is where you get the proposition to divide Korea on the war lines that existed in 1593. This was far from their initial goal of actually trying to conquer China through Korea. Since Hideyoshi had a different version of what was happening with his war effort, he thought he had more negotiating terms than he did, so he made demands that were out of his scope. Like demanding provinces and princesses. Unreasonable demands that were rejected resuming the war again. You are correct that Ming China could have destroyed the Japanese invasion forces in short time if Emperor Wanli actually concentrated his war effort in Korea, but like I said, he wanted to deal with 2 larger wars in the west.

Some Ming generals were just glory hogs that wanted recognition and medals? True, but wouldn't you say this is true of every army? It is unavoidable that greed and wanting the fastest and easiest way to promotion exists. But there are also honest generals and soldiers. I wonder why you choose to only look at one side of the whole picture, and pin the nature of human greed on Chinese people alone, if the reason isn't just for biased slander. Speaking of honest generals, Chen Lin and Admiral Yi were close friends and had mutual respect for each other. It was Chen Lin who advocated to the Ming administration that Admiral Yi should be in charge of the allied naval force and not him. The intial plan agreed upon by Chinese and Korean leadership was Li Rusong as supreme commander of land forces, Chen Lin as supreme commander of Naval forces, and Song Yingchang as chief administrator of the entire coalition. Kind of like the command arrangement in Desert Storm. (with the americans in charge of the coalition with norman schwarzkopf. Chen Lin relinquished the post for Yi Sun Shin, and when Yi died it was noted in the records that Chen cried for him in the middle of the Noryang battle. I don't see an actual valid reason for you to bag on him. I dunno where you got the idea that Yi Sun Shin took a bullet going to save Chen Lin... When actually its stated he took a stray bullet while pursuing the RETREATING japanese force...

Liu Ting made a tactical error at Suncheon, maybe it was communication error or just a straight up blunder, but to call his actions treacherous is really absurd. He is one of the key figures that that helped Korea build their defenses, and rebuild their army by training their troops during the ceasefire.

And you are still wrong with Nuzhen since Yue Fei was not defeated by them...after all, his victories against the Nuzhen/Jurchens is thats what he's famous for. Him and his army fought to the outskirts of Kaifeng and was poised to retake the former capital. What defeated him in the end was the same thing that almost got Admiral Yi... his own countrymen in the form of corrupt court officials. Admiral Yi was lucky as he was released from prison, General Yue Fei wasn't as he was executed by Qin Hui. He is very similar to Admiral Yi Sun Shin, and is just as important culturally and historically to Chinese people as Yi Sun Shin is to Korea. As you know I've treated your Admiral Yi with great respect and cared enough to actually research unbiased historical fact about him over the years. If we're gonna talk about this the least you could do is refrain from speaking falsely about him, or at least have the respect to actually read up about him beforehand. Defeat by Xianbei? seriously now... you can't even make an honest mistake about something like that unless you seriously have no idea what you were talking about.
RivenDusk's avatar
RivenDuskProfessional Digital Artist
The colors and tone remind me of a Durer piece. Very nicely executed.
fleacharyucko's avatar
fleacharyuckoHobbyist Traditional Artist
Amazing! Shows your mastery and versatility!
XLordAndyX's avatar
XLordAndyXStudent General Artist
WoooooW!!!! AMAZING WORK!!!
AllenHwong's avatar
so cool,i know this history```
Mshindo9's avatar
Hwarang, Korea's Warrior Knights. Are these the men on depicted on the horses?
fong-saiyuk's avatar
nope, the cavalry flags say "ming"

also, the hwarang were around during the silla dynasty (10-11 century), but didn't exist during the joseon era i don't think
ku218's avatar
Wait something's weird? Ming Dynasty, the Korean Army troops might have
In fact, the right and others do not fight the battle of Battle of Noryang the Walled City of Pyongyang
I have a fight. (Ming Dynasty fought only eight times out there I do not count.
In fact, 68 times the Chosen Army during the Japanese army and fought a fierce battle that came 65 times
While I was winning that war, the stars and one trillion days
The winner is none other than the Chosen Army.
Although the Korean royal ancestral 14 due to silly tricks to change the winner in the Ming Dynasty
Discard improbable recording doeeotgin leave but ... ㄱ - South Korea whose very jeorosseon
Jjokpalyineyo ......
CrabTasterMan's avatar
The "army" sent by China did nothing. They were mainly there for settling diplomatic issues. On some occasions they even took credit for battles they didn't win, Koreans just let them have the "heads of fallen Japanese soldiers" as "proof" of battle service. Diplomatically, the Chinese, secretly, without telling the Koreans, had talks with Japan about making China stay out of this war for a promise not to invade China later(fat chance, the Japs planned to do that all along), but Hideyoshi's arrogance demanding the "ambassador army" one of the Chinese emperor's daughters to marry "for bettering relations", was considered too arrogant, so no success there. No Chinese army won a "decisive battle" in the Imjin War. The army sent was too little, did nothing, and even leeched off of the Korean government to provide for some of their supplies. Only several years into the war did the Chinese emperor send enough troops to be called an real army, but still not enough. Since when did China ever care about Korea other than those many failed attempts to eat it up? Looking at history, would these arrogant Chinese ever think it worthwhile to give it their all to aid a nation they never cared for?

From start to finish the war was won by the Korean Admiral Yi-Sunsin at sea, cutting enemy supplies; a starving enemy army cannot fight. That and militias, but those came later. The Chinese army had nothing to do with it. If one reads into the small details in this war it's evident that the Chinese had little if any effect on the actual war. Don't attempt to give them credit when they deserve none. If Chinese soldier's should be credited with anything, it's for other wars in their history. Not this "neighbor's war."
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In