The Imjin War was one of Korea and China's first experiences with mass firearms formations, introducing them to innovations in warfare never before seen. Why didn't the Korean and Chinese armies modernize and create the beginnings of industry? Japan used to be one of the world's leading firearms manufacturers, but suddenly stopped, for example. What kind of change would it take for things to change, not only for Japan but other East Asian countries?
Why Didn't the Imjin War Kickstart East Asian Modernization?
- Thread starter Tripledot
- Start date
I knew of it, but not the name. How was China involved exactly?
Korea was a tributary state of China, so the Ming Dynasty, being its patron state and not wanting to see Japanese expansion into Korea, intervened to protect the Koreans.
Yeah. For China and Korea, they won the war, so these 2 specifically didn't feel the need to modernize.
Also, the Ming were beginning to collapse by this point. Their successors, the Qing, were small in number vis a vis the Han Chinese and so used conservatism to bolster their legitimacy.
At first. After about 1800 they would have had trouble running a piss up in a brewery, let alone modernising an army.
RousseauX
Donor
Because once the war ended, there was no more major interstate wars to fight on a regular basis.
The Qing actually did adopt firearms and that was one of the major reasons why they were able to defeat the Dzungar nomads once and for all in the early 18th century. But major wars requiring that every single side constantly update their armies and weaponries simply didn't exist in East Asia. Armies and technology atrophied during the long period of peace post 1740s in China, and post-1600s in Tokugawa Japan.
What is needed for constant advances are a European style system of competing states which eliminates any weak actors. Only then will every single state constantly be developing and equipping their armies with the latest equipment. If instead of the Qing conquering all of China you had a China divided between multiple states that needs to constantly fight each other and contest European commercial interests in East Asia then you would end up with armies and navies which are modern by the 1800s.
RousseauX
Donor
The Qing did create a modern army, it's just that the army turned on them and brought about the end of the dynasty.
I'd also argue that the fact that the Imjin War wasn't contemporaneous with, say, the Song hemi-scientific revolution didn't help either.
If you get a scientific revolution around this time, though...
If you get a scientific revolution around this time, though...
Korea was racked with internal politics even during the war, which continued after; the Ming dynasty was simply financially devastated by the war because of supporting the Koreans too enthusiastically. I believe a partial answer to the OP for Korea is having Gwanghaegun become king earlier, possibly during the war; Seonjo was simply not helping any time during his rule and Gwnaghaegun became king a tad too late to fix anything.
Asian military technology was not a simple progression curve where possessing firearms = instant win. Armies based on infantry and gunpowder in the 16th/17th Century were still pretty weak in the face of the mass-cavalry formations that the nomads of Central Asia/Mongolia used (a point brought up by Mughal commanders looking at European pike-and-shot formations).
A swarm of horse archers during this period still had greater range and versatility than any infantry formation of the time, no matter how well-drilled - and this was shown quite clearly in the repeated Manchu victories over the largest gunpowder army in the world, the Ming army. Sure, the pre-Conquest Manchus also adopted cannon but that was more for attacking fortified cities rather than for field use. In any case, the Chinese tradition of appointing bureaucrats into military posts could hardly have helped their military efficiency, no matter how advanced their armies were.
As for modernization... the sclerotic and intensely-factionalized Ming court was just not capable of creating any grand plan to fix the dynasty by this point, much less look towards the future. And as for why it didn't happen by itself amongst the Ming populace... that itself is a much larger debate on why 'China didn't modernize'.
A swarm of horse archers during this period still had greater range and versatility than any infantry formation of the time, no matter how well-drilled - and this was shown quite clearly in the repeated Manchu victories over the largest gunpowder army in the world, the Ming army. Sure, the pre-Conquest Manchus also adopted cannon but that was more for attacking fortified cities rather than for field use. In any case, the Chinese tradition of appointing bureaucrats into military posts could hardly have helped their military efficiency, no matter how advanced their armies were.
As for modernization... the sclerotic and intensely-factionalized Ming court was just not capable of creating any grand plan to fix the dynasty by this point, much less look towards the future. And as for why it didn't happen by itself amongst the Ming populace... that itself is a much larger debate on why 'China didn't modernize'.
There's a great line from the Opium Wars (first, I think), where a mandarin reports to the Emperor that the British pose no threat. "Why, they don't even have any archers!"
And that's in the mid1800s. Shows how useful the Chinese muskets were...
And that's in the mid1800s. Shows how useful the Chinese muskets were...
I do have a question.Shouldn't a highly factionalised courts be a good thing for the emperor since he can play one side against another?
Just a minor tidbit, the 10 Campaigns waged by the Qianlong Emperor lasted till the 1790s, though the latter campaigns were more of an ego-stroking exercise for Qianlong which drained the treasury's coffers, after which the Qing let their foot off the gas and the rest is downhill for them.
And before Qianlong, his gramps Kangxi did manage to defeat the Russians while absorbing Taiwan into the imperial sphere.