“And at least they came away with the Joseon royal archives for their efforts.”

—————————————————————

For whatever reason,

those dame French fagots are still holding that crap hostage. I have no idea why that spineless Roh hasn’t filed a lawsuit in the International Courts to win it back.

At least the hated Japanese returned theirs. Not even a thank you note from you know who, I would imagine.

Nice bit of history here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganghwa_Island

Thanks for the input. I guess our guys didn’t have the 1872 Rolling Blocks, since the action was in 1871. My source for the muzzleloaders is the same one cited by CM, where it say that some of the Marines did have repeaters but “most” still were packing single shots - which kinds makes sense considering both the budget constraints you cite and the fact that the boys in question were in Asia on a mission that wasn’t really high on the priority list. BTW, like the reference to “Les Mercenaires”.

The Koreans aren’t alone in this kind of thing. The Chinese government organized the slaughter of 40,000 Chinese Christians (who were literally hacked to pieces) and a number of foreign missionaries during the Boxer Rebellion. Their murderers are hailed as heroes in Chinese accounts of the incident.

Like I said, a complete mismatch in weaponry and technology.

1. Now your talking about the US assault in 1871; the French incursion of 1866 is the topic;

2. I already indicated that the US had “some” repeating rifles; the bulk of the the leathernecks and gobs were armed with Springfield and Plymouth muzzle loaders. The US did have some field artillery.

3. The Korean armament did include some old matchlocks. They also had newer muzzle loaders. Their artillery was so short-range and inaccurate, as you claim, that they were able to hit US Ships at sea offshore.

4. Again, this all concerns the confrontation between US and Korean forces, not the French.

5. The French didn’t have either the repeating rifles or the larger field pieces of the US.

6. Sure, there was a slight equipment imbalance; but the real basis for the success (in terms of accomlishing their objectives) of both the French and US incursions was the gross martial ineptitude of the Korean defenders - an incompetence that was centuries in the making and encompassed far more than technological backwardness.

Koreans had matchlocks (isn’t that 16th century weapon?)

Actually, matchlocks were 15th-century technology, more or less, although the ones that would have been used in the 1800s would have been somewhat more refined than the ones originally introduced to the region by Portugese traders. Still, they would have been slower to reload even than the cap-and-cartridge muzzle-loading muskets used by the Americans, and would hardly mention comparison with a Remington carbine.

I suggest you read the above link. Koreans had matchlocks (isn’t that 16th century weapon?), while the Yanks had Remingtons and long range artillary. Koreans had canons too, but their artillary was too short in range too inaccurate to be of any use.

Like I said, a complete mismatch in weaponry and technology.

I’ll just point out an interesting site on the USMC assault on Kanghwa, at http://www.shinmiyangyo.org, and that several Medals of Honor were awarded as a result, see http://www.army.mil/cmh/mohkor1.htm.

Thank you…