Returned this evening from Ganghwa Island. Took a ton of photos, but I’m not sure which ones—if any—will be used in the magazine. Anway, I’ll post just a couple of the ones I’m sure won’t end up in SEOUL:
Here’s the main hall of Bomun-sa Temple on Seongmo Island. I believe the hall is, technically speaking, a Nirvana Hall.
Climb the 419 steps in back of the temple and you come to this carving of the Bodhisattva of Mercy. Bomun-sa is a major oratory of this particular bodhisattva.
In the Ganghwa History Museum, we have a mock-up of the French doing what they do best… losing. But damn, if those aren’t some sweet (pith?) helmets. Let no one say the French weren’t sharply dressed imperialists. And at least they came away with the Joseon royal archives for their efforts. (Sorry about the quality of the photographs—still playing with the camera to take better indoor shots).
Sword held high and the blue stripe down the pants… positively dashing.
Here are the Americans showing how to properly storm a fortress, something in which they probably had a lot of practice during the first half of the preceeding decade. Unlike the French, however, the American battle dress is decidely wanting. Too much Army of the Potomac, not enough imperial “I am the white man, and you must respect my authoritah.” If you’re going to play imperialist, you’d better dress the part, damn it.
Reconstructed gun bastion overlooking the bridge to Gimpo, near Ganghwa History Museum.
38 Comments
Completly off topic, but you might be interested in the news Marmot. India today tested its new Agni III IRBM less than a week after the NoKo test. Amusingly enough, news reports are coming in that the missile test, like the possible NoKo Taepodong 2, failed during the 2nd stage separation phase and crashed short of target.
Can someone explain me how the French were repulsed there AND sacked the 外奎章閣 [inside the fortress]?
Are the ones whining about France not giving back the documents *not* speaking with the ones saying the French lost there?
Idiots…
dda, I think you want to say the French won at Ganghwa island?
Frenchman, listen.
Although I highly doubt that the French would have colonized Korea with just a fleet and no more back up, I think the French having retreated in the end counts as a Korean victory in the affair.
Honestly, French military power reached its finest moment with Napoleon, and everything else can be seen as downhill, with no major victories.
Kyopo dude, listen carefully.
The boat sent wasn’t destined to colonize Korea {Heaven forbid!], but to slap people around for murdering priests. Presenting Korea preventing the French soldiers from entering the fortress is a lie. Period. Cuz they just did, ransacked the place, and left when there wasn’t anything else to loot. Not that it was noble or anything. But losing [what is now] national treasures can’t exactly count as a victory for Team Korea™ [unless you see a victory like the 1-1 with France in this World Cup... :-)]
dda, I don’t think Zidane is a classy guy. Maybe when he is winning.
I guess this is why Koreans are close to Germans than to the French.
Germany helped a lot in Park ChungHee’s time (1960’s). They hired Korean miners and nurses and even gave two years’ wage in advance!
Pres. Park pulled this money with the Japanese reparation and started fertilizer factory and steel industry. This was the start of the miracle of “Han River”.
Of course, Korea moved out of desperate poverty through VietNam war, sending troops who got paid by the US government.
Korea owes most to 1)the US 2)Japan 3)Germany.
French? Poor beggars. Did they come during the Korean war? I don’t think so. Maybe sent a fashion designer?
Canada sent troops during the Korean War. I guess some were from FrenchCanadian area and spoke French.
But they are not from France. France didn’t do a diddly squat. I guess after getting kicked out VietNam, the French were fearful of Asian soldiers.
Baduk, the French withdraw from Vietnam was after the Korean war…
Baduk, the French withdraw from Vietnam was after the Korean war…
The Korean War was in 1950, but in the prior decade, hadn’t the Japanese kicked the French out of Vietnam? Baduk may have been referring to that.
“French? Poor beggars. Did they come during the Korean war? I don’t think so.”
Baduk you seriously need to brush up on your history. The French had a sizeable force committed to the Korean War, especially considering they had only regained control of their country from the Nazis 6 years earlier. Battalion D Coree of 1017 men, growing to a peak of 3417, operated with the US 23rd Infantry Division and saw some of the heaviest fighting in battles at Kapyong, Arrowhead Ridge, and the famous Heartbreak Ridge. They were in Korea from November 1950 until the AA signing in July ‘53. The also had a small naval contingent, one ship of which aided in the Inchon Landing. They lost 287 men, 1350 wounded, 12 POWS, and 7 still MIA. I don’t think any of their families would be appreciate the caustic remarks about French efforts towards the Freedom of Korea. Perhaps Korea doesn’t owe France anything but you at least owe those 287 men a little respect.
BTW, if anyone is interested in specifics of what the UN member countries of the United Nations Command did during the Korean War, an excellent reference is the 6 volume “The History of the United Nations Forces in the Korean War” put out by the Ministry of National Defense back in ‘72-’78. It has detailed numbers, casualties, entrance/exit dates, and even some descriptions of major battles/skirmishes throughout the war. All in English of course… I should state that it is out-of-print but there are many copies in storage so if you know someone over at MND, give’em a holler!
I think it’s amazing they show any Korean casualties at all in those dioramas. Next time you’re at the War Memorial look closely: The invading Chinese are all dead or wounded and the noble defending Koreans have nary a scratch.
Not that I’m one to normally defend the French, but they did send a battalion to Korea to fight (attached to 23rd Regiment of 2ID), even while they were quite involved in Indochina. But hey, who gives a shit who defended your country, right?
ANYway, “Bomun-sa is a major oratory of this particular bodhisattva.” — Huh, i’d thought “oratory” just meant public speaking, but now i find it’s also a Catholic Christian noun: “A place for prayer, such as a small private chapel” — kinda like “sanctuary” — learn sumthin’ new every day. I would’ve used “shrine” i guess…
Anyway, yup, Bomun-sa is one of what i count as “Korea’s eight special shrines for Avalokitesvara the Bodhisattva of Compassion [Gwanse-eum Bosal in Korean], which are thought of as his residence, parallel to Putuo-shan of China.” The 7 others i’ve stumbled across are Sanbang-san of Jeju Island, Hyangil-am of Geumo-san on Dolsan Island of Yeosu City, Bori-am of Geum-san on Namhae Island, Haedong Yonggung-sa of Busan City, Yeonju-dae on Gwanak-san in Seoul, Doseon-sa on Samgak-san in Seoul and Hongryeon-am of Naksan-sa on the coast in Yangyang County of Gangwon Province.
Does anyone here know of any others, that would rank with these…?
This is from the list i made for the Sacred Sites website:
http://sacredsites.com/asia/korea/korea.html
Correction of any mistakes or ommissions i made would be appreciated…
I think it was unavoidable in the American case—we lost three, they lost 400.
ANYway? I don’t think setting the record straight on French involvement in the Korean War should get a back burner seat to personal orgasms over Bodhisattvas and Shrines. Admiration for that is great but don’t belittle someone else’s interest in another facet of history in the process.
Great photo of the temple, must have been nice to catch it without the weekend crowds tromping all over. Reference the cheap shots at the French. The French lost 1.7 million in WWI, mostly combat casualties. U.S. casualties were far lower, and the majority of those were as a result of disease (the great Pandemic of 1918-19). That casualty list is part of the reason that pacifism took deep root in France between the wars. Then add the results of the 1930s Popular Front (Communists and other far left parties in power), and you can see why France was deeply divided on the eve of WWII. As for the French Battalion itself, it was commanded by a Lieutenant General who had resigned his commission as a general to be reinstated in the Army as a Lieutenant Colonal. All so he could command the Bataillon ONU de Coree in Korea. The batallion had four combat companies in the battalion, each manned by volunteers from the various branches. You had volunteers from old line regiments (metropolitans), the colonial army (colonials, now marines), the North African army (Legion, Tirailleurs, Zouaves, Goums), the paratroops, alpine troops, etc. Unsurprisingly, it won a U.S. presidential unit citation at Chipyong-ni. When its tour in Korea ended, is was shipped to Indochina to become the Korea Regiment, picking up some Vietnamese troops in the process. Unfortunately, as part of Mobile Group 100 it was caught in a gigantic ambush in the last days of the Indochina war on the road between Kontum and Qui Nhon, and annihilated.
France’s most famous war novelist, Jean Larteguy, wrote his first novel about the battalion. Originally entitled “Sang sur la coline” it was later reprinted as “Les Mercenaires”. It’s central character is an unconventional young captain named Pierre Lirelou. Well worth the read for anyone interested in Korean War fiction, or French military fiction.
ps. the undersigned Lirelou is “from” the U.S. but presently lives in Seoul, Korea. Perhaps the flag should change.
Hey, I was wrong about the French. Thank you, Mr.Chip, Lirelou and others, for a brief history lesson.
Koreans owe much to many countries including France. Thanks to those who came to help during Korean War, Koreans have the most precious human right - freedom.
Lirelous wrote something defending the French:
blah blah blah
Oh, silly Lirelou, do you dare to challenge the one-dimensionally cartoonish stereotypes that pass for intellectual discourse in the blogosphere?
Everyone knows the French are pacifistic pussies and your claims of what happened at Chipyong-ni — if were are to believe it at all* — just pisses everybody off because you’re challenging a superficial construct that is held dearly.
Now pass me my Freedom Fries.
* In America, we know that claims of wartime heroism by speakers of French are doctored and bogus.
Well, according to Wikipedia, which I’ll admit is of very uneven reliability, “In the nineteenth century, as outside powers sought to enter Korea by sea, Ganghwa became a point of contact rather than a refuge. During the 19th century, Christianity was introduced into Korea. For the massacre of French Catholic Missionaries and followers, French navy invaded the Ganghwa Island in 1866.
At the first battle, the Korean infantry division lost heavily, and General Yang Haun-Soo concluded that only a large cavalry division [could] withstand the French fire power. With an ambush during dark, the Koreans defeated the French and reclaimed the island.”
That dovetails with what a Korean friend told me about the encounter. It allows the French to both sack the place, capture the documents, and be ambushed later, causing them to flee. If dda has more and better information, I’d love to hear it.
After a few ships pounded on Ganghwa Island twice, blocked the Han River, Ignored the pleadings of the Korean envoy, and sailed away out of boredom and lack of anything else to do, The French returned…450 frenchmen against 10,000 koreans…. a fortress taken, two towns taken, the royal library ransacked, 2 Frenchmen killed, 30 Frenchmen wounded, and the french just basically walking away. Yup.. sounds like the french lost to me…. hmmmm.
Well, OK, they just “basically walked away” after 160 French marines tried to take Jeongjok Fortress (defended by 500 Korean archers). Six dead, 30 wounded later they decided to leave… but not before looting Ganghwa-seong.
Oh yeah.. I forgot about burning the fortress to the ground.
Let’s see: 450 French, on a punitive expedition (not an invasion) assault 10,000 Koreans, who had the enormous advantage of being able to defend against an amphibious landing from a heavily fortified entrenched position armed with canons; the French breach the defenses, sack the royal library — having enough time to identify, loot and carry off the royal archives — and burn down the fortress; the French then withdraw in good order, after a detour and frolic through the surrounding contryside, having lost 6 killed and 30 wounded against gumsmackingly overwhelming odds. Assuming the casualty ratio was similar to that when the US conducted its own punitive expedition against Korea at Ganghwa, Korean losses might have been as many as 350 killed and 3,450 wounded.
And the Koreans want to make believe that they drove off the French because they left when the Korean cav showed up?
Denial and self-deception seem very deeply rooted here.
Yeah, what Sperwer sez…
“having lost 6 killed and 30 wounded against gumsmackingly overwhelming odds. ”
Oh come on, the defenders had at their disposal, spears and arrows. Their cannons were notoriously inaccurate also. How can anybody be proud of this “victory”?
Oh come on yourself. When have the French ever advertised this as a some victory. Nobody’s claiming it as a “victory”, except the Koreans, and their apologists, who want to play make-believe. And fyi, the Korean cannon didn’t have to have GPS to hit a assault force closely bunched becuase of the nature of the terrain and the objective; and Koreans had guns as well as cannon; and don’t forget castle walls, more or less impervious to the little pea shooters the French could haul ashore with them and, last but not least, 22:1 odds.
So stop the “poor little Korea” posturing, unless you want to defend govt directed murders of foreign priests and native catholics and indiscrimate shelling by shore batteries of offshore commercial vessles.
“Nobody’s claiming it as a “victory”, except the Koreans,”
That’s what I mean. How can Koreans claim this as a ‘victory’?
What I disagreed with was that the French were facing “overwhelming odds”. That’s a laugh. What you had here was a complete mismatch of military technology. It was inevitable the one sided slaughter.
You obviously don’t know much of anything about what weapons were available to each side, and how relatively primitive each side’s weapons were. Calling any of it technology is technically accurate, but very misleading because of the impression it creates that we’re talking about something similar to what we see on the evening news. The late 19th century was still pretty much the era of “cold steel”, though it was slowly giving way to still relatively primitive projectiles, especially on the individual firearm level. The big breakthroughs starting coming in the US Civil War, but even the marines in the US assault on Gangwha only had a handful of men with repeating rifles with ‘em. You also seem to forget that the Koreans had firearms since at least the late 16th century. You also continue to ignore the other circumstances that more than compensated for whatever marginal advantage the French may have had purley on the basis of equipment.
This blog, complete with rips at the Japanese of Europe and a Cartman homage is the funniest thing I’ve read in a week!
Thank you…
I was going to mention the French battalion in the Korean War, but it looks like several people already beat me to it.
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.
“You obviously don’t know much of anything about what weapons were available to each side”
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.
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.
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.
Sperwer, not sure the U.S. side would have had muzzle loaders. Although budget constraints did keep some Marines in muzzle loaders for several years after the Civil War, the M-1865/66/68/70 modifications were “trap door Springfields” firing a .50/70 cartridge (the M-1873 model switched to .45/70 calibre). 1872 also saw the introduction of some M-1872 (Rolling Block Springfields), but I saw no mention of the Marines having received it in Asia. But, even with a single shot breech loading cartridge rifle, the Marines would have been trained to rely on “cold steel” as noted earlier. All artillery of the period, by the way, was used in the direct fire mode, although some of the ships may have had seige mortars mounted. (Lots of those left over from the civil war).The techniques for angled (indirect), adjusted fire really developed in the First World War. My guess is that the Leathernecks and Blue jackets were armed with the trap door Springfields, which should have given them a six to one advantage in firepower.
Sperwer: So stop the “poor little Korea” posturing, unless you want to defend govt directed murders of foreign priests and native catholics and indiscrimate shelling by shore batteries of offshore commercial vessles.
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.
Lirelou:
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”.
—————————————————————
“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