http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._Paragraph

reference:
1.chinese intervention
2.insurgents harrassing japanese supply routes by land
3.yi sun shin blocking supply route by sea
4. korea had better technology and better weapons.

My sole reading on the Imjin was was Stephen Turnbull’s “Samuari Invasion”. It left me with the following impression:
1. chinese intervention - a mixed blessing, and not in sufficient numbers to eject the Japanese. And, Chinese troops were as apt to plunder the locals as the Japanese.
2. “guerrillas”, or “righteous armies” might be a better term, as an insurgent’s aim is to overthrow his own government and replace it with another. Yes, they were a thorn in the Japanese side, but not decisively so.
3. Yi Sun-shin blocking the supply routes. Yi was certainly the most intelligent and forceful Korean field commander, but he never had the resources to do anything more than disrupt Japanese supplies and, more importantly, reinforcements. He understood this, and employed what force he had accordingly. Hitting smaller Japanese forces. Hitting the ships of Japanese forces who had landed and were engaged in pillaging. And employing Korean technological superiority (artillery and compound bows that outranged their Japanese equivalents) to inflict maximum damage on the Samurai before they could get close enough to board, which was when Japanese superiority in close fighting skills would come into play. Unfortunately, Yi was not astute enough in self-promotion and politicking, as his fellow commanders were. Thus they claimed his victories for their own, while avoiding the Japanese, and in the end were instrumental in his relieval. In short, the only light of the Imjin War could not overcome the grevious faults of the system he was a part of. Like Spain’s El Cid Campeador, Admiral Yi was a far worthier subject than his sovereign deserved. Korea’s resistance can be credited with ending Hideyoshi’s plans to conquer China and India, but the evidence is that these goals were beyond the capabilities of his Samurai based army.
4. Yes, Koreans enjoyed technological superiority in artillery and the compound bow, but they lacked small arms, and their cavalry were not armed to withstand the Samurai in battle. Worse, the burocracy and political system that supported it was not able to exploit the technological superiority that Korea did possess. Their king, and I must presume that many of their (politically appointed) generals, were cowards, and not worthy of the Korean people. Which is probably why Yi Sun-shin has been venerated by the Korea people for so many years. One wonders if the Japanese really killed him in that final battle, or if some agent of the court, or his rivals, decided to do away with him as a threat to the dynasty.

Then why do you keep repeating yourself and proving that you don’t?

korea had better technology and better weapons.

‘war of pottery and metal type printing’ japanese name for imjin war

influence indeed.

yeah, i understand the word ‘influence’ just fine. i wonder if the author was referring to the imjin war when he was telling us the koreans want to move their history back by a thousand years so as to remove japanese influnece. i doubt it. i’ll bet he just assumed that since japan is a major power today it MUST have had some influence on korea. nope.

‘but to say that a major power invading you…’

japan was no major power. you do remember this ‘major power’ lost, right? yeah, yeah, it wasn’t just because of chinese intervention.

1.chinese intervention
2.insurgents harrassing japanese supply routes by land
3.yi sun shin blocking supply route by sea

the flow of culture and influnce was from korea to japan (can you refute that? nope). japan had no influnce on the korean people and their culture. btw, since you say it did, can you tell us how? nope.

thank you for allowing me to correct you. please have a good day.

I mean, the Chinese claim that Mongols (including Gengis Khan) were Chinese.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....hina30.xml

The pattern here is clear for everyone to see.