Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

spinnybingle OP t1_itjpgky wrote

Reply to comment by xtremzero in Joseon, the predecessor of modern Korea(s) - Part 3: Japan and Qing Invasions (early 17th century) by spinnybingle

Almost any Korean person knows that kings of Joseon were referred to as "king" while Chinese emperors were referred to as "emperors," and there was a strong symbolic hierarchy. Well Koreans can be quite nationalistic, but I don't think anyone will really deny that.

Imo Joseon-Ming tie was particularly strong because the Joseon ruling class followed very orthodox Confucianism, often following the social norms described in Chinese classical text to a letter. Many modern people are critical of that because it obviously weakened the nation (e.g. the suppression of commerce and trades). It was also the way the nobles distinguished themselves from commoners who weren't educated in classical Chinese

Almost any Korean person also knows that Hangeul was despised by noblemen in the Joseon era. So it's not a secret or taboo topic in Korea.

  • Plus, despite ignored by male aristocrats, the Korean script was widely used by women and commoners, which led to the rise of vernacular literature. We know a lot more about the Joseon era thanks to the vast amount of scripts written in vernacular Korean

However, when one says Korea (or Vietnam or others) was "tributary state" or "vassal state" of China, while it's basically true, there can still be contentions about to which extent it was symbolic and to which extent it was substantial. Joseon Korea didn't have to pay a lot of "substantial" tributes to China.

  • Joseon had to pay tributes to Ming just once every three years
  • The contents were Just dozens of kilograms of ginseng and similar amount of hemp, mats, paper, ink, etc. It can almost be seen as an expensive gift, rather than tax
  • There were very few exchanges of people/talents/human resources
  • Some tributary states were even benefited by the tributary relationship because some Chinese emperors doled out gold
  • The tributary states were sometimes asked to join military operations of China, but at least in the case of Joseon, it was very few and far between. Ming China only lasted for like 250 years anyways
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_system_of_China
  • (https://ijkh.khistory.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.22372/ijkh.2021.26.2.151) .

So there can be contentions about how "symbolic" or "substantial" the tributary relationships were.

I think it's a dispute that can only be resolved by collaboration of professional historians in different countries

1

xtremzero t1_itjrfe7 wrote

The so called tributes are actually trade in disguise. And a quite unfair one at that (for Ming)

All the tributaries LOVED coming to China, because not only is all the expenses covered, they also get way more gifts in return (you bring a few apples or oranges call it “specialty” but get gold in return)

The rules where Joseon tributes can only come once every 3 years was so that Ming doesn’t go bankrupt. But even then there are records of Joseon emissaries bringing tributes (and getting gold in return) every year. Ryukyu was supposed to come every 2 years but came multiple times a year.

So tributes sounds great but was actually like a charity event. Hence why even countries in Indonesia and Malaysia loved going to China to do “tributes”

2

wolflance1 t1_ityr7cz wrote

>which extent it was symbolic and to which extent it was substantial.

Oh it's far more than symbolic. Something as trivial as using the wrong calendar format can cause Joseon government to outright shut down because it offended Ming sensibilities.

1