This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 16, 2005, December 16, 2006, December 16, 2008, December 16, 2009, December 16, 2012, December 16, 2014, December 16, 2015, December 16, 2019, and December 16, 2023. |
As far as I remember, when I read his biography,
in his diary, he said that Won Kyun left only 12 ships after his defeat.
Doesn't this mean that 333 ships were defeated by only 12?
Just wondering. ( Wikimachine 02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC))
Good friend100 13:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, after myungryang , the fleet rebuilt, and refitted to 100 ships. 80 were panoksun, and the remaining 20 were hastily militarized fishing boats Odst 05:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Admiral Yi never destroyed 333 ships with 13 at Myeongnyang. He sunk 30 ships and damaged many others in that battle. In Noryang, Yi rebuilt his fleet to 130 some odd ships and was augmented by the Ming Chinese fleet. WangKon936 05:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that somebody is playing pranks on English articles about Korea by purposely putting grammar and spelling mistakes on them. There are so many mistakes that so obvious. I hope that all of you other Wikipedians take close look at Korean articles for any improper changes in such manner.
Take a look at this sentence:
"Shimazu and Konishi ordered the Japanese troops scaled Chinese ships."
It makes no sense at all. ( Wikimachine 23:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
Lol,
I think Yi Sun Shin got a gunshot in the heart by the Japanese Commanders in the battle.I estimated how many Koreans died in the battle and my answer was:270 Koreans,including Yi Sun Shin(271 total),and no turtle ships was sunk.
it's not important. apparently, someone needs to repeat grammar school. leave him alone. Odst 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This contribution has much wrong description. Especially the Konishi army has not participated in this battle. Furthermore, the result of this battle is based only on Korean record, and is exaggerated. Although it is known that South Koreans are not studying the world history in school, isn't even the objective history of its own country studied? It is a self-satisfied illusion to compare this battle to the Battle of Trafalgar. Byouyou 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
>Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson and Koreans in Wikipedia
>It seems that Koreans are appearing in the most unlikely places trying to insert Korean nationalist issues into Wikipedia with Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson being compared unfavorably to the little known Korean naval hero, Yi Sun Shin.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=255
E Sun shin was the greatest Admiral of all time.
http://www.koreanhero.net/en/NationalHeroOfKorea.htm
Take a look at the chart at the bottom. The record speaks for itself.
"Admiral Yi’s expertise on naval strategy is apparent in the fact that his successor Won Gyun, even with all of Admiral Yi’s ships and trained crew, could not defeat an enemy fleet of similar might."
The E Sun shin article on Wikipedia says it perfectly. Almost the entire Korean Navy was destroyed under Won Kyun's command yet E Sun shin defeated the japs with the twelve ships that escaped plus his flagship.
http://www.koreanhero.net/en/WarDiary.htm
"Because these records were written by a man of strict integrity, who lived in a society where the progression of the war was reported meticulously to the king by his overseers, they provide trustworthy accounts of the events of the battles and are free from the exaggerations and inaccuracies so typical of historical records of wars."
Of course Admiral E never recorded the result of Noryang Point as he was killed but the other records are trustworthy. Taeguk Warrior 02:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is true.
http://www.faber.co.uk/book_detail.html?bid=11411.
So, I removed the section on Trafalgar of the East. It refers to a Japanese battle much later in course of history.
(
Wikimachine
15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)) I deleted it.
My two sense is that Noryang is not like Trafalgar in a tactical or strategic sense. It is like Trafalgar in a sense that a national hero died in his last battle in the last victory. Field Marshall Monty Montgomery himself said that Admiral Yi died like Admiral Nelson. WangKon936 05:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/s2.html
This source sites that Shimazu Yoshihiro did not participate in the Battle of Noryang. ( Wikimachine 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC))
http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/st.html
This source does not mention Tachibana Munishige participating in this battle. ( Wikimachine 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC))
Since this battle was not important for Shimazu Yosihiro and Tachibana Muneshige, it is natural that there is no mention in that site. The Shimazu army was the main force in this battle, and the Tachibana army had followed it. Byouyou 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Could anybody provide reference/source? thanks. ( Wikimachine 22:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC))
Although fundamental reference is 'Seikanroku'(1671), ' War history of Japan: Chousen-eki'(1924) is known widely in Japan. I don't know English references, sorry.
'Seikanroku'(1671) is the official record of this Korean campaign by Shimazu family.
'War history of Japan: Chousen-eki'(1924) is compiled by Staff headquarters of Imperial Japanese army. ISBN4-19-890265-8 Byouyou 07:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks a lot! ( Wikimachine 18:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
Someone just changed the result of Noryang Battle as "stratgic victory of Japan".
Noryang Point resulted in a Korean and Chinese victory and the Japanese retreat back to Tsushima Island. Good friend100 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Strategic victory of Japan sounds POV to me. ( Wikimachine 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC))
Since the battle was completed by withdrawal of the Japanese fleet, it considers as the victory of the Chinese and Korean conbined navy tactically, but since withdrawal support of the Konishi army which was the purpose of this strategy was attained, it considers as strategic victory of Japan. Byouyou 09:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Good friend100, many sources (including mine) indicate that only 200 Japanese ships were destroyed. ( Wikimachine 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC))
Good friend100, it seems that you don't have the fundamental knowledge about this battle. Konishi Yukinaga had not participated in this battle. The Konishi army was the garrison of Suncheon and retreated safely from Suncheon to Pusan on the next day of this naval battle. The Chinese and Korean combined navy was not able to prevent it. Byouyou 09:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't change the subject. You are wrong about "Japan's victory". I have a good knowledge about the Noryang Point battle. Don't accuse me knowing nothing because I have been rewriting the entire Imjin War article. Also, nearly all the battle articles were stubs, which I have modified into what they are now and I have added the pictures too.
Also, where is the link to the Korean source? As I said before, you don't win by retreating. Japan's objective was to retreat. And they succeeded in doing that but they did not expect Admiral Yi to destroy their fleet.
"Retreated safely from Suncheon to Pusan"? The Korean and Chinese navy did very well to prevent the Japanese from picking up all the soldiers from Busan. That's what happened at the Battle of Noryang Point!
Also, just because it is an English source doesn't mean that it is not as accurate.
Overall, your way of thinking is too literal. That wouldn't happen if you had a "fundamental knowledge" of the Imjin War itself. Good friend100 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
yi sun shin actually won da battle.da guy hu dinks dat da japanese won is a noob and that guy needs knowledge.user:dark-hooded smoker
I think it's a draw. Yi Sun-sin(李瞬臣), the general of the Korean side, was killed by Japanese Navy,and Ming dynasty Deputy general Deng Zilong was also killed by Japanese Navy. Koyasanfish ( talk) 07:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
STOP the edits with the "Japanese victory". That is your own personal opinion and it is not true. Hello????? If you strongly believe that Japan won the Noryang battle, give a source or something. You cannot edit something important, such as the victor, without sufficient sources.
Korea and China won the battle of Noryang Point. Good friend100 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the good guy. seriously, it was a SIGNIFICANT victory for the gooks and the japanese, they THINK it is a victory cause they killed the CO. Odst 05:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What the victory of the battle means? Does it mean the fullfilment of the goals that were settled? If it does, then I see no reason to claim victory for Korean and Chinese fleet. The goal of the Japanese guys was to retreat to Japan. And they managed to do that, despite the heavy causlties. Correct me if I wrong. The goal of the Korean-Chinese forces was to prevent the Japanese retreat. Did they achieved that goal? No. They managed to dammage only the half of the enemys fleet and even lost admiral Yi. So, the Koreans won the war, but the Japanese didnt lose this battle. There was no decisive victory.-- Alex Kov 09:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Alex, you seem to be confusing the terms tactic and strategy. The Japanese "strategy" was to retreat back to japan with their fleet. However, they were forced into battle and lost most of their fleet. So did they accomplish their goals of evacuating their fleet? Their fleet was destroyed in the battle. This was a "tactical" victory for the Korean/Chinese fleet. If you say that 10% of the Japanese ships making it back to Japan is a strategic victory for Japan, then it's a pyrrhic victory at best, and a strategic defeat at worst.
Intranetusa (
talk)
03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is a complete mess and does not meet wiki standards by a long shot. I'm going to completely rewrite it and add reputable references. WangKon936 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A truly accurate figure of casualties on the Japanese side may not be known because the Japanese do a poor job of recording events that were embarrassing to themselves. The Chinese tradition of accurately recording disasters for the benefit of good governance for future generations is a tradition that the Japanese did not follow well. However, the figure of 200 ships sunk and 100 captured is corroborated by Chen Lien's battle report given to the Ming court and in Yu Song Yong's "Book of Corrections." The figure of 15,000 Japanese casualties is my personal estimate based on the number of ships sunk and the total number of Japanese involved in combat. If you take the troop figures for the Shimazu, Tachibana, So and Wakizaka, plus naval personnel, you have about 20,000 men. WangKon936 16:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The Ming fleet had two Korean panokseon ships which were given to them by Yi Soon Shin. These two ships were boarded and destroyed by the Japanese during the battle probably because this was the first time that the Chinese had used the ships in combat and didn't know how to properly implement them and/or probably didn't have the proper weapons on board. Ming commander Deng Zilong was in one of the panokseons and was killed along with the rest of his crew. WangKon936 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have cleaned up a number of minor basic grammatical and stylistic issues, and I think that following WangKon's hard work, the article deserves to be bumped up to B-class. It is well-cited, as neutrally POV as I might expect it to be, covers the topic well with seemingly no major omissions, contains the appropriate and well-filled-out infobox, and has no major grammatical errors. Overall, I must admit, I still think the writing style is somewhat awkward, but it's more than readable enough to be informative. Still needs some work to bring it close to A-class though. Keep up the good work! :) LordAmeth 10:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Korea history has asserted that there were 60,000 Japanese at Noryang. That is simply not true. As I've stated before, only the Left Army remained in Korea in the second half of 1598. The Left army had about 50,000 men and these were divided up in a number of wajo, Konishi having 14,000, Shimazu with about 10,000, Kato with about 12,000, etc., etc. What Shimazu was about to put together was about 18-22,000 men for the battle of Noryang. Konishi was still at Sunch'on at the time and Kato and other Japanese warlords were in Pusan or heading towards Pusan. This has been well documented in Turnbull's book "Samauri Invasions." WangKon936 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There has been a number of edits regarding the size of Japanese forces. None of these edits have any basis from sources. If there are to be edits that are of this magnatude, then it should be discussed here and agreed upon before the edits are done. No one has refuted my statements above, but still the edits continue. If this keeps happening. I will request that this page be locked. WangKon936 02:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[1] Its near the bottom of the link with the 23rd battle as Battle of Noryang and 450 ships sunk. Good friend100 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"The Chinese were having a hard time too. They had to keep their heads down from Japanese arquebuses" The Chinese did not engage in melee combat until later in the battle, not in the beginning. Good friend100 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The Chinese and Korean fleet did not attack the Japanese ships in melee combat until the later half of the battle. This accounts for the minimal casualties of the Korean and Chinese soldiers. The Chinese did not simply rush in before damaging the Japanese fleet with cannons. I changed that part in the article. Good friend100 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There was no melee combat in the very beginning of the battle. How do you think this accounts for only the couple hundred casualties of Admiral Yi and Chen Lin? Its extremely low compared to Japanese casualties because we didn't start melee combat until later in the battle. In the first half, cannon fire and hwachas were used and practically no Korean or Chinese soldier was killed or wounded because of the few cannons the Japanese had and the arquebuses had not enough range. Good friend100 22:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in pushing any good Korea related article to featured article status. I'm considering a peer review first, but I'd like some comments from the other editors who have contributed a lot to this article.
I think that: Pros
Cons
Hey! I don't think Battle of Noryang is ready yet:
( Wikimachine 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
Of course, I'm trying to find a way to expand this article with more information. Good friend100 02:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of today's edits and practically all the inline cites are based on work that I did during the first and second weeks of March. I haven't finished on grammar yet. I've been too busy putting out pointless little fires on Talk|Koguryo. Neither of you guys have been all that helpful in putting inline cites, adding well documented content or freeing up my time at Talk|Koguryo so I can finish my work on Noryang. WangKon936 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't care. You can't just say I didn't do anything but mess around the Goguryeo talk page. Good friend100 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Goodfriend, where did you get info (source) for the following passage?
When the Japanese fleet was significantly damaged, Chen Lin ordered his fleet to engage in melee combat with the Japanese. This, however, allowed the Japanese to use their arquebuses and fight using their traditional fighting style of boarding enemy ships. When Chen Lin's flagship was attacked, Admiral Yi ordered his fleet to engage in hand to hand combat as well.
You don't cite a source. Personally, I don't know if the battle happened in that order. Is it an assertion based on your understanding of how the facts fit or was it from a source that can be cited? As far as I know, the Koreans and Chinese blocked the east end of Noryang together and attacked together. I could be wrong, but let's discover the source that may reflect this. WangKon936 06:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My source came from Samurai Invasion. It clearly says that that Admiral Yi used the same tactic like his other ones by bombarding the Japanese with cannons. Again, I have reasoned that only a couple hundred casualties that Admiral Yi and Chen Lin suffered (as well as all of Admiral Yi's other battles) does not account for the early melee engagement. The Korean and Chinese forces would have suffered far more casualties if that had happened. Good friend100 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, but what about Samuel Hawley's Imjin War? Does it not have info of the Battle of Noryang? Sorry, I don't have the book. Good friend100 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Alex,
I've reverted your changes in this article. The reason for this is because the battle of Noryang was not suppose to block the entire Japanese army from retreat. It's goal, as clearly stated in the article (and carefully derived from numerous reputable sources), was to keep Konishi and Shimazu seperated and do as much damage as possible to Shimazu's fleet. Once Admiral Yi knew that Shimazu was coming to Konishi's aid, he knew that the blockade was untenuable. All Japanese ships linked up in Pusan and left a week after the battle of Noryang and then left for Japan. Nowhere in Admiral Yi's diary or biography is any claim that his goal was to stop all Japanese troops from withdrawing. He was most focused on Konishi's waesong at Sun'chun. WangKon936 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
But we are talking about the casualties and the damage done to each side. And, the Japanese simply could have turned back to Japan instead of doing their rendevous and then call the battle of Noryang their "victory".
We had an issue like this before and its becoming a serious pain in the neck with all these Japanese POV people wailing over this article. Good friend100 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
sorry to disappoint you, but vietnamese suffered more casualties than the chinese.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.63 ( talk) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, good observation, it seems I am very opposed to letting anything in the article that hints that anybody but the Koreans are the true masters and destroyers of the Japanese.
The Japanese were not sailing to Tsushima at the time of the Battle of Noryang. Their objective was to reach Konishi at Sunchon, then retreat to Japan. The Japanese believed they could do this safely by sailing through the strait.
The Japanese wanted to reach Konishi and pick up his troops. The Japanese did not do that! Therefore, they did not complete their objective. Thats a true fact that you can agree to. Good friend100 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're not even trying to listen to me. The Japanese were not heading home as they were going through the Noryang strait. They were trying to run the blockade and meet with Konishi. Could you show the sources that mention the battle as a Japanese victory?
All my sources state that the battle was a Korean victory. It should also be noted that Admiral Yi is often compared with Lord Nelson, where as each commander died, their victory was secured. Good friend100 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this article can be moved to GA status. Thoughts? WangKon936 ( talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The battle of Noryang didn't "decide" anything. It does not fit in the description of a " decisive" victory as defined in wiki. WangKon936 ( talk) 20:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"It took place in the early morning of 16 December (19 November in the Lunar calendar) 1598 and ended past dawn."
This is a fairly nonsensical statement. If 16 December 1598 is the date in some "non-lunar" calendar, presumably the European one, it may be necessary to clarify what calendar that may be.... the Julian calendar, or the retrospective Gregorian calendar ?
As for 19 November in the "lunar calendar", which Lunar Calendar ? As far as I understand it, the traditional chinese calendar has no comprehensible equivalent for "November", and none of the other obvious "lunar" calendars do, either.
Ming and Korea aimed to prevent the withdrawal of Yukinaga Konishi's army, but they failed to do so and lost various generals such as Deng Zilong and Yi Sun Shin. On the other hand, Japan succeeded in the withdrawal of Yukinaga Konishi, which was the original purpose, without losing any general-class personnel, although it suffered considerable damage. There are discrepancies in the history books about the losses of both armies, and I don't think it should be described as a victory for one or the other. Therefore, it should be described as "withdrawal of Japanese Navy". -- たたたたたたたたったポンタ ( talk) 23:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 16, 2005, December 16, 2006, December 16, 2008, December 16, 2009, December 16, 2012, December 16, 2014, December 16, 2015, December 16, 2019, and December 16, 2023. |
As far as I remember, when I read his biography,
in his diary, he said that Won Kyun left only 12 ships after his defeat.
Doesn't this mean that 333 ships were defeated by only 12?
Just wondering. ( Wikimachine 02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC))
Good friend100 13:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, after myungryang , the fleet rebuilt, and refitted to 100 ships. 80 were panoksun, and the remaining 20 were hastily militarized fishing boats Odst 05:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Admiral Yi never destroyed 333 ships with 13 at Myeongnyang. He sunk 30 ships and damaged many others in that battle. In Noryang, Yi rebuilt his fleet to 130 some odd ships and was augmented by the Ming Chinese fleet. WangKon936 05:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that somebody is playing pranks on English articles about Korea by purposely putting grammar and spelling mistakes on them. There are so many mistakes that so obvious. I hope that all of you other Wikipedians take close look at Korean articles for any improper changes in such manner.
Take a look at this sentence:
"Shimazu and Konishi ordered the Japanese troops scaled Chinese ships."
It makes no sense at all. ( Wikimachine 23:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC))
Lol,
I think Yi Sun Shin got a gunshot in the heart by the Japanese Commanders in the battle.I estimated how many Koreans died in the battle and my answer was:270 Koreans,including Yi Sun Shin(271 total),and no turtle ships was sunk.
it's not important. apparently, someone needs to repeat grammar school. leave him alone. Odst 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This contribution has much wrong description. Especially the Konishi army has not participated in this battle. Furthermore, the result of this battle is based only on Korean record, and is exaggerated. Although it is known that South Koreans are not studying the world history in school, isn't even the objective history of its own country studied? It is a self-satisfied illusion to compare this battle to the Battle of Trafalgar. Byouyou 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
>Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson and Koreans in Wikipedia
>It seems that Koreans are appearing in the most unlikely places trying to insert Korean nationalist issues into Wikipedia with Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson being compared unfavorably to the little known Korean naval hero, Yi Sun Shin.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=255
E Sun shin was the greatest Admiral of all time.
http://www.koreanhero.net/en/NationalHeroOfKorea.htm
Take a look at the chart at the bottom. The record speaks for itself.
"Admiral Yi’s expertise on naval strategy is apparent in the fact that his successor Won Gyun, even with all of Admiral Yi’s ships and trained crew, could not defeat an enemy fleet of similar might."
The E Sun shin article on Wikipedia says it perfectly. Almost the entire Korean Navy was destroyed under Won Kyun's command yet E Sun shin defeated the japs with the twelve ships that escaped plus his flagship.
http://www.koreanhero.net/en/WarDiary.htm
"Because these records were written by a man of strict integrity, who lived in a society where the progression of the war was reported meticulously to the king by his overseers, they provide trustworthy accounts of the events of the battles and are free from the exaggerations and inaccuracies so typical of historical records of wars."
Of course Admiral E never recorded the result of Noryang Point as he was killed but the other records are trustworthy. Taeguk Warrior 02:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is true.
http://www.faber.co.uk/book_detail.html?bid=11411.
So, I removed the section on Trafalgar of the East. It refers to a Japanese battle much later in course of history.
(
Wikimachine
15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)) I deleted it.
My two sense is that Noryang is not like Trafalgar in a tactical or strategic sense. It is like Trafalgar in a sense that a national hero died in his last battle in the last victory. Field Marshall Monty Montgomery himself said that Admiral Yi died like Admiral Nelson. WangKon936 05:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/s2.html
This source sites that Shimazu Yoshihiro did not participate in the Battle of Noryang. ( Wikimachine 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC))
http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/st.html
This source does not mention Tachibana Munishige participating in this battle. ( Wikimachine 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC))
Since this battle was not important for Shimazu Yosihiro and Tachibana Muneshige, it is natural that there is no mention in that site. The Shimazu army was the main force in this battle, and the Tachibana army had followed it. Byouyou 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Could anybody provide reference/source? thanks. ( Wikimachine 22:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC))
Although fundamental reference is 'Seikanroku'(1671), ' War history of Japan: Chousen-eki'(1924) is known widely in Japan. I don't know English references, sorry.
'Seikanroku'(1671) is the official record of this Korean campaign by Shimazu family.
'War history of Japan: Chousen-eki'(1924) is compiled by Staff headquarters of Imperial Japanese army. ISBN4-19-890265-8 Byouyou 07:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks a lot! ( Wikimachine 18:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
Someone just changed the result of Noryang Battle as "stratgic victory of Japan".
Noryang Point resulted in a Korean and Chinese victory and the Japanese retreat back to Tsushima Island. Good friend100 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Strategic victory of Japan sounds POV to me. ( Wikimachine 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC))
Since the battle was completed by withdrawal of the Japanese fleet, it considers as the victory of the Chinese and Korean conbined navy tactically, but since withdrawal support of the Konishi army which was the purpose of this strategy was attained, it considers as strategic victory of Japan. Byouyou 09:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Good friend100, many sources (including mine) indicate that only 200 Japanese ships were destroyed. ( Wikimachine 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC))
Good friend100, it seems that you don't have the fundamental knowledge about this battle. Konishi Yukinaga had not participated in this battle. The Konishi army was the garrison of Suncheon and retreated safely from Suncheon to Pusan on the next day of this naval battle. The Chinese and Korean combined navy was not able to prevent it. Byouyou 09:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't change the subject. You are wrong about "Japan's victory". I have a good knowledge about the Noryang Point battle. Don't accuse me knowing nothing because I have been rewriting the entire Imjin War article. Also, nearly all the battle articles were stubs, which I have modified into what they are now and I have added the pictures too.
Also, where is the link to the Korean source? As I said before, you don't win by retreating. Japan's objective was to retreat. And they succeeded in doing that but they did not expect Admiral Yi to destroy their fleet.
"Retreated safely from Suncheon to Pusan"? The Korean and Chinese navy did very well to prevent the Japanese from picking up all the soldiers from Busan. That's what happened at the Battle of Noryang Point!
Also, just because it is an English source doesn't mean that it is not as accurate.
Overall, your way of thinking is too literal. That wouldn't happen if you had a "fundamental knowledge" of the Imjin War itself. Good friend100 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
yi sun shin actually won da battle.da guy hu dinks dat da japanese won is a noob and that guy needs knowledge.user:dark-hooded smoker
I think it's a draw. Yi Sun-sin(李瞬臣), the general of the Korean side, was killed by Japanese Navy,and Ming dynasty Deputy general Deng Zilong was also killed by Japanese Navy. Koyasanfish ( talk) 07:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
STOP the edits with the "Japanese victory". That is your own personal opinion and it is not true. Hello????? If you strongly believe that Japan won the Noryang battle, give a source or something. You cannot edit something important, such as the victor, without sufficient sources.
Korea and China won the battle of Noryang Point. Good friend100 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the good guy. seriously, it was a SIGNIFICANT victory for the gooks and the japanese, they THINK it is a victory cause they killed the CO. Odst 05:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What the victory of the battle means? Does it mean the fullfilment of the goals that were settled? If it does, then I see no reason to claim victory for Korean and Chinese fleet. The goal of the Japanese guys was to retreat to Japan. And they managed to do that, despite the heavy causlties. Correct me if I wrong. The goal of the Korean-Chinese forces was to prevent the Japanese retreat. Did they achieved that goal? No. They managed to dammage only the half of the enemys fleet and even lost admiral Yi. So, the Koreans won the war, but the Japanese didnt lose this battle. There was no decisive victory.-- Alex Kov 09:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Alex, you seem to be confusing the terms tactic and strategy. The Japanese "strategy" was to retreat back to japan with their fleet. However, they were forced into battle and lost most of their fleet. So did they accomplish their goals of evacuating their fleet? Their fleet was destroyed in the battle. This was a "tactical" victory for the Korean/Chinese fleet. If you say that 10% of the Japanese ships making it back to Japan is a strategic victory for Japan, then it's a pyrrhic victory at best, and a strategic defeat at worst.
Intranetusa (
talk)
03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is a complete mess and does not meet wiki standards by a long shot. I'm going to completely rewrite it and add reputable references. WangKon936 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A truly accurate figure of casualties on the Japanese side may not be known because the Japanese do a poor job of recording events that were embarrassing to themselves. The Chinese tradition of accurately recording disasters for the benefit of good governance for future generations is a tradition that the Japanese did not follow well. However, the figure of 200 ships sunk and 100 captured is corroborated by Chen Lien's battle report given to the Ming court and in Yu Song Yong's "Book of Corrections." The figure of 15,000 Japanese casualties is my personal estimate based on the number of ships sunk and the total number of Japanese involved in combat. If you take the troop figures for the Shimazu, Tachibana, So and Wakizaka, plus naval personnel, you have about 20,000 men. WangKon936 16:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The Ming fleet had two Korean panokseon ships which were given to them by Yi Soon Shin. These two ships were boarded and destroyed by the Japanese during the battle probably because this was the first time that the Chinese had used the ships in combat and didn't know how to properly implement them and/or probably didn't have the proper weapons on board. Ming commander Deng Zilong was in one of the panokseons and was killed along with the rest of his crew. WangKon936 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have cleaned up a number of minor basic grammatical and stylistic issues, and I think that following WangKon's hard work, the article deserves to be bumped up to B-class. It is well-cited, as neutrally POV as I might expect it to be, covers the topic well with seemingly no major omissions, contains the appropriate and well-filled-out infobox, and has no major grammatical errors. Overall, I must admit, I still think the writing style is somewhat awkward, but it's more than readable enough to be informative. Still needs some work to bring it close to A-class though. Keep up the good work! :) LordAmeth 10:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Korea history has asserted that there were 60,000 Japanese at Noryang. That is simply not true. As I've stated before, only the Left Army remained in Korea in the second half of 1598. The Left army had about 50,000 men and these were divided up in a number of wajo, Konishi having 14,000, Shimazu with about 10,000, Kato with about 12,000, etc., etc. What Shimazu was about to put together was about 18-22,000 men for the battle of Noryang. Konishi was still at Sunch'on at the time and Kato and other Japanese warlords were in Pusan or heading towards Pusan. This has been well documented in Turnbull's book "Samauri Invasions." WangKon936 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There has been a number of edits regarding the size of Japanese forces. None of these edits have any basis from sources. If there are to be edits that are of this magnatude, then it should be discussed here and agreed upon before the edits are done. No one has refuted my statements above, but still the edits continue. If this keeps happening. I will request that this page be locked. WangKon936 02:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[1] Its near the bottom of the link with the 23rd battle as Battle of Noryang and 450 ships sunk. Good friend100 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"The Chinese were having a hard time too. They had to keep their heads down from Japanese arquebuses" The Chinese did not engage in melee combat until later in the battle, not in the beginning. Good friend100 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The Chinese and Korean fleet did not attack the Japanese ships in melee combat until the later half of the battle. This accounts for the minimal casualties of the Korean and Chinese soldiers. The Chinese did not simply rush in before damaging the Japanese fleet with cannons. I changed that part in the article. Good friend100 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There was no melee combat in the very beginning of the battle. How do you think this accounts for only the couple hundred casualties of Admiral Yi and Chen Lin? Its extremely low compared to Japanese casualties because we didn't start melee combat until later in the battle. In the first half, cannon fire and hwachas were used and practically no Korean or Chinese soldier was killed or wounded because of the few cannons the Japanese had and the arquebuses had not enough range. Good friend100 22:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in pushing any good Korea related article to featured article status. I'm considering a peer review first, but I'd like some comments from the other editors who have contributed a lot to this article.
I think that: Pros
Cons
Hey! I don't think Battle of Noryang is ready yet:
( Wikimachine 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
Of course, I'm trying to find a way to expand this article with more information. Good friend100 02:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of today's edits and practically all the inline cites are based on work that I did during the first and second weeks of March. I haven't finished on grammar yet. I've been too busy putting out pointless little fires on Talk|Koguryo. Neither of you guys have been all that helpful in putting inline cites, adding well documented content or freeing up my time at Talk|Koguryo so I can finish my work on Noryang. WangKon936 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't care. You can't just say I didn't do anything but mess around the Goguryeo talk page. Good friend100 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Goodfriend, where did you get info (source) for the following passage?
When the Japanese fleet was significantly damaged, Chen Lin ordered his fleet to engage in melee combat with the Japanese. This, however, allowed the Japanese to use their arquebuses and fight using their traditional fighting style of boarding enemy ships. When Chen Lin's flagship was attacked, Admiral Yi ordered his fleet to engage in hand to hand combat as well.
You don't cite a source. Personally, I don't know if the battle happened in that order. Is it an assertion based on your understanding of how the facts fit or was it from a source that can be cited? As far as I know, the Koreans and Chinese blocked the east end of Noryang together and attacked together. I could be wrong, but let's discover the source that may reflect this. WangKon936 06:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My source came from Samurai Invasion. It clearly says that that Admiral Yi used the same tactic like his other ones by bombarding the Japanese with cannons. Again, I have reasoned that only a couple hundred casualties that Admiral Yi and Chen Lin suffered (as well as all of Admiral Yi's other battles) does not account for the early melee engagement. The Korean and Chinese forces would have suffered far more casualties if that had happened. Good friend100 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, but what about Samuel Hawley's Imjin War? Does it not have info of the Battle of Noryang? Sorry, I don't have the book. Good friend100 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Alex,
I've reverted your changes in this article. The reason for this is because the battle of Noryang was not suppose to block the entire Japanese army from retreat. It's goal, as clearly stated in the article (and carefully derived from numerous reputable sources), was to keep Konishi and Shimazu seperated and do as much damage as possible to Shimazu's fleet. Once Admiral Yi knew that Shimazu was coming to Konishi's aid, he knew that the blockade was untenuable. All Japanese ships linked up in Pusan and left a week after the battle of Noryang and then left for Japan. Nowhere in Admiral Yi's diary or biography is any claim that his goal was to stop all Japanese troops from withdrawing. He was most focused on Konishi's waesong at Sun'chun. WangKon936 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
But we are talking about the casualties and the damage done to each side. And, the Japanese simply could have turned back to Japan instead of doing their rendevous and then call the battle of Noryang their "victory".
We had an issue like this before and its becoming a serious pain in the neck with all these Japanese POV people wailing over this article. Good friend100 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
sorry to disappoint you, but vietnamese suffered more casualties than the chinese.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.63 ( talk) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, good observation, it seems I am very opposed to letting anything in the article that hints that anybody but the Koreans are the true masters and destroyers of the Japanese.
The Japanese were not sailing to Tsushima at the time of the Battle of Noryang. Their objective was to reach Konishi at Sunchon, then retreat to Japan. The Japanese believed they could do this safely by sailing through the strait.
The Japanese wanted to reach Konishi and pick up his troops. The Japanese did not do that! Therefore, they did not complete their objective. Thats a true fact that you can agree to. Good friend100 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're not even trying to listen to me. The Japanese were not heading home as they were going through the Noryang strait. They were trying to run the blockade and meet with Konishi. Could you show the sources that mention the battle as a Japanese victory?
All my sources state that the battle was a Korean victory. It should also be noted that Admiral Yi is often compared with Lord Nelson, where as each commander died, their victory was secured. Good friend100 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this article can be moved to GA status. Thoughts? WangKon936 ( talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The battle of Noryang didn't "decide" anything. It does not fit in the description of a " decisive" victory as defined in wiki. WangKon936 ( talk) 20:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"It took place in the early morning of 16 December (19 November in the Lunar calendar) 1598 and ended past dawn."
This is a fairly nonsensical statement. If 16 December 1598 is the date in some "non-lunar" calendar, presumably the European one, it may be necessary to clarify what calendar that may be.... the Julian calendar, or the retrospective Gregorian calendar ?
As for 19 November in the "lunar calendar", which Lunar Calendar ? As far as I understand it, the traditional chinese calendar has no comprehensible equivalent for "November", and none of the other obvious "lunar" calendars do, either.
Ming and Korea aimed to prevent the withdrawal of Yukinaga Konishi's army, but they failed to do so and lost various generals such as Deng Zilong and Yi Sun Shin. On the other hand, Japan succeeded in the withdrawal of Yukinaga Konishi, which was the original purpose, without losing any general-class personnel, although it suffered considerable damage. There are discrepancies in the history books about the losses of both armies, and I don't think it should be described as a victory for one or the other. Therefore, it should be described as "withdrawal of Japanese Navy". -- たたたたたたたたったポンタ ( talk) 23:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)