Wargames Factory designs and manufactures an exceptional range of hard plastic miniatures for wargaming, collecting and painting
HalberKill wrote:They have Korean subjugated warrior heads in addition to the standard Mongol heads on the sprue. The Koreans are the ones with the cloth head coverings in the picture below, which is an actual drawing from that time. The Mongols have those fur hats, and the Japanese are kicking the butt on a horse.mrinku wrote:I'd have to see the models in the flesh, but the Steppe Warriors don't look very Korean to me.mrinku wrote:The armour is quite different and no-one does them in 28mm plastic that I know of.
The make up of the armor was different, but the basic look was the same. The biggest difference is the helmets, which I got a set of metal heads with those helmets from somewhere.
Luoshangzhi wrote:There is nothing to haggle about any further. The simple fact remains is that the Ming Chinese intervention in the land war was strategically significant and tipped the balance fully away from the Japanese in a manner that on the evidence the Koreans might not have accomplished on their own despite their naval superiority.
Luoshangzhi wrote:bvandewalker wrote:As to the truth of Ming and Japanese accounts in that war, this is Asian history we are talking about you have to look at and incorporate all sides to get a real sense of what was going on, not just two, because everyone lies to save face in Asia (particularly the Chinese and Japanese ), and Turnbull really shouldn’t be your main authority when it comes to researching events
Really? Actually, if my own anecdotal experiences are any guide, everyone in the Far East does not lie to save face, and who exactly said Dr. Turnbull was my main or only source? And how is Turnbull in error other than perhaps his building a career out of being a recognized non-Asian (Western) historian on Feudal Japanese warfare? I happen to be an academic, trained researcher and source analyst, and was the person who provided the research behind WF's Rising Sun figure sets among other projects, just a friendly FYI. My sources range from the primary to the tertiary, from the Japanese to the Korean to the Ming Chinese. If I did anything less, I wouldn't be doing my freakin' job not to put too fine a point on the matter...
Luoshangzhi wrote: So Swope stated up front why he was relying upon Chinese source materials including primary source materials but not exclusively, and stated his scholarly credentials and perspectives no less clearly, one cannot fault him for "daring" to tread the scholarly road less traveled by those with partisan agendas.
Luoshangzhi wrote: The simple fact remains is that the Ming Chinese intervention in the land war was strategically significant and tipped the balance fully away from the Japanese in a manner that on the evidence the Koreans might not have accomplished on their own despite their naval superiority. Caught between the rock of the Korean navy and the hard place of Ming superiority in siegecraft and artillery coupled to stiffening Korean resistance particularly asymmetric warfare, the Japanese position became increasingly untenable both strategically and operationally.
Luoshangzhi wrote: Like WW2, the Imjin War was not so much won by a single participant, but by an allied coalition with strategic components of the constituent members each contributing to the final victory. Ming participation was instrumental in driving the Japanese out of the North and back to their coastal strongpoints, and put the writing on the wall as to what was to inevitably come if the Japanese didn't eventually withdraw from Korea.
Second, not to sound too much like 1classybadger, but their body armor for regular foot troops couldn’t even handle Japanese arrows let alone bullets, the best armor they had was chainmail and that was exclusively for officers. The normal troops wore either padded armor or leather armor, which makes them about as good as light cannon fodder (except slower) even their cavalry was lightly armored (from what I have heard the Koreans army had better armor at the beginning of the war), now with the right numbers and/or tactics (hit and run) one can do some amazing work with such a force, but from the records its clear the Ming had neither.
Imho wrote:So in short Ming ground troops are about as important to the Imejin as Hessians are to the AWI
Thanx for the extensive explanation why plastic chinese should be produced, just like Hessians.
Lealand that is haggling over the details, since one of us has to be an adult I am replying here where it will be constructive (at least keep thread going), first off yes they dressed very similarly:
bvandewalker wrote:And assuming that they that looked the same is more from the fact that they were both medieval armies from nations that share strong trade relations and are in close proximity to one another, in the rest of the world at the time armies that shared one or more of those traits often did look pretty much the same with the exception of color preference and funny hats (at most). The fact that Ming and the Koreans are not even more similar in appearance is frankly odd. (Although it might be because the Ming were snobs who relied in inferior padded and leather armor and were too proud to upgrade ).
bvandewalker wrote:Your right, they don’t all lie about everything, but when it comes to government sanctioned histories or the letters about current events of the time written by politicians (basically anything written for or by the Asian nobility/politicians/officials) is deeply colored at best at worst they are lies (mostly of the half-truth, ignore truth, official cover up verities). Often this is either to save face (sometimes on a national level) or make political opponents look bad.
bvandewalker wrote:To be fair western historical accounts of Europe at are often guilty of this too at times, however the Asian accounts tend to suffer from this even more so and usually at least one additional issue or another when it comes credibility but we will come to that a bit later.
The reason Why Turnbull shouldn’t be a main research source in a serious study has nothing to do with him being a westerner. I didn’t say Bryant or Swop were bad sources now did I and they are both westerners.
No the real reason I don’t view Turnbull as good source was that when I first began to take a serious study of the Imeijn war I heard conflicting reports about his accuracy on the subject he is expert in that varied from mild praise to harsh criticism by both western and eastern experts. (Even some of the books I came across that sited him as a source had things to say, not all of them good ).
bvandewalker wrote:Now don’t get me wrong, when it comes to costumes, armor and weapons he is a great source (so using him as info for miniatures is just fine, and thank ever so much for doing that), but when it comes to the actual story of history he fails the “separate myth from fact” test for some things (for me that puts him in the “interesting but not to be relied upon heavily source when doing papers” box, I am harsh that way ).Plus he kind of picks sides a bit too much .
bvandewalker wrote:And, while I don’t care as much about it, some snobs think he needs to work on his medieval Japanese a bit more before writing stuff down like names and job titles (apparently samurai is a purely masculine word, so there really are no female samurai due to syntax ). But you don’t have to take my word for it:
http://www.theshogunshouse.com/2010/11/ ... bulls.html
bvandewalker wrote:Also, if Turnbull isn’t a main source for you than you could’ve fooled me. Your web list have practically all of his books up to that point in time you posted it and then praise him as “Something of legend in the subject Japan’s Feudal past” (which when it comes to costumes and weapons is true).
http://blackwidowpilot.blogspot.com/201 ... rence.html
bvandewalker wrote:Leland, Leland, the reason nobody used the Ming court documents as main source before probably isn’t just because of researcher bias, but also because the Ming court documents themselves are partisan agendas to either further various schemes of Ming court officials of the time they were written (typical) or in support of Ming’s own overarching “Ming is better than all the rest of you and is the center of the world, we should rule the world we are so awesome mwahahaha!” view point (just like every other Chinese dynasty before and after them… plus the French*).
Add to this that the Ming dynasty probably burned any real evidence that countered the latter view that they could get their hands on and you can see why I am skeptical of their records. The French tend to draw the line at book burning and purging history, but traditionally the Chinese governments just do it whenever the head mucky muck(s) says to for the sake unity (that is China’s big issue as a source).
The main problem with Swop as a source is that he can’t read Korean.This keeps him from analyzing the only accounts of that war that might actually be reliable since the Koreans had an educated peasant population who could leave written accounts from an average, albeit slightly nationalistic, Joe’s perspective (thank you hangul). If those were written and didn’t all get burned in WW2 or something equally stupid, than someone on our side of the pond needs to check them out and translate them.
Also he seemed a bit too focused on making the Imejin out to be “the first great Asian war” totally missing the fact that the Chinese warring states period was Asia’s HYW and involved multiple countries, many of which are now part of china but still retain their ethnic identity and dialects to this day.
bvandewalker wrote:Based what I have read (including Swop), “superior” Ming siegecraft led to little more than a few interesting stalemates (best described as pyrrhic victories for the Japanese since the attackers turned tail) early on and maybe added to the successful mop up later. this seems pretty accurate for a couple of reasons.
bvandewalker wrote:First even if they had the best tech of all three combatants at all levels (which they did not have, more on that), for any successful attack against a fortified position at that time they would need something like 10 attackers for every defender (even with the best artillery available at the time).
Now the real number of Ming troops in Korea at any given point in the war is unknown (like most things from before the info age ), the Wikipedia alone has a hard time on that (one section estimate no more than 60,000 at any given time, while other sections go higher than that and I believe I have heard even lower estimates), however all the accounts I have read (with views from all three nations) viewed the land forces sent by Ming at all times as being much smaller than the number of combatants fielded by both the Koreans and Japanese by either tens or hundreds of thousands depending on what numbers you want to believe. (Well under a hundred thousand at any given point).
This means that one of two things needed to happened for them to have even pulled off any siege victories: 1 their land forces always moved as a solid group (highly unlikely given records and the logistics), 2 they got tons of help in the form of Korean troops and guerrillas (which means you are putting the cart before the horse).
bvandewalker wrote:Second, not to sound too much like 1classybadger, but their body armor for regular foot troops couldn’t even handle Japanese arrows let alone bullets, the best armor they had was chainmail and that was exclusively for officers. The normal troops wore either padded armor or leather armor, which makes them about as good as light cannon fodder (except slower) even their cavalry was lightly armored (from what I have heard the Koreans army had better armor at the beginning of the war), now with the right numbers and/or tactics (hit and run) one can do some amazing work with such a force, but from the records its clear the Ming had neither.
bvandewalker wrote:Third tech wise the Ming were still relying on match cord guns on sticks for the bulk of their infantry firearms (they were a century or two behind the Japanese when it came to guns). As to cannons, they may have had the world’s best artillery, but I clearly remember my college world hist text book stating that towards end of their empire the Ming abandoned the use and development of field cannons, probably immediately after the war, which suggests that they may have ditched them because they performed poorly in Korea.
Of course the text book could be (probably is) wrong on that, still cannons at that time were more like can openers than the devastating field weapons we know today** when it came to siege warfare and if said can is full of carnivorous worms armed with katana, well.
bvandewalker wrote:The Ming did have fire arrows, rockets, and other more exotic gunpowder weapons but their part in the war didn’t seem to turn the tide when it came to the land war.
bvandewalker wrote:Fourth, the Ming empire was kind of falling apart internally at the time due to an unwieldy (if not corrupt) bureaucratic civil government that ran everything including the army. Ming officials were back set driving the Ming army the entire war, and they weren’t terribly competent at it since they were known for rewarding generals who committed war crimes (against their own allies no less) while at the same time accusing commanders who were actually getting stuff done of treason.
Quite frankly it is amazing they had an empire still yet alone played as big a role as any of the records say they did.
bvandewalker wrote:The Imjin War was more like Vietnam than WW2, it was a war attrition won (sort off, it was a really hollow victory ) by clever to overwhelming naval tactics and constant hit and run guerrilla fighting on the part of the allies, not field or siege craft on the part of the Ming who were more instrumental in the later naval battles than they ever were in the land battle.
bvandewalker wrote:They did put a cavalry on the table that succeeded in getting a goodish stalemate at one point, but that’s all they accomplished with it. The Ming did participate in few larger siege in a big way but those can be at best be described as stale mates (in both cases something caused the allies to retreat and then the Japanese would abandoned the fortress, and everyone agrees on that) and in those cases they had tons Korean Irregulars to back them up.
bvandewalker wrote:As to sieges by the Allies, there were successful ones, but those were much smaller and where carried out by Korean guerrillas towards the end (if anything was writing on the wall in the land war it was that). Both the Japanese and Koreans mention Korean forces and guerrillas a lot but the only mention Ming foot troops in any detail at the successful sieges (or at all for that matter) is by the Ming themselves, so while they may have been there it wasn’t in great numbers and they certainly weren’t key to victory in any. The key things Ming provided to the land war (that actually did any good) were tactical advisors/drill instructors in the form of Ming generals and financial aid.
bvandewalker wrote:So in short Ming ground troops are about as important to the Imejin as Hessians are to the AWI
bvandewalker wrote:...and all this nonsense aside everyone knows that the greatest traditional enemy of the samurai are ninja (even historically that is the case) and pirates, not the Ming.
bvandewalker wrote:*pretty much all of East Asian history is deeply colored by a level of nationalistic pride that is best compared to that held by the French. Quite frankly I would not be too surprised if they were somehow related way back in prehistory.
bvandewalker wrote:**to my knowledge cannonballs didn’t really explode and grapeshot wasn’t even invented yet.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests