Final note on invasions

By Mark Peterson

The frog-in-the-well view of Korean history is that Korea has been invaded multiple times by multiple nations. This frog ― from outside the well ― has a different point of view.

And I am not alone. There are other foreign scholars, and more and more young Korean scholars who are starting to view Korean history in the way I am suggesting. But in the wider public, still the idea of victimization, still the idea of multiple invasions persists.

In previous columns, I have argued that prior to the chaotic 20th century, there were really only two major invasions ― that of the Mongols in the 1230s and that of the Japanese in the 1590s. I argued that the Japanese “invasion” of 1894 or of 1910 was very different from that of 1592 in that the enemy was China, not Korea, though the fighting was on Korean soil.

The invasions of the Korean War were lethal and destructive, but were not technically foreign invasions. Korea was victimized, but not directly by foreign powers, although we can argue that the North-South fighting was spurred by the greater powers of the “Cold War.”

This leaves two timeframes left for argumentation. The unification wars of the seventh century and the reunification wars of the 10th century. Certainly, the warfare that led to the unification was widespread and devastating, but let's quickly point out that if the question is how many foreign invasions has Korea suffered, there were none during the unification or the reunification wars ― Silla, Baekje, Goguryeo were all Korean kingdoms fighting among themselves.

If you are of the mindset that there were multiple foreign invasions, you might want to call Baekje and Goguryeo “foreign” countries, but if you are looking for a new approach ― the frog outside of the well ― an approach with few invasions ― you will say Silla, Baekje and Goguryeo were all Korean kingdoms, not foreign powers.

There are some questions about China's interaction with the Three Kingdoms. First is the series of invasions, seven in all, by two successive Chinese dynasties, Sui and then Tang, against Goguryeo.

The thing that I want to emphasize about these invasions was that Goguryeo won ― they repelled each and every invasion. None of these invasions was successful by any measure. That's important because, rather than feeding the “multiple invasion” syndrome, this is the “powerful Korea” syndrome ― Korea won each of those wars.

And it was Three Kingdoms Korea, meaning that only one-third of Korea defeated the mightiest of Chinese dynasties. In fact, it was the failed invasion attempts of the Sui Dynasty (581-618), that led to its downfall. Sui, though short-lived, was a mighty dynasty that unified China after centuries of disunity, yet, it could not conquer Goguryeo.

And the Tang Dynasty, after succeeding the Sui, was a long-lived dynasty, one of the most powerful of Chinese history, yet, it could not conquer Goguryeo by itself.

The key factor in the unification of Korea by Silla was indeed the role of China, of the Tang Dynasty. But it was not China's invasion attempt ― failed invasion attempt ― that made the difference. It was the diplomatic factor ― Silla initiated an alliance with Tang ― that led to the defeat of Goguryeo, and the unification of Korea.

Was that an invasion by China? Well, if you are the frog-in-the-well and see multiple invasions, then, yes. But if you look at it the way I'm suggesting ― that of the frog outside of the well ― Tang's intervention in the Three Kingdoms warfare was as an ally ― in an alliance with Silla. And Silla initiated the alliance.

China's “invasion” was at the invitation of the Korean kingdom of Silla. In the narrative of the frog-in-the-well, this is just another unprovoked invasion by a hostile China, but this overlooks the nuance of the political situation of the time ― and that makes all the difference, from my point of view.

The Tang-Silla alliance turned sour after their victory over Baekje and Goguryeo, as is often the case with allies ― they turn on each other to fight over the spoils they have won. And indeed, Tang armies and Silla armies fought each other. Those who like to find “invasions” will probably count this as another invasion, but from my point of view we shouldn't count this as a new invasion ― remember, the Chinese were in Korea because they were invited in by Silla.

The warfare between Silla and Tang quickly fell into stalemate. The Silla forces proved formidable, and Tang left after securing a pledge from Silla to join the Chinese tribute system. Some see that as a defeat, but the tribute system of China was not like that of other countries. It was a privilege to pay tribute to China, and China reciprocated with goods in return ― thus, we refer to the Chinese system as “tribute trade.”

Korea therefore set up a peaceful relationship with China and indeed continued to import Chinese cultural items such as Buddhism and Confucianism and Chinese literacy ― things that would have a marked impact of Korea for centuries thereafter.

From the perspective of the frog from outside the well, these were positive contributions to Korean culture, not the product of defeat from a Chinese “invasion.”

Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is associate professor of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.