By Mark Peterson
I've written about this previously, but the more I think about it, and work on it, I find new dimensions to the idea.
Almost all the Korean dynasties, even the earliest ones, run five or six hundred years. There are no short-lived or failed dynasties. Even the Gaya Kingdom, although it can be argued that it lacked a centralized, fully developed state, ran 500 years.
There are problems with the starting dates of all these early dynasties. Depending on when the six eggs came down from heaven for Gaya, or when the horse brought the egg for Silla ― and other myths for the other dynasties ― leaves more questions than answers. But the archaeology supports the ideas with artifacts that show an early founding of the respective dynasties. And the ruling structure of those early dynasties seems to have taken hold in about the time frame of the myths.
Yes, there are some short-lived groups, the Ye, the Maek and some others, but they were probably tribal groups that never became "states" with a stable king and other factors defining a state. The states that developed, even early on, all claim a history of 500 years or more. Goguryeo and Baekje claim nearly 700 years. And of course, the winner, Silla, claims nearly 1,000 years of dynastic rule.
There is really nothing like this in other places ― there is a part of India that claims a 1,000-year dynasty. And the Japanese, of course, have an unbroken line of their emperor running close to 2,000 years (with some healthy mythology at the outset). But the real power was in the rotating hands of the shoguns, the shogunate that functioned like dynasties in other parts of the world. And each shogunate lasted around 250 years ― Heian 391 years; Tokugawa 267 years, Ashikaga 237 years and Kamakura 148 years.
Chinese dynasties, after the mythological dynasties that did run long ― close to 1,000 years ― tended to last 250 years. The two earliest dynasties had mythological origins ― the Shang (Yin) and Zhou (Chou) were 525 and 789 years. The Han Dynasty, a 400-year period, fell apart in the middle and then revived, making it really two, 200-year dynasties back to back. Thereafter, there were periods of disunity and chaos before a new central dynasty emerged. Tang was 319 years, Ming 276 years and Qing 268 years.
European dynasties are not nearly as long-running as the Asian examples. The longest dynasty in England was the Plantagenet at 245 years; in Germany, the Habsburgs at 302; in France, the Capet at 341.
Egypt has a long list of dynasties ― 31, of which the longest was 275 years. The Ottoman dynasty of Turkey lasted 621 years. The Roman Empire lasted 313 years, and its successor, the Byzantine Empire, lasted a little over 1,000 years. This brings up the "Holy Roman Empire" of Europe after the fall of Rome, but it was fractured by numerous smaller dynasties and changes of borders, such that it is difficult to list one dynasty of any significant length.
Therefore, in light of other countries, Korea, with its long dynasties, really stands out: Silla 992 years; Baekje 678 years; Goguryeo 705 years; Goryeo 474 years and Joseon 518 years. It's really an impressive list of long-lived dynasties. We can even claim Buyeo, which was close to 600 years. And considering the aristocracy of Buyeo became the aristocracy of Goguryeo, that makes another 1,000-year dynasty, and may have been the connection to the Baekje Kingdom ― making another 1,000-year dynasty.
What does it mean? The conclusion I draw, one at least, is that there is a propensity toward stability and even peace on the Korean Peninsula. Was it because Korea is a peninsula and has fewer natural neighbors and enemies? Is it because of early ruling ideology, such as the Dangun message of "hongik ingan" ― "spread benefits to the people?" Or is it because of Buddhism and its roots in "ahimsa" ― non-violence? Is it because of Confucianism and its ideas of benevolence and goodness? Is it because of all these factors?
Whatever the reasons, the results are astounding. Long and stable ― despite some warfare, particularly during the late Three Kingdoms Period ― Korean dynasties were relatively peaceful, especially when compared with other countries.
Don't buy into the Japanese-era criticism of Korean history that the country was stagnant, inefficient and corrupt. That was a convenient story for the Japanese, since they had destroyed the 500-year Joseon Kingdom. Rather, I think the long, peaceful and stable dynasties are a source of pride and a credit to the true Korean spirit.
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is professor emeritus of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
 |
Almost all the Korean dynasties, even the earliest ones, run five or six hundred years. There are no short-lived or failed dynasties. Even the Gaya Kingdom, although it can be argued that it lacked a centralized, fully developed state, ran 500 years.
There are problems with the starting dates of all these early dynasties. Depending on when the six eggs came down from heaven for Gaya, or when the horse brought the egg for Silla ― and other myths for the other dynasties ― leaves more questions than answers. But the archaeology supports the ideas with artifacts that show an early founding of the respective dynasties. And the ruling structure of those early dynasties seems to have taken hold in about the time frame of the myths.
Yes, there are some short-lived groups, the Ye, the Maek and some others, but they were probably tribal groups that never became "states" with a stable king and other factors defining a state. The states that developed, even early on, all claim a history of 500 years or more. Goguryeo and Baekje claim nearly 700 years. And of course, the winner, Silla, claims nearly 1,000 years of dynastic rule.
There is really nothing like this in other places ― there is a part of India that claims a 1,000-year dynasty. And the Japanese, of course, have an unbroken line of their emperor running close to 2,000 years (with some healthy mythology at the outset). But the real power was in the rotating hands of the shoguns, the shogunate that functioned like dynasties in other parts of the world. And each shogunate lasted around 250 years ― Heian 391 years; Tokugawa 267 years, Ashikaga 237 years and Kamakura 148 years.
Chinese dynasties, after the mythological dynasties that did run long ― close to 1,000 years ― tended to last 250 years. The two earliest dynasties had mythological origins ― the Shang (Yin) and Zhou (Chou) were 525 and 789 years. The Han Dynasty, a 400-year period, fell apart in the middle and then revived, making it really two, 200-year dynasties back to back. Thereafter, there were periods of disunity and chaos before a new central dynasty emerged. Tang was 319 years, Ming 276 years and Qing 268 years.
European dynasties are not nearly as long-running as the Asian examples. The longest dynasty in England was the Plantagenet at 245 years; in Germany, the Habsburgs at 302; in France, the Capet at 341.
Egypt has a long list of dynasties ― 31, of which the longest was 275 years. The Ottoman dynasty of Turkey lasted 621 years. The Roman Empire lasted 313 years, and its successor, the Byzantine Empire, lasted a little over 1,000 years. This brings up the "Holy Roman Empire" of Europe after the fall of Rome, but it was fractured by numerous smaller dynasties and changes of borders, such that it is difficult to list one dynasty of any significant length.
Therefore, in light of other countries, Korea, with its long dynasties, really stands out: Silla 992 years; Baekje 678 years; Goguryeo 705 years; Goryeo 474 years and Joseon 518 years. It's really an impressive list of long-lived dynasties. We can even claim Buyeo, which was close to 600 years. And considering the aristocracy of Buyeo became the aristocracy of Goguryeo, that makes another 1,000-year dynasty, and may have been the connection to the Baekje Kingdom ― making another 1,000-year dynasty.
What does it mean? The conclusion I draw, one at least, is that there is a propensity toward stability and even peace on the Korean Peninsula. Was it because Korea is a peninsula and has fewer natural neighbors and enemies? Is it because of early ruling ideology, such as the Dangun message of "hongik ingan" ― "spread benefits to the people?" Or is it because of Buddhism and its roots in "ahimsa" ― non-violence? Is it because of Confucianism and its ideas of benevolence and goodness? Is it because of all these factors?
Whatever the reasons, the results are astounding. Long and stable ― despite some warfare, particularly during the late Three Kingdoms Period ― Korean dynasties were relatively peaceful, especially when compared with other countries.
Don't buy into the Japanese-era criticism of Korean history that the country was stagnant, inefficient and corrupt. That was a convenient story for the Japanese, since they had destroyed the 500-year Joseon Kingdom. Rather, I think the long, peaceful and stable dynasties are a source of pride and a credit to the true Korean spirit.
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is professor emeritus of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
