Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
You know, given that this is the first time I have ever heard of the Battle of Baekgang being called an invasion, I really have to question your sources. Unless you happen to be mixing up the mythical invasion portrayed in the Nihon shoki with the Battle of Baekgang (even when those are completely separate).
|
What I'm saying is that there was a historical precedent for conflating the Battle of Baekgang with the mythical invasions of Empress Jingu in the Nihon Shoki and the Kojiki. Though in reality, the Battle of Baekgang had nothing to do with these fictional narratives, it was once very popular (in pre-WW2 Imperial Japan) for historians to make the case that they were one in the same.
This is because during the period of extreme popular nationalism in the early 1900's (before Japan invaded Korea for the second time) groups like the Kokuryukai and the Genyosha were using a wide spectrum of means to encourage the expansion of the Japanese Empire. On the one end, this meant intimidation of government and outright assassination (this is the period of government by assassination in Japan) but on the other end it meant assisting the already extant proliferation of nationalistic historical writing to make the case that there was not only a historical precedent for Japan invading Korea and China but that, in fact, Japan had a historical duty to do so.
Of course their main argument was that Japan had to wipe away the shame of Hideyoshi's defeat after he invaded in 1592. But it was also a tactic of these pre-war historians to conflate the Mythical Invasion of Empress Jingu with Japan's actual involvement in Korea in the mid 5th century. It is certainly inaccurate to call Japan's involvement in Baekje an invasion, or to conflate this event with the "Invasion of Empress Jingu" myth: but you have to remember that the writers of the Nihon Shoki were most likely inspired by these events (which occurred only 60 years before) when they wrote about the mythical Invasion of Empress Jingu. This undoubtedly aided the pre-war Imperial historians in making their connection.
The more important point, that's been implied by what I've said about the Genyosha and the Kokuryukai already, is that these historians were motivated much less by authentic desire to write honestly about Japans history than by their desire to encourage Japanese invasion of Korea and China. Thus, it can only be guessed at to what extent they honestly believed in what they were writing about. Military zeal goes hand in hand with both delusion and deceptiveness so it's hard to say which one is really at play here.
Anyways, this is maybe a confusing explanation and I can't really offer you much in the way of sources. I learned most of this in school ( I'm an East Asian and African History Major) either from hard sources out of the library or from JSTOR. Maybe if you are able to get on JSTOR I could pull up a good JSTOR link for you.