Talk:Korean Empire/Archive 1

Major Expansion of Article

Because this article is absurdedly uninformative of an otherwise rather well-documented and detailed chapter of Korean history, I believe that the most appropriate course of action for any interested editor/user would be to drastically revamp and expand this article. The changes will be drastic, but I will try to keep them as neutral as possible by adding references to sources from a diversity of countries. Of course, I myself speak only three languages (English, Japanese, and Korean), and my Korean is rather limited, so I will need a translator. I hear that Wikipedia has quite a lot of multilingual editors up to requests; perhaps I'll try consulting one of them.--Jh.daniell 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not cutting one's hair for life - an example of the influence of Confucian philosophy?

Does anyone have a source for the claim that traditional Korean and Japanese hairstyles and the tradition of never cutting one's hair had roots in Confucian philosophy? I find this claim very hard to believe, because the tradition for all adult Japanese males and females to do up their hair in a bun dates back at least to the time of the earliest extant Japanese texts, such as the Nihon Shoki and Kojiki, in which one finds orders from the Kami: wotoko womina, kotogotoku kami yupiageyo ("Men, women, all of you tie up your hair!"). A solemn order from a Shinto god to do up one's hair would not appear to have any connection to China or Chinese culture, let alone Confucianism. Secondly, it is important to keep in mind that Confucianism does not and has never had a strong influence over the Japanese, so although the Koreans might have at some time in history associated some Confucian idea with their traditional hairstyle after the appearance of major Confucian influence in Korean culture, it is likely that such a Confucianism-associated Korean rationalization of their grooming traditions is something akin to a folk etymology and has no basis in historical fact. Ebizur 04:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tradition of not cutting one's hair actually comes from Manchu traditions, not Confucian traditions. But I think this only explains the queue style of hair, and not the others. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was the "Sam-taeguk" really the flag of the Korean Empire? And does it have to be that big in the table? CronusXT 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why "empire"?

If an empire is a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power, how does this qualify, if it extends only to the Korean peninsula? Chris 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same might be applied to Japan for most of its history... but more to the point, this article is not about *a* Korean empire, but rather the Korean Empire; regardless of how inaccurate the name may be, it is still the name of this period in Korean history. -- Visviva 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because for a lot of its history the Korean peninsula was a collection of kingdoms, each with its own monarch, and hence the ruler who could claim to rule the whole lot was titled "emperor". The same applied to Japan. The reason Kojong resurrected the title was as a declaration of autonomy from China following China's defeat by the Japanese, since China had originally demanded Korean monarchs stop using the term "emperor" after Korea became a suzerain state of China. --Dan (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more to do with the Korean ego and inferiority complex than to do with the size of the land. 86.134.236.70 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How wrong you are. Go see which country was behind the declaration of the "Empire". Askedonly7 (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's because Qing was founded by Manchuria+Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.254.239 (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It's more to do with the Korean ego and inferiority complex" - sure does explain the above comment. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Empire" has nothing to do with connotations over the size of a country, it has to do with its type of government. If it is headed by an "Emperor", it is an "Empire", not matter how large it is. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That concept of Empire is based on a mixing of concepts. An Emperor is someone who holds the power of imperium (Rule, strong command, authority) over it's people and land. Julius Caesar, by centralising the Roman Republic and ending it's constitutional structure by which the Consul was restricted by law, eventually gave himself the power of imperium over the Republic. Roman generals were called Imperators because they had imperium over their soldiers, and since Caesar and his heir, Augustus, were Imperators who had imperium over many different people and land, they were Emperors. It's became common since the middle ages to associate Empires with large States with many cultures and ethnicities because that's what the Roman Republic was: The imperium of one people over many others. Another important fact that differentiates Emperors from Kings it's the fact that, amongst the same nation/people, there aren't any equals to an Emperor, but there can be many kings. e.g. there can be many german Kings, who rule over their own german kingdoms, but in order to be a german Emperor, one must hold imperium over all the germans. Kings are also usually restricted by feudal rights (When kings eventually gained the power of imperium during the absolutist era, the term was already consolidated). Since asian monarchs held the power of imperium of the entirety of their people (Even if only formal, as in case of Japan during the Shogunate), they were called Emperors. e.g. Korean Empire, Chinese Empire, Japanese Empire, Mauryan Empire, Vietnamese Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.62.168.40 (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Korean peninsula was once occupied by three separate and distinct kingdoms that had to be unified. See Three Kingdoms of Korea. - Boneyard90 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the most misguided representations of history I've read. I'd have to fail you if you were one of my students. You've applied "imperium" incorrectly and washed it over other domains that have no relationship to the Roman autocracy or the Principate. Good God. (not looking forward to grading the mid-terms next month ...) 50.111.25.206 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very compelling argument there. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs),

Coat of Arms

Imperial Coat of Arms.

http://cafefiles.naver.net/data16/2006/4/28/138/%B4%EB%C7%D1%C1%A6%B1%B9_%B1%B9%C8%D6_1.gif

Fair use rationale for Image:Coa korea empire.png

Image:Coa korea empire.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Coa korea empire.png

Image:Coa korea empire.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Empire? The smallest empire in the world?

It is pretty amazing that you call this tiny peninsula an Empire. Compare to Briths Empire, Ottoman Empire, Roma Empire etc. This "Korean Empire" maybe the smallest "empire" in this world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.107.200 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean peninsula is far from "tiny" as anyone who can read a map, or more importantly been there and traveled it, can attest.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was shocked too. Until I read the article and learned that it was an empire in the sense of being ruled by an emperor.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The small emperor I can think of is the Emperor Moth, then the Emperor Penguin, then maybe the Korean Emperor, followed by the Japanese Emperor. 86.136.61.102 (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Empire of Haiti? 218.153.217.167 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Empire" has nothing to do with size, but government. If a country is headed by an "Emperor", it is an "Empire". The meaning of the word "Empire" has been distorted over the years. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you've just distorted it yet again! It has nothing to do with what the head of state calls himself - Korea was a mixture of independent kingdoms - like Japan, like Germany - that was united under what we call an "empire."50.111.25.206 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not a puppet state？

Korean Empire also established by Full Support of Japan.

Joseon was not considered as an independent state but when Japan wins over Qing China, Korea independent by Shimonoseki Treaty, and it country established like Manchukuo. 112.162.197.118 (talk)

It was puppet state, but later it was forced to became part of Japanese empire, but wasn't puppet state.--Korsentry 01:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

yes. it was puppet state which largely pressured/affected by Japan. also it be empire with Japan's pressure. before Japan wins over Qing, Korea was can't have a emperor because of 'one-emperor doctrine' of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.99.38.227 (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a puppet state, but wasn't a puppet state? What? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Population

27million by 1907? I think this is incorrect, it should be close to 20million.--Korsentry 01:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Er, 니마, 저기 얘기 끝엔 ~~~~ 해주셔야죠. Well, that's partly right, but nobody has the details about the population at that time.Kfc18645 talk 11:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

according to Governor-General of Korea, korean population in 1910 is about 13 millions. so, i don't think 27 millions or 20 millions are correct number. i fixed it to 13 millions. 61.99.38.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Provisional Government

I've removed the Provisional Government from the box because it was founded only in 1919 while the Korean Empire ceased to exist in 1910. Also, the Provisional Government was neither elected nor recognized by any state as the legal successor of the Empire. 95.25.227.106 (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military

Any one knowing the exact composition of the Korean Armed Forces at that time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.75.193 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Korean Empire → Korean Empire — Reverse of the undiscussed move. Korean Empire is the common name. Greater Korean Empire is less used than Korean Empire.-—Historiographer (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Undiscussed move which doesn't appear to have any basis in... well, anything, as far as I can tell. Is there any real basis for this "Greater Korean Empire" name? Seems like someone's made up fantasy to me (based on skimming the article and a brief survey of the refs).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 18:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Most sources use Korean Empire or Empire of Korea. I suppose "Greater Korean Empire" is a translation of Daehan Jeguk (대한제국, lit. "great Korea empire") but cf. Daehan Minguk (대한민국, lit. "great Korea republic" but normally called Republic of Korea). — AjaxSmack 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also supported AjaxSmack's opinion.--Iktus (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why this nation IS an 'empire'

Many people reading this article are confused to why it is called the 'Korean Empire' when it only has control over a small peninsula in Asia.

A nation isn't called an empire simply due to it's size, it is because it has a Head of State whos official title is 'Emperor'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.125.250 (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what the bloke above me said. Empire = Emperor, not size. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. NO. 50.111.25.206 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very compelling argument there. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Korean became independent of China. After independence, Korean Empire was born.

As a result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), China recognized the "full and complete independence and autonomy" of Joseon. In the next year Yeongeunmun was demolished leaving its two stone pillars. In front of the remnant, the Independence Gate was built by Philip Jaisohn.

This is a history of the truth. Korean made Independence Gate, and independence was celebrated. 220.106.179.204 (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeongeunmun(literally "welcoming gate for obligation") and Independence Gate .

1 Treaty of Shimonoseki("full and complete independence and autonomy" )

2 Yeongeunmun (literally "welcoming gate for obligation")

3 Independence Gate

As a result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), China recognized the "full and complete independence and autonomy" of Joseon. In the next year Yeongeunmun was demolished leaving its two stone pillars. In front of the remnant, the Independence Gate was built by Philip Jaisohn.

Do not underestimate these three.　60.39.54.98 (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Shimonoseki strengthened the Gabo government ruled by the enlightment party. But the Korea royal refuge at the Russian legation caused the collapse of the Gabo government. As the result of the royal refuge, the new loyalists’ cabinet was formed, which later became Gwangmu government of the Korean Empire. Conprix (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty, but the HANGUK - NIPAN Annexation Treaty

日韓併合条約 Hiragana にっかんへいごうじょうやく Rōmaji Nikkan Heigō Jōyaku

Hangul 한일병합조약 (한일합방조약, 한일합방늑약) Hanja 韓日倂合条約 (韓日合邦条約, 韓日合邦勒約

It is not the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty, but the HANGUK - NIPAN Annexation Treaty

In October 1897, TAIHAN Emperor Gojong

It succeeded the Y-JOSEON Dynasty.

In October 1897, KOREA Emperor

It succeeded the Royame of COREE(=Kingdom of COREA) at the age of the DANGUN CHOSUN

PL, refer !

--안성균 (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, so we use existing translated English names if they already exist. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what M0rphzone said. This is the English Wikipedia. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official Name

The official name of the Korean Empire is the Empire of Dai Han proclaimed by the first emperor Gojong. It seems someone reverted it to previous name. Kadrun (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of KOREA is different from Empire of Dai Han

Lee eun 대한제국(大韓帝國) is Empire of Dai Han that succeeded the Y-JOSEON Dynasty

An suk (= Wang suk) 고려제국(高麗帝國) is Empire of KOREA that succeeded the DANGUN CHOSUN (= CHAO XIAN) --안성균 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Script Errors?

Hello friends,

I have visited this page approximately 5 minutes ago and noticed that there are errors on the script of Korean characters. I personally am not an experienced Wikipedian, but I wanted to let others know about this. Is there is a way to fix this? I'll try to look into it as well but I apologize if I am not fully able to fix this.

Thank you all so much. Poeticfeelings (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]