Talk:Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1874)

Tok-a-Tok as Commander

Tok-a-Tok died prior to the Japanese Expedition, and his tribe were opponents of the Botan, himself having opposed the murder of the Ryukyuans that led to the expedition. His temporary replacement, Chief Issa/Esok/Esa (伊厝), who was leading in lieu of his son's (probably Tsului (朱雷))) adolescence, was the one who negotiated a peace with Cassel within the first days of the expedition, and tribes under his control supported the Japanese in their war against the Botans. I'm unsure who the Chief of the Botans was, but it certainly wasn't Tok-a-Tok. With Tok-a-Tok both being dead at the time of the expedition, and his tribe being peaceful with the Japanese during it, I thus feel his listing as Commander isn't at all appropriate.

I also feel as though the figure of 27,000 'Paiwans' seems to incorporate all sixteen southern tribes, rather than just the Botans who the Japanese actually opposed, and is thus a gross exaggeration with the Botans having numbered a few hundred at the most. Likewise the inclusion of the Qing Dynasty as a belligerent is also incorrect, as the Qing never engaged in combat against the Japanese. If the Qing are included for their claims of sovereignty over the entirety of Taiwan, it goes in the face of the entire rationale of the expedition being that the Qing lacked control over the Southern tribes, which was in a sense proven both by Japan's success in the expedition and the Qing bringing Southern Taiwan under it's control by force in the aftermath.

Given the information above, I've removed Tok-a-Tok as commander, corrected the belligerents to the Botan tribe specifically, and removed the strength of the Botan until I can dig back up an estimate from my sources.

For source on Tok-a-Tok opposing the murder of the Ryukyuans, see Foreign Adventurers and the Aborigines of Southern Taiwan, 1867-1874 by Robert Eskilden, pp. 170-171 For source of Tok-a-Tok's tribe negotiating a peace with Cassel, see idib pp. 205-206 UncleBourbon (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Douglas Cassel as Commander

When I previously edited this article a year or two ago, I added Douglas Cassel as Commander, only for him to be removed. The reason for the removal apparently being he was foreign adviser.

I disagree with this removal, as Cassel somewhat exceeded his role as adviser and proved important to the expedition; as stated in Eskildsen, Robert (2010). "An Army as Good and Efficient as Any in the World: James Wasson and Japan's 1874 Expedition to Taiwan" (PDF). Asian Cultural Studies (36): 45–62. Cassel commanded the 100 man advance party, was leader of negotiations with Chief Issa, and established a battle plan that would ultimately be employed during the decisive Battle of Stone Gate, even if extemporaneously. He also was in a position to argue with and change the mind of Noriyoshi Akamatsu regarding his attacks on allied native villages.

I feel these four acts taken together warrant his placement under Commanders/Leaders. I also find it odd that the Japanese Commanders should have Japanese flags next to their names if there are no national flags to distinguish from; some of the only other infobox military conflicts to place national flags next to individual Commanders are ones involving commanders of multiple nationalities.

I am open to discussion, however wanted to state my reasoning. UncleBourbon (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

the content of this article

I am very surprised after i compared this article with it's Chinese version which has more reliable citations. This English one is way over simplified and to some degree, very twisted. In my opinion, it is written this way for the political purpose of supporting the Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan, by giving the impression that there was no sovereignty claim of Taiwan by Qing China, which is not ture. Also, the author or whoever edited last seemed to have replaced all claims by Qing over Taiwanese aboriginals and changed to Taiwan as a whole, ignoring that Taiwan as a political unit is very different from just Taiwanese aboriginals, not mentioning aboriginals only represent less than 3 percent of the Taiwanese population. This event in the history involves independently Taiwan, Taiwanese aboriginals, China, Japan, Okinawa. Over simplification here can really change the meaning of the events through the whole thing. Since this is an article describing a historical event, I strongly oppose the behavior of twisting the history of this event for the purpose of favoring any political side between two parties in Taiwan, or between mainland China and Taiwan, or between China and Japan. I have edited a few sentences in the article by adding a little details in it. It is still very misleading. However, since my English is not very good. I hope someone else can help finishing editing it with more balance and respect of history. Thank you. Chadsnook —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

I think you confuse sovereignty claims for actual control. The Chinese like to talk a lot about what they claim; back then, they claimed rights over Okinawa, and today, they continue to claim Taiwan. But what did they actually control? The issue isn't about the aborigines, or what percentage of the population they constitute (your 3% statistic is irrelevant, as the percentage was very different in 1874) - it's about the island of Taiwan, or Formosa if you prefer. What portion of the physical geographical area of the island was under direct Qing control at that time? They claimed rights to the whole island, but did they actually have police or army or administrative offices in the area where the shipwreck occurred?

Also, there was no Republic of China at that time, so please don't assume that this has anything to do with pro-Taiwan political attitudes or anything like that. No one is pushing for that position. LordAmeth (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I admit i was not being very accurate, as it was my first time to learn this incident. That was also why I did not edit the true meaning of the article itself, except for adding just a couple sentences of details on it. I chose to give my opinions on the discussion board because of that reason. My opinion of this article is pro DPP of Taiwanese politics is based on the significant difference I observed from the Chinese version of this incident and this English version. You might disagree with my assumption, but I do have my logic of making such assumption. However, I am sure the discussion board of this article is not for arguing which political side it is on. I am just going to go ahead answer some of your questions and let's try to have as little politics as we can. In the meantime, let's work on editing the article itself.

First of all, I did not disagree that China did not have full control over Taiwan at that time. My problem with the original article is that, it said "his (Soejima Taneomi) request for compensation was refused on the grounds that most of the Taiwan were outside effective Chinese control". This is way too over simplified and it becomes misleading for people to understand the historical event. Most of the people killed in the incident were Okinawa natives, except for four of them who went alone from Japan. The Qing China government refused the request for compensation from Japan because Qing considered it as an internal affair since Taiwan was part of Fujian Province of China and Okinawa had an tributary relationship with China. When Soejima Taneomi mentioned about the four Japanese killed in the incident. The Chinese official responded, “(台湾)生番系化外之民，伐与不伐，贵国自裁之。” which means: "The aboriginals are uncivilized people, whether punish them or not, your country can decide it". Uncivilized people are how Chinese officials used to call some of the less well developed minorities in China (even within China proper). I agree that this response from the Chinese official does make it debatable whether China have control over the Taiwanese aboriginals or not, but it definitely does not mean most of Taiwan were outside of effective Chinese control. Your original sentence have a significant difference from what the historical documents said. As the original document said, they were talking about Taiwanese aboriginals, I feel it is important to stick with it. By changing that to Taiwan, you actually changed the meaning of the sentence. It definitely have a different political meaning. Because if it was Han Chinese who killed the crew, the Chinese official's response would become irrelevant. Secondly, there was no where either the Japanese or Chinese officials mentioned that MOST of Taiwan were out of control of China. They said the Taiwanese aboriginals were uncivilized, which might suggest they were out of the judicial system of Chinese government, but it does not say they represent MOST of Taiwan. That is why I felt the original article were misleading. If the original article were just too simplified, but not trying to make a connection with the politics, I take my words about that assumption back.

To finish the rest of your question, the west coast of Taiwan, the north, south were under direct Qing Control, the part which were not under Qing Control were the east part and the mountains. But it is very hard to draw a clear line of this. Some mountains which had Taiwanese aboriginals inhibited, some did not. So in this case, no one control those land, even though the Qing government claimed it. But it is common back then that in the land where there are not many people live, are always not effectively controlled by the government. On the other hand, there's also aboriginals living near where Han Chinese live. They were highly independent, some time exempt from the juridical system for the reason of easier administration. That does not mean the land they lived on is not under the control of the government. To answer your other question, they might not have police or army or administrative offices where the shipwreck occurred. That does not show or even imply that they do not have control over MOST of Taiwan.

Of course there were no Republic of China back then. But no one knows what happened in the history except what is claimed by the scholars. Sometimes these scholars can be very influenced by politics on the island and making biased claims. That is why I insist that we all stick to the truth as much as we can. So we don't mislead others, not even unintentionally. Chadsnook —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC). Chadsnook Not to suggest you're a part of the 50cent army, but "no one knows what happened in the history...That is why I insist that we all stick to the truth as much as we can." Is a bit tautalogical is it not? This is why references are useful, something this article lacks hugely.

Yeah. We should definitely edit the article to reflect that China considered it an internal affair. I had missed/forgotten about that aspect of it, a very important aspect of the incident. LordAmeth (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

1871 incident

It seems bizarre to me that we should have an article on the 1874 expedition and not on the 1871 incident which spurred it. I realize that if such an article were to be created, there could be considerable overlap, but even so, as far as I am concerned, it is the incident which is the primary topic, having spurred numerous debates within and between Peking and Tokyo, as well as not only this expedition, but sovereignty issues in (over) Ryukyu and contributing to the 1879 decision to annex Okinawa entirely by Japan and to abolish the semi-independent Ryukyu Kingdom.

I have begun a discussion as to whether or not this article needs be created, and what it should be titled, here. I invite anyone interested to contribute to the discussion in a calm, distanced, professional, objective, and mature manner. Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Project

This article is also within the scope of WikiProject China. Please add it on the top. Chadsnook (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WOW, you guys work very fast. Thank you :-) Chadsnook (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese suzerain

"Japan had for some time begun claiming suzerainty, and later sovereignty, over the Ryūkyū Kingdom, whose traditional suzerain had been China." Can we get a citation for the statement that China had been the traditional suzerain? It sounds biased but for all I know it might be 100% true. Readin (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1874). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212014547/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/107.2/ah0202000388.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/107.2/ah0202000388.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)