Byeongin and Sinmi Yangyo: Western Powers' Invasions of Joseon Korea in the 1860s-1870s
Byeongin and Sinmi Yangyo: Western Powers' Invasions of Joseon Korea in the 1860s-1870s
1. Korea's First Military Confrontations with Western Powers
The 1860s and 1870s brought unprecedented military challenges to the Joseon Dynasty as Western powers attempted to forcibly open Korea to trade and diplomatic relations. Two major military confrontations—the Byeongin Yangyo (French Campaign) of 1866 and the Sinmi Yangyo (American Expedition) of 1871—marked Korea's violent first encounters with modern Western military power and fundamentally shaped the kingdom's response to foreign pressure for the next two decades.
These conflicts emerged from a perfect storm of circumstances: Western nations' aggressive expansion throughout Asia, internal Korean political tensions regarding foreign policy, religious persecution that provided justification for intervention, and fundamentally incompatible worldviews about international relations. While China had already been forced to sign unequal treaties after the Opium Wars, and Japan would soon undergo forced opening by Commodore Perry, Korea stood as one of Asia's last remaining kingdoms resisting Western encroachment through military defiance rather than diplomatic accommodation.
The term yangyo literally means "Western disturbance" or "Western invasion," reflecting the Korean perspective that these weren't legitimate military operations but rather barbarian attacks on civilized order. This framing wasn't mere propaganda—it represented a genuine worldview where Korea saw itself as a civilized Confucian state being assaulted by technologically advanced but culturally inferior outsiders who violated proper diplomatic norms by arriving with warships and making demands at gunpoint.
What makes these confrontations historically significant isn't just the military action itself, but how they crystallized Korean attitudes toward the West for a generation. The successful Korean resistance, despite Western technological superiority, convinced many Korean officials that isolation was both morally correct and practically feasible. This conviction would have profound consequences when Korea finally could no longer resist foreign pressure in the 1880s, leaving the kingdom ill-prepared for the diplomatic complexities of the modern international system.
What do you think determines how civilizations respond to external pressure? Have you considered how cultural worldviews shape international relations?
1.1 The Historical Context: Korea's Hermit Kingdom Policy
To understand these military confrontations, we must first grasp Korea's isolationist foreign policy that had developed over centuries. Joseon Korea maintained tributary relations with China while severely restricting contact with other nations, a policy that earned Korea the Western nickname "Hermit Kingdom."
This isolation wasn't born from ignorance or backwardness but from deliberate policy decisions rooted in several considerations:
- Confucian world order viewing Korea as part of a China-centered civilizational hierarchy
- Historical trauma from devastating Japanese and Manchu invasions in the 16th-17th centuries
- Religious concerns about Christianity as a heterodox ideology threatening social order
- Political stability avoiding external entanglements that could exacerbate factional conflicts
- Cultural preservation protecting Korean civilization from corrupting foreign influences
By the mid-19th century, this policy faced unprecedented challenges. Western powers had defeated China in the Opium Wars (1839-1842, 1856-1860), demonstrating that military technology could overcome numerical superiority and traditional military tactics. Japan faced forced opening by American Commodore Perry in 1853-1854. Throughout Asia, European colonial powers were establishing control over previously independent kingdoms.
Korean officials observed these developments with deep alarm. Reports from Korean envoys to Beijing described Western military capabilities and aggressive expansion. Some officials, particularly those influenced by practical learning (Silhak) traditions, advocated selective accommodation with Western powers to gain technology and avoid military defeat. However, the dominant conservative faction viewed any compromise with Western "barbarians" as fundamentally unacceptable—a betrayal of Confucian civilization itself.
1.2 The Catholic Persecution and International Tensions
The immediate trigger for French intervention was Korea's persecution of Catholics, which had been escalating since the early 19th century. Catholicism had entered Korea in the late 18th century through Korean scholars who encountered it during tributary missions to Beijing. Despite government prohibition, the religion spread among commoners and even some yangban, attracting followers with its message of spiritual equality and transcendent meaning.
The Joseon government viewed Catholicism as dangerously subversive for several reasons:
- Rejection of ancestor worship violated the foundation of Confucian family ethics
- Foreign loyalty as Catholics acknowledged the Pope's authority over Korean king's
- Social equality teaching challenged the hierarchical social order
- Secret organization creating networks outside government control
- Foreign connection linking Korean believers to European powers
Periodic persecutions occurred throughout the early 19th century, but the most severe campaign began in 1866 under the Daewongun (Prince Regent), who was ruling on behalf of his young son King Gojong. The Daewongun's persecution was extraordinarily brutal, resulting in the execution of thousands of Korean Catholics and nine French missionaries who had been operating secretly in Korea. Among the victims was Bishop Siméon-François Berneux and several other members of the Paris Foreign Missions Society.
Has this been helpful so far in understanding the context? Can you see how religious and political factors intertwined?
2. The Byeongin Yangyo: French Invasion of 1866
News of the missionary executions reached French authorities in China, provoking outrage and demands for military response. Rear Admiral Pierre-Gustave Roze, commanding French naval forces in East Asia, decided to launch a punitive expedition against Korea to avenge the missionaries, punish the Korean government, and force Korea to accept French diplomatic and commercial relations.
In October 1866, a French fleet of seven warships carrying approximately 600 marines and sailors entered Korean waters. The force initially conducted reconnaissance around the Han River approaches to Seoul, gathering intelligence about Korean defenses and coastal geography. After withdrawing briefly to regroup, the French force returned in November for a full-scale assault on Ganghwa Island, the strategic gateway to the capital.
Ganghwa Island held enormous strategic and symbolic importance. Located where the Han River meets the Yellow Sea, controlling Ganghwa meant controlling access to Seoul, only 40 kilometers away. The island had also been the site of previous foreign incursions—Mongol invasions in the 13th century and Manchu attacks in the 17th century—making it a historically resonant location for defending Korean sovereignty.
2.1 The French Military Campaign
The French assault on Ganghwa demonstrated the overwhelming technological superiority that Western military forces possessed in the mid-19th century. Modern rifles, artillery, and disciplined formations allowed relatively small French forces to defeat much larger Korean defenders in direct confrontation.
The campaign unfolded in several phases:
- Initial landing where French marines quickly overwhelmed coastal defenses
- Occupation of Ganghwa-eup (the island's main town) meeting limited organized resistance
- Seizure of government facilities including administrative buildings and weapon stores
- Looting operations taking valuables, weapons, and historical documents
- Punitive destruction burning buildings and demonstrating French military power
French forces captured significant quantities of Korean weapons, silver, and other valuables, along with precious historical documents including volumes from the royal library's collection. Among the items taken was the Oegyujanggak collection—royal books and records that had been stored on Ganghwa for safekeeping. These documents wouldn't return to Korea until 2011, after decades of French-Korean negotiations.
Despite tactical success, the French expedition faced significant strategic limitations. The approaching Korean winter, supply difficulties, and stiffening Korean resistance made sustained occupation impractical. Korean forces, after recovering from initial shock, began employing guerrilla tactics, avoiding direct confrontation while harassing French positions and supply lines. The decisive engagement came at Jeong족산성 (Jeongjoksan Fortress), where Korean General Yang Heon-su's forces successfully repelled a French assault.
2.2 Korean Resistance and Strategic Victory
While outgunned technologically, Korean forces achieved what they considered a strategic victory by forcing French withdrawal without making any concessions. This outcome, though militarily mixed, had profound psychological and political impacts on Korean policy.
Korean defensive strategies included:
- Avoiding direct confrontation where French firepower advantages were decisive
- Guerrilla harassment using knowledge of local terrain and weather conditions
- Strategic depth forcing French to penetrate inland where supply lines became vulnerable
- Winter timing exploiting harsh conditions that favored defending forces
- Political steadfastness refusing negotiation or compromise with invaders
General Yang Heon-su's successful defense of Jeongjoksan Fortress became legendary in Korean military history. Despite French artillery and rifle advantages, Yang's forces used fortified positions, surprise attacks, and fierce determination to inflict casualties and repel the assault. This victory, though tactically limited, demonstrated that courage and strategic defense could overcome technological disadvantage.
The French eventually withdrew in November 1866, having punished Korea militarily but failed to achieve their broader objectives of forcing diplomatic relations or extracting concessions. From the Korean perspective, this represented a complete victory—the barbarian invaders had been repelled, Korean sovereignty maintained, and isolation preserved. This interpretation would profoundly influence Korean policy toward subsequent Western approaches.
Please share your thoughts in the comments! How do you think technological superiority and strategic determination balance in military conflicts?
3. The Sinmi Yangyo: American Expedition of 1871
Five years after the French invasion, Korea faced another Western military challenge—this time from the United States. The Sinmi Yangyo emerged from a complex web of incidents, misunderstandings, and American commercial and strategic interests in East Asia that had been growing throughout the mid-19th century.
The immediate catalyst was the General Sherman incident of 1866. This American merchant ship had sailed up the Daedong River toward Pyongyang seeking to establish trade relations. When Korean officials ordered the ship to leave, confrontation ensued. The precise sequence of events remains disputed—Koreans claim the Americans fired first and behaved aggressively, while American accounts suggest Korean hostility—but the outcome was clear: Korean forces burned the ship and killed all 23 crew members.
News of the General Sherman's destruction reached American authorities gradually through various channels. The incident, combined with American desires to establish relations with Korea as a coaling station for Pacific trade and as part of broader East Asian commercial strategy, led to demands for explanation and redress. When Korean authorities refused to respond to American inquiries, the U.S. government decided on military action to force Korea to negotiate.
3.1 The American Naval Expedition
In May 1871, an American fleet under Rear Admiral John Rodgers arrived in Korean waters. The force was substantially larger than the French expedition, consisting of five warships carrying approximately 1,230 sailors and marines, along with modern artillery and small arms representing the latest American military technology.
The stated American objectives were:
- Investigate the General Sherman incident and obtain explanation
- Establish diplomatic relations between the United States and Korea
- Survey Korean waters for navigation and potential trade routes
- Demonstrate American power to convince Korea that resistance was futile
- Force negotiations on trade and diplomatic treaties
The American approach initially attempted diplomacy, sending messages to Korean authorities requesting negotiations. However, Korean officials refused meaningful engagement, viewing the American demands as violations of proper diplomatic protocol—legitimate foreign relations should be conducted through China, Korea's suzerain, not through gunboat diplomacy.
When diplomatic overtures failed, American forces began surveying operations, sailing up Korean waterways to map channels and coastal defenses. Korean shore batteries opened fire on American survey vessels, viewing this as an invasion of Korean territory. This exchange of fire provided the justification for American military action.
3.2 The Battle of Ganghwa
The main military engagement occurred on Ganghwa Island—the same strategic location the French had attacked five years earlier. On June 10-11, 1871, American forces launched an assault on Korean fortifications defending the approaches to Seoul.
The battle demonstrated the same technological disparities that characterized the French campaign, but on a larger scale:
- Modern American artillery systematically destroyed Korean fortifications
- Rifled muskets provided American infantry with overwhelming firepower advantages
- Disciplined formations allowed smaller forces to defeat larger Korean defenders
- Naval gunfire support provided devastating firepower from offshore
- Superior logistics ensuring American forces remained well-supplied
The attack focused on a series of Korean forts, including the strategically vital Chojijin, Deokjinjin, and Gwangseongbo fortresses. American forces methodically assaulted each position, with Korean defenders fighting with extraordinary courage despite hopeless tactical situations. At Gwangseongbo, the final major Korean position, defenders fought virtually to the last man rather than surrender.
Korean commander General Eo Jae-yeon exemplified this resistance. When American forces overran Gwangseongbo after intense fighting, Eo chose death over surrender, becoming a national hero symbolizing Korean determination to resist foreign aggression regardless of cost. Of approximately 350 Korean defenders at Gwangseongbo, nearly all were killed or wounded. American casualties were minimal—three killed and ten wounded—demonstrating the one-sided nature of combat when modern military technology confronted traditional forces.
3.3 Strategic Stalemate and American Withdrawal
Despite overwhelming tactical victories, the American expedition achieved none of its strategic objectives. Korean authorities absolutely refused to negotiate, maintaining that any discussions must occur through proper channels (meaning Chinese mediation) rather than under military duress. The Daewongun's government remained completely unmoved by American military demonstrations.
The Americans faced several strategic problems:
- Political inflexibility as Korean government refused any compromise
- Limited military options beyond coastal operations
- Logistical constraints making sustained operations difficult
- Public opinion concerns as significant casualties would be politically problematic at home
- Alternative priorities as American attention focused on post-Civil War reconstruction
After several weeks with no progress toward negotiations, American forces withdrew in July 1871. Like the French before them, Americans had won every battle but lost the strategic contest. Korea made no concessions, signed no treaties, and maintained its isolation policy. From the Korean perspective, this represented another victory—determined resistance had again forced foreign invaders to withdraw without achieving their aims.
This interpretation would have profound consequences. Korean officials concluded that Western powers, despite technological superiority, lacked the will for sustained conflict. They believed Korea's strategic position, determination to resist, and China's implicit backing made isolation sustainable. This confidence in defensive resistance would persist until the 1880s when changing geopolitical circumstances finally forced Korea to abandon isolation.
Which matters more in your view—tactical military victories or achieving strategic political objectives?
4. Consequences and Historical Significance
The Byeongin and Sinmi Yangyo had profound and lasting impacts on Korean foreign policy, domestic politics, and the kingdom's eventual forced opening in the 1880s. These confrontations shaped how Korea understood Western powers and how Korean leaders approached the challenge of maintaining sovereignty in an era of aggressive Western imperialism.
The immediate consequence was a hardening of isolationist policies. The Daewongun erected chokseongbi (proclamation stones) throughout the country declaring "Western barbarians invade our land. If we do not fight, we must then appease them. To urge appeasement is to betray the nation." These monuments symbolized Korea's ideological commitment to resistance regardless of material circumstances.
This rigid isolation had several effects on Korean development. By refusing all contact with Western powers while those same powers were transforming East Asian international relations, Korea became increasingly isolated not just from the West but from regional developments. Japan underwent the Meiji Restoration and rapid modernization after 1868. China, despite defeats, was engaging with Western technology and institutions. Korea alone maintained complete rejection of foreign engagement.
4.1 Domestic Political Ramifications
The yangyo confrontations intensified factional conflicts within Korean politics. The Daewongun's hardline isolation policy had supporters who viewed resistance as a moral necessity and pragmatic success—after all, foreigners had been repelled twice. However, a growing minority of officials worried that isolation was becoming untenable as regional power dynamics shifted.
These internal debates divided along several lines:
- Conservative isolationists viewing any accommodation as civilizational betrayal
- Pragmatic reformers arguing selective modernization was necessary for survival
- Traditional Confucianists opposing both Western contact and internal reform
- Progressive thinkers believing comprehensive modernization was essential
- Regional power advocates supporting either Chinese, Japanese, or Russian alignment
These factions would battle for control of Korean policy through the 1870s and 1880s, with consequences including political instability, coups, and eventually foreign intervention in Korean internal affairs. The inability to reach consensus on how to respond to Western pressure paralyzed Korean policy at precisely the moment when clear strategic thinking was most necessary.
The yangyo experiences also affected Korean military thinking. Some officials recognized that traditional military organization and equipment were hopelessly inadequate against modern forces. They advocated military modernization, purchasing Western weapons, and training troops in modern tactics. However, conservative opposition and financial constraints prevented systematic military reform, leaving Korea vulnerable when it finally did open to foreign relations.
4.2 International Relations and Regional Power Dynamics
The yangyo incidents occurred during a critical transition in East Asian international relations. The traditional Sinocentric tribute system that had organized regional relations for centuries was collapsing under pressure from Western powers and Japan's transformation into a modern nation-state. Korea's rigid adherence to traditional norms while the regional system was fundamentally changing created strategic vulnerabilities.
China's ability to protect Korea as tributary state was declining. The Qing Dynasty, weakened by internal rebellions and external defeats, lacked the capacity to shield Korea from Western pressure indefinitely. Yet Korean officials continued to rely on the assumption of Chinese protection even as evidence mounted that China itself could barely manage its own foreign relations.
Japan's position was particularly significant. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan rapidly modernized its military and pursued aggressive expansion. Japanese officials observed Korean resistance to Western powers with interest, recognizing that Korea's isolation created opportunities for Japanese influence. The stage was being set for the conflicts that would dominate the 1880s-1900s, including the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) and Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), with Korea as the prize.
The Western powers' relatively easy withdrawal from Korea after the yangyo incidents may have given Korean officials false confidence. In reality, these powers simply had more attractive targets elsewhere in Asia. France focused on Indochina, America on developing Pacific trade routes through Japan and China, Britain on consolidating control in Southeast Asia. Korea's poverty and limited commercial opportunities made sustained military operations economically unattractive. When circumstances changed in the 1880s, Korea would face foreign pressure it could no longer resist.
If this article was helpful, please share it! What would you have advised Korean leaders—maintain isolation principles or pursue pragmatic accommodation?
5. Long-term Legacy and Modern Perspectives
The Byeongin and Sinmi Yangyo occupy complex positions in Korean historical memory. They represent both triumph and tragedy—triumph in successfully resisting foreign aggression, tragedy in the false confidence this resistance generated that contributed to Korea's eventual colonization.
Modern Korean historians debate the yangyo experiences' significance. Some emphasize the courage and determination of Korean defenders who fought against overwhelming odds to protect their homeland. The military resistance demonstrated that Koreans would not passively accept foreign domination, a spirit that would reemerge during the Japanese colonial period (1910-1945) in resistance movements.
Others argue the yangyo victories were Pyrrhic, creating dangerous illusions about Korea's capacity to resist indefinitely. The successful expulsion of French and American forces convinced Korean leaders that isolation was sustainable when in fact it was becoming increasingly untenable. This false confidence prevented the flexible strategic thinking necessary to navigate the complex international environment of the late 19th century.
5.1 Comparative Historical Analysis
Comparing Korea's response to Western pressure with other East Asian nations illuminates alternative paths Korea might have taken. Japan's response to Commodore Perry's arrival was dramatically different—after brief resistance, Japanese leaders decided systematic modernization was necessary for survival, launching the Meiji Restoration that transformed Japan into a modern power within decades.
China, despite defeats in the Opium Wars, gradually engaged with Western powers through unequal treaties while attempting internal reforms. Though ultimately unsuccessful in preventing European exploitation, China maintained nominal sovereignty and used the treaty system to play foreign powers against each other to some degree.
Korea's complete rejection of foreign engagement, while morally principled from a Confucian perspective, left the kingdom without tools for managing international relations when isolation finally became impossible. When Korea was forced to sign the Treaty of Ganghwa with Japan in 1876, Korean diplomats lacked experience in modern treaty negotiations, making Korea vulnerable to exploitation.
The yangyo experiences demonstrate how cultural worldviews shape strategic decisions. Korean leaders' Confucian perspective made accommodation with "barbarian" powers ideologically unacceptable, regardless of pragmatic considerations. This ideological commitment to civilizational principles, while admirable in some respects, prevented the strategic flexibility that might have helped Korea navigate the imperial age more successfully.
5.2 Lessons for Understanding Imperialism and Resistance
The Byeongin and Sinmi Yangyo provide valuable case studies for understanding imperialism and resistance in the 19th century. They demonstrate that military technology alone doesn't determine outcomes—political will, strategic objectives, and logistical constraints all matter. Korean resistance succeeded not because Korea won battles but because Western powers lacked sufficient motivation to sustain military operations necessary to force Korean submission.
These incidents also illustrate the limitations of military force in achieving political objectives. Both France and America could defeat Korean forces in battle but couldn't translate tactical victories into strategic success because the Korean government absolutely refused to negotiate or make concessions. This demonstrates that even technologically inferior powers can resist if they're willing to accept costs and if stronger powers lack commitment to sustained operations.
For modern audiences, the yangyo confrontations offer insights into how societies respond to external pressure and the complex relationship between military power, political will, and strategic outcomes. They remind us that technological superiority provides tactical advantages but doesn't automatically translate into achieving political goals, and that determined resistance can succeed if defenders are willing to pay the price.
In conclusion, the Byeongin Yangyo of 1866 and Sinmi Yangyo of 1871 represent pivotal moments in Korean history when the Hermit Kingdom confronted Western military power and chose defiant resistance over accommodation. These confrontations, triggered by Catholic persecution and maritime incidents, demonstrated both the technological gap between traditional Korean forces and modern Western militaries, and the political determination of Korean leadership to maintain isolation regardless of material disadvantages. While Korean forces suffered tactical defeats, the strategic stalemate resulting from Korea's absolute refusal to negotiate convinced Korean leaders that isolation remained viable, a conclusion with profound consequences for the kingdom's trajectory. The yangyo experiences intensified Korea's isolationist policies precisely when regional power dynamics were shifting dramatically, leaving Korea unprepared for the diplomatic challenges of the 1880s when isolation finally became untenable. Though these confrontations demonstrated Korean courage and determination to resist foreign aggression—a spirit that would prove valuable during later struggles—they also generated false confidence about Korea's capacity to indefinitely resist Western pressure, contributing to strategic miscalculations that would eventually facilitate Korea's colonization. The legacy of these conflicts remains contested, symbolizing both principled resistance to imperialism and the tragic consequences of inflexible policy in a rapidly changing world.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1. What were the Byeongin Yangyo and Sinmi Yangyo?
The Byeongin Yangyo was the French military expedition of 1866 launched in response to Korea's execution of French missionaries, while the Sinmi Yangyo was the American military expedition of 1871 following the General Sherman incident. Both were attempts to force Korea to open diplomatic and commercial relations through military pressure, but both ultimately withdrew without achieving their objectives.
Q2. Why did Western powers invade Korea in the 1860s-1870s?
Western invasions were triggered by specific incidents—France responded to missionary executions, America to the General Sherman ship destruction—but reflected broader strategic interests in opening Korea to trade, establishing coaling stations for Pacific commerce, and extending Western influence throughout East Asia during the peak of 19th century imperialism.
Q3. How did Korea successfully resist despite technological disadvantages?
Korea succeeded strategically by absolutely refusing to negotiate or compromise regardless of military defeats, employing guerrilla tactics, using terrain and weather advantages, and forcing Western powers to sustain operations that exceeded their political will and logistical capabilities. Korean leaders chose resistance at any cost over accommodation.
Q4. What were the long-term consequences of these confrontations?
The yangyo experiences hardened Korean isolationist policies, created false confidence about Korea's ability to resist indefinitely, intensified domestic political conflicts between conservatives and reformers, and left Korea diplomatically unprepared when forced opening became unavoidable in the 1880s, contributing to strategic vulnerabilities that facilitated eventual colonization.
Q5. How do modern historians view these events?
Modern historians offer mixed assessments, praising Korean courage and determination to resist foreign aggression while noting that the successful repulsions created dangerous illusions about isolation's sustainability. The yangyo victories were Pyrrhic, preventing the strategic flexibility needed to navigate late 19th century international relations, though they demonstrated Korean unwillingness to passively accept domination.
