Introduction: The Forgotten Skirmishes of 1598

In January 1598, during the intense fighting around Ulsan Castle in Korea’s southeastern region, Japanese historical records mention two obscure battles that have puzzled historians for centuries. The Battle of Bantan involving Tachibana Muneshige and the Battle of Ryozan featuring Kuroda Yoshitaka appear exclusively in Japanese chronicles, with no corresponding mentions in Chinese or Korean sources of the Imjin War (1592-1598). These contested engagements reveal much about wartime propaganda, samurai glory-seeking, and the fog of war during this pivotal conflict between Japan’s invading forces and the allied Ming-Korean defenders.

Historical Context: The Ulsan Campaign

The year 1598 marked the final phase of Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s second invasion of Korea. Japanese forces found themselves increasingly on the defensive, holding a series of coastal fortresses (wajo) while Ming Chinese reinforcements bolstered Korean resistance. The Ulsan campaign began in late 1597 when Ming commander Ma Gui besieged Katō Kiyomasa’s garrison at Ulsan’s newly constructed Waeseong fortress.

As the siege tightened in January 1598, Japanese commanders scrambled to organize relief forces. It’s within this context that the mysterious battles of Bantan and Ryozan allegedly occurred – as side engagements during the larger effort to break the Ulsan encirclement. The discrepancies between Japanese accounts and the complete absence of these battles in allied records raise important questions about wartime record-keeping and samurai self-mythologizing.

The Evolving Legend of Bantan

### Early Accounts: The Yanagawa Tachibana Family Records

The earliest mention appears in the “Yanagawa Tachibana Family Genealogy,” compiled shortly after the war. It states simply that in January 1598, as Japanese commanders planned to relieve Ulsan, Tachibana Muneshige defeated enemy forces at Bantan using fire attacks, clearing the path for the relief operation. This sparse account mentions no specific enemy commander or troop numbers.

### Embellished Versions: The Chronicles Grow Grander

Later 17th century texts like the “Chōsen Ekiroku” (Records of the Korean Campaign) add dramatic details – claiming Tachibana defeated a Ming general named Mu Wuliao commanding 10,000 troops including Korean auxiliaries. The “Nihon Shoki” (Chronicles of Japan) version inflates the Ming force to “tens of thousands” and adds atmospheric details of a night attack during sleet, with Tachibana’s men surprising sleeping Ming soldiers.

The most exaggerated account appears in the “Nihon Gaishi Supplement: Tachibana Clan,” which claims Tachibana achieved this victory with just 800 men against Mu Wuliao’s massive army – an impossible tactical feat that strains credibility.

### Historical Problems: Phantom Places and People

Several glaring issues undermine these accounts:
1. No Ming general named Mu Wuliao appears in any Chinese or Korean records
2. The locations Bantan and Hachiboku (an alternate name in some texts) don’t appear on Korean maps
3. Tachibana was stationed at Goseong, far from the alleged battle sites
4. Contemporary rosters of Ulsan relief forces omit Tachibana’s participation

As historian Kawaguchi Chōju noted in his “Seikan Yūryaku,” the complete absence of corroborating evidence makes the Bantan story highly suspect.

The Equally Dubious Battle of Ryozan

Parallel to the Bantan legend runs the story of Kuroda Yoshitaka’s defense of Ryozan Castle. Japanese clan histories claim that after Kuroda Nagamasa left with most troops to relieve Ulsan, a Ming detachment attacked Ryozan, only to be repelled by Yoshitaka’s small garrison.

However, Ming military records show no plans to attack Ryozan during this period. The alleged battle date (January 1598) coincides with Ming forces withdrawing from Ulsan after their failed siege, making a southern diversion to Ryozan logistically implausible. Like Bantan, this appears to be a fabricated glory tale.

Cultural Context: Samurai Propaganda and War Records

These questionable battles reveal important aspects of samurai culture and early modern Japanese historiography:

1. Clan Prestige: Samurai families commissioned histories to burnish their martial reputations, often exaggerating achievements
2. Literary Conventions: War tales traditionally emphasized dramatic individual heroism over factual accuracy
3. Political Context: After Hideyoshi’s death (1598) and the Tokugawa rise, former Western Army clans may have inflated their Korean War roles to regain standing

The progressive embellishment across texts – from simple mentions to dramatic set-pieces – follows classic patterns of legendary development seen in medieval war tales worldwide.

Strategic Consequences: Psychological Impact Beyond the Battlefield

While likely fictional, these alleged battles influenced real wartime decisions. Japanese commanders, shaken by the Ulsan campaign’s intensity, proposed abandoning forward positions at Ryozan, Ulsan and Suncheon – a retreat Hideyoshi angrily rejected. The psychological impact outweighed any tactical results, showing how perceptions could shape strategy regardless of factual basis.

Modern Historical Analysis

Contemporary scholars largely dismiss these engagements as fabrications, noting:

1. The complete absence in Korean/Chinese records of major battles during this timeframe
2. Geographical impossibilities in troop movements
3. Anachronistic details that match later literary tropes rather than battlefield realities

Archaeological surveys around Ulsan and Ryozan have found no evidence supporting large-scale combat during winter 1597-98. The most plausible explanation remains clan historians inventing glory for their patrons during the politically volatile early Edo period.

Legacy: Myth Versus Reality in Samurai History

The Bantan/Ryozan legends exemplify challenges in studying pre-modern Japanese warfare, where clan propaganda often outweighs factual reporting. They remind us that:

1. Samurai “war tales” served political and literary purposes beyond factual recording
2. The Imjin War’s chaotic nature allowed for later myth-making
3. Cross-referencing sources remains essential to separate history from legend

These phantom battles ultimately reveal more about samurai culture’s relationship with historical memory than about actual battlefield events during the Korean campaigns.

Conclusion: History Written by the “Victors”

The enduring mystery of Bantan and Ryozan underscores how wartime narratives serve competing purposes – from boosting morale to securing post-war status. While these engagements likely never occurred as described, their persistence in Japanese historiography illuminates the complex interplay between military reality and constructed memory in samurai society. As with many conflicts, the Imjin War’s history was shaped as much by those who wrote about it afterward as by those who fought it.