Changes

On 1419/6/9, [[Taejong]], former King of Korea, and/or his successor [[King Sejong]], declared war on Tsushima. A formal instruction to the people issued by the Korean royal court, describing this as a defensive action, internal to royal territory, and not describing it in terms of an attack against or invasion of non-Korean territory, has been cited by historians as a key document indicating the Joseon court's views on Tsushima as Korean territory that had been taken by Japanese forces or individuals in the past.<ref name=robin45/>

On 1419/6/9, [[Taejong]], former King of Korea, and/or his successor [[King Sejong]], declared war on Tsushima. A formal instruction to the people issued by the Korean royal court, describing this as a defensive action, internal to royal territory, and not describing it in terms of an attack against or invasion of non-Korean territory, has been cited by historians as a key document indicating the Joseon court's views on Tsushima as Korean territory that had been taken by Japanese forces or individuals in the past.<ref name=robin45/>

Ten days after the declaration of war, on 6/19, a fleet of Korean warships set sail for Tsushima under the command of [[Yi Jong-mu]]. The fleet, consisting of some 17,000 men on 227 ships, arrived at the island the following day. Japanese forces performed a successful ambush against their Korean counterparts on 6/26, in what is known as the [[Battle of Nukadake]]. A cease-fire was called on 7/3, and the Korean fleet withdrew for a time. However, fighting eventually resumed, and ended in the head of the Sô clan surrendering to the Korean forces on 9/29.  

Ten days after the declaration of war, on 6/19, a fleet of Korean warships set sail for Tsushima under the command of [[Yi Jong-mu]]. The fleet, consisting of some 17,000 men on 227 ships, arrived at the island the following day. Japanese forces performed a successful ambush against their Korean counterparts on 6/26, in what is known as the [[Battle of Nukadake]]. A cease-fire was called on 7/3, and the Korean fleet withdrew for a time. However, fighting eventually resumed, and ended in the head of the Sô clan surrendering to the Korean forces on 9/29. Taejong issued orders for everyone on Tsushima to vacate the island, relocating to either Korea or Japan; this did not take place, but an envoy of the Sô clan (or someone representing himself as such) expressed that the clan wished for Tsushima to be incorporated into Korea's Gyeongsang (Kyŏngsang) province as a "prefecture" and for the head of the Sô clan to be granted a seal from the king of Joseon, incorporating him as a royal subject.<ref name=robin45/>

Gallery labels at the "Story of King Sejong" museum in Seoul represent these events as the successful "subjugation" of Daemado; however, the invasion did not result in any notable political changes. The samurai Sô clan remained in control of the island, and remained subordinate or deferential to the Joseon court, as they already had been in the past. Though the Sô regularly dispatched envoys to pay respects and [[tribute|tributary]] gifts to the Joseon court, and otherwise acted the role of a Korean vassal well into the 19th century, the island never came under Korean control and remains part of Japan today. Despite the Sô formally surrendering to Korean forces, many in Japan at the time considered the invasion to have been stopped, defeated, by [[Hachiman]], one of the chief deities credited with stopping the [[Mongol invasions]] roughly a century and a half earlier; though by 1419 both the [[Mongol Empire]] ([[Yuan dynasty]] in China) and the closely-affiliated [[Goryeo dynasty]] in Korea had fallen, and the attackers thus had no connection with the Mongols, most in Japan at the time were not aware of these details and drew strong associative connections between the events.<ref>Smits, ''Maritime Ryukyu'', 44.</ref>

Gallery labels at the "Story of King Sejong" museum in Seoul represent these events as the successful "subjugation" of Daemado; however, the invasion did not result in any notable political changes. The samurai Sô clan remained the rulers of the island, and continued to govern and administer in accordance with orders from the [[Muromachi shogunate]]. No Korean governors or officials ever effected power over the island, and there was no significant population exchange, e.g. of Japanese leaving or Koreans settling there. The Sô came to report to the governor of Gyeongsang province rather than to the Joseon Board of Rites which handled foreign interactions. However, while the Sô regularly dispatched envoys to pay respects and [[tribute|tributary]] gifts to the Joseon court, and otherwise acted the role of a Korean vassal well into the 19th century, the island never came under ''de facto'' Korean political or administrative control and remains part of Japan today. Despite the Sô formally surrendering to Korean forces, many in Japan at the time considered the invasion to have been stopped, defeated, by [[Hachiman]], one of the chief deities credited with stopping the [[Mongol invasions]] roughly a century and a half earlier; though by 1419 both the [[Mongol Empire]] ([[Yuan dynasty]] in China) and the closely-affiliated [[Goryeo dynasty]] in Korea had fallen, and the attackers thus had no connection with the Mongols, most in Japan at the time were not aware of these details and drew strong associative connections between the events.<ref>Smits, ''Maritime Ryukyu'', 44.</ref>

In the 1440s, Joseon and the Sô reached an agreement to help curb the pirate problem; the Sô would take on the responsibility of cracking down on smuggling and pirate activity, and enforcing a system of trading licenses, in exchange for stipends and trading rights for themselves.<ref>Robert Hellyer, ''Defining Engagement'', Harvard University Press (2009), 31.</ref>

In the 1440s, Joseon and the Sô reached an agreement to help curb the pirate problem; the Sô would take on the responsibility of cracking down on smuggling and pirate activity, and enforcing a system of trading licenses, in exchange for stipends and trading rights for themselves.<ref>Robert Hellyer, ''Defining Engagement'', Harvard University Press (2009), 31.</ref>