日本对壬辰倭乱期间明朝中国及朝鲜的记载与描述是否与真实历史不符？
Are Japan's records and descxtions of Ming China and Korea during the Imjin War inconsistent with real history?
译文简介
若你了解当时中、日、朝三国的档案体系，并为三国档案给出相对评分，假设中国为1分，朝鲜约为0.85分，日本则不足0.5分。当然，这些档案本身都是100%真实的，上述评分仅为相对分值。
中国将领的战报与奏折、明朝皇帝及中央政府的指令、后勤官员的详细账簿等，均需多次誊抄并由不同部门留存。中国历史依据这些记载，能够精确到日地记录战事情况：参战部队的将领是谁、兵力有多少、战马有多少、火炮有多少、何时参战、何时撤军、消耗了多少粮草与火药、大致伤亡人数等，都有相对完整的记录，且不同部门的记载可相互印证。
朝鲜的记载其实并不完整，毕竟明朝皇帝派兵援朝时，朝鲜国王已然逃至中国，当时没有相关的官僚运作记录，仅留存有与国王相关的宫廷记录。
至于日本？根本不存在所谓的官僚体系记录，只有当时的一些书信以及后世的史学研究资料。
正文翻译
Are Japan's records and descxtions of Ming China and Korea during the Imjin War inconsistent with real history?
日本对壬辰倭乱期间明朝中国及朝鲜的记载与描述是否与真实历史不符？
Yan Hai
Lives in Zhengzhou, Henan, China (1978–present)Feb 10
闫海
居住于中国河南省郑州市（1978年至今） 2月10日
If you understand the archive system of China, Japan and North Korea at that time, and give their archives a relative score.
Assume that China is 1, North Korea is about 0.85, and Japan is less than 0.5
Of course, they are all 100% true, and the above scores are only relative scores.
The war reports and memorials of Chinese generals, the instructions of the Chinese emperor and the central government, the detailed account books of logistics officials, etc., all need to be copied several times and kept by different departments. Chinese history can accurately record the war situation to the day based on these records. Who are the generals of the participating troops, how many people there are, how many horses, how many artillery, when to participate in the war, when to withdraw, how much food and gunpowder were consumed, and the approximate number of deaths and injuries are all recorded relatively completely. And the records of different departments can verify each other.
The records of North Korea are actually not very complete. After all, when the emperor of the Ming Dynasty sent troops to help North Korea, the king of North Korea had actually fled to China. There are no relevant bureaucratic operation records, only the palace records related to the emperor.
Japan? There is no such thing as bureaucratic records, only some letters at that time and later historical research.
若你了解当时中、日、朝三国的档案体系，并为三国档案给出相对评分，假设中国为1分，朝鲜约为0.85分，日本则不足0.5分。当然，这些档案本身都是100%真实的，上述评分仅为相对分值。
中国将领的战报与奏折、明朝皇帝及中央政府的指令、后勤官员的详细账簿等，均需多次誊抄并由不同部门留存。中国历史依据这些记载，能够精确到日地记录战事情况：参战部队的将领是谁、兵力有多少、战马有多少、火炮有多少、何时参战、何时撤军、消耗了多少粮草与火药、大致伤亡人数等，都有相对完整的记录，且不同部门的记载可相互印证。
朝鲜的记载其实并不完整，毕竟明朝皇帝派兵援朝时，朝鲜国王已然逃至中国，当时没有相关的官僚运作记录，仅留存有与国王相关的宫廷记录。
至于日本？根本不存在所谓的官僚体系记录，只有当时的一些书信以及后世的史学研究资料。
Halfman Huang
Know lots of History in world.Jan 27
黄半人（真的不知是不是该这么翻译……）
深谙世界历史 1月27日
According to the Japanese textbook version I have read, Japan's descxtion of the process of this war is relatively obxtive, but it greatly downplays the crimes of Japan as the initiator of this aggressive war on Korea, and their unlimited violence on Korean civilians.
But to China, the good thing is that Japan at least acknowledges that the main warring parties in this war were Japan and the Ming Dynasty. But in textbooks from South Korea and North Korea (yes, I had the privilege of reading history textbooks from North Korea, and my dad was a librarian who plucked a complete set of North Korean textbooks when the library closed, and actually with some computer science books like IBM360 operation book which I learnt assembly language from, don’t envy me, In the 1990s, not many people in China had chance to read those things), they completely denies this fact.
BTW, in fact, it is also difficult for the Japanese to deny the process of this war, because the entire process was written into a book by Portuguese missionary who accompanied the war.
根据我所读过的日本教科书版本，日本对这场战争过程的描述相对客观，但却极力淡化其作为对朝侵略战争发起者的罪行，以及对朝鲜平民实施的无底线暴行。
不过对中国而言，值得庆幸的是，日本至少承认这场战争的主要交战方是日本与明朝。但在韩国和朝鲜的教科书中（没错，我有幸读过朝鲜的历史教科书，我父亲曾是图书管理员，在图书馆闭馆时留存了一整套朝鲜教科书，还顺带保留了一些计算机类书籍，比如我曾用来学习汇编语言的《IBM360操作手册》，别羡慕我，在20世纪90年代，中国没多少人有机会读到这些东西），它们完全否认这一事实。
顺带一提，事实上日本也很难否认这场战争的过程，因为当时有一位随军的葡萄牙传教士已将战争全过程撰写成书。
Frieza Jan 27
弗利萨 1月27日
The Ming Dynasty was definitely maliciously slandered. Even now Koreans often make movies to praise Yi Sun-sin and deliberately belittle the importance of Ming army reinforcements. The above answer is very insightful. You can modify the numbers in the battle report and lie about how many people died, but the battle map will not lie. In fact, the Ming army on the Korean battlefield was only about 40,000 to 50,000 at most, but most of them were high-quality cavalry and artillery units, enough to change the situation on the Korean battlefield.
Even if the Japanese samurai themselves have great flaws, the Japanese have always been a race known for their short stature in ancient times. The first time the Chinese saw the Japanese, they called them dwarfs. With the advantage of the matchlock gun, the Japanese can bully the poorly equipped Korean army, but it is a completely different story when they encounter the luxuriously equipped Ming Dynasty Chinese.
即便如今，韩国人也常拍摄电影颂扬李舜臣，同时刻意贬低明朝援军的重要性。上文的回答颇具见地：战报中的数字可以篡改，伤亡人数可以编造，但作战地图不会说谎。事实上，明朝在朝鲜战场上的兵力最多仅约4万至5万人，但其中大部分是精锐骑兵与炮兵部队，足以改变朝鲜战场的局势。
即便日本武士自身存在诸多缺陷，在古代，日本人也一直是因身材矮小而闻名的族群。中国人初次见到日本人时，便称他们为“倭人”（矮人）。凭借火绳枪的优势，日本人或许能欺凌装备简陋的朝鲜军队，但当他们遭遇装备精良的明朝军队时，情况就完全不同了。
Norman Owen
Taught college history for thirty years in America, Australia, and AsiaJan 29
诺曼·欧文
曾在美洲、澳大利亚及亚洲地区教授大学历史三十年 1月29日
I can’t answer the specific question, but someone needs to challenge the premise.
We never really know “real history.” All sources are flawed, some deliberately (flat-out lying propaganda), most due to incomplete or inadequate information. Even a soldier who is present at a battle may not know what is happening half a mile away, much less the strategic consequences. An explorer reporting on what they have found cannot really “see” their arrival in a new land through the eyes of the local inhabitants. A bureaucrat faithfully recording and compiling all the information on where personnel are assigned and how much they are paid is dependent on the reliability of the original sources, and whether so two-bit clerk (which I used to be, BTW) knew the information, transcribed it accurately, and forwarded it in a timely manner to reliable intermediaries in the organization.
So it’s perfectly legitimate to ask how Japanese records in this conflict differ from other sources, but it is a fundamental error to suppose that the latter define “real history.” All we can do is approximate, draw the best conclusions we can from the flawed evidence we are given, including those from the side or faction we favor.
我无法回答这个具体问题，但有人需要对问题的前提提出质疑。
我们从未真正知晓“真实的历史”。所有史料都存在缺陷：有些是刻意为之（纯粹的谎言宣传），而大多数则是因信息不完整或不充分所致。即便身处战场的士兵，也可能无法知晓半英里外发生的事情，更不用说战事的战略影响了；探险家在汇报其发现时，无法真正从当地居民的视角“看待”自己抵达这片新土地的意义；官僚即便尽心记录并整理人员部署、薪资发放等所有信息，也依赖于原始资料的可靠性，同时还取决于某个不起眼的小职员（顺便提一句，我以前就当过这样的职员）是否了解相关信息、是否准确转录，以及是否及时将其传递给组织内可靠的中间人。
因此，询问此次冲突中日本的记载与其他史料有何差异，这一做法完全合理，但认为后者定义了“真实历史”，则是一个根本性错误。我们所能做的，只是根据手中存在缺陷的证据（包括我们所支持的一方或派系的证据）进行推测，尽可能得出最优结论。
Dong-Yoon Lee
40+ years of studying for Korea as a resident and observerupxed Mar 15
李 Dong-Yoon（注：原文未提供标准汉字译名，此处保留原文拼写）
作为居民与观察者，研究韩国相关领域四十余年 3月15日更新
I don’t know about the Japanese records on the Ming Dynasty, but the records on Joseon are reliable. Japanese had a very military culture at the time, and like Rome in the West, they were brutal, but functional and simple about facts. In any case, there is no uation that they distorted anything about Korea. (Ah, they reduced records about their massive scale atrocities.)
Rather, the Chinese distorted a lot. At that time, the Ming Dynasty was a protectorate of Korea and at the same time, it sent reinforcements, and they even tried to divide Korea in two for making a ceasefire with Japan. They proposed it to Japan first. The Korean delegation that noticed this actively opposed this ceasefire plan, and the representative was a prime minister named Ryu Seong-ryong. However, perhaps because of this behavior, the Chinese went back and wrote very badly about Ryu Seong-ryong. sextive recording of facts and malicious uations. Later, various documents were discovered, revealing that the Chinese records were sextive and the uations were arbitrary.
Going back to Japan, the Japanese tried to learn a lot from the experiences. So they tried to collect facts, including their own failures. So later, when diplomatic relations were restored with Korea, they worked frantically to collect Korean records and uations of the war. For example, they left behind several records of the battle, and you can see that they drew the pictures with great respect for the bravery of the Korean army.
Through those pictures, Koreans were able to see that the Korean army was more capable than we imagined from our very poor historical records about military sides, and the gap with the guess was very large. (The reason Koreans have kept a poor record on military issues is because we are basically wary of becoming military fanatics and have a slight aversion to it.)
This (:Getting lessons from the war experiences) is another reason why their records were not distorted much. And after the war, Japan apologized to Korea and made great efforts to restore relations. As a result, a culture of leaving records favorable to their country could not arise in Japan.
(Korean envoys who entered Edo area.)
The reason Japan tried to restore relations with Korea, in my personal opinion, was because they believed that it was much more efficient for Japan to accept what Korea had digested than to directly accept Chinese culture. Since the structures of Korean language and Japanese language are almost identical and their cultural perspectives were similar, Japan could easily understand and be helped from knowledge or theories that Koreans had annotated or that Korea had processed secondarily.
However, at that time, Japan began to exchange with Portugal and the Netherlands in turn, and judged that the culture it accepted from Europe would help its development more efficiently than the culture of Korea and China that it imported through Korea, so it began to ignore the cultural imports through Korea that had existed for a long time in the past.
我不清楚日本关于明朝的记载如何，但关于朝鲜王朝（Joseon）的记载是可靠的。当时的日本拥有浓厚的军事文化，与西方的罗马帝国相似，他们虽残暴，但在记录事实方面务实且直白。无论如何，并无评价表明他们篡改了与朝鲜相关的内容（不过，他们确实减少了关于自身大规模暴行的记载）。
相反，中国方面篡改了大量内容。当时明朝既是朝鲜的宗主国，同时又派兵援助，却为了与日本达成和谈，甚至试图将朝鲜一分为二，且这一提议是明朝首先向日本提出的。察觉此事的朝鲜代表团强烈反对该和谈计划，代表团的领头人是一位名叫柳成龙（Ryu Seong-ryong）的宰相。但或许正因如此，明朝在后续记载中对柳成龙作出了极负面的描述，存在选择性记录事实与恶意评价的情况。后来，各类文献被陆续发现，证实了中国的记载具有选择性，评价也带有主观性。
再回到日本的话题，日本人试图从战争经历中汲取大量经验，因此他们努力收集事实，包括自身的失败经历。所以后来与朝鲜恢复外交关系时，他们竭力搜集朝鲜方面关于这场战争的记载与评价。例如，他们留存了多份战役记录，从其中绘制的图像中可以看出，他们对朝鲜军队的英勇表现怀有极大敬意。
通过这些图像，朝鲜人得以发现，本国军队的作战能力远超此前从简陋的军事历史记载中所推测的水平，二者差距悬殊（朝鲜在军事方面记载薄弱，原因在于我们本质上警惕成为军事狂热分子，且对此类内容略有抵触）。
从战争经验中吸取教训，这是日本记载未出现过多篡改的另一原因。此外，战后日本向朝鲜致歉，并全力推动两国关系恢复，因此日本并未形成“留下对本国有利记载”的文化（此处提及进入江户地区的朝鲜使节）。
在我个人看来，日本试图与朝鲜恢复关系，是因为他们认为，接受朝鲜已吸收消化的文化，比直接接纳中国文化效率更高。由于韩语与日语的语法结构几乎相同，且两国文化视角相近，对于朝鲜人注释过或经朝鲜二次加工的知识与理论，日本能够轻松理解并从中获益。
然而，当时日本开始陆续与葡萄牙、荷兰展开交流，并认为从欧洲吸纳的文化，比通过朝鲜引入的中、韩文化更能高效助力本国发展，于是开始忽视过去长期通过朝鲜引入的文化。
John S. Gilbertson
Former ManagerFeb 2
约翰·S·吉尔伯特森
Yes, they are pretty close, as the invasions aimed to influence China. Japan was close to Korea both physically and politically, and to this day, the Korean population in Japan is still an issue. While they always looked to China as an influence and for years took them as an example in some areas, during the period you mentioned, China was seen as a possible expansion. I have not read everything but within the confines of normal inaccuracies from the time and source. You could ask the same question about the English history written about Western Europe during specific periods. Humans write histories and answer questions that are not always correct.
是的，日本的记载与真实历史相当接近，因为当时日本的侵略行动旨在对中国产生影响。日本与朝鲜在地理和政治上都相距甚近，直至今日，日本境内的朝鲜裔人口问题依然存在。尽管日本一直将中国视为文化影响源，并在多个领域长期以中国为榜样，但在你所提及的那个时期，中国被日本视为潜在的扩张目标。我并未查阅过所有相关资料，但就当时史料普遍存在的正常误差范围而言，日本的记载是可接受的。类似的问题也可用于审视英国对特定时期西欧历史的记载——人类撰写历史、回答问题时，并非总能做到准确无误。
日本对壬辰倭乱期间明朝中国及朝鲜的记载与描述是否与真实历史不符？
Yan Hai
Lives in Zhengzhou, Henan, China (1978–present)Feb 10
闫海
居住于中国河南省郑州市（1978年至今） 2月10日
If you understand the archive system of China, Japan and North Korea at that time, and give their archives a relative score.
Assume that China is 1, North Korea is about 0.85, and Japan is less than 0.5
Of course, they are all 100% true, and the above scores are only relative scores.
The war reports and memorials of Chinese generals, the instructions of the Chinese emperor and the central government, the detailed account books of logistics officials, etc., all need to be copied several times and kept by different departments. Chinese history can accurately record the war situation to the day based on these records. Who are the generals of the participating troops, how many people there are, how many horses, how many artillery, when to participate in the war, when to withdraw, how much food and gunpowder were consumed, and the approximate number of deaths and injuries are all recorded relatively completely. And the records of different departments can verify each other.
The records of North Korea are actually not very complete. After all, when the emperor of the Ming Dynasty sent troops to help North Korea, the king of North Korea had actually fled to China. There are no relevant bureaucratic operation records, only the palace records related to the emperor.
Japan? There is no such thing as bureaucratic records, only some letters at that time and later historical research.
若你了解当时中、日、朝三国的档案体系，并为三国档案给出相对评分，假设中国为1分，朝鲜约为0.85分，日本则不足0.5分。当然，这些档案本身都是100%真实的，上述评分仅为相对分值。
中国将领的战报与奏折、明朝皇帝及中央政府的指令、后勤官员的详细账簿等，均需多次誊抄并由不同部门留存。中国历史依据这些记载，能够精确到日地记录战事情况：参战部队的将领是谁、兵力有多少、战马有多少、火炮有多少、何时参战、何时撤军、消耗了多少粮草与火药、大致伤亡人数等，都有相对完整的记录，且不同部门的记载可相互印证。
朝鲜的记载其实并不完整，毕竟明朝皇帝派兵援朝时，朝鲜国王已然逃至中国，当时没有相关的官僚运作记录，仅留存有与国王相关的宫廷记录。
至于日本？根本不存在所谓的官僚体系记录，只有当时的一些书信以及后世的史学研究资料。
Halfman Huang
Know lots of History in world.Jan 27
黄半人（真的不知是不是该这么翻译……）
深谙世界历史 1月27日
According to the Japanese textbook version I have read, Japan's descxtion of the process of this war is relatively obxtive, but it greatly downplays the crimes of Japan as the initiator of this aggressive war on Korea, and their unlimited violence on Korean civilians.
But to China, the good thing is that Japan at least acknowledges that the main warring parties in this war were Japan and the Ming Dynasty. But in textbooks from South Korea and North Korea (yes, I had the privilege of reading history textbooks from North Korea, and my dad was a librarian who plucked a complete set of North Korean textbooks when the library closed, and actually with some computer science books like IBM360 operation book which I learnt assembly language from, don’t envy me, In the 1990s, not many people in China had chance to read those things), they completely denies this fact.
BTW, in fact, it is also difficult for the Japanese to deny the process of this war, because the entire process was written into a book by Portuguese missionary who accompanied the war.
根据我所读过的日本教科书版本，日本对这场战争过程的描述相对客观，但却极力淡化其作为对朝侵略战争发起者的罪行，以及对朝鲜平民实施的无底线暴行。
不过对中国而言，值得庆幸的是，日本至少承认这场战争的主要交战方是日本与明朝。但在韩国和朝鲜的教科书中（没错，我有幸读过朝鲜的历史教科书，我父亲曾是图书管理员，在图书馆闭馆时留存了一整套朝鲜教科书，还顺带保留了一些计算机类书籍，比如我曾用来学习汇编语言的《IBM360操作手册》，别羡慕我，在20世纪90年代，中国没多少人有机会读到这些东西），它们完全否认这一事实。
顺带一提，事实上日本也很难否认这场战争的过程，因为当时有一位随军的葡萄牙传教士已将战争全过程撰写成书。
Frieza Jan 27
弗利萨 1月27日
The Ming Dynasty was definitely maliciously slandered. Even now Koreans often make movies to praise Yi Sun-sin and deliberately belittle the importance of Ming army reinforcements. The above answer is very insightful. You can modify the numbers in the battle report and lie about how many people died, but the battle map will not lie. In fact, the Ming army on the Korean battlefield was only about 40,000 to 50,000 at most, but most of them were high-quality cavalry and artillery units, enough to change the situation on the Korean battlefield.
Even if the Japanese samurai themselves have great flaws, the Japanese have always been a race known for their short stature in ancient times. The first time the Chinese saw the Japanese, they called them dwarfs. With the advantage of the matchlock gun, the Japanese can bully the poorly equipped Korean army, but it is a completely different story when they encounter the luxuriously equipped Ming Dynasty Chinese.
即便如今，韩国人也常拍摄电影颂扬李舜臣，同时刻意贬低明朝援军的重要性。上文的回答颇具见地：战报中的数字可以篡改，伤亡人数可以编造，但作战地图不会说谎。事实上，明朝在朝鲜战场上的兵力最多仅约4万至5万人，但其中大部分是精锐骑兵与炮兵部队，足以改变朝鲜战场的局势。
即便日本武士自身存在诸多缺陷，在古代，日本人也一直是因身材矮小而闻名的族群。中国人初次见到日本人时，便称他们为“倭人”（矮人）。凭借火绳枪的优势，日本人或许能欺凌装备简陋的朝鲜军队，但当他们遭遇装备精良的明朝军队时，情况就完全不同了。
Norman Owen
Taught college history for thirty years in America, Australia, and AsiaJan 29
诺曼·欧文
曾在美洲、澳大利亚及亚洲地区教授大学历史三十年 1月29日
I can’t answer the specific question, but someone needs to challenge the premise.
We never really know “real history.” All sources are flawed, some deliberately (flat-out lying propaganda), most due to incomplete or inadequate information. Even a soldier who is present at a battle may not know what is happening half a mile away, much less the strategic consequences. An explorer reporting on what they have found cannot really “see” their arrival in a new land through the eyes of the local inhabitants. A bureaucrat faithfully recording and compiling all the information on where personnel are assigned and how much they are paid is dependent on the reliability of the original sources, and whether so two-bit clerk (which I used to be, BTW) knew the information, transcribed it accurately, and forwarded it in a timely manner to reliable intermediaries in the organization.
So it’s perfectly legitimate to ask how Japanese records in this conflict differ from other sources, but it is a fundamental error to suppose that the latter define “real history.” All we can do is approximate, draw the best conclusions we can from the flawed evidence we are given, including those from the side or faction we favor.
我无法回答这个具体问题，但有人需要对问题的前提提出质疑。
我们从未真正知晓“真实的历史”。所有史料都存在缺陷：有些是刻意为之（纯粹的谎言宣传），而大多数则是因信息不完整或不充分所致。即便身处战场的士兵，也可能无法知晓半英里外发生的事情，更不用说战事的战略影响了；探险家在汇报其发现时，无法真正从当地居民的视角“看待”自己抵达这片新土地的意义；官僚即便尽心记录并整理人员部署、薪资发放等所有信息，也依赖于原始资料的可靠性，同时还取决于某个不起眼的小职员（顺便提一句，我以前就当过这样的职员）是否了解相关信息、是否准确转录，以及是否及时将其传递给组织内可靠的中间人。
因此，询问此次冲突中日本的记载与其他史料有何差异，这一做法完全合理，但认为后者定义了“真实历史”，则是一个根本性错误。我们所能做的，只是根据手中存在缺陷的证据（包括我们所支持的一方或派系的证据）进行推测，尽可能得出最优结论。
Dong-Yoon Lee
40+ years of studying for Korea as a resident and observerupxed Mar 15
李 Dong-Yoon（注：原文未提供标准汉字译名，此处保留原文拼写）
作为居民与观察者，研究韩国相关领域四十余年 3月15日更新
I don’t know about the Japanese records on the Ming Dynasty, but the records on Joseon are reliable. Japanese had a very military culture at the time, and like Rome in the West, they were brutal, but functional and simple about facts. In any case, there is no uation that they distorted anything about Korea. (Ah, they reduced records about their massive scale atrocities.)
Rather, the Chinese distorted a lot. At that time, the Ming Dynasty was a protectorate of Korea and at the same time, it sent reinforcements, and they even tried to divide Korea in two for making a ceasefire with Japan. They proposed it to Japan first. The Korean delegation that noticed this actively opposed this ceasefire plan, and the representative was a prime minister named Ryu Seong-ryong. However, perhaps because of this behavior, the Chinese went back and wrote very badly about Ryu Seong-ryong. sextive recording of facts and malicious uations. Later, various documents were discovered, revealing that the Chinese records were sextive and the uations were arbitrary.
Going back to Japan, the Japanese tried to learn a lot from the experiences. So they tried to collect facts, including their own failures. So later, when diplomatic relations were restored with Korea, they worked frantically to collect Korean records and uations of the war. For example, they left behind several records of the battle, and you can see that they drew the pictures with great respect for the bravery of the Korean army.
Through those pictures, Koreans were able to see that the Korean army was more capable than we imagined from our very poor historical records about military sides, and the gap with the guess was very large. (The reason Koreans have kept a poor record on military issues is because we are basically wary of becoming military fanatics and have a slight aversion to it.)
This (:Getting lessons from the war experiences) is another reason why their records were not distorted much. And after the war, Japan apologized to Korea and made great efforts to restore relations. As a result, a culture of leaving records favorable to their country could not arise in Japan.
(Korean envoys who entered Edo area.)
The reason Japan tried to restore relations with Korea, in my personal opinion, was because they believed that it was much more efficient for Japan to accept what Korea had digested than to directly accept Chinese culture. Since the structures of Korean language and Japanese language are almost identical and their cultural perspectives were similar, Japan could easily understand and be helped from knowledge or theories that Koreans had annotated or that Korea had processed secondarily.
However, at that time, Japan began to exchange with Portugal and the Netherlands in turn, and judged that the culture it accepted from Europe would help its development more efficiently than the culture of Korea and China that it imported through Korea, so it began to ignore the cultural imports through Korea that had existed for a long time in the past.
我不清楚日本关于明朝的记载如何，但关于朝鲜王朝（Joseon）的记载是可靠的。当时的日本拥有浓厚的军事文化，与西方的罗马帝国相似，他们虽残暴，但在记录事实方面务实且直白。无论如何，并无评价表明他们篡改了与朝鲜相关的内容（不过，他们确实减少了关于自身大规模暴行的记载）。
相反，中国方面篡改了大量内容。当时明朝既是朝鲜的宗主国，同时又派兵援助，却为了与日本达成和谈，甚至试图将朝鲜一分为二，且这一提议是明朝首先向日本提出的。察觉此事的朝鲜代表团强烈反对该和谈计划，代表团的领头人是一位名叫柳成龙（Ryu Seong-ryong）的宰相。但或许正因如此，明朝在后续记载中对柳成龙作出了极负面的描述，存在选择性记录事实与恶意评价的情况。后来，各类文献被陆续发现，证实了中国的记载具有选择性，评价也带有主观性。
再回到日本的话题，日本人试图从战争经历中汲取大量经验，因此他们努力收集事实，包括自身的失败经历。所以后来与朝鲜恢复外交关系时，他们竭力搜集朝鲜方面关于这场战争的记载与评价。例如，他们留存了多份战役记录，从其中绘制的图像中可以看出，他们对朝鲜军队的英勇表现怀有极大敬意。
通过这些图像，朝鲜人得以发现，本国军队的作战能力远超此前从简陋的军事历史记载中所推测的水平，二者差距悬殊（朝鲜在军事方面记载薄弱，原因在于我们本质上警惕成为军事狂热分子，且对此类内容略有抵触）。
从战争经验中吸取教训，这是日本记载未出现过多篡改的另一原因。此外，战后日本向朝鲜致歉，并全力推动两国关系恢复，因此日本并未形成“留下对本国有利记载”的文化（此处提及进入江户地区的朝鲜使节）。
在我个人看来，日本试图与朝鲜恢复关系，是因为他们认为，接受朝鲜已吸收消化的文化，比直接接纳中国文化效率更高。由于韩语与日语的语法结构几乎相同，且两国文化视角相近，对于朝鲜人注释过或经朝鲜二次加工的知识与理论，日本能够轻松理解并从中获益。
然而，当时日本开始陆续与葡萄牙、荷兰展开交流，并认为从欧洲吸纳的文化，比通过朝鲜引入的中、韩文化更能高效助力本国发展，于是开始忽视过去长期通过朝鲜引入的文化。
John S. Gilbertson
Former ManagerFeb 2
约翰·S·吉尔伯特森
Yes, they are pretty close, as the invasions aimed to influence China. Japan was close to Korea both physically and politically, and to this day, the Korean population in Japan is still an issue. While they always looked to China as an influence and for years took them as an example in some areas, during the period you mentioned, China was seen as a possible expansion. I have not read everything but within the confines of normal inaccuracies from the time and source. You could ask the same question about the English history written about Western Europe during specific periods. Humans write histories and answer questions that are not always correct.
是的，日本的记载与真实历史相当接近，因为当时日本的侵略行动旨在对中国产生影响。日本与朝鲜在地理和政治上都相距甚近，直至今日，日本境内的朝鲜裔人口问题依然存在。尽管日本一直将中国视为文化影响源，并在多个领域长期以中国为榜样，但在你所提及的那个时期，中国被日本视为潜在的扩张目标。我并未查阅过所有相关资料，但就当时史料普遍存在的正常误差范围而言，日本的记载是可接受的。类似的问题也可用于审视英国对特定时期西欧历史的记载——人类撰写历史、回答问题时，并非总能做到准确无误。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 15 )
收藏
中国将领的战报与奏折、明朝皇帝及中央政府的指令、后勤官员的详细账簿等，均需多次誊抄并由不同部门留存。中国历史依据这些记载，能够精确到日地记录战事情况：参战部队的将领是谁、兵力有多少、战马有多少、火炮有多少、何时参战、何时撤军、消耗了多少粮草与火药、大致伤亡人数等，都有相对完整的记录，且不同部门的记载可相互印证。
朝鲜的记载其实并不完整，毕竟明朝皇帝派兵援朝时，朝鲜国王已然逃至中国，当时没有相关的官僚运作记录，仅留存有与国王相关的宫廷记录。
至于日本？根本不存在所谓的官僚体系记录，只有当时的一些书信以及后世的史学研究资料。