Korea as China’s vassal: an analysis of historical relations of domination

For almost two millennia, the Korean peninsula has enjoyed a complex, multi-dimensional relationship with its powerful Chinese neighbor, characterized by a vassal status formalized within the Chinese tributary system. This relationship, far from being one of mere political domination, has profoundly shaped Korea’s cultural, political and social identity, while enabling it to preserve remarkable autonomy and a distinct national identity.

The tributary system, the cornerstone of East Asian diplomacy from the^5th to the ^19th century, placed the Middle Kingdom at the center of a hierarchical world order in which peripheral states recognized its cultural and political supremacy. Korea, often referred to as China’s “little brother”, occupied a privileged place in this system, being considered one of its most loyal and culturally closest vassals.

This age-old relationship lasted through various Chinese and Korean dynasties, evolving according to geopolitical contexts, until its collapse at the end of the ^19th century in the face of Western and Japanese imperialism. This period of transition, brilliantly illustrated in the Korean drama “Mr. Sunshine”, marked the end of a Sinocentric world order that had structured international relations in East Asia for centuries.

This article proposes an in-depth analysis of the nature and evolution of this relationship of vassalage, examining its ideological foundations, its concrete manifestations through different historical periods, and its legacy in contemporary Korea.

The Chinese tributary system: ideological foundations and operation

Definition and fundamental principles

The Chinese tributary system was the fundamental framework for international relations in East Asia from the^5th to the ^19th century. Deeply rooted in the Sinocentric worldview, this system placed the Middle Kingdom at the center of the world order, surrounded by vassal states that recognized its cultural and political supremacy.

As historian Gérard Hervouet explains, this system “institutionalized, as it were, this Confucian conception of the world in which each people had a well-defined place and role.” The Chinese emperor, considered the “Son of Heaven”, was seen as the mediator between heaven and earth, legitimizing his domination over other nations.

The tributary system was based on several key principles:

1. Formalized political hierarchy: a clearly defined structure placed China at the top and the tributary states in a subordinate position.
2. Codified diplomatic rituals: Tributary missions followed strict protocols, including kowtow (叩頭) prostration before the Chinese emperor.
3. Asymmetrical gift exchanges: tributary states offered tribute, while the emperor granted gifts that were generally more precious, symbolizing his benevolence.
4. Recognition of Chinese cultural superiority: Vassal states often adopted elements of Chinese civilization (writing, Confucianism, institutions).
5. Internal autonomy preserved: Despite their vassal status, tributary states generally retained independence in their internal affairs.

Practical operation of the tributary system

The central mechanism of the tributary system was the periodic dispatch of diplomatic missions to the Chinese imperial court. These missions had several functions:

• Politics: Renewing allegiance to the Chinese emperor
• Economic: Facilitating privileged commercial exchanges
• Cultural: Enabling the transmission of Chinese knowledge and practices

As Hervouet points out, “this system, described on numerous occasions, was based on mechanisms whereby each tributary state periodically had to travel to China to renew its allegiance.”

These missions followed a precise schedule, varying according to the importance of the tributary state. Korea, considered a first-rate vassal, sent missions more frequently than other more distant states.

Korea’s specific place in the tributary system

Korea occupied a special place in the Chinese tributary system. Often referred to as China’s “little brother”, it was considered one of the most loyal and culturally close vassals.

Daniel Gomà Pinilla notes that “Korea was a tributary state of China, subject to the authority of the ‘Son of Heaven’.” This tributary relationship continued through various Chinese dynasties, notably under the Ming (1368-1644) and the Qing (1644-1911).

Korean vassalage manifested itself in many ways:

1. Royal investiture: Korean sovereigns received their legitimacy from the Chinese emperor.
2. Adoption of the Chinese calendar: Korea used the imperial Chinese calendar, symbolizing its submission to Chinese time.
3. Regular tributary missions: Korea sent missions to Peking more frequently than any other tributary state.
4. Deep cultural influence: Korea adopted Chinese script, Confucianism and many Chinese administrative practices.

However, as Hervouet points out, “Korea’s membership of the ‘tributary system’, in which the Korean king became a vassal of the Chinese emperor, did not mean that Korea was not totally independent… In fact, Koreans were fiercely independent… Korea’s position as a tributary state was generally ceremonial and, for Koreans, did not imply a loss of autonomy.”

Historical evolution of Korean vassalage

Three Kingdoms period (1st century BC – ^7th century)

During this period, the Korean peninsula was divided between three main kingdoms: Koguryŏ, Paekche and Silla, as well as the Kaya confederation.

Koguryŏ, founded in the north of the peninsula and in Manchuria, maintained complex relations with Chinese dynasties, alternating between vassalage and resistance. In particular, it maintained its independence in the face of attempted invasions by the Sui (612) and Tang (645).

Paekche, located in the southwest of the peninsula, maintained more stable tributary relations with China. It adopted the Chinese writing system and the Chinese royal title of wang as early as the ^3rd century.

Silla, located in the southeast of the peninsula, entered into a strategic alliance with the Tang dynasty to unify the peninsula in 676, accepting vassal status in order to gain Chinese military support.

Unified Silla period (676-935)

After the unification of the peninsula with the help of the Tang dynasty, Silla established a formal tributary relationship with China while preserving its internal autonomy.

This period saw the adoption of the Chinese administrative model and Confucianism as the state ideology, as well as the regular dispatch of tributary missions to the Chinese imperial court. Despite this Chinese influence, Silla developed a distinctive culture and created writing systems adapted to the Korean language (hyangchal (향찰; 鄕札), idu (이두; 吏讀), Chong (설총; 薛聰).

Koryŏ period (918-1392)

The kingdom of Koryŏ (고려), founded by Wang Kŏn (왕건) in 918, went through different phases in its relations with China.

Under the Song dynasty (960-1279), Koryŏ formally recognized Chinese suzerainty while maintaining intensive cultural and commercial exchanges. This period saw the adoption of Neo-Confucianism as the dominant ideology.

Mongol rule (1232-1356) marked a period of strict vassalage after the Mongol invasion. The Mongols created the Secretariat of Eastern Campaigns in 1280 to administer Korea and instituted a policy of matrimonial alliances: nine Yuan princesses married Koryŏ kings. This period was also characterized by systematic exploitation of Korean resources (gold, silver, grain, ginseng) and forced military mobilization for attempted invasions of Japan (1274, 1281).

With the advent of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), Koryŏ re-established a more balanced tributary relationship, and the Ming supported the founding of the Chosŏn dynasty in 1392.

Chosŏn period (1392-1910)

The Chosŏn dynasty, founded by Taejo in 1392, represented the apogee of the tributary system between Korea and China.

Under the Ming dynasty (1392-1644), Chosŏn fully adopted Neo-Confucianism as its state ideology and formalized its tributary relationship with China. Diplomatic missions to Beijing became regular and ritualized, and China provided crucial military support during the Japanese invasions (1592-1598).

Relations with the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) were initially strained, as Chosŏn resisted recognizing the legitimacy of the Qing of Manchu origin. After the Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636-1637, Korea was forced to submit. This period saw the development of an ideology of “petty Sinocentrism” (Sojunghwa), in which Korea saw itself as the guardian of true Chinese civilization against the Manchu “barbarians”.

The ^19th century was marked by a period of voluntary isolation (“Hermit Kingdom”) and the gradual decline of the tributary system, which collapsed definitively after China’s defeat by Japan in 1895.

Dimensions of Korean vassalage

Political dimension

Korean vassalage to China was manifested mainly in the political sphere by :

• Sovereign investiture: Korean kings formally received their legitimacy from the Chinese emperor.
• Adoption of the imperial calendar: Use of the Chinese calendar symbolized recognition of the emperor’s temporal authority.
• Regular diplomatic missions: more frequent than for any other tributary state, these missions periodically reaffirmed Korean allegiance.
• The use of Chinese titles and reign eras in official documents.

Despite these formal signs of submission, Korea retained considerable autonomy in its internal affairs. Chinese emperors rarely intervened in Korean domestic politics, except in the event of a major crisis or dynastic change.

Economic dimension

The tributary system also structured economic relations between Korea and China:

• Privileged commercial exchanges: Tributary missions enabled formal and informal trade.
• Formal tributes: Korea regularly offered precious products such as gold, ginseng, textiles and handicrafts.
• Imperial counter-gifts: the Chinese emperor offered gifts in return, usually more precious ones (silks, books, objets d’art), symbolizing his benevolence.
• Technology transfers: Korea benefited from access to Chinese innovations in various fields (agriculture, crafts, printing).

Cultural dimension

During the period of Mongol domination, economic exploitation was particularly intense, with increased demands on resources and manpower.

China’s cultural influence on Korea was profound and long-lasting:

• Adoption of Confucianism and then Neo-Confucianism as the state ideology and foundation of social organization.
• Use of Chinese script (hanja) for official documents and scholarly literature.
• Education system and examinations modelled on the Chinese model for the recruitment of civil servants.
• Importation of Chineseartistic, architectural and ritual practices.

However, Korea developed a distinctive interpretation of these cultural elements, adapting them to its own context and creating an original synthesis. It also developed writing systems adapted to the Korean language (hyangchal, idu, kugyŏl) before the invention of hangul in the ^15th century.

Particularities of Korean vassalage

Preserved autonomy

Despite its vassal status, Korea maintained several characteristics that set it apart from other tributary states:

1. Remarkable internal autonomy: Chinese emperors rarely intervened in internal Korean affairs.
2. Cultural pride: Koreans considered themselves the best disciples and guardians of Chinese civilization, especially after the Manchu conquest of China.
3. Creative adaptation: Korea adapted Chinese institutions and ideas to its own context, creating a distinctive culture.
4. Occasional resistance: Korea occasionally resisted Chinese demands deemed excessive, notably under Koguryŏ and in the early Chosŏn period against the Qing.
5. Exceptional continuity: The tributary relationship between Korea and China was one of the longest and most stable in the Chinese tributary system, spanning almost two millennia.

The concept of “small sinocentrism” (Sojunghwa)

After the Manchu conquest of China in the ^17th century, Korean elites developed the ideology of “small Sinocentrism” (Sojunghwa). According to this view, Korea had become the true guardian of authentic Chinese civilization, while the Qing were considered “barbarians” who had corrupted Chinese tradition.

This ideology enabled Korea to maintain its cultural pride while formally accepting its vassal status. It also helped reinforce the Korean national identity as heir and protector of the “true” Confucian civilization.

Territorial implications and border conflicts

The tributary relationship between China and Korea also had significant territorial implications. As Daniel Gomà Pinilla explains, “Emperor Kangxi (1662-1723) of the Qing forced Korea, at the time a vassal of China, to accept that the border between the two countries should run across the summit of Paektusan.”

These territorial decisions imposed under the tributary system have left lasting scars. According to Gomà Pinilla, “North Korea often maintains that the territorial quarrel has its origins in tributary relations between Korea and China under the Manchu Qing dynasty, when the Han, the main ethnic group in the ‘Middle Kingdom’, were not in power.”

The end of the tributary system and its contemporary legacy

The decline and collapse of the tributary system

The Chinese tributary system went into gradual decline in the ^19th century, under pressure from Western powers and modernized Japan. For Korea, several factors contributed to the collapse of this centuries-old system:

1. China’s weakening position vis-à-vis the Western powers after the Opium Wars.
2. Japan’s rise to power after the Meiji Restoration of 1868.
3. The First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), which took place mainly on Korean territory and ended in defeat for China.
4. The Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), which forced China to recognize Korea’s independence, officially ending the tributary relationship.

This period of transition, brilliantly illustrated in the Korean drama “Mr. Sunshine”, saw Korea go from being a Chinese vassal to a protectorate and then a Japanese colony (1910-1945).

“Mr. Sunshine”: a cultural representation of the end of vassalage

The South Korean drama “Mr. Sunshine” (2018) offers a striking depiction of this pivotal period in Korean history. Set in the early 1900s, it depicts Korea at a time when the tributary system is collapsing and the country is facing Japan’s imperialist ambitions.

Although the drama focuses mainly on Korean resistance to Japanese imperialism, it perfectly illustrates the transition period when Korea, having long relied on Chinese protection under the tributary system, finds itself vulnerable to foreign powers.

The series depicts the different reactions of Korea’s elites to these geopolitical changes: some characters remain attached to traditional Confucian values inherited from China, while others embrace modernization or collaborate with the Japanese. These different positions reflect the debates that shook Korean society at the end of the tributary system.

The legacy of the tributary system in contemporary Sino-Korean relations

The legacy of the tributary system continues to influence international relations in East Asia. As Hervouet suggests, “all Chinese policy in Asia tends to re-establish in a contemporary form the ancient system of tributary relations that prevailed for many centuries.”

For Korea, this history of vassalage has helped forge a complex national identity, marked both by a profound Chinese cultural influence and a fierce desire for independence.

Current territorial tensions between North Korea and China, notably over Mount Paektu (Changbai for the Chinese), bear witness to the persistence of this historical legacy in contemporary Sino-Korean relations.

In modern South Korea, the legacy of the tributary system manifests itself in more subtle ways, through an intense economic and cultural relationship with China, while maintaining a strategic alliance with the USA as a counterweight to Chinese influence.

Conclusion

The vassalage relationship between Korea and China, formalized in the tributary system, is one of the most enduring and complex examples of hierarchical international relations in world history. Far from being a mere political domination, this relationship has profoundly shaped Korea’s cultural, political and social identity, while enabling it to preserve a remarkable autonomy.

Through the various historical periods, from the Three Kingdoms to the end of the Chosŏn dynasty, Korea has skilfully navigated its relationship with its powerful neighbor, formally accepting its vassal status while developing a distinctive culture and strong national identity.

The collapse of the tributary system at the end of the ^19th century, brilliantly illustrated in the drama “Mr. Sunshine”, marked the end of a Sinocentric world order that had structured international relations in East Asia for centuries. However, the legacy of this centuries-old relationship continues to influence geopolitical and cultural dynamics on the Korean peninsula and beyond.

Understanding this complex history of vassalage and autonomy helps us to better grasp the subtleties of contemporary relations between Korea and China, as well as the historical foundations of Korean national identity, forged in this paradox of profound influence and fierce independence.

References

HERVOUET, Gérard. “China and the Far East: imperial tradition and national interest”. Études internationales. Québec: Institut québécois des hautes études internationales, 1975, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 455-467.

GOMÀ PINILLA, Daniel. “Border disputes between China and North Korea”. Perspectives chinoises. Hong Kong: Centre d’études français sur la Chine contemporaine, 2006, n° 95, p. 24-33.

SETH, Michael J. A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. 648 p.

FAIRBANK, John K. & TÊNG, Ssu-yü. “On the Ch’ing Tributary System. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. Cambridge : Harvard-Yenching Institute, 1941, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 135-246.

LARSEN, Kirk W. Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosŏn Korea, 1850-1910. Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2008. 340 p.

PALAIS, James B. Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the Late Chosŏn Dynasty. Seattle : University of Washington Press, 1996. 1279 p.

KIM, Key-Hiuk. “The Sinocentric World Order in 19th Century Korea.” Korean Journal of International Studies. Seoul: The Korean Association of International Studies, 2017, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 179-202.

World History Encyclopedia. “Korea-China relations in antiquity” [online]. 2019. Available from: https: //www.worldhistory.org/trans/fr/2-984/relations-entre-la-coree-et-la-chine-dans-lantiqui/ (Accessed 21 March 2025).