Historical questions regarding 15th century Feudal Japan

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Does the OP want to discuss the early 15th Century or the late 15th Century?

My question was regarding the latter half of the 15th century, guess I should have been more specific.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

The Northerners called up large numbers of militia at the beginning, too.

Yes they did. I was referring to both Northern and Southern states. The point was that while the Federal government could in fact gather enough force to wage a civil war, they hadn't enough regulars to make rebellion impossible in the first place.

The chief advantage of American militia was that it provided mass training on the cheap that enabled large sections of the population to be militarized. When militia were put on the field in themselves, they tended to have rather questionable results tactically. In the Civil War and the War of Independence though the political question was whether they would obey their local leaders or their official government and most militias sided with the local government.

I was comparing this weakness to the establishment of the Tokugawa dynasty. The Shogun's goal in the gun-hunt, was in fact to make rebellion impossible and not merely to defeat any rebellion. Certainly largely for the sake of his own political interests, however a war-weary Japan was willing to cooperate and for what it was worth Japan never had another civil war until the Restoration and that was a fairly minor one.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Yes they did. I was referring to both Northern and Southern states. The point was that while the Federal government could in fact gather enough force to wage a civil war, they hadn't enough regulars to make rebellion impossible in the first place.

The chief advantage of American militia was that it provided mass training on the cheap that enabled large sections of the population to be militarized. When militia were put on the field in themselves, they tended to have rather questionable results tactically. In the Civil War and the War of Independence though the political question was whether they would obey their local leaders or their official government and most militias sided with the local government.

I was comparing this weakness to the establishment of the Tokugawa dynasty. Shogun's goal in the gun-hunt, was in fact to make rebellion impossible and not merely to defeat any rebellion. Certainly largely for the sake of his own political interests, however a war-weary Japan was willing to cooperate and for what it was worth Japan never had another civil war until the Restoration and that was a fairly minor one.

Had state gov'ts across the North dragged their feet in a big way, Lincoln would probably have had to give up his plan of conquering the seceded states. The Feds needed state cooperation to fight a war.


In the Federal services, Southern men often left to fight for their home states. That's especially true among Army officers, as you surely know.


State loyalty was an important factor for many Northerners, too. It's just that they did not face the same conflict of loyalties, as their states remained in the Union.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Had state gov'ts in the North dragged their feet in a big way, Lincoln would probably have had to give up his war. The Feds needed state cooperation to fight a war.

Certainly. Didn't I just say that?

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Certainly. Didn't I just say that?

I agree with you on facts.
It's a matter of emphasis and interpretation.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

I agree with you on facts.
It's a matter of emphasis and interpretation.

Ok, how is your emphasis and interpretation different? My point was that the states had enough latent military strength to make a Civil War practicable and the Shogun wished to avoid the Daimyos having that. The emphasis I gave was necessary because I was using it as a specific similarity in two otherwise highly different political situations.

I am well aware that Lincoln needed the support of the Northern States just as for that matter the Shogun needed the support of enough Daimyos to win in battle before he could enact his gun hunt.

Another example would be Dorca Vorbarra limiting the counts to twenty armsmen. That was done for the same purpose and had the same effect on Barrayar.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Ok, how is your emphasis and interpretation different? My point was that the states had enough latent military strength to make a Civil War practicable and the Shogun wished to avoid the Daimyos having that. The emphasis I gave was necessary because I was using it as a specific similarity in two otherwise highly different political situations.

I don't think the Federal government could have prevented a civil war by threat of arms, not even with a much larger standing army.
Your earlier post implied that it could have done, or at least I read it that way. I suspect that a larger regular army could even have helped bring on a war sooner, for several reasons.


I do appreciate that you had to lay a certain emphasis on the standing army in order to point out specific similarities you saw in two very different political and historical contexts.

[combatmedic]

IMO, the sword hunts in Japan were not only about preventing local lords from rebelling, but also about forcing the common people into a servile or defenseless position, more fully subordinated to the ruling class.

I've sent a PM related to this. I'd prefer to avoid too much thread drift.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

IMO, the sword hunts in Japan were not only about preventing local lords from rebelling, but also about forcing the common people into a servile or defenseless position, more fully subordinated to the ruling class.

I've sent a PM related to this. I'd prefer to avoid too much thread drift.

Actually it was more about the fear of a daimyo putting firearms in the hands of cheap recruits. Peasant's revolts were more a European phenomenon where commoners weren't quite as aware of their proper status.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by warellis

Well I don't know about the other stuff, but the claim that firearms weren't widely known in Japan seems like bull when battles during the Sengoku era were won due to firearms, with vast armies armed almost entirely with firearms. In fact Japan was building more firearms than Europe and had actually improved upon the basic matchlock design with lacquerware boxes to protect lit fuses from rain. The Japanese also used firearms a lot during their invasion of Korea. So where exactly does the idea that Japan didn't know much about firearms come from? Yes during the Tokugawa Shogunate's rule firearms production was reduced drastically, but that doesn't mean knowledge of it would be lost. In fact even during the ban on foreigners, there still was rangaku which did lead to things like air guns.

Really what the Japanese lacked in firearms was field artillery, compared to the Europeans.

The idea that Asians were behind in military technology is anachronistic. Until the late part of the nineteenth century Asians had access to roughly equal technology and several Asian armies took advantage. The problem was that few could develop a tactical system to match it and much of the reason for that was entrenched interests of the warrior class. Why Europeans managed it is another question; they were always under pressure to adapt from the ongoing wars with Islam which put them under constant exposure to an alien military system. Equally to the point, European warfare never was a class monopoly or anything like it.

In the case of Japan, there was always enough foreign commerce for knowledge about firearms to be available. It simply was ignored until it became clear that firearm-equipped Ashigaru provided a cheap replacement for Samurai. Techniques of volley fire were developed as well. It is kind of difficult to believe that exactly the same tactical innovation came about independently but apparently it did. In any case once the utility of firearms became clear they were used widely in Japanese dynastic wars.

The pre-Tokagawa samurai were more rough hewn then the Tokagawa; less obsessed with tea ceremonies and elegant weapons from a less civilized age and more concerned with victory. Aside from that, the Samurai themselves would not have to handle firearms. And in any case many of them were promoted Ashigaru who would be less inclined toward snobbery then their descendants. It is true there was a time-lag before firearms were widely used in Japan. Still they not only had contact with firearms, they were able to learn how to use them effectively once they became fashionable.