Originally posted by treetalkOh it's interesting already. But, no, I do not expect you or Lord Otomo to change sides.
Why on earth would that be instructive for Otomo and I?
9-3 odds now - the [b]only way this game would become interesting would be if one of you guys came over to our side!
LOL - I have more than a passing knowledge of Japanese history, as well, my friend. 🙂[/b]
I thought you too might be an interested reader of Japanese history...
omoshiroi neh?
Originally posted by drakkarTotemo!
Oh it's interesting already. But, no, I do not expect you or Lord Otomo to change sides.
I thought you too might be an interested reader of Japanese history...
omoshiroi neh?
Saw a sad/poignant movie about the suicide bombers a little while ago - 'tokutai' or something - I'll find the name of it for you.
Originally posted by drakkarYeah...switching sides would be ridiculous. There are already 6 too many of you on your side. Why would I join you?
Oh it's interesting already. But, no, I do not expect you or Lord Otomo to change sides.
I thought you too might be an interested reader of Japanese history...
omoshiroi neh?
2 edits
Originally posted by drakkarBut be that as it may, at least by sengoku times, there was no doubt that the one-dimensional kind of emotion-laden loyalty, even if exaggerated in medieval tales, was no longer operative. Loyalty was a highly personal and contractual arrangement between samurai and lord, conditional on both parties fulfilling their mutual obligations. With Japan divided into several hundred heavily armed independent domains, each lord was concerned with surrounding himself with skilled strategists and fighters. Effective administration of the domain demanded that he establish codes to regulate the behavior of warrior and peasant alike. That in those codes a lord would strongly emphasize the loyalty that his samurai owed him is hardly surprising. The first of Takeda Nobushige's ninety-nine house rules warns the retainer never to be treacherous to his master. But, as Sakaiya reminds us, "however a certain quality is considered desirable is no guarantee that it actually prevails.''[28]
You are 100% correct in that.
Daimyo often swapped allegiances.
It's a very instructive point to make to the Otomo and the Ito…
By the way, the other reason that Masashige is held in high esteem is that he died for the emperor - or who he perceived was the legitimate emperor. The Taiiheiki has details on all that.
I've read it.
In Japanese.
Some of d. Our game represents the sengoku period.
But thanks for that source. It's interesting.
In fact the converse may be true. That is, the frequency with which warrior codes stress the virtue of loyalty is due precisely to the fact that it did not obtain in the violent "world without a center." Great generals of the sixteenth century in fact, in a manner not unlike that in which a George Steinbrenner goes about acquiring the best baseball players available, tried to hire away skilled archers, swordsmen, and military strategists from each other all the time. Loyalty was thus purchased, and exhortations to loyalty to the contrary, samurai frequently changed masters to improve their immediate and future circumstances.
Maybe you should work on reading in English.
Originally posted by no1marauderOh I've read it in English too.
Great generals of the sixteenth century in fact, in a manner not unlike that in which a George Steinbrenner goes about acquiring the best baseball players available, tried to hire away skilled archers, swordsmen, and military strategists from each other all the time. Loyalty was thus purchased, and exhortations to loyalty to the contrary, samurai frequen ...[text shortened]... immediate and future circumstances.
Maybe you should work on reading in English.[/b]
And I certainly never fail to read things in English whenever I want to learn about the vital role bushido has played in baseball….
1 edit
Originally posted by drakkarI guess you don't understand what a comparison is.
Oh I've read it in English too.
And I certainly never fail to read things in English whenever I want to learn about the vital role bushido has played in baseball….
Are you claiming to be a greater expert on Japanese history than the author of this article?
EDIT: This guy: G. Cameron Hurst III is professor of` History and East Asian Languages and Cultures, and Director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the University of Kansas.
　
Originally posted by no1marauderNo.
I guess you don't understand what a comparison is.
Are you claiming to be a greater expert on Japanese history than the author of this article?
EDIT: This guy: G. Cameron Hurst III is professor of` History and East Asian Languages and Cultures, and Director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the University of Kansas.
　
I'm actually wondering what it is you think I disagree with….?
The Taiheiki is the original chronicle written by people who lived in the same country and century as Masashige.
Most of what is known of him comes from this source.
Perhaps you can explain to me why a baseball fan in modern day Kansas knows more about him than the authors of the Taiheiki, from which chronicle all his information would derive anyway.
Besides, as I said, I don’t disagree.
By the way, if we treat Masashige as a valid example anyway (perhaps he is) he is an example of self-sacrifice and loyalty, not treachery. He fought his last battle knowing he would lose and that he was about to die.
2 edits
Originally posted by drakkarI disagree with this statement of yours esp. the part in bold:
No.
I'm actually wondering what it is you think I disagree with….?
The Taiheiki is the original chronicle written by people who lived in the same country and century as Masashige.
Most of what is known of him comes from this source.
Perhaps you can explain to me why a baseball fan in modern day Kansas knows more about him than the authors of the Taih ...[text shortened]... y, not treachery. He fought his last battle knowing he would lose and that he was about to die.
The oath of fealty in sengoku Japan was literally the willingness to throw one's life away for one's lord. I've just played out that mentality. If my lord wins, I win, as far as I am concerned. Whether I am named as one of the official winners or not simply doesn't matter to me.
Others might scoff at that, but that is true to the period and what I personally wanted out of the game.
No, as pointed out in the article such loyalty without any reciprocal treatment on the part of the lord is NOT "true to the period" (as well as being particulary dumb game strategy).
And you continue to have reading comprehension problems:
In other words, Takauji, twice disloyal for having first turned against his feudal lord and then his sovereign, was far closer to the prototype of the medieval Japanese warrior than was Masashige.
And your simple minded statement about "a baseball fan in Kansas" is so staggeringly stupid I don't know how to respond. Apparently this particular "baseball fan" happens to be a professor and expert in Asian History. He was using a contemporary example to illustrate his point about the lack of loyalty in the period in question. If you have ever been inside a school, you'd know that's a pretty common teaching technique.
1 edit
And for those of you who don't get it, becoming a vassal is supposed to be a strategy to help the winning chances of a commoner, not to abdicate them. My vassal in Age of Conquest (an experienced player) told me it was common practice for the lord to share equally any fiefdom income with a vassal who owned any province in the region. In addition, the gold income of any province ceded to the lord by the vassal and subsequently annexed by the lord was supposed to be returned to the vassal (after the annexation costs were paid). In this game, my vassals have received substantially more in gold income from transfers from me than they have paid in tribute. I wonder if the vassals of the Uesugi and Merchant Monk can say the same.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's the case with my suzerain.
And for those of you who don't get it, becoming a vassal is supposed to be a strategy to help the winning chances of a commoner, not to abdicate them. My vassal in Age of Conquest (an experienced player) told me it was common practice for the lord to share equally any fiefdom income with a vassal who owned any province in the region. In addition, the gol ...[text shortened]... have paid in tribute. I wonder if the vassals of the Uesugi and Merchant Monk can say the same.
Originally posted by no1marauderCapitalism hasn't made it this far north yet.
And for those of you who don't get it, becoming a vassal is supposed to be a strategy to help the winning chances of a commoner, not to abdicate them. My vassal in Age of Conquest (an experienced player) told me it was common practice for the lord to share equally any fiefdom income with a vassal who owned any province in the region. In addition, the gol ...[text shortened]... have paid in tribute. I wonder if the vassals of the Uesugi and Merchant Monk can say the same.
Originally posted by cadwahl have been sharing the spoils of our conquest with my vassals since they became vassals. The more they have grown and ceded the more l have given and continue to give.
Capitalism hasn't made it this far north yet.
What have you done fpr your vassal No1?
Originally posted by nook7We get plenty my stirring little 'tanuki'! 🙂
l have been sharing the spoils of our conquest with my vassals since they became vassals. The more they have grown and ceded the more l have given and continue to give.
What have you done fpr your vassal No1?