1 edit
Originally posted by drakkarThe main point of the article is a direct refutation of your claim. You refuse to admit this and indirectly insult the man's scholarship. Then you have the balls to talk about being open to "honest discourse"?????????? Give me a break.
There's nothing stupid about the "baseball fan in Kansas" remark.
He seems to spend a lot of time in Kansas and likes baseball. Nothing wrong with that. Baseball is popular. Your issue?
I really do appreciate the source. I looked him up and he's written some papers I want to read. So thanks again.
The oath of fealty asked of a lord to his vassal, when rewarding to actually care about the subject and be open to discourse on it.
EDIT: Try some "honest discourse" about the passage I cited earlier:
But 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]
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.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1... I didn't make a claim to refute.
[b]The main point of the article is a direct refutation of your claim. You refuse to admit this and indirectly insult the man's scholarship. Then you have the balls to talk about being open to "honest discourse"?????????? Give me a break.
EDIT: Try some "honest discourse" about the passage I cited earlier
You said "If you actually knew anything about the period of history, you'd know that there were rebellions by samurai against their lords all the time."
I do know something and yes I do know there were rebellions by samurai against their lords all the time.
My words: "You are 100% correct in that. Daimyo often swapped allegiances".
Then you got offended about my "baseball" comment. Well that was pure levity. You know that of course, but you preferred to feign some kind of righteous indignation that I would not slavishly agree with Professor Hurst because of his qualifications.
Actually...My words: "I don't disagree". Again: "Mr Hurst is not wrong" Again "he's written some papers I want to read"
Pretty affirmative.
I would say he is being highly interpretive, but that's his latitude. Historians do that.
Following that you've just ignored my references to the Taiheiki, to Mototada...etc and regurgitated the same paragraphs, as if you can bludgeon me with them. The broken record technique is very transparent and doesn't fool or intimidate anyone. If you have nothing else to offer because that is the limit of what you've read, just say so. I've indicated I broadly agree with Hurst, but also maintain that some bonds of loyalty were actually real and personal.
That last bit seems to thing you don't want to concede, based on the one article you have read.
So now it's my turn to quote verbatim...
This is most basic account of this that I could find for you, and from Wikipedia so you could trace back the source if you wish to read the full thing (I've read the rest of Hurst's article). Unlike Hurst's article, this is not interpretive. It's just the facts..
"In August 1600 Torii Mototada, a feudal Lord in the service of Tokugawa Ieyasu was forewarned by spies that an army of 40,000... were annihilating everything in their path on their march to Fushimi Castle. The garrison at Fushimi Castle was badly outnumbered, yet escape for the men inside was still possible. In an act of loyalty to his lord Tokugawa Ieyasu, Torii chose to remain behind, pledging that he and his bastion would fight to the finish.
In a moving last statement addressed to his son Tadamasa, Torii described how his family had served the Tokugawa for generations and how his own brother has been killed in battle. In a letter, Torii stated that he considered it an honour to die first so that he might give courage to the rest of the Tokugawa warriors. He requested that his son raise his siblings to serve the Tokugawa Clan "In both ascent and decline" and to remain humble desiring neither lordship nor monetary reward. Lifelong friends, Torii Mototada and Tokugawa Ieyasu parted ways sadly knowing that they would never see each other again"
Mototada's own words now (and his qualifications, by the way, are that he actually was a samurai...)
"It is not the Way of the Warrior to be shamed and avoid death even under circumstances that are not particularly important.....For myself, I am resolved to make a stand within the castle and to die a quick death. It would not take much trouble to break through a part of their numbers and escape, no matter how many tens of thousands of horsemen approached for the attack or by how many columns we were surrounded. But that is not the true meaning of being a warrior, and it would be difficult to account as loyalty. Rather, I will stand off the forces of the entire country here, and...die a resplendent death."
Perhaps you think he would have made a poor player of internet games.
Perhaps. But Mototada and his men delayed 40,000 enemies for 10 days, allowing Ieyasu to escape, and prepare for a decisive battle. This was Sekigahara. Following that battle Ieyasu became shogun three years later. His family ruled Japan till the modern era.
You may be edified to know that this battle was critically influenced by the defection of Kobayakawa Hideaki. In other words, by treachery.
But even that has an interesting basis. Hideaki was only 15 when he fought in Korea and was accused by Ieyasu's adversary, Ishida Mitsunari, of incompetence. Ieyasu intervened on his behalf. Hideaki, now 19, never forget it, it seems. So the motivation for the treachery could be said to be a debt of honour to Ieyasu and a slight to his honour by Mitsunari.
So even treachery can have a non-material motive, and loyalty cannot always be bought.
It was real, No1. Selfless loyalty as per the warrior code did sometimes manifest itself. Sometimes with hugely significant consequences
1 edit
Originally posted by drakkarYes, you made a claim, though now you seem to be in full retreat from it (this parallels your game strategy even when you have a superior force). Your quoting of Mototada must be irony.
No1... I didn't make a claim to refute.
You said "If you actually knew anything about the period of history, you'd know that there were rebellions by samurai against their lords all the time."
I do know something and yes I do know there were rebellions by samurai against their lords all the time.
My words: "You are 100% correct in that. Daimyo often nifest itself. Sometimes with hugely significant consequences
drakkar: 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, it isn't.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is amazing the inferences that you can draw from a post. Especially as you are so far off the mark.
Yes, you made a claim, though now you seem to be in full retreat from it (this parallels your game strategy even when you have a superior force). Your quoting of Mototada must be irony.
drakkar: 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 migh ...[text shortened]... true to the period and what I personally wanted out of the game.
No, it isn't.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderI see…
Your quoting of Mototada must be irony.
So 1000 years of warrior ethic is all completely imaginary, Mototada was actually safely in Edo fondling Ieyasu's women and never at Fushimi at all, Masashige thought he was going to a brothel instead of a battle, and we can ignore anything from history that does not fit how No1marauder wishes to play his internet games…?
Thanks, I really hadn't thought of it that way before.
Gee for someone who hasn't done his homework... you have it all sewn up. Gosh you're smart.
Originally posted by drakkarI was pointing out that you certainly don't follow Mototada's precedent. Sorry that you're tooooooooooooo stupid to grasp the fairly obvious points of someone on an internet forum; perhaps if you ever finish grammar school you might be able to grasp this.
I see…
So 1000 years of warrior ethic is all completely imaginary, Mototada was actually safely in Edo fondling Ieyasu's women and never at Fushimi at all, Masashige thought he was going to a brothel instead of a battle, and we can ignore anything from history that does not fit how No1marauder wishes to play his internet games…?
Thanks, I really hadn't tho ...[text shortened]...
Gee for someone who hasn't done his homework... you have it all sewn up. Gosh you're smart.
Originally posted by no1marauderMe as Mototada? Not yet anyway.
I was pointing out that you certainly don't follow Mototada's precedent. Sorry that you're tooooooooooooo stupid to grasp the fairly obvious points of someone on an internet forum; perhaps if you ever finish grammar school you might be able to grasp this.
You won't be following Ieyasu's example, to be sure.
Awww ... calling me names again? My feelings are soooooo hurt.
A moment of common sense...
Samurai armies were large congolmerate warbands. their generals were the lords and their immediate retainers. Samurai families lived on a knife edge between surivival and extinction constantly. They couldn't call the cops for help.
You seriously think loyalty didn't matter? The bonds of personal loyalty were the only thing that kept their world together. Codes of honour and ideals of warrior virtue did not come from nowhere. They came from necessity.
Cosy armchair revisionism by internet gamers will not make that untrue.
Originally posted by drakkarYour hypocrisy knows no bounds. I'll take the word of scholars that the one sided grovelling you believe the norm was a fantasy. Now go pretend to read something which doesn't require you to color the pictures.
Me as Mototada? Not yet anyway.
You won't be following Ieyasu's example, to be sure.
Awww ... calling me names again? My feelings are soooooo hurt.
A moment of common sense...
Samurai armies were large congolmerate warbands. their generals were the lords and their immediate retainers. Samurai families lived on a knife edge between surivival and exti ...[text shortened]... ame from necessity.
Cosy armchair revisionism by internet gamers will not make that untrue.
Originally posted by no1marauder"grovelling"...?
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I'll take the word of scholars that the one sided grovelling you believe the norm was a fantasy. Now go pretend to read something which doesn't require you to color the pictures.
Go to Japan. Learn about the culture you are insulting.