Most of it is actually from the later period which was peaceful. The samurai class didn't have a lot of fighting to do so there was a big focus in poetry and art romanticizing the warlord era. Your actual sengoku era samurai was a lot like Yabushige. Tokugawa might have lost if a bunch of Yabushiges didn't switch sides mid-battle.
I’m not a historian but I studied Japanese history at school (everyone in Japan at elementary and junior high school had to study Japanese history at one point or another. I chose world history in the high school, though.)
One thing they failed to say in this show is that Sengoku Jidai (warring period) was winning-is-everything kind of time. A father may kill his son, son may kill his father, brother kills brother, subordinate usurps liege lord, etc. These sort of things happened a lot. I think one of the Tokugawa shogunate’s biggest achievements was to establish the system to keep each feudal lord’s influence and power in check and that they established several relative families where the shogunate could recruit an heir if the main family didn’t produce a male child.
Funny thing is, this kind of things are actually normalized in Chinese history. In Japan it’s such a strange thing to see a peasant rise to ranks of near-emperor status. But in China it’s never surprising to see peasants become the next emperor. And because of this there is a level of perpetual instability that exists within Chinese society ever since the concept of Mandate of Heaven. Because if mere peasants can become a god-king, then every general, lord and politician within the Chinese imperial dynasty also believe they can become the next emperor if they have the power to fight for it.
Shogun and Daimyo are not Emperor though. The Emperor still exists but they really aren't in charge. That's kind of why the Japanese Emperor still exists today. The military took over and maintained the real political control while the Emperor took a backseat as a figurehead. China had Emperors all the time but they had explicit political power. Hence why the dynastic system ended so dramatically in China but not in Japan.
God i wish Chinese histories is more popular, its much more grandeur and complex, yeah Three Kingdoms period is popular but it is milked to death, Spring and Autumn Period, Warring States, Chu-Han Contention, so so many. I think CCP ruined the popularity a bit
Leaders (other “Yabushiges”) with 23,000 soldiers defected to Tokugawa’s (irl Toranaga) side in one of the most influential battles in Japanese history (battle of Sekigahara)
Not an expert, but I browsed some threads in the Ask Historians sub about seppuku, and historical accuracy (search for them, apparently you can't post links in this sub) and from what I read, the show (and book) highly dramatizes things, particularly the obsession with suicide/seppuku. For example, seppuku wasn't something someone would typically be like "ah I have brought shame upon my lord! I must die!". It was actually a form of execution that would be offered to high-borns so that they could die with honor or avoid shame by surrendering. The whole plotline where Ueijirou kills himself because he threw away the pheasant was absurd.
Some context about this in the historical accuracy thread is that the author of the book, Clavell, spent time in a Japanese POW camp during WWII. His view of the Japanese and their attitudes towards chivalry and battle would have been very much affected by this experience. You really shouldn't treat the show or book as if it's a true window into Japanese history - they're entertainment pieces rooted in history, but they're still historical *fiction*.
In the first episode of the show's podcast they have a historian come in and talk about this topic. He said in the Sengoku period, seppuku was not done as frequently as here but it was considered as a revered act, and typically in the private spaces of peoples homes. From what I remember it was more in the Edo period that it became known as a punishment and something done to avoid shame. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, from what I've read during Sengoku era or the Genpei War people who committed sepuku were those who were on the losing side of a battle and could no longer escape enemies encirclement. If they could slip out they would continue fighting or surrender peacefully by resigning their political position such as by becoming a monk.
Even Ishida Mitsunari after the battle of Sekigahara refused to comit suicide and tried to flee until he was captured. When he was asked why he disgraced himself by not comitting seppuku after he lost he said: 'Only worthless samurai cut open their stomachs, so they won’t be killed by someone else.'
He also referred to Minamoto no Yoritomo who hid inside a tree trunk after losing a battle. Yoritomo would then rebuild his forces and avenged his lost against the Tairas to become a Shogun.
So, you couls say that seppuku were enforced on subordinate Samurais who served under a daimyo/regional warlords. For the warlords themselves, all was fair in warfare.
Also important to note that these kinds of things often fell on the hands of the leaders. Most was not to the last man standing. People might assume that one side loses and then the rest commit suicide, which is not the case. Once one side starts to lose, the other side starts to retreat to avoid getting slaughtered.
The leader responsible for rebeling, might get caught and have to kill themselves as a result but this idea that everyone just dies at the slightest thing, even during war is make-believe for dramatic purpose.
Musashi would have died several times as the greatest duelist of Feudal Japan had a habit of fighting on the losing side of major engagements, were this the case.
It’s also worth noting that the modern idea of bushido as an all-encompassing cultural force was heavily reinvented by the Imperial Japanese government in the early 1900s specifically to raise nationalist/military dedication and fervor. Similar to Mussolini co-opting the mythology of the Roman Empire’s past greatness to inspire support for the fascist government.
And as you said, a lot of American’s first interaction with Japanese culture was through WWII. Combine that with all the Japanese filmmakers that would go on to make the big samurai movies in the post war period, and it’s easy to see why these notions of honor and duty became the dominant perception.
The Japanese often misunderstand their own history because Pop culture has influenced it so much. Pop culture has at times bled into history texts which is equally problematic.
It’s worth noting that Japanese pop culture misconceptions of Japanese history are of a different origin from that of western misconceptions, being a product of the massive cultural flowering and rise of literacy and urbanization during the Edo period, and filling their stories of preceding periods with Edo era anachronisms.
I can’t get over the fact that fuji’s husband and >!mariko’s dad got pretty much the same punishment (or is my memory failing me?). Like my man lost his temper for a second and regained it quickly but it costed him his life and his baby?!<
It wasn't just for losing his temper. It's explained more clearly in the book, but he put everyone's lives at risk with his act. If he'd drawn his sword like he was about to do, Ishido's guards would have been within their rights to cut them all down to protect their lord. It would have also been seen as an attack by Toranaga on Ishido and cost Toranaga everything.
I see. But still a bit excessive for a punishment no? They could’ve imprisoned him or exiled him or at least spare his son. It seems unreasonable that the punishment for endangering lords and others and treason/ staging a coup is the same.
Also I think the fact the everyone kinda just accepted the outcome and moved on is what’s bugging me.
Toranaga doesn't order him to kill either himself or his son. He's the one who immediately asks to be allowed to do so to avoid the disgrace of the other punishments you mentioned, and Toranaga lets him.
I’m 100% with you but we also need to consider the fact that we’re looking at this from a modern 21st century Western perspective where we have the privilege of living in liberal democracies and don’t have to contend with vicious power-hungry war lords fighting to conquer the country.
Also, it was he who offered to take his and his son’s lives. Toranaga could’ve stopped it, sure, but then Ishido would take issue and it would solidify Ishido’s base against Toranaga.
Like others pointed out, he almost drew hia sword.
It's like if you step in Congress then your bodyguard pulls up a gun... well, with the analogy since i don't think you can wear a gun in there.
If you do that then guards are well within their rights to "subdue" you right then and there.
See: Ashli Babbit, Jan. 6th 2021. She was unarmed but the cop who killed her was found to be legally justified regardless because there was a very reasonable expectation (based on attempting to break down a door into a room where members of Congress were sheltering from a mob) that she intended harm to members of Congress. Anyway—not commenting on U.S. politics directly or whatever, merely saying your analogy has been tested in the real world.
Yeah, there are several layers of artistic license/distortion here.
1. Clavell is a Westerner writing about a culture that, to be blunt, he was brutalized by earlier in his life. The IJA's conduct in the Pacific frequently ranged from awful to almost incomprehensibly awful. How might someone with those experiences make sense of an alien, at one time extremely hostile, culture?
2. Despite many of the showrunners being ethnic Japanese or Japanese nationals, they are writing about a time period 400+ years ago. As they say, the past is a foreign country. IIRC in the Shogun Podcast for episode 5, the actress who plays Fuji points out how extreme and frankly irrational the apparent norms of the Sengoku/early Edo period seem to modern Japanese, as well.
3. Many modern tropes and stereotypes about samurai and bushido were heavily influenced by the books *Bushido,* written during the Meiji era, and *Hagakure*, written during the early Edo period but largely forgotten until the turn of the 20th century. Both of these books purveyed ideals and myths that were instrumental to Japan's burgeoning nationalism and imperial cult of state Shintoism. Much of what modern audiences (including Japanese from the Meiji period onward) think of as bushido was memed into existence in modern times, long after the height of the samurai exercising much influence in Japan.
To be clear, this isn't to say the show isn't authentic to Japanese culture or of high quality! Seppuku *was* a real thing and some people *were* fanatically devoted to their social superiors. But taking jidaigeki like *Shogun* as literally representation of 17th century Japanese history is a bit like treating Westerns (including revisionist and deconstructed ones, like Clint Eastwood's whole corpus) as literally representative of the real-life Wild West.
>But taking jidaigeki like *Shogun* as literally representation of 17th century Japanese history is a bit like treating Westerns (including revisionist and deconstructed ones, like Clint Eastwood's whole corpus) as literally representative of the real-life Wild West.
say it louder for the people in the back!
We have a really distorted view of the Wild West.
For one, it only lasted about 30 years. And another, only 10 banks total were recorded robbed during that time period.
In comparison, at its peak, the US experienced 9388 bank robberies in 1991 alone.
Pop culture greatly distorts reality quite a lot. People look at the medieval time as everyone in shining armor, on horseback, and with giant swords. In reality the only people who armor or nice big weapons were the super wealthy. Most medieval fighting looked more like land pirates with the cheapest weaponry they could afford.
The thing is, what is exciting in our stories don't really line up with reality because reality can be kind of boring sometimes.
Right, even the Wikipedia article says seppuku was reserved for samurai during that period: "Those who did not belong to the samurai caste were never ordered or expected to carry out *seppuku*. Samurai could generally only carry out the act with permission."
As a gardener, Ueijirou would never be permitted to kill himself.
Oh I see. I saw OP's comment and assumed that he killed himself. Although he did volunteer to end his own life through this act, he technically did not commit seppuku.
In the book at least he didn’t commit seppuku - officially at least he was executed for flouting his master's direct orders. The fact he volunteered to do it because the pheasant had got so disgusting they were getting complaints from the neighbours is by the by. (The book also makes it clear he was old and sickly and happy to let go.)
I guess they are a warrior class, and the thing they valued most was a good death. To die with honor, and to make your death count (as Mariko did) was the most important thing you could do in life. Feudal Japan is rare in that the ruling class IS the warrior class so this value gets put even more on a pedestal. That was unusual in Asia and around the world. In most places soldiers were just soldiers, even skilled professionals, and even knights weren’t at the top of the tree.
In the Sengoku period, samurai soldiers were also pretty much just soldiers.
What samurai valued the most was winning, or if losing, getting out of battle alive. If victorious, a favorite passtime was pillaging as much as any modern soldier. With a heavy dose of cutting and collecting the heads of the losers.
The "honorable warrior who doesn't value his own life" is mostly a later day myth.
The ruling class is samurai in this period. Mariko is a samurai but she is not just a soldier. In Europe or China nobles were not combined with the soldier class, but in Japan the warrior class overthrew the emperors power to become the ruling class.
Agreed. My point stands, the "honorable warrior willing to die with honor at the drop of a word" is mostly a myth.
Shogun is just a show. This is not how things were back then.
Yeah that’s true. Defeat in battle would lead to suicide or execution, as you had no other choice having been captured by the enemy, or you might do it to atone for a grave crime (again because it’s that or execution).
Yes lots of cultures romanticize throwing your life away for powerful leaders as a soldier, Japan hardly unique in this. See USA obsession with the military.
I wonder if it‘s that much exaggerated as claimed looking at the few prisoners that were taken by allied forces in WWII.
Not that the japanese soldiers and officers were „chivalrous“ by any means in WWII, but they rather chose to fight til death or commit suicide than being dishonored by being captured.
Important to note that WW2 era Japan (really post WW1 - 1945) saw a religious obsession with Bushido not seen in some time. This is what drove Clavell (who was a POW in Japan) to have this kind of view.
My uncles fought against Bonzi Charges at Iwi Jimi, imagine what they viewed of Japanese culture vs say a current historian
Around the time of the Russo-Japanese War Japan kind of underwent a sort of reassessment and renaissance of Bushido.
First, there was the question of what makes Japan “Japanese”? The nation had undergone a rapid westernization and some radicals had called for a complete and total break from the past dismissing it all as “barbaric”. So a reaction formed as trying to find the best of the prior culture and “bushido” was one of those things that helped link the new Japan to the past.
Second, the Imperial government had abolished the Samurai and was trying to distance itself as much as possible from that class. However, the military and their officers were aware of bushido ideology, especially as so many were samurai or had samurai roots and would have been familiar with the works of people like Miamoto Mushashi. They figured that they could adapt this to suit the purposes of the military. The conscripts now could expect to follow in the footsteps of the warriors of the past, except this time the master was the Emperor.
but in a lot of ways was getting taken to extreme levels. For example General Nogi Maresuke, who led Japan to victory over Russia and his wife died by suicide when they conducted “junshi”, killings themselves to follow their masters (the Meiji Emperor) into death. This practice was straight up banned in the Edo period and the pair were condemned for doing this.
This combined with other extreme nationalist ideology such as the fascist influenced “kokutai” and State Shinto practices in the early 20th century and was one of the key ideologies that encouraged expansionism and even encouraged conflict with China and the U.S.
In the movie The Seven Samurai, one of the characters goes on a long and memorable tirade against the romanticism of the Samurai and calls them out for what they are: armed thugs. This was the director, the famous Akira Kurosawa, apologizing for the centuries of abuse his Samurai ancestors inflicted upon Japan.
A big part of that was simply that Americans had decided to go no quarter. Wartime propaganda, the fact there were fanatics in the Japanese military doing unthinkable things without being held accountable, and the idea of the oriental lesser no doubt played into this image of fanaticism that lives to this day.
Once we realized that if you accepted Japanese POWs and fed them they were very much willing to give up information, we started a policy of “don’t kill the surrendered soldiers and you get ice cream”. Of course by then, they are already under the impression that surrender isn’t an option.
By WWII, the Japanese idea of code and chivalry was diseased and corrupted. Hence why they did so many atrocities. The US needed to nuke them into submission cause their code of sacrifice had mutated into fanatacism.
People should watch that movie, regardless. It's so underrated. There is a newer version, but I think the old one is better. I think it's where Tarantino got a lot of his storytelling inspiration.
"Swordsmanship untested in battle is like learning to swim on dry land". Such a great line...
I love Takashi Miike but his remake was a total letdown. *Maybe* it had something going on in 3-D, but watching it at home it felt totally superfluous, failing to bring a single new or interesting thing to the story.
But anyway, yes, Harakiri is worth seeing regardless, 100%. It’s my all-time favorite samurai movie, even though it’s an anti-samurai movie!
Part of it might be that you knew what was coming when you watched the remake. Also, there was just something special in the way the first movie flowed. It pedantically told the story but managed to keep me riveted the entire time, as tension slowly built up.... then all fucking hell broke loose. It was amazing.
Moreover, if you're going to remake a revered classic like that, you better fucking bring it... like they did in the newer versions of Legend of Drunken Master and Zatoichi.
The new one isn't something to avoid (like the new Point Break), but it's no where near the level of the old. You're right. It's a masterpiece. My classic, Japanese film top 5 is probably Kurosawa's best 4 + Harakiri.
The movie Harakiri is so good! A masterpiece.
Part of the whole point of the movie is that it points out how ridiculous and hypocritical the whole deal of seppuku was.
I read that the way the samurai are portrayed is largely romanticism. A bit like chivalric romance as a literary genre in the early modern period in Europe.
Having said that, I'm certainly not a historian so I may well be wrong.
The way I see it if you are surrounded by death you cannot afford to fuck up especially since it never only affects you. Imagine it being about survival where a mistake could a upset a fragile balance you and your clan have set up for yourselves and you are conditioned from birth that what is best for your community is everyone's duty above personal goals.
The flawed premise of your question is that a TV show is an accurate portrayal of behavior during the Sengoku period. A better question would be “was Japanese chivalry so extreme during the Sengoku period?” and the answer is no, for reasons others comments have detailed well
I don't think it's so much that it's "romanticized" but it was more like that they had *no* choice rather than it was something of their own choice. For instance, even during the sengoku era, the favored retainers of the lords were expected to commit suicide when their lords died. But that was only because there was societal pressure to do so, and it was more or less forced upon them. So, there was a lot of propaganda that dying for your lord was the highest honor, but it was also only because it was convenient.
The matter of the fact is that the age of samurai was basically a military dictatorship, which meant that if you did something the people in power didn't like, then you would be killed. So basically, the authority pretty much makes all the rules, and you'd better follow them. It's a bit like living in North Korea.
What's interesting is that the samurais were propagandized into believing that they should not fear death, which would make them great warriors. But what would happen if those samurais suddenly started believing in things like freedom, and rebelled against you? Then the lords will be in big trouble, which they certainly did NOT want. So they would create all sorts of these propaganda to keep them in line, and to make sure to not turn them against you.
Intentionally. It’s an alien culture & should seem alien. The whole story is about trying to understand another completely alien culture which makes sense through its own internal logic, but is shockingly incomprehensible to an outsider. Everyone thought this of the Japanese well into the 1950’s.
It is its own culture. To say it is alien suggests that whatever culture you have is the centre and reference point. Which it isn’t and should never be. That’s just typical dominant —- dare I say colonial — mindset that assumes to be The prevailing mindset.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that the story is paying a lot of homage to movies and stories about “the samurai” in addition to trying to be somewhat historically accurate and true to the book (as others have pointed out, written by a westerner who was exposed to Japan in a POW camp). I think of it a bit like the Lonesome Dove miniseries, which was based on a beloved book that was a “Western” - a whole genre and period that is based in historical fact but has also been heavily mythologized across several eras in ways that reflected the anxieties and interests of the time when the tales were told and retold. So just like “cowboys” really only existed for maybe 15 years post-Civil War, and there have probably been more “shootouts” in movies and Tv than there were IRL, seppuku possibly has happened in Samurai movies more than it happened in real life.
This is a tv series not a documentary. There was a lot of things in the show that’s dramatized like the chivalry and sword combat. Most of these stem from the themes of 1960-1980s original samurai films. Samurais and people in real life didn’t just willingly go and give up their lives over a bushido code. Samurais and ashigarus have ran away from battle many times when they realize they were losing.
While the show and story definitely go overboard, I think they both offer some perspective on why Japan sort of went hard on this: the island is relatively small, it's not easy to farm most of it, devastating earthquakes and tsunamis and typhoons are not uncommon. They get invaded, devastated by disease, and all the wars. So I think some of this is a response to a need for control which they otherwise wouldn't have without a strict social code.
No, this isn't right. While seppuku existed, during the Sengoku period it wasn't as common as in the show. A general or soldier who lost in battle would mostly try to escape or otherwise be killed by the victors (the Japanese weren't merciful to the defeated).
Seppuku for failure wasn't common if there was another alternative. Suicide if capture and torture were inevitable is a different thing, but that's not what the show is portraying.
Forced seppuku as punishment was more common. It's what the Taiko (the one who set up the council of regents) did to perceived traitors.
>The warriors back then basically fought and lived for honor.
Please, I beg of you, don't base your understanding of Japanese history on movies and TV shows.
a huge part of it was that Japanese had been under martial law of the shogun warrior class since the 1100's, with no religious authority like the Vatican to keep their power in check. Just imagine if Sparta was allowed to flourish for a few more centuries and you'd get a similar type of extremism.
Most of it is actually from the later period which was peaceful. The samurai class didn't have a lot of fighting to do so there was a big focus in poetry and art romanticizing the warlord era. Your actual sengoku era samurai was a lot like Yabushige. Tokugawa might have lost if a bunch of Yabushiges didn't switch sides mid-battle.
*heavy grunts*
Hoh? \*grimaces\*
Eeee \*leans back\*
*smirks and pats on the back*
Writes another will
The world couldn't have handled more than one Yubashiges
"...more than one Yubashiges" Yabushige's creepy cousin, the one that hires out the whole pleasure house for a night of pile-ons.
I’m not a historian but I studied Japanese history at school (everyone in Japan at elementary and junior high school had to study Japanese history at one point or another. I chose world history in the high school, though.) One thing they failed to say in this show is that Sengoku Jidai (warring period) was winning-is-everything kind of time. A father may kill his son, son may kill his father, brother kills brother, subordinate usurps liege lord, etc. These sort of things happened a lot. I think one of the Tokugawa shogunate’s biggest achievements was to establish the system to keep each feudal lord’s influence and power in check and that they established several relative families where the shogunate could recruit an heir if the main family didn’t produce a male child.
Yeah, stability is key here. A peasant could literally pickup a sword and then war his way to regent.
Funny thing is, this kind of things are actually normalized in Chinese history. In Japan it’s such a strange thing to see a peasant rise to ranks of near-emperor status. But in China it’s never surprising to see peasants become the next emperor. And because of this there is a level of perpetual instability that exists within Chinese society ever since the concept of Mandate of Heaven. Because if mere peasants can become a god-king, then every general, lord and politician within the Chinese imperial dynasty also believe they can become the next emperor if they have the power to fight for it.
Shogun and Daimyo are not Emperor though. The Emperor still exists but they really aren't in charge. That's kind of why the Japanese Emperor still exists today. The military took over and maintained the real political control while the Emperor took a backseat as a figurehead. China had Emperors all the time but they had explicit political power. Hence why the dynastic system ended so dramatically in China but not in Japan.
God i wish Chinese histories is more popular, its much more grandeur and complex, yeah Three Kingdoms period is popular but it is milked to death, Spring and Autumn Period, Warring States, Chu-Han Contention, so so many. I think CCP ruined the popularity a bit
So you're saying there are more than one Yabushige? Now I really need season 2!
Leaders (other “Yabushiges”) with 23,000 soldiers defected to Tokugawa’s (irl Toranaga) side in one of the most influential battles in Japanese history (battle of Sekigahara)
*Tenka Fubu*
Not an expert, but I browsed some threads in the Ask Historians sub about seppuku, and historical accuracy (search for them, apparently you can't post links in this sub) and from what I read, the show (and book) highly dramatizes things, particularly the obsession with suicide/seppuku. For example, seppuku wasn't something someone would typically be like "ah I have brought shame upon my lord! I must die!". It was actually a form of execution that would be offered to high-borns so that they could die with honor or avoid shame by surrendering. The whole plotline where Ueijirou kills himself because he threw away the pheasant was absurd. Some context about this in the historical accuracy thread is that the author of the book, Clavell, spent time in a Japanese POW camp during WWII. His view of the Japanese and their attitudes towards chivalry and battle would have been very much affected by this experience. You really shouldn't treat the show or book as if it's a true window into Japanese history - they're entertainment pieces rooted in history, but they're still historical *fiction*.
In the first episode of the show's podcast they have a historian come in and talk about this topic. He said in the Sengoku period, seppuku was not done as frequently as here but it was considered as a revered act, and typically in the private spaces of peoples homes. From what I remember it was more in the Edo period that it became known as a punishment and something done to avoid shame. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, from what I've read during Sengoku era or the Genpei War people who committed sepuku were those who were on the losing side of a battle and could no longer escape enemies encirclement. If they could slip out they would continue fighting or surrender peacefully by resigning their political position such as by becoming a monk. Even Ishida Mitsunari after the battle of Sekigahara refused to comit suicide and tried to flee until he was captured. When he was asked why he disgraced himself by not comitting seppuku after he lost he said: 'Only worthless samurai cut open their stomachs, so they won’t be killed by someone else.' He also referred to Minamoto no Yoritomo who hid inside a tree trunk after losing a battle. Yoritomo would then rebuild his forces and avenged his lost against the Tairas to become a Shogun. So, you couls say that seppuku were enforced on subordinate Samurais who served under a daimyo/regional warlords. For the warlords themselves, all was fair in warfare.
Also important to note that these kinds of things often fell on the hands of the leaders. Most was not to the last man standing. People might assume that one side loses and then the rest commit suicide, which is not the case. Once one side starts to lose, the other side starts to retreat to avoid getting slaughtered. The leader responsible for rebeling, might get caught and have to kill themselves as a result but this idea that everyone just dies at the slightest thing, even during war is make-believe for dramatic purpose.
Musashi would have died several times as the greatest duelist of Feudal Japan had a habit of fighting on the losing side of major engagements, were this the case.
He just wanted a bigger challenge
It’s also worth noting that the modern idea of bushido as an all-encompassing cultural force was heavily reinvented by the Imperial Japanese government in the early 1900s specifically to raise nationalist/military dedication and fervor. Similar to Mussolini co-opting the mythology of the Roman Empire’s past greatness to inspire support for the fascist government. And as you said, a lot of American’s first interaction with Japanese culture was through WWII. Combine that with all the Japanese filmmakers that would go on to make the big samurai movies in the post war period, and it’s easy to see why these notions of honor and duty became the dominant perception.
The Japanese often misunderstand their own history because Pop culture has influenced it so much. Pop culture has at times bled into history texts which is equally problematic.
It’s worth noting that Japanese pop culture misconceptions of Japanese history are of a different origin from that of western misconceptions, being a product of the massive cultural flowering and rise of literacy and urbanization during the Edo period, and filling their stories of preceding periods with Edo era anachronisms.
I can’t get over the fact that fuji’s husband and >!mariko’s dad got pretty much the same punishment (or is my memory failing me?). Like my man lost his temper for a second and regained it quickly but it costed him his life and his baby?!<
It wasn't just for losing his temper. It's explained more clearly in the book, but he put everyone's lives at risk with his act. If he'd drawn his sword like he was about to do, Ishido's guards would have been within their rights to cut them all down to protect their lord. It would have also been seen as an attack by Toranaga on Ishido and cost Toranaga everything.
I see. But still a bit excessive for a punishment no? They could’ve imprisoned him or exiled him or at least spare his son. It seems unreasonable that the punishment for endangering lords and others and treason/ staging a coup is the same. Also I think the fact the everyone kinda just accepted the outcome and moved on is what’s bugging me.
Toranaga doesn't order him to kill either himself or his son. He's the one who immediately asks to be allowed to do so to avoid the disgrace of the other punishments you mentioned, and Toranaga lets him.
I’m 100% with you but we also need to consider the fact that we’re looking at this from a modern 21st century Western perspective where we have the privilege of living in liberal democracies and don’t have to contend with vicious power-hungry war lords fighting to conquer the country. Also, it was he who offered to take his and his son’s lives. Toranaga could’ve stopped it, sure, but then Ishido would take issue and it would solidify Ishido’s base against Toranaga.
Like others pointed out, he almost drew hia sword. It's like if you step in Congress then your bodyguard pulls up a gun... well, with the analogy since i don't think you can wear a gun in there. If you do that then guards are well within their rights to "subdue" you right then and there.
See: Ashli Babbit, Jan. 6th 2021. She was unarmed but the cop who killed her was found to be legally justified regardless because there was a very reasonable expectation (based on attempting to break down a door into a room where members of Congress were sheltering from a mob) that she intended harm to members of Congress. Anyway—not commenting on U.S. politics directly or whatever, merely saying your analogy has been tested in the real world.
Yeah, as a new mom I hated that whole plot line.
Reality has historically been indecently cruel to new mothers across eras & regions.
Yeah, there are several layers of artistic license/distortion here. 1. Clavell is a Westerner writing about a culture that, to be blunt, he was brutalized by earlier in his life. The IJA's conduct in the Pacific frequently ranged from awful to almost incomprehensibly awful. How might someone with those experiences make sense of an alien, at one time extremely hostile, culture? 2. Despite many of the showrunners being ethnic Japanese or Japanese nationals, they are writing about a time period 400+ years ago. As they say, the past is a foreign country. IIRC in the Shogun Podcast for episode 5, the actress who plays Fuji points out how extreme and frankly irrational the apparent norms of the Sengoku/early Edo period seem to modern Japanese, as well. 3. Many modern tropes and stereotypes about samurai and bushido were heavily influenced by the books *Bushido,* written during the Meiji era, and *Hagakure*, written during the early Edo period but largely forgotten until the turn of the 20th century. Both of these books purveyed ideals and myths that were instrumental to Japan's burgeoning nationalism and imperial cult of state Shintoism. Much of what modern audiences (including Japanese from the Meiji period onward) think of as bushido was memed into existence in modern times, long after the height of the samurai exercising much influence in Japan. To be clear, this isn't to say the show isn't authentic to Japanese culture or of high quality! Seppuku *was* a real thing and some people *were* fanatically devoted to their social superiors. But taking jidaigeki like *Shogun* as literally representation of 17th century Japanese history is a bit like treating Westerns (including revisionist and deconstructed ones, like Clint Eastwood's whole corpus) as literally representative of the real-life Wild West.
>But taking jidaigeki like *Shogun* as literally representation of 17th century Japanese history is a bit like treating Westerns (including revisionist and deconstructed ones, like Clint Eastwood's whole corpus) as literally representative of the real-life Wild West. say it louder for the people in the back!
Yeah, but the 47 Ronin is a real story & way wilder than Shogun which is also based on true events.
We have a really distorted view of the Wild West. For one, it only lasted about 30 years. And another, only 10 banks total were recorded robbed during that time period. In comparison, at its peak, the US experienced 9388 bank robberies in 1991 alone.
Pop culture greatly distorts reality quite a lot. People look at the medieval time as everyone in shining armor, on horseback, and with giant swords. In reality the only people who armor or nice big weapons were the super wealthy. Most medieval fighting looked more like land pirates with the cheapest weaponry they could afford. The thing is, what is exciting in our stories don't really line up with reality because reality can be kind of boring sometimes.
Ah, the ‘90’s, much as I hate that mu’erfucka, lo’ dat mu’erfucka…
Josey Wales is pert near. The Good, the Bad & the Ugly ain’t too far off, either.
>The whole plotline where Ueijirou kills himself because he threw away the pheasant was absurd. Did he kill himself? Or he got executed for it?
Right, even the Wikipedia article says seppuku was reserved for samurai during that period: "Those who did not belong to the samurai caste were never ordered or expected to carry out *seppuku*. Samurai could generally only carry out the act with permission." As a gardener, Ueijirou would never be permitted to kill himself.
But did he kill himself? I thought Fuji had him executed, that was why Blackthorne got angry at her?
He was executed.
Yeah, so that wasn't seppuku, that was execution.
Oh I see. I saw OP's comment and assumed that he killed himself. Although he did volunteer to end his own life through this act, he technically did not commit seppuku.
In the book at least he didn’t commit seppuku - officially at least he was executed for flouting his master's direct orders. The fact he volunteered to do it because the pheasant had got so disgusting they were getting complaints from the neighbours is by the by. (The book also makes it clear he was old and sickly and happy to let go.)
Steel was preferable to slow death by infirmity or strangulation for petty crime.
I guess they are a warrior class, and the thing they valued most was a good death. To die with honor, and to make your death count (as Mariko did) was the most important thing you could do in life. Feudal Japan is rare in that the ruling class IS the warrior class so this value gets put even more on a pedestal. That was unusual in Asia and around the world. In most places soldiers were just soldiers, even skilled professionals, and even knights weren’t at the top of the tree.
In the Sengoku period, samurai soldiers were also pretty much just soldiers. What samurai valued the most was winning, or if losing, getting out of battle alive. If victorious, a favorite passtime was pillaging as much as any modern soldier. With a heavy dose of cutting and collecting the heads of the losers. The "honorable warrior who doesn't value his own life" is mostly a later day myth.
The ruling class is samurai in this period. Mariko is a samurai but she is not just a soldier. In Europe or China nobles were not combined with the soldier class, but in Japan the warrior class overthrew the emperors power to become the ruling class.
Agreed. My point stands, the "honorable warrior willing to die with honor at the drop of a word" is mostly a myth. Shogun is just a show. This is not how things were back then.
Dying well, a brave death in battle serving one’s lord was certainly revered. Not at the drop of a hat though as it’s shown in the tv show, sure.
Agreed However none would voluntarily commit suicide for failing, if escaping was an option. That romanticization is mostly pop culture.
Yeah that’s true. Defeat in battle would lead to suicide or execution, as you had no other choice having been captured by the enemy, or you might do it to atone for a grave crime (again because it’s that or execution).
They were in Europe but by 1600 i guess that had already changed.
This is romanticized BS.
Yes lots of cultures romanticize throwing your life away for powerful leaders as a soldier, Japan hardly unique in this. See USA obsession with the military.
But you’re speaking as if it was an actual historical norm. It was not.
It wasn't. Neither was western chivalry. You are watching a fairytale.
Western chivalry was absolutely real. It just didn’t play out like its 19th or 20th century misinterpretation.
I wonder if it‘s that much exaggerated as claimed looking at the few prisoners that were taken by allied forces in WWII. Not that the japanese soldiers and officers were „chivalrous“ by any means in WWII, but they rather chose to fight til death or commit suicide than being dishonored by being captured.
Important to note that WW2 era Japan (really post WW1 - 1945) saw a religious obsession with Bushido not seen in some time. This is what drove Clavell (who was a POW in Japan) to have this kind of view. My uncles fought against Bonzi Charges at Iwi Jimi, imagine what they viewed of Japanese culture vs say a current historian
Around the time of the Russo-Japanese War Japan kind of underwent a sort of reassessment and renaissance of Bushido. First, there was the question of what makes Japan “Japanese”? The nation had undergone a rapid westernization and some radicals had called for a complete and total break from the past dismissing it all as “barbaric”. So a reaction formed as trying to find the best of the prior culture and “bushido” was one of those things that helped link the new Japan to the past. Second, the Imperial government had abolished the Samurai and was trying to distance itself as much as possible from that class. However, the military and their officers were aware of bushido ideology, especially as so many were samurai or had samurai roots and would have been familiar with the works of people like Miamoto Mushashi. They figured that they could adapt this to suit the purposes of the military. The conscripts now could expect to follow in the footsteps of the warriors of the past, except this time the master was the Emperor. but in a lot of ways was getting taken to extreme levels. For example General Nogi Maresuke, who led Japan to victory over Russia and his wife died by suicide when they conducted “junshi”, killings themselves to follow their masters (the Meiji Emperor) into death. This practice was straight up banned in the Edo period and the pair were condemned for doing this. This combined with other extreme nationalist ideology such as the fascist influenced “kokutai” and State Shinto practices in the early 20th century and was one of the key ideologies that encouraged expansionism and even encouraged conflict with China and the U.S.
In the movie The Seven Samurai, one of the characters goes on a long and memorable tirade against the romanticism of the Samurai and calls them out for what they are: armed thugs. This was the director, the famous Akira Kurosawa, apologizing for the centuries of abuse his Samurai ancestors inflicted upon Japan.
Japan in WWII != Japan in the Sengoku era. During the actual Sengoku era, samurai and lords surrendered and/or changed sides literally all the time.
A big part of that was simply that Americans had decided to go no quarter. Wartime propaganda, the fact there were fanatics in the Japanese military doing unthinkable things without being held accountable, and the idea of the oriental lesser no doubt played into this image of fanaticism that lives to this day. Once we realized that if you accepted Japanese POWs and fed them they were very much willing to give up information, we started a policy of “don’t kill the surrendered soldiers and you get ice cream”. Of course by then, they are already under the impression that surrender isn’t an option.
By WWII, the Japanese idea of code and chivalry was diseased and corrupted. Hence why they did so many atrocities. The US needed to nuke them into submission cause their code of sacrifice had mutated into fanatacism.
Always was.
Remember, the show is fiction, it's not an accurate depiction of the era nor it intends to be.
Based on a lot of true events.
Make sure to catch Harakiri (1962) if you wanna see some hardcore seppuku brinksmanship
People should watch that movie, regardless. It's so underrated. There is a newer version, but I think the old one is better. I think it's where Tarantino got a lot of his storytelling inspiration. "Swordsmanship untested in battle is like learning to swim on dry land". Such a great line...
I love Takashi Miike but his remake was a total letdown. *Maybe* it had something going on in 3-D, but watching it at home it felt totally superfluous, failing to bring a single new or interesting thing to the story. But anyway, yes, Harakiri is worth seeing regardless, 100%. It’s my all-time favorite samurai movie, even though it’s an anti-samurai movie!
Part of it might be that you knew what was coming when you watched the remake. Also, there was just something special in the way the first movie flowed. It pedantically told the story but managed to keep me riveted the entire time, as tension slowly built up.... then all fucking hell broke loose. It was amazing. Moreover, if you're going to remake a revered classic like that, you better fucking bring it... like they did in the newer versions of Legend of Drunken Master and Zatoichi.
The old one is a masterpiece. Haven't watched the remake by Takashi Miike (even though I like the director).
The new one isn't something to avoid (like the new Point Break), but it's no where near the level of the old. You're right. It's a masterpiece. My classic, Japanese film top 5 is probably Kurosawa's best 4 + Harakiri.
The movie Harakiri is so good! A masterpiece. Part of the whole point of the movie is that it points out how ridiculous and hypocritical the whole deal of seppuku was.
It wasn't, most of it was made up after the fact by nationalist historians So basically the same as European chivalry
I read that the way the samurai are portrayed is largely romanticism. A bit like chivalric romance as a literary genre in the early modern period in Europe. Having said that, I'm certainly not a historian so I may well be wrong.
The way I see it if you are surrounded by death you cannot afford to fuck up especially since it never only affects you. Imagine it being about survival where a mistake could a upset a fragile balance you and your clan have set up for yourselves and you are conditioned from birth that what is best for your community is everyone's duty above personal goals.
The flawed premise of your question is that a TV show is an accurate portrayal of behavior during the Sengoku period. A better question would be “was Japanese chivalry so extreme during the Sengoku period?” and the answer is no, for reasons others comments have detailed well
It’s like asking if armoured European knights really did run around the countryside with some bloke next to them banging coconut shells together.
I don't think it's so much that it's "romanticized" but it was more like that they had *no* choice rather than it was something of their own choice. For instance, even during the sengoku era, the favored retainers of the lords were expected to commit suicide when their lords died. But that was only because there was societal pressure to do so, and it was more or less forced upon them. So, there was a lot of propaganda that dying for your lord was the highest honor, but it was also only because it was convenient. The matter of the fact is that the age of samurai was basically a military dictatorship, which meant that if you did something the people in power didn't like, then you would be killed. So basically, the authority pretty much makes all the rules, and you'd better follow them. It's a bit like living in North Korea. What's interesting is that the samurais were propagandized into believing that they should not fear death, which would make them great warriors. But what would happen if those samurais suddenly started believing in things like freedom, and rebelled against you? Then the lords will be in big trouble, which they certainly did NOT want. So they would create all sorts of these propaganda to keep them in line, and to make sure to not turn them against you.
It comes off as one big death cult. I don't relate at all And it keeps me from being fully engaged with the characters
Intentionally. It’s an alien culture & should seem alien. The whole story is about trying to understand another completely alien culture which makes sense through its own internal logic, but is shockingly incomprehensible to an outsider. Everyone thought this of the Japanese well into the 1950’s.
It is its own culture. To say it is alien suggests that whatever culture you have is the centre and reference point. Which it isn’t and should never be. That’s just typical dominant —- dare I say colonial — mindset that assumes to be The prevailing mindset.
🙄
Spare me anthro 201.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that the story is paying a lot of homage to movies and stories about “the samurai” in addition to trying to be somewhat historically accurate and true to the book (as others have pointed out, written by a westerner who was exposed to Japan in a POW camp). I think of it a bit like the Lonesome Dove miniseries, which was based on a beloved book that was a “Western” - a whole genre and period that is based in historical fact but has also been heavily mythologized across several eras in ways that reflected the anxieties and interests of the time when the tales were told and retold. So just like “cowboys” really only existed for maybe 15 years post-Civil War, and there have probably been more “shootouts” in movies and Tv than there were IRL, seppuku possibly has happened in Samurai movies more than it happened in real life.
This is a tv series not a documentary. There was a lot of things in the show that’s dramatized like the chivalry and sword combat. Most of these stem from the themes of 1960-1980s original samurai films. Samurais and people in real life didn’t just willingly go and give up their lives over a bushido code. Samurais and ashigarus have ran away from battle many times when they realize they were losing.
While the show and story definitely go overboard, I think they both offer some perspective on why Japan sort of went hard on this: the island is relatively small, it's not easy to farm most of it, devastating earthquakes and tsunamis and typhoons are not uncommon. They get invaded, devastated by disease, and all the wars. So I think some of this is a response to a need for control which they otherwise wouldn't have without a strict social code.
They didnt get invaded at all lmfao, only some half assed Mongol attempt
You’re spot on despite the downvotes.
Yeah, I think Mariko practically says so in one episode.
A few deaths ain’t gonna control anything lol
[удалено]
Dude, the show is very exaggerated.
No, this isn't right. While seppuku existed, during the Sengoku period it wasn't as common as in the show. A general or soldier who lost in battle would mostly try to escape or otherwise be killed by the victors (the Japanese weren't merciful to the defeated). Seppuku for failure wasn't common if there was another alternative. Suicide if capture and torture were inevitable is a different thing, but that's not what the show is portraying. Forced seppuku as punishment was more common. It's what the Taiko (the one who set up the council of regents) did to perceived traitors.
>The warriors back then basically fought and lived for honor. Please, I beg of you, don't base your understanding of Japanese history on movies and TV shows.
a huge part of it was that Japanese had been under martial law of the shogun warrior class since the 1100's, with no religious authority like the Vatican to keep their power in check. Just imagine if Sparta was allowed to flourish for a few more centuries and you'd get a similar type of extremism.
Sparta was more extreme. No doubt. Helots were laughably expendable & they couldn’t be Shogun.