GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=fable]Weasel never needed any pushing over the edge. He owned the edge, and the piece of real estate on it. [/QUOTE]

:laugh: !

[QUOTE=fable]The knight originally was simply a sort of local chieftain who in turn ruled a series of other chiefs. They were either deeded land, or captured it, or simply took it when left unoccupied. Many were rapacious lordlings out to form combinations that could destroy still other knights.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about when it was still Saxon England, or after it had been taken over by William and turned into the Feudal system? I'm guessing you mean the Saxons, in which case, yes, it was an extremely brutal time, and honour was worthless.

There was a penchant in Occitania, the nation that was once the southern third of France (with bits of Italy thrown in), for knights to promise to leave off some or all their armor until they had killed X number of Saracens and could return with proof to their ladies fair. They usually died, instead.[/QUOTE]

Probably based on the thought 'why does a life matter when it is not your own'.

[QUOTE=fable]So in the West, there was no clear single idea what a knight was, as it depended upon region, ruler, order, period, and individual. But since the samurai part of the bushido code was a socially imposed ethos, it had a much greater and more consistent effect. This doesn't mean samurais were more honorable than their European or Arabic counterparts, but they were measured against a very traditional formula which sometimes worked, and sometimes didn't.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's why I had to make sure I mentioned English, as that's all we covered in our studies of Ancient History, as it is considered the easiest, and with the most information. If I were to pursue further Ancient History, I would probably encompass more, but I'm doing Modern History instead, starting tomorrow.

[QUOTE=fable]Yes, the epic stories of samurai who were forced to break their codes to serve the cause of justice, and then committed seppuku in atonement. The 47 Ronin, which I referred to above, was such a tale. They're still inordinately popular. I remember reading somewhere that that story alone has been retold in more than 700 different versions, in a variety of media.[/QUOTE]

But that's how harsh it was, to do what was right, they had to go against everything they had been taught, and even though they knew it was right, they still followed the code. It shows the extent of honour, something which is a lot less these days...

[QUOTE=fable]Technologically advanced, certainly. I have to wonder what led the Japanese down that path, while the various Australian tribes remained on the level of hunter/gatherers or primitive agriculture. Was it climate, the absence of minerals, a forbidding topography that only gives up its resources with great effort? And what made the Japanese so intensely competitive, yet at the same time, so utterly loyal? Why did the feudal system stick so well in Japan, when the Danes (for example) never could get the hang of it, and fought hard for their proto-democracy?[/QUOTE]

I guess the only way to find out would be to play God... and that's your realm, not mine .

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Are you talking about when it was still Saxon England, or after it had been taken over by William and turned into the Feudal system? I'm guessing you mean the Saxons, in which case, yes, it was an extremely brutal time, and honour was worthless.[/quote]

Pretty much that period, yes, though it came in different areas at different times. Contrary to the way it's usually portrayed in such popular myths as Robin Hood, the Saxons were a rapacious, nasty lot who frequently allied with the Danes and Norse to go joint-raiding, raping and pillaging. There was even an attempt made on the part of one major Saxon king to join thrones with Denmark. And the Normans, at least early on, were just as bad. Their behavior improved after contact with both Rome and Occitania.

But that's how harsh it was, to do what was right, they had to go against everything they had been taught, and even though they knew it was right, they still followed the code. It shows the extent of honour, something which is a lot less these days...

We should make allowances for romanticizing over distance, however. There's plenty of evidence that samurai clans took bribes, looked the other way when individual members broke laws, and were definitely not above barbaric cruelty on a massive scale. Even in the 47 Ronin, it's apparent that "urban" samurai are protrayed as erudite and corrupt, while "rural" samurai are shown as noble and simpler. So there are probably layers in the way bushido actually worked out in Japanese society that we a outsiders are missing.

And of course, honor means living up to the standards of an interpersonal code. If part of that code involves great competitiveness, it could also mean breaking that code--as many of the most successful samurai daimyos did, without suffering any ill effects.

[QUOTE=fable]Pretty much that period, yes, though it came in different areas at different times. Contrary to the way it's usually portrayed in such popular myths as Robin Hood, the Saxons were a rapacious, nasty lot who frequently allied with the Danes and Norse to go joint-raiding, raping and pillaging. There was even an attempt made on the part of one major Saxon king to join thrones with Denmark. And the Normans, at least early on, were just as bad. Their behavior improved after contact with both Rome and Occitania. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, I know the Saxons were bad, and that's why they know that the 'original' King Arthur tale is false, and they think that instead he was simply a Saxon war chief. And the Normans being like that initially would make sense, seeing as they were the descendants of the Vikings, the original and the best of the ravagers.

[QUOTE=fable]We should make allowances for romanticizing over distance, however. There's plenty of evidence that samurai clans took bribes, looked the other way when individual members broke laws, and were definitely not above barbaric cruelty on a massive scale. Even in the 47 Ronin, it's apparent that "urban" samurai are protrayed as erudite and corrupt, while "rural" samurai are shown as noble and simpler. So there are probably layers in the way bushido actually worked out in Japanese society that we a outsiders are missing.[/QUOTE]

It's a pity all historical pieces are coloured by personal feelings, though it would be a bit hard to write with a perfectly neutral state of mind. And corruption is afterall, practically impossible to stamp out, or at least, for a long time.

[QUOTE=fable]And of course, honor means living up to the standards of an interpersonal code. If part of that code involves great competitiveness, it could also mean breaking that code--as many of the most successful samurai daimyos did, without suffering any ill effects.[/QUOTE]

Well in those ages, who would complain against a corrupt person above you, afterall, they were the ones to complain to, so it wouldn't make much sense.

[QUOTE=ik911]Certainly interesting. I think it has to do with urbanization. Australia was big and I assume there was not a lot of food per km², which kept the communities small, or maybe it was just the tribes' preference to keep small communities?[/quote]

Individual or even small communal desires don't usually have an impact on huge populations in a stable cultural region, so I'm thinking your first idea is probably the right one. Japan isn't a resource-rich environment, but compared to inner Australia it's a supermarket. And Japan had the added advantage of trade with very different neighboring cultures, in present day China and Korea.

In conclusion, I think it's the degree or amount of cities that produces a more advanced civilization and forces technological inventions to problems you don't have in smaller communities.

It works both ways: the urban environment generates technological advances to meet changing conditions, and the advances themselves often tend to promote population density into cities. Japan certainly had its cities, but its hierarchal society and tradition-oriented culture may have meant that its people weren't looking for innovation. Labor-saving inventions wouldn't have mattered much in a culture where pre-planning was vital, and individual initiative only mattered if it took you quickly to the top. That's a poor summary, but it does hit a few points.

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]Samurais are like ninjas. They flip out ALL the time and they kill people ALL the time, but they dont wail guitars, they prefer drums

Now, I dont really know enough about Samurais to talk about them... But I'm interested, since I think they are neat.[/QUOTE]

I didn't think they flipped out as much a ninjas (or at all) but there's no denying their awesomeness....

And here's all you need to know about Samurai: [url="http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Samurai"]Linky[/url].

Seriously, Samurai were cool...I'm very interested with Martial Arts, Fuedal Japan etc, and their culture, from what I've read, was really spectacular stuff.

My opinions about samurais?
I have none, I don't care about them, I don't find them "cool" and frankly - I think much of the "hype" existing about them (and "ninjas") is simply the result of poor movies where they jump around and beat umpteeen thousands enemies and not geninue history interest

Minerva will probably know more about this, but I seem to recall reading that the Yakuza (Japanese Mafia) hold the Samurai up as symbolising the honour and glory days of the nation.... the time before the Meiji Period when contact and trade were opened up with the West.

Not that this really relates to the original thread topic, but I find it an interesting aside.

[QUOTE=Fenix]And here's all you need to know about Samurai: [url="http://http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Samurai"]Linky[/url].[/QUOTE]

Something is weird here... either you are calling Microsoft Samurais, or Microsoft have hijacked that page.

Or maybe both .

[QUOTE=dj_venom]
It is amazing what isolation can do though, just a comparision, Australia before the invasion of the Brittish, was simply made up of about 100 clans/tribes, all with different ideals, beliefs, and partially different languages. These tribes would trade with each other, but were mostly self sufficent, living off the land, each knowing the benefits of their area, such as the clan on the coast would know about fishing, while inland would know about hoarding water for dry seasons. Now look at Japan, which was discovered 150 years later, but they were far more advanced, even back when Australia was discovered they were still far more advanced.[/QUOTE]

Don't you dare use the word "discovery" regarding Japan!! Japan is much older than England, for example. It was just Europeans being ignorant until then!!

*going back to read the remaining of the thread*

[QUOTE=dragon wench]Minerva will probably know more about this, but I seem to recall reading that the Yakuza (Japanese Mafia) hold the Samurai up as symbolising the honour and glory days of the nation.... the time before the Meiji Period when contact and trade were opened up with the West.

Not that this really relates to the original thread topic, but I find it an interesting aside. [/QUOTE]

Hi, DW.

The Yakuza has the rightwing tendencies. While the most of them are more interested in their business (you know, drags, illegal weapons, prostiution etc) than politics, some of Yakuza clans have strong connection with extreme rightwing political groups (who still believes the Emperor is a god and claims Nanjin Massacre had never took place. Just like Neo Nazis) and helps them to threaten anyone who oppose them.
It is natural that they look up samurais, as samurai represents the "good old traditinal" Japanese values corrupted by the West. And to run the Yakuza "family" smoothly, it has to be desciplined, and the samurai is the best model for them.

[QUOTE=Minerva]Don't you dare use the word "discovery" regarding Japan!! Japan is much older than England, for example. It was just Europeans being ignorant until then!!

*going back to read the remaining of the thread*[/QUOTE]

Same with brazilian culture, but the historians are guilty of the lack of avaiable information, I guess. And we learn from schools where the historians get the privilege of being the ones with the truth (or who try to tell the truth).

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Something is weird here... either you are calling Microsoft Samurais, or Microsoft have hijacked that page.

Or maybe both .[/QUOTE]

:mischief:

*Fixed by the way.

[QUOTE=fable]In conclusion, I think it's the degree or amount of cities that produces a more advanced civilization and forces technological inventions to problems you don't have in smaller communities.

It works both ways: the urban environment generates technological advances to meet changing conditions, and the advances themselves often tend to promote population density into cities. Japan certainly had its cities, but its hierarchal society and tradition-oriented culture may have meant that its people weren't looking for innovation. Labor-saving inventions wouldn't have mattered much in a culture where pre-planning was vital, and individual initiative only mattered if it took you quickly to the top. That's a poor summary, but it does hit a few points. [/QUOTE]

There are two other reasons I can think at the moment.

Firstly, literacy rate has been always high in Japan compare with the same period in, say, Europe. That includes amongst women.
If you search very early writings by Japanese, you find lots of diaries and stories by female.
This was not only for aristcrats, but also samurais and, later, merchants. There were a form of schools for children, often in temples or local merchants' house. They learnt read, write and basic math.

Secondly, even after the establishment of Tokugawa government, hence re-centralised the government after the long civil war amongst Daimyo, the local matters still remained in the hands of each Daimyo. In other words, the rivalry and suspision between them still remained, therefore the local economies and cultures were important for survival. Of course, the government prevented them from building up weaponery and building new fortresses, they could not stop them from educating, training, and saving up food and money "just in case". The most of martial arts established current style at this period because of this. As they no longer in need of spending money on wars and building new fortresses, they had spare money for something else.
Of couse, the govenment tried hard to let them waste their savings. The last thing they needed was those powerful daimyo decided to replace them using their wealth.

Well, this is only a tiny bit I can think of now. It still is really hard for me to talk about something I know in Japanese in English. I never read about Japanese culture or history or whatever in English (why should I?), and can't find suitable expression to explain them right.

[QUOTE=Minerva]Don't you dare use the word "discovery" regarding Japan!! Japan is much older than England, for example. It was just Europeans being ignorant until then!!

*going back to read the remaining of the thread*[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was waiting for that, and I apologise. I couldn't think of a better word, and if you can supply one, I will must humbly substitute it.

@Fenix: I love that site, even if it does contradict itself a few times in the same article.

[QUOTE=Xandax]My opinions about samurais?
I have none, I don't care about them, I don't find them "cool" and frankly - I think much of the "hype" existing about them (and "ninjas") is simply the result of poor movies where they jump around and beat umpteeen thousands enemies and not geninue history interest [/QUOTE]

I'd have to agree. For the most part, any mention of samurai or ninja means pop commercial culture, and has little to do with the real things. It's all about escaping from reality, instead of trying to understand and draw insights from reality. Which means discussion is reduced to no more than one kid saying how cool samurai are after another, and arguing over cheap mass-produced films and comic books.

Firstly, literacy rate has been always high in Japan compare with the same period in, say, Europe. That includes amongst women.
If you search very early writings by Japanese, you find lots of diaries and stories by female.

Minerva, how early is early? Genji, The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon and the Sarashina Diary are classics, and deservedly so, IMO, but how far back does preserved Japanese literature go? And how far back do women appear as authors? I'm not disputing you, but seeking information.

This was not only for aristcrats, but also samurais and, later, merchants. There were a form of schools for children, often in temples or local merchants' house. They learnt read, write and basic math.

I'm curious about why this should be the case. I'm not doubting you, but in Europe and the MidEast, there was no perceived need for written literature among the lower and middle economic sub-classes for a very long time. The main impetus in Europe seems to have been the rise of Protestantism and the idea of private communication with one's god; so literacy was at least partially driven by religion. But although merchants found it useful to know how to "cipher," the average self-sufficient economic unit only had a need for barter, and little written knowledge circulated.

Secondly, even after the establishment of Tokugawa government, hence re-centralised the government after the long civil war amongst Daimyo, the local matters still remained in the hands of each Daimyo. In other words, the rivalry and suspision between them still remained, therefore the local economies and cultures were important for survival. Of course, the government prevented them from building up weaponery and building new fortresses, they could not stop them from educating, training, and saving up food and money "just in case". The most of martial arts established current style at this period because of this. As they no longer in need of spending money on wars and building new fortresses, they had spare money for something else.

See, that's another difference between Japanese civilization and those of the MidEast and Europe. Where the very small city-states of the latter pair focused on luxury goods and the arts (which were also very much appreciated in Japan), there was no drive to educate the populace. Even the extraordinarily literate "medieval" Arab cultures associated with modern-day Iran, Turkey, and Andalusia were completely focused within the courts and what we might call the anti-court social drop-outs. Literacy simply didn't factor into the equation. This was even with the constant threat of war. Nor was war always something limited to aristocratic fighting men; before the European Renaissance, it regularly involved huge masses of common peasants, and massive battles continued to do so long after the history books would have us believe knights and counts were all that mattered.

Of couse, the govenment tried hard to let them waste their savings. The last thing they needed was those powerful daimyo decided to replace them using their wealth.

Very much Louis XIV's strategy, too. Having inherited a warlike nobility that vied for power with the central state, he switched the measureable sphere of influence to how well nobles adapted to, and used, an extremely elaborate series of court interests and rituals. And Louis was more than willing to have his nobles waste their resources on providing him with gifts in exchange for a glance or a favorable word.

Well, this is only a tiny bit I can think of now. It still is really hard for me to talk about something I know in Japanese in English. I never read about Japanese culture or history or whatever in English (why should I?), and can't find suitable expression to explain them right.

Please do reply when you have the time!

[QUOTE=fable]I'd have to agree. For the most part, any mention of samurai or ninja means pop commercial culture, and has little to do with the real things. It's all about escaping from reality, instead of trying to understand and draw insights from reality. Which means discussion is reduced to no more than one kid saying how cool samurai are after another, and arguing over cheap mass-produced films and comic books.
[/QUOTE]

It just came to my mind that I don't think Samurai in Japan ever called themselves Samurai.
I think if they were asked about occupation, for example, they would reply as "Bushi" or "Mononofu", but not "I am a samurai". It was only used by other people to discribe them.
I could be wrong, but, while I can imagine them saying "As a Bushi, you should act upon....", cannot imagine "As a samurai...." It feels really odd.

As for ninja, they were basically spies and secret services and SPs. They might cover themselve up in black if they worked during the night, but definitely not daytime. That's just a fantasy in cheap films and comic books, as fable might say. They might dressed up as a merchant or a traveller in a town, and as a plain soldier in a battle field. The last thing they wanted was to leave his/her impressions to other people. How eye catching he would be if he dressed up all in black in a street of Osaka at lunch time?

For the other things, like literatures and educations, I'll come back later. I need Japanese-English dictionary.

I dont't know anything about this but I have a couple of questions and if anyone would like to answer them I'd be grateful

1. I had thought that Japan was originally settled from China. If that is correct (and I honestly don't know where I got that idea) would it not be misleading to search for the roots of particular cultural developments in the geography of Japan. Would not at least some of it be influenced by the geography of China instead? It occurs to me that Japan is not resource rich, as fable said, and that the comparison with Australia should be more valid than it appears to be if geography were the main factor. Although I accept it is better endowed than Australia, maybe the culture is better understood as an offshoot of a much richer place, with adaptations to fewer resources. And perhaps with some advantage deriving from trade with the founder nations (unless the "settlers" went there because they had fallen out?)

2. I think someone said that it was forbidden to put resources into the development of weaponry at some periods. I have the impression that the countries which did best economically after WW2 for a long time were those which were prevented from entering the arms race (for example Germany and Japan) This may be wholly wrong, but if it is true it is quite interesting to speculate on the effects of what is ostensibly an economic "good" at least as my government talks about the arms industry. May not the avoidance of an arms industry free resources for science, education etc at any period of history? ( though there would have to be some way to defend from the neighbours maybe)

I hope I have stayed on topic and that some of you have more information about these things

[QUOTE=Fiona]I dont't know anything about this but I have a couple of questions and if anyone would like to answer them I'd be grateful

1. I had thought that Japan was originally settled from China. If that is correct (and I honestly don't know where I got that idea) would it not be misleading to search for the roots of particular cultural developments in the geography of Japan. Would not at least some of it be influenced by the geography of China instead? It occurs to me that Japan is not resource rich, as fable said, and that the comparison with Australia should be more valid than it appears to be if geography were the main factor. Although I accept it is better endowed than Australia, maybe the culture is better understood as an offshoot of a much richer place, with adaptations to fewer resources. And perhaps with some advantage deriving from trade with the founder nations (unless the "settlers" went there because they had fallen out?)
[/QUOTE]

Well, actually nobody knows where Japanese were originally from.

Language is one way to identify its origin, or at least which other language is related to. And, surprise surprise, there is no similarity between Japanese and Chinese whatsoever.
Japanese imported Chinese characters about 5th century, along side with Buddhism, papermaking and tea (as medicine. Rice cultivation came much earlier), so Japanese language uses Chinese characters (Kanji), just like English uses Alphabet but it is not originally English. Two other forms of Japanese writings, Hiragana and Katakana, were made out of Kanji about 150 years later, because using only Kanji was not enough to express Japanese.
The connections ends there. Japanese did not originated in Chinese.
So where did the Japanese come from?
Japanese has some similarities with the Ural-Altaic language (like Turkish), the South East Asian (like Indonesian), and even with the Polynesian (I think there are a couple more, but can't remember), but nothing decisively.
From that, I suspect some tribes came from the North (but not chinese. Probably central Asian tribes, just like the Turks, and some came from the South and mixed where they met. If you look at a map and see the sea stream, it is not difficult to imagine people arrived from the south (well, that's how Portugese managed to reach Japan in the 16th century).

As for the cultural influence, Japanese government sent many people over the continent for centuries, because China was so much advanced. In the ancient period, some Japanese tribe leaders paid tribute to the Chinese in exchange of knowledge.
The earliest record of Japan is around 1st century AD in Chinese history book, which mentioned "the country of Japan is devided by a hundred and a few tribes". So, by this time, Chinese regarded Japan as an independent country.
In 57 AD, it also mentioned a messenger from the King of Yamato (=Japan) arrived China. This was probably around the time a few powerful leaders began to work to dominate the country, I suspect.

For your second question, I'll leave it to later. Hopefully, someone comes to explain better than me!

[QUOTE=fable]
Minerva, how early is early? Genji, The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon and the Sarashina Diary are classics, and deservedly so, IMO, but how far back does preserved Japanese literature go? And how far back do women appear as authors? I'm not disputing you, but seeking information.
[/QUOTE]

Okay, the books you have mentioned were all written in the 11th century. There are a few more books (many are diary or diary style) by female at this period. Both Sei Shonagon and Murasaki Shikibu were tutors to princesses (and were rivals in the royal court). Sarashina Diary's author was wife of a middle class civil servant, and her aunt was also a famous writer (Kagerou Diary, or Mayfly Diary).
During this period, it was essential for the skills of composing poems (Tanka or Waka--5,7,5,7,7 syllables) and had beutiful hand writing for both man and woman. As men were not allowed to see faces of noble ladies, they tried to find suitable wife or lover by rumours, chance sight of her hair, incence (it was another essential skill for both sexes to mix their own incence), or hand written letters (including choice of papers and flowers). Then they exchanged their letters, and once they (well, usually that included their families) decided to get married, chose write date for the man to slip into her bedroom. Next morning, the man went home quietly, and sent her a poem (that had to be done! Usually mentioning he misses her already or how he hated to see the first light of the morning), and she replied back with a poem too. Do that for next two nights, then the third morning, he stayed at her room and her family pretended to be surprised she now had husband.
You see, she had to be able to write and read! Of course, she could ask someone else to write for her, but that was when men had many wives in different places (cohabitation was for elderly then) and she could not take that chance as he might lose interests in her.

Now, the earliest book in Japan is called Manyo-shu. This is a collection of poems in many styles mostly between 7-8th centuries, containing more than 4,000 poems (it differs depends on how to calculate, as some of them could be a set or separated).
The thing about Manyo-shu is it contains poems from everyone. And I mean, everyone.
The first poem is by Emperor Yuryaku (probably early 6th century) and the earliest poem is by Empress Nintoku (probably 4th century). The last one is by Otomo Yakamochi, one of the editor, in 759. In between, there are poems about flowers, stars and moons and suns, scenery, celebration of new year, mourning of a friend, missing family living away, or sent as love letter, by emperors and empresses, other members of royal family, aristcrats, scholars, students (in this case, people who travelled to China to study), priests, civil servants, guards, and even harlots. Harlots!
Of course, it is not necessarily they have written them, as we know the earliest by the empress was told orally, for example. They could have just told them to someone and that was recorded. Still, it is impressive collection, and Manyo-shu is definitely the earliest female authors appears, if only as poets.
This is also the time there were empresses as the head of state (not a wife of emperor, I mean). It makes me wonder how modern "modern Japan" really is....
The earliest story was a fantasy called Tale of Taketori written around 900AD. In Genji, it was described as "the origin of the all stories". The first story written by female could be Tale of Yamato in mid 10th century. The author is unknown and it could be written by man, but because it contains so many stories surrounding emperor and empress, at least a female royal household was involved in this book, if she did not write herself.
The earliest we are sure written by female is Kagerou Diary in the late 10th century.

Oh, I couldn't reach war stories involving samurais. I'll mention sometime later.
This thread is getting like Japanese literature thread....