40 replies to this topic

[jamjoh]

Not sure if this is the best place to start this new topic, but it doesn't seem to be the worst either.

We know that Japan was enamored with the land of the Ming, most apparent when you look at the prices paid by the more wealthy families in Japan for pieces of ceramics from China (especially tea pots). It is highly probably that Romance of the Three Kingdoms was read by many in Japan by the 1570s. Now Romance of the Three Kingdoms maybe mostly fictional, but it had a huge impact on Japan between 1570 and 1582. Hideyoshi and Kuroda Kanbei almost certainly were inspired by the flooding of Xiapi when they devised the water attack on Takamatsu. Ieyasu used Zhao Yun's "empty fort strategy" from the Battle of Han River, in his retreat from the Battle of Mikatagahara. There is even a possiblity that Hideyoshi considered Liu Bei's determination to recruit Zhuge Liang when he visited Takenada Hanbei three times (although his three visits to Hanbei may not have actually happened).

So here is the question of the topic. Do you think that Romance of the Three Kingdoms was recieved as fact for the first few hundred years? Would generals as gifted as Hideyoshi and Ieyasu really base war strategy on something if they knew it was fiction?

[oldbreadstinks]

if it works , why not? some of them were coming up with their own tatics/strategies anyway.

[jamjoh]

if it works , why not? some of them were coming up with their own tatics/strategies anyway.

Valid point, except, if they knew it was fiction they would not know that it would work.

[oldbreadstinks]

Valid point, except, if they knew it was fiction they would not know that it would work.

where tatics and strategies are concern, if they follow the art of war, my belief is they consider it deception. who can say for sure it would work. there is no sure fire way that some guy wouldn't find out in the other camp you're pulling a fast one on him.

nothing is for certain and victory does come to those who take risks. who's to say what wouldn't work until it suceeds or fails.

Edited by oldbreadstinks, 27 June 2011 - 11:15 AM.

[jamjoh]

where tatics and strategies are concern, if they follow the art of war, my belief is they consider it deception. who can say for sure it would work. there is no sure fire way that some guy wouldn't find out in the other camp you're pulling a fast one on him.

nothing is for certain and victory does come to those who take risks. who's to say what wouldn't work until it suceeds or fails.

Fair enough, but I am still left wondering if they used these strategies based on a belief that they had already been used effectively or knowing that it had never been done before but might be a good idea.

Edited by jamjoh, 27 June 2011 - 12:49 PM.

[mariusj]

A lot of Japanese commanders of that period read Art of War, some of them really perfected it.

[jamjoh]

A lot of Japanese commanders of that period read Art of War, some of them really perfected it.

Oh absolutely, but the idea of redirecting a river, or of leaving your castle gate open...those are not from The Art of War.

[mariusj]

Oh absolutely, but the idea of redirecting a river, or of leaving your castle gate open...those are not from The Art of War.

They are also really influenced by Chu-Han.

[ronempress]

Oh absolutely, but the idea of redirecting a river, or of leaving your castle gate open...those are not from The Art of War.

I'm not sure you can say this. The idea of using terrain was certainly part of The Art of War. So one could say altering the terrain to suit your purpose is simply a variation on that thought. On the other hand, leaving the castle gate open (with or without playing the guzheng)seems like a strange battle tactic to try and highly unreliable to repeat. LOL

[oldbreadstinks]

Fair enough, but I am still left wondering if they used these strategies based on a belief that they had already been used effectively or knowing that it had never been done before but might be a good idea.

lol considering their reputations and the consequences of losing, I rather say they used the strategies based on whether they thought it might work on the current situation.

Since strategies and tatics need surprise/deception to avoid enemy response, who knows maybe the less often its been used before the better.

[oldbreadstinks]

I'm not sure you can say this. The idea of using terrain was certainly part of The Art of War. So one could say altering the terrain to suit your purpose is simply a variation on that thought. On the other hand, leaving the castle gate open (with or without playing the guzheng)seems like a strange battle tactic to try and highly unreliable to repeat. LOL

irritating thing is, the art of war is so vague on its methods almost everything can be linked to it.

[mariusj]

irritating thing is, the art of war is so vague on its methods almost everything can be linked to it.

That is what theory is.

[mohistManiac]

Actually the Art of War is not really vague. It's only vague if you think it's an instructional manual which came with your troops and no one has a clue how to construct and operate the various equipment.

[jamjoh]

I'm not sure you can say this. The idea of using terrain was certainly part of The Art of War. So one could say altering the terrain to suit your purpose is simply a variation on that thought. On the other hand, leaving the castle gate open (with or without playing the guzheng)seems like a strange battle tactic to try and highly unreliable to repeat. LOL

There is a huge fundamental difference between using terrain and altering terrain, it is not simply a variation. The effort required to redirect a river is so massive that you can't put it in the same strategic school as "holding the high ground".

The way that Ieyasu employed the empty gate strategy was so close to what was depicted in the novel, it is too much of a coincidence that he didn't get the idea from the novel. And it is almost certain that Takeda Shingen did not read the novel, since his army did not capitalize on it and almost suffered a similar fate that the Wei army did (they lost the battle when the Tokagawa sallied out, but they didn't suffer soldiers drowning).

[mariusj]

There is a huge fundamental difference between using terrain and altering terrain, it is not simply a variation. The effort required to redirect a river is so massive that you can't put it in the same strategic school as "holding the high ground".

The way that Ieyasu employed the empty gate strategy was so close to what was depicted in the novel, it is too much of a coincidence that he didn't get the idea from the novel. And it is almost certain that Takeda Shingen did not read the novel, since his army did not capitalize on it and almost suffered a similar fate that the Wei army did (they lost the battle when the Tokagawa sallied out, but they didn't suffer soldiers drowning).

Actually, Shingen is so much superior in tactics and strategy that I refuse to believe he got bluffed. It simply was out of the way for him to attack Tokugawa. His goal is Kyoto, there is no reason to waste time on Ieyasu. His strategic goal accomplished. Ieyasu's forces were beaten, disgraced, and there are bigger prey and reward in the other direction. If you can take it for free, maybe Shingen might [but since he is such a great commander, he know exactly what he wants and what he does not need, and capturing Hamamatsu simply isn't worth it, given Shingen knew his time is very short.

But after all that, I doubt it actually happened. It sounds like a very 'imagined' scenario.

For example, when you are bluffing an opponent, it only work if your opponent DOES NOT know what you have. For example, POKER, when you go all in every single round and you are not the chip lead, you will be called. Zhuge Liang MIGHT of done it due to the fact that he has a sizable army, but Tokugawa has 2 provinces, perhaps 600,000 shiku, his ability to field only so many troops and they are mostly dispersed from the previous crushing defeat.


Also, diverting river is an ancient and classic strategy from before the time of Three Kingdom. I think Japanese read shiji more than they do Three Kingdom at that time. The spread of Shiji simply have way too much head start while RoTK was only first printed in the early 1500s.
In Shiji, you can read much more interesting stories about battle, one of which is during the time of Chu-Han contention, which mesmerizes Japanese poets and authors (if you read any classic Japanese novels, you would see how it fascinate them。）