40 replies to this topic

[jamjoh]

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。）

Shingen may have been a great commander, but after Mikatagahara he stopped his advance. Was he stymied? Actually yes he kind of was. He needed to stop and regroup before he could continue onto Kyoto. Also it would not be correct to say that Shingen fell for the empty fort strategy, since in fact it was two of his generals and not him himself that feel for it (Baba Nobuharu and Yamagata Masakage)

It might sound like an imagined scenario, but we are not talking about events from almost 2000yrs ago but events less than 500 yrs ago. The history records of this time are more accurate than that. Part of the strategy might be imagined, but it did occurred. Sakai Tadatsugu supposedly beat the drum during the empty fort strategy. That might not be fact, but the ruse was done, and it did work.

The fact that the novel was so new is exactly the point of why only some of the generals would have read it and many of the strategies would not be well known. I am not sure if the flooding of Xiapi is in the Records or if it only appears in the Romance, so I don't know for sure where the inspiration might have come from.

The empty fort stratagem is one of the 36 stratagems, and therefore would have been around for 500 yrs before the Three Kingdoms era. But I can find no evidence of it being used before Zhao Yun and later Zhuge Liang. The use of it by Zhuge is almost certainly fiction, and I think that Zhao Yun using it may also have been fiction. If so then the first time it appears in action in literature would be in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Edited by jamjoh, 30 June 2011 - 02:13 PM.

[mariusj]

Shingen may have been a great commander, but after Mikatagahara he stopped his advance. Was he stymied? Actually yes he kind of was. He needed to stop and regroup before he could continue onto Kyoto. Also it would not be correct to say that Shingen fell for the empty fort strategy, since in fact it was two of his generals and not him himself that feel for it (Baba Nobuharu and Yamagata Masakage)

He has a long term illness.
Which is why he knew he must attack, but his estimate of time left was too generous, so he stopped his advance and plan for the eventual withdraw.

It might sound like an imagined scenario, but we are not talking about events from almost 2000yrs ago but events less than 500 yrs ago. The history records of this time are more accurate than that. Part of the strategy might be imagined, but it did occurred. Sakai Tadatsugu supposedly beat the drum during the empty fort strategy. That might not be fact, but the ruse was done, and it did work.

Actually, something that happened 2000 years ago in China is probably more accurate than what happened in Japan 500 years ago, simply due to who recorded the history.

Some of the writings by Japanese samurai was very loop sided, AND after Tokugawa Shogunate was established they did a very good make over.

So I would take anything from Senkugu was a grin of salt.

The fact that the novel was so new is exactly the point of why only some of the generals would have read it and many of the strategies would not be well known. I am not sure if the flooding of Xiapi is in the Records or if it only appears in the Romance, so I don't know for sure where the inspiration might have come from.

Did you read Shiji?

I thought I said Shiji was very wildly read in Japan at that time [relatively speaking]
齐王广、龙且并军与信战，未合。人或说龙且曰：“汉兵远斗穷战，其锋不可当。齐、楚自居其地战，兵易败散。不如深壁，令齐王使其信臣招所亡城，亡城闻其王在，楚来救，必反汉。汉兵二千里客居，齐城皆反之，其势无所得食，可无战而降也。”龙且曰：“吾平生知韩信为人，易与耳。且夫救齐不战而降之，吾何功？今战而胜之，齐之半可得，何为止！”遂战，与信夹濰水陈。韩信乃夜令人为万馀囊，满盛沙，壅水上流，引军半渡，击龙且，详不胜，还走。龙且果喜曰：“固知信怯也。”遂追信渡水。信使人决壅囊，水大至。龙且军大半不得渡，即急击，杀龙且。龙且水东军散走，齐王广亡去。信遂追北至城阳皆虏楚卒。

The turning point of Chu-Han contention. It is very famous, much more decisive strategically than any other, and far more difficult to pull off.

The empty fort stratagem is one of the 36 stratagems, and therefore would have been around for 500 yrs before the Three Kingdoms era. But I can find no evidence of it being used before Zhao Yun and later Zhuge Liang. The use of it by Zhuge is almost certainly fiction, and I think that Zhao Yun using it may also have been fiction. If so then the first time it appears in action in literature would be in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Even the rumored earliest author was in 500A.D, but more commonly believed to be in Ming-Qing era [thus, the RoTK]. So no way its around for 500 years. No way.

[jamjoh]

He has a long term illness.
Which is why he knew he must attack, but his estimate of time left was too generous, so he stopped his advance and plan for the eventual withdraw.



Actually, something that happened 2000 years ago in China is probably more accurate than what happened in Japan 500 years ago, simply due to who recorded the history.

Some of the writings by Japanese samurai was very loop sided, AND after Tokugawa Shogunate was established they did a very good make over.

So I would take anything from Senkugu was a grin of salt.


Did you read Shiji?

I thought I said Shiji was very wildly read in Japan at that time [relatively speaking]
齐王广、龙且并军与信战，未合。人或说龙且曰：“汉兵远斗穷战，其锋不可当。齐、楚自居其地战，兵易败散。不如深壁，令齐王使其信臣招所亡城，亡城闻其王在，楚来救，必反汉。汉兵二千里客居，齐城皆反之，其势无所得食，可无战而降也。”龙且曰：“吾平生知韩信为人，易与耳。且夫救齐不战而降之，吾何功？今战而胜之，齐之半可得，何为止！”遂战，与信夹濰水陈。韩信乃夜令人为万馀囊，满盛沙，壅水上流，引军半渡，击龙且，详不胜，还走。龙且果喜曰：“固知信怯也。”遂追信渡水。信使人决壅囊，水大至。龙且军大半不得渡，即急击，杀龙且。龙且水东军散走，齐王广亡去。信遂追北至城阳皆虏楚卒。

The turning point of Chu-Han contention. It is very famous, much more decisive strategically than any other, and far more difficult to pull off.


Even the rumored earliest author was in 500A.D, but more commonly believed to be in Ming-Qing era [thus, the RoTK]. So no way its around for 500 years. No way.

First off...events in Japan 500 yrs ago were accurately recorded by Japanese and Europeans, so no events 2000yrs ago in China were not better recorded.

The 36 stratagems were put in the Book of Qin yes....but the stratagems were around a lot longer than that. Some of them were attributed to Sun Bin who died 316 BC according to Wikipedia.

[mariusj]

First off...events in Japan 500 yrs ago were accurately recorded by Japanese and Europeans, so no events 2000yrs ago in China were not better recorded.

1. Japanese who wrote about these events were often Samurais who pretty much have the conflict of interest. One thing about historical accuracy is that when you have several independent accounts, and they record the same thing, you have a pretty good idea. On the other hand, records from various houses records different things. So, your Japanese accuracy is pretty much an imagination. Show me some scholarly reports and I will believe you on the said event.

2. Show me European recorded events of what you said. Show me.

The 36 stratagems were put in the Book of Qin yes....but the stratagems were around a lot longer than that. Some of them were attributed to Sun Bin who died 316 BC according to Wikipedia.

. . . .
Says who?

[jamjoh]

1. Japanese who wrote about these events were often Samurais who pretty much have the conflict of interest. One thing about historical accuracy is that when you have several independent accounts, and they record the same thing, you have a pretty good idea. On the other hand, records from various houses records different things. So, your Japanese accuracy is pretty much an imagination. Show me some scholarly reports and I will believe you on the said event.

2. Show me European recorded events of what you said. Show me.




. . . .
Says who?

Dr. Stephen Turnbull is the expert in that area...he can probably give you numerous citations.

The Europeans wrote numerous documents - Documenta Indica has over 150 volumes...covering centuries...I will not be trying to find specific references.


Finally....says who?....There is a book called "Exploring the 36 Strategies...it is written in Chinese and is listed by wikipedia as the source for that fact.

[mariusj]

Finally....says who?....There is a book called "Exploring the 36 Strategies...it is written in Chinese and is listed by wikipedia as the source for that fact.

The essay, Exploring the 36 strategies, is found on a net source claimed to be from the PLA.

Should really read them before you use wikipedia as any source.

In the essay, it says originally people use '36 stratagems, leaving is the best' is more often used to describe someone who is full of ideas.
It is more likely that it finalized to what we know of it today during Qing dynasty.

Read it.

And as for your claims that event where empty gate strategy was used, you said there are European records of it. Why don't you just show me?

I think you are confusing with legends, 逸聞, with facts.

[jamjoh]

That's the point of the whole thing...I want to know the legends from the facts...the only factual account of the empty gate strategy is Ieyasu. If it has been around for so many years then what I want to know is how did Ieyasu know about it, except from fictional information which is not a good source if your life is on the line.

I can't read Chinese...that's why I read Wiki account of it.

Your comment is confusing though. Are you claiming that Sun Bin is not the author of some of the strategies?

As for European accounts of a specific event like Ieyasu using the empty gate strategy...that is not as easy as you are trying to make it out to be, which I am positive that you already know since I am willing to bet that you Google searched for it already. The point I was making is that there are 150 VOLUMES (not chapters) written by the Jesuits, and the Japanese ones are almost 500 yrs old and not in English, and to try and pick something out of that is not a task that I am going to do. My preference (and pretty much as far as I am willing to go) is to read the research done by doctorates, since the doctorate process has a challenge and defense part and so it is extremely unlikely that the information is unsupported. So to sum it all up...I don't get paid to research history, so I read the results of people who do. Which is why I directed you to read anything by Dr. Stephen Turnbull.

[mariusj]

That's the point of the whole thing...I want to know the legends from the facts...the only factual account of the empty gate strategy is Ieyasu. If it has been around for so many years then what I want to know is how did Ieyasu know about it, except from fictional information which is not a good source if your life is on the line.

That is the problem with Japanese history. There are few independent account that from different clans that says the same thing.
Oda samurai wrote vastly different things about Hidoyoshi than Hidoyoshi clan.
The Empty Gate strategy that was used was not written by someone who did not have a conflict of interest. The Tokugawa clan clean up history rather nicely after they form their Shogunate.

I can't read Chinese...that's why I read Wiki account of it.

Then you should know how little you can trust Wiki without verifying their sources,

Your comment is confusing though. Are you claiming that Sun Bin is not the author of some of the strategies?

Well, I am pretty sure he didn't write it, but I am open minded about it.
On the other hand, your source from wiki used an essay written by someone from the PLA. Not a scholarly source and full of conjuncture.

As for European accounts of a specific event like Ieyasu using the empty gate strategy...that is not as easy as you are trying to make it out to be, which I am positive that you already know since I am willing to bet that you Google searched for it already. The point I was making is that there are 150 VOLUMES (not chapters) written by the Jesuits, and the Japanese ones are almost 500 yrs old and not in English, and to try and pick something out of that is not a task that I am going to do. My preference (and pretty much as far as I am willing to go) is to read the research done by doctorates, since the doctorate process has a challenge and defense part and so it is extremely unlikely that the information is unsupported. So to sum it all up...I don't get paid to research history, so I read the results of people who do. Which is why I directed you to read anything by Dr. Stephen Turnbull.

The Jesuits are generally NOT in the western end of Japan. They are more spread in the eastern end. Which is why I originally questioned your claim that the Jesuit first hand witness such events. Especially since Buddhist are especially strong in Tokugawa's territory, where Buddhist kicked him out of his own land, and some of his most important retainers were with these Buddhist.

So I basically distrust anything that made a claim that is genuinely a second hand account, which make Dr. Turnbull's book third hand account.

Of course I am also open minded on this, but since he written so many books, if you tell me which one of these books says he used it, I will gladly read it and perhaps even write to him, but pulling up someone without siting them is a pretty bad act. You are using someone's else' authority to shield yourself without saying why or how.

[jamjoh]

One of these days I'll figure out the multiquote function.

First off...Hideyoshi didn't ahve a clan...he was in the Oda clan, in fact even as the Taiko there was a time when Oda Nobuo was under the illusion that Hideyoshi was subordinate to him...but I understand the point you're trying to make.

I know that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, but they put down their sources and those are usually pretty good.

The idea that the 36 strategies were compiled rather than authored by one person is much more plausible than the other way around.

The Jesuits were used by Oda Nobunaga...he let them build churches because it gave him an edge in recruiting Samurai away from other daimyos. This occured in the western campaign but I can't recall which samurai changed sides...I can find out if you want though. Anyway the point is the Jesuits were exposed to a lot of the Oda alliance, and when Ieyasu used the empty fort strategy Nobunaga was still alive.

The single book I liek to read the most about this time is Taiko by Eiji Yoshikawa...but Dr. Turnbull's Samurai Sourcebook is the most common reference I see nowadays.

[mariusj]

First off...Hideyoshi didn't ahve a clan...he was in the Oda clan, in fact even as the Taiko there was a time when Oda Nobuo was under the illusion that Hideyoshi was subordinate to him...but I understand the point you're trying to make.

He was the 天下人. At one point, he rules Japan.

Also, anyone can have a clan. Oda clan includes many other clan, but that is beside my point.

I know that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, but they put down their sources and those are usually pretty good.

And did you check these sources?
Because I did. And I am telling you its an essay from someone website claiming to be from the PLA.
How many times do I need to repeat myself?

The idea that the 36 strategies were compiled rather than authored by one person is much more plausible than the other way around.

I am not arguing who is the author, but rather question at all any way of reliably identifying tactics and their origin.

The Jesuits were used by Oda Nobunaga...he let them build churches because it gave him an edge in recruiting Samurai away from other daimyos.

He uses them because he was fighting the 一向宗/ikkōshū。 What is better than using one religion to fight another?

This occured in the western campaign but I can't recall which samurai changed sides...I can find out if you want though.

You are saying Samurai switched sides because of religion? Please do find out who did that.

Anyway the point is the Jesuits were exposed to a lot of the Oda alliance, and when Ieyasu used the empty fort strategy Nobunaga was still alive.

Oda Nobunaga ruled a vast territory. Just because Nobunaga had Jesuits in trading ports means NOTHING about the independent Tokugawa clan. Again, Tokugawa territory is strongly Buddhist, and in fact you can say xenophobic, much like everywhere else in Japan.

The single book I liek to read the most about this time is Taiko by Eiji Yoshikawa...but Dr. Turnbull's Samurai Sourcebook is the most common reference I see nowadays.

Did these two book mention Tokugawa used empty gate?

[jamjoh]

Hideyoshi didn't even have a family name...it changed a few different times...Kinashito was his name at one point. As he was never a daimyo, I don't see him having a clan. Then again it depends on your definition of the word "clan".

Repeating yourself? I am trying to answer you on why I used Wikipedia...even if you read the paper you don't necessarily figure out the legitimacy. So I read the Wiki page, and part of the paper, but I didn't check on the credentials of the author.

I fully agree that reliability is questionable, but it is also very plausible that a strategist the likes of Sun Bin could have authored some of the strategies, or perhaps Sun Tzu. The real point that I am trying to make is that at least some of the strategies existed before the document was written and some probably centuries before.

Absolutely religion is a tool in war.

Both books state Ieyasu used the empty fort strategy, although Taiko only describes it and doesn't give it the actual name empty gate.

Takayama Shigetomo switched sides to the Oda because he was convinced by Jesuit Padre Gnecchi-Soldo Organtino because Nobunaga told him that it would benefit the church and that if he switched sides the church could build either a school or a church at Azuchi I believe.

[mariusj]

Hideyoshi didn't even have a family name...it changed a few different times...Kinashito was his name at one point. As he was never a daimyo, I don't see him having a clan. Then again it depends on your definition of the word "clan".

Everyone starts somewhere. I fail to see how someone who did not once have a family name can stop him from making a clan.

And how was he never a daimyo?

Repeating yourself? I am trying to answer you on why I used Wikipedia...even if you read the paper you don't necessarily figure out the legitimacy. So I read the Wiki page, and part of the paper, but I didn't check on the credentials of the author.

Any paper written only on the internet lacks legitimacy. Think of it as school projects. Would you use these as your resources?
Well if you do you really shouldn't.

I fully agree that reliability is questionable, but it is also very plausible that a strategist the likes of Sun Bin could have authored some of the strategies, or perhaps Sun Tzu. The real point that I am trying to make is that at least some of the strategies existed before the document was written and some probably centuries before.

Good, I am glad we agree that while your point is possible, it is not necessary true and we shouldn't treat them as factual.

Both books state Ieyasu used the empty fort strategy, although Taiko only describes it and doesn't give it the actual name empty gate.

Do you know what page?

Takayama Shigetomo switched sides to the Oda because he was convinced by Jesuit Padre Gnecchi-Soldo Organtino because Nobunaga told him that it would benefit the church and that if he switched sides the church could build either a school or a church at Azuchi I believe.

We differ in our opinion on how this happened.

Perhaps your story came from 信长公记. At that point in history, Takayama rebelled against Oda. I simply can't imagine Oda telling people to surrender, or give anyone any choice.

[jamjoh]

The reason he controlled all of Japan but never received the title of "Shogun" was because he was not a daimyo. A daimyo has hereditary land holdings, the name actually translates to something like "large private land".

I don't do projects and don't require resources...sure there are many things on the net that are not valuable but some things are reliable. Since the matter is one of interest and has no bearing on anything else in my life I chose not to look further into it.

Well I own a copy of Taiko so I can get the page if you like. The Battle of Mikatagahara is covered in the Samurai Source Book and one website said pg.222 but I would have to get a copy to confirm this.

And Nobunaga never told him to surrender or to change sides, the Jesuits did.

[mariusj]

We can't have an intellectual debate if you don't have a fundamental grasp of Japanese history.

You cannot talk about samurai without understanding the Japanese government, you cannot talk about Japanese government without understanding Shogunate, and you can't understand what Shogunate is without understanding Genpei Kassen [Jishō-Jyuēi no Ran]. I recommend you read that before you say anything about who and what CAN and CANNOT become Shogun.

Land have NOTHING to do with whether or not you are eligible to become Shogun.

Daimyo also have nothing to do with owning land. You should read up on what is a Shogu, and what is a Shogudai. But either way, Hideyoshi is Shogudai of Harima. So, there, he was a daimyo.

[jamjoh]

The problem as I see it is you want to get rid of the technicalities...but you can't when you are talking strictly of titles.

The difference between a Shogun and a Regent has everything to do with heritage, and land. Hideyoshi was not eligible to become Shogun because he had no lineage to Minamoto. And if you have no land then you cannot be a daimyo (by definition) and you cannot be a Shogun unless you are a daimyo (unless there is some technicality I am missing). To be Shogun you also must have unified Japan(obviously I suppose).

A Shugo daimyo was a governor basically, and a Sengoku daimyo was basically a local warlord that evolved from a Shugo daimyo.

A Shugodai could definitely EFFECTIVELY become a daimyo. Effectively, however, Hideyoshi was shogun but OFFICIAL he was not.

THe next technicality was Hideyoshi was a retainer of the Oda clan of which he was never the head of the Oda clan officially. He was a warrior of a daimyo, but since he was not the head of the Oda clan he was not a daimyo and Harima officially was an Oda holding....and like I said he was never official the head of the Oda clan.

Hideyoshi did not even receive a family name until 1585...so he could not have been a daiymo until that point anyway, and at that point he was Regent.

So it all comes down to technicalities...but when you are discussing titles technicalities are everything.

Since in your opinion Wikipedia is a flawed source I switched my main resource to Encyclopedia Britannica since as I have stated before I am not so involved in this to actually read the source documents if I don't have to. I realize that the Encyclopedia Britannica is not a source reference, but you have to admit they have a pretty good history of using actual source references for their info.