Re: a few questions

Well, this one is a bit random. While reading through a few pages online, some people stated that if Okita Souji hadn't been sick and had fought during the battles of Fushi and Toba, that the outcome would have been very diffrent. So the question is, what do you guys think? Would the Shinsengumi and their allies have won the battle (and maybe a few more afterwards) if Okita had fought? Or would they have lost anyways?

The other quesion is, was Kogoro Katsura really determined to burn down Kyoto? (I need to verify this so that I don't screw up on my fanfic ^^;;;)



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<>

Things were so bad by that point I can't see how how one person could have changed the tide unless it was the young Emperor publicly proclaiming that those in the Satsuma/Choshu unholy alliance were traitors by trying to oust the Bakufu whom his father wanted to "work with" the Court as it were.

<>

It wasn't Katsura so much as his more radical companions--Miyabe, Genzui, Yoshida.

--
Barbara Sheridan
http://www.barbarasheridan.net
The Blog-- http://barbarasheridan.blogspot.com/

>< >Kyoto? (I need to verify this so that I don't screw up on my fanfic
>^^;;;) >>
>
>It wasn't Katsura so much as his more radical companions--Miyabe, Genzui,
>Yoshida.

I'll second that. Katsura thought that burning Kyoto was stupid. Miyabe
Teizou, Yoshida Toshimaro, and Matsuda Juusuke-- the leaders of the group at
Ikedaya-- were the ones in support of burning Kyoto to the ground,
impersonating Aizu troops, killing Matsudaira Katamori, and kidnapping
Emperor Komei, taking him to Choshuu and "reinstating" the government.

NHK Katsura, in the very first episode, put it best:

"If you burn Kyoto to the ground, many people will lose their homes, and
many will die."

However, Ikedaya, to me, is also a very interesting place to see the
attitude of Aizu toward Shinsengumi. Shinsengumi expected Aizu
reinforcements, but Aizu took their time-- which makes sense in the light of
the "Shinsengumi as spare parts" theory that I'd been thinking of earlier--
the idea that if Shinsengumi takes the forefront of the assault, Aizu
wouldn't have to dirty its hands as much. Those of you who know PMK can see
this in the Ikedaya episode-- when Katsuya Sakon shows up with the Aizu
forces, he's so hesitant he's even desperate to keep Kondou from dirtying
his uniform.

--M.

At 02:38 PM 3/30/2005, you wrote:

>The other quesion is, was Kogoro Katsura really determined to burn down Kyoto? (I need to verify this so that I don't screw up on my fanfic ^^;;;)

I think it's very unlikely. Katsura/Kido opposed the suggestion of military action on Kyoto - and by extension any more extreme measures he would not likely have favored.

Regarding the countercoup (From "Choshu in the Meiji Restoration" by Albert M. Craig )

-"Sufu opposed it, but so also did Takasugi; Nakamura Kyuro, an important member of the Sufu clique, favored it, as did Kusaka."... (page 223)

-"Kido and Yamagata, as well as Takasugi, opposed the idea of a countercoup at this time. Kijima, like Shoin, demanded action because there ought to be action; he gave little thought to its consequences."

Ahh and a very oblique reference to Ikedaya-da. (pg 227)

"On 14/6/64 (June 14, 1684) news came of Bakufu police action against loyalist samurai in Kyoto, in which several Choshu samurai had been slain, among them prominent members of the Choshu loyalist group."


S
red-bird.org





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]