Japanese and American relations after Admiral Perry landed in Japan

I am assuming that the American interest in Japan faded after the American Civil War began. However, when the Samurai revolt (probably not the correct way of stating it) began in 1871(?), which Tom Cruise played the part of a Yankee soldier (The Last Samurai) sent to help the ruling family change the method of fighting, criticism of the movie was mostly about the Americans not being involved but the Portugese and Germans. Was their ever any attempt to have the Americans assist in the training? Did the United States have any type of consul or ambassador in Japan during this period?

The main problem with the historical accuracy of the Tom Cruise film was that Hollywood did a typical blurring of timescales for the period following the opening up of Japan; condensing several decades of wars/rebellions into one event.

For a quick answer to your question try searching for the "Boshin" wars on the net. These were the struggles between various clans and the Shogunate for control of Japan after the Perry era and leading to the Meiji restoration.This also involved modernisation of the state and trying to preserve Japan's independence from the colonial powers- notably Great Britain, France and the U.S.A., who wished to take economic control in the way that was starting in China.

This modernisation,however, wasn't to everyones taste, especially for many Samurai, hence a series of rebellions including 1877 which is basically the theme of the film.

As to actual military assistance, the Japanese were understandably cautious about where to get it from. France and Britain were the main source of weapons initially as they were the world's major powers.

There were French military missions to the army in the '60s whilst the British provided naval training, and many of the ships.The US had no military reputation prior to their civil war, but lots of surplus weapons afterwards! They then did supply, unofficially, some advisors but I haven't got my file handy with fuller details.

Portugal had once been the only country allowed to trade with Japan but were replaced by the Dutch East Indies Company in about 1642(?), and they eventually supplied limited numbers of flintlock muskets which the Japanese copied and used until the 1860s, but such trade was strictly limited- one ship a year IIRC.

Germany did not come onto the scene until after their victory in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1), as the country did not previously exist as such; they then replaced the French as their reputation had taken a beating.

As to diplomats, all powers including America had representatives in Japan; indeed I think Japan sent an ambassador to Washington in about 1868?

A fascinating period and much overlooked, most histories merely saying something on the lines of " Perry opened up Japan, the Emperor was restored to power and Japan became a modern state"!

BTW, it is very doubtful if more than a handful of the Samurai at this time still fought in armour or even on horseback- so ideas about 16th century armies with modern firearms are off the mark.

Hope this helps.

Nick

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "DuaneS" wrote:
>
> I am assuming that the American interest in Japan faded after the American Civil War began. However, when the Samurai revolt (probably not the correct way of stating it) began in 1871(?), which Tom Cruise played the part of a Yankee soldier (The Last Samurai) sent to help the ruling family change the method of fighting, criticism of the movie was mostly about the Americans not being involved but the Portugese and Germans. Was their ever any attempt to have the Americans assist in the training? Did the United States have any type of consul or ambassador in Japan during this period?
>

Nick,

Thank you very much for your detailed reply to "DuaneS"'s question. I was intrigued to read your comment:
-------------------------------------
...the Dutch East Indies Company in about 1642(?), ... eventually supplied limited numbers of flintlock muskets which the Japanese copied and used until the 1860s
------------------------------------

I collect Japanese swords and have three Kunitomo matchlock guns ca 1800. I'm no expert on the matchlock guns of Japan but I have followed up on literature and do keep my eyes somewhat open for news on matchlocks, BUT, I have never seen any reference to flintlock guns being used as you intimate. Granted the watchword here is "limited numbers", but again I have never seen them referenced. I am aware of the published image of a double-barreled flintlock pistol in a Japanese book (19th century??), but that is all.

Do you have any references about these flintlock guns, please???

On a side note, I was keenly interested to see in the Tom Cruise film the use of Gatling guns in the final battle. Here in Melbourne there is a very interesting little museum of Chinese history. On the wall is a photograph (I presume) from the Boxer Rebellion showing two pig-tailed Chinese ministering to a carriage-mounted Gatling gun.

Best regards,
Barry Thomas
(Melbourne, Australia)

----- Original Message -----
From: Pet (see French Dictionary!)
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:53 PM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: Japanese and American relations after Admiral Perry landed in Japan in 1854.




The main problem with the historical accuracy of the Tom Cruise film was that Hollywood did a typical blurring of timescales for the period following the opening up of Japan; condensing several decades of wars/rebellions into one event.

For a quick answer to your question try searching for the "Boshin" wars on the net. These were the struggles between various clans and the Shogunate for control of Japan after the Perry era and leading to the Meiji restoration.This also involved modernisation of the state and trying to preserve Japan's independence from the colonial powers- notably Great Britain, France and the U.S.A., who wished to take economic control in the way that was starting in China.

This modernisation,however, wasn't to everyones taste, especially for many Samurai, hence a series of rebellions including 1877 which is basically the theme of the film.

As to actual military assistance, the Japanese were understandably cautious about where to get it from. France and Britain were the main source of weapons initially as they were the world's major powers.

There were French military missions to the army in the '60s whilst the British provided naval training, and many of the ships.The US had no military reputation prior to their civil war, but lots of surplus weapons afterwards! They then did supply, unofficially, some advisors but I haven't got my file handy with fuller details.

Portugal had once been the only country allowed to trade with Japan but were replaced by the Dutch East Indies Company in about 1642(?), and they eventually supplied limited numbers of flintlock muskets which the Japanese copied and used until the 1860s, but such trade was strictly limited- one ship a year IIRC.

Germany did not come onto the scene until after their victory in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1), as the country did not previously exist as such; they then replaced the French as their reputation had taken a beating.

As to diplomats, all powers including America had representatives in Japan; indeed I think Japan sent an ambassador to Washington in about 1868?

A fascinating period and much overlooked, most histories merely saying something on the lines of " Perry opened up Japan, the Emperor was restored to power and Japan became a modern state"!

BTW, it is very doubtful if more than a handful of the Samurai at this time still fought in armour or even on horseback- so ideas about 16th century armies with modern firearms are off the mark.

Hope this helps.

Nick

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "DuaneS" wrote:
>
> I am assuming that the American interest in Japan faded after the American Civil War began. However, when the Samurai revolt (probably not the correct way of stating it) began in 1871(?), which Tom Cruise played the part of a Yankee soldier (The Last Samurai) sent to help the ruling family change the method of fighting, criticism of the movie was mostly about the Americans not being involved but the Portugese and Germans. Was their ever any attempt to have the Americans assist in the training? Did the United States have any type of consul or ambassador in Japan during this period?


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

That was terrific!  I really do appreciate this and will dig into the Boshin wars.  This is the best lead I have  had.  Thank you so much.  Duane.  


From: Pet (see French Dictionary!) <ngornall@...>
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:53 AM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: Japanese and American relations after Admiral Perry landed in Japan in 1854.


 

The main problem with the historical accuracy of the Tom Cruise film was that Hollywood did a typical blurring of timescales for the period following the opening up of Japan; condensing several decades of wars/rebellions into one event.

For a quick answer to your question try searching for the "Boshin" wars on the net. These were the struggles between various clans and the Shogunate for control of Japan after the Perry era and leading to the Meiji restoration.This also involved modernisation of the state and trying to preserve Japan's independence from the colonial powers- notably Great Britain, France and the U.S.A., who wished to take economic control in the way that was starting in China.

This modernisation,however, wasn't to everyones taste, especially for many Samurai, hence a series of rebellions including 1877 which is basically the theme of the film.

As to actual military assistance, the Japanese were understandably cautious about where to get it from. France and Britain were the main source of weapons initially as they were the world's major powers.

There were French military missions to the army in the '60s whilst the British provided naval training, and many of the ships.The US had no military reputation prior to their civil war, but lots of surplus weapons afterwards! They then did supply, unofficially, some advisors but I haven't got my file handy with fuller details.

Portugal had once been the only country allowed to trade with Japan but were replaced by the Dutch East Indies Company in about 1642(?), and they eventually supplied limited numbers of flintlock muskets which the Japanese copied and used until the 1860s, but such trade was strictly limited- one ship a year IIRC.

Germany did not come onto the scene until after their victory in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1), as the country did not previously exist as such; they then replaced the French as their reputation had taken a beating.

As to diplomats, all powers including America had representatives in Japan; indeed I think Japan sent an ambassador to Washington in about 1868?

A fascinating period and much overlooked, most histories merely saying something on the lines of " Perry opened up Japan, the Emperor was restored to power and Japan became a modern state"!

BTW, it is very doubtful if more than a handful of the Samurai at this time still fought in armour or even on horseback- so ideas about 16th century armies with modern firearms are off the mark.

Hope this helps.

Nick

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "DuaneS" wrote:
>
> I am assuming that the American interest in Japan faded after the American Civil War began. However, when the Samurai revolt (probably not the correct way of stating it) began in 1871(?), which Tom Cruise played the part of a Yankee soldier (The Last Samurai) sent to help the ruling family change the method of fighting, criticism of the movie was mostly about the Americans not being involved but the Portugese and Germans. Was their ever any attempt to have the Americans assist in the training? Did the United States have any type of consul or ambassador in Japan during this period?
>




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

Go here for info on a Japanese flintlock musket circa 1650, recently sold at
auction:

http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1923
<http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1923&aid=10979&lid=2938009>
&aid=10979&lid=2938009

Given the Tokugawa Bakufu's renunciation of firearms, my guess is that
Flintlocks of any kind were more on the order of a curiosity here or a
presentation piece there, than an attempt to acquire stocks of these weapons
or to advance the science of firearms.

Robert

_____

Bary thomas wrote:

Nick,

Thank you very much for your detailed reply to "DuaneS"'s question. I was
intrigued to read your comment:
-------------------------------------
...the Dutch East Indies Company in about 1642(?), ... eventually supplied
limited numbers of flintlock muskets which the Japanese copied and used
until the 1860s
------------------------------------

I collect Japanese swords and have three Kunitomo matchlock guns ca 1800.
I'm no expert on the matchlock guns of Japan but I have followed up on
literature and do keep my eyes somewhat open for news on matchlocks, BUT, I
have never seen any reference to flintlock guns being used as you intimate.
Granted the watchword here is "limited numbers", but again I have never seen
them referenced. I am aware of the published image of a double-barreled
flintlock pistol in a Japanese book (19th century??), but that is all.

Do you have any references about these flintlock guns, please???

On a side note, I was keenly interested to see in the Tom Cruise film the
use of Gatling guns in the final battle. Here in Melbourne there is a very
interesting little museum of Chinese history. On the wall is a photograph (I
presume) from the Boxer Rebellion showing two pig-tailed Chinese ministering
to a carriage-mounted Gatling gun.

Best regards,
Barry Thomas
(Melbourne, Australia)





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

The Wiki entry for the Boshin Wars contains photos of weapons from the Ryozen History Museum which covers the Bakufu and Meiji period. These include various imports such as Sniders,etc;

Also there are "Gewehr" muzzleloading smoothbores introduced in about the 1840s by the Dutch.I'd assume these "advanced" weapons were for the loyalist clans and others still had to make do with matchlocks until they could acquire better stuff from the British, French and so on.

Nick

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "Robert McArthur" wrote:
>
> Go here for info on a Japanese flintlock musket circa 1650, recently sold at
> auction:
>
> http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1923
> <http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1923&aid=10979&lid=2938009>
> &aid=10979&lid=2938009
>
> Given the Tokugawa Bakufu's renunciation of firearms, my guess is that
> Flintlocks of any kind were more on the order of a curiosity here or a
> presentation piece there, than an attempt to acquire stocks of these weapons
> or to advance the science of firearms.
>
> Robert
>
> _____
>
> Bary thomas wrote:
>
> Nick,
>
> Thank you very much for your detailed reply to "DuaneS"'s question. I was
> intrigued to read your comment:
> -------------------------------------
> ...the Dutch East Indies Company in about 1642(?), ... eventually supplied
> limited numbers of flintlock muskets which the Japanese copied and used
> until the 1860s
> ------------------------------------
>
> I collect Japanese swords and have three Kunitomo matchlock guns ca 1800.
> I'm no expert on the matchlock guns of Japan but I have followed up on
> literature and do keep my eyes somewhat open for news on matchlocks, BUT, I
> have never seen any reference to flintlock guns being used as you intimate.
> Granted the watchword here is "limited numbers", but again I have never seen
> them referenced. I am aware of the published image of a double-barreled
> flintlock pistol in a Japanese book (19th century??), but that is all.
>
> Do you have any references about these flintlock guns, please???
>
> On a side note, I was keenly interested to see in the Tom Cruise film the
> use of Gatling guns in the final battle. Here in Melbourne there is a very
> interesting little museum of Chinese history. On the wall is a photograph (I
> presume) from the Boxer Rebellion showing two pig-tailed Chinese ministering
> to a carriage-mounted Gatling gun.
>
> Best regards,
> Barry Thomas
> (Melbourne, Australia)
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

There was definitely not any sort of "Bakufu renunciation of firearms". That's a myth that we tackled in a prior podcast in fact:

http://samuraiarchives.podbean.com/2011/05/29/ep05-the-myth-of-samurai-giving-up-the-gun/

Most han had gunnery instructors, villages were licensed to use firearms to scare off or kill threatening animals, and guns were a necessity in various locations due to intrusions from Russians in the far North and defense of ports in the South. To put it simply - there were no active wars, so technological advancement of guns in Japan wasn't necessary, but guns weren't thrown away. The book "Giving Up the Gun" by Perrin is a joke, and has been ridiculed and lambasted in the Western and Japanese scholarship for decades, but his book is still around because non-Japanese history experts still quote it.

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "Robert McArthur" wrote:
>
> Go here for info on a Japanese flintlock musket circa 1650, recently sold at
> auction:
>
> http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1923
> <http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1923&aid=10979&lid=2938009>
> &aid=10979&lid=2938009
>
> Given the Tokugawa Bakufu's renunciation of firearms, my guess is that
> Flintlocks of any kind were more on the order of a curiosity here or a
> presentation piece there, than an attempt to acquire stocks of these weapons
> or to advance the science of firearms.
>
> Robert
>
> _____
>

By " non-Japanese history experts" who are still quoting Noel Perrin, you mean
"non-experts". Anybody with more than a cursory knowledge of the field knows
that the Tokugawa at no time "banned" guns any more than they banned other
weapons, and as Kitsuno said extensive armories were kept all around Japan for
the purposes of maintaining defense stockpiles. Efforts were made at procuring
new weapons, but as Japan was without external threat until the 1800's, there
really wasn't any reason to pursue it with vigor. People who think Japan
"abandoned" guns need to stop watching Tom Cruise movies. Noel Perrin was a
literature professor with no knowledge of Japanese or Japanese history, writing
what he wanted in order to bolster an argument for gun control in the US.
Japanese historians thought his work was a joke--I mean, they literally thought
it was an attempt at humor. It shows just how stupid people can be that his work
has had the unfortunate negative influence it has had in creating this idealized
yet completely incorrect image of Japan, and personally he should have been shot
with a replica tanegashima and all copies of his books burned as an affront to
scholarship.





________________________________
From: kitsuno <samurai-listowner@...>
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 30, 2011 2:14:37 PM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: Japanese and American relations after Admiral
Perry landed in Japan in 1854.


There was definitely not any sort of "Bakufu renunciation of firearms". That's
a myth that we tackled in a prior podcast in fact:

http://samuraiarchives.podbean.com/2011/05/29/ep05-the-myth-of-samurai-giving-up-the-gun/


Most han had gunnery instructors, villages were licensed to use firearms to
scare off or kill threatening animals, and guns were a necessity in various
locations due to intrusions from Russians in the far North and defense of ports
in the South. To put it simply - there were no active wars, so technological
advancement of guns in Japan wasn't necessary, but guns weren't thrown away.
The book "Giving Up the Gun" by Perrin is a joke, and has been ridiculed and
lambasted in the Western and Japanese scholarship for decades, but his book is
still around because non-Japanese history experts still quote it.

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "Robert McArthur" wrote:
>
> Go here for info on a Japanese flintlock musket circa 1650, recently sold at
> auction:
>
> http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1923
> <http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1923&aid=10979&lid=2938009>
> &aid=10979&lid=2938009
>
> Given the Tokugawa Bakufu's renunciation of firearms, my guess is that
> Flintlocks of any kind were more on the order of a curiosity here or a
> presentation piece there, than an attempt to acquire stocks of these weapons
> or to advance the science of firearms.
>
> Robert
>
> _____
>




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

Let me make one clarification: the "stupidity" I refer to is not directed at any
one particular poster in this thread, or any reader here. It is the fact that
people believe what they want to believe, even in the face of facts and over 30
years of debunking the myth that samurai "gave up the gun". My comments and
frustration are directed at Perrin and the fact that criticism in academic
journals doesn't prevent his book from being read and quoted as if it's a
credible source. This is directly involved in my personal field of study in
graduate school, and it is frustrating to no end, hence my getting worked up.


Again, not directed at anyone who has commented here.

Thanks.




________________________________
From: Nate Ledbetter <ltdomer98@...>
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 30, 2011 2:50:11 PM
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Re: Japanese and American relations after Admiral
Perry landed in Japan in 1854.


By " non-Japanese history experts" who are still quoting Noel Perrin, you mean
"non-experts". Anybody with more than a cursory knowledge of the field knows
that the Tokugawa at no time "banned" guns any more than they banned other
weapons, and as Kitsuno said extensive armories were kept all around Japan for
the purposes of maintaining defense stockpiles. Efforts were made at procuring
new weapons, but as Japan was without external threat until the 1800's, there
really wasn't any reason to pursue it with vigor. People who think Japan
"abandoned" guns need to stop watching Tom Cruise movies. Noel Perrin was a
literature professor with no knowledge of Japanese or Japanese history, writing
what he wanted in order to bolster an argument for gun control in the US.
Japanese historians thought his work was a joke--I mean, they literally thought
it was an attempt at humor. It shows just how stupid people can be that his work

has had the unfortunate negative influence it has had in creating this idealized

yet completely incorrect image of Japan, and personally he should have been shot

with a replica tanegashima and all copies of his books burned as an affront to
scholarship.

________________________________
From: kitsuno <samurai-listowner@...>
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 30, 2011 2:14:37 PM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: Japanese and American relations after Admiral
Perry landed in Japan in 1854.

There was definitely not any sort of "Bakufu renunciation of firearms". That's
a myth that we tackled in a prior podcast in fact:

http://samuraiarchives.podbean.com/2011/05/29/ep05-the-myth-of-samurai-giving-up-the-gun/


Most han had gunnery instructors, villages were licensed to use firearms to
scare off or kill threatening animals, and guns were a necessity in various
locations due to intrusions from Russians in the far North and defense of ports
in the South. To put it simply - there were no active wars, so technological
advancement of guns in Japan wasn't necessary, but guns weren't thrown away.
The book "Giving Up the Gun" by Perrin is a joke, and has been ridiculed and
lambasted in the Western and Japanese scholarship for decades, but his book is
still around because non-Japanese history experts still quote it.

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "Robert McArthur" wrote:
>
> Go here for info on a Japanese flintlock musket circa 1650, recently sold at
> auction:
>
> http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1923
> <http://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=1923&aid=10979&lid=2938009>
> &aid=10979&lid=2938009
>
> Given the Tokugawa Bakufu's renunciation of firearms, my guess is that
> Flintlocks of any kind were more on the order of a curiosity here or a
> presentation piece there, than an attempt to acquire stocks of these weapons
> or to advance the science of firearms.
>
> Robert
>
> _____
>

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




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