CSI Mistake?

Last night, Feb. 5, CSI had a new episode where a colletion of 17th
Japanese samurai antiques were stolen. There was samurai armor in the
mix and the lead guy said it was out of place because there was no
formal Japanese military until 1865. Am I wrong, but I thought when
the army went to Meiji they did away with the armor and used the
uniform and guns or did I just misundertand what happened?

I saw the same episode. A character, reading from a book (probably a history book) stated that Japan did not have an army until 1868, the year that the Emperor Meji was restored.

I hate to sound like a politician, but it probably depends on what you mean by an "army". You could argue that until the Meji restoration that Japan did not have a central army, on the grounds that before then it had clan based provincial armies.

Even the Shogun's army could be considered his own personal army as opposed to a national Japanese army. Certainly, the Emperor did not have an army.

Besides, it's a great TV show and they usually get things right.

Bob Burke

In a message dated 2/6/2004 5:16:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Heishiro Mitsurugi" <mitsurugi_guy@...> writes:

>Last night, Feb. 5, CSI had a new episode where a colletion of 17th
>Japanese samurai antiques were stolen. There was samurai armor in the
>mix and the lead guy said it was out of place because there was no
>formal Japanese military until 1865. Am I wrong, but I thought when
>the army went to Meiji they did away with the armor and used the
>uniform and guns or did I just misundertand what happened?
>
>
>
>---
>Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
>Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
>---
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Heishiro Mitsurugi wrote:

> Last night, Feb. 5, CSI had a new episode where a colletion of 17th
> Japanese samurai antiques were stolen. There was samurai armor in the
> mix and the lead guy said it was out of place because there was no
> formal Japanese military until 1865. Am I wrong, but I thought when
> the army went to Meiji they did away with the armor and used the
> uniform and guns or did I just misundertand what happened?

I don't understand the point. If it's 17th century, it's before 1865. What do
you mean?


Tony

Sounds to me like the character was trying to say that there
shouldn't be armor mixed in with 17th century stuff because no one
wore armor until the 1860s(????) (doesn't make any sense to me)

> I don't understand the point. If it's 17th century, it's before

1865. What do

> you mean?
>
>
> Tony

Kitsuno wrote:

> Sounds to me like the character was trying to say that there
> shouldn't be armor mixed in with 17th century stuff because no one
> wore armor until the 1860s(????) (doesn't make any sense to me)

Yeah, that's what's messing me up about it.


Tony