Re: War without fighting

> From: Eponymous13@...
>Subject: Re: Re: Re: Samurai
>
>Hey.
> I agree, Jim, maneuvers can be beautiful. I've known how to play
>chess since I was about three years old, and agree on that topic. :-) If you can
>get the enemy to surrender without a fight, that's always good. :-) But
>war, as a whole itself, to call that beautiful is the oxymoron.
>

I admit these Flower? wars were a very rare exception of wars without
violence. There are a few famous Chinese examples of this as well with a
Chinese general with far too few troops throwing open the gates of a
city to scare off the opposing general who thought that there must be
some clever trap involved. I'm trying to think of a Japanese example but
I can't, though the Japanese must have certainly read about it since the
Chinese classics involved were required reading in certain periods for
the cultured man.

Normally war is a nasty affair and to paraphrase Eisenhower, the only
thing I hate worse than war is the people who make it necessary.

>Subject: Re: Re: loyalty and honour
>
>Eponymous13@... wrote:
>
>Fair enough but how do you define a "right"side in a war. Surely that is just a matter of oppinion and if so then there is no correct honour, just how you percieve it?
>
>

The winners are usually the right side ;) Just ask em!

Jim

There's actually a perfect Japanese example. In the battle of
Mikatagahara, after suffering a serious defeat, Tokugawa Ieyasu had
the gates of his castle left open, bonfires lit, and drums sounded
so that his army could easily retreat. The Takeda general Baba
Nobufasa hesitated seeing this, expecting a trap.

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, James Eckman
wrote:

>
> > From: Eponymous13@a...
> >Subject: Re: Re: Re: Samurai
> >
> >Hey.
> > I agree, Jim, maneuvers can be beautiful. I've known how

to play

> >chess since I was about three years old, and agree on that

topic. :-) If you can

> >get the enemy to surrender without a fight, that's always

good. :-) But

> >war, as a whole itself, to call that beautiful is the oxymoron.
> >
> I admit these Flower? wars were a very rare exception of wars

without

> violence. There are a few famous Chinese examples of this as well

with a

> Chinese general with far too few troops throwing open the gates of

a

> city to scare off the opposing general who thought that there must

be

> some clever trap involved. I'm trying to think of a Japanese

example but

> I can't, though the Japanese must have certainly read about it

since the

> Chinese classics involved were required reading in certain periods

for

> the cultured man.
>
> Normally war is a nasty affair and to paraphrase Eisenhower, the

only

> thing I hate worse than war is the people who make it necessary.
>
> >Subject: Re: Re: loyalty and honour
> >
> >Eponymous13@a... wrote:
> >
> >Fair enough but how do you define a "right"side in a war. Surely

that is just a matter of oppinion and if so then there is no correct
honour, just how you percieve it?

> >
> >
> The winners are usually the right side ;) Just ask em!
>
> Jim

All-
In the American Civil War, General Buckner engaged his army with that
led by an opposite who was pressed into service from private industry
thus with no military experience. Seeing this from the placement of
troops, he proposed a confab with the other general.
He spent all night showing the man on maps of the area the precarious
position he was in and suggested all the things he might do to resist
but showed him in the end the result would always be the same. Seeing
he was in no position to resist he surrendered his troop without a
single man lost. War without fighting? or the greatest trick ever
played by a general?

-t

Tom Helm wrote:

> All-
> In the American Civil War, General Buckner engaged his army with that
> led by an opposite who was pressed into service from private industry
> thus with no military experience. Seeing this from the placement of
> troops, he proposed a confab with the other general.
> He spent all night showing the man on maps of the area the precarious
> position he was in and suggested all the things he might do to resist
> but showed him in the end the result would always be the same. Seeing
> he was in no position to resist he surrendered his troop without a
> single man lost. War without fighting? or the greatest trick ever
> played by a general?

I don't know, but I'll tell you this: they were fighting a war with a very
different concept of values than these days. Can you imagine Rommel and Patton
having gotten together for such a confab?

Tony

samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: "Kyle Segall" <klancesegall@...>
>Subject: Re: War without fighting
>
>There's actually a perfect Japanese example.
>

Thanks! That is perfect, Ieyasu might of even read about it.

>From: Tom Helm <junkmail@...>
>
>All-
>War without fighting? or the greatest trick ever
>played by a general?
>
>

Both, defeating your enemy without fighting is the greatest trick.

> From: "Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbryant@...>
>
>
>I don't know, but I'll tell you this: they were fighting a war with a very
>different concept of values than these days. Can you imagine Rommel and Patton
>having gotten together for such a confab?
>
>

No. Nor can I imagine Lee and Grant doing the same!

In the West from time to time, there has been efforts to limit the
damage to civilians and each other. In most of Asia this is a foreign
concept for the most part even today.

Jim

In both Japanese and Chinese cases, it was the
reputation of both generals that made their
psychological deception work.
For Ieyasu, I guess that there is no objection from
the group memeber here about this point.

As for the Chinese general, his name was Je-Gal
Gong-Myung. He was a child prodigy who was considered
mastering in ancient strategy, astrology, mathematics,
law structure, Taoism, Confucianism, music and
literature by the time he was recruited by his boss,
Yu-Bang, the descendent of the royal family of the Han
empire. He did not even have an actual field
experience before his first command.
He fought with most famouse stratetists including Cho
Cho, the founder of the Wei empire, the great
strategist and tactician at that time on numerous
occassions often in scales of over 400,000 force size,
never lost the war and battles.

I would feel trembled by the roaring of a lion, but
probabiliy not by that of a jackal.




Sincerely,





Changsub Lee


--- James Eckman <ronin_engineer@...> wrote:

> samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > From: "Kyle Segall" <klancesegall@...>
> >Subject: Re: War without fighting
> >
> >There's actually a perfect Japanese example.
> >
> Thanks! That is perfect, Ieyasu might of even read
> about it.
>
> >From: Tom Helm <junkmail@...>
> >
> >All-
> >War without fighting? or the greatest trick ever
> >played by a general?
> >
> >
> Both, defeating your enemy without fighting is the
> greatest trick.
>
> > From: "Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbryant@...>
> >
> >
> >I don't know, but I'll tell you this: they were
> fighting a war with a very
> >different concept of values than these days. Can
> you imagine Rommel and Patton
> >having gotten together for such a confab?
> >
> >
> No. Nor can I imagine Lee and Grant doing the same!
>
> In the West from time to time, there has been
> efforts to limit the
> damage to civilians and each other. In most of Asia
> this is a foreign
> concept for the most part even today.
>
> Jim
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Didn't Lee and Grant do so, and discuss surrender and the terms thereof, when Lee did finally surrender?

> samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > From: "Kyle Segall" <klancesegall@...>
> >Subject: Re: War without fighting
> >
> >There's actually a perfect Japanese example.
> >
> Thanks! That is perfect, Ieyasu might of even read about it.
>
> >From: Tom Helm <junkmail@...>
> >
> >All-
> >War without fighting? or the greatest trick ever
> >played by a general?
> >
> >
> Both, defeating your enemy without fighting is the greatest trick.
>
> > From: "Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbryant@...>
> >
> >
> >I don't know, but I'll tell you this: they were fighting a war with a very
> >different concept of values than these days. Can you imagine Rommel and Patton
> >having gotten together for such a confab?
> >
> >
> No. Nor can I imagine Lee and Grant doing the same!
>
> In the West from time to time, there has been efforts to limit the
> damage to civilians and each other. In most of Asia this is a foreign
> concept for the most part even today.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Hardly war without fighting considering the negotiations of Appomattox occurred after three years of the USA and CSA attempting to batter each other's armies into submission.
M.Lorimer

golfmandan@... wrote:
Didn't Lee and Grant do so, and discuss surrender and the terms thereof, when Lee did finally surrender?

> samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > From: "Kyle Segall" <klancesegall@...>
> >Subject: Re: War without fighting
> >
> >There's actually a perfect Japanese example.
> >
> Thanks! That is perfect, Ieyasu might of even read about it.
>
> >From: Tom Helm <junkmail@...>
> >
> >All-
> >War without fighting? or the greatest trick ever
> >played by a general?
> >
> >
> Both, defeating your enemy without fighting is the greatest trick.
>
> > From: "Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbryant@...>
> >
> >
> >I don't know, but I'll tell you this: they were fighting a war with a very
> >different concept of values than these days. Can you imagine Rommel and Patton
> >having gotten together for such a confab?
> >
> >
> No. Nor can I imagine Lee and Grant doing the same!
>
> In the West from time to time, there has been efforts to limit the
> damage to civilians and each other. In most of Asia this is a foreign
> concept for the most part even today.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards

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

> From: Lee Changsub <knorr31@...>
>Subject: Re: Re: Re: War without fighting
>
>For Ieyasu, I guess that there is no objection from
>the group memeber here about this point.
>
>

He had reputation for sure!

>As for the Chinese general, his name was Je-Gal
>Gong-Myung.
>

I forgot which books he shows up in, I think he shows up in Three
Kingdoms as well as others.

> From: golfmandan@...
>Subject: Re: Re: Re: War without fighting
>
>Didn't Lee and Grant do so, and discuss surrender and the terms thereof, when Lee did finally surrender?
>
>

After fighting if I remember right.

>From: golfmandan@...
>Subject: Re:role of bushido
>
>if i recall, we've discussed the role of bushido before. It wasn't for keeping the samurai down, but for keeping them "up."
>

The bosses wanted them to remain samurai, that's down from that
perspective. No more Hideyoshi's or the like!

> From: "midorinotoradesu" <bkirkham@...>
>
>Relating back to the samurai, there is always a need for military
>power. In the samurai days it may have been for civil obedience
>outside the existance of a war.
>

Without the threat of a Bafuku army Japan fell apart from internal
tensions, thus beginning the Meiji period and a move to be a real nation.

>The U.S. military is very different from the samurai. Japan was
>isolated from most of the world. By their own choice and because of
>geography. The U.S. military deals with global issues. A military
>dealing only with its own country's problems has different demands.
>In which case your second assertion may bear some truth. Only some
>truth becuase I believe the samurai were in a postion like many
>dictatorships in the world. They possessed the frightening might or
>the military and didn't require justifying themselves to the
>population they ruled.
>

Yes, the US military serves us and not the other way around, we have our
founding fathers to thank, as well as the fine men and women who have
served since then for this almost unique distinction, we are one of the
few democracies that hasn't had a military coup.

>If the peasants didn't like it; what would they do about it?
>

Die messily along with their families.

>They odd situation with Japan is that they had 2
>positions of power.
>

Only one of the two at any given time.

>Shogun and Emperor. Periods existed when the
>Emperor possessed all the power and there were times when the Emperor
>was only a puppet. The peasants were'nt the only ones who didn't
>like the system. The Emperor didn't and he did something about it.
>
>

Hmm... I'm not sure if they were ever able to do anything about it or if
they were just shoved up by their would-be followers.

>No matter how the samurai class may have been "justified" the Emperor
>decided that the weren't needed and that a new military needed to be
>formed to progress the nation into modern times.
>
>

I'm not up enough on the Meiji restoration to be sure of this. I know he
was really enamoured with the west for a while, even the Empress wore
western fahsions for a while.

>Important to note that he still thought a military was important just
>not the one they had.
>
>

For sure, they wanted to be a nation like America or England, which
means splendid little colonial wars and looting your neighbors.

Jim

Michael Lorimer wrote:

> Hardly war without fighting considering the negotiations of Appomattox
> occurred after three years of the USA and CSA attempting to batter each
> other's armies into submission.

You're being overliteral.


Ton

Why exactly am I being "overliteral"? The questions revolved around the use of a commander's reputation and the fear of,or deception, as a means of conducting a campaign without fighting. Truce negotiations leading to a surrender after a lengthy period of bloodshed could hardly be described as such.
M.Lorimer

"Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbryant@...> wrote:
Michael Lorimer wrote:

> Hardly war without fighting considering the negotiations of Appomattox
> occurred after three years of the USA and CSA attempting to batter each
> other's armies into submission.

You're being overliteral.


Ton



---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards

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

You were talking about 2 japanese guys getting together and negotiating a surrender without fighting. That IS what Lee and Grant did!!! Sure, they fought before, but not at this particular time. The part being disagreed with is your statement that one couldn't imagine Lee and Grant getting together for a confab, b/c it was such a different culture or time in history or something to that effect. One can easily "imagine" it (bla-bla-bla, how's that for being overliteral?), especially if they did in fact meet in person to negotiate surrender.

Say, is Robert E. Lee in Nobility of Failure?

Oh, and Brandon, about the advertising and the military budget, yes, they're connected in a "round about way". Certainly not directly. Don't take my statements as an attack on the us military; they're not. But, I think maybe I'll call my congressman next time I see military commercial... ha-ha.

> Why exactly am I being "overliteral"? The questions revolved around the use of a
> commander's reputation and the fear of,or deception, as a means of conducting a
> campaign without fighting. Truce negotiations leading to a surrender after a
> lengthy period of bloodshed could hardly be described as such.
> M.Lorimer
>
> "Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbryant@...> wrote:
> Michael Lorimer wrote:
>
> > Hardly war without fighting considering the negotiations of Appomattox
> > occurred after three years of the USA and CSA attempting to batter each
> > other's armies into submission.
>
>
> You're being overliteral.
>
>
> Ton
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe
> Awards
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

During the Falklands campaign the Parachute Regiment
overstretched itself and launched an unsupported frontal attack
from a hilltop upon a heavily defended Argentinian position.

(The account I heard was given by a survivor now running a
rehab charity for trauma victims.)

The Brits spent a cold, wet, hungry and terrifying night on a
bare hillside, knowing they would be going in again at first
light, and knowing they didn't pack enough men nor enough
firepower to carry the position without a desperate and bloody
fight. The survivor in question had lost both his best mates,
(and was sticky with the gore of one of them, who was blown up
at his side) and held little chance of either their success or
his own survival.

At first light their major walked down the hillside under a
white flag. He explained to the Argentinian officer that they
were Brit Paratroops and his men were champing at the bit to
'get stuck in'. He further explained that they were going to
attack within the hour, and that once they did he would not be
held responsible for the conduct of his men, and quite frankly
it was likely they would be taking no prisoners.

His best advice to his opposite number was to surrender.

Which is precisely what happened.

The survivor's voice changed audibly when talking of the
courage and sheer bravura of his officer, he was in awe of the
man's nerve. No doubt the reputation of the Red Devils went
before them.

Thomas

I guess that the British Empire and American Republics
did not earn their fames from nothing. As many other
powerful peoples who left historic marks(excluding
MAAAAD Al Queda or equivalently INSAANE terrorists), I
think that there are many things we can learn from
each other, especially between the West and the East.

One more thing,(excuse me for my digression, Ahem..)
though. During World War Two, the power of China had
been overestimated by the American politicians. Now, I
have observed the opposite. Her power has been
underestimated by the comtemporary American
Politicians and Westerners.

For a bright future for a mankind, I think that
Westerner should give a proper respect to them.
I think that this Samurai 'networks' is one of
channels of communication we can use for better
understanding each other.


ps. I am very impressed with what British did in the
Falklands.




Sincerely,





Changsub Lee



--- Thomas Davidson <tom.davidson@...> wrote:

> During the Falklands campaign the Parachute Regiment
>
> overstretched itself and launched an unsupported
> frontal attack
> from a hilltop upon a heavily defended Argentinian
> position.
>
> (The account I heard was given by a survivor now
> running a
> rehab charity for trauma victims.)
>
> The Brits spent a cold, wet, hungry and terrifying
> night on a
> bare hillside, knowing they would be going in again
> at first
> light, and knowing they didn't pack enough men nor
> enough
> firepower to carry the position without a desperate
> and bloody
> fight. The survivor in question had lost both his
> best mates,
> (and was sticky with the gore of one of them, who
> was blown up
> at his side) and held little chance of either their
> success or
> his own survival.
>
> At first light their major walked down the hillside
> under a
> white flag. He explained to the Argentinian officer
> that they
> were Brit Paratroops and his men were champing at
> the bit to
> 'get stuck in'. He further explained that they were
> going to
> attack within the hour, and that once they did he
> would not be
> held responsible for the conduct of his men, and
> quite frankly
> it was likely they would be taking no prisoners.
>
> His best advice to his opposite number was to
> surrender.
>
> Which is precisely what happened.
>
> The survivor's voice changed audibly when talking of
> the
> courage and sheer bravura of his officer, he was in
> awe of the
> man's nerve. No doubt the reputation of the Red
> Devils went
> before them.
>
> Thomas
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html