Becoming a Samurai

Just a few questions, would I be right in saying that you were born a
Samurai and not become one (apart from the few exceptions). To become
a Samurai you must have the right bloodline, is this correct? Also
how old would a boy be before he turned Samurai. And how old would he
have to be before his first battle or was it, when he proved himself
ready.

Hey
I don't know about the other questions, but yes, aside from the
exceptions, someone was born into the samurai class as far as I know. :-)

L8r
Tim


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

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "zevlord"
wrote:

> Just a few questions, would I be right in saying that you were

born a

> Samurai and not become one (apart from the few exceptions). To

become

> a Samurai you must have the right bloodline, is this correct? Also
> how old would a boy be before he turned Samurai. And how old would

he

> have to be before his first battle or was it, when he proved

himself

> ready.

It depends on the time period. Prior to Hideyoshi's edict on social
mobility, one could be raised to samurai status by demonstrating
courage and ability in battle. Hideyoshi himself for example, was
born a commoner.

You didn't "turn Samurai" as such. You became an adult at around the
age of 14, but there are certainly a few instances of people being
in battle and taking their first heads at younger ages - but you
didn't need to prove yourself in battle to become a samurai. Several
samurai became the heads of their clans at very early ages.
Matsudaira Hirotada (Ieyasu's father) was only 10 when his own
father died. Ieyasu became head of the Matsudaira at the age of 13
and was involved in the seige of Terabe at the age of 15.

At 22:03 6/24/2004, zevlord wrote:

>Just a few questions, would I be right in saying that you were born a
>Samurai and not become one (apart from the few exceptions). To become
>a Samurai you must have the right bloodline, is this correct? Also
>how old would a boy be before he turned Samurai. And how old would he
>have to be before his first battle or was it, when he proved himself
>ready.

This strikes me as too broad a question to admit of very meaningful answer. Of what period are you speaking? Over the eight centuries or so of samurai history, routes of entry changed enormously.

In the Sengoku, with its great expansion of infantry forces, it was entirely possible for a farmboy to become first an ashigaru and then a "real" samurai (the ashigaru not having been altogether assimilated to samurai status at that point) based on ability. Need I mention Hideyoshi?

In the Tokugawa, of course, there was vanishingly small opportunity for assimilation to the samurai class through individual military merit (a source of much unrest early in the period), but there were a number of other accesses to the lower rungs of it.

In Japan, as in most societies, there seem always to have been rites of passage into manhood which occurred about the time of puberty. It was at this point that the youth of samurai family took adult dress and hairstyle, and began carrying the long and short. The extent to which such striplings actually fought varied, of course. But we are told that Ieyasu (then Motonobu), for instance came officially of age at 15 and first fought at 17, leading his exigent forces in a border expedition. He was by then a married man.

If I recall correctly, the youngest of the 47 ronin was a lad of 15. He alone of the plotters was not condemned, on account of his youth, but he had participated in the attack.

Will O'Neil


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

The minimum age to become a Samurai was about 15-16 years old.To be a samurai you had to have the right bloodline but you can also be a Samurai by great things you did in battles if you were an Ashigaru(ex.:Toyotomi Hideyoshi).

Edy

zevlord <LordZev@...> wrote:
Just a few questions, would I be right in saying that you were born a
Samurai and not become one (apart from the few exceptions). To become
a Samurai you must have the right bloodline, is this correct? Also
how old would a boy be before he turned Samurai. And how old would he
have to be before his first battle or was it, when he proved himself
ready.



---
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.



HIP-HOP Man!!!


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:10:27 -0400, Will O'Neilさん wrote in message <6.1.1.1.0.20040625013816.059b76f8@...>

>This strikes me as too broad a question to admit of very meaningful answer.
>Of what period are you speaking? Over the eight centuries or so of samurai
>history, routes of entry changed enormously.

I won't copy the entire message, but I wanted to say that this is an
excellent reply. Very well done.


--
Jay Kelly
oyakata@...

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Will O'Neil
wrote:

> In the Tokugawa, of course, there was vanishingly small

opportunity for assimilation to the samurai class through individual
military merit (a source of much unrest early in the period), but
there were a number of other accesses to the lower rungs of it.

As I understand it, the edict on social mobility was further
enforced by the Tokugawa Shogunate. Since the ashigaru class had
essentially been abolished, basically becoming lower-"ranking"
samurai, there was no opportunity at all for advancement through
martial prowess.

At that stage, you were either born a samurai or you weren't, but
I'm sure there were exceptions. I'm not sure what status Will Adams
achieved, but if anyone has any examples of people promoted to
samurai status (and what they did to achieve it), I'd be interested
to hear.

Adoption springs to mind - could an Edo period samurai adopt a non-
samurai? With all of the economic hardships that many families
suffered later in the period, it seems like adopting a rich
merchant's son might have been a good way out of debt - or, since
merchants were officially the lowest rung of society, was this a
social no-no?

This question has certainly generated some lively and interesting discussion!

I find it helpful to think back over the evolution of the samurai. Recall that the first samurai (really bushi, since the kind of socio-political organization implied by the term "samurai" had not really evolved yet) were essentially outlaws on the rugged and unsettled northeastern frontier of Honshu, where the writ of the imperial court did not run, nearly 1,000 years ago. (Some people have tried to trace their roots further back than that, but not entirely convincingly to my mind. Martin Collcutt reviewed several relevant books a few years ago -- full citations for this and other works at end of this post.)

Some of the leaders of bushi bands made good and established themselves as overlords of one or more villages. In other cases local magnates, recognizing their value, took bushi into their service (as "samurai" per se -- the word comes from one meaning "to serve"). The logic of big battalions fostered the formation and growth of samurai/bushi networks and hierarchies.

At this point it was largely true that a samurai was as a samurai did. If you showed up with a mount, armed cap-à-pie, and demonstrated the skills and courage to fight effectively no one was likely to be inclined to inquire closely about your ancestry. And if someone got rude about it you, as a proper samurai, demonstrated how good your bloodline really was by fighting him to the death, then and there. Of course it took a good deal of capital, in a society without much movable wealth, in order to equip and train yourself. Being the son of a successful bushi was the most common route, but by no means the only one.

After the Onin Wars, and particularly after the introduction of gunpowder weapons, entry at the bottom became even more porous -- a sturdy physique and pugnacious disposition could win you access to the lowest rungs of warrior status. Were these fellows "real samurai"? It was a question that didn't seem to bother anyone especially -- their military utility was enough to recommend them in an era where it was very much a matter of dog eat dog. And of course ability could carry you a long way up the social hierarchy. Hideyoshi never felt quite secure enough to claim the very topmost rung, but if anyone despised such a man for his humble origins he needed to be very, very circumspect in saying so.

(BTW, the point of the sword hunt was not to close the samurai class in social terms but rather to secure the countryside and ensure that no challenges to Hideyoshi's order could arise. Ieyasu and his successors followed Hidedyoshi's lead for like reasons. Of course Nobunaga had really set the precedent through his vigorous suppression of the militarized ikki.)

All this changed a great deal between the establishment of the Tokugawa bakufu in 1603 and its full consolidation in power (about a generation later). By 1630, the actual military functions of the samurai were largely moot and the members of this numerous class (probably 7% or so of the total population, although varying greatly from han to han) were employed (when employed at all) solely in bureaucratic or ceremonial duties. The Tokugawa order still rested on military dominance -- the term "bakufu" directly implies as much -- so the military functions of the samurai could not be dispensed with, but they remained in abeyance for more than two centuries.

In these circumstances, the samurai became two things: an essentially hereditary social class and a collective term for those occupying the top 100 or more of the levels of authority in a deeply hierarchical socio-political structure. The picture was complicated by the decentralized nature of authority under the Tokugawa, since each daimyo's household or o-ie was a largely a law unto itself regarding its own composition and structure. That is, if your local daimyo said you were a samurai, that was all it took to make you a member of the authority hierarchy, entitled and required to behave accordingly. And if no daimyo (recalling that the shogun himself was also a daimyo, head of his own great o-ie) claimed you, then you were an outcaste, at least officially -- a ronin.

(A ronin remained a sort of samurai-by-courtesy, owing to social origin, and might by good fortune or exceptional ability gain the patronage of some other daimyo and thus regain official standing. But many drifted to other employment, including agriculture, trade, or less reputable fields.)

The practice of the daimyo varied a great deal. In fact, no one has yet mapped out the patterns of all 260+ daimyo households. But it is clear that at least some of them altered the status order a lot. First of all, of course, there was a general trend toward reducing many samurai from independent holders to stipendiaries wholly dependent on the daimyo -- a major shift (downward) in terms of status and autonomy. On the other hand, various individuals or groups might be granted samurai status (and stipends, although the latter were usually meager) in return for benefits bestowed on the han. To put it bluntly, in a lot of cases you could very well buy your way into samurai status. (How far "real" hereditary samurai would go in cashing your status claims is another matter, of course.)

For the most part, it was pretty difficult to move more than one or perhaps two rungs up the samurai status ladder in the Tokugawa era -- and most han had at least a score of rungs, with hundreds in some of the larger ones. But one could ascend a long way in certain cases. For one thing, homosexuality was relatively widespread among the samurai (both before and during the Tokugawa era) and a young favorite of the daimyo might rise to high status.

When the samurai structure was swept away after the Restoration, the samurai social class did not entirely disappear. Indeed, the Meiji elite, in one of their concessions to the old order, gave official recognition to the class. This created the problem of deciding who should be so designated, which was the source of many headaches due to the variation among han practices. It was originally proposed to have some gradation in official class, reflecting former rank distinctions. This was eventually given up as a bad job and all former daimyo were ranked in one class, with everyone else lumped in another. Even so, there were many gray areas and many who were dissatisfied with the results.

While I think I've addressed most of the points raised by others, there are two specific questions deserving separate treatment

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "naomasa298" wrote:
>
> At that stage, you were either born a samurai or you weren't, but
> I'm sure there were exceptions. I'm not sure what status Will Adams
> achieved, but if anyone has any examples of people promoted to
> samurai status (and what they did to achieve it), I'd be interested
> to hear.

In regard to Master Adams (and many other matters) I can thoroughly recommend _Learning from Shogun_, a marvellous book edited by Prof. Henry Smith, who has now very kindly posted it in PDF form on the Web! If you are not familiar with it, do go at once to
http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/learning/

[I had the pleasure of playing a very minor role in getting this on the Web in its present form.]

> Adoption springs to mind - could an Edo period samurai adopt a non-
> samurai? With all of the economic hardships that many families
> suffered later in the period, it seems like adopting a rich
> merchant's son might have been a good way out of debt - or, since
> merchants were officially the lowest rung of society, was this a
> social no-no?

Could and often did. Might marry a merchant's daughter, too.

BTW, the merchant class was not the lowest in official status -- there were several under classes.

Will O'Neil

Sources:

Collcutt, Martin. "The 'Emergence of the Samurai' and The Military History of Early Japan." Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 56, No. 1 (Jun 1996): 151-64. Not only reviews and comments on several books (including Ikegami, infra) but puts them in comparative perspective.

Conlan, Thomas Donald. _State of War: The Violent Order of Fourteenth-Century Japan_. Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 2003. Study of the samurai in a critical period from a variety of perspectives. Military history at its best.

Dunn, Charles J. _Everyday Life in Traditional Japan_. Boston: Tuttle Publishing, 1969. Brief and easy reading but generally sound and very informative about the samurai and many other aspects of life in the Tokugawa era. Illustrated with many wonderful drawings. Current paperback.

Hall, John Whitney and Marius B. Jansen, editors. _Studies in the Institutional History of Early Modern Japan_. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. A great collection of very revealing articles, most of which touch on Tokugawa-era samurai in one way or another. Particularly interesting explorations of several particular han. Not to be missed -- takes effort to find it, but very worth it.

Howland, Douglas R. "Samurai Status, Class, and Bureaucracy: A Historigraphical Essay." Journal of Asian Studies. 60, No. 2 (May 2001): 352-80. Thoughtful and penetrating analysis of these issues, combined with analytical guide to the relevant literature.

Ikegami, Eiko. _Taming of the Samurai: Honorific Individualism and the Making of Modern Japan_. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Not for the casual reader but very rewarding. Traces the evolution of the samurai from the very beginnings up to the bakumatsu. This is historical sociology, not military history. It is the central foundation for what I relate above. Current paperback.

Jansen, Marius B., editor. _Warrior Rule in Japan_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Selected articles from volumes 3 and 4 of _The Cambridge History of Japan,_ covering many aspects of the rise and evolution of samurai dominance. Current paperback.

Jansen, Marius B. and Gilbert Rozman, editors. _Japan in Transition: From Tokugawa to Meiji_. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. See Chapter 3, "The Ruling Class," contributed by Jansen. Current paperback.

Morillo, Stephen. "Milites, Knights and Samurai: Military Terminology, Comparative History, and the Problem of Translation." In The Normans and Their Adversaries at War: Essays in Memory of C. Warren Hollister, edited by Richard P. Abels and Bernard S. Bachrach. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2001.

Shimizu, Yoshiaki, editor. _Japan: The Shaping of Daimyo Culture, 1185-1868_. London: Thames and Hudson, 1968. Catalog of an exhibition. Gorgeous and quite informative.

Smith, [II], Henry [D.], editor. _Learning From Shogun: Japanese History and Western Fantasy_. Santa Barbara, California: Program in Asian Studies, University of California, 1980. Engaging and easy-to-read but soundly-based collection organized around commentary on James Clavell's _Shogun_. Available on the Web (in PDF form): http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/learning/

Yamamura, Kozo. _Study of Samurai Income and Entrepreneurship: Quantitative Analyses of Economic and Social Aspects of the Samurai in Tokugawa and Meiji Japan_. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974. Not military history but more broadly informative than the title might suggest.

(Most of these you will have to get via interlibrary loan, although some of the books are available at fairly affordable prices used or as current paperbacks. While I have copies of all, I spent a lot of money on some of them, and a lot of time searching for others.)

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "zevlord"
wrote:

> Just a few questions, would I be right in saying that you were

born a

> Samurai and not become one (apart from the few exceptions). To

become

> a Samurai you must have the right bloodline, is this correct? Also
> how old would a boy be before he turned Samurai. And how old would

he

> have to be before his first battle or was it, when he proved

himself

> ready.\

my goes would be as soon asthey are ordered

Hi Will,

Thanks for the great link. I'm reading through that at the moment. I
find it fascinating that Adams' Dutch shipmates have largely been
neglected as major figures in contemporary fiction and historical
discussions. It's a bit of a shame really that none of his
descendants can be traced.

I'm aware of the underclasses - corpse handlers, butchers,
shoemakers and suchlike, although I didn't consider them when I
posted as it seems fairly unlikely that one of them could rise to
samurai class given their pariah status. I believe there is still
some discrimination against their descendants even to this day?

I will have to see if the Leeds Royal Armouries library has copies
of the books that you cite. They have a fairly extensive Oriental
collection, so I hope they'll be a bit more comprehensive (I'm
getting a little frustrated with relying on Turnbull, as he's
nowhere near as in-depth as I would like).

Shane.

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Will O'Neil
wrote:

> This question has certainly generated some lively and interesting

discussion!

>
> I find it helpful to think back over the evolution of the samurai.

Recall that the first samurai (really bushi, since the kind of socio-
political organization implied by the term "samurai" had not really
evolved yet) were essentially outlaws on the rugged and unsettled
northeastern frontier of Honshu, where the writ of the imperial
court did not run, nearly 1,000 years ago. (Some people have tried
to trace their roots further back than that, but not entirely
convincingly to my mind. Martin Collcutt reviewed several relevant
books a few years ago -- full citations for this and other works at
end of this post.)

>
> Some of the leaders of bushi bands made good and established

themselves as overlords of one or more villages. In other cases
local magnates, recognizing their value, took bushi into their
service (as "samurai" per se -- the word comes from one meaning "to
serve"). The logic of big battalions fostered the formation and
growth of samurai/bushi networks and hierarchies.

>
> At this point it was largely true that a samurai was as a samurai

did. If you showed up with a mount, armed cap-à-pie, and
demonstrated the skills and courage to fight effectively no one was
likely to be inclined to inquire closely about your ancestry. And if
someone got rude about it you, as a proper samurai, demonstrated how
good your bloodline really was by fighting him to the death, then
and there. Of course it took a good deal of capital, in a society
without much movable wealth, in order to equip and train yourself.
Being the son of a successful bushi was the most common route, but
by no means the only one.

>
> After the Onin Wars, and particularly after the introduction of

gunpowder weapons, entry at the bottom became even more porous -- a
sturdy physique and pugnacious disposition could win you access to
the lowest rungs of warrior status. Were these fellows "real
samurai"? It was a question that didn't seem to bother anyone
especially -- their military utility was enough to recommend them in
an era where it was very much a matter of dog eat dog. And of course
ability could carry you a long way up the social hierarchy.
Hideyoshi never felt quite secure enough to claim the very topmost
rung, but if anyone despised such a man for his humble origins he
needed to be very, very circumspect in saying so.

>
> (BTW, the point of the sword hunt was not to close the samurai

class in social terms but rather to secure the countryside and
ensure that no challenges to Hideyoshi's order could arise. Ieyasu
and his successors followed Hidedyoshi's lead for like reasons. Of
course Nobunaga had really set the precedent through his vigorous
suppression of the militarized ikki.)

>
> All this changed a great deal between the establishment of the

Tokugawa bakufu in 1603 and its full consolidation in power (about a
generation later). By 1630, the actual military functions of the
samurai were largely moot and the members of this numerous class
(probably 7% or so of the total population, although varying greatly
from han to han) were employed (when employed at all) solely in
bureaucratic or ceremonial duties. The Tokugawa order still rested
on military dominance -- the term "bakufu" directly implies as much -
- so the military functions of the samurai could not be dispensed
with, but they remained in abeyance for more than two centuries.

>
> In these circumstances, the samurai became two things: an

essentially hereditary social class and a collective term for those
occupying the top 100 or more of the levels of authority in a deeply
hierarchical socio-political structure. The picture was complicated
by the decentralized nature of authority under the Tokugawa, since
each daimyo's household or o-ie was a largely a law unto itself
regarding its own composition and structure. That is, if your local
daimyo said you were a samurai, that was all it took to make you a
member of the authority hierarchy, entitled and required to behave
accordingly. And if no daimyo (recalling that the shogun himself was
also a daimyo, head of his own great o-ie) claimed you, then you
were an outcaste, at least officially -- a ronin.

>
> (A ronin remained a sort of samurai-by-courtesy, owing to social

origin, and might by good fortune or exceptional ability gain the
patronage of some other daimyo and thus regain official standing.
But many drifted to other employment, including agriculture, trade,
or less reputable fields.)

>
> The practice of the daimyo varied a great deal. In fact, no one

has yet mapped out the patterns of all 260+ daimyo households. But
it is clear that at least some of them altered the status order a
lot. First of all, of course, there was a general trend toward
reducing many samurai from independent holders to stipendiaries
wholly dependent on the daimyo -- a major shift (downward) in terms
of status and autonomy. On the other hand, various individuals or
groups might be granted samurai status (and stipends, although the
latter were usually meager) in return for benefits bestowed on the
han. To put it bluntly, in a lot of cases you could very well buy
your way into samurai status. (How far "real" hereditary samurai
would go in cashing your status claims is another matter, of course.)

>
> For the most part, it was pretty difficult to move more than one

or perhaps two rungs up the samurai status ladder in the Tokugawa
era -- and most han had at least a score of rungs, with hundreds in
some of the larger ones. But one could ascend a long way in certain
cases. For one thing, homosexuality was relatively widespread among
the samurai (both before and during the Tokugawa era) and a young
favorite of the daimyo might rise to high status.

>
> When the samurai structure was swept away after the Restoration,

the samurai social class did not entirely disappear. Indeed, the
Meiji elite, in one of their concessions to the old order, gave
official recognition to the class. This created the problem of
deciding who should be so designated, which was the source of many
headaches due to the variation among han practices. It was
originally proposed to have some gradation in official class,
reflecting former rank distinctions. This was eventually given up as
a bad job and all former daimyo were ranked in one class, with
everyone else lumped in another. Even so, there were many gray areas
and many who were dissatisfied with the results.

>
> While I think I've addressed most of the points raised by others,

there are two specific questions deserving separate treatment

>
> --- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "naomasa298"

wrote:

> >
> > At that stage, you were either born a samurai or you weren't,

but

> > I'm sure there were exceptions. I'm not sure what status Will

Adams

> > achieved, but if anyone has any examples of people promoted to
> > samurai status (and what they did to achieve it), I'd be

interested

> > to hear.
>
> In regard to Master Adams (and many other matters) I can

thoroughly recommend _Learning from Shogun_, a marvellous book
edited by Prof. Henry Smith, who has now very kindly posted it in
PDF form on the Web! If you are not familiar with it, do go at once
to

> http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/learning/
>
> [I had the pleasure of playing a very minor role in getting this

on the Web in its present form.]

>
> > Adoption springs to mind - could an Edo period samurai adopt a

non-

> > samurai? With all of the economic hardships that many families
> > suffered later in the period, it seems like adopting a rich
> > merchant's son might have been a good way out of debt - or,

since

> > merchants were officially the lowest rung of society, was this a
> > social no-no?
>
> Could and often did. Might marry a merchant's daughter, too.
>
> BTW, the merchant class was not the lowest in official status --

there were several under classes.

>
> Will O'Neil
>
> Sources:
>
> Collcutt, Martin. "The 'Emergence of the Samurai' and The Military

History of Early Japan." Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 56, No.
1 (Jun 1996): 151-64. Not only reviews and comments on several books
(including Ikegami, infra) but puts them in comparative perspective.

>
> Conlan, Thomas Donald. _State of War: The Violent Order of

Fourteenth-Century Japan_. Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies,
University of Michigan, 2003. Study of the samurai in a critical
period from a variety of perspectives. Military history at its best.

>
> Dunn, Charles J. _Everyday Life in Traditional Japan_. Boston:

Tuttle Publishing, 1969. Brief and easy reading but generally sound
and very informative about the samurai and many other aspects of
life in the Tokugawa era. Illustrated with many wonderful drawings.
Current paperback.

>
> Hall, John Whitney and Marius B. Jansen, editors. _Studies in the

Institutional History of Early Modern Japan_. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1968. A great collection of very revealing
articles, most of which touch on Tokugawa-era samurai in one way or
another. Particularly interesting explorations of several particular
han. Not to be missed -- takes effort to find it, but very worth it.

>
> Howland, Douglas R. "Samurai Status, Class, and Bureaucracy: A

Historigraphical Essay." Journal of Asian Studies. 60, No. 2 (May
2001): 352-80. Thoughtful and penetrating analysis of these issues,
combined with analytical guide to the relevant literature.

>
> Ikegami, Eiko. _Taming of the Samurai: Honorific Individualism and

the Making of Modern Japan_. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1995. Not for the casual reader but very rewarding. Traces the
evolution of the samurai from the very beginnings up to the
bakumatsu. This is historical sociology, not military history. It is
the central foundation for what I relate above. Current paperback.

>
> Jansen, Marius B., editor. _Warrior Rule in Japan_. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1995. Selected articles from volumes 3
and 4 of _The Cambridge History of Japan,_ covering many aspects of
the rise and evolution of samurai dominance. Current paperback.

>
> Jansen, Marius B. and Gilbert Rozman, editors. _Japan in

Transition: From Tokugawa to Meiji_. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1986. See Chapter 3, "The Ruling Class," contributed by
Jansen. Current paperback.

>
> Morillo, Stephen. "Milites, Knights and Samurai: Military

Terminology, Comparative History, and the Problem of Translation."
In The Normans and Their Adversaries at War: Essays in Memory of C.
Warren Hollister, edited by Richard P. Abels and Bernard S.
Bachrach. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2001.

>
> Shimizu, Yoshiaki, editor. _Japan: The Shaping of Daimyo Culture,

1185-1868_. London: Thames and Hudson, 1968. Catalog of an
exhibition. Gorgeous and quite informative.

>
> Smith, [II], Henry [D.], editor. _Learning From Shogun: Japanese

History and Western Fantasy_. Santa Barbara, California: Program in
Asian Studies, University of California, 1980. Engaging and easy-to-
read but soundly-based collection organized around commentary on
James Clavell's _Shogun_. Available on the Web (in PDF form):
http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/learning/

>
> Yamamura, Kozo. _Study of Samurai Income and Entrepreneurship:

Quantitative Analyses of Economic and Social Aspects of the Samurai
in Tokugawa and Meiji Japan_. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1974. Not military history but more broadly informative than the
title might suggest.

>
> (Most of these you will have to get via interlibrary loan,

although some of the books are available at fairly affordable prices
used or as current paperbacks. While I have copies of all, I spent a
lot of money on some of them, and a lot of time searching for
others.)

Another excellent post, will. I agree with most of what you've said
and wish I could say it as well. Just a few thoughts....


On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:48:10 -0400, Will O'Neilさん wrote in message <6.1.1.1.0.20040626120918.0589a6c8@...>

>This question has certainly generated some lively and interesting discussion!

That's the best kind of question there is.

>I find it helpful to think back over the evolution of the samurai. Recall

I agree 100% with this. I believe that it's important when asking
(or answering) questions, to explicitly talk about what time period
is under discussion. Since we are talking about almost 1000 years of
history, there is no absolute answer to almost any question at all.
It depends on when (and sometimes where) we are talking about.

>that the first samurai (really bushi, since the kind of socio-political
>organization implied by the term "samurai" had not really evolved yet) were
>essentially outlaws on the rugged and unsettled northeastern frontier of
>Honshu, where the writ of the imperial court did not run, nearly 1,000 years

This is a very long and well written reply. I only would like to add
that this way of understanding of the roots of the samurai is really
one of several competing theories (theory in the sense of theory of
evolution - I don't use theory here in a disparaging way) . There is a
whole field of study about how the samurai class came about. While
there are theories that are more accepted than others, it is still up
for grabs. The "strongmen of the north" theory is not necessarily the
only way to understand how the samurai class came about.

I particulary enjoy (and hate - it's a very difficult read) _Bushi
no SeiRitsu_ by Motoki Yasuo.

>At this point it was largely true that a samurai was as a samurai did. If you
>showed up with a mount, armed cap-�pie, and demonstrated the skills and
>courage to fight effectively no one was likely to be inclined to inquire
>closely about your ancestry. And if someone got rude about it you, as a

This is compounded by the fact that ancestries could be, well, made
up on the spot. Anyone could claim to be decended from the Minamoto or
Taira, and they often did.

>After the Onin Wars, and particularly after the introduction of gunpowder
>weapons, entry at the bottom became even more porous -- a sturdy physique and
>pugnacious disposition could win you access to the lowest rungs of warrior
>status. Were these fellows "real samurai"? It was a question that didn't seem

This is very well said, again. The question "were ashigaru actually
samurai" is an un-answerable one. Or rather, the answer is probably
"it doesn't really matter".

>ability could carry you a long way up the social hierarchy. Hideyoshi never
>felt quite secure enough to claim the very topmost rung, but if anyone
>despised such a man for his humble origins he needed to be very, very
>circumspect in saying so.

This point I agree less with. It's telling that "Hideyoshi" is
probably the example that is mentioned most. Of course
there is also Saitou Dousan who was a seller of oils. But there are
few cases of common people going very far up the social heirarchy.
It did happen and we've just mentioned two actual people who did it. B
ut it has to be said that this was very much the exception to the rule
.
On the other hand of course the sengoku era is known as the era of "ge
-koku-jou" which means "the low supplanting the high". It was the era
of vassals supplanting their lords; but not of commoners supplanting s
amurai.

>(BTW, the point of the sword hunt was not to close the samurai class in
>social terms but rather to secure the countryside and ensure that no
>challenges to Hideyoshi's order could arise. Ieyasu and his successors

Agreed.

>followed Hidedyoshi's lead for like reasons. Of course Nobunaga had really
>set the precedent through his vigorous suppression of the militarized ikki.)

I'm not so sure that Nobunaga's efforts at repressing his enemies
can be said to have directly led to the katana-gari approach. Any
military leader would of course want to disarm or disable his enemy.
But the katana-gari method seems a fairly different solution than
ordinary armed suppression (or armed conflict).

>All this changed a great deal between the establishment of the Tokugawa
>bakufu in 1603 and its full consolidation in power (about a generation

Agreed. This is a very important point. A lot of structures,
philosophies, and overall "rules" were formalized and legitimized in
the Edo period. Sometimes people misunderstand that these
formalities were in place all along. Sometimes they were and
sometimes they were not. But as a general approach it's a good idea
to keep in mind that the Tokugawa structure only came about in the
early 17th century. What came before it was not (necessarily) the
same thing.

--
Jay Kelly
oyakata@...