Seppuku- A Privilege?

Hi all! Regarding the previous discussion about Seppuku, I have another question. As we understand Seppuku, it was a dignified act of inflicting death, a privilege. does this mean that criminals and renegade ronin were depraved of this kind of reconciliatory option, and were, for example, hanged?

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

--- RAMI EFAL <rami_efal@...> wrote:

> Hi all! Regarding the previous discussion about
> Seppuku, I have another question. As we understand
> Seppuku, it was a dignified act of inflicting death,
> a privilege. does this mean that criminals and
> renegade ronin were depraved of this kind of
> reconciliatory option, and were, for example,
> hanged?

I assume you mean if they were caught? Generally,
criminals who were caught were crucified.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Hi Rami, Can you clarify "renegade ronin" for me. Do you mean ex samurai who
became brigands, or ex samurai who betrayed there masters, or...? Sorry, I'm
probly just being thick. Denny.

----- Original Message -----
From: "RAMI EFAL" <rami_efal@...>
To: <samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:29 PM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Seppuku- A Privilege?


> Hi all! Regarding the previous discussion about Seppuku, I have another
question. As we understand Seppuku, it was a dignified act of inflicting
death, a privilege. does this mean that criminals and renegade ronin were
depraved of this kind of reconciliatory option, and were, for example,
hanged?
>
> [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
>
>
>
>
>
>

You weren't thick, Denis! -I- was a little vague. I meant in an instance in which:

A samurai serves a Daimyo.
The Daimyo's son kills his own father in a coup.
The samurai attempts to assassinate the son out of loyalty to his dead master.
The samurai is apprehended.
Would he be forced to commit seppuku, or be inflicted a different kind of death?

Thanks, Nate, for your input about the crucifixion of the criminals! yes, I meant apprehended criminals. Were hangings practiced in Edo Japan at all, for any reason?

I am sorry for not contributing much of my own to the topics suggested in the group. I have only been researching about samurai history for the past few months, and respect people who are much more knowledgeable than I am! This all goes a novel I am writing. I am doing a lot of reading on my own, and my questions usually come up from conflicting information I gather, or topics to which I haven't found a solid answer.

Time will be my teacher (and books... and you guys...) Thank you!
Hi Rami, Can you clarify "renegade ronin" for me. Do you mean ex samurai who
became brigands, or ex samurai who betrayed there masters, or...? Sorry, I'm
probly just being thick. Denny.

> Hi all! Regarding the previous discussion about Seppuku, I have another

question. As we understand Seppuku, it was a dignified act of inflicting
death, a privilege. does this mean that criminals and renegade ronin were
depraved of this kind of reconciliatory option, and were, for example,
hanged?

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

--- RAMI EFAL <rami_efal@...> wrote:

> A samurai serves a Daimyo.
> The Daimyo's son kills his own father in a coup.
> The samurai attempts to assassinate the son out of
> loyalty to his dead master.
> The samurai is apprehended.
> Would he be forced to commit seppuku, or be
> inflicted a different kind of death?

If we're talking Edo period, most likely the son would
be put to death. The bakufu didn't take kindly to ANY
type of coup or insurrection--if they allowed the son
to revolt against his father, what's to stop someone
from revolting against them? A son overthrowing a
father would be against the entire Confucian value
system enforced.

If we're talking Sengoku, then it could go either way.

> Thanks, Nate, for your input about the crucifixion
> of the criminals! yes, I meant apprehended
> criminals. Were hangings practiced in Edo Japan at
> all, for any reason?

Nope.





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

"A samurai serves a Daimyo.
The Daimyo's son kills his own father in a coup.
The samurai attempts to assassinate the son out of loyalty to his
dead master.
The samurai is apprehended.
Would he be forced to commit seppuku, or be inflicted a different
kind of death?"
The samurai in this case would have no problem during the Edo period
IF he followed the proper prescribed procedures as laid down by the
Shogunate. This would involve presenting your claim for vendetta to
the government and getting the OK to proceed. Such "revenge" killings
were accepted and pretty much considered a duty. After the samurai
had received the OK, tracked down the son, and killed him, he would
have to report his act to the local authorities along with presenting
his documentation. Also, in pursuing your vendetta, you could not
create a riotous situation or (in theory at least) risk the safety of
uninvolved parties. Then the samurai would go his merry way without
any negative legal consequences at all, having fulfilled his duty. Of
course, this could invite a vendetta from the just killed son's
family/retainers....
If the samurai just killed the son without following the rules, it
was up to the authorities to decide his fate based on the situation
(in your case, since the son had staged a coup and the father's
retainer killed him, the retainer might get off with a 'slap on the
wrist').
Before the Edo period, revenge killings were expected but not codifed
as during the Shogunate (at least not on a national level) so the
local reaction to a revenge or duty killing varied greatly.
In either case, the son in question is dead meat during the Edo
period-even if the samurai didn't get him the government would
(crucifixtion).

Thank you so much, this is *fantastic* information. Were there other forms of executions practiced (apologies for the morbidity of topic) other than seppuku, crucifixion?

----- Original Message -----
From: kurotatsunoshi
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:25 PM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: Seppuku- A Privilege?


"A samurai serves a Daimyo.
The Daimyo's son kills his own father in a coup.
The samurai attempts to assassinate the son out of loyalty to his
dead master.
The samurai is apprehended.
Would he be forced to commit seppuku, or be inflicted a different
kind of death?"
The samurai in this case would have no problem during the Edo period
IF he followed the proper prescribed procedures as laid down by the
Shogunate. This would involve presenting your claim for vendetta to
the government and getting the OK to proceed. Such "revenge" killings
were accepted and pretty much considered a duty. After the samurai
had received the OK, tracked down the son, and killed him, he would
have to report his act to the local authorities along with presenting
his documentation. Also, in pursuing your vendetta, you could not
create a riotous situation or (in theory at least) risk the safety of
uninvolved parties. Then the samurai would go his merry way without
any negative legal consequences at all, having fulfilled his duty. Of
course, this could invite a vendetta from the just killed son's
family/retainers....
If the samurai just killed the son without following the rules, it
was up to the authorities to decide his fate based on the situation
(in your case, since the son had staged a coup and the father's
retainer killed him, the retainer might get off with a 'slap on the
wrist').
Before the Edo period, revenge killings were expected but not codifed
as during the Shogunate (at least not on a national level) so the
local reaction to a revenge or duty killing varied greatly.
In either case, the son in question is dead meat during the Edo
period-even if the samurai didn't get him the government would
(crucifixtion).



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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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

"Thank you so much, this is *fantastic* information. Were there other
forms of executions practiced (apologies for the morbidity of topic)
other than seppuku, crucifixion?"

Yes, lots of them. Not so much during the Edo period where
crucifixtion was the standard, but during the Sengoku period and
before, the forms of execution were pretty much subject to the local
warlord's whims. Just about anything was done...one of the most
gruesome being one of the Saito clan boiling an enemy to death in a
large cauldron (much like Lord Yabu did in Clavell's Shogun). This
also happened to the notorious bandit Ishikawa Goemon. Another
warlord (sorry, don't recall who) was buried up to his neck with a
bamboo saw placed next to him and a sign inviting passersby to feel
free to have a go at him (Clavell used this too, for Lord Ishida).
Beating a man to death was common as was death during torture (which
wasn't a planned execution, but just sped up the process).

Can't forget the old standy-by "removal of head with sharp sword"
technique of punishment.




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

> "Thank you so much, this is *fantastic* information. Were there

other

> forms of executions practiced (apologies for the morbidity of

topic)

> other than seppuku, crucifixion?"
>
> Yes, lots of them. Not so much during the Edo period where
> crucifixtion was the standard, but during the Sengoku period and
> before, the forms of execution were pretty much subject to the

local

> warlord's whims. Just about anything was done...one of the most
> gruesome being one of the Saito clan boiling an enemy to death in a
> large cauldron (much like Lord Yabu did in Clavell's Shogun). This
> also happened to the notorious bandit Ishikawa Goemon. Another
> warlord (sorry, don't recall who) was buried up to his neck with a
> bamboo saw placed next to him and a sign inviting passersby to feel
> free to have a go at him (Clavell used this too, for Lord Ishida).
> Beating a man to death was common as was death during torture

(which

> wasn't a planned execution, but just sped up the process).

> Can't forget the old standy-by "removal of head with sharp
> sword" technique of punishment.

Indeedy - it's always a pleasure to know one's head has been
lifted from one's shoulders by one of man's supreme examples
of the marriage of form and function.

I am inclined to believe that the appeal of seppuku as a
battlefield expedient stands in direct proportion to the many,
varied, imaginative, lingering and extremely painful methods
men devise for despatching those who fall into their hands.

Thomas

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Davidson"
wrote:

> > Can't forget the old standy-by "removal of head with sharp
> > sword" technique of punishment.
>
> Indeedy - it's always a pleasure to know one's head has been
> lifted from one's shoulders by one of man's supreme examples
> of the marriage of form and function.

Now THAT is the next Superbowl commercial I want to see!

Hi Rami,

One more piece of grisly execution stuff for your pot:

From the depths of my memory: a group of Japanese pirates, were caught
tried and executed by being slowly roasted alive over charcoal... Took
about three days as I remember the tale ****

Yours

Dean

> "Thank you so much, this is *fantastic* information. Were there
> other
> forms of executions practiced (apologies for the morbidity of
> topic)
> other than seppuku, crucifixion?"
>
> Yes, lots of them. Not so much during the Edo period where
> crucifixtion was the standard, but during the Sengoku period and
> before, the forms of execution were pretty much subject to the
> local
> warlord's whims. Just about anything was done...one of the most
> gruesome being one of the Saito clan boiling an enemy to death in a
> large cauldron (much like Lord Yabu did in Clavell's Shogun). This
> also happened to the notorious bandit Ishikawa Goemon. Another
> warlord (sorry, don't recall who) was buried up to his neck with a
> bamboo saw placed next to him and a sign inviting passersby to feel
> free to have a go at him (Clavell used this too, for Lord Ishida).
> Beating a man to death was common as was death during torture
> (which
> wasn't a planned execution, but just sped up the process).
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
> click here
> http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2319501/rand=794997697
> 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.
>

Dean Wayland
Head Of The Fight School
http://www.thefightschool.demon.co.uk