Though I have read some on the Samurai, it is usually glorifying thier role- and on the history channel, some Japanese historians refered to them as parasites on the country for the last 400 years of thier existance. I have always placed them on the same level as the European knights, just slightly different.

I realize we have some nostalgia for both Samurai and European knights, but were they a positive thing for the culture at the time, or were they parasites and as soon as the class was done away with, we could socially evolve faster?

There is an argument that, given the prevailing level of technology, strict social hierarchy was the only way to produce enough food to feed everyone.

For example, Ancient Egypt existed as a very strict hierarchy, because the level of development would not have support a free market etc in a country which is largely desert. By strictly regulating the production & producers of food, with stringent guidelines on distribution etc, everyone was able to survive. The same argument can be made for medieval Japan - that the Samurai were necessary to ensure that food production & distribution continued.

The countries which have shown the greatest levels of freedom have also been the ones where it is relatively easy to grow food etc - so allowing people certain degrees of freedom to do something other than growing food , collecting water etc has not been a problem.

So although to us, the Samurai appeared parasitic, the society in which they lived had a use for them.

I think that the Samurais and knights were perhaps upper class snobs. But, you always need structure like that, without it the country would probably collapse.

You can't take too much notice of these movies either, just look at U571.

It is wrong not to give a sensitive director such as Edward Zwick any credit for this film. He did a great job with Glory,and certainly can offer some degree of historical insight.


I have an interest in the Samurai, and I think it is unclear whether you can call them parasites or not. Firstly however, on what basis are they parasites?

To claim that you are almost saying the same of the emperor, given that they represented the cogs in a larger machine. When the Mongols attempted to invade Japan in 1281 it would have been the Samurai who defended the country - had it not, of course, been for the divine wind(the storm) that destroyed the Mongol army at sea, thus creating the term divine wind(Kaminkaze) - Just a little anedote

Do you have any quotes of the historians who make these claims I would like to see them.

It was the Smaurai and the emperor which maintained a stable society, as I can see in a relatively just way, for the last 1000 years. The Japanese Emperorship is the longest dynasty in the world spanning approximately two thousand years - He owes a lot of that to the Samruai.

I would have to disagree that the Samurai ruled in a particularly 'just' way. They could kill any peasant they liked, for any reason, including personal whim. The system was stable and provided a relative degree of security, but I doubt you would consider a samurai to be 'just', had he used your children for achery practice, which happened quite often...

Secondly it is a misconception to think of the Samurai as valiantly defending Japan. For most of its history, Japan was divided into clans, who fought each other. As often happened with wars against China, some Daimyos would side with the invaders if they thought it was in their own interests.

The Emperor was a figurehead and never had power. In fact, often the Imperial family was given just enough food to survive on and nothing more. Japan was not a fuedal society in the same way that European countries were. They had no real place in Japanese society other than as a justification for the rule of Samurai.

Almost all of your post is untrue. You are not considering their philosophy.

Shintoism - Undebiable loyalty to the Empeoror, contray to what you said

Buddhism - Death was never to handed out at random.

Confucianism - The Smaurai was to behave in Moral ways

Another problem however, with my comments and yours, is that we are suggesting a class of people have been a monlithic entity for 100 years - dubious grounds to say the least!!

I don't have to consider the philosophies (and everything I wrote is true). You can argue that the Spanish Inquisition was fair enough at the time, given the personal philosophy of the inquisitioners.....or that concentration camp commanders were justified in what they did because their personal philosophy held that Jews were evil. It's not a fantastic argument....that Buddhism allows one to believe that Karma directs ones time of dying doesn't excuse the murder.

Shintoism does not include undying loyalty to the Emporer, it is a household god religion, in which the emperor is an important figure. The fact remains that the Emporer was a puppet to the warriors he theoretically commanded.



And I never suggested that the Samurai had been a monolithic identity for 1000 years, you did.



So nerrrrrr....

And blanket statements that my post is entirely untrue aint constructive debating neither....

Sorry, It was quick post. Let me explain.

I do not mean, for examle, that Buddhism legtimises the act of killing somethng in the name of "it was his time. I meant that it provides evidence to suggest they did not kill indiscriminantly, because of their belief that all life is sacred.

You accuse only me of talking about the Samurai as a monlithic entitiy, but the content of this post of yours:



You talk of the "Samurai" as an abstract entitiy. You do not reference a time frame, so what part of history are you referring to. You are generalising in the same way I was.

Your claim that Japan was merely a bunch of clans is not correct. MOst of the internal conflicts of serious structural consideration were consolidated early on, as this quote taken from Steven Turnbull - the wests leading Samurai Historian:



Almost all historians concede that they did have a strong sense of loyalty, at least to localised lords, even if the motivation was self interest.

This site may be interest, I have read it substantially

The Samurai's beliefs

This is a post on a Samurai history forum, which seems to jive with what they were saying on the history channel:

400 years is perhaps an exaggeration. During the Edo period, which lasted for 250 years and was largely peaceful, a warrior class (aka the samurai) served no useful purpose but prior to that featured heavily in Japanese history (especially in the 100 years just prior to the Edo period, the Sengoku Jidai).

The actual moment that took power away was probably the overthrow of the Tokugawa shogunate, otherwise known as the Meiji restoration in 1867/68. The social class and its associated privileges (holding of office, right to wear swords etc) was abolished by the new Imperial government in 1871, but the reasons for the downfall of the samurai were many and varied.

Paul Doran

Okay, I would have got back to this earlier, I thought I might read a little more about medieveal Japan ( other than James Clavells 'Shogun'...which is a FANTASTIC book if you like historical adventure!).

From what I can tell (http://www.samurai-archives.com is a brief example) - the Samurai really came to prominence in the 12th Century when the power of the Emperor began to weaken (he ran out of money) and the clan Daimyos took the power. Although they did claim nominal allegiance to the Emperor, often the Imperial family was financed and protected by a particular clan, so in effect that particular Daimyo had all the power. There were then periods of clan warfare where Samurai clans would be fighting for the right to protect the Emperor, so a Samurai's ultimate loyalty lay with the Emperor, in practical terms he or she would be loyal to a particular clan leader. The power struggles were very devious, the more so as a Samurai could never appear dishonourable, or that he might be lying to his enemies to deceive them.


The larger clans were composed of smaller clans. The loyalty of smaller clans COULD shift between the 3 main families, but this was extremely rare.......

I found the website on Samurai beliefs to be extremely interesting...you might enjoy the Hagakure (Book of Falling Leaves) if you like that sort of thing. Its kinda like the diary of a Samurai...whilst I agree that religion was important to a Samurai, I think it may have been similar to the way that medieval Knights considered themselves devout Christians & yet often treated the peasants who worked their land, or their enemies with extreme cruelty. Mainly that it is harder to follow the more peaceful precepts of a religion when your day-job involved riding out with a sword and killing a lot of people....

Its all fascinating stuff though...

Cool, nice info.

I would recommend Steven Turnbull's work, his is interesting. He was one of the best english historians - probably the best - on the Samurai.

I have read Shogun, its a good book.

If your' einterested in another fiction try these beast of an epic novel::

Musashi

And I found out that the "Bushido" code did not even come about until the Edo period, and all the misconceptions about the Samuria, the Ninja etc etc. The entire movie I guess was about the rebelion during the Meiji restoration and the movie was not even close to the historical truth. Oh well.

Yeah, whats the deal with ninja anyway? Anyone know? Who were they, what did they do? My local gym has Ninjutsu classes going on, which they say teaches the martial art of the ninja - is this true? I must know!!!!

And does anyone really expect Hollywood to come close to historical truth? History is mostly dull, films have to be exciting! (Don't get me started on films either by Mel Gibson or about WW2!)

The whole Ninja concept we have is completely hollywood- the ninja WERE samurai- in fact, special ops samurai. "Ninjitsu" , or anything with "jitsu" on the end basically is another way of saying "combat style". Martial arts as we know them today, really came to being AFTER the samurai were made illegal! The different fighting styles we learned of course, some are ancient, but the classes etc is very recent.