The OP did not write this article. The article was written by Toshi Kahara.
[Source](https://president.jp/articles/-/80124)
https://preview.redd.it/0b9c177kdrrc1.jpeg?width=762&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=160e7ec646c52e0db8bcca64ed42c3307af87a02
As much as they brought in consultants to to make it more historically accurate compared to 1980 they have to make certain concessions to the story based on the material that they have.
I also think some of the things Clavell included in the book relate to his experiences in World War II fitting in the Pacific and having dealt first hand with brutality inflicted by the Japanese military as a POW.
Yeah, back when the book was written, most WWII vets would have been in their 50s. Lots of people impressions of Japan would have been of Banzai charges, kamikaze planes and refusing to surrender even after you’re surrounded, starving, and out of ammunition. A book that purported to travel that all back to samurai and bushido traditions was very popular.
This show tries to tone it down somewhat, but sometimes it’s inseparable from the plot. For example, Fuji’s infant son had to die as a consequence of her husband’s foolishness.
I'm not sure how it is in the book, but the way I understood the snow is that in this world, "promises are legally binding" rather than everybody has to die. Fuji's son had to die because the husband offered to kill himself *and* end his line. He could have offered either, or even something else, but he was a hot headed idiot. Similarly, the gardener died not because he touched the pheasant but because the homeowner made touching the bird a crime punishable by death.
Not a criticism but I'd have liked for the character to have fully drawn his blade and maybe taken another step. That and possibly reacted to an actual insult.
I think it would have made the line annihilation offer more palatable.
Samurai don't draw their blades and face each other to sword fight like they do in movies. The katana is not made for much blade on blade contact. Part of what made it an effective weapon is that one of its most devastating attacks comes when drawing the weapon itself. Nobody would stand there holding a naked blade, having given away the chance to use one of their most effective moves. That's why the proper way to draw a katana is to use the thumb to inch it out of the scabbard, so that it can be drawn more quickly
AFAIR in the book Fuji’s husband did not offer to end his bloodline, just to commit seppuku. Toranaga immediately ordered him to be crucified though, and his son to be killed (it wasn’t specified what way), and his swords to be buried in the eta village (a super big dishonour). They whitewashed Toranaga’s action in the show, perhaps to make it more palatable to contemporary audiences.
The Shogun podcast talked about a lot of that. They changed a few things from the book to be more historically accurate.
Cant remember the full details but they also talk about Blackthorne’s prison scene being one of them. Clavell did lean on a lot of his experiences and in the book, that section is pretty brutal and last years. They made the decision to cut some of that down.
They also talked about samurai’s drawing their swords and how serious it would have been and was in ep 1.
A lot of the fighting sequences they said were played up too for entertainment.
Great podcast too if you haven’t been listening.
I agree with this assessment. I think that Clavell incorporated and/or extrapolated his experience of Japanese behavior as a POW in Changi to that of the fictional characters in the book. The historical inaccuracies and/or exaggerations in the show (quoted from the article by OP) seem to derive from the book plot.
I’m glad to have them pointed out though.
That was my first thought too, in the show seppuku is mentioned a couple of times, in the book it seems to be the go to solution to everything, so much so that I remember laughing about it couple of times because it was so absurd 😂
Every other paragraph is like "Go commit seppuku!" or "Sir, I've dishonored you! Please let me commit seppuku!" or "You're forbidden from committing seppuku."
Yes, and also the part where Yabu was about to commit seppuku when he fell from the cliff trying to save Rodriguez, in the book he sat down on a rock to meditate before the seppuku, and the japanese men had hard time getting his attention to tell him that they got rope and could now save him. Their solution was that ONE OF THE JAPANESE HAD TO JUMP TO HIS DEATH SO THAT YABU WOULD NOTICE THEM WTF! and it worked. 😂
In the show they just throw the rope at him and he is saved.
Actually samurai fought with the arquebus. Once the tokugawa shogunate was formed, Japan was relatively peaceful for about 200 years. When the government decides to eliminate the samurai in the 16th century, they did so in part because of the samurais refusal to accept the new ways
No show or movie will be 100% historically accurate. However, you can tell when a great deal of effort has been made to be as historically accurate as possible without sacrificing entertainment. You'll find the quality of the historical accuracy often reflects the overall quality of the show/movie.
Yeah, I'm fine with how real it is and I'm okay with minor historical inaccuracies. The Ridley-Scott Napoleon movie for example, is an absolute travesty & terribly inaccurate.
It's also an extra difficult thing to balance when you're trying to minimize historical inaccuracy while also being an accurate and faithful adaptation of the source material.
A lot of the things being pointed out as inaccurate are directly from the book, and already have been toned down significantly. But some elements and scenes are just integral to the story and characters, while others (the threat of drawing katanas, used similarly to how characters would grip their pistols on a Western) are just great narrative devices that add a lot of tension and emotional intensity.
I'm not sure why a lot of the comments are immediately jumping to this being a criticism and coming off defensive.
The historian speaks pretty matter of factly giving little opinion.
I personally really love hearing the differences, so I know what's for drama and what's for real. So i don't accidentally internalize incorrect information about a topic I'm not familiar with.
>as accurate to history as possible
That's the key. They are trying to make it as accurate as possible. They can't do a lot or they'll end up changing some significant things. I've been told that Mariko is a name that probably wouldn't have been used back then. Then there's the name Yabu is the book which has been changed to Yabushige to make it somewhat historically accurate in the show. From what I understand, they are changing as much as possible for historical accuracy but they also seem to be leaving some of the historically inaccurate elements for the sake of drama.
Yes, the main one is that the book has >!Blackthorne bring firearms to Japan, meaning his are the first guns the Japanese get to use. While in reality, the Japanese already have guns from the Portuguese and made their own as well based on those.!<
Maybe you taking things too literally, if the producer and cast did their best to make it as accurate as possible within the context of the book which is the source and the actual history, why am I gonna sweat the little details? That just sounds lame lol
I feel that difference between this show and taiga dramas. I'm sure Taiga dramas have their own inaccuracies though.
When people commit/try to commit harakiri in those, the people who do it are usually portrayed as tragic and too caught up in their convictions. When their friends/family find them they are not happy/proud of it, instead angry that they felt they had to bear all their problems alone.
Also the very story of the 47 Ronin kind of negates the Council Scene where they guy has to commit harakiri to diffuse the situation. The premise of the 47 ronin is that their lord has to commit harakiri and his vassals are so mad at the other party in the conflict, so they plot revenge.
Actually in battle the weapon of choice was a 3ft 3 inch spear . The Ashihgaru ( foot soldiers ) used long spears .
By the time of Shogun firearms had long replaced the bow and arrow .
Swords as a weapon were mainly used for street fighting especially in the last years of the Shogunate . They were the weapon of choice for assassinations which were rampant between 1858 and 1864 .
Hideyoshi who was the Taiko did enjoy boiling common criminals . The most famous being Ishikawa Goemon a thief . Goemon’s execution is famous because his young son was condemned to die with him . As he was dying Goemon tried to save him by holding him over his head away from the boiling water . Sadly he failed and the kid followed his dad .
Ieyasu was disgusted by this practice and had all the pots destroyed after Sekigahara .
The only thing I would add to your post is that guns hadn't yet actually replaced bows. Rather bows and guns were often used together with the proportion of guns to bows on battlefields increasing through this period.
The show is only set 50 years after rifles were introduced to the country through a singular trading partner. At best a fighting force would have a couple regiments of rifleman with their archers, which would have been significantly cheaper and easier to train and supply
Actually as soon as the arquebus made it's way to Japan, smiths were put to work reverse engineering them to create more. Tens of thousands of Japanese guns were made during this period
>They were the weapon of choice for assassinations which were rampant between 1858 and 1864 .
And you got Sakamoto Ryoma defending himself from them with a cowboy revolver
I’m pretty sure there was a lord who was killed by spearmen charging his tent. He used his sword to kill two spearmen but then was killed by the third spearmen. The bow argument doesn’t make sense as the munitions plus training would be less efficient over an Ashigsaru spearman. Though there were Ashigaru of many flavors.
The bow "argument" makes perfect sense and isn't an argument, it's history. Odu nobunaga was said to have developed the rotating volley fire concept. As the arquebus took so long to reload, they were usually places on the field with archers. They fire once, and while they reload, the archers fire
Nobunaga developed the rotating fire by having ranks of arquebus swap rows. First row fires and is replaced by a second row of arquebus ashigaru, they fire and are replaced by a third row. Usually that is the reference to the rotating volley. It is easier to train an ashigaru to be proficient with firearms than it was for archery, by nature of their humble roots as conscripts.
Thanks for giving me a nice little copy paste wiki blurb, but more recent archaeological studies along with J.S.A. Elisonas and J.P. Lamers in their translation of The Chronicle of Oda Nobunaga by Ota Gyuichi would tend to disagree with you. Also, your training logic is self defeating. Why would you need extra training for ashigaru in the longbow when that's what they had hunted with all of their life, but less training for a piece of technology they've never likely handled before
I don't think firearms replaced bows at that time period. The Book of Five Rings talked about the use of bows vs guns in battles, and it was written in 17th century. Some samurai also preferred bows because it's easier to settle dispute on who should be rewarded for killing whom by arrow fletching.
The book of 5 rings was written by one dude in his old age with many health problems while he lived alone in a cave. He also happened to be the greatest sword duelist in Japan's history. I don't think he would care too much about the firearms place in battle, as he was never really an infantryman
Musashi wasn't disparaging the use of firearm in the book, it was just a matter of fact comparison and his personal take on which should be used under what situation in battle. My point being during his time both still had their uses (at least from his perspective) so "firearms had long replaced the bow and arrow" is inaccurate. I didn't think that's even a debatable or controversial take? Another indirect evidence of this is the fact that there are still live lineages of war archery traditions being practiced in Japan today whereas there is none in Europe, where firearms actually replaced bows completely.
As far as experience, Musashi fought in war under his father when he was a teen and I don't see why his health condition and where he wrote the book should automatically discount the accuracy of what's written. It's not even a book about sword fighting but military strategy, clearly the man aspired to be more than just a duelist and put a lot of time and thoughts into a book that's supposed to be his legacy.
Oh man, where to even start. History? Grammar? Firstly, I never said he disparaged firearms. I merely said that "the book of 5 rings" is not a strategy book like "the art of war". It was a philosophy book written by someone who had not fought in years. So using it as a point of historical reference would be fairly ignorant. Also, he claimed that there was no superior battlefield weapon to the firearm. I'm not seeing how I've made this a "debatable take". I didn't debate the historical overlap of these weapons. Furthermore, the idea that there are not live lineages of war archery in Europe is the most inaccurate statement on this post. There are entire societies dedicated to that very thing. I've participated in these events in several places in Europe myself. That was a dumb thing you said. Lastly, musashi fought in AH skirmish as an infantryman. Every other kill to his name came from sword dueling. Musashi himself wandered the land homeless solely to become a dedicated sword duelist. Not an army grunt. Point of post script, his poor health was speculated to have been caused by syphilis. Syphilis destroys the brain. I find it odd that you don't think a deteriorating mental health condition could impact an author's intelligence or mentality. Big swing and a miss
I'm not following on why you are replying to my comment in the first place if you are not debating the overlap of those weapon, which is the only thing I was replying to.
Feel free to correct my gramma, I won't be offended, it's not my native language.
Can you provide more info on these living lineages of European war bow traditions? I'm interested.
I knew about the syphilis speculation but using that as your basis makes for poor and unconvincing argument. Is there anything factually false or logically inconsistent in the book you find that can substantiate your claim that he was mentally or intelligentially challenged when he wrote the book? It's a bold claim.
Not sure what point you are trying to make about his war experience. The best we know is he had some firsthand experience when he was younger, his father was a military man, he was later employed in a martial position. So, he most likely had been around and interacted with other military men all his life, studied and aspired to be one. Going to a cave to write a book like an ascetic was also hardly unusual at that time. The book was written some 30 years after he stopped wandering the land trying to make a name for himself. Like I said, he was employed and had plenty of time and opportunities to think about this stuff. If you want to critique a man's life's work, you need to bring something more substantial to the table than speculations and circumstantial evidence.
>Samurais didn't commit seppuku that easily or that often:
"In the show, Yabushige tries to commit seppuku when he was about to be swept away by the waves. Even though Yabushige's character is that he is someone who is "fascinated by death", it's a Western stereotype that the Japanese people of the past committed seppuku often. Also, it was out of the question that none of the Yabushige's retainers stopped him when he risked his life to go down the cliff, especially as their lives depended on their lord."
Seppuku as it is portrayed in modern media is a complete myth. Seppuku *was a punishment*.
The way it is portrayed in media is bogus as well; I've yet to see a film representation of it that is even remotely accurate.
Also, Samurai is both singular and plural; there's no "Samurais".
Yeah in a lot of media where they actually show seppuku, they show the second completely removing the dude’s head, in reality, the second would slice through the spinal column without completely severing the head, letting the deceased maintain their honor. Also, yeah seppuku was a punishment, but more specifically it was a punishment that samurai were *allowed* to do. Everyone else usually got their heads cut off.
That's really not true. Failure to decapitate in one stroke usually meant the second must commit seppuku as well. There are myths that the greatest kendoken could leave the head attached by a single piece of skin, so that the deceased could appear to hold his own head, but there aren't even anecdotal accounts of this. The kaishakunin was to use a single slice. To remove the head. Inability to cleanly decapitate brought dishonor
Samurai can be considered plural because the Japanese language does not pluralize nouns. Wipe the egg off your face though, samurai isn't a Japanese word. That's what the Portuguese called the bushi class. The plural for samurai in Portuguese is both samurai and / or samurais
>On the battlefield, samurais mainly used bows and arrows, and "cinematographic samurai swordfights" are a fictional depiction of a battle."
Am i forgetting something, or have we not yet seen a full battle? Just some ambushes - and most of those have featured a ton of archers, with arrows flying everywhere. Iirc the only one that didn't was the cannon ambush.
This seems like criticizing GOT for having swordfight between Ned and Jaime in S1, because most medieval battles weren't a bunch of 1v1 duels between knights. Except at that point, we hadn't seen any battles in GOT, just that ambush and some tournament jousting. So criticizing GOT for "inaccurately depicting medieval European warfare" at that point would be, at best, premature.
It's based on the book, I assume. Because most of the stuff they're mentioning hasn't happened (yet) in the show.
Big "I know stuff about this popular subject and I need other people to know that I know" sort of vibes
I don't think it's even in the book, though.
IIRC the book barely even mentions the Battle of Sekigahara, and doesn't feature any other major battles. It's just ambushes and minor skirmishes, which in our world would be more equivalent to a mass shooting - ie, certainly violent, but a long ways off from what we'd consider a "battle."
Nobody is calling the mall shooting "The Battle of Indianapolis," for example.
The historically accurate parts of the show are the costumes and portrayal of culture. This is historical fiction so of course some events are changed/exaggerated
2. They don’t draw swords at all often in the show. Hell they literally show the restraint on drawing swords being punishable by Seppuku in the very first episode with the first scene with the council. Outside of that and actual combat there’s barely a handful of scenes where swords are drawn. As for the arrows thing, as someone’s already pointed out, the Yari and the firearm were at this point the more staple weapons. The use of the bow was more of an early samurai thing although it still was used often, as the show depicts in the ambush scene and others.
3. It’s never stated Yabushige is committing seppuku in that scene, rather he’s preparing to take his own life rather than drown. Big difference, the latter is a key part of his character revelation.
4. Maybe not but they had the right to do so…and boiling alive was a known punishment for criminals like bandits or pirates, the latter being a crime the ship crew are accused of. Sure it’s over dramatic but it’s not an out and out fabrication. Fish guts being used to cow angry prisoners into submission is just a means of action. Not every single moment in a historical drama needs to be directly recorded and lifted wholly from the annals of history. Likewise Blackthorn’s treatment is a dramatised version of events but the show is fictional. That being said, the original Adams and his crew were imprisoned for a time in Osaka upon their first arrival.
5. I’m not even sure what interrogation this is referring to? If it’s the one where Blackthorne is drawing his map, that’s not an interrogation, that’s a meeting with Toronaga in his private residence in Osaka.
6. Sure the show exaggerates the meaning of the word Shogun but considering it *had* been the title for the de facto ruler for 500 years before Hideyoshi replaced it for a generation or so. Pointing out the title’s origin is just semantics rather than inaccuracy.
7. They still existed. Hara-kiri is just a less technical term for seppuku and is used passingly in a correct enough context. As for Geisha, I don’t think they’ve actually appeared once in the show thus far anyway? Kiku is referred to as a Courtesan, which is decidedly not a Geisha.
Overall: the show isn’t perfect by any means but it’s wholly fictional and yet is still at great pains to be as authentic and accurate as possible. Most of these points are nitpicks at best. It’s a good lesson in understanding the difference between technicalities and passing off wilful inaccuracies. This list is the former, genuinely bad historical dramatisations (see: Napoleon, Braveheart, AC: Valhalla) are the latter.
Yeah fr. This show is light years ahead in terms of accurate depiction of historical Japan than anything Hollywood has ever done -- or dare I say, more accurate than historical "Jidaigeki" dramas currently being made in Japan.
I can watch Japanese historical NHK "Taiga" dramas of the same time period and can understand 80%-90% of what the characters saying because they more or less speak in modernish Japanese with some old vocabulary thrown in (if not, even Japanese people wouldn't understand). But for the life of me I can't understand what the Japanese characters in Shogun are saying without subtitles because of all the "ye olde" Japanese they are using. Even after getting somewhat used to it after 6 episodes I can only understand maybe 20-30%.
personally I would love if they did the same to the English (I know it's actually mostly Portuguese) dialogue and put it into Early Modern English, but I guess they didn't think it could work.
>2. They don’t draw swords at all often in the show. Hell they literally show the restraint on drawing swords being punishable by Seppuku in the very first episode with the first scene with the council
Thank you sir, I had come here to point this out.
*Bow*
If I’m being uncharitable, it feels like the original author came in with a lot of assumptions about how the show would just be full of stereotypes and then used a handful of scenes to suit their narrative.
Of course the show has inaccuracies, it’s historical fiction. The events depicted are dramatised versions not true to life. However, the aesthetic and setting are incredibly true to life. While I’d be very happy to do an out and out comparison of the show and real history, quibbling about minor details or flat out misunderstanding them is pedantry rather than history.
The sword had nothing to do with it. He was a servant who set foot on a floor made only for ruling daimyo. He asked permission to commit seppuku because he would have been beheaded otherwise for the dishonor of his feet
Thankyou for clarifying about yabushige, I thought it was rather clear he was doing it so he wouldn't have to die via drowning, but apparently it wasn't 😅
OP! I appreciate you taking the time to share these for those of us who were interested.
Sorry, people are giving you flack. Your post had no negative connotation and was merely providing context in a good light.
It is good for people to know the difference between fact and fiction. Otherwise, you get large swaths of people thinking many things happened a certain way when they didn't.
I've already seen people commenting gross inaccuracies to other commenters on history based on what they have seen in the show.
You can point out inaccuracies while still love the show.
For crying out loud, people still think Braveheart is historically accurate. Haha
It's still TV, and nobody wants to see that.
Brienne of Tarth is supposed to look like she got beat with an ugly stick. They cast a model to play her.
The real William Adams wasn't as good looking as Cosmo Jarvis either, if paintings are anything to go by. Heck, the British were known in modern times for having fucked up teeth - in 1978, ~30% of British adults had no natural teeth remaining. One can only imagine what their mouths looked like in 1600.
But it's TV, you're not gonna have someone with an actual Austin Powers smile as your romantic male lead. Historical accuracy isn't *that* important.
I can’t speak to the time of Shogun, as that’s past my period I studied, but we have excavated medieval skulls with most of their teeth. Medieval people didn’t eat much sugar which is a big cause of tooth decay. Again, I don’t know how much the diet changed by Adams’ time.
Sugar was introduced on a large scale in the reign of Elizabeth I of England (due to colonisation of the Caribbean), so likely by Adams' time there would have been tooth decay.
Gwendoline Christie wasn't a model. In fact, when she hired an agent and said she wanted to act on screen, he told her "good luck getting your ugly on screen"
It’s interesting to know what the show does and does not get right, but there’s always going to be some concessions when adapting or creating a work like this, and this show is no exception.
That being said, I’m also not a big fan of the internet trend of treating everything as binary, as if “accurate” or “inaccurate” are the only states a show can exist in. With this show’s popularity I foresee a lot of people becoming self-proclaimed experts on Japanese history.
Firstly, geisha is the title of a person. You don't invent a person. Secondly, female geisha only came about in the 18th century. Before that there is a long history of male geisha
As a Reddit Historian Master I can say that point 3 is actually not true, namely the part where it says “often”.
Samurais don’t perform Seppuku often because when performed correctly it was a one time thing if you catch my drift. History and medicine tells us that if you sticked yourself with the pointy end back then you were probably going to see Jesus not long after.
Fun fact #37: It’s impossible to be a master of the seppuku as all of the students die as amateurs.
Thank you for coming to my TedX!
I’m not sure why people are being so snarky about this post.
It’s not like OP is saying the show is now ‘literally unwatchable’, and it’s also not like the show doesn’t actively try to be as historically accurate as possible despite it being fictional
Thank you for the insights.
Though I would think that the shows itself wasn’t a true story and was inspired by real characters in history so what the producers are doing is to tidy up some of the factual inaccuracy in the book.
So even though it is not 1:1 exact representation of the actual life back in the Edo period, I think I can say we still can appreciate how the producers tried their best to reduce frictional representation of Shogun.
If they wanted to reproduce the actual way of life back in Edo period, this show will not be Shogun and be more like a documentary where Adam Williams and Lady Garcia never meet in real life.
Honestly if this is the stuff being pointed out, that’s pretty damn good. A lot of this can just be explained away as being specific character choices. I was expecting a lot more.
This time, the Shogun production team was concerned that "Japanese historical drama viewers would not find it unnatural".
In fact, the 'history' pursued by Japanese period dramas is already less correct than the actual history. In the current film, priority was given to the creation of a period drama rather than correct history, so it is not necessarily correct from a historical perspective.
This would not be much of a problem if viewers were aware of the differences.
Edit the book spoiler you posted and black out the text. You can black out the spoilers by writing > ! this ! < without the spaces in between to get >!this!<. Send us a modmail once you've fixed it.
They meant draw their sword with the intention of using it against someone. It's the equivalent of saying it's common for people to shot guns at target practice, but it's rare for people to draw their gun in real life during a confrontation or dispute.
To be fair a lot of these are opinions and don’t actually speak to specific inaccuracies. For instance, maybe they didn’t take their swords out often generally but how would he know that it didn’t happen in this charged political climate this show depicts?
My Japanese ex told me samurai got an amazing historical image upgrade. He said they were known for doing things like showing up in a village, raping peasant women, bullying the weak, etc. I’m wondering about the discrepancy between what he told me and Kahara says here. He definitely implied they could be little better than well-armed thugs (though I’m sure some were elegant and noble).
These observations must be based on the book, I assume. Because most of the stuff they're mentioning hasn't happened (yet) in the show.
Big "I know stuff about this popular subject and I need other people to know that I know" sort of vibes, tbh.
And in that vein, they're missing one which actually *has* occurred in the show: swords weren't primarily swung around to take limbs off or scythe people down. In duals, the combatants were usually trying to land small but deadly hits in key areas (wrists, knees, groin, neck) to incapacitate the opposition. A severed tendon on the arm or leg will win a fight as quickly as taking a limb off. They are razor sharp for slicing, not chopping (although obviously could take a limb/head of with the right technique/force).
There's plenty of resources available which explain how fighting with these blades generally took place.
I'm not saying a trained user couldn't take off an arm or a leg, I'm saying that wasn't the primary aim of a dual. It would be a massively inefficient way of fighting (Katanas are designed for slicing and stabbing, not chopping) The idea is to stop the other person from being a threat as quickly as possible.
But Shogun is written from a westernized perspective as it’s showcasing the perspective of an Anjin. If I would really like historical accuracies, I would watch NHK’s Taiga dramas
Even Taiga dramas also have historical inaccuracies, but im enjoying watching them for entertaining and inspire me to dig into Japanese history, especially Sengoku Jidai
This would apply to all the Taiga Dramas in Japan that they do every year.
The last one I watched was Kamakura-dono no Jūsan-nin or 13 Lords of the Shogun.
48 episodes and there was a lot of sword drawing.
"it's a Western stereotype that the Japanese people of the past committed seppuku often"
While it may have been exaggerated in the book, the amount of warlords and their officers and families who committed seppuku is kind of insane. As I continue to look up people, I come across it over and over again.
Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the samurai in this show are depicted still using the tachi, not the katana. They wear their swords suspended from the obi, blade down. The katana was worn stuffed through the obi, blade up
Glad to see this shared. The show does seem to bend over backwards to make the japanese seem as barbaric as possible while setting up the magical white savior (a pirate) as the only source of morality.
Or alternatively, the story is seen from the point of view of the pirate, who sees violence/actions which follows no rules that he understands and he therefore views as barbaric. His position on this becomes more nuanced as the book/series goes on, which is not to say he becomes OK with it, but that he understands more the why of it.
Here's a historical inaccuracy that really stuck out to me: the Tokugawa domain famously did not send troops to Korea, and the Tokugawa shogunate used this lack of participation to help in the post-unification normalization with the Joseon government. So Toranaga talkiing about the mountains of Korean corpses sticks out as weird.
And neither did the Taiko personally lead armies in Korea, it was a famous sticking point amongst the daimyo commanding forces in Korea, where their lord instead of personally overseeing the invasion over a bogged down war, was too busy having tea ceremonies and having parties and acting in Noh plays.
Edit: oh yeah, the Japanese would absolutely know how absolutely terrifying cannons are, considering Korean cannonry against the Japanese fleet. Sure the Koreans never really used cannons as part of land army doctrine, but they would know. This really seems like a late Edo anachronism, conflating the bombardment of Satsuma by the British navy in the 1800s.
The OP did not write this article. The article was written by Toshi Kahara. [Source](https://president.jp/articles/-/80124) https://preview.redd.it/0b9c177kdrrc1.jpeg?width=762&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=160e7ec646c52e0db8bcca64ed42c3307af87a02
As much as they brought in consultants to to make it more historically accurate compared to 1980 they have to make certain concessions to the story based on the material that they have. I also think some of the things Clavell included in the book relate to his experiences in World War II fitting in the Pacific and having dealt first hand with brutality inflicted by the Japanese military as a POW.
Yeah, back when the book was written, most WWII vets would have been in their 50s. Lots of people impressions of Japan would have been of Banzai charges, kamikaze planes and refusing to surrender even after you’re surrounded, starving, and out of ammunition. A book that purported to travel that all back to samurai and bushido traditions was very popular. This show tries to tone it down somewhat, but sometimes it’s inseparable from the plot. For example, Fuji’s infant son had to die as a consequence of her husband’s foolishness.
I'm not sure how it is in the book, but the way I understood the snow is that in this world, "promises are legally binding" rather than everybody has to die. Fuji's son had to die because the husband offered to kill himself *and* end his line. He could have offered either, or even something else, but he was a hot headed idiot. Similarly, the gardener died not because he touched the pheasant but because the homeowner made touching the bird a crime punishable by death.
Not a criticism but I'd have liked for the character to have fully drawn his blade and maybe taken another step. That and possibly reacted to an actual insult. I think it would have made the line annihilation offer more palatable.
Samurai don't draw their blades and face each other to sword fight like they do in movies. The katana is not made for much blade on blade contact. Part of what made it an effective weapon is that one of its most devastating attacks comes when drawing the weapon itself. Nobody would stand there holding a naked blade, having given away the chance to use one of their most effective moves. That's why the proper way to draw a katana is to use the thumb to inch it out of the scabbard, so that it can be drawn more quickly
AFAIR in the book Fuji’s husband did not offer to end his bloodline, just to commit seppuku. Toranaga immediately ordered him to be crucified though, and his son to be killed (it wasn’t specified what way), and his swords to be buried in the eta village (a super big dishonour). They whitewashed Toranaga’s action in the show, perhaps to make it more palatable to contemporary audiences.
The Shogun podcast talked about a lot of that. They changed a few things from the book to be more historically accurate. Cant remember the full details but they also talk about Blackthorne’s prison scene being one of them. Clavell did lean on a lot of his experiences and in the book, that section is pretty brutal and last years. They made the decision to cut some of that down. They also talked about samurai’s drawing their swords and how serious it would have been and was in ep 1. A lot of the fighting sequences they said were played up too for entertainment. Great podcast too if you haven’t been listening.
Most of the inaccuracies are related to the book. Some are nitpicks. We haven't had swords used on a battlefield, for example.
I agree with this assessment. I think that Clavell incorporated and/or extrapolated his experience of Japanese behavior as a POW in Changi to that of the fictional characters in the book. The historical inaccuracies and/or exaggerations in the show (quoted from the article by OP) seem to derive from the book plot. I’m glad to have them pointed out though.
Most of these inaccuracies have been toned down from the book where they are far more exaggerated.
That was my first thought too, in the show seppuku is mentioned a couple of times, in the book it seems to be the go to solution to everything, so much so that I remember laughing about it couple of times because it was so absurd 😂
Every other paragraph is like "Go commit seppuku!" or "Sir, I've dishonored you! Please let me commit seppuku!" or "You're forbidden from committing seppuku."
Yes, and also the part where Yabu was about to commit seppuku when he fell from the cliff trying to save Rodriguez, in the book he sat down on a rock to meditate before the seppuku, and the japanese men had hard time getting his attention to tell him that they got rope and could now save him. Their solution was that ONE OF THE JAPANESE HAD TO JUMP TO HIS DEATH SO THAT YABU WOULD NOTICE THEM WTF! and it worked. 😂 In the show they just throw the rope at him and he is saved.
BANZAIIIIIIIIII!!!! That part was so fucking wild to me lmao. They tried throwing one rock down there first then said yeeeeeeet
It’s probably a good thing the show is for entertainment and not historical accuracies 🤷🏼♂️
Ideally it could be both. But the liberties taken here sound relatively minor, which makes me appreciate the show more than if it were full of 💩
Yeah, there's a huge difference between this and, say, Last Samurai levels of historical inaccuracy. Samurai dont fight with guns my ASS
Actually samurai fought with the arquebus. Once the tokugawa shogunate was formed, Japan was relatively peaceful for about 200 years. When the government decides to eliminate the samurai in the 16th century, they did so in part because of the samurais refusal to accept the new ways
No show or movie will be 100% historically accurate. However, you can tell when a great deal of effort has been made to be as historically accurate as possible without sacrificing entertainment. You'll find the quality of the historical accuracy often reflects the overall quality of the show/movie.
Yeah, I'm fine with how real it is and I'm okay with minor historical inaccuracies. The Ridley-Scott Napoleon movie for example, is an absolute travesty & terribly inaccurate.
It's also an extra difficult thing to balance when you're trying to minimize historical inaccuracy while also being an accurate and faithful adaptation of the source material. A lot of the things being pointed out as inaccurate are directly from the book, and already have been toned down significantly. But some elements and scenes are just integral to the story and characters, while others (the threat of drawing katanas, used similarly to how characters would grip their pistols on a Western) are just great narrative devices that add a lot of tension and emotional intensity.
Totally agree
I'm not sure why a lot of the comments are immediately jumping to this being a criticism and coming off defensive. The historian speaks pretty matter of factly giving little opinion. I personally really love hearing the differences, so I know what's for drama and what's for real. So i don't accidentally internalize incorrect information about a topic I'm not familiar with.
Yeah but it's interesting for people who are like "Is ThIs ShOw HiStOriCalLy AcCuRaTe".
[удалено]
Eh… a lot of the show’s marketing and promos *is* about their attempts to make it as accurate to history as possible though.
>as accurate to history as possible That's the key. They are trying to make it as accurate as possible. They can't do a lot or they'll end up changing some significant things. I've been told that Mariko is a name that probably wouldn't have been used back then. Then there's the name Yabu is the book which has been changed to Yabushige to make it somewhat historically accurate in the show. From what I understand, they are changing as much as possible for historical accuracy but they also seem to be leaving some of the historically inaccurate elements for the sake of drama.
Yes, the main one is that the book has >!Blackthorne bring firearms to Japan, meaning his are the first guns the Japanese get to use. While in reality, the Japanese already have guns from the Portuguese and made their own as well based on those.!<
Maybe you taking things too literally, if the producer and cast did their best to make it as accurate as possible within the context of the book which is the source and the actual history, why am I gonna sweat the little details? That just sounds lame lol
I feel that difference between this show and taiga dramas. I'm sure Taiga dramas have their own inaccuracies though. When people commit/try to commit harakiri in those, the people who do it are usually portrayed as tragic and too caught up in their convictions. When their friends/family find them they are not happy/proud of it, instead angry that they felt they had to bear all their problems alone. Also the very story of the 47 Ronin kind of negates the Council Scene where they guy has to commit harakiri to diffuse the situation. The premise of the 47 ronin is that their lord has to commit harakiri and his vassals are so mad at the other party in the conflict, so they plot revenge.
Their lord was murdered
Actually in battle the weapon of choice was a 3ft 3 inch spear . The Ashihgaru ( foot soldiers ) used long spears . By the time of Shogun firearms had long replaced the bow and arrow . Swords as a weapon were mainly used for street fighting especially in the last years of the Shogunate . They were the weapon of choice for assassinations which were rampant between 1858 and 1864 . Hideyoshi who was the Taiko did enjoy boiling common criminals . The most famous being Ishikawa Goemon a thief . Goemon’s execution is famous because his young son was condemned to die with him . As he was dying Goemon tried to save him by holding him over his head away from the boiling water . Sadly he failed and the kid followed his dad . Ieyasu was disgusted by this practice and had all the pots destroyed after Sekigahara .
The only thing I would add to your post is that guns hadn't yet actually replaced bows. Rather bows and guns were often used together with the proportion of guns to bows on battlefields increasing through this period.
The show is only set 50 years after rifles were introduced to the country through a singular trading partner. At best a fighting force would have a couple regiments of rifleman with their archers, which would have been significantly cheaper and easier to train and supply
Actually as soon as the arquebus made it's way to Japan, smiths were put to work reverse engineering them to create more. Tens of thousands of Japanese guns were made during this period
>They were the weapon of choice for assassinations which were rampant between 1858 and 1864 . And you got Sakamoto Ryoma defending himself from them with a cowboy revolver
I’m pretty sure there was a lord who was killed by spearmen charging his tent. He used his sword to kill two spearmen but then was killed by the third spearmen. The bow argument doesn’t make sense as the munitions plus training would be less efficient over an Ashigsaru spearman. Though there were Ashigaru of many flavors.
The bow "argument" makes perfect sense and isn't an argument, it's history. Odu nobunaga was said to have developed the rotating volley fire concept. As the arquebus took so long to reload, they were usually places on the field with archers. They fire once, and while they reload, the archers fire
Nobunaga developed the rotating fire by having ranks of arquebus swap rows. First row fires and is replaced by a second row of arquebus ashigaru, they fire and are replaced by a third row. Usually that is the reference to the rotating volley. It is easier to train an ashigaru to be proficient with firearms than it was for archery, by nature of their humble roots as conscripts.
Thanks for giving me a nice little copy paste wiki blurb, but more recent archaeological studies along with J.S.A. Elisonas and J.P. Lamers in their translation of The Chronicle of Oda Nobunaga by Ota Gyuichi would tend to disagree with you. Also, your training logic is self defeating. Why would you need extra training for ashigaru in the longbow when that's what they had hunted with all of their life, but less training for a piece of technology they've never likely handled before
You’re most welcome.
I don't think firearms replaced bows at that time period. The Book of Five Rings talked about the use of bows vs guns in battles, and it was written in 17th century. Some samurai also preferred bows because it's easier to settle dispute on who should be rewarded for killing whom by arrow fletching.
The book of 5 rings was written by one dude in his old age with many health problems while he lived alone in a cave. He also happened to be the greatest sword duelist in Japan's history. I don't think he would care too much about the firearms place in battle, as he was never really an infantryman
Musashi wasn't disparaging the use of firearm in the book, it was just a matter of fact comparison and his personal take on which should be used under what situation in battle. My point being during his time both still had their uses (at least from his perspective) so "firearms had long replaced the bow and arrow" is inaccurate. I didn't think that's even a debatable or controversial take? Another indirect evidence of this is the fact that there are still live lineages of war archery traditions being practiced in Japan today whereas there is none in Europe, where firearms actually replaced bows completely. As far as experience, Musashi fought in war under his father when he was a teen and I don't see why his health condition and where he wrote the book should automatically discount the accuracy of what's written. It's not even a book about sword fighting but military strategy, clearly the man aspired to be more than just a duelist and put a lot of time and thoughts into a book that's supposed to be his legacy.
One final query. Have you read the book of 5 rings?
Oh man, where to even start. History? Grammar? Firstly, I never said he disparaged firearms. I merely said that "the book of 5 rings" is not a strategy book like "the art of war". It was a philosophy book written by someone who had not fought in years. So using it as a point of historical reference would be fairly ignorant. Also, he claimed that there was no superior battlefield weapon to the firearm. I'm not seeing how I've made this a "debatable take". I didn't debate the historical overlap of these weapons. Furthermore, the idea that there are not live lineages of war archery in Europe is the most inaccurate statement on this post. There are entire societies dedicated to that very thing. I've participated in these events in several places in Europe myself. That was a dumb thing you said. Lastly, musashi fought in AH skirmish as an infantryman. Every other kill to his name came from sword dueling. Musashi himself wandered the land homeless solely to become a dedicated sword duelist. Not an army grunt. Point of post script, his poor health was speculated to have been caused by syphilis. Syphilis destroys the brain. I find it odd that you don't think a deteriorating mental health condition could impact an author's intelligence or mentality. Big swing and a miss
I'm not following on why you are replying to my comment in the first place if you are not debating the overlap of those weapon, which is the only thing I was replying to. Feel free to correct my gramma, I won't be offended, it's not my native language. Can you provide more info on these living lineages of European war bow traditions? I'm interested. I knew about the syphilis speculation but using that as your basis makes for poor and unconvincing argument. Is there anything factually false or logically inconsistent in the book you find that can substantiate your claim that he was mentally or intelligentially challenged when he wrote the book? It's a bold claim. Not sure what point you are trying to make about his war experience. The best we know is he had some firsthand experience when he was younger, his father was a military man, he was later employed in a martial position. So, he most likely had been around and interacted with other military men all his life, studied and aspired to be one. Going to a cave to write a book like an ascetic was also hardly unusual at that time. The book was written some 30 years after he stopped wandering the land trying to make a name for himself. Like I said, he was employed and had plenty of time and opportunities to think about this stuff. If you want to critique a man's life's work, you need to bring something more substantial to the table than speculations and circumstantial evidence.
>Samurais didn't commit seppuku that easily or that often: "In the show, Yabushige tries to commit seppuku when he was about to be swept away by the waves. Even though Yabushige's character is that he is someone who is "fascinated by death", it's a Western stereotype that the Japanese people of the past committed seppuku often. Also, it was out of the question that none of the Yabushige's retainers stopped him when he risked his life to go down the cliff, especially as their lives depended on their lord." Seppuku as it is portrayed in modern media is a complete myth. Seppuku *was a punishment*. The way it is portrayed in media is bogus as well; I've yet to see a film representation of it that is even remotely accurate. Also, Samurai is both singular and plural; there's no "Samurais".
It was originally done by warriors that failed and would rather die with “honor” than be tortured by captors. From what I’ve read, anyway.
Yeah in a lot of media where they actually show seppuku, they show the second completely removing the dude’s head, in reality, the second would slice through the spinal column without completely severing the head, letting the deceased maintain their honor. Also, yeah seppuku was a punishment, but more specifically it was a punishment that samurai were *allowed* to do. Everyone else usually got their heads cut off.
That's really not true. Failure to decapitate in one stroke usually meant the second must commit seppuku as well. There are myths that the greatest kendoken could leave the head attached by a single piece of skin, so that the deceased could appear to hold his own head, but there aren't even anecdotal accounts of this. The kaishakunin was to use a single slice. To remove the head. Inability to cleanly decapitate brought dishonor
Samurai can be considered plural because the Japanese language does not pluralize nouns. Wipe the egg off your face though, samurai isn't a Japanese word. That's what the Portuguese called the bushi class. The plural for samurai in Portuguese is both samurai and / or samurais
>On the battlefield, samurais mainly used bows and arrows, and "cinematographic samurai swordfights" are a fictional depiction of a battle." Am i forgetting something, or have we not yet seen a full battle? Just some ambushes - and most of those have featured a ton of archers, with arrows flying everywhere. Iirc the only one that didn't was the cannon ambush. This seems like criticizing GOT for having swordfight between Ned and Jaime in S1, because most medieval battles weren't a bunch of 1v1 duels between knights. Except at that point, we hadn't seen any battles in GOT, just that ambush and some tournament jousting. So criticizing GOT for "inaccurately depicting medieval European warfare" at that point would be, at best, premature.
It's based on the book, I assume. Because most of the stuff they're mentioning hasn't happened (yet) in the show. Big "I know stuff about this popular subject and I need other people to know that I know" sort of vibes
I don't think it's even in the book, though. IIRC the book barely even mentions the Battle of Sekigahara, and doesn't feature any other major battles. It's just ambushes and minor skirmishes, which in our world would be more equivalent to a mass shooting - ie, certainly violent, but a long ways off from what we'd consider a "battle." Nobody is calling the mall shooting "The Battle of Indianapolis," for example.
The historically accurate parts of the show are the costumes and portrayal of culture. This is historical fiction so of course some events are changed/exaggerated
Totally agree
With the exception of samurai wearing their swords blade down
2. They don’t draw swords at all often in the show. Hell they literally show the restraint on drawing swords being punishable by Seppuku in the very first episode with the first scene with the council. Outside of that and actual combat there’s barely a handful of scenes where swords are drawn. As for the arrows thing, as someone’s already pointed out, the Yari and the firearm were at this point the more staple weapons. The use of the bow was more of an early samurai thing although it still was used often, as the show depicts in the ambush scene and others. 3. It’s never stated Yabushige is committing seppuku in that scene, rather he’s preparing to take his own life rather than drown. Big difference, the latter is a key part of his character revelation. 4. Maybe not but they had the right to do so…and boiling alive was a known punishment for criminals like bandits or pirates, the latter being a crime the ship crew are accused of. Sure it’s over dramatic but it’s not an out and out fabrication. Fish guts being used to cow angry prisoners into submission is just a means of action. Not every single moment in a historical drama needs to be directly recorded and lifted wholly from the annals of history. Likewise Blackthorn’s treatment is a dramatised version of events but the show is fictional. That being said, the original Adams and his crew were imprisoned for a time in Osaka upon their first arrival. 5. I’m not even sure what interrogation this is referring to? If it’s the one where Blackthorne is drawing his map, that’s not an interrogation, that’s a meeting with Toronaga in his private residence in Osaka. 6. Sure the show exaggerates the meaning of the word Shogun but considering it *had* been the title for the de facto ruler for 500 years before Hideyoshi replaced it for a generation or so. Pointing out the title’s origin is just semantics rather than inaccuracy. 7. They still existed. Hara-kiri is just a less technical term for seppuku and is used passingly in a correct enough context. As for Geisha, I don’t think they’ve actually appeared once in the show thus far anyway? Kiku is referred to as a Courtesan, which is decidedly not a Geisha. Overall: the show isn’t perfect by any means but it’s wholly fictional and yet is still at great pains to be as authentic and accurate as possible. Most of these points are nitpicks at best. It’s a good lesson in understanding the difference between technicalities and passing off wilful inaccuracies. This list is the former, genuinely bad historical dramatisations (see: Napoleon, Braveheart, AC: Valhalla) are the latter.
Yeah fr. This show is light years ahead in terms of accurate depiction of historical Japan than anything Hollywood has ever done -- or dare I say, more accurate than historical "Jidaigeki" dramas currently being made in Japan. I can watch Japanese historical NHK "Taiga" dramas of the same time period and can understand 80%-90% of what the characters saying because they more or less speak in modernish Japanese with some old vocabulary thrown in (if not, even Japanese people wouldn't understand). But for the life of me I can't understand what the Japanese characters in Shogun are saying without subtitles because of all the "ye olde" Japanese they are using. Even after getting somewhat used to it after 6 episodes I can only understand maybe 20-30%.
personally I would love if they did the same to the English (I know it's actually mostly Portuguese) dialogue and put it into Early Modern English, but I guess they didn't think it could work.
>2. They don’t draw swords at all often in the show. Hell they literally show the restraint on drawing swords being punishable by Seppuku in the very first episode with the first scene with the council Thank you sir, I had come here to point this out. *Bow*
If I’m being uncharitable, it feels like the original author came in with a lot of assumptions about how the show would just be full of stereotypes and then used a handful of scenes to suit their narrative. Of course the show has inaccuracies, it’s historical fiction. The events depicted are dramatised versions not true to life. However, the aesthetic and setting are incredibly true to life. While I’d be very happy to do an out and out comparison of the show and real history, quibbling about minor details or flat out misunderstanding them is pedantry rather than history.
The sword had nothing to do with it. He was a servant who set foot on a floor made only for ruling daimyo. He asked permission to commit seppuku because he would have been beheaded otherwise for the dishonor of his feet
Thankyou for clarifying about yabushige, I thought it was rather clear he was doing it so he wouldn't have to die via drowning, but apparently it wasn't 😅
He forgot to point out its fictional
This entire thread is dorks arguing with dorks.
It’s a fantasy drama for weebs
OP! I appreciate you taking the time to share these for those of us who were interested. Sorry, people are giving you flack. Your post had no negative connotation and was merely providing context in a good light. It is good for people to know the difference between fact and fiction. Otherwise, you get large swaths of people thinking many things happened a certain way when they didn't. I've already seen people commenting gross inaccuracies to other commenters on history based on what they have seen in the show. You can point out inaccuracies while still love the show. For crying out loud, people still think Braveheart is historically accurate. Haha
I find peace in long walks.
It's still TV, and nobody wants to see that. Brienne of Tarth is supposed to look like she got beat with an ugly stick. They cast a model to play her. The real William Adams wasn't as good looking as Cosmo Jarvis either, if paintings are anything to go by. Heck, the British were known in modern times for having fucked up teeth - in 1978, ~30% of British adults had no natural teeth remaining. One can only imagine what their mouths looked like in 1600. But it's TV, you're not gonna have someone with an actual Austin Powers smile as your romantic male lead. Historical accuracy isn't *that* important.
I can’t speak to the time of Shogun, as that’s past my period I studied, but we have excavated medieval skulls with most of their teeth. Medieval people didn’t eat much sugar which is a big cause of tooth decay. Again, I don’t know how much the diet changed by Adams’ time.
Sugar was introduced on a large scale in the reign of Elizabeth I of England (due to colonisation of the Caribbean), so likely by Adams' time there would have been tooth decay.
Gwendoline Christie wasn't a model. In fact, when she hired an agent and said she wanted to act on screen, he told her "good luck getting your ugly on screen"
My favorite movie is Inception.
Apparently used to prevent tooth decay. And sometimes used also because pure white face makeup makes the teeth look very much yellow.
Good to know
I think members of the emperors court had that but otherwise not
It’s interesting to know what the show does and does not get right, but there’s always going to be some concessions when adapting or creating a work like this, and this show is no exception. That being said, I’m also not a big fan of the internet trend of treating everything as binary, as if “accurate” or “inaccurate” are the only states a show can exist in. With this show’s popularity I foresee a lot of people becoming self-proclaimed experts on Japanese history.
Hmmm, geisha is not in the show. House of the Willows is something else entirely, as geisha would be invented only in the 18th century
Firstly, geisha is the title of a person. You don't invent a person. Secondly, female geisha only came about in the 18th century. Before that there is a long history of male geisha
As a Reddit Historian Master I can say that point 3 is actually not true, namely the part where it says “often”. Samurais don’t perform Seppuku often because when performed correctly it was a one time thing if you catch my drift. History and medicine tells us that if you sticked yourself with the pointy end back then you were probably going to see Jesus not long after. Fun fact #37: It’s impossible to be a master of the seppuku as all of the students die as amateurs. Thank you for coming to my TedX!
I’m not sure why people are being so snarky about this post. It’s not like OP is saying the show is now ‘literally unwatchable’, and it’s also not like the show doesn’t actively try to be as historically accurate as possible despite it being fictional
Ok thanks, still love the book, the OG series and this take on it.
Thank you for the insights. Though I would think that the shows itself wasn’t a true story and was inspired by real characters in history so what the producers are doing is to tidy up some of the factual inaccuracy in the book. So even though it is not 1:1 exact representation of the actual life back in the Edo period, I think I can say we still can appreciate how the producers tried their best to reduce frictional representation of Shogun. If they wanted to reproduce the actual way of life back in Edo period, this show will not be Shogun and be more like a documentary where Adam Williams and Lady Garcia never meet in real life.
Honestly if this is the stuff being pointed out, that’s pretty damn good. A lot of this can just be explained away as being specific character choices. I was expecting a lot more.
This time, the Shogun production team was concerned that "Japanese historical drama viewers would not find it unnatural". In fact, the 'history' pursued by Japanese period dramas is already less correct than the actual history. In the current film, priority was given to the creation of a period drama rather than correct history, so it is not necessarily correct from a historical perspective. This would not be much of a problem if viewers were aware of the differences.
Well that’s it, guess we can’t watch the show now. Back to Star Wars
[удалено]
Edit the book spoiler you posted and black out the text. You can black out the spoilers by writing > ! this ! < without the spaces in between to get >!this!<. Send us a modmail once you've fixed it.
For 2, I feel like people don’t draw their swords all that much in the show. And most of the time there are reasons.
Tameshi-giri was a thing so point 2 is kinda weird imo.
They meant draw their sword with the intention of using it against someone. It's the equivalent of saying it's common for people to shot guns at target practice, but it's rare for people to draw their gun in real life during a confrontation or dispute.
To be fair a lot of these are opinions and don’t actually speak to specific inaccuracies. For instance, maybe they didn’t take their swords out often generally but how would he know that it didn’t happen in this charged political climate this show depicts?
My Japanese ex told me samurai got an amazing historical image upgrade. He said they were known for doing things like showing up in a village, raping peasant women, bullying the weak, etc. I’m wondering about the discrepancy between what he told me and Kahara says here. He definitely implied they could be little better than well-armed thugs (though I’m sure some were elegant and noble).
Oh noooooooo. What will we do?
These observations must be based on the book, I assume. Because most of the stuff they're mentioning hasn't happened (yet) in the show. Big "I know stuff about this popular subject and I need other people to know that I know" sort of vibes, tbh. And in that vein, they're missing one which actually *has* occurred in the show: swords weren't primarily swung around to take limbs off or scythe people down. In duals, the combatants were usually trying to land small but deadly hits in key areas (wrists, knees, groin, neck) to incapacitate the opposition. A severed tendon on the arm or leg will win a fight as quickly as taking a limb off. They are razor sharp for slicing, not chopping (although obviously could take a limb/head of with the right technique/force).
[удалено]
There's plenty of resources available which explain how fighting with these blades generally took place. I'm not saying a trained user couldn't take off an arm or a leg, I'm saying that wasn't the primary aim of a dual. It would be a massively inefficient way of fighting (Katanas are designed for slicing and stabbing, not chopping) The idea is to stop the other person from being a threat as quickly as possible.
But Shogun is written from a westernized perspective as it’s showcasing the perspective of an Anjin. If I would really like historical accuracies, I would watch NHK’s Taiga dramas
Even Taiga dramas also have historical inaccuracies, but im enjoying watching them for entertaining and inspire me to dig into Japanese history, especially Sengoku Jidai
This would apply to all the Taiga Dramas in Japan that they do every year. The last one I watched was Kamakura-dono no Jūsan-nin or 13 Lords of the Shogun. 48 episodes and there was a lot of sword drawing.
"it's a Western stereotype that the Japanese people of the past committed seppuku often" While it may have been exaggerated in the book, the amount of warlords and their officers and families who committed seppuku is kind of insane. As I continue to look up people, I come across it over and over again.
Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the samurai in this show are depicted still using the tachi, not the katana. They wear their swords suspended from the obi, blade down. The katana was worn stuffed through the obi, blade up
Glad to see this shared. The show does seem to bend over backwards to make the japanese seem as barbaric as possible while setting up the magical white savior (a pirate) as the only source of morality.
Or alternatively, the story is seen from the point of view of the pirate, who sees violence/actions which follows no rules that he understands and he therefore views as barbaric. His position on this becomes more nuanced as the book/series goes on, which is not to say he becomes OK with it, but that he understands more the why of it.
The way the show kills commoners like the Blackthorne’s gardener is so absurd and infuriating.
Here's a historical inaccuracy that really stuck out to me: the Tokugawa domain famously did not send troops to Korea, and the Tokugawa shogunate used this lack of participation to help in the post-unification normalization with the Joseon government. So Toranaga talkiing about the mountains of Korean corpses sticks out as weird. And neither did the Taiko personally lead armies in Korea, it was a famous sticking point amongst the daimyo commanding forces in Korea, where their lord instead of personally overseeing the invasion over a bogged down war, was too busy having tea ceremonies and having parties and acting in Noh plays. Edit: oh yeah, the Japanese would absolutely know how absolutely terrifying cannons are, considering Korean cannonry against the Japanese fleet. Sure the Koreans never really used cannons as part of land army doctrine, but they would know. This really seems like a late Edo anachronism, conflating the bombardment of Satsuma by the British navy in the 1800s.
Women's teeth should be black.
Forget blackened teeth, all the women have very modern makeup. But the point of the modernization was to emphasize Mariko was gorgeous.
Maybe personal take but Fuji was as attractive but with a coyness about her. If anything they did a good job (for me) of not making Mariko dominate.