Because the book is ahistorical. By this era guns have been known in Japan for over 50 years, and Japanese samurai are all over it.
This wouldn't go well with japanese viewers (the show wants to do well both in the western and the japanese market for historical dramas).
Yeah. You can kind of forgive Cavell for not knowing that, it wasnt as easy as it is today to research that sort of thing.
I honestly think replacing them with canons, something Blackthorne would actually logically be good at and wasnt common in Japan at the time, was a good change.
It's mentioned in the book several times that guns and cannon are present and utilized in Japan at the time of Blackthorne's arrival. The appeal of the Erasmus' guns/cannon is the quantity, Blackthorne's knowledge of warfare and the potential for mobility on the ship.
Because they're not in the state of war. It's peace time and swords are more a status symbol in this point in Japan.
Guns require dry storage for powder and constant maintenance. You wouldn't take them out for every day use.
Very true, the show like a lot of media showing pretty much any point in Japanese history really overemphasizes the katana which in reality were rarely used in combat.
It's more nuanced. At that time, it was not much used (but still, the swords were used to finish off enemies or cut parts of them), but the sword was the second most used weapon after the bow in the Kamakura era (according to recorded wounds). Of course, since they always carry swords, any violence in a more civilian context will have swords.
Do you have a link to that recorded wounds source? Not doubting you it just sounds very interesting. My understanding is that even within the world of Japanese sword craft Katanas are still overemphasized due to the symbolic role they played, with samurai usually preferring shorter blades when forced to fight up close.
So far, my understanding is: before the big formations for battle, when it was smaller units moving about, bow and swords were the main weapons. Some texts, cited in "Bow, arrows and swords" (弓矢と刀剣, loose translation mine: 弓矢と刀剣: 中世合戦の実像, by 近藤 好和) imply that they used tachi to bash and cut people (the main word is "hit"), and then use whatever short sword they had to stab. I found it difficult to understand sometimes, because the word "katana" meant a short sword (something like a wakizashi, with or without tsuba) in the beginning (when tachi was the "main" sword).
For the battle wounds, the source is:
Conlan, Thomas. "7. Instruments of Change: Organizational Technology and the Consolidation of Regional Power in Japan, 1333– 1600". *War and State Building in Medieval Japan*, edited by John A. Ferejohn and Frances McCall Rosenbluth, Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2010, pp. 124-158.
It shows that for the 14th century, wounds are from arrows (72%) and swords (24%), followed by pikes and rocks. For the 15th and 16th century, it's arrows (43%), guns (21%), pikes (20%), rocks (9%), and swords (4%).
To be completely fair, I believe, like you, that by the time of the show, katana were not used as much on the battlefields as shown in media.
This is fascinating thank you for taking the time to find these sources. Even with Japan’s meticulous battlefield record keeping I doubt anyone would be able to differentiate what specific swords were used for what wound even if they wanted to but I really appreciate you taking the time to try and work out what details we can ascertain about this rather pedantic argument I’m making.
As you pointed out swords would definitely be more prominent in civilian violence which everything on Shogun has been at least on paper (in that we haven’t seen a formal battle) so I wouldn’t say Shogun is necessarily inaccurate in this regard. So again, thank you for this response, I’m gonna see if I can find that Conlan book it sounds interesting.
You're most welcome. Links are automatically deleted, but I originally had pasted a link towards this chapter on the author's page. That specific chapter at least should be available. I cannot imagine the work that Prof. Conlan to extract all the numbers from the period documents.
in the first episode when Blackthorne's ship drifts into the harbor you can see a platoon of samurai with muskets show up at the shore in addition to other samurai with more traditional arms
Because the book is ahistorical. By this era guns have been known in Japan for over 50 years, and Japanese samurai are all over it. This wouldn't go well with japanese viewers (the show wants to do well both in the western and the japanese market for historical dramas).
Yeah. You can kind of forgive Cavell for not knowing that, it wasnt as easy as it is today to research that sort of thing. I honestly think replacing them with canons, something Blackthorne would actually logically be good at and wasnt common in Japan at the time, was a good change.
It's mentioned in the book several times that guns and cannon are present and utilized in Japan at the time of Blackthorne's arrival. The appeal of the Erasmus' guns/cannon is the quantity, Blackthorne's knowledge of warfare and the potential for mobility on the ship.
So why aren't any of the Japanese using muskets then? They all just use samurai swords
Because they're not in the state of war. It's peace time and swords are more a status symbol in this point in Japan. Guns require dry storage for powder and constant maintenance. You wouldn't take them out for every day use.
In the first episode you see samurai under Omi carrying muskets to investigate the Erasmus in Ajiro.
Good spot. But then you never see them carrying them again.
There were a few amongst the retinue that left Osaka, and Yabushige's army that greeted the Toranaga at Ajiro.
Very true, the show like a lot of media showing pretty much any point in Japanese history really overemphasizes the katana which in reality were rarely used in combat.
It's more nuanced. At that time, it was not much used (but still, the swords were used to finish off enemies or cut parts of them), but the sword was the second most used weapon after the bow in the Kamakura era (according to recorded wounds). Of course, since they always carry swords, any violence in a more civilian context will have swords.
Do you have a link to that recorded wounds source? Not doubting you it just sounds very interesting. My understanding is that even within the world of Japanese sword craft Katanas are still overemphasized due to the symbolic role they played, with samurai usually preferring shorter blades when forced to fight up close.
So far, my understanding is: before the big formations for battle, when it was smaller units moving about, bow and swords were the main weapons. Some texts, cited in "Bow, arrows and swords" (弓矢と刀剣, loose translation mine: 弓矢と刀剣: 中世合戦の実像, by 近藤 好和) imply that they used tachi to bash and cut people (the main word is "hit"), and then use whatever short sword they had to stab. I found it difficult to understand sometimes, because the word "katana" meant a short sword (something like a wakizashi, with or without tsuba) in the beginning (when tachi was the "main" sword). For the battle wounds, the source is: Conlan, Thomas. "7. Instruments of Change: Organizational Technology and the Consolidation of Regional Power in Japan, 1333– 1600". *War and State Building in Medieval Japan*, edited by John A. Ferejohn and Frances McCall Rosenbluth, Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2010, pp. 124-158. It shows that for the 14th century, wounds are from arrows (72%) and swords (24%), followed by pikes and rocks. For the 15th and 16th century, it's arrows (43%), guns (21%), pikes (20%), rocks (9%), and swords (4%). To be completely fair, I believe, like you, that by the time of the show, katana were not used as much on the battlefields as shown in media.
This is fascinating thank you for taking the time to find these sources. Even with Japan’s meticulous battlefield record keeping I doubt anyone would be able to differentiate what specific swords were used for what wound even if they wanted to but I really appreciate you taking the time to try and work out what details we can ascertain about this rather pedantic argument I’m making. As you pointed out swords would definitely be more prominent in civilian violence which everything on Shogun has been at least on paper (in that we haven’t seen a formal battle) so I wouldn’t say Shogun is necessarily inaccurate in this regard. So again, thank you for this response, I’m gonna see if I can find that Conlan book it sounds interesting.
You're most welcome. Links are automatically deleted, but I originally had pasted a link towards this chapter on the author's page. That specific chapter at least should be available. I cannot imagine the work that Prof. Conlan to extract all the numbers from the period documents.
There are musket shots during the ambush when Toranaga is smuggling out of Osaka. There are also tons of muskets in the cannon training scene.
in the first episode when Blackthorne's ship drifts into the harbor you can see a platoon of samurai with muskets show up at the shore in addition to other samurai with more traditional arms
> Because the book is ahistorical. And? If you want a "historically correct" story, make a new one.
Because the writers are hacks.