estcrh

On one hand you have a paper that will only be seen by a small handful of academics, with no way to know what was actually said about it by those academics.....on the other hand you have a book that is widely available for the whole world to see and openly critique...humm.

This thread is about Noel Perrin's book and two forum members negative view of it, as of yet not one person has posted an accurate passage / quote / sentence from the book that they view as being historically incorrect, misleading, wrong etc. Still waiting............. if instead you want to discuss Daniele Lauro's paper I would be glad to do this, simply start a new thread on the subject.

Let me know when she writes a book and presents it to the world. Writing a thesis and presenting it to a group of academics is not easy for sure but writing a book that will be in the public view forever is a much larger step.

This paper while interesting and worth reading does not actually answer any questions unless I am missing something, the author takes known facts and proposes a theory, much in the same way that Perrin does in his book. The reader has to decide whether to believe it or not. One interesting statement that the author makes is that large caliber guns were not meant fur actual use, something I have not heard before, I am not sure how accurate this is.

Anyone who does not have a copy can read a large portion on it here. https://books.google.com/books?id=4Ete0zPAnjwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=giving+up+the+gun&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXp8-Kr-LLAhUDOSYKHaibANwQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=giving%20up%20the%20gun&f=false

Peter, I am discussing Perrins book, you brought up the subject first, how about quoting some passages or at least some statements from Perrins book that you disagree with or that you feel are not accurate / correct etc.

Mike, when the Japanese first saw matchlocks they had no problem recognizing their potential and they set about purchasing and then copying them, but according to Perrin, as early as 1636 the Dutch presented the Shogun with a dozen flintlock pistols and in 1643, samurai aboard a Dutch ship were shown a half dozen flintlock muskets which they were allowed to use and yet neither of these encounters (if historically accurate) led to the Japanese developing flintlocks, so how do you explain this. The Ottoman empire was well known for using massive amounts of matchlocks and they used matchlocks for quite a long period of time, eventually they switched to the more advanced flintlock and then to other more modern firearms, the Japanese had the exact same opportunity but did not embrace it.

In another thread "Giving up the gun" by Noel Perrin was mentioned. The quotes posted below made me think that a seperate thread on this book may be helpful. I have read this book several times, and quoted from it as well. For me this is a very important and well written book, taking into account that the author was not a student of Japanese history and that this book was published in 1979, well before the internet made researching so much easier for authors to track down references which are used to back up what they write. Before this book was written (especially when I was young) I can not remember any mention of samurai using guns, in writtings that I can remember reading and in illustrations I saw, samurai were depicted as wearing armor and fighting with swords and bows. Perrin's book brought a different perspective to the average person who had little access to historical documents and books. He included in his book illustrations of samurai and ashigaru actually using guns from period scrolls and books, something not seen before in any book that I am aware of from this time period. Since this book has been published I know of only a couple of other books on the subject of the introduction and use of matchlocks in Japan. Until the time that someone puts together all of the currently known information and writes a new book, this book is still one of the best references the average person can read. In relation to the quotes below, I do not believe that Perrin ever stated that the Japanese totally abandoned the use of guns, or that as a whole they detested guns. He does state that some individual samurai were not thrilled with using guns for warfare. He mentions that samurai liked to use guns for hunting. He mentions that the Edo period government made extensive efforts to remove guns for the hands of non-samurai and to control their production. I think all of these things are verifiable. Some people feel that Perrin was using his book as a way to suggest that in modern times we could follow the example of the samurai and stop using guns as well, you will have to read the book and decide for yourself if this is the case, but even if you find this to be true it does not change the value of this book when it comes to the primary subject. Anti-gun advocates have ocassionally used this book as an example of how we could change our views on guns / weapons, the military etc, and pro-gun advocates have tried to disparage Perrin's book completely in order to counter what they see as a book that advocates removing guns and disarming our society. The fact is that the samurai did go from a society that heavily relied on guns in warfare to a society were guns were not commonly used for aggressive purposes and then back to a society were guns were once again heavily used in warfare. The reasons for this can be argued and disputed but written and pictoral evidence seems to show this to be true. The fact that the majority of samurai never switched over from the matchlock to other more modern forms of firearms when other cultures did is also a fact. Other forms of firearms were known and introduced and used but the primary firearm remained the matchlock up until the point were they had no choice and were virtually forced to change over to new modern firearms.

Stephen, this is a nice example of a Japanese made percussion pistol.

Peter, during the Meiji period most individuals were not allowed to openly carry swords, I would image that these small concealable guns as well as sword canes and other hidden weapons were carried by people who needed protection. I do have some images of late Edo period samurai with western revolvers but I have not seen any with these European percussion style pistols.

Uwe, is it European made?

A few more examples that are for sale as of today in Japan.

Quite a bit of difference between the two.

Ed, the ho-o bird is applied to the surface and not hammered out at all, is this correct?

I think that every example of this type is proof that the Japanese were not just sitting back, satisfied with outdated technology and every year more examples turn up. In the past I have read that the Japanese never moved away from using matchlocks until they started buying modern foreign made firearms, and up to a point this is true. The Indians and some other cultures also used matchlocks up to a very late date as well. Matchlocks were easy to use and produce but when faced with modern American and European technology they had a lot of catching up to do. They had no national army, they were way behind in cannon production, ship building, factory production, transportation etc as well. Why didnt the Japanese just go all out and mass produce new modern firearms and retrofit old ones when they became aware of how behind they were, that is a question I have not seen an answer to yet. Did the Japan in the mid 1800s still have the same ability to rapidly produce firearms as they did in the 1500s? Purchasing foreign firearms was out of the question for many domains as they were broke, without something of value to exchange with foreign traders they could not buy them. As already mentioned, some domains did purchase modern firearms and train with them but there does not seem to have been a national effort, no widespread panic at being so technologically behind. it is not as if the Japanese did not understand how important firearms were. The Ottomans, who also used matchlocks eventually switched over to flintlocks and easily adapted to later more modern firearrms. There must be a more complex explanation other then stubborness or indifference.

Peter can you explain what you mean?

I saw this a well, very different than any other kusari katabira and zukin I have seen, very stylish. I

Why not just buy directly from Japan or from some of the non Japanese dealers, members here can tell you if a dealer is reliable, much better than taking a chance on Ebay, of course you will probably pay more but then you will also probably be getting what you pay for.

I am not sure how this is happening, I have many items shipped to me with the full value stated, I have only been asked to pay a small customs fee twice, I could have protested but it was not worth the trouble. All other times my packages arrive without any problem. This includes items from Japan and Europe.

As long as the item coming into the USA is an antique (over 100 yrs old) and clearly stated as such there will be no customs tax.

Thanks Jean.

Jean, can you take a good full length photo?

Here are a couple of mentions of the hand held spear being called a "jitte", this is from "Samurai Fighting Arts:The Sprit and the Pactice, by Fumon Tanaka", 2003. The author is a world-famous Kobudo grandmaster. He knows all the Kobudo styles, and his teachs martial such as Iaijutsu and Jujitsu to students around the world. This is his first book in English, and it offers readers the opportunity to learn the lesser known arts of Kobudo,particularly the way of Nito Ryu-the two-swords method created by the famous samurai Miyamoto Musashi, and to understand the spirit behind it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumon_Tanaka Now here is a Japanese national, who was BORN speaking Japanese and yet he uses the term "JITTE" in his book to describe the hand held spear like weapon. Maybe he knows something about what he is writing about?