I’m in GQ rather than in Café Society for a reason, folks. I know there are some Dopers who don’t like to see anything movie related in GQ, but I’m just using a movie as a spring board, to set the scene in which my question has context. (I also know that GQ folk like words like “historicity”, so I’m hoping to appease some of you with that!)
Now, inevitably, in reference to a Hollywood movie whenever someone asks anything along the lines of “did that really happen” someone will come along and say something like “Gee, guess no one told you but MOVIES AREN’T REAL!”
So here’s what I’m NOT asking. I’m NOT asking:
Did Cpt. Nathan Algren of the U.S. Army go to Japan to train soldiers only to learn that his own world view was considerably narrow and then find out what’s really important in life through his interaction with the rebel Katsumoto and then join Katsumoto in the rebellion against the new Imperial Army and was he the only survivor of a bloody battle between the Old Ways and the New Ways in which the rebels in their defeat still through their actions teach the Emperor that Tradition is very valuable oh and did he also find true love with Katsumoto’s sister whose husband he killed?
What I AM asking is: In what ways does the film accurately portray Japan’s international attitudes and policies in 1876? Was Japan, at this time, seeking closer interaction with Europe and the U.S? Was Japan hiring experts in certain fields to help bring Japan up to date in modern industry? Did Japan hire U.S. Soldiers to train a modern army?
AND: Was there reactionary rebellion on the part of those who thought Japan was surrendering its identity in its assimilation of European/American ideas? Did any rebellion of this nature ever reach Military proportions?
(sorry- i neglected to Cut and Paste the entire question!)
National Geographic recently covered the end of the Samurai in one of their articles.
This is an excerpt.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0312/feature5/index.html
Since I subscribe, I was able to read the whole article. I don’t remember any specific mention of US army training, although Japan’s quest for modernity was apparently set off by the arrival and obvious superiority of US Navy ships. A group of Samurai did rebel.
The battle wasn’t that close. Modern firearms won.
Sorry that I wasn’t able to fully answer your question, but I hope I gave you a bit of a research lead.
Very accurately. The background material for the movie was, I think, nearly flawless. At the time, the Meiji power elite were controlling the Emperor, they were launching various kinds of self-strengthening efforts to absorb Western technology. And there were major problems with different people who had very different idea about what tommorow should look like. The Meiji people consoldiatd their control via the use of a firearm-equipped peasant army.
There was a bit of mucking with the timeline, but overall the background was very well adapted.
And the bit about the swords and hair being banned - that was very real.
With Europe, definitely, and they were being a lot less hostile to the US as well. There was the famous Iwakura mission, which tarveled the world seeking out strong Western models to use for their government. What they actually got was a heavily German-inspired model, rather appropriate really.
Definitely. Again, I think this picked up more in the 1880’s, but the idea of building a new infrastructure and light industry is perfectly accurate. I don’t recall exactly if they hired foreigners to help train their army, but they did copy wesatern models, and I assume the US (having recently gone through a much-publicized and bloody war) was one of those models.
Can’t answer this, as I haven’t seen the film.
The answers to these, however, is yes. Japanese reformers, at least some of them, was keenly aware of their shortcomings and sent missions abroad to study modern industry and government systems in 1871-1873. The relationship with the western powers at the time was both admiring incertain respects and resentful - Japan in the 1870’s subject to a set of unequal treaties that had been forced upon them ( very similar to those foisted onother declining powers like China and the Ottoman state ), that they were very eager to redress at the earliest opportunity ( i.e. when they were strong enough to do so ).
The army model was that of Prussia and the trainers were mostly French and German, the navy was modeled on that of Britain. However Japan hired people from literally dozens of countries, so it is not so improbable.
There was indeed. A number of smaller rising in the late 1860’s and early 1870’s, but the movie appears based on one Takamori Saigo, an aristocratic leader who had helped overthrow the Shogunate, but who broke with the government in 1873-1874 and in 1877 raised a major rebellion known as the Satsuma Rebellion or Seinan War. It pitted in toto some 60,000 government troops against ~40,000 of Saigo’s and produced ~20,000 casualties.
And I forgot to scan the entire post before replying. :smack:
Yes, there was most definitely some reactionary rebellion, oddly from within the power structure itself (so the movie is sort of accurate even on that). Not every one of the leaders thought the moves toward disenfranchising the Samurai were good ideas (hell, they were Samurai, too!) and a pair of the most important launched a major rebellion. They did lose, though they perhaps were not idealists in any sense of the word.
And another one of the film’s minor points was also accurate: men like Omura (who most certainly would have been a Samurai, too) were making vast reams of cash by investing in new industries - transport, manufacturing, and so forth.