U NIVERSITY C OLLEGE S CHOOL
THE HISTORY JOURNAL Special Asia Edition - Issue No. 1
FROM THE EDITOR
U
CS’s first ever history journal aims to help pupils transcend
the narrow confines of the national history syllabus in both a geographical and linear sense. Modern European history is all very well, but how many people have the chance to study issues such as the impact of external influences on the Korean peninsula? That’s why we hope this publication will provide readers with an opportunity to expand their historical knowledge into the more remote corners of the past. As for the authors, we were attracted not only by the chance to study entirely new areas of history and expand our knowledge, but also by the freedom of choice this entailed. After some deliberation – in which we settled on South-East Asia as the theme of our inaugural edition – we were each free to focus on a specific area of interest. With literally all of history stretching behind us, these were not at all easy to determine. At first, I wavered between Mughal India and the Russo-Japanese war, before settling on the Mongols. Narrowing this down further was no easier: having begun some preliminary research, I decided to investigate the Mongols’ success in invading China, as well as their impact on the empire and the causes for the collapse of the Yuan dynasty (which the Mongols had established in China). However, it soon became apparent that the considerable task facing me was rather unrealistic and I had to jettison the latter two ideas.
i
Others faced no easier a dilemma. Philip and Nicholas, having an interest in Asian warrior elites, prevaricated over ninjas and Samurai. Having settled on the Samurai after a heated debate and delved into their history, they picked the Meiji Revolution – not that they knew how to spell it until Hana corrected them. Thanks goodness for editing!
FEATURED ARTICLES
Once we had all established the subject of our articles, the next stage was to dive nose-deep into the history books. With access to the School library and JSTOR (an online archive for thousands of journals), Ms Kung asked us to review a minimum of five academic sources. This was certainly the most rewarding part of the experience: it concentrated my reading and presented a completely new challenge, far from copying down whatever a given teacher writes on the whiteboard. Now, we were let loose into the true joys of academia, expected to find our own sources and draw personal conclusions from them. Thanks to Joshua Browder’s IT skills, all this led to the creation of The History Journal – an excuse to look beyond the seemingly unending cycle of summer exams, pursue our personal interests and hone our research, analytical and writing skills. Speaking on behalf of the editorial team, we thoroughly enjoyed the experience and look forward to the next edition, later this academic year.
•
Why were the Mongols under Genghis Khan able to invade China and create the largest land based empire the world has ever seen? Page 3
•
The Cambodian ‘Holocaust’: What drove Pol Pot to murder a quarter of his population? Page 9
•
How the political situation in Japan during the Azuchi-Momoyama period reflected in the arts? Page 14
•
To what extent - and why - has the Korean peninsula, including its division into North and South Korea, been shaped by external influences? Page 21
•
The Truth of Tyranny: A Comparison Between Vespasian and Qin Shihuang. Page 34
•
How far were the Samurai at fault for the Meiji Revolution? Page 43
Editors and writers: Adam Morland, Philip Jenkins, Theodore Rollason, Benjamin Caven-Roberts, Leo Ackerman, Min-Kyoo Kim, Emanuel Besorai, Nicholas van Oosterom, Ursula Meyer and Hana Mizuta-Spencer. Design and web: Joshua Browder Patron : Ms Kung
Adam Moorland, Editor ii
ADAM MORLAND
�
THE MONGOLS: Why were the Mongols under Genghis Khan able to invade China and create the largest land based empire the world has ever seen?
ADAM MORLAND
Why were the Mongols under Genghis Khan able to invade China and create the largest land-based empire the world has ever seen?
KEY POINTS
The answer lies in a combination of various factors: the rivalry between the Chinese Empires, in contrast to unity under Genghis Khan (and later his successors) which enabled the Mongol might to be turned against divided foes, their vulnerability compounded by the military superiority of Mongol forces; and the far higher quality of leadership amongst the nomads.
∏
•
Divisions amongst the Chinese Empires prevented them from uniting against their common enemy.
•
Genghis’ unification of the warring Mongol tribes made a policy of expansionism possible for the first time in three generations.
•
Greater Mongol mobility and tactical ingenuity was crucial to their success.
•
The Mongols were eager to employ experienced foreigners, enabling them to adapt to siege warfare and overcome well defended Chinese cities.
•
Increased desertification in China weakened the Mongols’ foes. At the same time, Mongolia’s wet and warm climate provided favourable conditions for conquest.
Left – Map of Chinese states and tehir Right – Genghis Khan In stark contrast to these divisions, Genghis had achieved a greater degree of unity amongst the Mongols than ever achieved before, even by his great grand-father, Kabul (who had brought together the tribes in a loose confederation which did not long outlast his death). By abolishing the old tribal system and dispersing members of former tribes between different military units, Genghis was able to break down past divisions and weld together his new nation. Crucially, Genghis formed a bodyguard of 10,000 men containing the 4
sons of all regimental commanders, a sure-fire way of ensuring the continued loyalty of their fathers. According to prominent historian Urgunge Onon, though, this unity rested on three types of ties: Quada (marriage alliances, for example the marriage of Genghis’ daughter and Arslan Khan, resulting in Arslan submitting to Genghis without a fight), Anda (sworn brotherhood) and Nökör (friendship, similar to a tie of feudal loyalty). What’s more, after Genghis’ death, Mongol unity endured, serving as evidence of the enduring bonds created. The significance of Mongol unity is paramount: only three years after being named Khan, in 1206, Genghis was able to lead the first of several invasions into China. This stands out from previous generations, in which the Mongols had been too preoccupied with fighting amongst themselves to attack an outside neighbour. One could conclude, as a result, that without the unification of the Mongols, no single tribe would have been sufficiently strong to dare attack, let alone be able to defeat the professional armies of Xi Xia and the other Chinese Empires.
Genghis was also able to ensure that the Mongols had far superior leadership to that of their enemies. In the Chinese Empires, men were often appointed to posts on nepotistic grounds and only the aristocracy would have any chance of attaining officer positions in the army. In contrast, with the rise of Genghis ‘came a revolution, with appointments made not on the basis of inherited position within a tribal hierarchy, but of services rendered’. Under his leadership, a meritocratic system of positions based on ability and loyalty, rather than on birth, was instituted. This resulted in most senior Mongol leaders being far better military tacticians than their Chinese counterparts and meant that they were fiercely loyal to their Khan, further boosting Mongol unity. As a result of having better leaders, the Mongols were repeatedly able to outwit their opponents, employing clever strategic and tactical tricks to inflict humiliating defeats, building up an aura of invincibility: On arriving at Chabchiyal, [Jebe and Güyigünek-ba’atur found] that guards had been posted on the Chabchiyal Pass. Then Jebe said: ‘We shall lure them into moving. When they come [after us], we shall fight them.’ He then turned back. The Kitad soldiers decided to pursue him. As they drew nigh, they choked the valleys and mountains. On reaching the provincial capital, Söndeiwu, Jebe reined in [his horses] and turned back. He attacked the advancing enemy, which was growing [ever] bigger and overcame them. Chinggis Qahan, following closely behind with the main body of [his] army, 5
forced the Kitads to withdraw...slaughtering them...Jebe took the gates of Chabchiyal
seven hundred feet and could perform the ‘Parthian shot’, whereby a horse archer shot over his shoulder, enabling him to kill enemies behind him whilst riding his horse. Combined with a level of endurance nurtured by the harsh conditions of the steppe, the Mongol soldiers were undoubtedly superior to their Chinese counterparts most of whom were unwilling conscripts. While this force gave the Mongols an initial advantage, their lack of experience concerning siege warfare could have prevented their victories from being fully realised and consequently, their conquest of China may not have been completed. But, the Mongols were quickly able to adapt to siege warfare, using captured Chinese artisans and deserters to build their own trebuchets in order to destroy enemy cities, including Xiangyang in southern China. As a result, it was not just that the Mongol soldiers were of a superior calibre to their adversaries, but also the willingness of the Mongols to adapt to new forms of warfare and to employ foreigners adept at these types of warfare.
“It is not sufficient that I succeed - all others must fail.” ― Genghis Khan
“If my body dies, let my body die, but do not let my country die.” ― Genghis Khan
Right – Genghis Khan and loyal Mongol soldiers Left – Kublai Khan (Genghis’ grandson) Therefore, it was not only the high quality of Mongol leadership that assured them victory on the battlefield; well trained and disciplined soldiers were crucial to the Mongol military machine. Mongol tribesmen from a young age were taught how to ride horses and shoot a bow. These two skills combined to create arguably the best warriors of the time. Mongol horse archers could shoot from a galloping horse at a moving target, accurately for six or
Despite the numerous factors already mentioned in the Mongols’ advantage, modern research suggests that it was in 6
“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”
fact two other, completely unrelated factors that had a decisive impact on the ability of the Mongols to conquer China. Notably, the major heartlands of Chinese civilization are not far from the steppe. This gave the nomadic Mongols the required pastureland to sustain their horses and therefore their military power. Conversely, the Mongols were never able to conquer Europe, significant grassland ending at the Hungarian plain.
― Genghis Khan
The weakening power of the Chinese Empires was compounded by the warm and wet climate in Mongolia, improving grassland productivity, so increasing the size of the Mongolian population which could be sustained by the land, consequently providing more soldiers for the armies of Genghis Khan:
Yet, climate as well as geographical positioning was a cause of the successful Mongol conquests of China: The Mongolian Plateau and northern and central China, where historical dynasties were supported by traditional pastoral and agricultural systems, were highly sensitive to changes in desertification and biological productivity produced by the late-Holcene Asian Monsoon...Because of the importance of a stable food supply to support the large populations required to economically and militarily sustain a dynasty, these changes would have had a direct impact on the health of dynasties...In northern and central China, due to desertification and decreased biological productivity that began after 1220 A.D., the Mongols finally destroyed the Jin in 1234 A.D.
Here we present an 1112-year tree-ring reconstruction of warm-season water balance derived from Siberian pine (Pinus sibirica) trees in central Mongolia. Our reconstruction...is significantly correlated with steppe productivity across central Mongolia. In combination with a gridded temperature reconstruction, our results indicate that the regional climate during the conquests of Chinggis Khan’s (Genghis Khan) 13th century Mongol Empire was warm and persistently wet. This period, characterized by 15 consecutive years of above average moisture in central Mongolia and coinciding with the rise of Chinggis Khan, is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. We propose that these climate conditions promoted high grassland
“I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins; God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.” ― Genghis Khan 7
productivity and favoured the formation of Mongol political and military power.
Mongol Empire and Modern Mongolia, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 111, Number 12, 2014, p.2
Therefore, the proximity of China to the steppe and favourable climatic conditions provided a positive geographical context for conquest. This was combined with the military and political backdrops: the high calibre of Mongol horse archers and great disharmony amongst the Chinese Empires respectively, to create a set of conditions favourable to Genghis Khan’s ambitions. Ultimately though, it was Genghis Khan’s irrepressible personality which enabled him to seize the opportunity to unify the Mongol nation, imposing superior leadership and creating the conditions required for the Mongol conquests of China to prevail.
Urgunge Onon, The Secret History of the Mongols (Richmond Surrey, Curzon Press, 2001) p.8 Xunming Wang, Fahu Chen, Jiawu Zhang, Yi Yang, Jijun Li, Eerdun Hasi, Caixia Zhang and Dunsheng Xia, Desertification, and the Rise and Collapse of China’s Historical Dynasties, Human Ecology, Volume 38, Number 1, 2010, pp.157, 168
Bibliography: Azar Gat, War in Human Civilization (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006) pp.389/390 Bamber Gascoigne, The Dynasties of China (London, Robinson, 2003) p.135 John Man, The Mongol Empire (London, Bantam Press, 2014) p.113 John Man, Genghis Khan life, death and resurrection (London, Bantam Press, 2004) p.152 Neil Pederson, Amy Hessl, Nachin Baatarbileg, Kevin Anchukaitis, Nicola Di Cosmo, Pluvials, Droughts, the 8
LEO ACKERMAN AND EMANUEL BESORAI
Cambodia even in the present day
∏
Pol Pot was in fact a largely unknown figure to most of his people; field workers who survived the tortuous, arduous slave labour have since declared to knowing nothing of his countenance, his policy, nor his doctrine. This secrecy was mirrored in Pot’s name, a nom de guerre, as he was in fact born Saloth Sar. Sar grew up in a comfortable, wealthy family in Kampong Province, and later moved to Paris where he studied radio electronics. His political upbringing truly began when the Viet Minh were recognised as the government of Vietnam in 1950, and when the French Communists started to battle for Vietnam’s independence. Sar was attracted to this idea and so joined a Marxist Circle in Paris; he would soon go on to join the French Communist Party (PCF). It was here that Sar developed his ideas that the true proletariat (and who would later be true Cambodians) were the uneducated peasants, not the industrial workers; Pot’s political blend of Maoism and Nationalism was beginning to coalesce, but his period of study would soon come to an end after failing his exams in three successive years. His return to Phnom Penh saw him begin to scale the ranks of the underground Cambodian Communist Party, of which he would become General Secretary by 1962. Pot’s political ideology would lead to him imposing a radical form of agrarian socialism, with forced labour making up a key part of the regime; he also desired to
The Cambodian ‘Holocaust’: What drove Pol Pot to murder a quarter of his population? The Cambodian genocide from 1975-1979 was an indiscriminate massacre which differed to many others of its kind. Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge regime at the time, aspired to revolutionise Cambodia, and in the process to kill 2 million of his people, nearly a quarter of the entire population. It has been widely documented that throughout these years, life under the regime in itself became a virtually worthless entity. To examine the regime itself, and what led Pot to plot such a genocide, we must look at the context of the regime and Pot himself. (Photo By Chooch): The skulls remain at the Killing Fields in 9
eradicate foreign influences, as his nationalism had budded during his studies in France.
cultures. There was however a deep-rooted fear of neighbouring countries, and differing races, which partially explains the ferocity of the antagonism between the Cambodian people and the Vietnamese. This tension cannot exactly be attributed to xenophobia, but instead to a jealousy which ran throughout a nation that had always been bettered by its South-East Asian neighbours. In Cambodia, culture became defined as “serving the tasks and defending and building Cambodia into a great and prosperous country”1, with unemployment being outlawed. Cambodia became a nation almost closed in on itself - uninterested in the affairs of its neighbours and most certainly unconcerned about matters in Vietnam. Foreign policy was described as independent, peaceful, and neutral. This is not to say that Pot did not have a profound desire to turn Cambodia into a nation which commanded international respect, but, until he had resolved their own domestic issues, that would not be a prime concern. Curiously, ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ was never a word used by the government to describe itself, despite Pot’s belief in Communism deriving from his education in Paris. Similar to many dictators of the 20th century such as Mussolini, Pol Pot was driven by personal motivations, and did not see himself as ideologically attached
(Photo By TravelAdventure): The notorious drowning tools used at the Tuol Sleng Prison, or ‘S21’, where at least 20.000 prisoners were tortured and executed. However, it is slightly contrived to say that Pot’s political upbringing was a significant influence in his barbaric leadership of Cambodia, as when genocide reaches such a level as it did in Cambodia, the perpetrator himself must be examined, perhaps more than his external influences.
to a certain movement or way of thinking; instead he followed his own rules. Where the genocidal motives stemmed from is a question of mentality, not political beliefs. Mass murder on such a vast scale cannot be solely political,
Cambodia is, and always has been a society with a great receptiveness to authority; in Cambodia those in charge held a much firmer grip over their people than in Western 10
and Pot did not slaughter on political ideologies, but more on the basis he perceived that those who were non-conducive to a stronger, more independent Cambodia needed to be removed. The embodiment of this approach was the fact that inaptitude to perform unceasing daily labour (a requisite of Pot’s ‘Year Zero’, his idea that the calendar was to be reverted so that his regime could mark a clean slate for Cambodia) was used so influentially as a guideline to the protracted lineup of Cambodians who were to be expunged from Pol Pot’s ideal society. This included vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the handicapped and even children. to the Khmer Rouge Khmer Rouge, these casualties were a fundamental sacrifice in bringing Cambodia towards a greater destination: a primitive agrarian society that would somehow exhibit only the finest qualities of Marxism.
also the multitudes who would not be able to conform with the Year Zero, and so Pol Pot targeted intellectuals and professionals. Year Zero, a lynchpin of Pot’s ideology, incorporated much more than restarting the calendar: it entailed dismantling and then nullifying all in the lives of Cambodians. Asked about his personal and indisputable role in the murder of as many as two million Cambodians, just months before his death, Pol Pot merely said that he ‘did not wish to discuss the matter’2. This is a resonance of his lack of empathy, as he did not seem to come to terms with his heinous crimes against humanity. The following Khmer slogan gives a sharp reflection of the ideology imposed on ‘Democratic Kampuchea’ (the name Pot gave to Cambodia): “To spare you is no profit, to destroy you is no loss”3. This lends evidence to the notion that that there was no driving force behind the butchering of Cambodians other than a loss of touch with reality by Pol Pot and his surrounding elite. Although this is a particularly challenging school of thought, not least for survivors who may seek some sort of justification for the horrors they experienced, it is possible that while clearly the Khmer Rouge were not unaware to the events of 1975-9, the scale of the killing was such that they could not perceive the scope of their actions. This is evident from the sheer lack of regret displayed by Pol Pot himself up to his death.
There were other groups who were likewise viewed as central to the opposition that might tarnish Pol Pot’s new national structure. An abundant variety of ethnicities and religions composed the elemental framework of Cambodian culture; Buddhism, Islam and Christianity were all deeply rooted within Cambodian society and many Cambodians shared Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai ancestry. This ambiguous group was targeted by Sar perhaps because of his nationalist views developed in Paris and a belief in an ethnically pure Cambodia emerging from the ruins that would result in ‘Year Zero’. It was not just those who were segregated by their heritage and values who faced death, but 11
(Photo By Getty Images): Pol Pot during an interview held in the rebel’s Cambodian stronghold of Anlgong Veng on the 8th of January 1998.
him over to an international tribunal, prompting conspiracies that he either committed suicide or was murdered (as his body was cremated without autopsy to establish the cause of death). The fact that Pol Pot’s paranoia drove him away from even his closest allies in the aftermath of his regime and perhaps even leading to his death makes us question his emotional stability and might attempt to explain some of his decisions between 1975 and 1979. Ultimately, the Cambodian genocide was the product of ferocious nationalism which Pot developed during his early political education. With Cambodia, he carried out a reeducation process until his aggression fueled the destructive tendencies of the Khmer Rouge. The genocide was not driven by ideological beliefs, but by developments that led to the devaluation of human life. A similar rationale to that of Nazi Germany and Hussein’s Iraq applied, where rural and urban classes were divided and outsiders were identified. The motivations for a mass genocide can never be attributed to a single belief, but more a pathological flaw of the dictator himself.
Finally, it is worth considering Pol Pot’s paranoia as a catalyst for certain aspects of the genocide seen in Cambodia. He had an eminent fear of Vietnam as a direct result of simmering historical conflicts. This drove him to commit irrational purges; a striking example would be when he purged thousands of Khmer Rouge cadres on the grounds that they had believed the Vietnamese Communists’ involvement in Cambodian insurgencies, which was in fact the truth in 1951 when his party was founded. Pot’s paranoia becomes indisputable when looking at his actions after the ousting of Khmer Rouge. In 1997, Pol Pot had Son Sen and members of his family executed due to allegations of attempts to negotiate with the Cambodian government. These deaths shocked the remnants of the Khmer Rouge leadership and even compelled them to have Pot arrested, put on trial and sentenced to house arrest. Pot died under house arrest just after a radio broadcast announcing an agreement to hand
Footnotes: 1 Elizabeth Becker, When the War was Over, Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge Revolution, Public Affairs, New York, 1998), p207 2 Michael Richards, Who was Pol Pot, http:// history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/Pol-Pot.htm 12
3 Peace Plege Union, 2005, http://www.ppu.org.uk/ genocide/g_cambodia1.html
• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ karadzic/genocide/neveragain.html • http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/aug/ 25/khmer-rouge-genocide-wasnt/
Bibliography:
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/ wp/2014/08/07/why-the-world-should-not-forget-khmerrouge-and-the-killing-fields-of-cambodia/
• Becker, E, 1986, ‘When the War was Over’, Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge Revolution
•
Short, P, ‘Pol Pot’, The History of a Nightmare.
• http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/ kiernan.htm
• Kiernan, B, 2008, ‘The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia Under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-79’
•
• http://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2009/feb/ 16/cambodia-khmer-rouge • http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/world/asia/ khmer-rouge-leaders-genocide-trial.html
Ngor, H, 2012, ‘Survival in the Killing Fields’.
• Ty, S, 2014, ‘The Years of Zero, Coming of Age Under the Khmer Rouge’.
•
• http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/PolPot.htm
Cruvellier, T, 2014, ‘The Master of Confessions’
• Ung, L, 2012, ‘First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers’ Websites:
•
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia.html
• https://www.hmh.org/ ed_Genocide_Cambodia.shtml • http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/ genocide/pol-pot.htm 13
the basis that he was benefitting more from Yoshiaki’s largely nominal shogunate than Yoshiaki himself. This facade lasted until 1573 - Yoshiaki had already openly declared hostility more than once by this point, despite the imperial court's intervention. Nobunaga was able to defeat the shogun’s forces and send him into exile, bringing the Ashikaga shogunate to an end in the same year.
HANA MIZUTA-SPENCER AND THEO ROLLASON
How the political situation in Japan during the AzuchiMomoyama period reflected in the arts?
Although there were many daimyo (the feudal lords of premodern Japan) who were against the ruthless Nobunaga, his greatest opponent was Ishiyama Honganji. The Honganji followers were spread across central Japan, which enabled the temple’s leaders to work with daimyo on all sides of Nobunaga. This gave greater strength to the coalition of forces that tried to prevent his rise to supremacy. The troubles caused by Honganji’s opposition led him to send one of his most talented generals, Shibata Katsuie, to Echizen to establish control of Shinshu forces there, and later to send another one of his best, Hideyoshi, near the northern end of Lake Biwa. The construction of the castle, Azuchi-jo, was launched after Nobunaga relocated to a hillock overlooking the eastern shore of the Lake Biwa in order to protect
Spanning just under thirty years, the Azuchi Momoyama period (1573-1602) was the shortest in Japanese history. Nevertheless, in this short time Japan witnessed its remarkable political transformation from a state of constant warfare (sengoku) to durable peace (taihei). In 1550, towards the end of the collapsing Ashikaga shogunate, the realm was largely controlled by battling local and regional lords, but as the more successful rulers started to expand their land political re-consolidation began. Oda Nobunaga, after defeating rival heirs, took charge of his family’s fate in 1560. This allowed him to relocate his headquarters to a castle alongside the Nakasendo where he gained the attention of power brokers in Kyoto. In 1561, he named Ashikaga Yoshiaki as titular shogun after marching into the city. Though tensions between Yoshiaki and Nobunaga grew, he put up with shogunal manoeuvring on 14
himself from enemies. By 1582, Oda controlled Japan from the west of Himeji to the highlands of Kai.
(in what became renowned as the most famous ‘sword hunt’ of Japanese history), he decreed that all samurai leave the land and live in castle towns, thus preventing any peasants from rising to the position of samurai. After Hideyoshi achieved peace he turned his attention to the aesthetic aspects of society. Constructive and repair work began in all directions: Hideyoshi commissioned for the restorations of ruins in Kyoto, as well as the construction of the castle of Osaka, the Juruku-dai mansion in Kyoto and finally, the Momoyama castle.
However, Nobunaga was murdered and betrayed by senior vassal, Akechi Mitsuhide, after he marched into Kyoto instead of following orders that sent him along the coast beyond Tajima and caught Nobunaga in Honno-ji, a temple in Kyoto. Mitsuhide was planning to carry through a full Coup d’état, but only 11 days after Nobunaga’s death, Mitsuhide and his army were defeated in the Battle of Yamazaki by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, successfully securing Hideyoshi as Nobunaga’s successor. His rise to power is very impressive, considering both his lowly background and his ability to defeat Mitsuhide’s army at such short notice: he managed to break off his battle with Mori by negotiating an auspicious armistice before returning to Kyoto to triumph over Mitsuhide’s forces.
Towards the end of his life, Hideyoshi’s major ambition was to conquer the Ming dynasty of China. This invasion required him to forcibly pass his 200,000 men army through Korea, a task which ultimately proved too difficult for the shogun. Hideyoshi fell ill and died in 1598 following his second failed invasion of Korea.
Hideyoshi is a critical figure in Japanese history: he is notable for various cultural legacies as well as being Japan’s “second great unifier”. He is well known for the crucifixion of twenty six Christians in Japan in an attempt to suppress Christianity, as their growing power and fortification of Nagasaki served as a reminder to Hideyoshi of Nobunaga’s troubles with his enemy, Honganji. Hideyoshi also introduced the restriction of arms onto non-samurai, started the surveys of land and production, and imposed a more rigidly structured society. The class system became more strict under his rule, as alongside the disarming of peasants
Following his death political stability crumbled and Japan’s leading military figures scrambled for control, resulting in a return to civil war. In 1600 the notorious statesman Tokugawa Ieyasu won the battle of Sekigahara, effectively becoming ruler of Japan. In 1903 Emperor Go-Yōzei appointed Ieyasu shogun, bringing about the end of the Azuchi Momoyama period and marking the advent of the Tokugawa shogunate. Architecture
15
The fact that the Azuchi-Momoyama period is named after the two castles, Azuchi (built under Nobunaga on the shore of Lake Biwa), and Momoyama (built under Hideyoshi in Kyoto), shows the significance of architecture, particularly that of castles, and the expansion of arts during this period. The building of great castles and mansions for use aside from military purposes that occurred during the Momoyama period was relatively new and they replaced the traditional temple architecture prevalent in the preceding Muromachi period. The Jesuit father d’Almeida wrote of a keep in Nara that “there can scarcely be a more beautiful sight in the world than this fortress seen from outside, for it is a sheer joy to look on it . . . To enter in this town (for so I may call it) and to walk about its streets seems to be like entering Paradise . . . it does not appear to be the work of human hands . . . the walls are all decorated with paintings of ancient stories on a background of gold leaf. The pillars are sheathed with lead for about a span at the top and bottom respectively, and gilded and carven in such a way that everything looks as if it were covered with gold . . . As for the gardens . . . which I saw in the palace grounds, I cannot imagine anything more delightfully cool and fresh . . . I am sure that in the whole world it would be impossible to find anything more splendid and attractive than this fortress”.
This account summarises the way in which architecture developed and flourished during this period. The Azuchi castle was built from 1576 to 1579 and strategically placed on the shores of Lake Biwa close enough to Kyoto that Nobunaga could guard the approaches to the capital, but far enough that it was safe from the fires and conflicts that frequented the capital. It was also strategic in that Nobunaga was able to control the communications and transportation routes between the Uesugi clan in the north, the Takeda clan in the east and the Mori clan in the west whilst inside Azuchi-jo. Compared to the castles and military fortresses from earlier periods, it was not meant to be used solely for a military purpose - it also functioned as a mansion which would both scare and awe his rivals. The Azuchi castle was one of the first Japanese castles with a tenshukaku (the keep) in the form of a tower, and compared to other castles which had solid white or black facades, it was decorated with colourful tigers and dragons. Although the castle was destroyed only a few years after its construction, we know that the facade was painted red, white and blue and “as regards architecture, strength, wealth, and grandeur [it] 16
may well be compared with the greatest buildings of Europe … As the castle is situated on high ground, and is itself very lofty, it looks as if it reaches to the clouds and it can be seen from afar for many leagues. The fact that the castle is constructed entirely of wood is not at all apparent either from within or from without, for it looks as if it is built of strong stone and mortar". This draws on how Nobunaga was an enthusiastic patron of the arts and used the impressive skills of the new schools of art, such as the Kano school, to his political advantage. Every room of the donjon and the residential wings of the Azuchi Castle were decorated with paintings in bright colors against a gold background, most likely by artists of the Kano school, particularly Kano Eitoku. The tenshukaku was a seven-story building containing audience halls, private chambers, offices and a treasury - closer to a royal palace than a fortified area of residence. However, the castle’s display in artistic skill and grandeur did not reflect a lack of military capability as shown in its very significant defense mechanism against opposition. The castle itself was a massive structure with the walls made from huge granite stones fitted together without the use of mortar, ranging from 18 feet to 21 feet in thickness. The high central tower was 138 feet with seven levels, and was used as a place for guns against an opposing force - made even higher by the placement of the castle on this hill which added another 360 feet. It also had irregularly formed inner citadels which gave Nobunaga’s men a choice of defensive positions against intruders.
The Osaka Castle was built by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 1583 on the site of the Ikko-ikki temple of Ishiyama Hongan-ji. It was built to model the Azuchi Castle, but it exceeded it in every way, from the 5-story tenshukaku with 3 extra underground floors, the expanded defenses and finally the gold leaf that decorated the outer walls. The Fushimi castle, otherwise known as Momoyama castle, was also built by Hideyoshi from 1592-1594. It was meant to be a luxurious “retirement” home for Hideyoshi instead of a defensive fortification. It was destroyed only 2 years after its completion by an earthquake, but was rebuilt and it gets the name ‘Momoyama’ (literally ‘Plum Mountain’) from the numerous plum trees that were planted around it in its restoration. Hideyoshi died in the castle in 1598. The castle’s devastation after an 11 day long siege by the army of Ishida Mitsunari was a crucial point in Japanese history, as when Torii Mototada refused to surrender and committed seppuku (a form of ritual suicide reserved for samurai), it gave his master, Tokugawa Ieyasu, enough time to escape. He continued on to be one of the most important men in Japanese history, founding the Tokugawa shogunate and coming to power in 1603. The most famous room in the whole castle was the tea room, famously covered wholly in gold foil. The fact that a single room was not only dedicated to the tea ceremony, but was also lavishly covered in gold indicates the importance of the tea ceremony to Hideyoshi. The tea ceremony was a time for Momoyama warriors to please both their aesthetic interests and enjoy a leisure 17
activity with fellow warriors. Both Hideyoshi and Nobunaga were keen followers of the tea ceremony, with their tea master Sen No Rikyu becoming a close confidant and friend to both rulers. Although the tea ceremony was meant to be an experience with no social boundaries, where all participants were equals, Hideyoshi used the tea ceremony to further dazzle and impress the public - especially seen in the creation of the gold tea room in the Momoyama castle, but also the portable gold tea room created in 1568.
The prominence of Zen Buddhism among the elite samurai class and the embracing of Zen teachings of personal discipline and concentration during the Muromachi period was reflected in the visual arts. The increase of trade between China meant that many Chinese paintings and art forms were imported into Japan and greatly influenced Japanese artists working for Zen temples. The daimyo in the Muromachi period appreciated the simplicity of the Daoistinfluenced teaching of Zen and it’s resulting art forms, as well as appreciating how the Zen philosophy was taught like the martial arts. This can be seen in the art produced during the Muromachi period as the ink painting was characterised by economy of execution, forceful brushstrokes and asymmetrical composition, reflecting the Zen lifestyle and philosophy. In order to paint in the ‘Sumi-e style’ (a style of painting popular in the end of the Muromachi period), the painter had to clear his mind and apply the brush strokes without thinking.
Painting Compared to the daimyo of the Muromachi period who were relatively uncultured, the daimyo of the Azuchi-Momoyama period were enthusiastic patrons of the arts. Modern painting in Japan was marked by the coming of power of Oda Nobunaga for many reasons. Whilst the Muromachi period saw a renaissance of the Chinese ink-style painting, the Kano family of artists, who flourished during the Momoyama period, were successful in fusing the Chinese ‘Zen’ ink painting with Japanese decorative art. Art became more expressive as it became used for decorative functions and the rulers of this time had secular principles, so art was able to escape the purely religious influences of the preceding period. The new styles which developed used feelings and emotions that the artists felt in their daily lives (such as the joy reflected in the grandiose style) which is conveyed through their art to the spectator.
By the late Muromachi period, Zen ink paintings in monasteries had shifted into the art world, so artists in the four main schools of painting (Kano, Unkoku, Soga and Hasegawa) were not only influenced by the Zen style, but were able to expand and explore different methods of painting as the shoguns of the Azuchi-Momoyama period were willing to be generous patrons of new artistic styles. Although the old Japanese schools (Kasuga and Tosa) still remained, their works were limited to religious paintings. 18
The unifiers of Japan during this period were keen to legitimise themselves and their ruling through the arts, and alongside this, the social and political fluidity of the Momoyama period allowed for new methods of creating aesthetic beauty in the form of paintings and architecture, as well as those who would appreciate the new art forms: “paintings reflected the tastes, characters, and purposes of the residents and donors which were invariably imposing and expressive, and their pragmatic respect for reality could be clearly seen in the paintings”. This period was a huge contrast to the restraint of the Zen philosophy and affiliating art forms during the preceding Muromachi period, and the ostentatious art of the Momoyama period reflects the vast political changes of that time: this period came out of one of the darkest ages of civil wars and achieved a peaceful and unified state in the period of only about 20 years. Hideyoshi was seen as the main influence for the change in art styles during the Azuchi-Momoyama period, as his desired impression of unity and grandeur was expressed in the fine buildings constructed at his commission. Everything created at his commission was of colossal style, designed to be both imposing and impressive. The people and generals associated with him wanted to also express their triumphs in art, so they built large castles and mansions to display their personal successes, finding satisfaction in the grand structures and decorative painting they commissioned.
Although ink paintings were still produced during this period, the building of fortified stone castles to shelter from the constant fighting and warfare called for lavish and brightly coloured paintings to hang on the walls. The grand castles and mansions built at this time were incredibly accommodating for paintings: the halls often had enough floor area to hold 200 3x6 foot tatami mats, and the lack of furniture meant that there was always a clear view of the paintings on their walls. The sliding doors and partition screens were used both to expand a room’s size and also to display paintings. There were two basic styles which characterised the paintings inside a castle: an ink style used in private living chambers (the more traditional style influenced by the ‘Zen’ ink paintings from the Muromachi period) and the colour and gold style used in public spaces. All artists painting during this period were versatile and adjusted their styles to the function of their art, for example, paintings in the monochrome, more traditional style stayed with the conventional themes, and focused more on the brushwork to make an emotional impact to the spectator, whilst paintings to be used on castle walls used colours and gold to show power and wealth. Popular subjects for paintings which were found on the walls and room separating screens were pine, cherry and willow trees or colourful birds and flowers which would be heavily gilded with gold leaf. The flamboyant and wealthy new military leaders of this period understood both the aesthetic and political significance and powers of art and their commissions 19
of richly coloured paintings gilded with gold leaf were meant to arouse feelings of awe and adoration towards themselves.
The Azuchi Momoyama period signified a drastic shift in Japanese politics away from the constant internal warfare that characterised the Muromachi period to the beginnings of a more structured, peaceful Japan. It was in this transitory political climate that the unifiers of Japan were able to use the arts to their political advantage. The high degree of control over Japanese culture under Hideyoshi can best be seen in the fact his commanding of the ritual suicide of Sen no Rikyū, the infamous tea master, is seen as perhaps his greatest display of power. The daimyo certainly were not patrons of the visual arts simply for their aesthetic value - for Japan’s elite, this was the perfect way to legitimise themselves and further their political influence. For the shoguns themselves, architecture and art were a means of displaying their great power in a way that had not been done before.
The level of political stability affected the artists and art, as seen clearly in Kano Eitoku’s art. He lived during a very turbulent time in Japanese history and his art often suffered because of enemies of the owners would destroy and loot buildings, and consequently his art. His fame meant that he was in high demand - he worked on paintings in the Azuchi castle, the Osaka castle, the Juraku-dai and the Fushimi castle. This therefore meant that he had little time to attend to smaller and more delicate styles, and in fact his paintings were characterised by his bold, rapid brushwork, an emphasis on foreground, and motifs that are large relative to the pictorial space. Birds and Flowers of the Four Seasons was originally placed in the Hinkaku hall in the Jurakudai mansion, and it is a picture painted on 14 sliding screens representing 2 large willow trees. The bright colours and giant composition is representative of Kano Eitoku’s art, and he brings the energy of nature to the limited space of the painting by the simple colour scheme and composition. The function of this painting was to decorate a room with very little furniture or other decoration, and the way Eitoku creates flowing lines between the trees and the birds makes the painting have movement within a closed space, allowing the spectator to visually experience the 4 seasons without clutter from furniture or other decoration.
It is possible to say, therefore, not that the political situation during the Azuchi Momoyama period was reflected in the arts, but rather that the Japanese elite reflected themselves in the arts. The ruling classes encouraged the lavish style that dominated the period, and it was almost certainly Hideyoshi himself who had the most profound influence over art and certainly architecture. This influence from higher authorities is one way in which the Azuchi Momoyama period can ‘best be described as the Japanese equivalent of CounterReformation baroque’ - the daimyo in late 16th Century Japan can be compared to the Catholic Church across much
Conclusion 20
of Europe around the same time in their bringing about of opulent artwork and architecture so as to enhance their position. Indeed, Nobunaga’s commissioning of Eitoku to paint the interior of the Azuchi castle is comparable to the patronage of Popes Clement VII and Paul III in commissioning Michelangelo to paint the ceiling and fresco The Last Judgement in the Sistine Chapel, completed around forty years previously, in that both were commissioned as a celebration of power and wealth. The technicalities of the artwork expressed in the new artistic styles were the natural response from the artists during a time in which the increased freedom of the individual allowed them to expand their skill into areas which had previously remained relatively unexplored.
Luis Frois on “Azuchi Castle” in: Cooper, Michael, They Came to Japan: An Anthology of European Reports on Japan (I543-1640), Berkeley, 1965.
Bibliography:
Schooler, Carmi. The Individual in Japanese History: Parallels To and Divergences from the European Experience, Sociological Forum, Vol. 5, No. 4, Springer, December 1990.
Turnbull, Stephen. Japanese Castles 1540-1640 Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2003. Zen Ink Painting. Boundless Art History. Boundless, 03 Jul. 2014. Retrieved 23 Dec. 2014 from https:// www.boundless.com/art-history/textbooks/boundless-arthistory-textbook/japan-after-1333-30/muromachiperiod-186/zen-ink-painting-679-4312/. Tsuda, Noritake. The Decorative Painting of Japan in the Momoyama Period, Parnassus, Vol. 6, No. 1, College Art Association, Jan., 1934.
Kampen O’Riley, Michael. Art beyond the West, Prentice Hall, 2001. Totman, Conrad.A History of Japan, 2nd Edition, WileyBlackwell, 2005. Jansen, Marius. The Making of Modern Japan, Harvard, 2000. Jōhei, Sasaki. The Era of the Kanō School, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4, Special Issue: Edo Culture and Its Modern Legacy, Cambridge University Press, 1984. 21
MIN-KYOO KIM
The Joseon kingdom was always vulnerable from foreign attacks due to its geographical location: sandwiched by China and Japan, Korea was the stepping-stone for one of the aforementioned countries to invade the other. Due to its key geographical location, the Korean kingdom faced numerous invasions until the 17th century (it is estimated that in the last three millennia, Korea was invaded at least 600 times) from which point a policy of isolationism and reclusion was adopted. Consequently, the country became known as the “Hermit Kingdom”, passing out of knowledge in the West, and largely ignored by the East Asian states.
∏
To what extent - and why - has the Korean peninsula, including its division into North and South Korea, been shaped by external influences? Context:
The Hermit Kingdom witnessed nearly 200 years of peace. In the 19th century however, the Joseon dynasty began to collapse due to a combination of internal power struggles and rebellions, as well as the recurrence of foreign hostility. In 1866, Korea had its first military encounters with Western powers: firstly, there was a four-day battle in which a US trade ship – which had fired upon Korean civilians – was burnt, killing all of the crew onboard; secondly, there was an event in which French troops looted and burnt 5,000 books from a royal library on the Western coast of Korea. These events showed that, increasingly, there was international pressure for Korea to drop its isolationist policy. If Korea would not cease its reclusion voluntarily, it became clear that it would be forced to by far superior foreign powers, such as the US, which, in 1871, launched a retaliatory invasion for the burning of their trade ship. This
A united Korean kingdom under the ‘Joseon’ dynasty: The two Koreas were originally a unified kingdom under the Joseon dynasty, which ruled for a period spanning five centuries from 1392-1897. The Joseon dynasty has influenced much of modern-day culture in North and South Korea; in fact, the Korean alphabet, which is the official script for both the North and South - and is natively known as hangul - was created during this time.
22
650-man invasion was the largest US military force to land on foreign soil (excluding the Americas) in the 19th century. To the Asian states, the invasion signaled the growing presence of the US in Asia, where they would be very influential in the upcoming century.
so because of the threat of invasion of Ganghwa Island if Korea had refused to consent to the terms as Japan had dictated to them. This would begin the process of annexation, but back then, the Korean delegation had no choice. The treaty signaled that the fate of the Korean people was slipping away from their own hands. This was because the treaty opened the country up to trade, bringing about an official end to its isolationist policy, and crucially, Japan had also managed to isolate Korea from its protectorate status as a tributary state to China (to whom Korea was a most valuable client in terms of trade). Effectively, Japan had eliminated the deterrent for invasion by ending the alliance of China and Korea. Furthermore, the treaty also granted extraterritorial rights to the Japanese people. This planted the seeds of Korea’s later total subjugation by the Japanese Empire.
The beginnings of Japanese annexation of Korea: The penultimate sovereign monarch of Korea was King Kojong, who had ascended to the throne in 1863 at the tender age of 11. His youth meant that his wife, Empress Myeongseong (otherwise known as Queen Min, shown on the right) handled most political affairs. This gave her a free licence to pursue her nationalist policies. She believed that development of US power in Asia would be beneficial for the protection of Korea, and therefore engineered the Chemulpo Treaty of Amity and Trade with the US in 1882. Article 1 of the Treaty stated: “There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the President of the United States and the King of Chosen [an alternate name for the kingdom of Korea]… if other powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other will exert their good offices… thus showing their friendly feelings”. Effectively, Korea had enlisted the support of the US to safeguard its welfare. King Kojong and his domineering wife Queen Min believed that they had secured their kingdom from foreign threats.
In 1894, Korea became a battleground between China and Japan. Both the warring nations wanted unperturbed control over Korea, which had vital resources of coal and
However, they were wrong. As a precursor to the treaty with the US, Korea had earlier signed the Treaty of Ganghwa Island with Japan in 1876. The treaty was named 23
iron, which were valuable to the modernization efforts of both countries. Also, Korea’s equidistant position meant that both China and Japan saw the peninsula as a strategic vantage point for invading the other. 6,000 Japanese soldiers landed at Incheon, and won the war against the inferior military of the Qing dynasty in China (the loss stimulated the need for reform and renovation in China, resulting in the beginning of revolutionary action against the monarchy). The outcome of the war resulted in Japan’s military predominance in Korea, with the only threat to their control over the kingdom being the tsarist Russian Empire, which began to increase its creeping influence in the northern part of the peninsula.
event, which to this day generates considerable animosity among Koreans. The Russo-Japanese War began in February 1904 when the Japanese fleet sieged a Russian naval squadron at Port Arthur, in order to suppress Russia’s expansionist foreign policy in Asia. In March, a large portion of the Japanese army landed in Korea, and by September 1905, they had won the ‘first great war of the 20th century’. The effects of the war on Russia influenced the manifestation of mass political and social unrest, as well as discontent with the Tsarist autocracy, which culminated in the revolution of 1905. This was a precursor to the 1917 Bolshevik revolution led by Lenin, which would lead to the formation of the Soviet Union, which would later play a pivotal role in the division of the two Koreas.
The early signs of Korea’s annexation indicate that it was mainly its geographical location that meant it was always prone to invasion.
The Russo-Japanese War’s consequences were also significant to the process of Korea’s subjugation into a greater Japanese empire. The presence of a large Japanese military force in Korea was left undisturbed: in fact, secret talks between the US and Japan resulted in the Taft-Katsura agreement of July 1905 (signed by the US Secretary of War Taft and Japanese Prime Minister Katsura), which meant that the US joined China in recognizing Japanese
The completion of Japan’s annexation: Japan would not come into direct conflict with Russia – who had joined China in an anti-Japan alliance - until 1904, at which point the Russo-Japanese war broke out. Up until then, Japan had gradually consolidated its control over Korea; the nationalist Queen Min was assassinated at the imperial palace (gyeongbokgung, shown right) in Seoul, an 24
predominance in Korea, as long as the Japanese pledged not to interfere in the Philippines, a country that was part of the ‘US Commonwealth’.
government roles were handed over to Japanese officials, who ruled the country in his stead. The Japanese colonial rule of Korea lasted until 1945. Original aspects of Korean culture were suppressed: the Korean alphabet (hangul) was forbidden in schools, and citizens were told to consider themselves Japanese subjects. Some elements of Japanese rule which were particularly brutal remains the reason for tension between the two countries today, especially over the issue of Japanese usage of approximately 200,000 Asian women – mostly Korean – as sex slaves.
This was effectively a contradiction of the earlier Chemulpo Treaty in which the US had pledged to come to Korea’s aid if it was invaded by foreign powers. The US, upon whom Koreans relied on for protection, had done little to preserve Korea’s independence. It is argued that the US military had “neither the will nor the power” to protect Korea. With this latest political manoeuvre, Japan had managed to remove another key obstacle to their complete annexation of Korea: now, the trio of China, Russia and the US had become spectators as Japan signed a trilogy of treaties with a helpless Korea with the result that, by 1910, Korea had been deprived of its diplomatic sovereignty, with administration of internal affairs handed over to the Japanese. A formal annexation treaty was signed in August 1910: Article 1 of the treaty stated: “His Majesty the Emperor of Korea makes the complete and permanent cession to his Majesty the Emperor of Japan of all rights of sovereignty over the whole of Korea”. The proclamation of such a treaty was deeply unpopular, and caused outrage in Korea, but the people had no means of retaliation; King Kojong had been forced to abdicate to his feeble son Sunjong, who was easily pressured by the Japanese, to the extent that he approved the annexation treaty, then spent the rest of his life under virtual imprisonment in a royal palace in Seoul. All senior
For 35 years, Korea’s development take place under the Japanese flag. There was very little the Korean people could do to determine their own fate during this time, and all because of the simple fact that they lived in a geographically strategic position. Liberation from Japanese rule after the Second World War:
In December 1941, Japan launched the surprise attack against the US at Pearl Harbour, which resulted in the opening of the Pacific theatre of war. After the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was compelled to surrender, bringing the end of the Second World War.
25
Plans for a liberated Korea were drawn up in the Cairo Declaration, signed between Roosevelt (of the US), Chiang Kai-Shek (of China) and Churchill (of Britain) in 1943, which agreed, “in due course Korea shall become free and independent”. Tyler Dennett – a well-known historian specializing in Asia at the time – asked in his ‘Eastern Survey’ how long the term “due course” entailed, casting his doubt over whether such freedom and independence could be granted to Korea. Dennett made clear the most important reason for his apprehension, which was that, for Korea to achieve independence as a whole peninsula, there would be in need of “co-ordination of policy, military, political and economic, of Russia, China and the United States”. Such bipartisanship, he feared, would not be realized, despite the Korean people’s need for it.
resemblance to their actions in Eastern Europe at a similar time period. With strong Soviet and American contingencies in the northern and southern regions of the peninsula respectively, two US military colonels used a map and a ruler to decide the partitioning of Korea into two occupation zones. There was no consultation of any Koreans. Within half an hour, a new border was created – the now infamous 38th parallel – and a thousand years of united Korean history unraveled, and the early stages of modern-day North and South Korea were conceived, as seen in figure 1. After 35 years, the Korean peninsula was free from Japanese rule, but not as one country. The division into two Koreas was not an event that took place with Korean consultation; the partitioning of Korea was completely due to ideological differences between the US and the Soviet Union.
During the Second World War, the Soviet Union – allied with the US for the duration of the war – had sponsored a Korean Volunteer Army in the north of the peninsula to fight against Japanese occupation. This army was the foundation of the current North Korean military today. Amid the final chapters of the war, Soviet soldiers also crossed into Korean territory. Fearful of growing Soviet influence, the hardline anti-Communist US president Truman ordered the landing of troops in the south of the peninsula as well. Such American intervention bears close
The post-war period and the growing animosity between the two Koreas: A joint US-Soviet Union Commission was set up to administer the entire Korean peninsula in December 1945, with the intention of granting reunification and independence after a period of five years. However, the commission was unpopular with Koreans in both US and Soviet occupation zones; Koreans repudiated foreign control 26
after 35 years of Japanese annexation, and nationalist sentiments were at fever pitch, pressing for selfdetermination.
the superpowers that were the US and Soviet Union – each threw money and resources into their own occupation zones, fermenting their respective ideologies of Capitalism and Communism. After the defeat of Japan, the US and Soviet Union did not have the lynchpin enemy that had compelled them to be allies. Now, political differences came to the fore, and this growing antagonism resulted in the inability of the commission to make any progress in establishing a united, independent Korea. This prompted the US government to hold a general election under United Nations authority in the South in May 1948. Soviet authorities, as well as Korean Communists, refused to cooperate with the election on the grounds that the election was unlikely to be free and fair.
There was additional anger at the US in particular; before the setting up of the commission, a Korean political coalition – consisting of both left and right-wing groups, as well as moderates – had demanded that power be handed over to them. However, the US had rejected this proposal, on the grounds that there were Communists in the aforementioned coalition. Left-wing ideology was particularly popular in the aftermath of Japanese occupation; Korea was essentially a feudal society, with the few at the top controlling much of the country’s wealth - many of whom had been collaborators with the Japanese regime. Despite its popularity among Korean people, the coalition was outlawed by the US, and the potential for Korea to retain its unity and to gain selfgovernance was denied.
A new South Korean government – headed by the rightwing, vehemently anti-Communist, US-backed Rhee Syngman – was formed as a result of the election. Soon after, in September, a new North Korean government sponsored by the Soviet Union, was formed under the Communist exguerilla fighter, Kim Il-Sung, the grandfather of current dictator, Kim Jong-Un. Both leaders – Rhee of the South and Kim of the North – waged domestic conflict against political opponents, consolidating the Capitalist and Communist presences in their respective countries. Each government turned their entity of Koreans against the other, and what was initially only a political division between the two countries manifested into economic – and crucially,
Korea essentially became a game board after the Second World War; the two major players in international affairs – 27
social division, with Koreans in both the North and South now recognizing themselves to be of different nationalities.
however, other countries enacted their tensions in battles for them, and the Korean War would be the first case of this ‘proxy war’.
A ‘siege mentality’ was set up in both countries – each living in fear of invasion from the other – and both governments exploited (and exploit, to this day) this anxiety to oblige subservience and obedience from their respective body of citizens. In particular, the Communist Kim Il-Sung cemented a ‘Cult of Personality’ that meant many in the North dedicated themselves not to their country, but to their ‘Great Leader’. The same blind fidelity to an individual is the sentiment commonplace in North Korea today, which explains why three consecutive generations of the Kim family have been able to rule the country.
The Korean War 1950-53
The Korean War is often referred to as the ‘Forgotten War’ but its legacy affects all of those living on the peninsula today: some historians, such as Peter Lowe, argue that this conflict could have flared up into the third world war of the 20th century, such were the stakes involved. On the 25th June 1950, the first major conflict of the Cold War erupted when North Korea launched a surprise attack on South Korea. 90,000 North Korean soldiers armed with Soviet equipment made a rapid advance down south. Three days later, 15 nations – including the US and Britain – heeded the UN’s calls to defend South Korea, and in midSeptember, the US General MacArthur landed two divisions deep behind enemy lines in the port city of Incheon. By late September, Seoul, the capital city of South Korea, was retaken, and on the 9th October, the combined UN and South Korean force entered North Korea. It was a remarkably quick turnaround, and General MacArthur assured President Truman that the North Korean army had been destroyed. To President Truman, this signaled that the war was over, but General MacArthur had further ambitions of diminishing Communism in its entirety, by which he
Rhee (shown directly left) and Kim’s (shown left, above) governments were both puppets of the US and Soviet Union. It was this political antagonism between those superpowers that extrapolated itself to the Korean peninsula, whose inhabitants had had no reason for wanting division. The US and Soviet Union never came into direct conflict during the Cold War: 28
alluded to hopes of invading Mao Zedong’s China also. Indeed, with UN and South Korean forces approaching the Yalu River, the north-most border of North Korea with China, Mao Zedong sprung into action, committing the huge PRC army to North Korea’s aid. This repelled the Capitalist forces back down, and the progress made was lost.
The aftermath of the Korean War and the consolidation of division: A formal peace treaty that would bring about an official end to the war was scheduled to be ratified at the Geneva Convention in 1954. However, the outbreak of civil unrest in French Indochina (Vietnam) led to the supplanting of the Korean issue from the UN’s agenda. Subsequently, the two countries have grown further apart from each other, and time has not been able to reconcile relations on the peninsula.
By mid-April in 1951, neither Capitalist nor Communist forces could make any more ground. The war entered a prolonged stalemate period of static trench warfare in the area of the 38th parallel, the original border created in 1945. Eventually, an armistice was signed on the 27th July 1953. The total number of casualties is unlikely to be known for sure, given the secretive nature of North Korea’s regime. It is estimated that 1.3 million South Korean soldiers and civilians were killed (according to the Britannica). Sources vary wildly as to the extent of North Korea’s fatalities, but many estimate the toll to also be around 1.3 million. The animosity during the war was the final step towards division: it was arguably the actions of both groups of Koreans inflicting the pain of war upon each other that consolidated their partioning of the peninsula.
South Korea (whose capital city, Seoul, is shown on the right) emerged from the war as one of the fastest-growing nations on the planet. The economic development of South Korea is referred to as the “Miracle on the Han River”. In the early 1960s, the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was $79, lower than some Sub-Saharan African countries at that time. Under an export-influenced and USaided capitalist model, South Korea experienced total GDP growth of more than 8% on average every year, with the GDP per capita rising to $5,438 by 1989. Today, the GDP per capita is estimated to be around $32,000. South Koreans are proud of their accomplishment: from the ruins of war, they built the world’s 15th largest economy and produced global companies such as Samsung, but this pride will forever be tainted with sadness and remorse for their neighbours. For whilst South Koreans reap the benefits of their newfound wealth, North Koreans live under an oppressive 29
regime in extremely high levels of poverty. It is estimated that the GDP per capita in North Korea today is below $2,000, which is just 1/16th of South Korea’s figure. The failure of the North Korean economy to modernize has had catastrophic repercussions: 32% of the population is undernourished, and it was ranked as the 149th most peaceful, as well as the most corrupt, country in the world. Human rights organizations assess North Korea as a category of its own, with no parallels to be drawn in terms of their degree of violations.
military strongman, Park Chung-hee (father of the current president, Park Geun-hye, his daughter). Park remains one of the most controversial figures in South Korean history: he is lauded by some conservatives for his stimulation of the economy but lambasted by libertarians for his authoritarian rule. Park justified his ‘guided democracy’ policy, consisting of restrictions of personal freedoms, as he felt it was necessary to fight Communism. North Korea was portrayed as an enemy to the people of South Korea. Under Park Chung-hee’s aggressive anti-North Korean regime, South Koreans were instilled with distrust and dislike of their northern neighbours. Why he was so keen to fight Communism is clear: US foreign policy was centered around containment of Communism, and therefore, it was vital that South Korea would not follow in the steps of South Vietnam in becoming a Communist state. Therefore, the US sponsored Park’s regime financially and militarily, and made sure that there would not be a unification of the two Koreas under Communism. Again, this shows how foreign powers influenced the cementing of the division on the
The answer as to why there is such a marked difference in living standards between the two countries, which were more or less equal at the beginning of the Korean war, is multi-faceted: but it is clear that the largest influence was that of the US. As briefly mentioned before, South Korea’s economy developed on a capitalist model that the US implemented. South Korean politics was and still is heavily shaped by the US; there are still 30,000 US troops who control the South’s military defence against a possible North Korean invasion. Economic growth in the South was also fastest when under the 18-year rule (from 1963) of the 30
peninsula.
remarked that any development on the peninsula must be one shared equally between those on both sides of the 38th parallel. His words resonate with the wishes of many Koreans today: in his autobiography, he said that he desired for the nation to become the “most beautiful” in the world, finally free from foreign intervention and united under one flag. This dream was shot down with his assassination in 1949 – an event engineered by the CIA, say some. One year later, the outbreak of the war split that nation Kim dreamed of – the one family - in half.
In contrast, the Soviet Union or China did not station any troops in North Korea in the long-term. North Korea developed much of its current political system independently; in fact, the political ideology of North Korea is not Communism – it is in fact ‘juche’. ‘Juche’ is a political theory composed by Kim Il-sung, and whilst some principles are rooted in Marxism and Communism, the thesis as a whole was distinctly different; ‘juche’ – also known as Kimilsungism – places most of its emphasis on national self-reliance and military independence. These are the principles that oversaw most of North Korea’s development, which, by adherence to its ideology, had to be unaided. This explains why, unlike their neighbours in the South, their economy is one of the poorest today. It is this strict accordance to ‘juche’ principles that means that today North Korea is considered a hermit nation, with minimal communication with the outside world.
This was not what the majority of Koreans wanted. This division today is not what the majority of Koreans want now. However, there were, in my mind, four parties whose actions in history have made this a distant possibility: Japan, the US, the Soviet Union and China. Had Korea been left alone by the Japanese empire in the late 19th century, the whole peninsula would still have been governed by one monarch and under one flag. Had the post-war Korean coalition been accepted by the US, the whole peninsula would have had one government, and one president. Had the North Koreans not been equipped by the Soviets to invade their southern neighbours, the peninsula would not have experienced a terrible war, and had the Chinese not intervened, the South Koreans would have won the war and united the peninsula, albeit under a USsponsored regime.
All in all, it is clear therefore that American influence was the greatest in shaping the Korean peninsula as the Soviet Union and China did not exert any pressure on North Korea, who pursued a policy of self-dependence.
Conclusion: Kim Gu – a left-wing nationalist politician who had been a leading member of the unified Korean coalition that was proposed and rejected before the beginning of the war – 31
Up until the outbreak of the war, the Korean people’s fate was never in their own hands. Its geographical location was key to this: stuck between China and Japan, and close to the Communist superpower that was the Soviet Union, there was always likely to be tension on the peninsula. This tension was exacerbated by the burgeoning influence of the US, who took South Korea under their sphere of Capitalist influence, whilst North Korea became Communist, resulting in the Korean War. After the war however, it was the Korean people both sides on the border that were the most influential reason in the prolonged divided fate of the peninsula.
that the people of that country cannot rectify this issue, to this day. Perhaps this is because, in both countries, the history of how the current status quo came to be are not properly taught; both North and South Korea have different interpretations as to why they fell apart, and neither are accurate and they are certainly not objective. Until the proper history is taught in both countries, a unified Korean future does look bleak at present.
History Journal Citations + bibliography + webliography:
It is a sad thing that a country was split apart due to the self-interests of foreign powers, but it is an even sadder thing
Brian Willson ‘The First U.S. Korea War’ (July, 2000) Rowena Hammal ‘Destined to Fail? How the division of Korea led to the Korean War’, History Review Issue 67 (September 2010) William Stueck ‘The Korean War: An International History’ Editorial consultant Richard Overy ‘DK 20th Century: A Visual Guide to Events that shaped the World’ Peter Lowe ‘The Korean War’, Reviews in History, Review Number 157 (December, 2000) Max Noah ‘Mission to Korea’, Music Educators Journal, Vol. 35, No. 36 (May – June 1949) Kathryn Weathersby ‘The Korean War Revisited’, The Wilson Quaterly, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Summer, 1999), pp 91-95 32
Bruce Cumings ‘The Origins of the Korean War, Volume II: The Roaring of the Cataract, 1947-50’ Bonnie B. C. Oh ‘Review Article: The Korean War, No Longer Forgotten’, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1, (February 1998) pp. 156-160 asianhistory.about.com/od/northkorea/f/split-north-andsouth-korea.htm http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/ korea_hickey_01.shtml http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs ‘South Korea: Japanese Occupation, the Korean War, and Partition’ http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/koreanwar/ timeline.html http://www.timelines.ws/countries/KOREASOUTH.HTML http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/ southkorea/krtimeln.htm http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/546176/SinoJapanese-War
33
BENJAMIN CAVEN-ROBERTS AND URSULA
After enduring the lunacies of the emperor Nero and an intense struggle for power during civil war, the Roman people saw Vespasian become their new leader, proclaimed emperor by both his own soldiers and the Senate without having to participate in a single battle. ‘Rome prospered under his rule,’ setting up new taxes, founding professorships to encourage
MEYER
The Truth of Tyranny: A Comparison Between Vespasian and Qin Shihuang
Bust of Vespasian education and launching building projects for the benefit of his people. Though of humble birth (his father was a tax collector, his mother belonged to the equestrian order in society), he went on to found the Flavian dynasty and restore political stability to Rome. He took part in the invasion of Britain in A.D. 43, receiving triumphal honours for his achievements and becoming consul in 51. He obtained the proconsulate of Africa, where his extreme financial rigour caused him to be so unpopular that the people pelted him with turnips. He organised the construction of the Colosseum in Rome, in part as a demonstrative overthrowal of Rome’s ugly past with Nero.
Although these two emperors ruled at different times, in different regions, with vastly different cultures and personal reputations, there are startling similarities between the two. Perhaps this stands testament to the hypothesis that even between seemingly directly opposed rulers, there is an unwritten formula which many appear to inadvertently follow. There are arguments that Vespasian never even knew of Qin Shihuang’s existence, making these similarities stand out even further. A Brief Introduction to Each: Vespasian
A.D. 9-79
A.D. 69-79 Roman Emperor
Qin Shihuang B.C. 260-210
Full name, Titus Flavius Vespasianus
34
B.C. 246 Crowned King of State of
Qin
The Terracotta Army B.C. 230-221 Conquers the Warring States
soldiers, using 700,000 workmen (the Terracotta Army), or the repeated expedition into the East Sea in search of the elixir of life into their somewhat outdated context.
B.C. 221 Declares himself, formerly known as Yingzheng, to be Qin Shihuang (First Emperor of China)
Economic Policy
B.C. 206 Collapse of the Qin dynasty
The most quantifiable characteristic of both Vespasian’s and Qin Shihuang’s rule is their economic policy, regarding both how they generated funds, and where those funds went:
Qin Shihuang was responsible for the emergence of a unified state, recognisable as modern China. Although the dynasty lasted a meagre 14 years, it made an indelible mark on Portrait of Qin Shihuang Chinese history, largely due to the establishment of both the principle of Legalism and of how central governments should rule (see ‘Opposition’). On a level with the brutality of Stalin, as a modern-day parallel, Qin Shihuang was infamous for his merciless punishments, such as allegedly burying 460 scholars alive because they were accused of ‘using the past to discredit the present.’ He became known as ‘the Qin Tiger.’ His physical control was virtually unchallengeable. The emperor also attempted to exert an intellectual control, banning private teaching and destroying books. Additionally famous for being highly superstitious, he feared death and was in a constant quest for immortality. These characteristics put such extravagant, and perhaps even confusing, events as the sculpture of 7,500 unique, individually-crafted clay
Coinage Both recognised the importance of coinage: Vespasian skilfully paid homage to a previous emperor, by using, exactly one century on, an old Augustan coin-type: an oak-wreath crown, which enclosed the legend, ‘SPQR OB CIVES SERVATOS’ (‘The Senate and the People of Rome: For Having Saved the Citizens’). ‘Rome was, in other words, experiencing the reviving hand of a 'New Augustus' in circumstances which were not dissimilar to those of 31 B.C.’ This helped develop his auctoritas (see ‘Opposition’). One of the principal motifs on Vespasian’s coinage was ‘pax,’ meaning ‘(civil) peace,’ which 35
was much sought after by the Roman people, following the civil wars of the preceding years.
homes that included two or more grown sons, for example, had to pay double tax.’
Qin Shihuang, however, attempted to destroy memories of past governing systems and to unify the country by promoting internal trade through a new, standardised currency. The different coins used in the former Warring States were banned. The Qin coin, round with a square hole in the middle (so that it could be collected with a piece of string) became the standard currency.
Vespasian, upon becoming emperor, announced that three times the annual revenue of the Roman empire was required to restore the state to its former self, which was vital after the deficit incurred by the emperor Nero and the devastation caused by the civil wars. Contemporaries, however, accused Vespasian of collecting this money for the sake of ‘avarice,’ although this is clearly untrue (see ‘Personal Life’). He increased, and often doubled, provincial taxation and revoked immunities which had been granted previously to Greek-speaking cities and regions. He reclaimed public land in Italy from squatters and introduced several new taxes, including a new tax paid by the Jews of the Diaspora.
Therefore, one could remark that Vespasian’s attitude to coinage was more for the sake of consolidating his own power, whereas Shihuang attempted, through this means, to unify the country, both in a cultural and trade sense. Taxation
Accordingly, Shihuang’s taxation programme largely served the purpose of cementing his own position, severing the link between the regional proletariat and the most influential families. Vespasian, on the other hand, attempted to restore the empire to its former economic stability, with little apparent cupidity, unlike some critics had suggested.
One of Qin Shihuang’s many great innovations was to allow peasants to pay taxes by a means most practical to them, such as an amount of grain, as opposed to in the form of labour. Instead of paying taxes to the landowners, the peasants paid taxes to the central treasury, which broke the traditional loyalty to family, replacing it with loyalty to the State. Shihuang perhaps found inspiration for this policy in his predecessor, the Qin King Xiaokong, who adopted a Legalist five-point programme. The third point of this policy expressed an aim to:
Public Expenditure Qin Shihuang built over 4,000 miles of new roads and 1,250 miles of canals, in addition to enforcing a standardised wheel size and axle width for carts and groove size on all roads to grease the wheels of trade, so to speak. He also introduced standardised weights and measures.
‘Change the taxation system to break the traditional loyalty to family (and replace it with loyalty to the state). Those 36
Most famously, Vespasian built the Colosseum, notably for the sake of the people of Rome. This dwarfed the Colossus statue, erected by Nero (an enormous 30m bronze statue of himself, only 8 feet shy of the Statue of Liberty), which had previously been one of, if not the, greatest structures in Rome. The Colosseum was constructed where Nero’s artificial, private boating lake had been just a few years before (the
was to speed up Qin Shihuang’s troops so they could crush resistance more quickly.
Depending on the way one chooses to interpret these events, therefore, it could be observed that Vespasian was merely trying to depoliticise his people, whereas Shihuang wanted to unify the newly-coalesced country and increase its prosperity. The Colosseum can be seen as a symbol of Roman competition, triumphalism and victory over the rest of the known civilised world. However, it could also be argued that the Roman leader was trying to better the living standards of his people, which Shihuang clearly was not doing via the forced labour on the Great Wall or the extravagance of his mausoleum.
The Colosseum, Rome lake was composed so that it recreated the Roman Empire, so that Nero could row into the middle of it and pretend he was the centre of the known world). This ostensibly demonstrated that Vespasian was returning Rome to its people. Its construction not only created jobs but was one of the first and certainly most successful places for free public entertainment. Commemorative coinage was issued to celebrate the Colosseum’s inauguration, after an estimated 9,000 wild animals were killed in the initiatory games.
The Great Wall of China’s construction, on the other hand, was less for the benefit of the people, and more so that Qin Shihuang could preserve his empire and ward off the Northern Barbarians, which, ironically, the Qin State had only recently been grouped in with. Unlike the Colosseum, work on the Great Wall was not voluntary. The working conditions were so bad that being sent to work on the Great Wall was viewed on a par with a death sentence. The construction leaders exploited
Arguably, the Colosseum was constructed for Vespasian’s image as the ‘saviour of Rome,’ however, it was undeniably more for the enjoyment of the Roman people than the construction of Chinese roads, of which one main purpose
The Great Wall of China 37
the workers to the point of death because they could expect the arrival of more unfortunate criminals and conscripted workers each day, or simply kidnap messengers and those who delivered food and water. It took over 10 years to create the 1,500 mile-long goliath. Chinese legend has it that nearly a million workers were drafted to work on the project. It is estimated that more than 100,000 workers died over the course of its construction; their bodies were simply tossed into the foundations for the next section of wall. The wall became known as the ‘10,000-Li Long Wall’ (the ‘li’ is a Chinese measurement roughly equivalent to 1/3 of a mile).
conquering all of the Warring States in just under 10 years. Both leaders emerged from a period of war: Qin Shihuang from the battles needed to conquer the Warring States, Vespasian from the civil wars of A.D. 68-69. Part of what helped the Qin State, and indeed Qin Shihuang, grow their influence so effectively was the fact that the Qins were untroubled by respect for tradition. A large part of what turned the Qin forces into an invincible fighting machine was that they ‘abandoned traditional styles of Chinese warfare that made use of cumbersome chariots in favor of mounted warfare like their nomadic neighbors. Mounted archers quickly replaced the chariot.’ This lack of fixation on custom is characteristic of Legalism. Similarly, Qin Shihuang was able to relocate all of the royal families from their homes into his guarded park, unfazed by respect for their blue blood. According to Annette L. Juliano, ‘a noble of Wei could remark that Qin […] is greedy and untrustworthy. It is ignorant of polite manners, proper relationships and upright behavior. Whenever the opportunity for true gab arises, it will treat relatives as if they were animals.’ Ironically, this is exactly what happened: Qin Shihuang took as much as he could for his empire, followed Han Feizi’s advice to issue deceptive assignments, executed his own potential biological father after an accusation of infidelity, and most poignantly of all, probably relocated the Wei family so he could keep them under his control.
Foreign Policy Vespasian and Qin Shihuang were relatively opposed in this regard: Vespasian attempted to maintain a stable empire, lacking some of the expansionist desires that many of his contemporaries had. Although, his eldest son, Titus, completed a long-awaited victory over Judea, which Vespasian himself had started, having been commissioned by Nero to subdue a revolt there in A.D. 67. Shihuang, on the other hand, was a voracious, almost insatiable expansionist, 38
Therefore, potentially Shihuang had more confidence and self-assertiveness, being so militarily powerful that caution was unnecessary. Vespasian, however, due to his lack of royal heritage and auctoritas consequently, and the fact that his reign emerged from a bloody period of civil war and a maniacal emperor, had to act more conservatively.
Those found in possession of such banned books faced the death penalty (which could take the form of being boiled alive). Shihuang, having rewritten Chinese society in an attempt to wipe out feudalism, relocated 120,000 of the most influential families to a guarded park that he built, which contained an exact replica of each ruler’s palace. In doing so, he was able to monitor them and strip them of their local support, rendering them powerless to these new changes. As further insurance against a revolt from the conquered states, the emperor had the families’ metal weapons melted down and recast as bells, bell supports and giant human statues, placed in the imperial palace.
Opposition
Qin Shihuang threw out the previous few hundred years’ school of thought, Confucianism, which had dominated the preceding Han dynasty and encouraged the idea that rulers should be virtuous and ‘use moral values in ruling people under them.’ He replaced this with Legalism, which substituted reverence and respect for elders and tradition for a more modern-sounding, centralised system of government, based on laws and rules, initially developed by the earlier Qin rulers. Consequently, ideological opposition to this radical change was inevitable. Shihuang, though, was so aggressively determined to destroy any opposition that, supposedly, he ordered for 460 Confucian scholars to be buried alive, for using the past to point out the flaws of the present.
He also broke up the hereditary system of land ownership, enabling anyone to buy and sell land (see ‘Law’ section below). This decreased the power of the traditional landowning families. There were two assassination attempts made on Shihuang’s life, exemplifying the public discontent. Vespasian, on the other hand, faced opposition in that he was not born from nobility, so had to develop his own auctoritas outside of legal authority, which those of noble blood may not have had to do. Some even made fun of his accent and corrected his speech patterns. Vespasian, however, whose good nature was in stark contrast to the Chinese Emperor’s, played along with this. In addition, he ‘carefully publicized the divine omens that portended his accession’ to increase the legitimacy of his power.
In conjunction with this, he ordered the burning of all books whose purpose was not the positive documentation of the Qin State or Qin dynasty, or books on agriculture and medicine (and were not in the official archives) in B.C. 213. 39
Accordingly, apropos of opposition, Vespasian was focused on legitimising his power; his Chinese counterpart, however, relied on exceptional military prowess to physically quash any kind of opposition.
which arguably made up for his lack of noble birth (see ‘Opposition’). Law
Support
Shihuang introduced new, unvaryingly severe punishments for crimes, including the death penalty for criticising the law itself. Much of the inspiration for his governing was based on the work of Legalist philosopher, Han Feizi, such as this idea of equal, merciless punishment for any and every crime. Another principle was to issue unfathomably difficult orders and to give deceptive assignments to keep potential enemies under control. This can be seen as part of the inspiration for many of the emperor’s orders, such as the expeditions into the middle of the sea for the elixir of life, or the construction of a mausoleum, which measured 120 feet high, 6,700 feet long and 3,100 feet wide. Qin Shihuang continued the principle of a penal code based on collective responsibility, established by a former prime minister of the State of Qin, Shang Yang. This meant that if one member of a group, typically a few connected families, did something wrong, the others were obliged to report him. If they did not, they were all assigned the same draconian punishment regardless of the infraction, which was typically a slow and violent death.
Qin Shihuang did not seem particularly keen to manufacture any kind of genuine support, ruling more through fear and oppression. This did, in actuality, create a sort of peace through terror. However, this largely explains why the Qin Dynasty was so short-lived, collapsing within four years of his death. Because all critical records of Shihuang were destroyed or prohibited from being created, it is hard to gauge whether there was actually any genuine support for the regime. Stalin, for example, killed a minimum of 34 million people, while still managing to retain a fanatical love from a sizeable portion of the population, with many still carrying statues of him after his death. Consequently, perhaps it is not as easy as one may anticipate to write off Shihuang as an unpopular tyrant… Vespasian, however, did manage to cultivate genuine support for his rule. Such popular policies as the construction of the Colosseum compensated for his increased taxation. Playing on the Roman people’s superstition, he made it known that there were divine omens portending his accession of power,
Everyone was declared equal under the law (apart from the emperor himself, of course). Hereditary titles were abolished 40
as a result and all land which had erstwhile belonged to the elite was redistributed to the peasants.
deemed advantageous to the Roman people.’ Vespasian’s standing was lower than that of all of his predecessors and this law acted as a substitute for the auctoritas he lacked.
Whether Shihuang himself acted legally is another question entirely. He gained power of the Qin State through heredity. There is an argument, however, that Shihuang was the illegitimate son of his father’s second in-command, Lü Buwei, so perhaps even his claim to the throne is not legitimate. Although, it is probably more so than his self-proclaimed title of First Emperor, which he achieved through the decimation of all other regional rulers!
Even before coming to power as emperor, Vespasian’s career was filled with high positions of authority and influence. After military service in Thrace and quaestorship in Crete, he achieved the praetorship in the earliest year the law allowed, A.D. 39, which is the same year as the birth of his elder son, Titus. Consequently, both rulers must be viewed as having acted legally because Shihuang created the laws himself and Vespasian was given the legal power to act as he wished, more or less, making legal infringements less of an issue.
One key innovation was the establishment of a written legal code, contrasting the morality-based decision-making of many of the previous rulers. Shihuang divided his empire into new administrative areas of 36 commanderies (jun), which were further divided into prefecturies (xian). Every commandery was governed by both a civil administrator, a military governor and an inspector, who were appointed by the imperial court and reported directly to the emperor.
Personal Life Both were diligent workers. Allegedly, Shihuang refused to retire to bed before he had gone through 120 pounds of paperwork (actually on bamboo) each day. This was another new introduction by him, so that he could monitor all the regional officials, in which he demanded that all official reports be written up using the standardised language and chirography.
Vespasian, however, was chosen by the Senate. He was given the first written form of emergency powers, which conferred various legal powers, privileges and exemptions upon him, many of which ‘his Julio-Claudian predecessors had [used, but for which they had] not sought explicit sanction.’ ‘It sanctioned all he had done up to the passing of the law and empowered him to act in whatever way he
Similarly, Vespasian, although accused by some of leading an extravagant life, which claim was often made incorrectly on the basis that he had increased taxation, lived a paragon of a simple and humble life. He was both famous and popular for ‘his great capacity for hard work and the 41
simplicity of his daily life, which was taken as a model by the contemporary aristocracy.’ Tacitus claims he was the only man up to that point who had become a better person since coming to power, which further dispels the rumours of avarice associated with him and his increased taxation.
aggressively unwilling people, whereas Vespasian merely had to put up with a few grumbling quinquagenarians. Inevitably, this led to the largest source of dissimilarity: opposition. I feel this is outweighed by economic policy and personal life, which withstand both the cultural and temporal difference.
Vespasian came to the power of a well- and long-established empire that had just come from a series of wars and civil unrest and was eager for peace (which he tapped into, printing ‘pax’ on his coins – see ‘Coinage’), suggesting why more radical changes to Roman life were not implemented by him. Shihuang, however, had to use violence and brutality to establish his rule over a reluctant people, which perhaps explains a large number of the reigns’ disparities. On a more basic level, Vespasian and Shihuang come across from the sources with very different temperaments. The former appears to be calm and mature, while the latter often comes across as having an exceptionally irascible nature, emphasised by his extreme reactions to the most basic of crimes (e.g. the common punishment of having a rib extracted) and his unrelenting fear of and merciless suppression of opposition, which appears to border on an inferiority complex. In conclusion, I believe Qin Shihuang and Vespasian were fundamentally more similar than dissimilar. The main reason for discrepancies between them is due to the fact that their rules emerged from different backgrounds. Shihuang was forced to use brutality to consolidate his control over an 42
PHILIP JENKINS AND NICHOLAS VAN OOSTEROM
believed that the Samurai originated as farmers who were skilled in martial arts. Culturally they became significant as poets and politicians. They cultivated their natural appreciation for nature, and played a role in the evolution of Japanese culture. From the twelfth century the Samurai adapted such Chinese arts as tea ceremonies, monochrome ink painting and poetry. These traditions were brought to Japan by the Zen monks and flourished due to patronage by this warrior elite.
How far were the Samurai at fault for the Meiji Revolution?
Although the Samurai were in touch with popular culture they followed a strict code of conduct called the Bushido, literally meaning ‘way of the warrior’. This code involved loyalty, respect, mercy, courage and, above all, honour. Valued above life itself by the Samurai, the Bushido is widely regarded as being responsible for the creation of the perfect Samurai warrior. Kusunoki Masashige (see left), one of the most well-known Samurai, was renowned for his strict following of the Bushido. Kusunoki is known for leading his army into an un-winnable battle in the 14th century for the emperor Go-Daigo. As Kusunoki was dying he declared that he wished he had seven lives that he could devote to his emperor. He was later used as propaganda in World War II to install imperial loyalty in the heart of the Japanese army, and also acted as the emblem of the Japanese Kamikaze pilots.
Few countries have a history of a warrior class as prestigious as the Samurai. Hugely influencing pre-modern Japanese history and culture, the Samurai, as depicted in countless western martial arts movies, were a group of warriors who were a product of the ancient feudal system of Japan. As well as being deadly on the battlefield, they were part of the ruling class for the best part of seven hundred years. It is
The Bushido suggests that, as a Samurai warrior, one should always choose death over dishonour. To ensure this, Samurai 43
suicides often followed the brutal code of seppuku (see right), which became an emblem of to their fearlessness. This unpleasant and painful self-inflicted death consisted of ceremonially plunging a tanto (small blade) into the stomach and then swiping the blade from side to side. This brutal form of suicide would usually take place if a Samurai had dishonoured their Daimyo (master) or the Bushido, or if they were about to get captured by enemies.
emperor, who was worshipped as a demigod. The majority of Japan was thus run by the Shoguns. In general, Emperors of Japan cared little for economics or politics. This ended with the Meiji Revolution, or Restoration, which took place in 1868. It brought an end to the Edo period – also known as the Late Tokugawa Shogunate – and in succession began a new one, under the rule of the Emperor Meiji (see left). This restored a political system to Japan whereby the Emperor was an active almighty force. It also led to the transformation of Japan into a modern industrialised country. In the space of 50 years coal production went from being non-existent to more than 20 million tons annually. By 1905 Japan was respected as a potent modern military force.
A direct translation of the word Samurai is “those who serve”. On top of the Bushido the Samurai also served their Daimyo with unconditional loyalty until death. The Daimyo were powerful feudal lords who hired the Samurai to guard their land from outsiders. The payment for this protection at first came in the shape of land and food but after time the Samurai started to get a percentage of the tax earned by the Daimyo. The Daimyo in turn pledged their allegiance to the Shoguns, the military leaders of Japan who held both political and economic power. The Shoguns owed their loyalty to no one but the
Many historians agree that this modernisation of Japan was the principal long term cause of the Revolution. At the heart of this lay education. Few people could read or write at the start of the Edo period, but by the end of the era, basic education had become widespread throughout Japan. As the literacy rate rose and more emphasis was being put on discipline and competent performance in education, the foundations were being laid for modernisation. By the 1860s, 40-50% of Japanese boys were educated outside of their home; this is comparable to many European countries at the time. It is estimated that around 44
20% of girls had some degree of literacy. Many were being educated in temple schools, Terakoya (see right), where they were taught reading and writing. An educated population discusses political matters. The Samurai and even some commoners also attended private academies. These often specialised in Western medicine, modern military science, gunnery, or Rangaku (literally “Dutch” studies, but by implication all western thought). In Japan there had also been a transformation in the transport system: travel became much easier for the growing population. This caused discussions amongst the Daimyo about how the current system was holding the country back from modernisation. The idea that change was needed informed all parts of society.
work for the Daimyo, they had acted as the forefront of political discussion. There was growing discontent within the Samurai class due to the lack of meritocracy in the Tokugawa Shogunate. For centuries the role of the Samurai was not defined by their own abilities but by what their father had been good at. No matter how accomplished, an individual Samurai had to follow in their father’s footsteps. This created a group of Samurai who felt that the traditional system was outdated; they wanted their future to be decided on their own merit. Basil Hall Chamberlain, a British scholar living in Japan at the time, stated that Japan in the early 19th century resembled that of the “Middle Ages”. The Samurai desperately wanted change to the political system. There is no doubt the Shogun behaved poorly. The role of the leading Shogun during the Late Edo period was to act in a similar role to a Prime Minister. Shogun Tokugawa Yoshinobu failed to prepare for the west’s arrival in Japan even though it was obvious that the Western countries would eventually trade with Japan. The default posture was of solitary belligerence. In 1818 a British ship had sailed into Uraga bay, near Edo, but their request for trade was flatly turned down by the Japanese. Trading attempts were also made by America, but when the American merchant ship
Some Marxist historians have argued that the Samurai themselves were the main cause of the Meiji Revolution. Since the Samurai’s movement from villages to live with and 45
‘The Morrison’ made a similar plea for trade in 1837, it met an even harsher reply: a warning volley of cannon fire. In 1842 the Shogun introduced temperance reforms intended to curb foreign influence. How banning gambling and unlicensed prostitution was supposed to achieve this remains a mystery. These the reforms were imposed in the hope of raising national self-esteem, but it seems to have had a bad effect on morale. This isolation meant that the Shogun lost the opportunity to negotiate with the West on his own terms. When Commodore Matthew Perry of the United States arrived in 1852, the terms of the treaty were in the hands of the Americans rather than the Japanese.
Referred to in a 2013 article as ‘early terrorists’, the Shishi were used to frighten foreigners, as a protest to the Shogun. More radical Shishi, such as Miyabe Teizō, planned largescale attacks with no regard for public safety, at one point going so far as to kill shogun grand councillor Ii Naosuke, who had been targeted for his involvement with the Western treaties. The Samurai were saw themselves as protectors of the people, a people whose interests were challenged by foreign influence, and whose interests would be served by an overthrow of the Shogun. Not only did the Tokugawa Yoshinobu (see left) fail to control external intervention in Japan, he also failed to control the Daimyo. In 1843, the Daimyo wanted to act against foreign pressures and build their own warships so that they could protect Japan. Foolishly, the Shogun refused as he believed that they would be gaining too much power if they had their own armies. However, the Daimyo decided to go against his orders and build ships in secret. As the Shogun realised he was losing
These treaties were felt to be unfair on Japan and caused great humiliation, opening her up to Europe's super-powers: Britain, Holland and France. The Japanese were forced to abolish the protective tariffs, leading to cuts in profits for many Japanese businesses. The perceived inequality of these treaties made foreign policy an issue in a public discussion between the Japanese. Opposition was growing: over 100 major disturbances were recorded up to 1866 due to resentment of the treaties. On top of this some of the Samurai were mobilized by how Tokugawa Yoshinobu had capitulated to the United States. For many traditional Japanese, just to be linked with the, as Aizawa Yasushi describes them, ‘Western Barbarians’, was humiliating and disgusting. Affiliation with the West caused of the rise of an extremist Samurai group - the Shishi. 46
support, as well as control, in an attempt to rally support, he requested that the Daimyo should submit opinions as to how to deal with the foreigners. However this reduced the legitimacy of the Shogun and also made the Daimyo believe they had power. It also opened the door to criticism of the Shogun. Since the 17th century the Daimyo had been following the traditional rule of Alternate Attendance, which meant as a Daimyo, they had to live away from their families. This kept them under the control of the Shogun, as if the Daimyo tried to rebel against the Shogun, the Shogun could kill his family, which thus secured the loyalty to the Shogun. However, in 1862, to try and gain to support of the Daimyo, Yoshinobu decided to end Alternate Attendance as they could spend more time with their family. This backfired as it simply loosened the grip on the Daimyo and revealed to them the obsoleteness of the system. He even allowed them to have warships and armies. As a result of this he lost control of them, and therefore he gave them the means for them to exact their revenge. The actions of the Shogun systematically created opposition to the regime and also let this opposition grow. Everyone wanted the restoration to take place as change was needed after the actions of the Shogun.
internal factors, such as the actions of the Shogun, which caused the revolution. If the foreign intervention was the most important cause, it would have taken less than the ten years it did for the revolution to take place. If the Shogun had not made the mistakes he did, the Edo period could have lasted for far longer than it did as most the other factors would have been avoided. Bibliography http://samurai.weebly.com/brief-history.html Harry D. Harootunian, - Pacific Historical Review Published by: University of California Press The Meiji Restoration - By W. G. Beasley - Published by: Wiley A New History of the Warrior Elite - By Jonathan Clements - Published by Robinson 2010 Samurai Status, Class, and Bureaucracy: A Historiographical Essay By - Douglas R. Howland -Published by Association for Asian Studies The Journal of Economic History - Published by: Cambridge University Press
Japanese historian Andrew Gordon states that without outside influence the system ‘could have bended without breaking.’ He argues that the external pressures proved a catalyst that magnified existing issues and eventually caused the revolution. But it is our belief that it was primarily
R. H. P. Mason; John Godwin Caiger -A history of Japan Published by Tuttle Publishing.
47
GORDON, A. (2003) - A Modern History of Japan Published by Oxford University Press R. P. Dore - The Legacy of Tokugawa Education (1965)
48