Talk:Mongol invasions of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Image

Sorry to remove your image. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. If you can find a way to put it back in so that it fits nicely on the page and formats properly, please go ahead. I don't know what sort of problem I was having. LordAmeth 00:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

7 November 2005 There is an interesting program on the Discovery Times channel entitled "Kublai Khan: Fall of the Mongol Hordes" about the invasion of 1281. The program is based on the work of a Japanese underwater archaeologist.

An examination of pieces of the ships found on the sea bottom reveals that the craftsmanship of the ships was not very good, not as normal. The implication is that the Chinese shipbuilders wanted to sabotage the mission and/or that Kublai Khan was in such a hurry to invade Japan that he didn't give the shipbuilders enough time to do the job properly. Consequently, in the typhoon, the ships broke up.

Further, most or all of the pieces recovered from the bottom were for riverboats, not for ocean-going ships with keels. The riverboats did not have keels, and would easily turn over in a storm.

Incidentally, they found one of the bombs as in the picture on the ocean floor. They would have been launched from catapults on the ships.

The program speculates that the defeat of the Mongols at that time would have led people on the continent to see that the Mongols could be defeated, thus encouraging subjugated peoples that they too might be able to successfully oppose the Mongols. (??)

I thought most Chinese ocean-going vessels didn't have a keel either but a flat bottom instead. Is that wrong? (82.135.66.208 18:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Invasions of Japan

See the Invasions of Japan section at Kublai Khan. Some of that information can update what's in the current article. Adraeus 23:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone who knows how (I don't) should change the linked reference to "mongol compound bows". The Mongols did not have "compound" bows. Those are a late 20th century invention. The Mongols had "composite recurve bows" (so did the Tatars, Turks, people of India and others). The difference is VERY important technically.24.10.102.46 03:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that looked strange. Thanks for reminding me. I'll go change it. LordAmeth 11:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I was reading this article and clicked a refrence to the Battle of bun'ei, and I noticed a discrepency: This article states that the Mongols outnumbered the Samurai, and the article Battle of Bun'ei states they Mongols were badly outnumbered by the Samurai. I was wondering which is right? Caris42 20:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, another very important point that I somehow missed. I shall look into this tomorrow. Thank you for pointing it out. LordAmeth 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"... due to their role in setting a limit on Mongol expansion, are arguably crucial events to world history as a whole."

Mongol Expansion had failed in other regions of the world before the invasion of Japan.

For example, in the Mongol invasions of Vietnam, first attempt failed in 1258, the 2 others later also failed too. The limit of Monggol expansion in the south direction, therefore, had been set at Vietnam-China border, indepedently and before Japan attacks. In fact, one attack to Japan was cancelled because of Mongol's resource redirected to Vietnam attempt (which were all failed). In this particular case, the failure in Japan is not a major cause ("their role in setting a limit") but rather a result from other Mongol activities in other regions (explicitly, Vietnam).

I think the introduction should be changed to reflect a more global view of the "world history". It is writing about "world history" viewed in the Japan eye.134.157.170.125 11:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I know how Vietnam fought against Chinese expansion, not only against Mongolian dinasty. Actually I respect this. The best way for you is to create and enhance the acticle of Mongol invasions of Vietnam. After that, we can review these articles and modify them adequately. --Corruptresearcher 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Little Need of Divine Intervention reference

Hi!

I had previously referenced Thomas Conlan's [work] on the Mongol invasions of Japan (whcih included a translation and line art reproduction of the Moko Shurai Ekotoba), as well as provided a [link] to an essay from said book, in which Professor Conlan disputes the 'divine wind' explanation for the repulsion of the Mongol invasions of 1274 and 1281.

While I had perhaps been a bit clunky with my previous contribution, I feel that without reference to the book in question (which is also a useful source of English translations of relevant Kamakura-era documents) the reasons for disputing the numbers involved in the invasion - or for the success or failure of the Japanese in resisting the Mongols in theatre - are not adequately presented.

Could it be possible to include a reference to the title in question - as well as separate the issue of the debate from the Aftermath sub-section? --Nerroth 23:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to separate out the debate, as I phrased it as such, writing "Though it is not universally agreed upon, many scholars today believe..." This is a phrasing that quite clearly indicates that there is a debate, and that the ideas presented here are not the "facts" as seen from only one point of view, but are ideas that are very much still not agreed upon by scholars.

George Sansom, my primary source, and a rather well-known and respected expert on Japanese medieval history, writes: "Against these handicaps [those of Mongol tactics and technology] the resistance of the Japanese was ineffective and it was only their courage that allowed them to hold out until nightfall ... however, the Japanese were by no means defeated, since given time they could overwhelm the Mongols by superior numbers" (History of Japan to 1334, p 443). A few pages later, in reference to the second invasion, he writes: "How long the Japanese could have kept up this desperate and stubborn fighting we cannot tell; but it is clear that from June 23 to August 14, a space of over seven weeks, the long line from Munakata well into Hizen province was firmly held" (p 449). So, the Japanese certainly were at a great disadvantage, but I think that the claims of whether or not they could have survived without the kamikaze are quite debateable - they had plenty of time to prepare for the second attack, they had the courage and fighting spirit of the samurai (just look at half the WWII battles where we fought the Japanese and you'll see something of the difficulty in opposing their fighting spirit) and the katana, one of the greatest styles of sword ever invented. Perhaps most importantly, they had far superior numbers to the Mongol invaders. ::More to the point, while Prof Conlan may be on to something, and may make some very good points, that doesn't change the fact that the core majority of academia and books on the subject represent the events a particular way. In scholarship, just about every topic under the sun has detractors; that is, there are papers, perfectly valid papers that make good points based on solid research, arguing against nearly every conventional theory of nearly everything one could possibly study. It doesn't mean that the conventional belief is entirely overturned. ::As for the other matter, I think it ought to go without saying that medieval chronicles cannot always be trusted for the numbers involved. These were written, more often than not, as epic tales or the like, tales of bravery and courage and not intended as accurate historical descriptions. Just like the Bible and the Iliad, these stories were written to tell a story, and to express or teach a message, such as that of bravery and courage. No one present could have or would have accurately counted heads, anyway. A giant, imposing alien force from across the seas would be represented as such, its numbers exaggerated by the pure force and intimidation factor they exuded, as would the defending force. I hope that helps clear things up somewhat. ~~~~

[edit] Possible exceptions

Hi. I don't normally like to nitpick, and I apologize. But the phrase referring to World War II as a "possible exception" was quite intentionally phrased that way. Operations Olympic and Coronet were never undertaken, and the Home Islands were never invaded, unless one counts the Occupation. Thus, whether it counts as an exception or not is not decided. LordAmeth 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is so bullshit. This war never happened. The mongols NEVER owned that much of the world, this is simply mythological bullshit. I cannot believe WIKIPEDIA would put this bullshit lie on here...15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)~

And you got your facts from...? I'm assuming you believe the holocaust never occured either?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/n/Talk%7EMongol_invasions_of_Japan_cd7b.html"

Talk:Mongol invasions of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image

[edit] Invasions of Japan

[edit] POV

[edit] In Little Need of Divine Intervention reference

[edit] Possible exceptions

Views

Navigation

Search