How early can the Samurai be killed?

We should all know that they were banned in the late 19th century, but I wish to see how possible it is to kill the Samurai much, much earlier. Their European counterparts started vanishing much sooner. So I wonder how we could make the same happen and have infantry replace them. Could the Japanese import the crossbow from China, thus making Japanese knights fairly easy to kill?
 
The samurai were as much a social class as a type of warrior. Weaponry would achieve little in the way of social reorganization. Contrary to popular opinion, it was not Gatling Guns that "killed" the samurai, but political westernization.
 
The samurai were as much a social class as a type of warrior. Weaponry would achieve little in the way of social reorganization. Contrary to popular opinion, it was not Gatling Guns that "killed" the samurai, but political westernization.

But I'm sure if their effectiveness in battle is seriously undermined that some type of change would have to occur.
 
But I'm sure if their effectiveness in battle is seriously undermined that some type of change would have to occur.

No. I'm sorry, but you appear to know very little about the Samurai.

"The Samurai" are akin to "The Knight".

Militarily we think of the Knight as a guy wandering around on horseback with a big pointy stick... but there are still knights going into battle today. I'm almost certain that someone who is 'Sir something-or-other' was in Afghanistan.

The point being, you're discussing a military type and using a generic name for a class.

If you're talking about 'how early could the style of warfare employed by the Samurai be defeated', well, then again we're in a difficult situation. The style of warfare evolved over hundreds of years. It changed even though the basics stayed the same. Their armour and weaponry modernised and so did their tactics.
 
As Golden and Raven said, the Samurai were part of the Japanese social hierarchy. The only way to get rid of them earlier than the Meiji Restoration would be to have an earlier imperial restoration (and thus Westernization). I can't think of much else working.
 
Well if you mean 'killed' as in traditional samurai (swords and all that) losing their dominance on the battlefield, then certainly the introduction of firearms and development of volley fire tactics, drill etc. are going to end them. I'm not sure if crossbows will have the same effect, if the European experience is anything to go by.

Political centralization is what neuters the samurai as a class. Tokugawa-style feudalism mainly revolved around keeping the warrior classes (daimyo on downwards) locked inside their castles. Hostages were sent to Edo to manage vassal behaviour, and the daimyo were encouraged towards economic, cultural and familial pursuits. While this didn't get rid of the samurai as an alternative power base it did neuter them enough for the class as a whole to stop being a threat to the central authorities... at least, until Commodore Perry came along.
 
As Golden and Raven said, the Samurai were part of the Japanese social hierarchy. The only way to get rid of them earlier than the Meiji Restoration would be to have an earlier imperial restoration (and thus Westernization). I can't think of much else working.
Does it count if you stop them from coming into existence?
Because Samurai as a social class rather than a conscripted warrior job only really started to mature in the ADs leading up to 1200, and only got properly cemented in place in the 1180-85 Genpei war, in which the first shogunate rose.
 
That depends you would have to have a centralized Japanese state that's willing to allow Samurai to undergo the same that European nobility they would find other pursuits outside of battle and warfare. The problem is that the latest is started to happen was under the Tokugawa Shoguns, you would have to have a strong Shogunate be able to do, that so the Ashikaga are flat out as they had to make lots of concessions and rely on vassals. You could the end of the samurai if you have a successful Go-Kemmu restoration and attempts to centralize power away from the land owners and the Shogun.
 
A major reason for the decline in power of European nobility is because of the rise of prominence of money. Traders and industrialists became more important than some irrelevant lord, who may have an impressive lineage, but has to sell his castle for lack of money. Can't something similar happen in japan?
 
Samurai is two interconnected but ultimately different things

1. Its a social caste not unalike non-royal nobles in europe
2. Its often seen as a certain way to fight in combat, mainly in the philosophy surrounding it. (linking it with their Martial use is somewhat of a red herring, as that evolved with military knowledge just as it did in europe)

A major reason for the decline in power of European nobility is because of the rise of prominence of money. Traders and industrialists became more important than some irrelevant lord, who may have an impressive lineage, but has to sell his castle for lack of money. Can't something similar happen in japan?

Given that Sengoku-period Samurais didn't have the same aversion towards earning money by merchantile prospects that most european nobles had (at least western/central european, as nobles from fringe places such as Sweden were at least originally merchants by trade), I doubt that it would have to much of an influence. Sure, most of them weren't very good at it, but they had no tradition banning them from trying.
 
Sian said:
Given that Sengoku-period Samurais didn't have the same aversion towards earning money by merchantile prospects that most european nobles had (at least western/central european, as nobles from fringe places such as Sweden were at least originally merchants by trade), I doubt that it would have to much of an influence. Sure, most of them weren't very good at it, but they had no tradition banning them from trying.
The aversion of money by samurai only came as an ideal during the late Edo Period, when peace reigned and Japanese culture could be developed without challenge. It is described in Bushido: The Soul of Japan, written by Inazo Nitobe in 1900. However, I would agree that the samurai during Sengoku were probably a lot more pragmatic in those times of turmoil.

Nevertheless, money was very prominent during the Edo Period. This did not, however, lead to the fall of the samurai as compared to the European nobility in the way Pompejus described. The money business could be handled by the merchants, many of who were in league with samurai and were very powerful. This meant big money makers could co-exist alongside idealized feudal warriors.

I would suggest that a good way to get rid of the samurai would be by preventing the consolidation of the nation by Tokugawa, and let the civil wars continue. The samurai could be uprooted by social upheaval, but it is likely they would simply be replaced by another form of gentry.
 
I would suggest that a good way to get rid of the samurai would be by preventing the consolidation of the nation by Tokugawa, and let the civil wars continue. The samurai could be uprooted by social upheaval, but it is likely they would simply be replaced by another form of gentry.

I don't see that as anything but strengthening of the warrior class. A prolonged civil war drives more and more men to arms instead of the opposite.
 
I would suggest that a good way to get rid of the samurai would be by preventing the consolidation of the nation by Tokugawa, and let the civil wars continue. The samurai could be uprooted by social upheaval, but it is likely they would simply be replaced by another form of gentry.

Social upheaval wouldn't work in this case, the Ikko Ikki where perfect examples of social upheaval as a religious mass peasant movement, and even then were able to make that much of the era. I'd say you need to prevent the decentralized and weak Ashikaga Shogunate from coming to power if you want the earliest death of the Samurai class.
 
You could kill them in the crib, so to speak. Prevent the warrior clans from gaining the power and influence that they did and keeping the political power at court. Otherwise some form of early westernization/centralization would be necessary.

Continuing the Sengoku Jidai would only serve to weaken Japan, it would not kill the Samurai, traditional wars do not dissolve traditional warrior classes. No Tokugawa Shogunate might allow for an earlier Meiji restoration though.

Of course, there is also the risk of simply replacing the Samurai with an equivalent martial nobility.
 

Arkocento

Donor
We should all know that they were banned in the late 19th century, but I wish to see how possible it is to kill the Samurai much, much earlier. Their European counterparts started vanishing much sooner. So I wonder how we could make the same happen and have infantry replace them. Could the Japanese import the crossbow from China, thus making Japanese knights fairly easy to kill?

The Spartan culture has survived centuries of change, of course its been altered to a different present form (Maniots) but in effect it has yet to die.

Without an intense war on Japanese culture its impossible to Kill the samurai.
Technically the Meiji restoration did that, but I think its fair to believe that the Samurai didn't exactly die off as a class as shift with the Westernization.

If anything the Samurai was most effectively killed off during American occupation post WW2
 
If anything the Samurai was most effectively killed off during American occupation post WW2

I'd agree with this. I think that you could quite easily argue for the presence of a 'Samurai tradition' during WWII.

Katana were captured by allied soldiers that were hundreds of years and had been in the family all that time.

The sword itself doesn't mean 'Samurai' but the handing down and tradition certainly stemmed from that neck of the woods.
 
hmm what about at the great naval battle of Dan-no -ura Minamoto no Yoshitsune is descivley beaten by the Taira. In otl it was Minamoto who established the legacy of the warrior castes, united them, and created his military bases with their support. So perhaps if you can have the Minamoto clan lose this naval battle, coupled with a crushing defeat, perhaps Minamoto and the warrior clans of Kanto could be beaten. If they are indeed beaten then Yoshitsune never becomes Shogun.

On top of that lets say for their revolt, the victorious Taira clan deprives these military clans of their lands o jails them so as to say as retribution. Or at the very least weakens their power.

Now I'm not sure if the Taira had plans for creating their own shogunate but if they didnt and continued to support the emperor, than I doubt the court would see value in the development of an independent class called the samurai who were mainly drawn from the warrior clans. After all if the warrior clans were beatean they were not so special and so samurai if they did develop which they would have eventually, would be relegated to the military. T

he key difference from otl being a civil government resides in the capital and the military remains separate from said government.

Another POD could be even earlier, lets say the Taira ally with the Fujiwara somehow to crush Minamoto and then the two sides fight leading to a Fujiwara triumph. Or just having the Fujiwara by some miracle defeat the Minamoto-Taira allaince, perhaps with aid from the Hojo? If Fujiwara clan triumphs they will try to preserve the status quo of the civil government since the Fujiwara played a very important role during the time period and their princesses were married to the emperors.
 
The sword itself doesn't mean 'Samurai' but the handing down and tradition certainly stemmed from that neck of the woods.
The samurai as a social class had long ceased to exist. It is notable that by the time of World War II, Prime Ministers of peasant background had already been voted in. Samurai ended with the social reorganization of the Meiji Revolution.
 
The samurai as a social class had long ceased to exist. It is notable that by the time of World War II, Prime Ministers of peasant background had already been voted in. Samurai ended with the social reorganization of the Meiji Revolution.

Sure. Again, it depends on your definition of 'Samurai'.

I'm sure some soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Imperial Japanese army and navy would have considered themselves 'Samurai', even if only within their heart.
 
Top