The Effect of Warfare on the Development of Japanese Medieval State (Thesis Sample)

THE EFFECT OF WARFARE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF JAPANESE MEDIVAL STATE Student’s Name Course Title Date Introduction Over the centuries, war has emerged as a tool to demonstrate superiority and gain control over territories. Presently, nations have baptized war as a means of attaining peace, but the war outcome has never served the underlined purpose. Arguments about war have existed for long with various dynasties falling or others rising in power. Such evidence has given the present world a definition of the power of warfare. In regards to the Japanese medieval time, powerful families (daimyo), military warlords (shogun), warriors, the samurai ruled Japan during wars. As a result, their control of the countryside brought about the war that was started by the people who wanted to govern themselves. Warfare is dangerous for any nation because it causes the destruction of property and death of civilians, however, in medieval Japan, it benefited the elite because it led to the development of a strong, stable and organized feudal government despite the conflicts that arose from the countryside alienation. Ways Power Was Expanded and Contested in the Japanese State Whenever war takes center-stage in society, fear trickles down to the local people making them submit to the elite class. According to Friday, the decentralization of power to the countryside was one major approach that the Japanese state used to expand its authority. The government trained men aged between 20 and 59 years and inducted them into the military to serve as warriors. Such an approach made the people feel like part of the elite class who controlled a large chunk of the resources ranging from land and governmental institutions. Similarly, Berry argues that “the new and extraordinary prerogatives of the rule, all concerned with social control, were the effective instruments of the elite’s very transformation”. Through their coercive approach, they managed to control the upsurge from the locals, thus promoting public peace. In another instance, John Ferejohn and Frances Rosenbluth describe the proceeding of war as a way fear was instilled in the people making them remain loyal. The destroyed lands, houses and property rendered them helpless, thus serving as a political leverage. Friday highlights some points where the nobles referred to the Mutsu and Dewa as “animal-like barbarians” according to the court records. This view by the nobles served to demean the people of the money and land, thus any attempt to deal with them ensured intimidation made them submissive.[. Karl Friday, "Pushing Beyond the Pale: The Yamato Conquest of the Emishi and Northern Japanm" in Journal of Japanese Studies 23, No.1 (1997), 22.] [. Elizabeth M. Berry, "Public Peace and Private Attachment: The Goals and Conduct of Power in Early Modern Japan," in Journal of Japanese Studies 12, No.2 (1986), 237.] [. John Ferejohn and Rosenbluth M. Francis. “War and State Building inMedieval Japan,” in War and State Building in Medieval Japan (Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2010), 4.] [. Karl Friday, Pushing Beyond the Pale: The Yamato Conquest of the Emishi and Northern Japan, 3.] Another approach that a regime can apply to stamp its power is extortion of resources from the people to fund their activities. In doing so, the people become vulnerable, which makes them solicit for support from the authorities. For example, Friday identifies the rules applied in tax collection as a way the court and provincial government increased control of the people. Anyone who could not pay lost their land to the elite, while they became workers in their farms. Also, land confiscation was a process that assisted the imperial government to control the people. Further, Karl Friday argues that “by the close of the seventh century, the whole of the state’s martial resources, weapons, auxiliary equipment, horses, troops, and officers subsumed under the direct control of the newly emergent emperor and his court.” Such sentiments prove that the control of resources gives a regime an upper hand over the people making it easy to govern them. Some elite families resulted in exchanging practices, for example, leaders gave land to daimyo as an exchange for military services. The presence of a powerful army ensured the rulers focused on expanding their authority since they had soldiers to fight in the war.[. Karl Friday, “They Were Soldiers Once: The Early Samurai and the Imperial Court,” in War and State Building in Medieval Japan (Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2010), 23.] [. Berry, Public Peace and Private Attachment: The Goals and Conduct of Power in Early Modern Japan, 263.] The Ruling Elite of Medieval Japan The ruling elite continued their power through war, nobility and wealth accumulation. The wealthiest persons with large chunks of land and plantations automatically became kings because they had resources that people depended on to survive. Most of these people came from powerful families, such as the Yamato, who had inherited the wealth from their parents. The struggle to gain more land among these lords and nobles led to the development of war. The family that was able to obtain control over large portions of land became a Daimyo, which had extended authority. Daimyos needed protection from samurai warriors and shogun warlords, which explains why they pledged their loyalty to the leading shogun. Shogunate with the more experienced warriors and rulers were stronger than those that had weak ones.[. Friday, Pushing Beyond the Pale: The Yamato Conquest of the Emishi and Northern Japan, 15.] [. Ibid., 9.] Japan had five major elite ruling class authorities namely: the emperor, Daimyos, Shoguns, wealthy clans and powerful family nobles. The ruling power of each of these authorities increased depending on their ability to control large land estates and many samurai warriors. Gaining control over large landholdings and private soldiers were important because the ordinary people such as peasants and merchants pledged their loyalty and service to the ruling elite that would offer them maximum protection. The emperor was the overall central ruler of Japan, but he had lost control over the country because of the rise of the Daimyos and Shoguns. Even if he did not have any power over the nation, the emperor was allowed to retain his position because he was a symbolic religious figure for the Japanese people.[. Berry, Public Peace and Private Attachment: The Goals and Conduct of Power in Early Modern Japan, 245.] Daimyos were powerful feudal lords who owned large land estates and private samurai armies. Most of the Daimyos were powerful families, such as the Minamoto and Taira, that has acquired large pieces of land. The noble families gained more farmland because they received special treatment, for instance, they were exempt from taxations. As they continued to gain more land, the government lead by the emperor turned weaker. Most Daimyos tried to snatch wealth from each another, and this resulted in the occurrence of many wars between them. Ordinary people subscribed their loyalty to the Daimyo who remained dominant and was able to offer them protection through his samurai. In this era, only powerful nobles could afford large pieces of land and protection from the warriors because most had inherited their wealth from their parents and grandparents. The peasants would give up their small pieces of land to the powerful Daimyos: they would also provide labor for their farms. In exchange, the Daimyos would provide food supplies, a share of the agricultural produce and protection to the people who pledged their loyalty to them.[. Ferejohn and Francis, War and State Building in Medieval Japan, 6.] [. Ibid., 8.] Daimyos answered to the shoguns who were leaders of a group of powerful military warlords and their warriors. Shoguns were powerful because they drew their power from the emperor, which means they gained an absolute control to govern a given territory. For instance, a Shogun ruled a shogunate and owned the territories of the Kamakura, Ashikaga, and Tokugawa. The Ashikaga shogunate was less powerful than Tokugawa because it made many compromises encouraging rebels to attack them. The shogun and the daimyo of the Tokugawa period collectively monopolized a previously dispersed authority over land and its resources, military force, law and judicature, cities and commerce. The Tokugawa shogunate, which was the most powerful, had better social control and practiced coercive powers that helped it to survive pressure from another shogunate. Also, Tokugawa shogunate was made up of semi-autonomous units that were internally bound together by personal and kinship ties or obligations that strengthened the survival of the Tokugawa’s de facto federal system. Therefore, Tokugawa became a mighty empire that ruled Japan for some time through centralization of power.[. Berry, Public Peace and Private Attachment: The Goals and Conduct of Power in Early Modern Japan, 237.] [. Friday, They Were Soldiers Once: The Early Samurai and the Imperial Court, 34.] Resistance of Attempts to Centralize Power In the Tokugawa E...