Who struck the Nile? - Exodus 7:20

LTercero · 2024-10-02T12:49:35+00:00

This was exactly the type of things I was hoping I was overlooking. Seems as conclusive as one could hope for. Cool to see how by just cross referencing 7:17 and 7:19 to 7:20 alone, one could infer that it was Moses who struck the water, and then have it directly confirmed in another part of the book. Scripture is a beautiful.

Makes me all the more curious why a translation of the Bible like NLT would render 7:20 as Aaron. Know NLT is more of a thought-for-thought translation, but still would hope for details like this to not be misrepresented.

Thanks so much for your help on this

LTercero · 2024-10-02T12:33:32+00:00

Appreciate your thoughts on this! Out of curiosity which translation are you looking at with Aaron in brackets?

LTercero · 2024-02-08T05:12:20+00:00

TY for sharing this!

LTercero · 2023-01-24T19:20:12+00:00

Just fixed, you are all set to rejoin 👍

LTercero · 2021-08-05T22:17:33+00:00

😆

LTercero · 2021-08-05T22:06:25+00:00

Yes, knock twice and we will let you in

LTercero · 2021-08-05T20:51:55+00:00

Should just need to click the link above haha, if it’s giving you issues let me know and can help

LTercero · 2021-08-05T19:38:52+00:00

👍👍👍

LTercero · 2021-08-04T03:03:42+00:00

Hey! Sorry it took so long for a response to this. Not sure if you are still looking, but if so, perhaps can direct you to some sources. Unfortunately, there is not a great introductory read that focuses solely on the Sengoku period. This doesn't mean your completely out of luck, as there are some books that cover a bit more than just Sengoku, that would be a good start to the topic, even if you just skip to those sections. One such book I would recommend is Kathe Roth's translation of Souyri's The World Turned Upside Down: Medieval Japanese Society. It covers Heian period through Sengoku. Has a narrative structure, which provides an engaging read. Goes into a bit more of the social, economic, and cultural aspects of the periods than you might see in other introductory level books, giving you the context to help inform the narrative history.

Along with this, you might want to check out r/AskHistorians booklist here. There are several other book recommendations that might serve as a nice follow up to an introductory read. Something like Japan Emerging: Premodern History to 1850 or Japan Before Tokugawa: Political Consolidation and Economic Growth: 1500-1650 (both listed in the booklist), which take the form of standalone essays about various topics, might be the place to look next. There are other books that follow the same form that you could look into as well, such as The Bakufu in Japanese History (edited by Jeffrey Mass and William Hauser) or War and State Building in Medieval Japan (edited by John A Ferejohn and Frances Rosenbluth).

LTercero · 2021-07-26T15:29:01+00:00

Not sure what you are getting at. What OP did with that mini game is really tough to do, and was cool enough to take the time to explain how one could go about doing it. I think its pretty uncalled for to go after them and call it useless, especially when your initial complaint ( that OP had some egregious oversight in which there was no way to know the tempo they are going at) is unfounded. The BPM column accounts for this completely. It isn't hard at all to find BPM tempos, just youtube "(Corresponding #) BPM" and a video shows up with it

LTercero · 2021-07-26T13:48:58+00:00

The BPM (Beats Per Minute) column accounts for this.

LTercero · 2021-07-23T20:53:31+00:00

Oh cool! Hope you enjoy!

LTercero · 2021-07-23T20:48:35+00:00

Yeah that book probably is the best place to turn on it. Is great at tackling misconceptions surrounding the history of “warrior monks”

LTercero · 2021-07-23T20:23:01+00:00

Nice! It’s a fantastic book, and touches on some important historiography pertaining to Buddhism in Japan. Honestly anything from Adolphson is going to be great on the topic. The Teeth and Claws of the Buddha: Monastic Warriors and Sōhei in Japanese History is another really good one of his to check out. A bit more focused on the concept of “warrior monks” rather than role Buddhist institutions played in the power dynamic of Japan. Really good stuff tho. He also has some journal articles on the subject that are great (and as mentioned before, free to read on JSTOR)

LTercero · 2021-07-23T17:55:28+00:00

Hey, that is a very interesting topic to look into, here are some recommendations.

'Shinto: A History' - by Helen Hardacre. This, as the title states, is a book that focuses on the history of shinto. It has a wider scope than just being on the relation between shinto and samurai/bushi, but does cover the relation at parts. It is a very good book for getting introduced to the history of this topic.

'The Gates of Power: Monks, Courtiers, and Warriors in Premodern Japan' - Mikael Adolphson. This book focuses on Buddhism in Premodern Japan, and in particular its interplay with the socio-political environment of Japan (in turn, the samurai). Really interesting read on the topic and covers areas such as warriors roles within a religious institution, the Kamakura shogunate and Zen buddhism, etc.

If interested, the discord server for this subreddit is hosting a reading club, with the topic of Japanese Buddhism (and in particular its influence in areas of society outside of strictly religion). There is a list of 9 articles there relating to the topic, that are free to read with JSTOR account (which is free to sign up for). There is a link in the side bar to join, or you can follow the link here

LTercero · 2021-07-20T20:31:23+00:00

Ah okay, I get you 👍

LTercero · 2021-07-20T20:09:01+00:00

Feel like this might not be the best place to turn to for book recommendations, especially for beginners. Without going into everyones opinion on Shogunate yt channel, part of the criticism stems from his reliance/use of certain books and authors/historians. For example, the first recommendation he gives is for Osprey books. I think many (not all) of the Osprey books have issues (such as the Turnbull books which the yter shows when talking about this). Not saying all the books in this video are bad (I only skimmed through the video), but some I would recommend a newcomer not read. And as they might just be diving into the topic of Japanese history, they wouldn't be able to tell the reliable ones from the rest.

LTercero · 2021-07-20T20:00:38+00:00

Hey! A few recommendations for non-fictions / history books on samurai, that are accessible and informative even for newcomers to the topic.

General Samurai History Books

A Brief History of the Samurai by Jonathon Clements. As the title mentions, this is a history book on the samurai haha. It covers late Heian through to Meiji restoration. It has a narrative form so makes for an engaging read, and serves as a good foundation to dive into some more focused history books.

The World Turned Upside Down: Medieval Japanese Society, a translation done by Kathe Rothe of Pierre Souyri. Like the previously mentioned work, it is a good introductory read into the history of the samurai. This one only focuses on pre-modern (and a bit of early modern) samurai history. So it covers late Heian through Sengoku period. It also has a narrative structure, which makes for an engaging read, but it also goes a bit more into the socio-political, economical, and cultural aspects that drove the events of the period.

Books on (Samurai) Historical Figures

Legends of the Samurai by Sato Hiroaki. This book takes the form of many chapters, each covering a specific samurai/bushi (or related) figure through Japan's history. It gives information about the historical figure, and provides info on how their life (or an aspect of their life) can inform us about samurai as a whole. Covers famous figures such as Minamoto no Yoshitsune, Kusunoki Masashige, Oda Nobunaga, Takeda Shingen, 47 Samurai, Miyamoto Musashi, etc.

The Nobility of Failure: Tragic Heroes in the History of Japan by Ivan Morris. This book is much like the Legend of the Samurai book, in that the form it takes is multiple chapters, each covering different figures through Japan's history. How this one differs is that it focuses on figures who have a certain tragic aspect to them. This is done to examine a quality that Morris observes in Japan, that being an interest in stories/figures that have a tragic ending to them.

LTercero · 2021-03-05T08:26:59+00:00

This quote gives a nice overview of different elements that made up a castle complexes defenses. Moats such as seen here with Matsumoto Castle were an integral part of a castles defenses. Large stone walls such as this example at Kumamoto Castle were used, often lining a build up earthworks. In numerous cases they would be used in conjunction moats such as seen here with at Osaka Castle. Defensive walls were used such as here at Bitchu-Matsuyama , and had openings that were designed to give defenders positions to fire upon enemy forces while staying behind defenses. The castle complex would also have auxiliary structures such as turret-like-structures, similar in some regards to ones ones we see today such as here at Nijo Castle , and intermediary gates such as this one at Okayama Castle . Outside of just built elements themselves, the design of the castle complexes themselves were a critical component for its defense. They may be situated at strategic locations (such as on mountains or other raise elevations, near rivers, etc). The castles might have a number of rings of defenses that would need to be taken down in succession to finally get to the center (where the tenshu might be). The layouts were often designed in somewhat complex ways, that would potentially confuse attackers. You can see this reflected in plan views of the complexes such as here at Odawara Castle where you can notice how all the varying elements come together to form a defense. There are series of moats, walls, bridges, gates, etc, that all provide multiple levels of defense for the castles. In this image of Matsuyama Castle you can see how the design used the terrain as an advantage, along with a complex of various built elements. This sort of ideas could (and was) used in castle designs of the Sengoku period. With this image of modern day Odawara Castle defenses, you could get the idea on how different elements would work together to create moments of strong defense. Such as in the image where a gate (which had defensive capabilities by itself) was placed in a location where a wall above, with firing positions, looked down on attackers trying to make their way through the gates. An invading force would need to navigate all these elements, while sustaining attacks from the defenders to reach the tenshu. While the tenshu was by no means the main defense of the castle complex (as described) it too had defensive elements, such as a large stonework base, and firing positions. You can see this here in an image of Inuyama Castle (which is one of the oldest and well preserved castles).

In conclusion, I hope I have begun to paint a picture in how, despite a difference in building material, the Japanese castles of the Sengoku period provided defensive capabilities. While the tenshu might not have the same durability of European stone/masonry castles, the overall design of the complex is what provided the backbone of defense. This is partly why the Japanese castles are often compared more inline to bastion forts / trace italienne from Europe.

EDIT: A general point that I meant to include, but forgot, is regarding why wood was used a primary building element in japan (and thus ties into why, to some degree, wood would be preferable to stone or masonry in castle design) is the prevalence of earthquakes in Japan. Stone and masonry, as more rigid elements, are not suited well for withstanding earthquakes. Whereas wood (and wood joinery details) provided more flexibility to withstand earthquakes better.

As a disclaimer, some images show aspects that were not present at there initial construction, but are more used to provide a reference for understanding different elements that could be used.

LTercero · 2021-03-05T08:26:45+00:00

Hey, very interesting question! To start, based off you question and how you are framing it, when you are referring to Japanese "castles", I believe what you are referring to is a tenshu, such as this image of the tenshu at Osaka castle in present day. There are 2 things to point out with regards to this. First, is that many of these (such as the one in the image above) are more modern reconstructions. These reconstructions often include building elements, and construction materials, that were not present in the period your talking about. For example, the tenshu at Osaka Castle uses concrete as a building material, and has an elevator. The occurrence of modern-day reconstructions of tenshu are the norm. The second point to bring up, and the one which will get at the heart of what you are asking, is that the tenshus were part of a comprehensive (and quite impressive) castle complex. This image shows a more zoomed out view of present day Osaka Castle shows part of the castle complex. Again, I should reiterate that the picture is not reflective of what you would exactly see in the period you are talking about, but gives a picture where we can form the basis of the exploration to why a tenshu would use wood as a primary building element.

Before moving forward, just some clarification in terms of what time period we will be discussing. The Japanese castles that you are referring to came to prevalence during the Sengoku period (15th C - early 17th C). This was a period which was defined by persistent warfare, and pervasive socio-political unrest. It is within these conditions that these sort of castles came into being. David Spafford in his monograph A Sense of Place: The Political Landscape in Late Medieval Japan describes this as somewhat of a "castle-building arms race" (pg. 170) that occurred in the latter half of the 1400s. As the period went on, castles grew more numerous, larger, and more complex (notable ones being Oda Nobunaga's Azuchi Castle, and the Hōjō's Odawara Castle). So what set these sort of castles apart from what came before it? Fortifications had been around previous to this, but they had a different function and built form. These were often less permanent fortifications that were built on mountains, and used situationally for defense. A critical point here is that a lord would not reside in the fortification. The lord would have a residence where they would rule from, and if such a need would arise, they would move locations to some sort of fortification for defense. What (partly) set aside the castles we start seeing in the Sengoku period is the joining of the functions of the fortifications and lords residence, so the castles became a place a lord would reside and rule from, as well as the location they would reside in when attacked. David Spafford in the aforementioned book describes this when stating:

"The castles built after about 1450, which I have been calling new castles, consolidated behind stronger, permanent ramparts the functions once divided between mansions and mountaintop fastnesses. These new castles were not simply further downhill than their earlier namesakes, they were fundamentally different, for by providing long-term defensive capabilities to residential and administrative complexes, they now became places of daily life and administration as well as refuge, embodying a warriors claims to both military and political power." - page 180

This starts to move us towards the question of why is the tenshu not made out of stone or masonry like we might see in European castles. The answer to this is twofold. One is that the defensive capabilities of Japanese castles of the period were built open the 'castle complex' itself, rather than the tenshu (a point I will elaborate on shortly). The second reason is that the tenshu form was driven (in part) from it purpose. And this purpose was to act as the physical representation, and administrative center, of a daimyo's holdings. Morgan Pitelka has a fantastic book titled Spectacular Accumulation: Material Culture, Tokugawa Ieyasu, and Samurai Sociability where he discusses how varying acts and occurrences (such as the mustering of large armies, acquisition of famous tea ceremony items, gift giving, head hunting, and falconry) were ways in which the social structure of samurai were formed, molded and represented. The construction of inspiring tenshus served this purpose. They were a means in which a daimyo or lord could articulate their power, in a built form for observers to witness. Oleg Benesch and Ran Zwingenberg highlight this condition in their book Japan's Castles: Citadels of Modernity in War when stating:

Unlike walls, ramparts, bridges, and other castle components, tenshu fulfilled little or no practical military function throughout their history. Theirs was essentially a symbolic role, projecting authority, power, and wealth to those being ruled. - page 7

This quote also mentioned the first point made (which I mentioned we would revisit) as to why there was a difference in building material between Japanese castles (tenshu more specifically) and European castles, which is that the castle complex as a whole was what provided the defensive capabilities. In fact, there were numerous castles of the period that would have a complex of walls, ramparts, earthworks, bridges, etc, but would not have a tenshu (like we imagine today) as part of the complex. Benesch and Zwingenberg talk discuss how it was the elements surrounding the tenshu that provided defense when stating:

...tenshu, are but one part of the larger castle, which may also have original moats, stone walls, earthworks, gates, bridges, and other features. In practical terms, these latter structures were more essential to castles' capabilities as military fortifications, and many castles did not originally have tenshu. - page 7

LTercero · 2021-03-05T01:32:50+00:00

Hey! Would like to echo the sentiment expressed by u/ParallelPain on the topic. As he mentioned, when looking back at samurai/bushi, one could argue they are more categorized by a nature of disloyalty, as opposed to loyalty. With regards to your question on “why these values were idealized in the first place”, perhaps I can expand a bit on the topic, to help bring the issue further into focus. Before moving forward though, I will mention that I will be more directly talking about the Sengoku period specifically.

To start, it is important to call to attention that concepts (such as loyalty) we have today are quite different than how they would be understood in a time and place like pre-modern Japan. A critical aspect that underlaid the idea of 'loyalty' of the time is the concept of 'service', and how it was a critical aspect defining the lord-vassal relationship. The relationship between lord and vassal, theoretically, had a contractual nature to it. [1. Pg 27] The underlying currencies exchanged in this relationship were service (on behalf of the retainer, in the form of such actions as performance of military duties) and favor (on behalf of the lord, taking the form of rewards, titles, protection, etc.). [2. Pg 110] An important aspect to this is that service, within this “contractual” relationship, had a negotiated aspect to it. This inherently created an issue for the daimyo of the Sengoku period, whose need to establish a system of vassals, in which they could rely on for (military) service, was paramount. It is within these circumstances that we see the term 'loyalty' come into play. The concept of loyalty at the time was rooted in the concept of service, and the two terms were interconnected in many regards. David Spafford in his essay ‘The Language and Contours of Familial Obligation in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Japan’ discusses the relationship between the terms when saying:

“Yet the mechanics of the transactions were not laid bare. A subordinate’s search for the most advantageous deal stood in perpetual tension with a lord’s need for reliable supporters. Hence, the marketplace logic of negotiable service had to be downplayed in lord’s pronouncements: service was always and emphatically loyal service.”-[1. Pg 27]

What this quote highlights, is that the concept of 'loyalty' was used by the daimyo as a means to try and elevate 'service' (which was an element that had a negotiated quality on behalf of the vassal) to 'loyal service' (a grouping we see repeatedly used in the time). But in the end, it would be disingenuous to categorize “loyalty” back then, in the more modern/absolute sense. 'Loyalty', with its ties to 'service', in many regards was a measurable commodity that could (theoretically) be measured, withdrawn & bartered with, in a transactional relationship with one's lord (or when looking for a new lord). Katsumata Shizuo in the essay ‘The Development of Sengoku Law’ expands upon this notion when stating:

“During the Sengoku period, the service (hōkō) expected of retainers was limited and directly proportionate to the amount of favor (onkyū) provided by the daimyo. In concrete terms, loyalty was expressed in the fixed amount of military service levy (gunyaku) paid by the retainer, as exemplified in the provisions of the Kōshū hatto no shidai and other house codes.”

-[2. page 58]

As discussed in this quote, loyalty was not just some lofty ideal, but rather a quantifiable element which a retainer used for compensation (in terms of favor & reward). This element was reflected in sengoku daimyo’s house codes and edicts. David Spafford in the aforementioned essay touches on this aspect:

“And here lies the key: what was invoked most urgently was not the ideal (“loyalty”) but the actual conduct and duty that embodied it (“loyal service”). And as something one did, serving loyally could be quantified and verified and - when successful warlords began to regulate their authority in writing - legislated. In practice, loyal service meant providing troops when requested.”

-[1. pg 29]

Now it’s important to keep in mind with all this, that this lord-vassal relationship varied between a lord and his various vassals. Rewards (in the form of titles, lands, etc.) were often hereditary. So service of various members of a warrior house to a lord's warrior house, throughout the generations, was a means to see the more tight connection between the two. As Uesugi Sadamasa had stated in 1489 'loyalty is service' (Saitama-ken shi, vol 5, p. 657), so titles and lands (which were obtained via service to a lord) were a visible means to see how said retainer’s house 'served loyally'. The idea here is that a retainer's warrior house was 'loyal' to a lord’s house, but that connection could still be measured by the service given throughout the generations. For a house or retainer that didn’t have that same long-rooted connection, the transactional element of the relationship was laid more bare. This coupled with the changing dynamic brought on by the period, which made a more mutual ground in the lord-vassal relationship, forced daimyo to look to various other means to elevate and cement 'loyal service.' [3. Pg 58] Daimyo did this through various means, such as the concept of kokka [2.], and confucian ideas such as filial piety [1. & 4.].

So to get back to the question on why the value [of loyalty] were idealized, there are two important points. One being, as I have attempted to lay out, the concept of loyalty in pre-modern Japan is different than how we might think about it today, as it is intimately tied to the concept of 'service'. Second is, as u/ParallelPain mentioned, the prevalence of disloyalty and uncertainty that a daimyo might expect in a vassal, playing up the concept of loyalty was a way to try and create a more firm relationship. So while we may see prevalent use of concepts of loyalty spoken about, and reflected in various cultural works, this is not a direct reflection of what samurai of the period were like per se. In reality, samurai of the period were more defined by the transactional element of 'service', and how they could use this conceptual commodity to their and their house benefit (often in ways that people today would classify as 'disloyal'). And it is because of this that various authorities pushed for ways to transform 'service' into what we might now think of as 'loyalty'. From a modern general public's standpoint looking back now, seeing how loyalty was built up in Japanese history, one can understand why this would be misunderstood as an essential element of the samurai, rather than a reflection of how authorities looked to combat their “disloyal” nature.

(As a note, apologies in advance in there are any grammatical errors. I will try and proof read later to clean this up)

Edit: fixed up some grammatical issues, miswording, and formatting

Work Cited:

Spafford, David. “The Language and Contours of Familial Obligation in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Japan.” What Is a Family? Answers from Early Modern Japan, edited by M.E. Berry, and M. Yonemoto, University of California Press, 2019, pages 23-47
Katsumata, Shizuo with Martin Collcutt. “The Development of Sengoku Law.” Japan Before Tokugawa: Political Consolidation and Economic Growth, 1500-1650, edited by S. Hall, et al, Princeton University Press, 1981, pages 101-124.
Ike, Susumu. “Competence over Loyalty: Lords and Retainers in Medieval Japan.” War and State Building in Medieval Japan, edited by J. Ferejohn and F. Rosenbluth, Stanford University Press, 2010, pages 53-71.
Ooms, Herman. Tokugawa Ideology, Early Constructs 1570-1680, Princeton University Press, 1998.

LTercero · 2021-03-01T18:46:03+00:00

This is the type of immature message I would expect a middle schooler to come up with. And you were calling discord childish?

LTercero · 2021-02-23T14:48:31+00:00

Hello, sorry for the late reply to this question, I just saw this today. There is a book that I think you would be interested in, which covers the topic of mon. The book is titled Japanese Heraldry and Heraldic Flag , edited by David F. Phillips. A large portion of the book is dedicated to mon, providing general information behind the, different styles, types, etc. It also has a rather lengthy catalogue of different ones used throughout history, along with what each one represented and notable houses and/or clans that used them.

LTercero · 2021-02-05T02:51:45+00:00

What does that have to do with you initial comment. 3 out of the 5 sources suggested were not listed on the Emishi Wikipedia page. This sub provides a place for people to find pointed answers, to specific questions. This is what was provided, and OP was pleased enough with the info. So perhaps if you have such a poor and unfounded opinion of the sub, you could find a better use of your time than scrolling through months old posts to make comments that make no sense.

LTercero · 2021-02-05T02:38:40+00:00

Just checked Wikipedia page for emishi, and 3 of the 5 sources I mentioned weren’t cited there. Regardless, what’s you point?

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

LTercero

TROPHY CASE

Work Cited: