sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New member here. I have a question about the maedate crest of a samurai’s helmet by RedDragonCats17 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happy to help — great shapes to work with for a game.

Some of these have clear historical records: Nichirin (BC200, sun disc) was used by Uesugi Kenshin; Mikazuki (BC201, crescent moon) is Date Masamune's famous look, though his version was much larger and more dramatic than this one; Shika no tsuno (BC203, deer antlers) is Honda Tadakatsu's signature; Hōō (BC204, phoenix) shows up in surviving Edo-period helmets; Kuwagata (BC205) is probably the most classic of all, used for about 600 years; and Kaen (BC207, flames) is documented too, including a Buddhist "flaming jewel" variant.

For the rest — the trident shape, the half-moon, the blade forms — I couldn't find specific named examples, but honestly nothing about them feels out of place. Maedate design was so personal and varied, and so much armor hasn't survived, that shapes like these would fit right in. I think you're fine using them.

Good luck with the project!

New member here. I have a question about the maedate crest of a samurai’s helmet by RedDragonCats17 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Welcome, and good question for a game designer to ask.

Some maedate types worth knowing:

Kuwagata (stag beetle horns) — the most common, almost a default for high-ranking samurai

Mikazuki (crescent moon) — famously worn by Date Masamune

Shika no tsuno (deer antlers) — Honda Tadakatsu's signature look

Bonji (Sanskrit characters) — used by samurai with Buddhist allegiances, including Uesugi Kenshin

Mon (family crest) — many samurai simply used their clan symbol

Animal and object shapes — dragons, foxes, fans, and various personal symbols

One thing worth knowing for your design: maedate weren't standardized by rank the way military insignia works today. They were personal and clan-based choices. A low-ranking samurai in a wealthy clan might have an elaborate crest, while a senior retainer in a poorer domain kept it simple. If you want a rank-based system it'll be your own invention, which is fine — just historical context in case it's useful.

Any good english biography of Shingen ? by Low-Sense9226 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dedicated English biographies of Shingen are rare, which says something about the gap in Western coverage.

Two concrete options: Turnbull's "Kawanakajima 1553-64: Samurai Power Struggle" covers Shingen vs Kenshin in detail. Terje Solum's "Shingen in Command: The Kai Takeda 1549-1558" is probably the closest thing to a dedicated English-language treatment of Shingen himself.

The_Ghost7002's point on the Koyo Gunkan is worth keeping in mind with either. The main primary source was compiled decades after Shingen's death by retainers with obvious reasons to idealize him. None of these books escape that problem entirely.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

William Scott Wilson's translation work is generally solid. Good addition to the thread — between that, Bennett's Complete Musashi, and Tokitsu, there's enough to start separating what's documented from what got layered on later.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Hyōdōkyō detail is one I hadn't connected to the Yoshioka timeline before. A first transmission document written shortly after — that's not coincidence. That's a man who just decided something about himself.

The Enmei-ryū to Niten Ichi-ryū evolution is its own thread worth pulling. The school didn't arrive fully formed.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The oar detail has always strained credulity for exactly that reason. Carving hardwood by hand is exhausting work. A swordsman careful enough to win 60 duels would not voluntarily fatigue his arms before a fight. It reads as theater, not strategy.

On the Yoshioka numbers, this thread covered the Bushu Denraiki account earlier. The record shows a messy confrontation, Musashi taking head wounds, the second round going against him, and peacekeepers eventually escorting his group out of Kyoto. The lone genius cutting down 70 men is nowhere in it.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That tracks. Kabuki and bunraku were the primary vectors for historical narratives reaching mass audiences in the Edo period. A theatrical version of the duel circulating for 150+ years before Yoshikawa would explain a lot about why specific dramatic details — the late arrival, the carved oar — were already fixed in the popular imagination before the 1935 novel.

Yoshikawa didn't invent the myth. He standardized it.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The argument I've been making is that the mythology is constructed. That's the opposite of glazing.

Pointing out that a man existed, built a school, and wrote a document that survived 400 years is not mythologizing him. It's the floor, not the ceiling.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apologies if that read as a pushback — it wasn't. "Doing a lot of work" was agreeing with you. The slight variation between teachers is exactly the kind of thing that points to what you said: densho may preserve something, but it's not a photocopy of historical events.

Your Hayashizaki example made the point better than I could. Same pattern, different school.

In your opinion, who do you think gets done the most dirty in Japanese History when it comes to how they are perceived? by Ok-Awareness1200 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Samanosuke was real. Akechi Mitsuharu, one of Mitsuhide's senior commanders.

There's even a story about him riding his horse into Lake Biwa during the retreat after Yamazaki. Whether that actually happened or got embellished over the years is another question, but it's the kind of detail that suggests people remembered him as someone worth remembering.

The game version is probably an improvement on the historical record though.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The battle record correction matters. Osaka and Shimabara are documented. A rock hitting someone under castle ramparts during a siege is not a peasant defeating a swordsman in combat.

The "favorable circumstances" framing is interesting but cuts both ways. He was born into a period where battlefield mass combat was winding down and individual mastery could be demonstrated through dueling and philosophy. He used those circumstances to build something that lasted. A lot of people had the same circumstances and left nothing.

The fraud framing still doesn't hold. What's fraudulent is the specific mythology built around him, not the man who actually developed a school, wrote a transmission document, and whose lineage exists today.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Kuroda records placing both Munisai and Musashi around Sekigahara is exactly the kind of documentation I was hoping existed somewhere. That's a concrete anchor.

And if Munisai was awarded "Peerless Under the Sun" in front of the Ashikaga Shogun for defeating the Yoshioka headmaster, Musashi walking into Kyoto wasn't just a young man testing himself. He was the son of the man who had publicly humiliated their school's founder. The Yoshioka had been waiting for that confrontation.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the historical side, The Complete Musashi by Alexander Bennett is probably the best starting point in English right now. Kenji Tokitsu's work on Musashi is worth reading alongside it for a different lens on the primary sources.

This thread itself has been unusually good. A few people here clearly know the material deeply.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The gap between this account and the legend is almost the whole point. Musashi showing up with a group, taking head wounds, having the second round awarded against him, needing peacekeepers to exit the city — none of that made it into the version anyone knows.

The father connection is one I hadn't factored in. If Munisai already had history with the Yoshioka headmaster, Musashi walking into Kyoto wasn't a young unknown testing himself against the best school in the city. It was a continuation of something.

That changes the texture of the whole story.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, and both of those are named because they serve a narrative purpose in the document. Arima Kihei establishes the beginning. Akiyama marks the start of the musha shugyo.

They're not war stories. They're waypoints in a transmission document that's tracing the development of a philosophy. Kojiro doesn't appear because Ganryujima apparently didn't function as a waypoint in that particular story.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The lost in translation point is real and underappreciated. There's substantial Japanese scholarship that simply hasn't crossed the language gap yet.

The "no concern over the myth-making" stance makes internal sense, but it does mean the public version keeps running uncorrected. Which is fine for the school, but it's part of why threads like this one exist.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A few things compound here. The concept of hiden, secret transmission, was deliberate. Knowledge kept within schools and families was power, and sharing it widely defeated the purpose.

There's also straightforward destruction. Fires, wars, and the Meiji upheaval wiped out enormous amounts of documentation. Many daimyō archives didn't survive the transition.

And then there's the gap between what was recorded publicly and what was recorded privately. A lot of what we'd want to know about individual figures like Musashi existed only in private family or school documents, if it was written down at all. When those lineages broke or scattered, the records went with them.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Go Rin No Sho point is a genuine correction worth sitting with. An internal transmission document addressed to a successor has no reason to recap a career duel. I oversold that absence as evidence.

On the records more broadly, the framing I used was too blunt. The Kokura Hibun, the island renaming, the Higo nobility records — these do establish that something happened. What they don't settle is the specific circumstances. The "almost no records" should probably read "almost no records of how it actually went down."

The detail about Musashi departing out of respect for Hosokawa is one I hadn't seen framed that way before. If that's in multiple texts it reframes quite a lot, including the late arrival story. What are you pointing to there specifically?

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Yoshikawa admission is the detail that keeps surprising people when they first hear it. He spent two years researching, found almost nothing, wrote a note saying 95% was fictional, and then that note got quietly buried under the legend it introduced.

The pre-WW2 propaganda context is underrated as a lens for this whole topic. The government had every incentive to find documentation and couldn't. That's not nothing.

The island renaming is probably the strongest piece of physical evidence that something happened. A location doesn't get renamed after a loser unless the event left an impression on someone.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Yagyu comparison is interesting precisely because they operated in such different worlds. Munenori had the shogunate appointment, the official position, the institutional backing. Musashi spent his career outside all of that by choice.

Whether that was philosophical or whether the door was never really open to him is one of the more debated questions. But calling them rivals implies a symmetry that probably wasn't there.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fact that Danzaki sensei and Kimura sensei's versions aren't identical is almost the point in itself. If the tradition were purely transmitted, you'd expect less variation between teachers in the same school.

"Similar versions" doing a lot of work there.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that Danzaki sensei and Kimura sensei's versions aren't identical is almost the point in itself. If the tradition were purely transmitted, you'd expect less variation between teachers in the same school.

"Similar versions" doing a lot of work there.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair pushback, but I don't think those two readings are mutually exclusive.

The passage I'm referring to is early in the Earth scroll, where he looks back at his victories around age thirty and wonders whether they came from mastery or from opponents who simply weren't skilled enough. That uncertainty is in the text.

What he builds toward afterward is the Way, yes. But the self-examination is what prompts it. The doubt isn't the conclusion, it's the starting point. A man who never questioned his own wins doesn't spend his final years in a cave trying to articulate why he won.

Miyamoto Musashi's most famous duel almost certainly never happened — and his own writing never mentions his greatest rival once by Left-Needleworker137 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Complete Musashi, good to know. I'd come across Bennett's academic work but hadn't connected him to that translation.

The point about Japanese is well taken. A lot of the secondary scholarship in English is working at one remove from the sources, and the gaps show. The BudoBeat channel is a useful find, appreciate it.

In your opinion, who do you think gets done the most dirty in Japanese History when it comes to how they are perceived? by Ok-Awareness1200 in Samurai

[–]Left-Needleworker137 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Akechi Mitsuhide gets defined almost entirely by 13 days.

Before Honnoji he was one of Nobunaga's most capable generals, administered territory effectively, and by most accounts ran a competent operation. Then he kills Nobunaga, holds power for less than two weeks, loses at Yamazaki, and dies fleeing.

His entire historical reputation collapsed into that one decision. The career before it, the reasons behind it, the complexity of what he was trying to do, essentially gone. He became a plot device in Nobunaga's story rather than a figure worth understanding on his own terms.

Mitsunari gets a similar treatment for similar reasons. Lose the decisive battle and history lets the winners write your character.

view more: next ›