Humankind - Edo Japanese Discussion Thread

[BuchiTaton]

Personally I like that naming scheme.
Firstly, it makes attaching the (often exotic) dynasty/period name of a given culture to its modern incarnation, so casual people are not initially confused and even history enthusiasts save that small amount of the brain power needed to associate Edo, Joseon and Ming with appropriate modern people.
Secondly, it REALLY simplifies adding multiple incarnations of some cultures. For example, French are French, you can't conveniently one - word name them after some dynasties in some period, with one - word descriptors you are forced to have one French civ from 10 th century till today. Which is unfair because English could get three) just because of naming transitions English - British - UK.
But with this scheme you can have Capetingian French, Early Modern French, Napoleonic French, Modern French, or whatever two - word combinatons you deem least awkward.

My own people were always just... Polish, no way to circumvent that with some alternate word so you could get two incarnations across ages (though I don't think Poland should get more than one ). But with this naming scheme you can make Piast Polish, Jagiellon Polish, Poland - Lithuania, Modern Polish...

I understand the market appeal and respect the people that want the representation on multiple eras of the "main nations". But I hope this would be limited to the minimum possible.

Each iteration of "main" nation mean one less chance to have something really new. Still, if many versions of popular nations is needed I want them to be on Contemporary era, because this last dont have many real new cultures to talk about any way.

So even if I like Meiji industrial Japan, I think Japanese cultures should be limited to Edo and contemporary Japan (scientist with aesthete quarter referring to the "Cool Japan").

UK and France are not so uneven, English (medieval) > * > British (industrial) and Frankish (medieval) > * > French (Industrial) are consistent. I would have preferred to have classical Britons/Picts/Gaels and Gauls to represent real different cultures at another moment on the history of these nations instead of "X" French > "Y" French > "Z" French.

 

[Cerilis]

I think I called it back in the first thread Aesthete Edo Japan Though I guess it wasn't the pic with Go after all...

 

[CivLuvah]

Why on Earth would it not be considered a part of Greek history?

Because those who were in power in the Ottoman Empire weren't of Greek ethnicity, nor did they speak Greek in administration or informally. When you mentioned the Ottomans as Greek, people assumed you were referring to those who ruled over the Greeks, either those who ruled the local units who answer to Istanbul or those in Istanbul themselves, rather than the Greeks who were under them.

Greeks were definitely part of the Ottoman Empire, there were Greek Muslims, and it is technically part of Greek history. But I don't think at the time they would ethnically identify themselves with the people who conquered them. There's isn't a sense of continuum from that sequence.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean this is not the time, nor place for this sort of discussion but I highly implore you lot to learn what Ottoman Empire was (a multi-ethnic empire with muslims at the helm, primarily Greek and Turkish muslims).

I would argue that it was more Persian than Greek. Well the rulers were Persianized Turks that just happened to control Greece at that time and they were treated as second-class citizens unless they converted to Islam.
Some were grand viziers, but as far as I can tell no one in the Ottoman Empire with Greek heritage ever ruled.

UK and France are not so uneven, English (medieval) > * > British (industrial) and Frankish (medieval) > * > French (Industrial) are consistent. I would have preferred to have classical Britons/Picts/Gaels and Gauls to represent real different cultures at another moment on the history of these nations instead of "X" French > "Y" French > "Z" French.

Aren't the Celts are supposed to represent both Classical England/British Isles and France at the same time?

 

[notNamed]

But I don't think at the time they would ethnically identify themselves with the people who conquered them.

They did at the time. There are many folk tales as well, legends and documents from contemporary Hungary (or what was left of it) interacting with the Ottomans. Ottomans who built orthodox churches, Ottomans who have forsaken their Christian faith, etc. I mean, the Ottoman armies conquering Eastern Europe were nothing but Greeks and Slavs. Look at the leaders on both sides of the Battle of Mohács. Ottoman side has: Pargalı Ibrahim Pasha (Parga, Epirus - Greece), Malkoçoğlu Balı Bey (Malković, a Serbian family turned leaders of the akinci corps), Gazi Husrev-bey (Bosnian Ottoman royalty) and finally Halhallı Behram Pasha (part of the Ridwan dynasty, also Bosnians given the rule of Palestine). Not a single ethnic Turk (except for Suleiman himself), just lots of muslim Ottomans and the soldiers under them were scarecly different.

No one instantly fell in love with being a part of the empire, but they were loyal subjects and saw themselves as one entity striving for the same goals nonetheless. If they hadn't, there would have never been any Ottoman Empire. There simply never have been, at any point in history, enough Turks alive to keep such a massive empire going by sheer military force. Let alone ethnically Turkish soldiers. I understand that Ottoman Empire is not a part of history curriculum in the West and that of course, basic history course highlights the ethnic tensions that England, France and Russia noticed and exploited to rip the Ottomans apart hundreds of years later. But that was as such, hundreds of years in the future, "Sick Man of Europe" and all that jazz, not at the height of their power. And Greeks were always an extremely important/integral part of this machine.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Aren't the Celts are supposed to represent both Classical England/British Isles and France at the same time?

In the modern common sense yes, but the proper "Celts" are probably just continental or just Gauls. Still they could easily be at least two separated cultures:
We can argue that any culture could be divided, like said the Greeks, but at least greeks have a strong notion about common greek identity, but for Celts there wasnt a real notion of common identity between Gauls and Insular Celts.

There are others "blob/umbrella" cultures like Mayans who could be divided on groups of peoples as different on time, area and language as could be classical Goths from early modern Dutch. But of course is way more likely and easy to justify to regular players the inclusion of a more specific cultures for UK and France that for Guatemala and Yucatan.

Personally I dont have the urgency for a Picts/Britons/Gaels culture, but would be better to rename "Celts" to Gauls.

 

[Guandao]

I was expecting them to be simply called Japanese, but perhaps this means a second Japanese faction is coming later....Now who will be next?
Iroquois and Inca are still possible. Joseon Koreans?

 

[CivLuvah]

They did at the time. There are many folk tales as well, legends and documents from contemporary Hungary (or what was left of it) interacting with the Ottomans. Ottomans who built orthodox churches, Ottomans who have forsaken their Christian faith, etc. I mean, the Ottoman armies conquering Eastern Europe were nothing but Greeks and Slavs. Look at the leaders on both sides of the Battle of Mohács. Ottoman side has: Pargalı Ibrahim Pasha (Parga, Epirus - Greece), Malkoçoğlu Balı Bey (Malković, a Serbian family turned leaders of the akinci corps), Gazi Husrev-bey (Bosnian Ottoman royalty) and finally Halhallı Behram Pasha (part of the Ridwan dynasty, also Bosnians given the rule of Palestine). Not a single ethnic Turk (except for Suleiman himself), just lots of muslim Ottomans and the soldiers under them were scarecly different.

No one instantly fell in love with being a part of the empire, but they were loyal subjects and saw themselves as one entity striving for the same goals nonetheless. If they hadn't, there would have never been any Ottoman Empire. There simply never have been, at any point in history, enough Turks alive to keep such a massive empire going by sheer military force. Let alone ethnically Turkish soldiers. I understand that Ottoman Empire is not a part of history curriculum in the West and that of course, basic history course highlights the ethnic tensions that England, France and Russia noticed and exploited to rip the Ottomans apart hundreds of years later. But that was as such, hundreds of years in the future, "Sick Man of Europe" and all that jazz, not at the height of their power. And Greeks were always an extremely important/integral part of this machine.

Just one final rebuttal before the mods will deem this discussion off-topic (at least until the Ottoman culture gets revealed). And after this, until the Ottoman reveal, I am not going to talk about this topic again:

1. I think you're confusing being part of an empire with citizenship, especially when you talk about "the common folk". Citizenship as an identity tied to loyalty to a state didn't emerge as a concept until around the 1700s (I assume). If we're talking about around 1500s to 1700s, they would still self-identify as the culture, locale, and language they grew up in. Where else would those who were involved in the later Greek Revolution get their national identity from? Self-identity in early modern empires isn't as clear cut as say "these people are in the Ottoman Empire, therefore they must be Ottoman!".

2. It is true that the leaders (and by extension the armies) you mentioned are from non-Turkic peoples, and served under the Ottoman empire, and therefore might be considered Ottoman. But these are people and entities who are in service of the government/administration/what have you. It ignores how the peoples in their own locales and margins identified themselves. It's like saying everyone in the progression of Harrappans (Ancient)>Mauryans (Classical, transcended into Early Modern)>Mughals (Early Modern)>British (Industrial) is a continuum of Indian culture, including the British, which obviously is absurd. You could make the argument about Indians being part of the administration of the British Raj, but it doesn't take away from the fact that most of the population identified themselves based on what was passed down onto them by their parents or their communities.

3. Just wanting to react to the part in bold: I think you're underestimating the amount of historical knowledge most of the people who write in these forums have. Again, just saying.

Aight, imma head out.

 

[Zaarin]

Why on Earth would it not be considered a part of Greek history?

Of course it's part of Greek history. In the same way that the British Raj is part of Indian history or the Japanese occupation is part of Korean history.

 

[CivLuvah]

Of course it's part of Greek history. In the same way that the British Raj is part of Indian history or the Japanese occupation is part of Korean history.

I see what you did there (trying to be on-topic I mean).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Of course it's part of Greek history. In the same way that the British Raj is part of Indian history or the Japanese occupation is part of Korean history.

I had a chance to spend some time in Greece, both in Athens and in Crete, and based on conversations with the Greeks, while the Ottoman Period might be part of their history, any Greek who called themselves 'Ottoman' in any form would be a dead man. What fascinated me was that the part of Crete where I was (Khania) was at various times occupied by Romans, Venetians, and Nazi Germans as well as Ottoman Turks, yet even the Nazis, to this day, do not evoke the degree of sheer hatred they reserve for the Ottomans . . .

 

[notNamed]

...while the Ottoman Period might be part of their history, any Greek who called themselves 'Ottoman' in any form would be a dead man.

And you guys are happy to promote such clearly rational line of thought? It's not a historical hatred, merely an institutional one kept up by the current regime because of animosity between Greece and Turkey.
It's the same kind of extremism that gives USA people flying Confederate flags and killing African Americans in broad daylight, the same sort of revisionism which fuels neo-Nazi supporters in Europe. The same thing which drives old people in South Korea to do rallies about killing Japanese or North Koreans sing songs about "killing yanks" in kindergarten.

I'm sorry, but how can you ever support it? Greek nationalist revival didn't just reject Ottoman period, they also rejected Byzantine one as a perversion of ancient Hellenic glory. Should I retract my statement about Greece being in 3 eras because elderly Greeks lived in an era when schools taught them Greece stopped existing after Hellenic kingdoms lost their independence to the Roman Empire? That's absolute nonsense that should be discouraged, not further promoted. Especially not by people who clearly know better than to support random ideologies with a clear agenda of fueling international hatred, which abuse history to do so. Otherwise, I've got a place in Oświęcim to sell you. Large plot of land built by people who were taught in school their state was humiliated by practitioners of a certain religion. And sure enough, if you asked random people on the street of Vienna or Berlin, they'd tell you those people were far worse than any French, or English who merely stole territory from them.

That's all. I apologize for throwing the thread this ridiculously off its intended course. I hope it wasn't a genuine waste of time and good faith and some people here will read up on the Ottoman history more, not from a Greek, not from a Turkish, nor Arabic or Serbian perspective, but by its own merits as a historical state. Whether you end up coming to the same conclusions as the academia of its successor states or not.

 

[Zaarin]

I hope it wasn't a genuine waste of time and good faith and some people here will read up on the Ottoman history more, not from a Greek, not from a Turkish, nor Arabic or Serbian perspective, but by its own merits as a historical state. Whether you end up coming to the same conclusions as the academia of its successor states or not.

If you tried, I bet you could be a little more condescending.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And you guys are happy to promote such clearly rational line of thought? It's not a historical hatred, merely an institutional one kept up by the current regime because of animosity between Greece and Turkey.
It's the same kind of extremism that gives USA people flying Confederate flags and killing African Americans in broad daylight, the same sort of revisionism which fuels neo-Nazi supporters in Europe. The same thing which drives old people in South Korea to do rallies about killing Japanese or North Koreans sing songs about "killing yanks" in kindergarten.

I'm sorry, but how can you ever support it? Greek nationalist revival didn't just reject Ottoman period, they also rejected Byzantine one as a perversion of ancient Hellenic glory. Should I retract my statement about Greece being in 3 eras because elderly Greeks lived in an era when schools taught them Greece stopped existing after Hellenic kingdoms lost their independence to the Roman Empire? That's absolute nonsense that should be discouraged, not further promoted. Especially not by people who clearly know better than to support random ideologies with a clear agenda of fueling international hatred, which abuse history to do so. Otherwise, I've got a place in Oświęcim to sell you. Large plot of land built by people who were taught in school their state was humiliated by practitioners of a certain religion. And sure enough, if you asked random people on the street of Vienna or Berlin, they'd tell you those people were far worse than any French, or English who merely stole territory from them.

That's all. I apologize for throwing the thread this ridiculously off its intended course. I hope it wasn't a genuine waste of time and good faith and some people here will read up on the Ottoman history more, not from a Greek, not from a Turkish, nor Arabic or Serbian perspective, but by its own merits as a historical state. Whether you end up coming to the same conclusions as the academia of its successor states or not.

First, you assume that when I describe a real belief held by a group that I support and condone that belief. I neither do nor did I say any such thing.

Second, you assume that the belief I described is entirely due to manipulation by the government for 'nationalistic' reasons. You are thereby falling victim to the fallacy that people are entirely the pawns of the Government, to be manipulated at will by the Government for the purposes of the government or the governing group. That is a very dangerous assumption to make, given the number of revolts, revolutions, civil wars, disturbances, movements, disruptions, etc. in both history and the present day. Governments and ruling groups that subscribe to that fallacy tend to wind up in the position of the current government of Syria, with no country left to govern at all.

Specific to my comments, the people of Crete expressed, if anything, as much contempt and disparagement of their own government as they did of the memory of the Ottomans. I can't speak to the present day, but when I was there last in the 1980s, the government in Athens was regarded as Alien and Far Away, and Passive and Active Resistance to any government action seemed to me to be second nature to the population. Given that Crete was at the time considered by the Greek government to be the most under-developed and 'backward' part of Greece, I suspect that the mutual attitudes of government and Cretans reinforced each other, and I certainly believed at the time (and now) that their attitude towards the Ottomans or the modern Turks was less justified by contemporary reality. That doesn't make it any less real to them, nor less relevant to the historian trying to understand events. Not to acknowledge it or try to understand ALL the reasons for it is the real 'abuse of history'.

 

[CivLuvah]

Just to keep this thread on track, can anyone explain to me what a "tera" is in the context of Japanese religious history? I know that the way they conceptualize religion in Japan is different from how the modern West conceptualizes religion, and that Buddhism and Shintoism had this syncretic relationship ever since Buddhism was introduced to Japan. However, what I'm trying to figure out is whether the "tera" was a development in the Edo period or were they in existence prior to that.

I couldn't find it on Wikipedia, nor have I encountered it in my readings about general Japanese history so far.

EDIT: Missed some stuff that I wanted to clarify in my original post.

 

[Zaarin]

Just to keep this thread on track, can anyone explain to me what a "tera" is? I couldn't find it on Wikipedia, or have I encountered in my readings about general Japanese history so far.

"Ji," from the flavor text, gets me to "Buddhist temple."

 

[notNamed]

Just to keep this thread on track, can anyone explain to me what a "tera" is in the context of Japanese religious history? I know that the way they conceptualize religion in Japan is different from how the modern West conceptualizes religion, and that Buddhism and Shintoism had this syncretic relationship ever since Buddhism was introduced to Japan. However, what I'm trying to figure out is whether the "tera" was a development in the Edo period or were they in existence prior to that.

"Tera" is the Japanese word for temple, "Ji" being its Sino-Japanese counterpart.
It's really just a translation of 'a temple' in this case, there is no deeper meaning behind it except for the association with Buddhism, I guess. A modern shintoist temple would generally be called a "Jinja" instead.