History Headscratchers / TheLastSamurai

*** And the one that, before Culloden, involved Prestonpans (30 dead, 70 wounded, to kill 300, wound 400, and capture 1400+) and Falkirk Muir (50 dead, 80 wounded to kill or wound 350 and capture another 300-odd). And considering the Highlanders at Culloden attacked a prepared enemy over level open ground, your choice of examples is a little weak. How about you do more complete research before you try to make judgments on military history?

[[WMG:The Emperor's decision at the end wouldn't be in the best interest of Japan either]].

*** Which still means nothing. "Ready to sign" doesn't mean "done deal." Hsitorically, Britain and Russia did nothing to aid Japan any in the point in history this movie is set in other than sell them guns for their civil war. What has changed here in the alternate history scenario of this film? Nothing, except that America sold them guns first for a deal much more comprehensive than more hands off arms deals of Russia and Britian IRL. Why would those nations come to the aid of Japan against the US when they have no vested interest there and no real established ties with the government yet? What's to stop them from waiting for another power to "soften them up" and make them more pliable and beholden to foreign powers as also happened in real life in other countries? Being the the boot not the arse sounds nice, but you have to make it happen--which is a tough deal when you just screwed over the guy giving you the leather and the other guys you can get leather from have no real reason to pick a fight with the first guy over you.

## Sussing out where Algren stands with his home country is a little tough. He was a private contractor who's interference with a an intranational civil war saw the U.S.'s business deal go up in smoke, but Katsumoto wasn't declaring war on the U.S. specifically. Probably the most legally dicey (from an ideological standpoint, Bagley was basically a war criminal) thing was killing a U.S. officer, but it was officially Japanese government he took up arms against. Defining the nature of Algren's offenses, and that the whole case was bizarre and kind of embarrassing for the U.S. possibly allowed Algren to slip through the cracks before people could figure out who was supposed to prosectute him.

*** I feel you're missing the point - the film is (very loosely) based on the death (and life) of Saigo Takamori who was one of the architects of the dissolution of the Samurai caste. What caused his rebellion was not the removal of samurai priviliges of the dismantling of the Shogunate and Samurai powerbase, it was the realisation that the new Japanese government would be run according to the dubious ethics of Western Realpolitik instead of Confucian Principles. Obviously a movie about comparative ethics makes for a less than exciting two hours but in the contrast between the silent figurehead Emperor with his shadow government and a Katsumoto who leads by example you have precisely that clash of West and East that Saigo Takamori fought in.

*** As the Jacobite uprising in 1745 and the italian war of 1859 shows that meleetroops can be successful against troops armed with rifled muskets, the movie takes place in 1876 and the Brown Bess musket the brittish used in the Jacobite uprising in 1745 was used until 1838 so swordwielding samurai defeating a force of poorly trained and poorly led soldiers with muskets is not as much of a stretch as you might think.

** Yes, one recalls that, especially during the Napoleonic wars, when push came to shove some soldiers could be absolute ''terrors'' with their swords; there was an account of a sergeant who held his company's standard against three separate attacks from individual soliders, which he ended in one stroke each. I can't recall his name (It was Ewing, or something; either way this was at Waterloo) but it was remarked that he was a reputed swordsman. And also had the advantage of sheer size. As I noted previously, Algren is frigging ''scary'' in the initial conflict with Katsumoto's Samurai - he's essentially very good at what he does, which is fighting, in particular, and war in general. It ''just so happens'' that he is white, considering that this movie was made by Americans, and specifically by John Logan, it's understandable that their protagonist be made relatable to them as a viewpoint character; Raymond Burr as Steve Martin in ''Godzilla'' pretty much illustrates this. Except he didn't pick up, I dunno, implausible reporting skills while there, I guess. So the main bone of contention here is the ease and speed with which Algren makes the transition from sabre, pistol, and carbine, to katana - essentially, over the course of six months, switching martial traditions entirely. Which, yes, is quite implausible, unless he's like, I dunno, an alcoholic death seeking Bruce Wayne sort of deal.

** It's also important to remember that aside from the hired goons (whose skill is dubious at best), and the sparring in the village, Algren does ''not'' fight any trained swordsmen in the latter half of the movie. He is fighting men with bayonets, who've had roughly as much time to train as he has with the katana. The difference is that Algren has been a soldier for ''years'', on top of his katana and karate tutoring, while the army has had... Drilling and shooting and marching practice? Even if Algren was only average with a sword, it's no small wonder that he plows through the poor-to-below-average infantry.

The Emperor asks for American help in upgrading and training his military to counter an internal problem. Once the internal problem gets taken care of, he changes his mind at the last minute and basically kills the deal essentially making other people deal with his nations problems without the payment promised. Er, Your Majesty, you do know that screwing over other world powers (especially ones more modernized than you) can lead to wars, right? Wars your only recently-upgraded military (and barely-extant Navy) and mostly pre-industrial nation will probably have trouble dealing with?
* Maybe the role was expanded apart from what was on camera, but the "help" the Emperor received was a small handful of officers who were obscenely well paid for their efforts. The [[MoreDakka dakka]] shown in the final battle was implied to be a special introductory offer mainly pushed for by Omura to begin with.
** That's beside the point. The deal was outright stated that the Americans would offer help in training their military in modern warfare in exchange for exclusive rights to sell firearms to the Empire. In the movie, the Americans fulfilled their part of the bargain. Even if they hadn't sweetened the deal with the MoreDakka later, it doesn't change the fact that the Emperor's decision nullified the Empire's part of the deal, meaning they didn't live up to it while the US did. Going back on deals with any world power usually has bad results. Especially since the movie was set in the 19th Century when the Western powers were a whole lot quicker to launch wars of aggression out of economic interest. So, no matter the nature of the deal, the Emperor still backed out of it, pissed an industrial power off (the American ambassador even said "This is an outrage!"), and handed over what Western powers back then would see as a legitimate cause of war to the country which was selling them weapons. Oops.
*** On the other hand, the US and Japan didn't go to war for another hundred years or so, meaning either (a) the US holds serious grudges or (b) the Emperor knew the US couldn't ante up with military force against Japan and basically gave 'em the white-gloved finger. The US ambassador is a politician, after all, and politicians are well known for exaggerating their responses.
*** Doesn't count since the film is obviously set in a alternate timeline where the Japanese Empire and the United States made some sort of weapons deal. In real history the Japan of that period was armed by the British and Russian Empires, never by a direct deal with the United States.
*** Thats why you write and sign treaties BEFORE delivering your end of the bargain because before the treaty is signed there is technically no binding argument and hence the Emperor can back out of it without the US beeing able to do more than complaining. Besides, the massive undertaking needed to project enough military power across the pacific to actually conquer and hold Japan would surpass the costs of the deal by several orders of magnitude.
*** They don't need to conquer and hold Japan. A common dick move strategy in the 19th Century among western powers was to simply topple or destabilize an unfavorable "small-fry" government and let the internal chaos take its course. The Imperial government is still newly-minted, solely dependent on the US for their armament, and there hasn't been enough time for the Imperial government to set up the industry to do any mass production of their own fireamrs. It wouldn't take much to destabilize the government and play the resulting chaos until something to your favor results from it. The British, Dutch, and French did this several times in the 19th century -- and by that point the Dutch and the French also had power projection issues as well. There wouldn't need to be a total conquest or occupation. Even if the resulting chaos doesn't work out to the favor of the Western power instigating it (as also happened in real life), the local government is still fucked.
*** It was precisely the threat of the above that caused the Japanese to rapidly modernise. They watched what happened to China and decided they'd rather be the boot than the arse. In the last scene of the movie the Emperor is quick to point out that any number of powerful Western nations wait in the other room ready to sign treaties that will protect Japan from the US.
*** Which still means nothing. "Ready to sign" doesn't mean "done deal." Hsitorically, Britain and Russia did nothing to aid Japan any in the point in history this movie is set in other than sell them guns for their civil war. What has changed here in the alternate history scenario of this film? Nothing, except that America sold them guns first for a deal much more comprehensive than more hands off arms deals of Russia and Britian IRL. Why would those nations come to the aid of Japan against the US when they have no vested interest there and no real established ties with the government yet? What's to stop them from waiting for another power to "soften them up" and make them more pliable and beholden to foreign powers as also happened in real life in other countries? Being the the boot not the arse sounds nice, but you have to make it happen--which is a tough deal when you just screwed over the guy giving you the leather and the other guys you can get leather from have no real reason to pick a fight with the first guy over you.
*** The United States of the day was not a world power. The US spent a goodly bit of it's time after it's birth as a glorified Banana (Cotton) Republic. This movie took place during a time when America would not even be able to land troops in Japan, let alone enough to wage any sort of war.
*** Which completely ignores the fact that it was the US that *opened* Japan in the first place, in large part by sailing a war fleet far beyond anything an indigenous power in the Orient could produce, and *threatening to land troops.* By the time of the post-Civil War era we're on, the United States was beginning to climb up to easily rival or exceed that of the other traditional Western Great Powers (like Britain, France, and the Netherlands), and in a few scant years would completely obliterate Spain. If it cannot be defined as a world power in this time frame it's hard to imagine what could be. They would not suffer insurmountable problems landing forces in Japan.
*** In fact, the US Navy and embarked Marines had been known to show up in Japanese waters and slap uncooperative warlords around in the 1860s and 70s, as well as various military interventions in China and Korea (their British and French counterparts frequently got in on it as well). These interventions usually involved a only couple of warships at a time. A full task force would be a lot more trouble than Meiji could handle.
** We're given to believe in the movie that the Emperor himself has never really actually been part of these negotiations, which have all gone through Omura. Omura is the one who has arranged all these things, essentially saying that he will guarantee the Emperors blessing. When Omura is basically cast out of the government and stripped of his wealth in front of the ambassador this is a fairly good sign that Omura has promised something he can't deliver. Essentially all that the Emperor has done is heard the presentation of the treaty and rejected it - it's Omura that's broken his word.
*** This. The Emperor had been a figurehead for the duration of the Omura negotiations with the US and the whole deal had been brokered on the back of Omura's reputation as the Evil Vizier of the Japanese Empire. With Omura disgraced it stands to reason that anything brokered on the strength of his word was valueless. As far as being in Japan's best interests, it's hard to see how Meiji could have foreseen Showa's inability to stop Tojo's government from perverting not only Bushido but also Shinto.
*** So what? Will it really matter to a foreign power who made the deal? Especially if they want a pretext for war? Omura made the deal, but he was making in on behalf of the Japanese government. So what if he's disgraced? So what if they claim that they didn't really authorize him? The deal was made. ''Military assets'' were given to the Japanese government—and not returned—, and now the promised recompense for them is coming. Do you think it would matter that the Emperor didn't make the deal personally? Who made the deal can't stop the foreign power from claiming that the government broke the deal, they even need to mention who. Do you really think a dickish 19th century power is gonna let that slide when doing so means they just backed down from some backwater nation that isn't even industrialized yet?
*** Military assets were ''promised'' to Japan, to be given once the treaty was signed. Colonel Bagley said it himself "As soon as the Emperor signs the trade agreement, he gets the whole package."
*** Plus, there is no reason to suspect America actually ''wants'' a war at all. They probably would win if it came to it, but they are not yet the superpower they will later become and Japan is a very long way away to sail hundreds or even thousands of soldiers to fight for no other reason than spite. If the Emperor hasn't actually signed anything yet then it would be a flimsy pretext for a war neither side actually wants or needs - all those weapons can be sold to someone else if needed, or even kept for American troops when there ''is'' a war needing fighting.

** 1) A few characters very plainly ask why Algren isn't dead already--Katsumoto keeps him as a hostage for strategic, political, and somewhat mystical reasons. The intention was always to return him back to his people, but one thing led to another, and he earned their goodwill the hard way.
2) Sussing out where Algren stands with his home country is a little tough. He was a private contractor who's interference with a an intranational civil war saw the U.S.'s business deal go up in smoke, but Katsuumoto wasn't declaring war on the U.S. specifically. Probably the most legally dicey (from an ideological standpoint, Bagley was basically a war criminal) thing was killing a U.S. officer, but it was officially Japanese government he took up arms against. Defining the nature of Algren's offenses, and that the whole case was bizarre and kind of embarrassing for the U.S. possibly allowed Algren to slip through the cracks before people could figure out who was supposed to prosectute him.

2) I'm unsure at the legalese of Algren's actions. He was brought in as private contractor, who's obligation was up. The U.S. had vested interested in the Meji Government, and even loaned men and resources, but this was an intranational civil war. Killing a U.S. Citizen, and a ranking officer is not a good look, but it's possible the U.S.'s "strictly business" involvement, the embarrassing way it turned out, and the headache in determining what exactly Algren was guilty of probably kept them from pressing the issue.

*** So what? Will it really matter to a foreign power who made the deal? Especially if they want a pretext for war? Omura made the deal, but he was making in on behalf of the Japanese government. So what if he's disgraced? So what if they claim that they didn't really authorize him? The deal was made. ''Military assets'' were given to the Japanese government, and now the promised recompense for them is coming. Do you think it would matter that the Emperor didn't make the deal personally? Who made the deal can't stop the foreign power from claiming that the government broke the deal, they even need to mention who. Do you really think a dickish 19th century power is gonna let that slide when doing so means they just backed down from some backwater nation that isn't even industrialized yet?

The Emperor asks for American help in upgrading and training his military to counter an internal problem. Once the internal problem gets taken care of, he changes his mind at the last minute and basically kills the deal essentially making other people deal with his nations problems without the payment promised. Er, Your Majesty, you do know that screwing over other world powers (especially ones more modernized than you) can lead to wars, right? Wars your only recently-upgraded military and mostly pre-industrial nation will probably have trouble dealing with?

* Define "better samurai". I certainly didn't see anything that made Algren any better as a samurai than any of the others. He got to stand at Katsumoto's side because they'd gotten to be HeterosexualLifePartners. And he helped plan the final attack because he understood what battle tactics Colonel Bagley would have taught the Imperial Army in his absence. His ability with languages was already established as a ChekhovsSkill earlier in the movie; likewise his skill as a swordsman, considering his ability with a cavalry saber. And for your accusations of racism to hold true, the native Japanese would have to be shown as inferior or lacking in some way, which is decidedly not true. In fact, quite the opposite is true, as the Samurai as a people are shown to be honorable, disciplined, and dedicated: All worthy qualities that Algren admires and hopes to emulate. There is even resistance from some, especially Ujio, about letting him be anything more than a glorified prisoner. It's only Katsumoto's insistence on letting him participate in village activities that even lets him get his foot in the door. On the whole, as a movie, it's considerably ''less'' racist and more convincing than others of its genre, like DancesWithWolves or ''Film/{{Avatar}}''.

**** Also, as a point of reference, "