/u/ImmortalThunderGod79 showed me the Bibliography section of Stephen Turnbull's new "Samurai vs Ashigaru" (2019) book.

It's not only not in proper notation, something caught my eyes. Turnbull states:

Kōyō Gunkan is the epic chronicle of the Takeda family attributed to Kōsaka Danjō, one of Shingen's "Twenty-Four Generals", and finally compiled by Obata Kagenori in 1616. It has many of the characteristics of a gunkimono, and some of its sections are outright works of fiction, but its account of the battle of Uedahara is backed up by other contemporary sources and is widely regarded as reliable.

Let's examine if this is the case. There are two important things to note here:

1. The supposed author admits in the work there will be mistakes and inaccuracies.
2. In the work the author gives various dates Kōsaka Danjō records/dictates the information, ranging from 1575 to 1585. In contemporary records, through that entire time period, and in fact for most of his life, he used the clan name of Kasuga. There's no reason to think the author would mess up his own name.

Now let's examine the battle of Uedahara. Here are the contemporary accounts:

Record of Myōhō-ji:

This year [1548], on the second month fourteenth day [March 23], in the neighourhood of Shinano's Sir Murakami, at a place called Shiodahara Lord Harunobu of Kai and Sir Murakami fought. After a while, both sides looked to use the river as a small shield but the armies crossed, disordered, and were eaten. After a while, many men of Kai were beaten, Sir Itagaki the lord of Suruga, Sir Amari the lord of Bizen, Sir Saima the lord of Kawachi, Sir Hajikano Denemon, these men were killed, and our forces lost strength and were eaten. Even then, the lord commander remained in the base camp. Sir Oyamada lord of Dewa was unparalleled in his accomplishments. Shackled by the lord's orders to this huge loss, in the entire time lamentations were ceaseless throughout the province. Yet the army did not stop...[Battle of Shiojiritoge]

Two other contemporary sources, the Kōhakusai-ki and the Ōdai-ki, mentions the deaths of Itagaki and Amari in battle on March 23 of 1548, but did not describe the battle itself. Still, we can be fairly certain the battle took place on March 23, 1548, and resulted in a Murakami victory.

Let's compare this to the Kōyō Gunkan's account of the battle.:

[1547]...on the eight month twenty-fourth day [October 7], at the hour of the dragon [about 8am] the forces of Kai began battle. The vanguard of the Takeda was Itagaki Nobukata. Sanada Danjō requested the van, but Lord Harunobu placed him at the right, saying that due to his strategem many [of Murakami's] men were killed and so they are greatly chargined, so in battle without regards to the outcome if they see him Murakami will recklessly come fight to kill him. It isn't good to let Sanada be killed. And people were impressed that Lord Harunobu was able to read the enemy commander's heart and said he was a great archer [great general] rare in history. That day in battle, Itagaki Nobukata and attached forces totally 3,500 began battle and pushed apart the Murakami forces, Itagaki's forces soon took 150 heads, going ahead of the attached forces who were not able to take any, Itagaki Nobukata was a great archer of a samurai commander, but since new years his judgement has seemingly diminished and his regiment was completely wrong, becoming separated from friendly forces, going where the defeated enemy could come again, and on top of that began head-viewing in the regiment, when Murakami forces closed and began battle. Even Itagaki, who was famous among the neighbouring provinces, having let his guard down, and his retainers who were warriors skilled in archery, since the lower learn from the higher, everyone had their guard down when the enemy attacked, and panicking tried to take their weapons, but without time to go to their posts was pushed appart by the skilled Shinano warriors. Itagaki Nobukata was sitting on a folding stool and before he could bring forth and get on his horse, five six enemy broke into the friendly forces, and recognized the figures of Sir Itagaki, coming from the left and right and thrust, making him fall and duck under the spears, and took his head. The forces of Kai fighting Murakami forces were so far apart that even Itagaki's group could not see a single friendly regiment, and so Itagaki's group routed and retreated towards the other five regiments. Then of the seven regiments in Itagaki's group, Kurihara Saemon first pushed back the coming Murakami forces and began battle. When all six commanders had fought, from the rear Lord Harunobu pushed up, and in front Obu minister of war, Oyamada [lord of] Bichuū, Oyamada of Gunnai, the lord's younger brother master of horse, the forces of these samurai commanders bravely charged forth from between Itagaki's group and broke the enemy. Apart from the pursuit, Murakami Yoshikio and about 700 common soldiers saw their defeated friendlies beside them, and charged directly at Lord Harunobu's hatamoto and fought, pushing Lord Harunobu's hatamoto back about three chō [over 300m], but the side and rear regiments of Baba minister of people and Naitō minister of repairs entered from the flanks and fought with the hatamoto. Murakami's hatamoto were scattered and taken, at the same time the forces of Morozumi, Sanada, and Asari came up to defeat Murakami Yoshikio and took the enemy from the rear, and Hara lord of Kaga with about 300 of the hatamoto posted 5 or 6 chō away in reserve observing, this was the art of war that the Mikawa rōnin Yamamoto Kansuke had told Lord Harunobu. Even though now that Yoshikio was attacked by our forces from the four sides, he and lord Harunobu were both mounted and crossed each other, the two of them fighting that sparks flew from the tip of their blades. Though the horses of both were good, they were scared by the flashes of the blade and when trying to close would move apart. Murakami lost, the Takeda forces won, and as the Takeda friendlies around increased Murakami Yoshikio fell from his horse, and seeing that 1415 Murakami knights and 4050 common soldiers came and gathered around him, forming a circle, breaking to the rear, hiding in the reed fields, entering deep mountains, and escaped to Echigo.

We can see that:

• The date is wrong.
• The outcome of the battle is wrong. Murakami Yoshikio was not driven to Echigo until 1553.
• The river that likely played a large part of the battle is unmentioned.
• The only important death was Itagaki Nobukata. In reality many other people were killed. Most importantly, according to the Kōyō Gunkan, Amari Torayasu was killed at the Siege of Toishi which according to the Gunkan took place in 1546, before the battle of Uedahara. In reality, the Siege of Toishi took place in 1550, ending in a resounding Murakami victory.
• The narrative play up the prowess of Takeda Harunobu (Shingen) and push the responsibility of defeat onto someone else, and by a mistake a highly experienced commander was very unlikely to make.
• Yamamoto Kansuke's given credit for turning the battle around without describing what he did exactly.
• The author seem to like to write duels. The duel between Takeda Shingen and Murakami Yoshikio mirrors the description for Kawanakajima later.

Overall the account is exaggeration containing many important errors at best, and large parts outright fiction. The only way I can think Turnbull would say the Kōyō Gunkan's account is "widely regarded as reliable" is if he never read the Kōyō Gunkan, never read the contemporary sources, and never read any scholarly treatment of the subject. And yet Turnbull's book cites the Record of Myōhō-ji, so I have no idea what he's doing.

Week 142

 

On July 31^st 1919, late evening – back from Rome, where he had likely been busy accommodating certain issues with the local Fascio - Mussolini intervened to the “assembly of the Central Committee of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento”, held in Milan for the purpose of revising the composition of the Central Committee, where Attilio Longoni and Celso Morisi were replaced by Umberto Pasella (as Secretary) and Eno Mecheri (as deputy Secretary).

While all the speakers “revealed their satisfaction for the development pace of the fascist movement” (the short note, reproduced in page two, on the First of August, concluded with an invitation to all secretaries of the various Fasci to deliver – by the 10^th – “relations and correspondences concerning the fascist movement”), they also agree that it was necessary to “intensify the propaganda efforts” in preparation for the first National Congress of the Fasci di Combattimento (set, during the meeting, for the 20^th and 21^st of September).

Furthermore, they approved without hesitation the publication of the newspaper Il Fascio, weekly organism of the Fasci di Combattimento, [starting] from August 15^th

The rest of page two was dedicated, for the most part, to cover minor advancements in various local labor negotiations – from the ongoing steelworkers strike, with the assembly of the Unione Sindacale Milanese, hearing from the delegation which had met with the Ministry of Industry in Rome and returned with a moderately unsatisfying resolution of the issue of piecework salary adjustment – to the “agreement reached between silk employees and industrialists”, with the approval of a memorandum aimed at “reaching those economical improvements necessary to face the current price increase” and thus reaching a resolution in “a controversy which had been going on for a while” and “removing any reason of conflict between capital and labor, a necessary condition for a rapid reconstruction of national wealth”.

In the meantime the “delegation of the health workers from the Ospedale Maggiore” had met with the prefect, to discuss the issue of new hirings, earning the promise of the issue being examined by the Provincial Committee within a few days.

Concurrently, the “demobilized waiters” - unemployed and non registered to the local Chamber of Labor – had formed an association of their own, with related employment office. While representatives of both waiters and shop-owners had, also, met with the prefect to ask for the “reintroduction of the fixed right for personnel” - which is to say the inclusion of a fixed quota destined to the employees, instead of tipping – but without securing a satisfactory response.

On a similar note, the “Demobilized Employees Autonomous Group” - “created for the purpose of mitigating the impressive degree of unemployment afflicting demobilized employees” - had sent out an appeal to shop-owners, in order for them to “privilege demobilized personnel in their hiring process”, given how the latter, “consumed the few savings they had put together at great cost during pre-war years, found themselves in quite miserable conditions”.

Page two also recorded the “successful initiatives of the Cooperative of demobilized personnel” - one of the many “mutual” organizations for the purchase of sustenance goods. The Cooperative informed that

in its 33 retailers in various zones of Milan, they have, available for sale, beef meat in 3 Kg boxes for 4.50 Lire per Kg, as well as “Beuf Loaf” for 4 Lire per box.

Soon to be available tuna, ventresca, sardines, cod, concentrate pastes, cheese, stock cubes, extract of meat, pasta […]

Similar initiatives, the growing popularity of which could certainly be ascribed to the recent price spike – continued the brief note – were developing outside of the city and throughout the whole province, with new local organizations seeking to rely on the support of the Milanese Cooperative.

An official deliberation of the city authorities was also required to solve the issue of the proposed adoption of Sunday rest for the local salumerie - a proposition which the Mutual Cooperative Association agreed to, in principle, but nonetheless deemed necessary to wait until “the rest day was introduced by the public authority for all grocery stores”.

 

If the heat wave seems to have depressed the atmosphere of the Milanese redaction, page three – the one reserved to international and national matters – was certainly more lively, opening with a piece by Amedeo Mazzotti dedicated to the Italian irredentist Gugliemo Oberdan (“Oberdan”, in Popolo d'Italia - August 2^nd 1919). Mazzotti was at the time a “propaganda secretary” for the Central Direction, who had been tasked with the preparation of a series of lectures (possibly for Mussolini himself) in July. The tone and contents of the piece (including a reference to Jan Hus – a subject familiar to Mussolini whose 1913 novel-essay, Giovanni Huss il veridico, remained a relatively popular work among his audiences) certainly have a “public lecture” feel; and the rumors of a cycle of public lectures to be made by Mussolini within the “redeemed lands” during the Summer of 1919 (we know that Enzo Ferrari had given a series of lectures as semi-official representative of the Fasci di Combattimento) lend some credence to the idea that this might have been repurposed material. Which, in turn, makes the arguments somewhat more significant.

In Oberdan, that measure of Slavic blood running in his veins is taking action.

The ways of knowledge advance only by means of hypotheses and assumptions. We can presume this action is twofold: giving him a stronger sensitivity and giving him a greater impulse.

Not because the Slavic nature possesses such potential of virtues to a larger degree, but for what follows.

It is a well known phenomenon that many prominent political figures were partially extraneous to the populations among which they were operating. […] Because it happens that newcomers display a greater deal of susceptibility to the peculiarities, whether of need, or of potential, of the adoptive race; a fresher [susceptibility], not dulled by the torpid habits of the previous generations. And, to a more vibrant sensitivity, often corresponds, in the best natural temperaments, a more energetic reaction.

This also explains – Mazzotti continued, moving from general to the particular case at hand – why, throughout the Middle Ages, those born of a mixing of Italians and Teutons were more infallibly and more markedly Italian and anti-barbaric than the genuine elements; and why, up until a certain period, the Slavs of the Adriatic had so fervently joined and so unreservedly assimilated into the Latinity of the civilizing lineage.

At which point we might be driven to consider the effects of another historical reality in action: which is to say that there are races – the Latin one first and foremost – chiefly gifted of the high civil power of assimilation; others which appear to lack that entirely. […]