Today:
AskHistorians is filled with questions seeking an answer. Saturday Spotlight is for answers seeking a question! It’s a place to post your original and in-depth investigation of a focused historical topic.
Posts here will be held to the same high standard as regular answers, and should mention sources or recommended reading. If you’d like to share shorter findings or discuss work in progress, Thursday Reading & Research or Friday Free-for-All are great places to do that.
So if you’re tired of waiting for someone to ask about how imperialism led to “Surfin’ Safari;” if you’ve given up hope of getting to share your complete history of the Bichon Frise in art and drama; this is your chance to shine!
Two stories I found fascinating and always knew was exaggerated was Hashiba (Toyotomi) Hideyoshi’s forced marches. I’ve just never actually went to the sources to look up exactly how they took place. But due to real-life circumstances I’ve a bit of time on my hands lately, and I’ve also been watching the Taiga Drama about Kuroda Kanbei. So I thought I’d finally go and take a look.
For this I’ll be relying on the comments here by /u/dandan_noodles and here by /u/Iphikrates, as well as wikipedia for some historical daily marching distances:
With those distances in mind, let’s look at Hideyoshi’s forced marches
1. Chūgoku Ōkaeshi – Takamatsu to Yamazaki.
Hideyoshi quickly learned of Oda Nobunaga’s murder, and immediately signed a treaty with the Mōri and marched his army back to confront Akechi Mitsuhide. Nobunaga was murdered in the morning of Tenshō 10.VI.2 (June 21, 1582 by the Julian Calendar). By VI.13 (July 2) Hideyoshi has defeated Mitsuhide at Yamasaki, who was killed by bandits trying to flee back to his Sakamoto Castle.
Here’s the common distances and timing given for the story in English sources:
Stephen Turnbull’s Toyotomi Hideyoshi:
On 25 June Hideyoshi led his army in a forced march of 12 km from Takamatsu to Numa, where they stayed the night. Early on 26 June they began a 40 km march farther on to Himeji, where he rested and reviewed his position on 27 June. On the morning of 28 June he left Himeji and with one more overnight stop reached Amagasaki…[on 29 June]
Mary Berry’s Hideyoshi:
…Thus he allowed Hideyoshi to enter Takamatsu on the fourth day of the sixth month. On the sixth day, Hideyoshi left Takamatsu to march to the capital.
The seventh saw him at Himeji, already eighty kilometers from the Bitchū camp. By the ninth he was on the road to Kyoto with fresh troops. On the thirteenth he faced Akechi Mitsuhide…
Here are the actual walking distances according to Google Maps:
If you examine the distances, you’ll notice that Berry and, especially, Turnbull got their distances wrong. The distance from Takamatsu to Himeji is 96 km by foot. So if we go by their timeline then Hideyoshi in fact made on average 48 km per day for two days, or even 71 km in a single day to reach Himeji. What’s more, the march was taken in bad weather, making it even more impressive. Perhaps inhumanly impressive. Which means we have to examine the timing. Here are the dates and time of march from Takamatsu to Himeji according to some of the sources:
There are more of these, but essentially there’s a clear disagreement on the sources (and, looking at Japanese Wikipedia, among scholars as well) whether the Takamatsu to Himeji march began on June 23 or June 25, and the exact time length of the march. Interestingly, with the exception of the Tōdaiki, it seems sources coming out of eastern Japan seem to place the start of the march on June 25, while those in western Japan (so those closer to the site of the event) seem to place it on June 23.
For the question of when the march began, one interesting letter from Hideyoshi himself survives. The letter was sent to Nakagawa Kiyohide, dated VI.5 (June 24). In it Hideyoshi tells Kiyohide that Nobunaga and his son Nobutada are alive and well, which we know is false. The usual interpretation for this is that Hideyoshi was lying to Kiyohide to make him question joining Mitsuhide. For our purpose though, the interesting thing is the post script:
I received your letter as I arrived at Nodono. Depending on the circumstances I plan on arriving at Numa today. Please tell Furuta Shigenari [Kiyohide’s brother-in-law] the same.
While Hideyoshi was obviously lying about Nobunaga’s fate, or at least mistaken, the post script suggest that he was replying to a letter. In theory, Kiyohide’s messenger could’ve confirmed or denied the time and location when Hideyoshi wrote the letter, which suggest it should be correct. If so, then Hideyoshi likely left Takamatsu’s siege lines on June 23 or 24, and arrived at Numa on June 24, which is well within normal marching speeds.
When did Hideyoshi reach Himeji then? Interestingly, we have another surviving letter, this time to Hosokawa Fujitaka, dated VI.8 (June 27). The letter was written at Himeji by Sugiwaka Mushin, one of Hashiba Hidenaga (Hideyoshi’s brother)’s retainer. The letter seem to be in response to news sent by Fujikata saying they won’t side with Mitsuhide, telling Fujikata they’ve signed a treaty with the Mōri and that Hideyoshi arrived at Himeji on VI.6 (June 25) and plan on depart on VI.9 (June 28). If true, it means Hideyoshi made the 71 km trip from Numa to Himeji in one day. But what concerns us is in fact, again, the post-script.
Yesterday I arrived early with some of the men.
The letter’s dated June 27. If Mushin arrived at Himeji on June 26 then he obviously didn’t arrive ahead of Hideyoshi, so he probably meant he arrived ahead of Hidenaga, who hasn’t arrived at Himeji. Why did Mushin/Hideyoshi have to tell Fujikata this? Perhaps the person usually communicating with, and so should be writing the reply to, Fujikata is Hidenaga. But as Hidenaga has not arrived, Hideyoshi had Hidenaga’s retainer, who has, write the letter. As once again the letter was written in reply, the date and location of the writer should be correct. This doesn’t rule out the fact that Hideyoshi might have lied about when he arrived at Himeji, and actually arrived on June 26 or even June 27, and the post script was covering up for his lies (“I actually arrived two days ago, but this is why you see men still arriving”). Whether or not this is the case doesn’t actually matter, because based on the post script clearly men were still arriving at Himeji on June 27. This is supported by the fact that, according to the Hideyoshi-Jiki, when Hideyoshi departed Himeji on June 28, his army has not completely gathered yet.
In short, only Hideyoshi and his highest ranking guards and retainers, likely all or mostly mounted, arrived at Himeji on June 25, covering the 71 km distance in one (or two or three) days. The rest of the army continued to arrive at Himeji between June 26 and June 27 and maybe even after that, bringing the actual marching speed down to a believable forced march or, even less, just regular marching speed. They did not actually need to cover 40 km a day.
An interesting note here is that some Japanese historians hypothesize that the army’s supply train was transported by sea, despite no written sources mentioning so, due to the presumed speed of the march. As shown above, this is not actually necessary and so should probably be discarded unless more evidence emerges.
While I did post this as an answer to a question suggested yesterday, it was a bit out of the time scope (9-10th century rather than 11th), so I will repost it here!
So without further ado here is a bit of an in depth look into Norse trading and raiding patterns in the medieval period!
This is going to be a bit of a long question and answer, so I will include a TL;DR here-
Who did they trade with? Vikings had numerous trading partners, with different objectives, but in most instances they would trade raw goods for silver. Who did they raid? Again a complicated answer but it is clear that they raided high value areas with larger and larger targets as technology and tactics progressed.
In order to answer your question I will break it down into two parts: who were their primary trading partners (what did they do with what they had captured) and where Norsemen frequently raided/how did they raid.
As always, it is important to remember the Vikings were not a unified group and had connections all over the European continent. The motives of individuals were complicated and rarely can we see an overarching pattern that applies for the entire century or across all groups frequently lumped into the group called "Vikings", however I will do my best to condense most of the information about Norsemen and give you the clearest answer given what archaeological evidence that remains.
For Trading Partners:
While the Norsemen had many trading partners across Europe one of my favorite trading relationships to examine is that of the connection with the Near East. I will focus on this relationship specifically because I believe it to be the most fascinating and likely the most emblematic of the desires of the Norsemen and what they traded. The connection with the Islamic empires of the early medieval period also left some of the most tangible pieces of trading evidence, including the Helgo Buddha and the Spillings Hoard (which contained vast numbers of Islamic Dirhams, and was the largest source of Islamic silver outside of the Islamic empires).
How was this unique trading relationship forged?
The most important aspect of the Scandinavian cultures to remember is their preference for sea trade. Having routes to the South that were direct and via large rivers would be the ideal trade route for the Scandinavians. Thus we see the rise of the Volga River trade route. The Volga River meant that the Scandinavians could either go south themselves, or rely upon the various groups dotting the river to act as trade intermediaries. This was true for all of the trading routes of the Norsemen, stretching as far as Greenland for ivory, establishing trading posts along their routes allowed for brief stops to rest and refuel before continuing along their journeys.
What did the Vikings trade?
The short answer here is silver. However, to understand why this was such an important resource we must dig a little deeper. First, silver was pragmatic. In the semi nomadic Viking world, having a good that was both easily moved (relative to other goods) and almost universally accepted would be of immense value. The Scandinavians also frequently settled in locations without a standardized currency so importing vast amounts of silver could easily act as an imported currency system. However to understand the cultural value of silver, the best source to turn to is Íslendingasögur, or the Sagas of Icelanders, one of our only written sources on Viking life.
Fredrik Ekengren & Maria Domeij Lundborg report:
" We argue that by using the social function of silver in the sagas as an explanatory comparison, we are able to expand the interpretative framework for understanding Viking Age silver and hoards. Our analysis of the sagas shows that silver had internal, socio-strategic functions that exceeded its function as payment for goods or services. This entailed legal contexts where silver circulated as weregeld and other expenses, all within the context of the blood feud. This would also explain why the silver was accumulated and taken out of circulation: it was kept as substitutions for victims and other debts, and would only re-enter circulation to pay the atonement prices generated by the conflict. However, silver was not needed if the debts were paid in blood. "
As can be seen, silver was immensely valuable both culturally and in a pragmatic sense.
What might the Abbasids gain in this partnership?
The short answer here is slaves. However, here also we must examine some context. Viking marauders are notorious for their capture of humans, looting not only goods but slaves as well. We also know that early sharia law prevented the enslavement of Muslims or converted Muslims, so those likely pagan or Christian peoples captured by Vikings would still be permitted. In a rapidly growing empire, the use of slaves would be imperative.
I will add here on small statement regarding Byzantine trade,as they too were large players in the theater in which the Scandinavians were operating. While there is plenty of evidence of the Dnieper trade route activity, as well as many a young Scandinavian serving in the Varangian Guard (see Laxdæla saga), the evidence of their trade is significantly less present. This is likely due to the inherent nature of silver (unlikely to degrade as fast as other materials traded) as well as some of the other cultural aspects mentioned above (silver was less likely to be taken out of circulation).
Hence we see a confluence of convenience and two groups uniquely suited to each others needs. While these regions differed vastly from one another, they were equipped to balance the needs of each other, both commercially and culturally.
What does this relationship tell us about larger trading patterns in the world of the Norsemen?
The relationship between the Abbasids and the Norse is indicative of a larger pattern of directional trade for the Scandinavian marauders. Raw goods could be easily obtained and were often paid for in silver, a ubiquitous and valuable currency. I might add that silver was not only used in trade but often also in Danegeld, as a way to pay off marauders who ventured into the continent (such as that used in the Siege of Paris). The pattern of raw materials for processed goods (such as silver) was not only present in the near East trade, but also as the Norsemen expanded. Examples such as the timber in Iceland (read about it here through a university subscription: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1970.tb00483.x ), and ivory in Greenland are both raw goods that were in high demand in the continent from the 9th century onward. While it would be impossible to describe all of the trade relationships that the Vikings had, I believe that the relationship with the Abbasid offers a unique and potent case study.
Where did the Vikings Raid?
This again is a difficult question to answer given the span of the Scandinavian movement throughout Europe.Both the Siege of Lindisfarne and the Siege of Paris might offer valuable information here.
CONT BELOW
Enjoyed reading this comprehensive essay immensely and thanks for the links to coins. Very interesting!