Why didn't the japanese built city walls?

It had symbolic gates to enter the city. The only thing resembling an actual wall was the southern one, which was still ridiculously low ( a couple meters).

Kyoto was surrounded by a Ditch for defenses.

For the longest time, Japan was pretty much in the "Motte & Bailey" style of fortifications.

This.

Even pre-gundpowder Japanese Castles have laughable walls. Japs mostly relied on earthworks and/or geography. Often building castles on mountains or hills.

Why not carve a hill AND build a conventional wall on top?

They put so much effort into earth works, moats and giant trapezoid cross section walls because they lacked the option of conventional walls.

I was always under the impression when you live in a country such as pic related (very small and very fragmented with no central power) castles are pretty much pointless.

Threats essentially everywhere, sieges literally all the time. I dunno, just seems dumb. That being said, castles in the traditional sense are a Norman thing, why would Japs be building castles on a similar scale? The purpose of a castle is this.

>invade
>build castle
>stay

William the Conqueror used them to conquer England, they are not so much as a defensive structure, as they are offensive. ALthough yes, they are highly defensive things.

I would think that the complex web of threats and alliances makes fortifications all the more essential.

Fortifications allow you to control an area with relatively few men, as well as buying time in case of sudden attack. When you don't know which of your neighbors might take it into their head to wipe out you and your family, some walls can be very, very helpful. They don't even need to keep the enemy out indefinitely, just long enough that you can gather up your own men and possibly notify your allies to get a force together to take them conventionally.

Then there's also the fact that anyone who beseiges an enemy probably requires a significant investment of force camped around their fort, which might leave themselves open to other, opportunistic people elsewhere.

Because it was so anarchic, because there were wars and rumors of war all the time, of course people needed castles.

All well and good, they did have castles, their capital of the province was usually a castle. Their land is way too small to make castles a useful thing.

For one example using that picture, you would essentially need multiple castles in every province to defend a piece of land which is very small.

Pic related, is Himeji castle of what was Tamba province.

>of course people needed castles.
But you missed the point where castles are an offensive thing which became defensive? There is no need for them, past a singular capitol - especially when land is that small. Put it into perspective. Google Japan vs Europe size - or something like that and find an overlay of Japan on Europe. The amount of threat that was there (all sides essentially) and the size of their land made it pretty much pointless to build many castles - to the extent of a Euro. Castles are for holding massive expanses of land and pivotal pieces, not small areas.

>Their land is way too small to make castles a useful thing.

I'm not sure what you're drawing this inference from. As long as you have a self-contained political unit, you have a use for some degree of fortification if there's a threat. Skip over to Europe at around the same time, late-medieval to early renaissance period, and the most heavily fortified regions were in Italy, which was dominated by tiny city-states.

>But you missed the point where castles are an offensive thing which became defensive?

They were ALWAYS both an offensive and a defensive implement, from the first day you had mud-brick walls in Sumeria. They never "became" anything else.

> There is no need for them, past a singular capitol - especially when land is that small.

Of course there's a need for them. Individual Daimyos have their own interests, enemies, friends, and feuds. It's to protect them, not some notion of "Japan.".

> Castles are for holding massive expanses of land and pivotal pieces, not small areas.

No, they fucking aren't. I don't know why you would think so. Castles are for allowing the control of a contested area with a minimum of a standing force, and for the buying of time to mobilize.

Yes, the Normans built a lot of castles, and that helped them control England, but you're putting the cart before the horse there. The castles didn't just magically control territory. They built the castles to aid them in controlling the territory, especially when you still have Saxon nobility and people who aren't entirely settled to that whole Norman Conquest thing. They carried a threat in with them, hence, forting up.

Size of territory has little to nothing to do with it.

Probably earthquakes.

Japan is a pretty large country.

Maybe for the same reason the English didn't?

>They were ALWAYS both....
You are talking about the European sense of a castle, no? Because European castles and defensive walls are 2 entirely different things.

>I'm not sure what you're drawing this inference from.....
Kek, are you being silly on purpose? You understand you are literally proving my point? Look at their borders, covered with castles. How the fuck is a country that was as fragmented as Japan meant to pull that off in an effective manner? I mean, they had fucking castles. Are you actually being retarded on purpose, don't take that the wrong way.

>Of course there's a need for them. Individual Daimyos have their own interests, enemies, friends, and feuds. It's to protect them, not some notion of "Japan.".
Kek, are you even reading? The leaders of each province usually had a capital, which was a highly defensive castle.

>No, they fucking aren't. I don't know why you would think so. Castles are for allowing the control of a contested area with a minimum of a standing force, and for the buying of time to mobilize.
You can read history if you want.

>Yes, the Normans built a lot of castles....
Literally pointless. Like, Normas created the castle you know today, they didn't simply build a lot of them. They created them as a tool for invasion which became a defensive structure once they took over England, Kick and scream all you want.

>Size of territory has little to nothing to do with it.
If you say so. The people of Iga province with a land (today) of 558.2 km2 were meant to build a castle on every single part of their border because the people of Italy with a land mass of 301,338 km2 did it.

And? What is "Japan" in the feudal era but many many singular provinces which were tiny?

Mountains, valleys, and rivers make for better walls than you could feasibly make in that kind of terrain

China is mostly flat, especially in the heartland of china. Their are some exceptions like a lot of Yunnan and the masses of rivers in the south. But its mainly pretty damn flat.

On flat terrain walls mean a lot more since natural protection is slim to none.

On mountainous terrain walls arnt needed so much since your landscape provides so much natural defense or just complications to wallbuilding in general.

Look at vlad the impalers castles. They are literally on top of mountains, the only wall being the outermost wall. Like many japanese castles stone base. While Wallachian towns also usually lack walls of any significant size.

Terrain, in construction, means everything.

>You are talking about the European sense of a castle, no? Because European castles and defensive walls are 2 entirely different things.

I'm talking fortifications in general. A castle is just a sub-set of a foritification in which a family, usually a noble one, would reside as well as operate from. In this case though, yes, castles were always both offensive and defensive.

>ou understand you are literally proving my point? Look at their borders, covered with castles. How the fuck is a country that was as fragmented as Japan meant to pull that off in an effective manner?

Castles are cheap. And the castles will develop where there's a threat and thus a need for fortifications. Japan didn't have external enemies, it had internal ones, in the form of the next clan down the road.

>Kek, are you even reading? The leaders of each province usually had a capital, which was a highly defensive castle.

Yes, to defend against their neighbors. Which part of this are you having trouble with?

>You can read history if you want.

I have. You might want to try the work of one Sebastian Vauban. You might find it enlightening, although probably not, with your poor reading comprehension.

>Literally pointless. Like, Normas created the castle you know today, they didn't simply build a lot of them. They created them as a tool for invasion which became a defensive structure once they took over England, Kick and scream all you want.

Are you stupid? They were a tool of occupation, not the invasion itself. In between the landing at Pevensey and William's crowning, they built ONE fortification, and a rather puny one at that; a motte and bailey, not those square keeps commonly associated with the Normans. It was after 1066, after the conquest, that you start seeing hundreds of the things.

> The people of Iga province with a land (today) of 558.2 km2 were meant to build a castle on every single part of their border because the people of Italy with a land mass of 301,338 km2 did it.

>Comparing the size of a province with a unified Italian state which didn't exist at that time.

You do realize how nonsensical that is, right?

>Japan didn't have external enemies, it had internal ones, in the form of the next clan down the road.
Exactly, so why the need for a castle? When you can directly reinforce from anywhere in your province?

>Yes, to defend against their neighbors. Which part of this are you having trouble with?

Literally what? What's your reading comprehension like?

>didn't even touch the part about land mass and size
>simply post ad hom and literally pointless parts of the post
Kek, you are done.

Please, before you post again, you HAVE to tell me why a province with a land mass the size of some small towns would need more than one castle? Why it would be efficent to do so? Post it in the context of that image (which you probably didn't look at), see how almost every single castle is on a broader? Note France, France has 3, arguably 4 lines of defence of castles of 4 potential threats. France is huge, france needs them, the lines which they defend are longer than most of Japan's provinces. Again, before you go any further, tell me exactly how it is useful to have many castles on a piece of land which is tiny, and can be effectivley defended from the capitol? Are you really trying to imply they had trouble reinforcing lines which were barely even 100km long? like most fights within a day's march of anywhere in your province?

You say land size has no point, you are a literal retard if you hold that point of view.

>You do realize how nonsensical that is, right?
Yes, but you realize I am not the one using that argument? I am the one proving the idiocy of it, you should read the thread. Before posting.

>Are you stupid? They were a tool of occupation, not the invasion itself. In between the landing at Pevensey and William's crowning, they built ONE fortification, and a rather puny one at that; a motte and bailey, not those square keeps commonly associated with the Normans. It was after 1066, after the conquest, that you start seeing hundreds of the things.

Factually wrong, William built many castles (all motte and bailey) during his invasion. Also, he still needed to gain control after "becoming" king.

Why do people say shit like this? WHy do people use Euro's as an example and blanket them over the entire world? The Japs obv didn't need walls to the extent the Euro's did. So what? They built walls when they mattered, when they saw they needed them, and they actually worked.

People actually think the typhoons stopped the Mongol invasion, not the walls the Japs built which kept them at sea for much longer than their ships and crew were capable of.

You might have a point if it were not for the fact that Japan was filled with castles. Just about every clan had at least ones castle to their name, and most provinces at any given time had several clans constantly vying for local power.

>Exactly, so why the need for a castle? When you can directly reinforce from anywhere in your province?

To buy time for said reinforcement. If you're overrun before you can get a message out, mobilize, call for your allies, then it doesn't matter, at least as far as you're concerned, if your side eventually won.

>Literally what? What's your reading comprehension like?

Those provinces fought each other all the fucking time. Clan feud was a major fact of life. Castles were to defend against said other clans.

>Please, before you post again, you HAVE to tell me why a province with a land mass the size of some small towns would need more than one castle?

Because you might have a plurality of political powers. Because you might not be able to set up control over the countryside from just one, because one was built and later abandoned, because of a shit ton of possible reasons. And since when are 500ish square km the size of a small town?

>Post it in the context of that image (which you probably didn't look at), see how almost every single castle is on a broader

And for all the ones that weren't? When you had hundreds of castles built in the Loire river valley in the 13th century, were they being built in preparation of HYW that would be 200 years later? eupedia.com/france/castles_of_france.shtml There weren't exactly contested borders in Brittany or Limousin or Dordogne. You still see shittons of castles everywhere, and not organized as per some grand plan to defend the nation.

>Note France, France has 3, arguably 4 lines of defence of castles of 4 potential threats. France is huge, france needs them, the lines which they defend are longer than most of Japan's provinces

Do you understand how feudal systems work? There was no "France" when the majority of castles were being built. You had a conglomerate of French speaking (for the most part) semi-independent nobles, who are building the castles to guard their won fiefs, not some notion of "France". Japan worked the same way. You had castles to guard this, that, or the other Daimyo's hold, not Japan itself.

>Again, before you go any further, tell me exactly how it is useful to have many castles on a piece of land which is tiny, and can be effectively defended from the capitol?

Because it isn't always politically unified. Because you don't just want to defend the capitol, you want to defend more than that. Because you had powerful lords who demanded a castle as proof of their status and wealth and could build them.

> Are you really trying to imply they had trouble reinforcing lines which were barely even 100km long? like most fights within a day's march of anywhere in your province?

And when your enemy also can suddenly attack you with about a day's preparation? Then you might want to have a fort close at hand, rather than having to run all the way to the provincial capitol, being chased by their armsmen, yes?

>Yes, but you realize I am not the one using that argument? I am the one proving the idiocy of it, you should read the thread. Before posting.

Yes, you "proved" the idiocy by comparing two things that aren't actually related. Good job. I'm sure your mom's proud. As I stated originally in post , when you had that level of construction, there was no "Italy" any more than there was a "Japan". You had Venice and Genoa and Milan and Piedmont and Florence and Siena and Pisa and dozens more, none of whom trusted their neighbors. Their fortifications were primarily concerned with each other, not external powers like France or Spain.

>Factually wrong, William built many castles (all motte and bailey) during his invasion. Also, he still needed to gain control after "becoming" king.

Oh yeah, aside from the one near Pevensey, name them.

>Also, he still needed to gain control after "becoming" king.

Yes, which is what the castles were for. Try to keep up. But it wasn't like they plopped down a castle in the middle of lands they didn't at least contest.

Should read the comment chain. At least so you know what this argument is about. Because if you had, you would realize that's one of my main points, the other user is arguing they should have had MORE castles, which is literally retarded.

I said before you post again you need to answer the question as to why more than one castle is needed in areas that are about the size of some cities. You tried, but failed. I honestly have no idea why you are still posting?

All you are doing is saying Euro's did this, so therefore Japs should have. It makes literally no sense. Here is an image to express you retardation.

Kek, why are you so mad? He is the one who used Italy as an example as to why Japan should have more castles, Jesus man, take a breather.

>Oh yeah, aside from the one near Pevensey, name them.
>implying we actually know how many he built
>implying there are accurate records
xD

>Yes, which is what the castles were for. Try to keep up. But it wasn't like they plopped down a castle in the middle of lands they didn't at least contest.

Kek, dat projection. This has literally nothing to do with William, he was a singular example. What are you doing, breh? Care to take a moment to collect your thoughts and make a proper argument?

I did, and you are clearly wrong. That pic of castles every is how it really was. At one point there was around 5000 castles in japan. Thats an average of one every 29 km^2. It wasnt just capitols or very important areas. It was wherever a clan decided to call home, they built a castle.

>At one point there was around 5000 castles in japan
Kek, care to point me to where this is actually true? Because you now, theories and probabilities are not objective arguments.

xD

True, but the number of castles did definitely number in the thousands.

>True, but the number of castles did definitely number in the thousands.

Overall, yes, and they were not "european" like castles (this argument), as you said, (and I sort of did) they were homes for their lords, not tools of invasion, or defence as is needed with large land masses. As was implied by the user I was arguing with.

The number is probably in the thousands as they were so small and easily torn down they could pop up wherever they wanted.

That being said, Japs easily had the coolest castles.

>I said before you post again you need to answer the question as to why more than one castle is needed in areas that are about the size of some cities.

And I answered. Clearly, you didn't read it. I'll try again. You could have divided control over the one province. You could have fear of sudden attack and worry about the personal safety of the Daimyo and people important to him. You could want tighter control, to reward favored retainers, a concession to a subordinate who has you over a barrel, to have a fallback position in case one of the other forts falls.

>All you are doing is saying Euro's did this, so therefore Japs should have. It makes literally no sense. Here is an image to express you retardation.

No, I'm saying that you had similar conditions, and not surprisingly, similar reactions.

>Your image

But you DID have a lot of castles and other fortifications spammed all over the place in Japan, not just one per province. You had a ton of the things built.

>implying we actually know how many he built
>implying there are accurate records

Except the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions one. And you were the one who claimed, not I, that

>Factually wrong, William built many castles (all motte and bailey) during his invasion.

Back your shit up.

>Kek, dat projection. This has literally nothing to do with William, he was a singular example. What are you doing, breh? Care to take a moment to collect your thoughts and make a proper argument?

Demonstrating the purpose of castles, again.

>Castles enable someone to strategically hold an area with a minimum of standing force
>They are constructed post-victory
>Wait, you came along and claimed that William built most of his castles during the invasion as an "offensive weapon".
>No, that actually isn't true and there's no evidence for it

To which you have essentially gone "lol, u mad".

> the other user is arguing they should have had MORE castles, which is literally retarded.

I have never argued that. I've argued why they had the number of castles they did, and how your statements you made in your original point here such as

>I was always under the impression when you live in a country such as pic related (very small and very fragmented with no central power) castles are pretty much pointless.

>William the Conqueror used them to conquer England, they are not so much as a defensive structure, as they are offensive

Are idiotic and not grounded in reality.

>Overall, yes, and they were not "european" like castles (this argument), as you said, (and I sort of did) they were homes for their lords, not tools of invasion, or defence as is needed with large land masses.

You do realize that most European castles are also fortified homes of individual feudal lords, and not "tools of invasion" or "defence as is needed with large land masses", the latter of which doesn't even make sense.

>The number is probably in the thousands as they were so small and easily torn down they could pop up wherever they wanted.

Which also happened in Europe, you dumbass. Castles were constantly being built up and torn down. When you had King James proscribing the Douglas family in 15th century Scotland, the edict specifically mentions how their castles are to be torn down, not just given to new people.

I honestly thought the Japanese in those eras found sieges that last for years to be pointless

>But you ......
But that is not your fucking argument. YOu are saying why didn't they have more, you are then giving subjective reasoning as to why they would want more. Like, you are doing nothing. This user answered your question (as I attempted to). Why do you not understand it's simply not practical in feudal Japan to utilize Castles in the same way Europeans did? Japan simply didn't fucking need them, I don't know why you don't understand this?

>And I.........
You are STILL arguing without the context of fucking size. Holy fucking shit, you vastly over estimate the size of your average feudal Japanese province, there is a reason I post many fucking maps. Seriously, this is going to be my last reply to you if you keep bringing up the same old shit over and ufucking over again
>euros did this
>euros did that
>therefore Japan should have!!!
Like that image where I post size is not wrong, most Japanese province in Feudal Japan were barely fucking 30 miles long, holy fucking shit man, everything you are saying makes sense, in a country with lines that are thousands of miles long, not under 50.

>Except the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions one. And you were the one who claimed, not I, that
Don't pose loaded questions. Hastings is another mote and bailey he is thought to have built, of course not proven and cannot be used as I said - but you posed a loaded question, don't be surprised when you don't get a proper answer.

>To which you have essentially gone "lol, u mad".
Again, William has literally nothing to do with why Japan didn't utilize castles in the same sense, you are now trying to argue the historicall accepted fact surrounding castles. Meme post all you want, you are not touching anything of importance in anything in my posts, it's actually maddening. Why are you still going? Have you seriously got nothing to do today?

>You do realize that most European castles are also fortified homes of individual feudal lords, and not "tools of invasion" or "defence as is needed with large land masses", the latter of which doesn't even make sense.
Kek. Feel free to back it up, with actual reasoning, saying something doesn't simply make it true. I will be waiting. You are literally arguing against history and how William utilized Castles to take over England, I mean seriously?

>Which also happened in Europe, you dumbass. Castles were constantly being built up and torn down. When you had King James proscribing the Douglas family in 15th century Scotland, the edict specifically mentions how their castles are to be torn down, not just given to new people.
And?

>Are idiotic and not grounded in reality.
One is factually correct the other is sound reasoning, as is proven by your inability to refute it. Like I mean seriously, you are arguing why there are not defensive castles put up in a defended area probably about the size of the town you live in.

Everything you are saying makes sense, is totally fine, in large areas. You have literally no argument when you can walk around your province in less than a day, when your enemies are you neighbours, and not a force far away.

Feel free to stop at any time.

>WHy do people use Euro's as an example and blanket them over the entire world?

European fortifications were the best and are the standard all people should be held to because of it.

>European fortifications were the best and are the standard all people should be held to because of it.

Tell that to the Mongols. Japan held them off, Euro didn't - with walls.

They didn't really. The vast majority of Europeans and Chinese lived outside of the "city" walls. The cities were intended for nobles and the upper classes, not commoners. This was true for Japan as well. The distinguishing factor is that China and Europe built a wall around the upper class portion of the city. In Japan, the upper class portion of cities were made up of walled compounds. Similarly, Japanese castle towns once you enter the Ashikaga Period had walls around the retainer estates of the castle daimyo which were right outside the castle, while commoners were left outside of the estates and only allowed into the "city" (the estates) during the day.

>YOu are saying why didn't they have more,

No, I am not. I'm explaining why they had the ones they did have, not why they built more, which of course they didn't. I gave reasoning as to why they would need more than "one per province", which they clearly felt they did, because they BUILT more than one per province.

>Like, you are doing nothing. This user answered your question (as I attempted to).

Is English not your first language? He was rebutting YOUR point by the fact that Japan DID have lots and lots of castles, not just one per province.

>Why do you not understand it's simply not practical in feudal Japan to utilize Castles in the same way Europeans did?

Because they DID use castles in a very similar manner to the way Europeans did. They were primarily tools of a feudal nobility, not a centralized state. When centralized authority weakened, you saw the construction of more castles, not fewer.

>Japan simply didn't fucking need them, I don't know why you don't understand this?

Then why did they build so many? Why did they factually, historically, build thousands of castles?

>You are STILL arguing without the context of fucking size. Holy fucking shit, you vastly over estimate the size of your average feudal Japanese province, there is a reason I post many fucking maps.

BECAUSE SIZE ISN'T THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION! IT FUCKING ISN'T! NUMBER OF HOSTILE PARTIES AND EASE OF THEIR ABILITY TO STRIKE IS. That's why you see more castle building the more politically unstable and balkanized an area is.

>therefore Japan should have!!!

I want you to cite to ONE statement, ONE single statement I made, ANYWHERE in the thread, where I made a recommendation that Japan should have built more castles than they did. I have never stated that. I have never knowingly implied that. I have merely stated, again and again and again, that Japanese lords did have a need for castles, hence building many of them.

>Like that image where I post size is not wrong, most Japanese province in Feudal Japan were barely fucking 30 miles long, holy fucking shit man, everything you are saying makes sense, in a country with lines that are thousands of miles long, not under 50.

You do realize that individual provinces had multiple parties vying for power within them? That if you were in Clan A, and you were in a three way feud with clans B and C, you couldn't exactly go to their castle and hope for sanctuary there, right? That the geographic size is less important than the political dividing in them?

>Don't pose loaded questions

>Make dumbass claim
>Get asked for a source
>"Don't pose loaded questions.

> Hastings is another mote and bailey he is thought to have built,

Thought by whom? For what reasons? On what basis of support? How did he build it before the battle? If it was afterwards, it was actually a way of controlling the countryside after he won the throne, not an "offensive weapon" the way you claimed.

> but you posed a loaded question, don't be surprised when you don't get a proper answer.

Asking for a citation is not a "loaded question". You cannot claim, baldly, as you do in post that "William built many castles during his invasion", and then whine that anyone who doubts that is asking "loaded questions".

>Again, William has literally nothing to do with why Japan didn't utilize castles in the same sense,

Learn to read. I was rebutting your claim, the one you made in your first post that castles were "offensive weapons" used to "conquer England", insofar as the overwhelming majority of Norman castles were built AFTER the conquest to consolidate the Norman hold. It does not touch upon Japan.

With walls and a sea. I'm not meming about the typhoons either, but fighting and sustaining a campaign become immensley more difficult when you throw in a sea between the invader and invadee. If the Mongols had tried to invade Englad I doubt they would have been any more succesful than they were in Japan.

>because they BUILT more than one per province.
Kek, I suggest you read my argument. "One per province" has never been my argument. If you had read the thread, you would see that I said - THEY DID HAVE CASTLES usually the capital of the province. No where have I said they only put on per province.

Literally what are you saying?

>not just one per province.
See above.

>Why did they factually, historically, build thousands of castles?
We have been over this, there is nothing factual about Japan and their 5,000 castles.

>BECAUSE SIZE ISN'T THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION! IT FUCKING ISN'T! NUMBER OF HOSTILE PARTIES AND EASE OF THEIR ABILITY TO STRIKE IS. That's why you see more castle building the more politically unstable and balkanized an area is.
Kek, so that's why each of Japans province at any given time had castles ranging their entire boarders? You are using the fact that at total Japan is thought to have had 5000 castles as reasoning to say they HAD 5,000 castles AT ONE TIME.

>that Japanese lords did have a need for castles, hence building many of them.
I literally have no idea why you are posting then, since that is literally my post. I mean, I toild you to read the thread, and my comment chain, multiple times.

>Thought by whom? For what reasons? On what basis of support? How did he build it before the battle? If it was afterwards, it was actually a way of controlling the countryside after he won the throne, not an "offensive weapon" the way you claimed.
I told you, not to ask a loaded question, if you don't want a real answer.

> insofar as the overwhelming majority of Norman castles were built AFTER the conquest to consolidate the Norman hold
Care to explain how this refutes the claim (historically accepted claim at that) Normans used castles to conquer England. Nowhere has anyone said they built more castles pre conquest they did post? That's besides the point? If that's your logical reasoning, I think I am done here.

>Kek. Feel free to back it up, with actual reasoning, saying something doesn't simply make it true. I will be waiting.
yourchildlearns.com/castle_history.htm

westernreservepublicmedia.org/middleages/feud_nobles.htm

castlesandmanorhouses.com/life_10_feudal.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Château_de_Beaufort

Castles were heavily employed by the feudal nobility, independent of national notions.

> You are literally arguing against history and how William utilized Castles to take over England, I mean seriously?

No, I am arguing that William used the castles to consolidate his hold on England, since they, with the exception of Pevensey castle, were built AFTER he took the throne in Christmas of 1066. To this, I cite the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. They were not "offensive weapons". They were consolidation weapons.

>Like I mean seriously, you are arguing why there are not defensive castles put up in a defended area probably about the size of the town you live in.

First you're saying I'm arguing that Japan "Should have built more castles", and now you're switching to the also incorrect claim that I'm arguing why there weren't defensive castles put up. At least be consistent with your nonsense. There were lots of castles built, and the Japanese weren't stupid about it. There were a ton of castles built in Japan.

books.google.com/books?id=Gthp7ZCcYPwC&pg=PA655&lpg=PA655&dq=5000 castles japan&source=bl&ots=vSr9DypvkI&sig=4u-7TOqoJDgL6GNBl3z8MopJ54g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6w7Cb9bDPAhVJeT4KHYPOBcIQ6AEIYDAN#v=onepage&q=5000 castles japan&f=false

>Everything you are saying makes sense, is totally fine, in large areas. You have literally no argument when you can walk around your province in less than a day, when your enemies are you neighbours, and not a force far away.

That is precisely why you need them. To protect you from your neighbors, to buy time in case they mobilize their forces before you do.

>Kek, I suggest you read my argument. "One per province" has never been my argument. If you had read the thread, you would see that I said - THEY DID HAVE CASTLES usually the capital of the province. No where have I said they only put on per province.

Your (stupid) argument is that there was no reason to build so many castles.

I have provided reasons, which you seem not to comprehend, in support of the notion that yes, they built a ton of castles. That your "Totally accurate image guise" in post is full of shit.

The "Reality" is a lot more like the image on the right, with "Castles everywhere" than it is on the left, which you claim is real.

>We have been over this, there is nothing factual about Japan and their 5,000 castles.

OBJECTIVELY WRONG!

books.google.com/books?id=Gthp7ZCcYPwC&pg=PA655&lpg=PA655&dq=5000 castles japan&source=bl&ots=vSr9DypvkI&sig=4u-7TOqoJDgL6GNBl3z8MopJ54g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6w7Cb9bDPAhVJeT4KHYPOBcIQ6AEIYDAN#v=onepage&q=5000 castles japan&f=false

>Kek, so that's why each of Japans province at any given time had castles ranging their entire boarders? You are using the fact that at total Japan is thought to have had 5000 castles as reasoning to say they HAD 5,000 castles AT ONE TIME.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Learn to read and stop moving goalposts.

>I literally have no idea why you are posting then, since that is literally my post. I mean, I toild you to read the thread, and my comment chain, multiple times.

No, you, assuming you are the same retard who wrote have claimed that they were 'pretty much pointless' owing to the small geographic size and lack of central authority.

>I told you, not to ask a loaded question, if you don't want a real answer.

I do want a real answer. What makes you think that William built his castles during the invasion and not once he was crowned king and was consolidating his rule? Which again, you claimed in post

>Care to explain how this refutes the claim (historically accepted claim at that) Normans used castles to conquer England.

Because they conquered England with crowning William at London in December 25th, 1066. The rest was consolidation. It is not the "Historically accepted claim" that castles won the battle of Hastings or destroyed the Saxon Huscarl force. Were they essential in establishing and maintaining Norman rule? Fuck yes. But they were barely used in the conquest itself.

>Normans used castles to conquer England. Nowhere has anyone said they built more castles pre conquest they did post?

YOU said that. You said those EXACT words, by claiming that they were built during the invasion.

Is English a second, or third language for you?

>Your (stupid) argument is that there was no reason to build so many castles.
In such a small space, yes.

>OBJECTIVELY WRONG!
That is one singular source saying something, coo-berate and check it now. You used the term objective, do you even know what that means?

You understand if there was an objective source, there would be no counter-information? As there is with this subject?

>No, that's not what I'm saying. Learn to read and stop moving goalposts.
What are you saying? Think about it, what you are saying, has literally nothing to do with what I am saying. I honestly have no idea why I am still replying to you, that other user is still making points.

>No, you, assuming you are the same retard who wrote have claimed that they were 'pretty much pointless' owing to the small geographic size and lack of central authority.
Come on now man, make a coherent and consistent argument, before it was "one per province".

>But they were barely used in the conquest itself.
They were still built for purposes of conquest though, nothing you are saying is refuting that most basic claim?

>YOU said that. You said those EXACT words, by claiming that they were built during the invasion.
What do you mean by "they", are you saying ALL castles? Because I didn't say that? I said The Normans utilized castles in the taking over of England, which is historically correct. Nowhere does that mean they built every single castle during the invasion and only during the invasion?

This is just getting ridiculous.

Thanks for finding a nice link to back up that 5k figure i mentioned friend.

I am sure a modern book about travelling Japan is the best source you can find detailing the amount of historically accepted castles existed in japan. Especially when that line appears once in the text mentioned and doesn't dive into actual details.

great source!

Actually done here, you two are proper idiots, and i am worse for arguing with you.

>In such a small space, yes.

And yet they did so. Clearly, the Japanese were just all stupid and you, user, are an unparalleled military geinus who knows better.

>That is one singular source saying something, coo-berate and check it now. You used the term objective, do you even know what that means?

Coming from a guy who drew his own little mspaint scribble and called it "Reality", that's rich.

Do you want more?

myjapantips.com/2015/09/16/japan-itinerary-the-four-castles-2/

> While there were as many as 5,000 castles in Japan at one point by some estimates, there are now just over 100 in complete or partial form.

pre-tend.com/most-amazing-castles-in-japan/

>What are you saying?

What I've been saying the entire thread. When you have a chaotic situation, with lots of threats for your individual clan all around, you need extensive fortifications, if only to buy yourself time to gather support when the rival clan down the road sneak attacks you.

Hence, the actually large number of castles built in Japan served a purpose.

>Come on now man, make a coherent and consistent argument, before it was "one per province".

You mean, what you drew in your post here?

>They were still built for purposes of conquest though, nothing you are saying is refuting that most basic claim?

No, they were built for purposes of consolidation. For ruling safely. They were not built for conquest, because they were built AFTER THE CONQUEST.

>What do you mean by "they", are you saying ALL castles?

Yes, all the castles except the one at Pevensey, since they were built after the conquest, to which you replied that "Well, there aren't any records" and that these are "loaded questions.

> Because I didn't say that?

Yes you did. >Factually wrong, William built many castles (all motte and bailey) during his invasion.

>I said The Normans utilized castles in the taking over of England, which is historically correct.

No, that is not correct. They used castles to keep hold of England once they took it over. They could not have used castles in taking over England, because they built the castles once they took over England.

Then what is your source for the claim of "Reality" in the picture you have in post

>Yes you did.
So, you claimed I didn't have any reading comprehension or understanding of the English language, care to explain why you think "many" = "all"? Those two words and the ideas behind them are vastly different.

>because they built the castles once they took over England.
You really need to pick up a history book. Just because they built more after the conquest in no way means the castles were used during the conquest.

>Then what is your source for the claim of "Reality" in the picture you have in post
My own subjective reasoning, which is what I said it was? Kek.

Shogun 2?

My grandma's maiden name is Ayako Tokugawa. Maybe her family name was Yamato? It was one of the two.

Her family was from Edo/Tokyo and they owned a shop.

Isn't Tokugawa a clan? Wasn't it near Edo but inland? I see Yamato south of Kyoto, so I don't think that is where she was from.

China is mostly hilly/mountainous.

Just less so than Japan.

Somehow I doubt the Japanese built 200 miles of wall

>So, you claimed I didn't have any reading comprehension or understanding of the English language, care to explain why you think "many" = "all"?

I'm claiming he built ONE during the invasion, which isn't "many" in any form of English I'm familiar with. Would you like to show what evidence you have that there were more than one?

>You really need to pick up a history book. Just because they built more after the conquest in no way means the castles were used during the conquest.

Ok, what castles were used during the conquest? (Of the "Many" apparently built) Where were they built, and when? What's your source for these claims? Because mainstream history is that they landed, built one castle, raided for about 2 weeks, fought a big battle at Hastings, marched into London, and bam, done deal, the whole campaign took a couple of months. Everything else was consolidation, post invasion.

>My own subjective reasoning, which is what I said it was? Kek.

So, no source at all. Good job there.

I thought most of the population lived in that eastern plain between the Yellow and Yangtse rivers, which was fairly flat, and the mountains are all westwards: A lot of China by area, but relatively small in terms of population and wealth.

>My own subjective reasoning, which is what I said it was? Kek.
So literally just what you made up. Your "reasoning" is directly contradictory to what is well known to have been the case.
That plus according to you picture there would have been less castles in Japan then there are currently still standing.

>I'm claiming he built ONE during the invasion, which isn't "many" in any form of English I'm familiar with. Would you like to show what evidence you have that there were more than one?
What?

>What do you mean by "they", are you saying ALL castles? Because I didn't say that?

To which you replied.

>> Because I didn't say that?
>Yes you did.

>I'm claiming he built ONE during the invasion, which isn't "many" in any form of English I'm familiar with. Would you like to show what evidence you have that there were more than one?
You directly claimed I said he built all castles during his invasion. Like, say what ever you want, that's literally what you said.

>So, no source at all. Good job there.
Kek, I never claimed it was. It's still no way validating a travel guide as historical evidence of how many castles Japan had.

I am not touching anything else in your post as it has nothing to do with this thread, as I have said over and over again. You can;t argue why Japan didn't build many castles anymore,. so now you want to argue how many castles exactly William built.

For like the fiftieth time, you CAN stop at any time, I won't remember you.

>is directly contradictory to what is well known to have been the case.
Care to point me to an actual source? Because you know, a travel guide is not an actually accepted source. No matter how much you want it to be.

>That plus according to you picture there would have been less castles in Japan then there are currently still standing.
Well if you actually had any knowledge in the subject there are only around 10-20 castles still standing today.

Let's just clarify things here for a moment.

I have never actually refuted the idea that Japan had (total) 5,000 castles. I mean you can follow the comment train where I literally agree with it, that overall they probably had 5,000 castles.

It's always been this part of the argument.
>Thats an average of one every 29 km^2
Which directly implies AT ONE STAGE, they had 5,000 castles. Now I am simply refuting the validity of your source, not the argument.

>What?

Yes. Pevensey.

>You directly claimed I said he built all castles during his invasion. Like, say what ever you want, that's literally what you said.

No, I'm claiming, because you did so claim, that the castles were "offensive weapons" built 'during the invasion". You have statements like "William the conqueror used them to conquer England" and that "William built many castles during his invasion". I never claimed "All" castles. You did, shifting your argument, again, in post >. Like, say what ever you want, that's literally what you said.

Where did I say that. What post? Come on, show me.

>I am not touching anything else in your post as it has nothing to do with this thread,

He says after greentexting 2/3 of my post directed to him.

>You can;t argue why Japan didn't build many castles anymore,.

Which I never argued to begin with. I argued that

A) Japan historically built lots of castles, thousands in fact.

B) These castles were necessary because of the large number of feuding clans in Japan, and the need to guard against each other.

It is solely descriptive, not prescriptive.

> so now you want to argue how many castles exactly William built.

Because again, I was rebutting your idiotic claims, brought in your very first post. You've been claiming that the Japanese 'didn't need so many castles' because they weren't trying to ccupy huge areas of land, and that castles are offensive weapons used to seize and hold land. As an example, you brought up William's castle building in England.

I have pointed out, repeatedly, that said castles were built after the conquest, to hold on to it. Guess what? In Japan, you had feudal lords needing to hold onto their lands too, against opposition in the form of other Japanese.

>For like the fiftieth time, you CAN stop at any time, I won't remember you.

Why should I? I'm right, I'm not the one shifting arguments back and forth and making bizarre, baseless claims.

Nigger, the burghers very much lived in cities and were not middle or upper class.