Mihai Viteazul (1558-1601), One of Romania's Greatest National Heroes

Alba Iulia Cathedral mural painting of Michael the Brave, made in the beginning of the XXth century


Contemporary copperplate engraving (not a woodcut!), 17th century, of Michael the Brave


Painting from 1601 by Franz Francken II representing Michael the Brave and his daughter, domniţa Florica, at King Rudolf's court


The assassination of Michael the Brave at Câmpia Turzii, 1601. Source: N. Iorga, Portrete şi lucruri Domneşti nou-descoperite, Ed. Cultura Noastră, Bucureşti, 1928


Seal of Michael the Brave during his personal union of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania. The seal comprises the coats of arms of Moldavia, Wallachia, and Transylvania: in the middle, on a shield the Moldavian urus, above Wallachian eagle between sun and moon holding cross in beak, below Transylvanian coat of arms: two meeting, standing lions supporting a sword, treading on seven mountains. The Moldavian shield is held by two crowned figures. There are two inscriptions on the seal. First, circular, in Slavonic using Romanian Cyrillic alphabet "IO MIHAILI UGROVLAHISCOI VOEVOD ARDEALSCOI MOLD ZEMLI", meaning "Io Michael Wallachian Voivode of Transylvanian and Moldavian Lands". Second, placed along a circular arc separating the Wallachian coat from the rest of the heraldic composition, "I ML BJE MLRDIE", could be translated "Through The Very Grace of God"

Michael the Brave (Romanian: Mihai Viteazu(l) pronounced [miˈhaj viˈte̯azu(l)] or Mihai Bravu pronounced [miˈhaj ˈbravu], Hungarian: Vitéz Mihály; 1558 – August 9, 1601) was the Prince of Wallachia (1593–1601), of Transylvania (1599–1600), and of Moldavia (1600). He ruled all three principalities in a personal union for a short period of time.

During his reign, which coincided with the Long War, these three principalities forming the territory of present-day Romania and the Republic of Moldova were ruled for the first time by a single Romanian leader, although the personal union lasted for less than six months. He is regarded as one of Romania's greatest national heroes.

His rule over Wallachia began in the autumn of 1593. Two years a war with the Ottomans began, a conflict in which the Prince fought the Battle of Călugăreni, considered one of the most important battles of his reign. Although the Wallachians emerged victorious from the battle, Michael was forced to retreat with his troops and wait for aid from his allies, Prince Sigismund Báthory of Transylvania and Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II. The war continued until a peace finally emerged in January 1597, but this only lasted for a year and a half. Peace was again reached in late 1599, when Michael was unable to continue the war due to lack of support from his allies.

In 1599 Michael won the Battle of Şelimbăr and soon entered Alba Iulia, becoming the Prince of Transylvania. A few months later, Michael's troops invaded Moldavia and reached its capital, Suceava. The Moldavian leader Ieremia Movilă fled to Poland and Michael was declared Prince of Moldavia. Michael kept the control of all three provinces for less than a year before the nobles of Transylvania and certain boyars in Moldavia and Wallachia rose against him in a series of revolts. Thereafter, Michael allied with the Imperial General Giorgio Basta and defeated an uprising of the Hungarian nobility at Gurăslău in Transylvania. Immediately after this victory, Basta ordered the assassination of Michael, which took place on 9 August 1601.

He was born under the family name of Pătraşcu. In 1601, during a stay in Prague, he was portrayed by the painter Aegidius Sadeler, who mentioned on the portrait the words aetatis XLIII ("in the 43rd year of life"), which indicates 1558 as the year of Michael's birth. Very little is known about his childhood and early years as an adult. He is argued by most historians to have been the illegitimate son of Wallachian Prince Pătraşcu cel Bun, while others believe he merely invented his descent in order to justify his rule. His mother was Teodora Cantacuzino, a member of the Cantacuzino family, an old boyar family of Wallachia and Moldavia, allegedly descended from the Byzantine Emperor John VI Cantacuzenus.

Michael's political rise was quite spectacular, as he became the Ban of Mehedinţi in 1588, stolnic at the court of Mihnea Turcitul by the end of 1588, and Ban of Craiova in 1593 - during the rule of Alexandru cel Rău. The latter had him swear before 12 boyars that he was not of princely descent. Still, in May 1593 conflict did break out between Alexandru and Michael, who was forced to flee to Transylvania. He was accompanied by his half-brother Radu Florescu, Radu Buzescu and several other supporters. After spending two weeks at the court of Sigismund Báthory he left for Constantinople, where with help from his cousin Andronic Cantacuzino and Patriarch Jeremiah II he negotiated Ottoman support for his accession to the Wallachian throne. He was supported by the English ambassador in the Ottoman capital, Edward Barton, and aided by a loan of 200,000 florins. Michael was invested Prince by Sultan Murad III in September 1593 and started his effective rule on October 11.

Not long after he became Prince of Wallachia, Michael turned against the Ottoman Empire. The next year he joined the Christian alliance of European powers formed by Pope Clement VIII against the Turks, and signed treaties with his neighbours: Sigismund Báthory of Transylvania, Aron Tiranul of Moldavia and the Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolf II. He started a campaign against the Turks in the autumn of 1594, conquering several citadels near the Danube, including Giurgiu, Brăila, Hârşova, and Silistra, while his Moldavian allies defeated the Turks in Iaşi and other parts of Moldavia. Mihai continued his attacks deep within the Ottoman Empire, taking the forts of Nicopolis, Ribnic, and Chilia and even reaching as far as Adrianople. At one point his forces were only 24 kilometers from Constantinople!

In 1595 Sigismund Báthory staged an elaborate plot and had Aron of Moldavia removed from power. Ştefan Josica (Báthory's chancellor and an ethnic Romanian) masterminded the operation. Ştefan Răzvan arrested Aron on charges of treason on the night of April 24 (May 5) and sent him to the Transylvanian capital at Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár) with his family and treasure. Aron would die poisoned by the end of May in the castle of Vint. Sigismund was forced to justify his actions before the European powers, since Aron had played an active role in the anti-Ottoman coalition. Later on, in the same city of Alba Iulia, Wallachian boyars signed a treaty with Sigismund on Michael's behalf. From the point of view of Wallachian internal politics, the Treaty of Alba Iulia officialized what could be called a boyar regime, reinforcing the already important political power of the noble elite. According to the treaty, a council of 12 great boyars was to take part alongside the voivode in the executive rule of the country.

Boyars could no longer be executed without the knowledge and approval of the Transylvanian Prince and, if convicted for treason, their fortunes could no longer be confiscated. Apparently Michael was displeased with the final form of the treaty negotiated by his envoys but was forced to comply. Prince Michael said in a conversation with the Polish envoy Lubieniecki: ... they did not proceed as stated in their instructions but as their own good required and obtained privileges for themselves. He would try to avoid the obligations imposed on him for the rest of his reign.

During his reign, Michael relied heavily on the loyalty and support of a group of Oltenian lords, the most important were Buzescu Brothers (Fraţii Buzeşti) and on his own relatives on his mother's side, the Cantacuzinos. He consequently protected their interests throughout his reign; for example, he passed a law binding serfs to lands owned by aristocrats. From the standpoint of religious jurisdiction, the Treaty of Alba Iulia had another important consequence, as it placed all the Eastern Orthodox bishops in Transylvania under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Seat of Târgovişte.

During this period the Ottoman army, based in Ruse, was preparing to cross the Danube and undertake a major attack. Michael was quickly forced to retreat and the Ottoman forces started to cross the Danube on August 4, 1595. As his army was outnumbered, Michael avoided to carry the battle in open field, and he decided to give battle on a marshy field, located near the village of Călugăreni, on the Neajlov river. The Battle of Călugăreni started on August 13, and Michael defeated the Ottoman army led by Sinan Pasha. Despite the victory, he retreated to his winter camp in Stoeneşti because he had too few troops to mount a full scale war against the remaining Ottoman forces. He subsequently joined forces with Sigismund Báthory's 40,000-man army (led by István Bocskay) and counterattacked the Ottomans, freeing the towns of Târgovişte (October 8), Bucharest (October 12) and Brăila, temporarily removing Wallachia from Ottoman suzerainty.

The fight against the Ottomans continued in 1596, when Michael made several incursions south of the Danube at Vidin, Pleven, Nicopolis, and Babadag, where he was assisted by the local Bulgarians during the First Tarnovo Uprising.

During late 1596, Michael was faced with an unexpected attack from the Tatars, who had destroyed the towns of Bucharest and Buzău. By the time Michael gathered his army to counterattack, the Tatars had speedily retreated and so no battle was fought. Michael was determined to continue the war against the Ottomans, but he was prevented because he lacked support from Sigismund Báthory and Rudolf II. On January 7, 1597, Hasan Pasha declared the independence of Wallachia under Michael's rule, but Michael knew that this was only an attempt to divert him from preparing for another future attack. Michael again requested Rudolf II's support and Rudolf finally agreed to send financial assistance to the Wallachian ruler. On June 9, 1598, a formal treaty was reached between Michael and Rudolf II. According to the treaty, the Austrian ruler would give Wallachia sufficient money to maintain a 5,000-man army, as well as armaments and supplies. Shortly after the treaty was signed, the war with the Ottomans resumed and Michael besieged Nicopolis on September 10, 1598 and took control of Vidin. The war with the Ottomans continued until June 26, 1599, when Michael, lacking the resources and support to continue prosecuting the war, signed a peace treaty.

In April 1598 Sigismund resigned as Prince of Transylvania in favor of the Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolf II (who was also the King of Hungary), reversed his decision in October 1598, and then resigned again in favor of Cardinal Andrew Báthory, his cousin. Báthory had strong ties to the Polish chancellor and hetman Jan Zamoyski and placed Transylvania under the influence of the King of Poland, Sigismund III Vasa. He was also a trusted ally of the new Moldavian Prince Ieremia Movilă, one of Michael's greatest enemies. Movilă had deposed Ştefan Rǎzvan with the help of Polish hetman Jan Zamoyski in August 1595.

Having to face this new threat, Michael asked Emperor Rudolf to become the sovereign of Wallachia. On September 25 (October 5) Báthory issued an ultimatum demanding that Michael abandon his throne. Michael decided to attack Andrew Cardinal Báthory immediately to prevent invasion. He would later describe the events:

I rose with my country, my children, taking my wife and everything I had and with my army [marched into Transylvania] so that the foe should not crush me here.

He left Târgovişte on October 2 and by October 9 he reached Prejmer in southern Transylvania, where he met envoys from the city of Braşov. Sparing the city, he moved on to Cârţa where he joined forces with the Székelys.

On October 18, Michael won a decisive victory against the army of prince-cardinal Andrew Báthory at the Battle of Şelimbăr, giving him control of Transylvania. As he retreated from the battle, Andrew Báthory was killed by anti-Báthory Székely on 3 November near Sândominic, dying at the age of 38, and Michael gave him a princely burial in the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Alba Iulia. With his enemy dead, Michael entered the Transylvanian capital at Alba Iulia, and received the keys to the fortress from Bishop Demeter Napragy, later depicted as a seminal event in Romanian historiography. Historian Stephen Szamosközy, keeper of the Archives at the time, recorded the event in great detail. He also wrote that two days before the Diet met on October 10, Transylvanian nobles elected Michael the voivode as Prince of Transylvania. As the Diet was assembled, Michael demanded that the estates swear loyalty to Emperor Rudolf, then to himself and thirdly to his son.

Even if he was recognized by the Transylvanian parliament (diet) only as imperial governor subject to the Holy Roman Emperor, he was nonetheless de facto ruler of Transylvania.

Michael used in Transylvania the following signature on official documents: Michael Valachiae Transalpinae Woivoda, Sacrae Caesareae Regiae Majestatis Consiliarius per Transylvaniam Locumtenens, cis transylvaniam partium eius super exercitu Generalis Capitaneus". ("Michael, voivode of Wallachia, the councillor of His Majesty the Emperor and the King, his deputy in Transylvania and General Captain of his troops from Transylvania.")

When Michael entered Transylvania, he did not free or grant rights to the Romanian inhabitants, who were primarily peasants but, nevertheless, constituted more than 60% of the population. Instead he sought to support the Hungarian nobles, the Székelys, and the Saxons by reaffirming their rights and privileges.

There is no evidence that Michael wanted Transylvania's Romanians to play a political role. Indeed, while he brought some of his Wallachian aides to Transylvania, he also invited some Székelys and other Transylvanian Hungarians to assist in the administration of Wallachia, where he wished to transplant Transylvania's far more advanced feudal system.

Michael began negotiating with the Emperor over his official position in Transylvania. The latter wanted the principality under direct Imperial rule with Michael acting as governor. The Wallachian voivode, on the other hand, wanted the title of Prince of Transylvania for himself and equally claimed the Partium region. Michael was, nevertheless, willing to acknowledge Habsburg overlordship.

The Moldavian Prince Ieremia Movilă had been an old enemy of Michael, having incited Andrew Báthory to send Michael the ultimatum demanding his abdication. His brother, Simion Movilă, claimed the Wallachian throne for himself and had used the title of Voivode since 1595. Aware of the threat the Movilăs represented, Michael had created the Banat of Buzău and Brăila in July 1598 and the new ban was charged of keeping an alert eye on Moldavian, Tatar and Cossack moves, although Michael had been planning a Moldavian campaign for several years.

On February 28, Michael met with Polish envoys in Braşov. He was willing to recognise the Polish King as his sovereign in exchange for the crown of Moldavia and the recognition of his male heirs' hereditary right over the three principalities, Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia. This did not significantly delay his attack however, on April 14, 1600 Michael's troops entered Moldavia on multiple routes, the Prince himself leading the main thrust to Trotuş and Roman. He reached the capital of Suceava on May 6. The garrison surrendered the citadel the next day and Michael's forces caught up with the fleeing Ieremia Movilă, who was only saved from being captured by the sacrifice of his rear-guard. Movilă took refuge in the castle of Khotyn together with his family, a handful of faithful boyars and the former Transylvanian Prince, Sigismund Báthory. The Moldavian soldiers in the castle deserted, leaving a small Polish contingent as sole defenders. Under the cover of dark, sometime before June 11, Movilă managed to sneak out of the walls and across the Dniester to hetman Stanisław Żółkiewski's camp.

Neighboring states were alarmed by this upsetting of the balance of power, especially the Hungarian nobility in Transylvania, who rose against Michael in rebellion. With the help of Basta, they defeated Michael at the Battle of Mirăslău, forcing the prince to leave Transylvania together with his remaining loyal troops. A Polish army led by Jan Zamoyski drove the Wallachians from Moldavia and defeated Michael at Năieni, Ceptura, and Bucov (Battle of the Teleajăn River). The Polish army also entered eastern Wallachia and established Simion Movilă as ruler. Forces loyal to Michael remained only in Oltenia.

Michael asked again for assistance from Emperor Rudolf during a visit in Prague between February 23 and March 5, 1601, which was granted when the emperor heard that General Giorgio Basta had lost control of Transylvania to the Hungarian nobility led by Sigismund Báthory, who accepted Ottoman protection. Meanwhile, forces loyal to Michael in Wallachia led by his son, Nicolae Pătraşcu, drove Simion Movilă out of Moldavia and prepared to reenter Transylvania. Michael, allied with Basta, defeated the Hungarian army in Battle of Guruslău. A few days later Basta, who sought to control Transylvania himself, ordered the assassination of Michael, which took place near Câmpia Turzii on 9 August 1601. According to Romanian historian Constantin C. Giurescu:
“ Never in Romanian history was a moment of such highness glory so closely followed by bitter failure. ”

Michael the Brave's rule, with its break with Ottoman rule, tense relations with other European powers and the leadership of the three states, was considered in later periods as the precursor of a modern Romania, a thesis which was argued with noted intensity by Nicolae Bălcescu. This theory became a point of reference for nationalists, as well as a catalyst for various Romanian forces to achieve a single Romanian state. To Romanian Romantic nationalists, he was regarded as one of Romania's greatest national heroes.

The prince, who managed for a short time in 1600 to rule the three territories that were to be united some three centuries later in modern Romania, begins to be perceived as a unifier only towards the middle of the 19th century. Such an interpretation is completely lacking in the historiography of the 17th century chroniclers, and even in that of the Transylvanian School around 1800. What they emphasized, apart from the exceptional personality of Michael himself, were the idea of Christendom and his close relations with Emperor Rudolf. The conqueror's ambition is likewise frequently cited as a motivation for his action, occupying in the interpretative schema the place which was later to be occupied by the Romanian idea.

In the writings of the Moldavian chronicler Miron Costin, Michael the Brave appears in the role of conqueror of Transylvania and Moldavia, "the cause of much spilling of blood among Christians", and not even highly appreciated by his own Wallachians: "The Wallachians became tired of the warful rule of Voivode Mihai".

The perspective of the Wallachians themselves is to be found in The History of the Princes of Wallachia, attributed to the chronicler Radu Popescu (1655–1729), which bundles together all Michael's adversaries without distinction. Romanians and foreigners alike: "He subjected the Turks, the Moldavians, and the Hungarians to his rule, as if they were his asses.". The picturesque flavor of the expression only serves to confirm the absence of any Romanian idea.

Samuil Micu, a member of the Transylvanian School said in his work Short Explanation of the History of the Romanians (written in the 1790s): "In the year 1593, Michael, who is called the Brave, succeeded to the lordship of Wallachia. He was a great warrior, who fought the Turks and defeated the Transylvanians. And he took Transylvania and gave it to Emperor Rudolf".

Panaitescu states that in Mihai's time, the concept of the Romanian nation and the desire for unification did not yet exist. A. D. Xenopol firmly states the absence of any national element in Michael's politics, holding that Michael's lack of desire to join the principalities' administrations proved his actions were not motivated by any such concept.


Sources :
www.en.wikipedia.org

Sun Tzu (544 BC - 496 BC), Author of the ART OF WAR

Painting of Sun Tzu

Statue of Sun Tzu in Yurihama, Tottori, Japan

A Chinese bamboo book, open to display the binding and contents. This copy of The Art of War (on the cover, "孫子兵法") by Sun Tzu is part of a collection at the University of California, Riverside. The cover also reads "乾隆御書", meaning it was either commissioned or transcribed by the Qianlong Emperor

Sun Wu (simplified Chinese: 孙武; traditional Chinese: 孫武; pinyin: Sūn Wǔ), style name Changqing (長卿), better known as Sun Tzu or Sunzi (simplified Chinese: 孙子; traditional Chinese: 孫子; pinyin: Sūnzǐ; pronounced [swə́n tsɨ̀]), was an ancient Chinese military general, strategist and philosopher who is traditionally believed, and who is most likely, to have authored The Art of War, an influential ancient Chinese book on military strategy. Sun Tzu has had a significant impact on Chinese and Asian history and culture, both as an author of The Art of War and through legend.

Sun Tzu, also known as Sun Tze or Sun Wu in other translations, was a historical figure whose authenticity is questioned by historians. Traditional accounts place him in the Spring and Autumn Period of China (722–481 BC) as a military general serving under King Helü of Wu, who lived c. 544–496 BC. Modern scholars accepting his historicity place the completion of The Art of War in the Warring States Period (476–221 BC), based on the descriptions of warfare in the text, and on the similarity of text's prose to other works completed in the early Warring States period.

Traditional accounts state that his descendant, Sun Bin, also wrote a treatise on military tactics, titled Sun Bin's Art of War. Both Sun Wu and Sun Bin were referred to as Sun Tzu in classical Chinese writings, and some historians believed that Sun Wu was in fact Sun Bin until Sun Bin's own treatise was discovered in 1972. During the 19th and 20th centuries, Sun Tzu's The Art of War grew in popularity and saw practical use in Western society, and his work continues to influence both Asian and Western culture and politics.

The oldest available sources disagree as to where Sun Tzu was born. The Spring and Autumn Annals states that Sun Tzu was born in Qi, while the later Shiji states that Sun Tzu was a native of Wu.

Both sources agree that Sun Tzu was born in the late Spring and Autumn Period of China (722–481 BC), and that he was active as a general and strategist, serving the king of Wu, King Helü, in the late sixth century BC, beginning around 512 BC. Sun Tzu's victories then inspired him to write The Art of War. The Art of War was one of the most widely read military treatises in the subsequent Warring States Period (475–221 BC), a time of constant war among seven nations (Zhao, Qi, Qin, Chu, Han, Wei and Yan) who fought to control the vast expanse of fertile territory in Eastern China.[5]

One of the more well-known stories about Sun Tzu, taken from Shiji, illustrates Sun Tzu's temperament as follows: Before hiring Sun Tzu, the King of Wu tested Sun Tzu's skills by commanding him to train a harem of 180 concubines into soldiers. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies, appointing the two concubines most favored by the king as the company commanders. When Sun Tzu first ordered the concubines to face right, they giggled. In response, Sun Tzu said that the general, in this case himself, was responsible for ensuring that soldiers understood the commands given to them. Then, he reiterated the command, and again the concubines giggled. Sun Tzu then ordered the execution of the king's two favored concubines, to the king's protests. He explained that if the general's soldiers understood their commands but did not obey, it was the fault of the officers. Sun Tzu also said that, once a general was appointed, it was his duty to carry out his mission, even if the king protested. After both concubines were killed, new officers were chosen to replace them. Afterwards, both companies performed their maneuvers flawlessly!

Shiji claims that Sun Tzu later proved on the battlefield that his theories were effective (for example, in the Battle of Boju), that he had a successful military career, and that he wrote The Art of War based on his tested expertise. However, Zuo Zhuan, an earlier historical text which provides a much more detailed account of the Battle of Boju, does not mention Sun Tzu at all.

Sun Tzu's descendant, Sun Bin, also became a famous scholar of the military arts.

The Art of War (simplified Chinese: 孙子兵法; traditional Chinese: 孫子兵法; pinyin: Sūn​zǐ​ Bīng​ Fǎ) is attributed to Sun Tzu. It presents a philosophy of war for managing conflicts and winning battles. It is accepted as a masterpiece on strategy and frequently cited and referred to by generals and theorists since it was first published, translated, and distributed internationally.

There are numerous theories concerning when the text was completed, and concerning the identity of the author or authors, but archeological recoveries have proven that the Art of War had roughly achieved its current form by at least the early Han dynasty (206 BC – AD 220). Because it is impossible to prove definitively when the Art of War was completed before this date, the differing theories concerning the work's author(s) and date of completion are unlikely to ever be completely resolved. Some modern scholars believe that, contrary to popular belief, it contains not only the writings of the original author, but also commentary and clarifications from later military philosophers, such as Li Quan and Du Mu.

Of the military texts written before the unification of China in the 2nd century BC, six major works survived, including The Art of War. During the Song Dynasty in the late 1st millennium AD, these six works were combined with a Tang Dynasty text into a collection called the Seven Military Classics. As a central part of that compilation, The Art of War formed the foundations of orthodox military theory in China. Illustrating this point, the book was required reading to pass the tests needed for imperial appointment to military positions.

According to Simpkins & Simpkins, Sun Tzu's Art of War uses language that may be unusual in a Western text on warfare and strategy. For example, the 11th chapter states that a leader must be "serene and inscrutable" and capable of comprehending "unfathomable plans". They state that the text contains many similar remarks that have long confused Western readers lacking an awareness of the East Asian context. The meaning of such statements are clearer when interpreted in the context of Taoist thought and practice. Sun Tzu viewed the ideal general as an enlightened Taoist master, which has led to The Art of War being considered a prime example of Taoist strategy.

The book is not only popular among military theorists, but has also become increasingly popular among political leaders and those in business management. Despite its title, The Art of War addresses strategy in a broad fashion, touching upon public administration and planning. The text outlines theories of battle but also advocates diplomacy and cultivating relationships with other nations as essential to the health of a state.

In 1972, scholars uncovered a collection of ancient texts written on unusually well-preserved bamboo slips. Among them were the Art of War and Sun Bin's Military Methods. Although Han Dynasty bibliographies noted the latter publication as extant and written by a descendant of Sun, it had since been lost. The finding of Sun Bin's work is considered to be extremely important, both because of Sun Bin's relationship to Sun Tzu, and because of the work's addition to the body of military thought in late Chinese antiquity. The discovery as a whole significantly expanded the body of surviving Warring States military theory. Sun Bin's treatise is the only known military text surviving from the Warring States period discovered in the twentieth century, and bears the closest similarity to the Art of War of all surviving texts.

Some scholars have expressed doubt in Sun Tzu's historicity and the traditional dating of the Art of War. Their skepticism is fueled by factors that include possible historical inaccuracies and anachronisms in the text, as well as the likelihood of the execution of the king's favorite concubines. This skepticism, which sometimes cause scholars to completely deny the existence of a historical figure named Sun Wu (Sun Tzu), has led to acrimonious debate between skeptics and traditionalists, especially in China. Attribution of the Art of War's authorship varies among scholars, and have included people and movements including Sun; Chu scholar Wu Zixu; an unknown author; a school of thought in Qi or Wu; Sun Bin, and others.

Traditionalists attribute the authorship of The Art of War to the historical figure Sun Wu, who is chronicled in the Records of the Grand Historian and the Spring and Autumn Annals. He was reputedly active in the late 6th century BC, beginning c. 512 BC. The appearance of features from the Art of War in other historical texts is considered to be proof of his historicity and authorship. Certain strategic concepts, such as terrain classification, are attributed to Sun Tzu. Their use in other works, such as by the compilers of the Methods of the Sima, is considered proof of Sun Tzu's historical priority.

Skeptics that identify issues with the traditionalist view point to possible anachronisms in the Art of War that include terms, technology, philosophical ideas, events, and military techniques. They argue that there is a disparity between the large scale wars and sophisticated techniques detailed in the text, and the more primitive small scale battles that many believe predominated the 6th century BC. However, according to Ralph D. Sawyer, it is very likely Sun Tzu did actually exist and not only served as a general, but also wrote the core of the book that bears his name. Sawyer argues that the teachings were probably taught to the succeeding generations in the family or a small school of disciples, including Sun-Tzu's descendant, Sun Bin, and were revised and expanded upon.

Sun Tzu's Art of War has influenced many notable figures. Traditional histories recount that the first emperor of a unified China, Qin Shi Huang, considered the book invaluable in ending the Age of Warring States. The Art of War was introduced in Japan, c. AD 760, and the book quickly became popular among Japanese generals. The work also significantly influenced the unification of Japan. Mastery of its teachings was honored among the samurai, and its teachings were both exhorted and exemplified by influential daimyos and shoguns, such as Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu.

Admiral of the Fleet Tōgō Heihachirō, who led Japan's forces to victory against Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, was an avid reader of The Art of War.

Communist Chinese leader Mao Zedong partially credited his victory over Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang in 1949 to The Art of War. The work strongly influenced Mao's writings about guerrilla warfare, which further influenced communist insurgencies around the world.

General Vo Nguyen Giap, the military mastermind behind victories over French and American forces in Vietnam, was an avid student and practitioner of Sun Tzu's ideas. America's defeat here, more than any other event, brought Sun Tzu to the attention of American military leaders. Ho Chi Minh translated the work for his Vietnamese officers to study.

The Department of the Army in the United States, through its Command and General Staff College, has directed all units to maintain libraries within their respective headquarters for the continuing education of personnel in the art of war. The Art of War is mentioned as an example of works to be maintained at each individual unit, and staff duty officers are obliged to prepare short papers for presentation to other officers on their readings.

Sun Tzu's The Art of War is listed on the Marine Corps Professional Reading Program (formerly known as the Commandant's Reading List). During the Persian Gulf War in the 1990s, both General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. and General Colin Powell practiced Sun Tzu's principles of deception, speed, and attacking the enemy's weakness.

Mark McNeilly writes in Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare that a modern interpretation of Sun and his importance throughout Chinese history is critical in understanding China's push to becoming a superpower in the 21st century. Modern Chinese scholars explicitly rely on historical strategic lessons and The Art of War in developing their theories, seeing a direct relationship between their modern struggles and those of China in Sun Tzu's time. There is a great perceived value in Sun Tzu's teachings and other traditional Chinese writers, which are used regularly in developing the strategies of the Chinese state and its leaders.


Sources :
www.en.wikipedia.org
www.fineartamerica.com

Sasaki Kojiro (1585-1612), Most Remembered for his Death While Battling Miyamoto Musashi

Sasaki Kojiro in popular culture

Miyamoto Musashi and Sasaki Kojiro. Model miniature by James Harold

Sasaki Kojiro (right) engages Miyamoto Musashi on the shores of Ganryū Island. Note that in this rendering, Musashi is using two bokken

Sasaki Kojirō (佐々木 小次郎?, also known as Ganryū Kojirō) (1585? – April 13, 1612) was a prominent Japanese swordsman widely considered a Kensei, born in Fukui Prefecture. He lived during the Sengoku and early Edo periods and is most remembered for his death while battling Miyamoto Musashi in 1612.

He went by the fighting name of Ganryū (巌流 lit. "Large Rock style"), which was also the name of the kenjutsu school he had founded. It is said that Kojirō studied the Chūjō-ryu of sword fighting from either Kanemaki Jisai or Toda Seigen. Toda Seigen was a master of the kodachi. If Kojirō had indeed learned Chūjō-ryu from Seigen, he would have been his master's sparring partner. Due to his master's use of the kodachi, Kojirō used a nodachi, or a long katana, against him, therefore eventually excelling in its use. It was after defeating his master's younger brother that he left and founded the Ganryū. The first reliable account of his life states that in 1610, because of the fame of his school and his many successful duels, including once when he fended off three opponents with a tessen, Kojirō was honored by Lord Hosokawa Tadaoki as the chief weapons master of the Hosokawa fief north of Kyūshū. Sasaki later became skilled in the wielding of a nodachi, and used one he called "Monohoshizao" ("The Laundry-Drying Pole") as his main weapon.

Sasaki Kojirō was a long-time rival of Miyamoto Musashi, and is considered the most challenging opponent Musashi ever faced.

There are a number of accounts of the duel, varying in most details except the essentials, such as Kojirō's defeat.

The age of Kojirō is especially uncertain - the Nitenki says that during his childhood, he

“ ...received the instruction of Toda Seigen, a master of the school of the short sword, and having been the partner of his master, he excelled him in the wielding of the long sword. After having defeated his master's younger brother he left him to travel in various provinces. There he founded his own school, which was called Ganryu. ”

The Nitenki's account initially seems trustworthy, until it goes on to give the age of Kojirō at the time of the duel as 18 years old; it is known that two years earlier he had been a head weapons master for a fief - but then that would imply he had reached such a position at the age of 16, which is extremely improbable. A further complication is that Toda Seigen died in the 1590s. This unreliability of the sources means Kojirō's age could have varied anywhere from his 20s to as late as his 50s. Even worse, a number of scholars contend that identifying Seigen as Kojirō's teacher is a mistake, and that he was actually trained by a student of Seigen's, Kanemaki Jisai.

Apparently, the young (at the time, around 29 years old) Musashi heard of Kojirō's fame and asked Lord Hosokawa Tadaoki (through the intermediary of Nagaoka Sado Okinaga, a principal vassal of Hosokawa) to arrange a duel. Hosokawa assented, and set the time and place as 13 April 1612, on the comparatively remote island of Ganryujima of Funashima (the strait between Honshū and Kyūshū). The match was probably set in such a remote place because by this time Kojirō had acquired many students and disciples, and had Kojirō lost, they would probably have attempted to kill Musashi.

According to the legend, Musashi arrived more than three hours late, and goaded Kojirō by taunting him. When Kojirō attacked, his blow came as close as to sever Musashi's chonmage. He came close to victory several times until, supposedly blinded by the sunset behind Musashi, Musashi struck him on the skull with his oversized bokken (wooden sword), which was over 90 centimeters long. Musashi supposedly fashioned the long bokken, a type called a suburitō due to its above-average length, by shaving down the spare oar of the boat in which he arrived at the duel with his wakizashi (the wood was very hard). Musashi had been late for the duel on purpose in order to psychologically unnerve his opponent (a tactic used by him on previous occasions, such as during his series of duels with the Yoshioka swordsmen).

Another version of the legend recounts that when Musashi finally arrived, Kojirō shouted insults at him, but Musashi just smiled. Angered even further, Kojirō leapt into combat, blinded by rage. Kojiro attempted his famous "swallow's blade" or "swallow cut," but Musashi's oversized bokken hit Kojiro first, causing him to fall down; before Kojiro could finish his swallow cut, Musashi smashed Kojiro's left rib, puncturing his lungs and killing him. Musashi then hastily retreated to his boat and sailed away. This was Musashi's last fatal duel.

Among other things, this conventional account (drawn from the Nitenki, Kensetsu, and Yoshida Seiken's account), has some problems. Kenji Tokitsu discusses a number of obscurities and counterintuitive claims that have been identified in the account by him and previous scholars. Would Musashi only prepare his bokuto while going to the duel site? Could he even have prepared it in time, working the hard wood with his wakizashi? Would that work not have tired him as well? Further, why was the island then renamed after Kojirō, and not Musashi? Other texts completely omit the "late arrival" portion of the story, or change the sequence of actions altogether. Harada Mukashi and a few other scholars believe that Kojiro was actually assassinated by Musashi and his students - the Sasaki clan apparently was a political obstacle to Lord Hosokawa, and defeating Kojirō would be a political setback to his religious and political foes.

The debate still rages today as to whether or not Musashi cheated in order to win that fateful duel or merely used the environment to his advantage. Another theory is that Musashi timed the hour of his arrival to match the turning of the tide. He expected to be pursued by Sasaki's supporters in the event of a victory. The tide carried him to the island then it turned by the time the fight ended. Musashi immediately jumped back in his boat and his flight was thus helped by the tide.

Kojiro's favored weapon during combat was a straight-edged nodachi with a blade-length of over 150 cm. (5 ft) long. As a comparison, the average blade-length of the regular katana are usually 70 cm (2 feet, 3 inches) but rarely longer. It was called the "Monohoshi Zao" (Clothes/Laundry-Drying Pole, often translated into English as "The Drying Pole"). Despite the sword's length and weight, Kojirō's strikes with the weapon were unusually quick and precise.

His favorite technique was both respected and feared throughout feudal Japan. It was called the "Turning Swallow Cut" or "Tsubame Gaeshi" (燕返し lit. "Swallow Reversal / Return"), and was so named because it mimicked the motion of a swallow's tail during flight as observed at Kintaibashi Bridge in Iwakuni. This cut was reputedly so quick and precise that it could strike down a bird in mid-flight. There are no direct descriptions of the technique, but it was compared to two other techniques current at the time: the Ittō-ryū's Kinshi Cho Ohken and the Ganryū Kosetsu To; respectively the two involved fierce and swift cuts downward and then immediately upwards. Hence, the "Turning Swallow Cut" has been reconstructed as a technique involving striking downward from above and then instantly striking again in an upward motion from below. The strike's second phase could be from below toward the rear and then upward at an angle, like an eagle climbing again after swooping down on its prey. Kojiro created this technique around 1605.

Sasaki Kojiro has appeared in many forms in pop culture in Japan. He features in a lot of the films about the life of Miyamoto Musashi, most prominently in Samurai III: Duel at Ganryu Island. In the manga Vagabond, Sasaki Kojiro is portrayed as a deaf man raised by a retired samurai after he is found in the ocean clinging to a long sword. He appears as a cultured and soft speaking psychopath with a white painted face in Samurai Warriors 2. In the Playstation 1 video game Brave Fencer Musashi, Kojiro appears as a result of a second "hero summoning" to save the princess of the Allucaneet Kingdom. Sasaki Kojiro also appeared as one of the servants in the Fate Stay/Night anime of 2006 and played the role of the Assassin Servant. He denied his identity as a fake by saying "he is nothing but a character with fabricated past that has been made into a master swordsman inside of people's memories."


Sources :
www.en.wikipedia.org
www.jamesharoldgalleries.com
www.travelvolunteerblog.net
www.zerochan.net

Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck (1870-1964), Master of Guerrilla Tactics

Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck photographed by Heinrich Hopffmann in 1933

Painting of Oberstleutnant Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck

World War I poster of German general Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck (1870-1964). "Kolonial-Krieger-Spende. Von Lettow-Vorbeck. Grotemeyer 1918." Library of Congress description: "Poster shows General Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck on horseback leading African soldiers. Text at top reads Colonial War Funds; on bottom is facsimile of von Lettow-Vorbeck's signature."

Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck at a parade in Berlin, March 1919

Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck (right) as guest of General Günther von Kluge at army maneuvers in September 1935

Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (20 March 1870 – 9 March 1964) was a general in the Imperial German Army and the commander of the German East Africa campaign. For four years, with a force that never exceeded about 14,000 (3,000 Germans and 11,000 Africans), he held in check a much larger force of 300,000 British, Belgian, and Portuguese troops. Essentially undefeated in the field, von Lettow-Vorbeck was the only German commander to successfully invade British Empire soil during World War I. His exploits in the campaign have come down "as the greatest single guerrilla operation in history, and the most successful."

Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck was born into the Pomeranian lower nobility while his father was stationed as an army officer at Saarlouis in the Prussian Rhine Province. He was educated in boarding schools in Berlin and joined the corps of cadets at Potsdam and Berlin-Lichterfelde. In 1890 he was commissioned a Leutnant in the Imperial German Army.

In 1900, von Lettow-Vorbeck was posted to China as a member of the international alliance forces to quell the Boxer Rebellion. He did not like fighting against guerrillas and considered the war a detriment to the discipline of the German Army. He returned from China in 1901 and served as a member of the German General Staff.

Beginning in 1904 he was assigned to German South-West Africa (now Namibia), during the Namaqua and Herero insurrection. However, he did not participate in the subsequent genocide. Having suffered injuries to his left eye and chest, he was evacuated to South Africa for treatment and recovery.

In 1907 he was promoted to major and assigned to the staff of 11th Army Corps. From March 1909 to January 1913 von Lettow-Vorbeck was commander of the marines of II. Seebatallion [2nd Sea Battalion] at Wilhelmshaven in Lower Saxony, Germany. In October 1913, the German army promoted him to Lieutenant Colonel and appointed to command the German colonial forces known as the Schutztruppe (protectorate force) in German Kamerun (today's Cameroon plus a portion of Nigeria). Before he could assume this command, however, his orders were changed and he was posted—effective 13 April 1914—to German East Africa, the mainland of present Tanzania.

While travelling to his new assignment, von Lettow-Vorbeck formed what would prove to be a lifelong friendship with Danish author Isak Dinesen, who was travelling aboard the same liner. Decades later, she recalled, "He belonged to the olden days, and I have never met another German who has given me so strong an impression of what Imperial Germany was and stood for."

Von Lettow-Vorbeck's plan for the war was quite simple: knowing that East Africa would only be a sideshow, he determined to tie down as many British troops as he could. He intended to keep them away from the Western Front, and in this way contribute to Germany's eventual victory.

In August 1914, during the early phases of the World War I, von Lettow-Vorbeck was the commander of a small garrison of just 2,600 German nationals and 2,472 African soldiers in 14 Askari field companies. Realising the need to seize the initiative, he ignored orders from Berlin and the colony's governor, Heinrich Schnee, who had insisted on neutrality for German East Africa. Von Lettow-Vorbeck simply ignored the governor and prepared to repel a major amphibious assault on the city of Tanga. The attack began on 2 November 1914, and for the next four days he fought one of his greatest battles, theBattle of Tanga. He then assembled his men and their scant supplies to attack the British railways in East Africa. He scored a second victory over the British at Jassin on 18 January 1915. These victories gave him badly needed modern rifles and other supplies, as well as critical boost to the morale of his men.

However, von Lettow-Vorbeck also lost many experienced men, including the "splendid Captain Tom von Prince,"whom he could not easily replace.

Von Lettow-Vorbeck knew he could count on his highly motivated officers (their casualty rate was certainly proof of that). Although casualties remained high, Lettow insisted his commanders engage British forces. Unfortunately, the British offered few enticing targets, and forced him to conduct raids into British East Africa (modern Kenya), Uganda and Rhodesia, targeting forts, railways and communications—all with the goal of forcing the Entente to divert manpower from the main theater of war in Europe. He realized the critical needs of guerrilla warfare in that he used everything available to him in matters of supply.

The Schutztruppe recruited new personnel and expanded to its eventual size of some 14,000 soldiers, most of them Askaris, and all well-trained and well-disciplined. Von Lettow-Vorbeck's fluency in the Swahili language earned the respect and admiration of his African soldiers; he appointed black officers and "said—and believed—'we are all Africans here'." In one historian's estimation, "It is probable that no white commander of the era had so keen an appreciation of the African's worth not only as a fighting man but as a man."

He gained the men and artillery of the German cruiser SMS Königsberg (scuttled in 1915 in the Rufiji River delta) which had a capable crew under commander Max Looff, as well as its numerous guns, which were converted into artillery pieces for the land fighting, which would be the largest standard land artillery pieces used in the East African theater. In March 1916 the British under Gen. J. C. Smuts launched a formidable offensive with 45,000 men. Von Lettow-Vorbeck patiently used climate and terrain as his allies while his troops fought the British on his terms and to his advantage. The British, however, kept on adding more troops and forcing von Lettow-Vorbeck to yield territory. Nevertheless, he fought on, including a pivotal battle at Mahiwa in October 1917 where he lost 519 men killed, wounded or missing and the British 2,700 killed, wounded or missing. After the news of the battle reached Germany he was promoted to Generalmajor. The British would recover their losses and continue to hold an overwhelming manpower advantage; for the Schutztruppe it was serious, there were no reserves to again fill the ranks.

Von Lettow-Vorbeck now began a forced withdrawal to the south, with his troops at half rations and the British in pursuit. On 25 November 1917 his advance column waded across the river Rovuma into Portuguese Mozambique. In essence he cut his own supply lines and the Schutztruppe caravan became a nomadic tribe. On their first day across the river they attacked the newly replenished Portuguese garrison of Ngomano and solved all their supply issues for the foreseeable future. When they captured a river steamer with a load of medical supplies, including quinine, at least some of their medical problems were no more. For almost an entire year they had now lived off the land, but mainly with provisions captured from the British and Portuguese; they had replaced their old rifles with new equipment and acquired machine guns and mortars after capturing Namakura (Nhamacurra in modern Mozambique) in July 1918. At the end they had more ammunition than they could carry!

On 28 September 1918 von Lettow-Vorbeck again crossed the Rovuma and returned to German East Africa with the British still in pursuit. He then turned west and raided Northern Rhodesia, thus evading a trap the British had prepared for him in German East Africa. On 13 November 1918, two days after the armistice, he took the town of Kasama which the British had evacuated, and continued heading south-west towards Katanga. When he reached the Chambeshi River on the morning of 14 November, the British magistrate Hector Croad appeared under a white flag and delivered a message from the allied General van Deventer informing him of the armistice. Von Lettow-Vorbeck agreed to a cease-fire at the spot now marked by the Von Lettow-Vorbeck Memorial in present-day Zambia. He was instructed by the British to march north to Abercorn (now Mbala) to surrender his undefeated army, which he did there on 23 November. His remaining army then consisted of 30 German officers, 125 German non-commissioned officers and other enlisted ranks, 1,168 Askaris and some 3,500 porters.

The British and Belgian invasions of German East Africa set off a chain of events with devastating ramifications for the natives and their German overlords. The invasions caused interruptions throughout the colony so that the land no longer "basked in a climate of plenty."

As military commander, Lt. Col. von Lettow-Vorbeck's first obligation was to his army over the objections of Governor Heinrich Schnee. The governor regarded war as the worst possible calamity that could befall German East Africa; it would "undo everything his social and economic reforms had accomplished." Von Lettow-Vorbeck knew he would have to give ground and escape confrontations with Allied forces. He thus established food depots along his intended line of march from Neu Moshi to the Uluguru Mountains, and if the neighboring villages were near starvation, that was a misfortune of war.

Hardly any aid from Germany could penetrate the British blockade to alleviate the enormous supply deficiencies, and only two blockade runners succeeded in reaching the colony. On 14 April 1915 the freighter Kronborg arrived off Tanga at Manza Bay after a two months' journey from Wilhelmshaven, and was promptly attacked by the British cruiser Hyacinth. Fortunately for the Germans, Kronborg had been scuttled by her captain to avoid a coal fire after repeated hits by the British cruiser and the ship settled in shallow water. Nearly its entire cargo could be salvaged. When the steamer Marie von Stettin arrived south of Lindi on 17 March 1916, its precious cargo of 1,500 tons was of only very modest help. A November 1917 attempt to resupply German forces by a Zeppelin airship failed. By late September 1916, all of coastal German East Africa, including Dar es Salaam and the Central Railway, were under British control, with the west occupied by Belgians; then during December 1917 the German colony was officially declared an Allied protectorate.

Von Lettow-Vorbeck and his caravan of Europeans, Askaris, porters, women and children marched on, deliberately bypassing the tribal home lands of the native soldiers in an effort to forestall desertions. They traversed difficult territory, "swamps and jungles ... what a dismal prospect there is in front of me" stated the Allied commander Gen. J. C. Smuts. But Smuts did not flinch. His new approach and objective was not to fight the Schutztruppe at all, but to go after their food supply. The end eventually came some time later with Smuts in London and Gen. J. L. van Deventer in command in East Africa.

In a 1919 book, Ludwig Deppe, a medical doctor campaigning with von Lettow-Vorbeck and former head of the hospital at Tanga, looked back in rue and lamented the tragedy that was imposed by German forces on East Africa in their war with the invading Allies: "Behind us we leave destroyed fields, ransacked magazines and, for the immediate future, starvation. We are no longer the agents of culture, our track is marked by death, plundering and evacuated villages, just like the progress of our own and enemy armies in the Thirty Years' War."

While there was German callousness and harshness, the new British or Belgian masters in German East Africa were by no means benevolent, either. They assumed no responsibility for African welfare and provided little assistance to the malnourished native population; indeed, when food ran short for the Allied formations "the British askaris fell back on the practice of attacking and looting villages." When the worldwide Spanish influenza epidemic swept into eastern Africa in 1918–19 it struck down thousands with impartiality, native and European alike. The weakened state of many natives made them especially susceptible; this included the caged Askaris and porters of the German Schutztruppe, which had been herded together at the Tabora POW camps.

After hostilities ended, the British transferred the German soldiers and POWs to Dar es Salaam for eventual repatriation. In Germany, von Lettow-Vorbeck helped end the Spartacist uprising in Hamburg. This among other minor nefarious activities lost von Lettow-Vorbeck his position in the army. Von Lettow-Vorbeck tried to ensure decent treatment and the briefest time the German Askaris would be caged at Tabora.

Von Lettow-Vorbeck returned home in early March 1919 to a hero's welcome. On a black charger he led 120 officers of the Schutztruppe in their tattered tropical uniforms on a victory parade through the Brandenburg Gate which was decorated in their honor. Though he ultimately surrendered as ordered; he frequently won against great odds and was the only German commander to invade British territory successfully during World War I!

Von Lettow-Vorbeck was a daring yet prudent commander who showed uncanny ability to fight a guerrilla war in unfamiliar terrain. He was respected as a brilliant soldier and a first rate leader by his white officers, non-commissioned officers and Askaris—and beyond that, by his foes. In the field when rations had to be reduced and supplies dwindled,

it was a measure of the Askaris' loyalty to their commander that they accepted the cuts and did not desert en masse. Some did desert, of course ... [as did British, Belgian and Portuguese native troops]. But the German Askaris were by far the most loyal as well as the most effective, and it all went back to von Lettow-Vorbeck's brand of discipline, which bound him and his German officers as much as his black soldiers.

One of von Lettow-Vorbeck's junior officers, Theodor von Hippel, used his experience in Africa to be instrumental in forming the Brandenburgers, the commando unit of the German Abwehr intelligence agency in World War II.

After his return from Africa, von Lettow-Vorbeck married Martha Walroth in 1919; sons were born in 1921 and 1922 and a daughter in 1927. He participated in the chaotic politics of the Weimar Republic, and though he remained in the Army, only fourteen months after his return to Germany, he suppressed a communist uprising in Hamburg, and placed his troops at the disposal of monarchists during the Kapp Putsch. The failure of the putsch forced his resignation from the Reichswehr in May 1920. He then worked at Bremen as an import-export manager.

In June 1926, von Lettow-Vorbeck met Sir Richard Meinertzhagen at Bremen, the British Intelligence officer whom he had fought a battle of wits with until Meinertzhagen was invalided to England in December 1916 (he was later posted to Palestine). Three years later, von Lettow-Vorbeck accepted an invitation to London where he met for the first time face-to-face J. C. Smuts; Von Lettow-Vorbeck and Smuts formed a lasting friendship. When Smuts died in 1950, von Lettow-Vorbeck sent his widow a moving letter of sympathy.

(A similar oft-quoted claim states that von Lettow-Vorbeck also apologized for the "ungentlemanly death" of British hunter Frederick Selous at the hands of one of his snipers, however this claim is not supported by contemporary evidence.)

Between May 1928 and July 1930, the former General served as a Reichstag deputy for the monarchist German National People's Party. He intensely "distrusted Hitler and his movement," even though Hitler offered him the ambassadorship to the Court of St. James's in 1935, he "declined with frigid hauteur." During the 1960s, Charles Miller asked the nephew of a Schutztruppe officer, "I understand that von Lettow told Hitler to go fuck himself." The nephew responded, "That's right, except that I don't think he put it that politely."

After his blunt refusal, he "was kept under continual surveillance" and his home office was searched. The only rehabilitation due to his legendary standing among the populace came in 1938, when at age 68, he was named a General for Special Purposes, but was never recalled into active service.

By the end of World War II, von Lettow-Vorbeck was destitute. His two sons, Rüdiger and Arnd had both been killed in action serving in the Wehrmacht. His house in Bremen had been destroyed by Allied bombs, and he depended for a time on food packages from Meinertzhagen and Smuts. With the German economic miracle, he began to enjoy comfortable circumstances again. In 1953 he visited his other home, East Africa, where he was heartily welcomed by surviving Askaris who greeted him with their old marching song Heia Safari! and was received with full military honours by British colonial officials.

In 1964, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck died in Hamburg. The West German government and the Bundeswehr flew in two former Askaris as state guests, so that they could attend the funeral of "their" general. Several officers of the Bundeswehr were assigned as an honor guard, and West Germany's Minister of Defense, Kai-Uwe von Hassel, gave the eulogy, saying that the deceased, "was truly undefeated in the field." Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck was buried in Pronstorf, Schleswig-Holstein in the cemetery of Vicelin Church.

In the year of von Lettow-Vorbeck's death, the West German Bundestag voted to deliver back pay to all surviving Askaris. A temporary cashier's office was set up in Mwanza on Lake Victoria. Of the 350 veterans who gathered, only a handful could produce the certificates that von Lettow-Vorbeck had given them in 1918. Others presented pieces of their old uniforms as proof of service. The German banker who had brought the money came up with an idea. As each claimant stepped forward, he was handed a broom and ordered in German to perform the manual of arms. Not one man failed the test!

Four barracks of the Federal German Army, or Bundeswehr, were once named in his honor. They were situated at Leer, Hamburg-Jenfeld, Bremen and Bad Segeberg. Following the recent closure of 178 military installations, the only one remaining is the Lettow-Vorbeck-Kaserne in Leer, East Frisia.

In the spring of 2010, the City Council of Saarlouis renamed Von Lettow-Vorbeck-Straße. In Hanover, "Lettow-Vorbeck Straße" was renamed "Namibia Straße". In Wuppertal, Cuxhaven, Mönchengladbach, Radolfzell and Halle there are still streets named after General von Lettow-Vorbeck.

The dryosaurid species Dysalotosaurus lettowvorbecki was named after von Lettow-Vorbeck.

Von Lettow-Vorbeck in popular cultures:

• Von Lettow-Vorbeck appears in a 1993 episode of the television series The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. The episode, which was titled "The Phantom Train of Doom", begins with Indiana Jones as an officer in the Belgian Army during World War I. Determined to destroy a Schutztruppe armored train, Indiana takes General von Lettow-Vorbeck (Tom Bell) hostage and attempts to return with him to Allied lines. When the Schutztruppe tracks them down, Indy draws his revolver in order to shoot the general, but ultimately decides to let him go. The general magnanimously gives him a compass and the two part as friends.
• Von Lettow-Vorbeck is the protagonist of The Ghosts of Africa, a 1980 historical novel by Anglo-Canadian novelist William Stevenson about the East African Campaign which highlighted the long-distance resupply mission of the giant German rigid airship L.59.
• Von Lettow-Vorbeck appears as a character in Peter Høeg's short story, "Journey into a Dark Heart", which is the opening story in his 1990 collection, Tales of the Night. In this story Høeg imagines von Lettow-Vorbeck travelling through Africa by train at night accompanied by Joseph Conrad.
• Much of the history of von Lettow-Vorbeck's war campaign in Africa is detailed in the 2011 book Speak Swahili, Dammit! by James Penhaligon.
• A German film, Lettow-Vorbeck: Der deutsch-ostafrikanische Imperativ, was produced in 1984.

Sources:

www.bundesarchiv.de

www.en.wikipedia.org

www.traditionsverband.de

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645), Undefeated Samurai

Miyamoto Musashi in his prime, wielding two bokken. Woodblock print by Utagawa Kuniyoshi

Miyamoto Musashi having his fortune told. Print by Utagawa Kuniyoshi

"Seishin Chokudo" (earnest heart, straight way) monument dedicated to Miyamoto Musashi, located in Kokura. These characters were engraved by Musashi on his bokken. It stands on the place where Musashi is supposed to have lived, at the foot of the castle. The Hombu dojo of a main branch of Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryū is in Kokura and demonstrates every year in front of this monument.

Miyamoto Musashi (宮本 武蔵?, c. 1584 – June 13, 1645), also known as Shinmen Takezō, Miyamoto Bennosuke or, by his Buddhist name, Niten Dōraku, was a Japanese swordsman and rōnin. Musashi, as he was often simply known, became renowned through stories of his excellent swordsmanship in numerous duels, even from a very young age. He was the founder of the Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū or Niten-ryū style of swordsmanship and the author of The Book of Five Rings (五輪書 Go Rin No Sho?), a book on strategy, tactics, and philosophy that is still studied today! Miyamoto Musashi is widely considered as a Kensei and one of the greatest warriors of all time!

The details of Miyamoto Musashi's early life are difficult to verify. Musashi himself simply states in Gorin no Sho that he was born in Harima Province. Niten Ki (an early biography of Musashi) supports the theory that Musashi was born in 1584: "[He] was born in Banshū, in Tenshō 12 [1584], the Year of the Monkey." The historian Kamiko Tadashi, commenting on Musashi's text, notes: "[...]Munisai was Musashi's father...he lived in Miyamoto village, in the Yoshino district [of Mimasaka Province]. Musashi was most probably born here." His childhood name was Bennosuke 弁之助.

Musashi gives his full name and title in Gorin no Sho as Shinmen Musashi-no-Kami Fujiwara no Genshin." (新免武蔵守藤原玄信) His father, Shinmen Munisai 新免無二斎, was an accomplished martial artist and master of the sword and jutte (also jitte). Munisai, in turn, was the son of Hirata Shōgen 平田将監, a vassal of Shinmen Iga no Kami, the lord of Takayama Castle in the Yoshino district of Mimasaka Province. Hirata was relied upon by Lord Shinmen, and so was allowed to use the Shinmen name. As for "Musashi," Musashi no Kami was a court title, making him the nominal governor of Musashi province. "Fujiwara" was the lineage from which Musashi claimed nominal descent.

Mysteriously, Munisai's tomb says he died in 1580, which obviously conflicts with the accepted birth date of 1584 for Musashi. Further muddying the waters, according to the genealogy of the extant Miyamoto family, Musashi was born in 1582. Kenji Tokitsu has suggested that the accepted birth date of 1584 for Musashi is wrong, as it is primarily based on a literal reading of the introduction to the Go Rin No Sho where Musashi states that the years of his life "add up to 60" (yielding the twelfth year of the Tensho era, or 1584, when working backwards from the well-documented date of composition), when it should be taken in a more literary and imprecise sense, indicating not a specific age but merely that Musashi was in his sixties when he wrote it.

Because of the uncertainty centering on Munisai (when he died, whether he was truly Musashi's father, etc.), Musashi's mother is known with even less confidence. Here are a few possibilities:

Munisai's tomb was correct. He died in 1580, leaving two daughters; his wife adopted a recently born child, from the Akamatsu clan, intended to succeed Munisai at his jitte school. Omasa, Munisai's widow, was not Musashi's biological mother.

The tomb was wrong. Munisai lived a good deal longer, later than 1590 possibly. Musashi, then, was born to Munisai's first wife, Yoshiko (daughter to Bessho Shigeharu, who formerly controlled Hirafuku village until he lost a battle in 1578 to Yamanaka Shikanosuke). Munisai divorced her after Musashi's birth, whereupon she decamped for her father's house, leaving Musashi with Munisai. Musashi grew up treating Munisai's second wife, Omasa (daughter to Lord Shinmen) as his mother. This second scenario is laid out in an entry to the Tasumi family's genealogy. The daughter of Bessho Shigeharu first married Hirata Muni and was divorced from him a few years later. After that she married Tasumi Masahisa. The second wife of Tasumi Masahisa was the mother of Miyamoto Musashi. Musashi's childhood name was Hirata Den. During his childhood, he went to Hirafuku to find his real mother. He moved in with the Tasumi family.

A variant of this second theory is based on the fact that the tombstone states that Omasa gave birth to Musashi on 4 March 1584, and died of it. Munisai then remarried to Yoshiko. They divorced, as in the second theory, but Yoshiko took Musashi, who was 7 at the time, with her, and married Tasumi Masahisa.

Kenji Tokitsu prefers to assume a birth date of 1581, which avoids the necessity of assuming the tombstone to be erroneous (although this poses the problem of from whom then Musashi received the transmission of the family martial art).

Regardless of the truth about Musashi's ancestry, when Musashi was seven years old, the boy was raised by his uncle, Dorinbo (or Dorin), in Shoreian temple, three kilometers (~1.8 mi.) from Hirafuku. Both Dorin and Musashi's uncle by marriage — Tasumi — educated him in Buddhism and basic skills such as writing and reading. This education is possibly the basis for Yoshikawa Eiji's fictional education of Musashi by the historical Zen monk Takuan. He was apparently trained by Munisai in the sword, and in the family art of the jutte. This training did not last for a very long time, as in 1589, Munisai was ordered by Shinmen Sokan to kill Munisai's student, Honiden Gekinosuke. The Honiden family was displeased, and so Munisai was forced to move four kilometers (~2.5 mi.) away to the village of Kawakami.

In 1592, Munisai died, although Tokitsu believes that the person who died at this time was really Hirata Takehito.

Musashi contracted eczema in his infancy, and this adversely affected his appearance. Another story claims that he never took a bath because he did not want to be surprised unarmed. While the former claim may or may not have some basis in reality, the latter seems improbable. An unwashed member of the warrior caste would not have been received as a guest by such houses as Honda, Ogasawara and Hosokawa. These and many other details are likely embellishments that were added to his legend, or misinterpretations of literature describing him.

His father's fate is uncertain, but it is thought that he died at the hands of one of Musashi's later adversaries, who was punished or even killed for treating Musashi's father badly. However, there are no exact details of Musashi's life, since Musashi's only writings are those related to strategy and technique.

The name "Musashi" was thought to be taken from the name of a warrior monk named Musashibō Benkei who served under Minamoto no Yoshitsune, but this is unconfirmed.

It is said that he may have studied at the Yoshioka-ryū dojo (school), which was also said to be a school Musashi defeated single-handedly during his later years, although this is very uncertain. He did have formal training either by his father until he was 7 years old or from his uncle beginning at the age of 7. Ultimately the name was taken from his own original kanji, 武蔵, which can be read as Takezō or as Musashi, as stated in Eiji Yoshikawa's famous book Musashi.

I have trained in the way of strategy since my youth, and at the age of thirteen I fought a duel for the first time. My opponent was called Arima Kihei, a sword adept of the Shinto ryū, and I defeated him. At the age of sixteen I defeated a powerful adept by the name of Akiyama, who came from Tajima Province. At the age of twenty-one I went up to Kyōtō and fought duels with several adepts of the sword from famous schools, but I never lost.

—Miyamoto Musashi, Go Rin No Sho

According to the introduction of The Book of Five Rings, Musashi states that his first successful duel was at the age of thirteen, against a samurai named Arima Kihei who fought using the Kashima Shintō-ryū style, founded by Tsukahara Bokuden (b. 1489, d. 1571). The main source of the duel is the Hyoho senshi denki ("Anecdotes about the Deceased Master"). Summarized, its account goes as follows:

In 1596, Musashi was 13, and Arima Kihei, who was traveling to hone his art, posted a public challenge in Hirafuku-mura. Musashi wrote his name on the challenge. A messenger came to Dorin's temple, where Musashi was staying, to inform Musashi that his duel had been accepted by Kihei. Dorin, Musashi's uncle, was shocked by this, and tried to beg off the duel in Musashi's name, based on his nephew's age. Kihei was adamant that the only way his honor could be cleared was if Musashi apologized to him when the duel was scheduled. So when the time set for the duel arrived, Dorin began apologizing for Musashi, who merely charged at Kihei with a six-foot quarterstaff, shouting a challenge to Kihei. Kihei attacked with a wakizashi, but Musashi threw Kihei on the floor, and while Kihei tried to get up, Musashi struck Arima between the eyes and then beat him to death. Arima was said to have been arrogant, overly eager to fight, and not a terribly talented swordsman.

—William Scott Wilson, The Lone Samurai

In 1599, three years later, Musashi left his village, apparently at the age of 15 (according to the Tosakushi, "The Registry of the Sakushu Region", although the Tanji Hokin Hikki says he was 16 years old in 1599, which agrees time-wise with the age reported in Musashi's first duel). His family possessions such as furniture, weapons, genealogy, and other records were left with his sister and her husband, Hirao Yoemon.

He spent his time traveling and engaging in duels, such as with an adept called Akiyama from the Tajima Province.

In 1600, a war began between the Toyotomi and Tokugawa clans. Musashi apparently fought on the side of the Toyotomi's "Army of the West", as the Shinmen clan (to whom his family owed allegiance) had allied with them. Specifically, he participated in the attempt to take Fushimi castle by assault in July 1600, in the defense of the besieged Gifu Castle in August of the same year, and finally in the Battle of Sekigahara. Some doubt has been cast on this final battle, as the Hyoho senshi denki has Musashi saying he is "no lord's vassal" and refusing to fight with his father (in Lord Ukita's battalion) in the battle. Omitting the Battle of Sekigahara from the list of Musashi's battles would seem to contradict the Go Rin No Sho's statement that Musashi fought in six battles, however. Regardless, as the Toyotomi side lost, it has been suggested that Musashi fled as well and spent some time training on Mount Hiko.

After the battle, Musashi disappears from the records for a while. The next mention of him has him arriving in Kyoto at the age of 20 (or 21), where he began a series of duels against the Yoshioka School. Musashi's father, Munisai, also fought against a master of the Yoshioka school and won 2 out of 3 bouts in front of the shogun at the time, Ashikaga Yoshiaki who granted him the title of "Unrivaled Under The Sun". The Yoshioka School (descended from either the Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū or the Kyo-hachi-ryū) was the foremost of the eight major schools of martial arts in Kyoto, the "Kyo-ryū" / "Schools of Kyoto". Legend has it that these eight schools were founded by eight monks taught by a legendary martial artist resident on the sacred Mount Kurama. At some point, the Yoshioka family also began to make a name for itself not merely in the art of the sword but also in the textile business and for a dye unique to them. They gave up teaching swordsmanship in 1614 when they fought in the Army of the West against Tokugawa Ieyasu in the Battle of Osaka, which they lost. But in 1604, when Musashi began duelling them, they were still preeminent. There are various accounts of the duels — the Yoshioka family documents claim that there was only one, against Yoshioka Kenpō, which Musashi lost.

Musashi challenged Yoshioka Seijūrō, master of the Yoshioka School, to a duel. Seijūrō accepted, and they agreed to a duel outside Rendaiji in Rakuhoku, in the northern part of Kyoto on 8 March 1604. Musashi arrived late, greatly irritating Seijūrō. They faced off, and Musashi struck a single blow, per their agreement. This blow struck Seijūrō on the left shoulder, knocking him out, and crippling his left arm. He apparently passed on the headship of the school to his equally accomplished brother, Yoshioka Denshichirō, who promptly challenged Musashi for revenge. The duel took place in Kyoto outside a temple, Sanjūsangen-dō. Denshichirō wielded a staff reinforced with steel rings (or possibly with a ball-and-chain attached), while Musashi arrived late a second time. Musashi disarmed Denshichirō and defeated him. This second victory outraged the Yoshioka family, whose head was now the 12-year old Yoshioka Matashichiro. They assembled a force of archers, musketeers and swordsmen, and challenged Musashi to a duel outside Kyoto, near Ichijō-ji Temple. Musashi broke his previous habit of arriving late, and came to the temple hours early. Hidden, Musashi assaulted the force, killing Matashichiro, and escaping while being attacked by dozens of his victim's supporters. To escape and fight off his opponents he was forced to draw his second sword and defend himself with a sword in each hand. This was the beginning of his niten'ichi sword style. With the death of Matashichiro, this branch of the Yoshioka School was destroyed.

After Musashi left Kyoto, some sources recount that he travelled to Hōzōin in Nara, to duel with and learn from the monks there, widely known as experts with lance weapons. There he settled down at Enkoji Temple in Banshū, where he taught the head monk's (one Tada Hanzaburo's) brother. Hanzaburo's grandson would found the Ensu-ryū based on the Enmei-ryū teachings and iaijutsu.

From 1605 to 1612, he travelled extensively all over Japan in musha shugyō, a warrior pilgrimage during which he honed his skills with duels. He was said to have used bokken or bokuto in actual duels. Most of the engagements from these times did not try to take the opponent's life unless both agreed, but in most duels, it is known that Musashi did not care which weapon his foe used — such was his mastery.

A document dated 5 September 1607, purporting to be a transmission by Miyamoto Munisai of his teachings, suggests Munisai lived at least to this date. In this year, Musashi departed Nara for Edo, during which he fought (and killed) a kusarigama practitioner named Shishido Baiken. In Edo, Musashi defeated Musō Gonnosuke, who would found an influential staff-wielding school known as Shintō Musō-ryū. Records of this first duel can be found in both the Shinto Muso-ryu tradition and the Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū (Miyamoto Musashi's school). The Shinto Muso Ryu tradition states that, after being defeated by Musashi, Muso Gonnusuke beat Musashi in a rematch. There are no current reliable sources outside the Shinto Muso Ryu tradition to confirm that this second duel took place.

Musashi is said to have fought over 60 duels and was never defeated, although this is a conservative estimate, most likely not accounting for deaths by his hand in major battles. In 1611, Musashi began practicing zazen at the Myōshin-ji temple, where he met Nagaoka Sado, vassal to Hosokawa Tadaoki; Tadaoki was a powerful lord who had received the Kumamoto Domain in west-central Kyūshū after the Battle of Sekigahara. Munisai had moved to northern Kyūshū and became Tadaoki's teacher, leading to the possibility that Munisai introduced the two. Nagaoka proposed a duel with a certain adept named Sasaki Kojirō. Tokitsu believes that the duel was politically motivated, a matter of consolidating Tadaoki's control over his fief.

On April 13, 1612, Musashi (about age 30) fought his duel with Sasaki Kojirō, who was known as "The Demon of the Western Provinces" and who wielded a nodachi. Musashi came late and unkempt to the appointed place — the island of Funajima, in the Kanmon Straits separating Honshū and Kyūshū. The duel was short. Musashi killed his opponent with a bokken that legend says he had carved from an oar used on the boat that carried him to the island. Musashi's late arrival is controversial. Sasaki's outraged supporters thought it was dishonorable and disrespectful, while Musashi's supporters thought it was a fair way to unnerve his opponent. Another theory is that Musashi timed the hour of his arrival to match the turning of the tide. The tide carried him to the island. After his victory, Musashi immediately jumped back in his boat and his flight from Sasaki's vengeful allies was helped by the turning of the tide. Another theory states he waited for the sun to get in the right position. After he dodged a blow, Sasaki was blinded by the sun.

In 1614–1615, Musashi participated in the war between the Toyotomi and the Tokugawa. The war had broken out because Tokugawa Ieyasu saw the Toyotomi family as a threat to his rule of Japan; most scholars believe that, as in the previous war, Musashi fought on the Toyotomi side. Osaka Castle was the central place of battle. The first battle (the Winter Battle of Osaka; Musashi's fourth battle) ended in a truce. The second (the Summer Battle of Osaka; Musashi's fifth battle) resulted in the total defeat of Toyotomi Hideyori's Army of the West by Ieyasu's Army of the East in May 1615. Some reports go so far as to say that Musashi entered a duel with Ieyasu, but was recruited after Ieyasu sensed his defeat was at hand. This may seem unlikely since Ieyasu was in his 70s and was in poor health already, but it remains unknown how Musashi came into Ieyasu's good graces.

Other accounts claim he actually served on the Tokugawa side, but such a claim is unproven, although Musashi had a close relationship with some Tokugawa vassals through his duel with Sasaki Kojirō, and in the succeeding years, he did not drop out of sight as might be expected if he were being persecuted for being on the losing side. In his later years, Ogasawara and Hosokawa supported Musashi greatly — an atypical course of action for these Tokugawa loyalists, if Musashi had indeed fought on behalf of the Toyotomi.

In 1615 he entered the service of Ogasawara Tadanao (小笠原忠直) of Harima Province, at Ogasawara's invitation, as a "Construction Supervisor," after previously gaining skills in craft. He helped construct Akashi Castle and in 1621 to lay out the organization of the town of Himeji. He also taught martial arts during his stay, specializing in instruction in the art of shuriken-throwing. During this period of service, he adopted a son.

In 1621, Musashi defeated Miyake Gunbei and three other adepts of the Togun-ryu in front of the lord of Himeji; it was after this victory that he helped plan Himeji. Around this time, Musashi developed a number of disciples for his Enmei-ryū although he had developed the school considerably earlier; at the age of 22, Musashi had already written a scroll of Enmei-ryū teachings called "Writings on the Sword Technique of the Enmei-ryū" (Enmei-ryū kenpo sho). 円/"En" meant "circle" or "perfection"; 明/"mei" meant "light"/"clarity", and 流/"ryū" meant "school"; the name seems to have been derived from the idea of holding the two swords up in the light so as to form a circle. The school's central idea is given as training to use the twin swords of the samurai as effectively as a pair of sword and jutte.

In 1622, Musashi's adoptive son, Miyamoto Mikinosuke, became a vassal to the Himeji Domain. Possibly this prompted Musashi to leave, embarking on a new series of travels, winding up in Edo in 1623, where he became friends with the Confucian scholar Hayashi Razan, who was one of the Shogun's advisors. Musashi applied to become a swordmaster to the Shogun, but as he already had two swordmasters (Ono Jiroemon Tadaaki and Yagyū Munenori — the latter also a political advisor, in addition to his position as the head of the Shogunate's secret police), Musashi's application was denied. He left Edo in the direction of Ōshū, ending up in Yamagata, where he adopted a second son, Miyamoto Iori. The two then traveled, eventually stopping in Osaka.

In 1626, Miyamoto Mikinosuke, following the custom of junshi, committed seppuku because of the death of his lord. In this year, Miyamoto Iori entered Lord Ogasawara's service. Musashi's attempt to become a vassal to the lord of Owari, like other such attempts, failed.

In 1627, Musashi began to travel again. In 1634 he settled in Kokura with Iori, and later entered the service of the daimyo Ogasawara Tadazane, taking a major role in the Shimabara Rebellion. Iori served with distinction in putting down the rebellion and gradually rose to the rank of karō — a position equal to a minister. Musashi, however was reputedly injured by a thrown rock while scouting in the front line, and was thus unnoticed.

Six years later, in 1633, Musashi began staying with Hosokawa Tadatoshi, daimyo of Kumamoto Castle, who had moved to the Kumamoto fief and Kokura, to train and paint. Ironically, it was at this time that the Hosokawa lords were also the patrons of Musashi's chief rival, Sasaki Kojirō. While there he engaged in very few duels; one would occur in 1634 at the arrangement of Lord Ogasawara, in which Musashi defeated a lance specialist by the name of Takada Matabei. Musashi would officially become the retainer of the Hosokowa lords of Kumamoto in 1640. The Niten Ki records "[he] received from Lord Tadatoshi: 17 retainers, a stipend of 300 koku, the rank of ōkumigashira 大組頭, and Chiba Castle in Kumamoto as his residence."

In the second month of 1641, Musashi wrote a work called the Hyoho Sanju Go ("Thirty-five Instructions on Strategy") for Hosokawa Tadatoshi; this work overlapped and formed the basis for the later Go Rin No Sho. This was the year that his third son, Hirao Yoemon, became Master of Arms for the Owari fief. In 1642, Musashi suffered attacks of neuralgia, foreshadowing his future ill-health. In 1643 he retired to a cave named Reigandō as a hermit to write The Book of Five Rings. He finished it in the second month of 1645. On the twelfth of the fifth month, sensing his impending death, Musashi bequeathed his worldly possessions, after giving his manuscript copy of the Go Rin No Sho to the younger brother of Terao Magonojo, his closest disciple. He died in Reigandō cave around June 13, 1645 (Shōhō 3, 30th day of the 4th month). The Hyoho senshi denki described his passing:

At the moment of his death, he had himself raised up. He had his belt tightened and his wakizashi put in it. He seated himself with one knee vertically raised, holding the sword with his left hand and a cane in his right hand. He died in this posture, at the age of sixty-two. The principal vassals of Lord Hosokawa and the other officers gathered, and they painstakingly carried out the ceremony. Then they set up a tomb on Mount Iwato on the order of the lord.

Musashi died of what is believed to be thoracic cancer, and was not killed in combat. He died peacefully after finishing the Dokkōdō ("The Way of Walking Alone", or "The Way of Self-Reliance"), 21 precepts on self-discipline to guide future generations.

His body was interred in armor within the village of Yuge, near the main road near Mount Iwato, facing the direction the Hosokawas would travel to Edo; his hair was buried on Mount Iwato itself.

Nine years later, a major source about his life — a monument with a funereal eulogy to Musashi — was erected in Kokura by Miyamoto Iori; this monument was called the Kokura hibun. An account of Musashi's life, the Niten-ki 二天記, was published in Kumamoto in 1776, by Toyota Kagehide, based on the recollections of his grandfather Toyota Masataka, who was a second generation pupil of Musashi.

Musashi created and perfected a two-sword kenjutsu technique called niten'ichi (二天一, "two heavens as one") or nitōichi (二刀一, "two swords as one") or "Ni-Ten Ichi Ryu" (A Kongen Buddhist Sutra refers to the two heavens as the two guardians of Buddha). In this technique, the swordsman uses both a large sword, and a "companion sword" at the same time, such as a katana with a wakizashi. Although he had mastership in this style of two swords, he most commonly used a katana in duels.

The two-handed movements of temple drummers may have inspired him, although it could be that the technique was forged through Musashi's combat experience. Jutte techniques were taught to him by his father — the jutte was often used in battle paired with a sword; the jutte would parry and neutralize the weapon of the enemy while the sword struck or the practitioner grappled with the enemy. In his time a long sword in the left hand was referred to as gyaku nito. Today Musashi's style of swordsmanship is known as Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū.

Musashi was also an expert in throwing weapons. He frequently threw his short sword, and Kenji Tokitsu believes that shuriken methods for the wakizashi were the Niten Ichi Ryu's secret techniques.

Musashi spent many years studying Buddhism and swordsmanship. He was an accomplished artist, sculptor, and calligrapher. Records also show that he had architectural skills. Also, he seems to have had a rather straightforward approach to combat, with no additional frills or aesthetic considerations. This was probably due to his real-life combat experience; although in his later life, Musashi followed the more artistic side of bushidō. He made various Zen brush paintings, calligraphy, and sculpted wood and metal. Even in The Book of Five Rings he emphasizes that samurai should understand other professions as well. It should be understood that Musashi's writings were very ambiguous, and translating them into English makes them even more so; that is why so many different translations of the Go Rin No Sho can be found. To gain further insight into Musashi's principles and personality, one could read his other works, such as Dokkodo and Hyoho Shiji ni Kajo.

Throughout Musashi's last book, The Book of Five Rings (五輪書 Go Rin no Sho?), Musashi seems to take a very philosophical approach to looking at the "craft of war"; "There are five ways in which men pass through life: as gentlemen, warriors, farmers, artisans and merchants." These falling into one of the few profession groups that could be observed in Musashi's time.

Throughout the book, Musashi implies that the way of the Warrior, as well as the meaning of a "True strategist" is that of somebody who has made mastery of many art forms away from that of the sword, such as tea drinking (sado), laboring, writing, and painting as Musashi practiced throughout his life. Musashi was hailed as an extraordinary sumi-e artist in the use of ink monochrome as depicted in two such paintings: "Shrike Perched in a Dead Tree" (Koboku Meigekizu, 枯木鳴鵙図) and "Wild Geese Among Reeds" (Rozanzu, 魯山図). Going back to the Book of Five Rings, Musashi talks deeply about the ways of Buddhism.

He makes particular note of artisans and foremen. In the time in which he writes the book, the majority of houses in Japan were made of wood. In the use of building a house, foremen have to employ strategy based upon the skill and ability of their workers.

In comparison to warriors and soldiers, Musashi notes the ways in which the artisans thrive through events; the ruin of houses, the splendor of houses, the style of the house, the tradition and name or origins of a house. These too, are similar to the events which are seen to have warriors and soldiers thrive; the rise and fall of prefectures, countries and other such events are what make uses for warriors, as well as the literal comparisons of the: "The carpenter uses a master plan of the building, and the way of strategy is similar in that there is a plan of campaign".

Throughout the book, Go Rin No Sho, the idea which Musashi pushes is that the "way of the strategist" (Heihō 兵法) is similar to how a carpenter and his tools are mutually inclusive, e.g. — a carpenter can do nothing without his tools, and vice versa. This too, he compares to skill, and tactical ability in the field of battle.

Initially, Musashi notes that throughout China and Japan, there are many "sword fencers" who walk around claiming they are strategists, but are, in fact, not — this may be because Musashi had defeated some such strategists, such as Arima Kihei.

The idea is that by reading his writings, one can become a true strategist from ability and tactical skill that Musashi had learned in his lifetime. He argues that strategy and virtue are something which can be earned by knowing the ways of life, the professions that are around, to perhaps learn the skills and knowledge of people and the skills of their particular professions.

However, Musashi seems to state that the value of strategy seems to be homogeneous. He notes that:

The attendants of the Kashima Kantori shrines of the province Hitachi received instruction from the gods, and made schools based on this teaching, travelling from province to province instructing men. This is the recent meaning of strategy.

As well as noting that strategy is destined to die;

Of course, men who study in this way think they are training the body and spirit, but it is an obstacle to the true way, and its bad influence remains forever. Thus the true way of strategy is becoming decadent and dying out.

As a form, strategy was said to be one of "Ten Abilities and Seven Arts" that a warrior should have, but Musashi disagrees that one person can gain strategy by being confined to one particular style, which seems particularly fitting as he admits "I practice many arts and abilities — all things with no teacher" — this perhaps being one of the reasons he was so highly regarded a swordsman.

Musashi's metaphor for strategy is that of the bulb and the flower, similar to Western philosophy of "the chicken or the egg", the "bulb" being the student, the "flower" being the technique. He also notes that most places seem to be mostly concerned with their technique and its beauty. Musashi writes, "In this kind of way of strategy, both those teaching and those learning the way are concerned with coloring and showing off their technique, trying to hasten the bloom of the flower" (as opposed to the actual harmony between strategy and skill.)

With those who are concerned with becoming masters of strategy, Musashi points out that as a carpenter becomes better with his tools and is able to craft things with more expert measure, so too can a warrior, or strategist become more skilled in his technique. However, just as a carpenter needs to be able to use his tools according to plans, so too must a strategist be able to adapt his style or technique to the required strategy of the battle he is currently engaged in.

This description also draws parallels between the weapons of a trooper (or soldier) and the tools of a carpenter; the idea of "the right tool for the right job" seems to be implied a lot throughout the book Go Rin No Sho. Musashi also puts into motion the idea that when a carpenter is skilled enough in aspects of his job, and creates them with expert measure, then he can become a foreman.

Although it is not expressly mentioned, it may be seen that Musashi indicated that when you have learned the areas in which your craft requires, be it carpentry, farming, fine art or battle, and are able to apply them to any given situation, then you will be experienced enough to show others the wisdom of your ways, be it as a foreman of craftsmen, or as a general of an army.

From further reading into the book, the idea of "weapons within strategy," as well as Musashi referring to the power of the writer, may seem that the strategy which Musashi refers to does not exclusively reside within the domain of weaponry and duels, but within the realm of war and battles with many men:

Just as one man can beat ten, so a hundred men can beat a thousand, and a thousand can beat ten thousand. In my strategy, one man is the same as ten thousand, so this strategy is the complete warrior's craft.

Within the book, Musashi mentions that the use of two swords within strategy is mutually beneficial between those who utilize this skill. The idea of using two hands for a sword is an idea which Musashi disagrees with, in that there is not fluidity in movement when using two hands — "If you hold a sword with both hands, it is difficult to wield it freely to left and right, so my method is to carry the sword in one hand"; he as well disagrees with the idea of using a sword with two hands on a horse, and/or riding on unstable terrain, such as muddy swamps, rice fields, or within crowds of people.

In order to learn the strategy of Ni-Ten Ichi Ryu, Musashi employs that by training with two long swords, one in each hand, you will be able to overcome the cumbersome nature of using a sword in both hands. Although difficult, Musashi agrees that there are times in which the long sword must be used with two hands, but if your skill is good enough, you should not need it. The idea of using two long swords is that you are starting with something to which you are unaccustomed, and that you will find difficult, but will adapt to after much use.

After using two long swords proficiently enough, Musashi then states that your mastery of a long sword, and a "companion sword", most likely a wakizashi, will be much increased — "When you become used to wielding the long sword, you will gain the power of the Way and wield the sword well.".

In short, it could be seen that from the excerpts from Go Rin No Sho, the real strategy behind Ni-Ten No Ichi Ryu, is that there is no real iron-clad method, path, or type of weaponry that is specific to the style of Ni-Ten No Ichi Ryu:

You can win with a long weapon, and yet you can also win with a short weapon. In short, the Way of the Ichi school is the spirit of winning, whatever the weapon and whatever its size.

The strategy of the long sword is different than other strategies, in that it is much more straightforward. In the strategy of the longsword, it seems that Musashi's ideal was, that by mastering gripping the sword with two fingers, it could become a platform used for moving onto the mastery of Ni-Ten Ichi Ryu, as well as being able to use two broadswords, or more masterfully use a companion sword.

However, just because the grip is to be light, it does not mean that the attack or slash from the sword will be weak. As with any other technique in the Ni-Ten Ichi Ryu, he notes:

If you try to wield the long sword quickly, you will mistake the way. To wield the long sword well, you must wield it calmly. If you try to wield it quickly, like a folding fan or a short sword, you will err by using "short sword chopping". You cannot cut down a man with a long sword using this method.

As with most disciplines in martial arts, Musashi notes that the movement of the sword after the cut is made must not be superfluous; instead of quickly returning to a stance or position, one should allow the sword to come to the end of its path from the force used. In this manner, the technique will become freely flowing, as opposed to abrupt.

Musashi also discouraged the use of only one sword for fighting, and the use of over-large swords like nodachi because they were cumbersome and unwieldy.

Even from a late age, Musashi separated his religion from his involvement in swordsmanship. Excerpts such as the one below, from The Book of Five Rings, demonstrate a philosophy that is thought to have stayed with him throughout his life:

There are many ways: Confucianism, Buddhism, the ways of elegance, rice-planting, or dance; these things are not to be found in the way of the warrior.

However, the belief that Musashi disliked Shinto is inaccurate, as he criticises the Shintō-ryū style of swordsmanship, and not Shinto, the religion. In Musashi's Dokkodo, his stance on religion is further elucidated: "Respect Buddha and the gods without counting on their help."

In his later years, Musashi claimed in his Go Rin No Sho: "When I apply the principle of strategy to the ways of different arts and crafts, I no longer have need for a teacher in any domain." He proved this by creating recognized masterpieces of calligraphy and classic ink painting. His paintings are characterized by skilled use of ink washes and an economy of brush stroke. He especially mastered the "broken ink" school of landscapes, applying it to other subjects, such as his Kobokumeikakuzu ("Shrike Perched on a Withered Branch"; part of a triptych whose other two members were "Hotei Walking" and "Sparrow on Bamboo"), his Hotei Watching a Cockfight, and his Rozanzu ("Wild Geese Among Reeds").

Even in Musashi's time there were fictional texts resembling comic books. It is therefore quite difficult to separate fact from fiction when discussing his life. There have been numerous works of fiction made about or featuring Musashi, such as the popular fantasy series "The Secrets of The Immortal Nicholas Flamel". Among them are also several dozen films, including several with the title of Miyamoto Musashi. One of these, released in the English-speaking world as Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto, is the Academy Award–winning film by Hiroshi Inagaki starring Toshirô Mifune. Eiji Yoshikawa's novelization has greatly influenced successive fictional depictions (including the ongoing manga Vagabond by Takehiko Inoue) and is often mistaken for a factual account of Musashi's life.

Source:

www.en.wikipedia.org