Talk:Battle of Shiroyama

question of consistency

the Satsuma Rebellion page says that only 400 of Saigo's men survived to take place in the battle of shiroyama so I do not understand how there could be 25000)

He means to say there that it was all that were left of the 25000 men there.

However, I do have to point out that there seems to be a great ammount romanatisim here, saying how the Samurai were so brave and what not. I think it needs a little clean-up.

The Last Samurai This page seems to have a better description towards the bottom but says there were 40,000 vrs 300,000.

How I mostly found out about Shiroyama from Sabaton who is a band that made a great song about it... I suggest listening to it, but try to find the video without the sound of people fighting in the background Someoersonyouknow (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Not Tahara-zaka

The mention of "Tahara-zaka" at the beginning of the article is, I believe, a mistake and should be removed. I visit Kagoshima about once a year, and I'm not aware of a place name Tahara-zaka in the area of Shiroyama. I strongly suspect the writer is referring to the location of the biggest battle between the government and the Satsuma army. This took place in March 1877, 6 months prior to the Battle of Shiroyama. Moreover, although these characters would be pronounced "Tahara-zaka" in Tokyo, the correct Kyushu pronunciation is Tabaru-zaka. Tabaru-zaka, located in Kumamoto Prefecture not far from Kumamoto City, was the scene of the biggest battle of the entire Satsuma rebellion. Tabaru-zaka was a key control point on the road into Kumamoto City and Kumamoto Castle, thus the viciousness of the conflict there. Tabaru-zaka is about 200 km from Shiroyama.

Clarify casualty list

The casualty list shows an extraordinary amount( 15000) of casualty's on the goverment's army's side. Im not saying that this is a wrong number. i would just like to know how the casualty's got so high.

I would like to know this as well. I see no source for this article whatsoever. Fred26 08:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

400 Samurai killed 15000 conscripts?! Dear God, it's Thermopylae II!

That figure is misleading-check the reference link. It says that 15,000 was how many they lost during the whole war, with the Samurai losing 6,000 for their 25,000. It doesn't just refer to the Battle of Shiroyama. ATK102587 02:17, 16 March 2007 (EST)

Imperial Army having 300.000 soldiers?

I find this rather hard to believe. Keeping an army of that size in a field would be a logistical nightmare, especially under Japan's conditions at that time. Not to mention that it would have been quite useless at that moment, having to face less then 500 opponents. At the Battle of Leipzig, Napoleon had around 200.000 soldiers, I frankly doubt that Yamagata Aritomo had more then 30-40.000 at once in the field. [1] lists it as 30.000 soldiers, which is much more likely for that time and conditions. I have changed it to reflect this. Flavius T (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How did you find out about Shiroyama?

I wanted to know how the people on here found out about Shiroyama. I found out about it from listening to a band called Sabaton and their new album called The Last Stand. All of their songs are about wars or soldiers and are very interesting. Someoersonyouknow (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated editing of casualty statistics.

There has been repeated editing of the casualty statistics for the Imperial Army, shifting between 30 (the number with a citable source) and 10,000 or more. This is due to a popular misconception that attributes the Imperial casualties from the entire Satsuma Rebellion to this final battle. I check weekly to ensure that the correct information is listed, but I appreciate the help of others in preventing the further spread of misinformation. Jeffinated (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed all the crap about the Last Samurai

Hey guy who hates that movie, metacritic is that way. Jtrainor (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

text and statistics contradict each other

I don't know anything about the history of Japan. But

"The samurai, under heavy fire, charged the lines of the Imperial Army, which had not been trained for close-quarter sword fighting. In just a few minutes, the once organized line turned into disarray. Highly skilled samurai swordsmanship prevailed against an army with very little traditional training."

saying this makes it sound like there would be a lot more casualties inflicted than 30

As I have said I know nothing about the subject but this just doesn't sound right. Lamestname (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)