Talk:Shimonoseki campaign

Untitled

I would think the work 'Japan' belongs in the first line somewhere. [[PaulinSaudi 10:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]

Why is this page entitled Bombardments of Shimonoseki when the Battle of Shimonoseki Straits was clearly not a bombardment of the Honshu village. I think the title would be fine if one would exclude the Battle of Shimonoseki Straits as one of the engagements in this campaign. The said naval battle already has it's own article. So the later bombardments should have their own page also, symbolizing the different campaigns. The first being the Battle of Shimonoseki Straits and one for the later boattles and bombardments. I think we can leave the American Intervention paragrapgh because it is clearly relevant to this subject. I am going to change the dates of the engagement to exclude the July 16 battle at Shimonoseki Straits to the date of the first Bombardment of Shimonoseki village. --Az81964444 (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

On a seperate issue, the title of this page should read "Battles of Shimonoseki" because the French, British and Dutch actions of this campaign were not just naval bombardments, they sent land forces ashore to fight the Choshu clan, thus making the engagements land battles and not just naval bombardments. I will wait for a response before I consider changing the title.--Az81964444 (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Perhaps Wikipedia would like to tie in the Victoria Crosses won at this battle with its Victoria Cross pages?

Campaign

I was thinking, perhaps we can turn this page into one named "Japanese War" or "Japanese Campaign", something like this. This article already has most of the information needed. We can make other pages about the specific French battle at Shimonoseki, than we could make pages for the other battles of Shimonoseki involving the British and Dutch, the American battle already has its own page so that is a good start as does the Bombardment of Kagoshima. We could then include some info on this page about the Bombardment of Kagoshima. In this way we would have one main page about the entire conflict as a whole and seperate pages about the American battle at Shimonoseki, the French battle at Shimonoseki and so on. I am waiting for a response.--Az81964444 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How about titling the main article the Shimonoseki Campaign since only local daimyos resisted and not the Japanese government. A series of battles is generally termed a campaign anyway. Just a friendly suggestion.XavierGreen (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, it wasn't a war against Japan Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I agree, and as there hasn't been any dissent in three years, I went ahead and moved the article to its new title.Boneyard90 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

What are the sources for the casualties here? 86.5.160.43 (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is the date of the Campaign start at July 20th and not July 16th?

@Boneyard90@Az81964444@PaulinSaudi

Hi guys food for thought. Wouldn't it make more sense to put the date at July 16th with the American Battle first, since that's when the military conflict began? Why is it considered a pre-lude? Are they two separate, but interrelated conflicts or one overall conflict broken up into parts?

@Az81964444 I 100% agree with you that it should be considered a Campaign, as it is a part of a series of battles but we could consider the Battle of Shimonoseki Straits as part of the overall conflict. Maybe we could rename the Battle of Shimonoseki Straits to the 1st Battle of Shimoneski Straits, and French battles on July 20th the 2nd Battle of Shimoneski Straits, and the Final allied Battle in 1864 the 3rd Battle of Shimoneski Straits?

There is historical precedence for this in 2 ways:

1. There was a Gettysburg campaign from June 3 – July 24, 1863, but the overall was from July 1–3, 1863. But there were other battles in the overall campaign two for example the Battle of Brandy Station and the Second Battle of Winchester just to name 2.

2. There have been campaigns before with Battles named the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and forth all being a part of the same campaign. For example during the Second Opium War the Battle of Taku Forts (1858) (also called the 1st Battle), the Battle of Taku Forts (1859) (also called the 2nd Battle), and the Battle of Taku Forts (1860) (also called the 3rd Battle).

What do you think?

Thanks everyone. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)