Battle outcomes against all odds

[Rodion Romanovich]

As the title says, importance of the result of the battle doesn't matter, all that matters is whether the battle outcome was different from what someone would guess beforehand. Someone who had all the information that was available to the commanders at the start of the battle. There are many models for judging the strength of armies including models which take into account morale, fatigue, training, equipment and terrain advantage - everything a skilled and experienced commander could use in his judgement about whether to fight or not. If we use a fair judgement of that kind rather than looking at for example numbers alone, are there any battles which can still be considered to have had a very unexpected outcome, and if so, which ones would you say?

[Kraxis]

I'll start out with a very classical battle. No wonder it is classical as it really was something out of the ordinary.

Cannae...

While Hannibal's forces were likely better than their Roman foes on a one to one basis (Roman losses had been considerable until then), they weren't that much better. A very significant part of his force was comprised of unruly and not terribly wellequipped Gauls.
The terrain was not for his army's preferance either. No open spaces for cavalry, the entire Roman army filled the space between the hills and the river.

By all means Hannibal should have been beaten soundly as the initial contacts went. And if we had seen the battlefield and the forces prior to the battle without knowing the leaders or circumstances of that battle, then I would say that the Romans should have won... Easily.

A lot has been made of the Roman command, and it's lack of cooperation and such. But really that wasn't that bad. They made the right decision. Bulk up, smash the enemy center and make sure the flanks are well protected. They did the things that would reinforce the usual Roman strengths, while in the case of that battlefield gave up nothing. Hindsight (and common knowledge of minute flaws) in the case of Cannae is a terrible thing as it blinds us to the 'how would/should any commander have reacted'.
Also, the popularity of this particular battle has lead to a lot of people scoffing at it, disliking it more for it's popularity than it's actual value.

The losses Hannibal's forces suffered indicate just how tough the Romans were. They were disproportionally high for the winning side in an ancient battle. Also the battle seems to have lasted a fairly long time, indicating that the cavalry didn't so much actively engage the Roman rear as much as keep them pinned while the infantry grinded into them. So had things not played out perfectly like they did, Hannibal would have been a most interesting general for specialists, but generally an unknown entity.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I agree after hearing your description. Any other battles which deserve mention in this category? Perhaps worth beginning the search among more of the major, famous battles? Apart from Cannae so far, I can always think of some excuse why not to mention different battles that come to mind, though I haven't gone through that many yet... ~

[Kansas Bear]

Alesia 52 BCE

[TinCow]

When you say

Someone who had all the information that was available to the commanders at the start of the battle.

do you mean information available to one side or the other, or the cumulative knowledge of both sides? I can think of plenty of battles where one side expected to win easily and were then handily defeated, but many are due to poor intelligence about the true strength of their enemies. If you are talking about more of an omniscient view that presumes knowledge of evey aspect on both sides of the battle, the list becomes far, far smaller.

Assuming you are talking about the latter, one that comes immediately to mind is Rourke's Drift. Even with the British advantage in training and firepower, the Zulus had a numerical advantage of almost 40:1, and that's counting several dozen men who were injured/sick and support personnel. If you list just the active duty military personnel, you're talking more in the region of a 60:1 numerical advantage. Combine this with the morale boost and loss on the respective sides from Isandlwana, the addition of firearms to the Zulu army, and the relative inexperience of the two British officers, one of whom was practically deaf, and you have a very unlikely result, at least in my opinion. True, numbers aren't everything, but in a situation like this, most military commanders probably would have expected them to be the deciding factor.

[Paradox]

I'll start out with a very classical battle. No wonder it is classical as it really was something out of the ordinary.

Cannae...

While Hannibal's forces were likely better than their Roman foes on a one to one basis (Roman losses had been considerable until then), they weren't that much better. A very significant part of his force was comprised of unruly and not terribly wellequipped Gauls.
The terrain was not for his army's preferance either. No open spaces for cavalry, the entire Roman army filled the space between the hills and the river.

By all means Hannibal should have been beaten soundly as the initial contacts went. And if we had seen the battlefield and the forces prior to the battle without knowing the leaders or circumstances of that battle, then I would say that the Romans should have won... Easily.

A lot has been made of the Roman command, and it's lack of cooperation and such. But really that wasn't that bad. They made the right decision. Bulk up, smash the enemy center and make sure the flanks are well protected. They did the things that would reinforce the usual Roman strengths, while in the case of that battlefield gave up nothing. Hindsight (and common knowledge of minute flaws) in the case of Cannae is a terrible thing as it blinds us to the 'how would/should any commander have reacted'.
Also, the popularity of this particular battle has lead to a lot of people scoffing at it, disliking it more for it's popularity than it's actual value.

The losses Hannibal's forces suffered indicate just how tough the Romans were. They were disproportionally high for the winning side in an ancient battle. Also the battle seems to have lasted a fairly long time, indicating that the cavalry didn't so much actively engage the Roman rear as much as keep them pinned while the infantry grinded into them. So had things not played out perfectly like they did, Hannibal would have been a most interesting general for specialists, but generally an unknown entity.

Don't you mean Trebia?

[Kagemusha]

Battle of Kawagoe and battle of Okehazama come quickly to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okehazama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kawagoe

[Rodion Romanovich]

do you mean information available to one side or the other, or the cumulative knowledge of both sides?

I think I mean something like the maximum amount of information that one side could find out before battle about the opponent, if he had done as good reconnaissance as was practically possible. He should also be a general who knows as much as would be realistically possible to know about the warfare of his time. If the battle victory depended partially on bad moves from the opponent, these bad moves should be attributeable to the victor and not to stupidity of the opponent.

---

Of those mentioned so far, I think that Cannae, Kawagoe and maybe Okehazama fit the description I had in mind. About Rourke's Drift I don't know enough. About Alesia, it's a matter of definition. The Gallic relief forces were given an interesting dilemma: either besiege Caesar and let their own people in the city die too, or conduct an assault for which the odds weren't too good. Once they chose to assault, the odds clearly were in Caesar's favor, even though it was probably a very hectic defense battle. What do you think would have been the odds in case of a Gallic siege of the circumvallatio? If you count Caesar's construction of the circumvallatio outside the odds, then they are clearly in favor of the Gallic forces, however.

Okehazama and Kawagoe both follow a somewhat similar pattern, I think: using confusion/night/thunderstorm and deception, in combination with launching an aggressive attack with the element of surprise on a small portion at the edge of the enemy army camp. Do you think they were originally intended as a hit-and-run attack followed by withdrawal? In any case, it developed into a total rout - not expected from the odds prior to the battle - as the confusion and lack of information probably made the enemy believe the opposing army to be much larger than it was. At least in Kawagoe, it seems like the defeated opponent was not in an extremely bad fighting condition beforehand, while in Okehazama it is claimed that it was. It's a quite nice deception: since besiegers usually expect relief attacks to come only from larger armies, the probably most clever response (for the opponent) given the lack of available information, was in fact to do the very thing that created the victory for the winning side!

[Duke John]

How about the Battle of Marengo in 1800? Napoleon had his forces spread out and didn't expect an attack. He lost the first round of the battle only to be saved by a good last stand and general Dessaix arriving with reinforcements and an excellent one-liner: "This battle is completely lost, but it is only two o'clock, there is time to win another." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marengo

[Justiciar]

Though not technically a battle, I'd say Gibraltar's Great Siege.

[TinCow]

I think I mean something like the maximum amount of information that one side could find out before battle about the opponent, if he had done as good reconnaissance as was practically possible. He should also be a general who knows as much as would be realistically possible to know about the warfare of his time. If the battle victory depended partially on bad moves from the opponent, these bad moves should be attributeable to the victor and not to stupidity of the opponent.

Ok, I like that definition. Here is another nomination:

Chancellorsville - Union forces were double the size of the Confederates, better supplied, better rested, and had a good terrain advantage. The only things the Confederates could claim superior were more experienced soldiers, better commanders, and balls the size of small nations. I doubt many men would have predicted a total Union rout under those circumstances. The result was almost entirely due to the decisions (good and bad) made by the leadership on both sides and they ran contrary to what would have been expected based on composition, supply, morale, terrain, etc.

[Paradox]

Battle of Kawagoe and battle of Okehazama come quickly to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okehazama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kawagoe

Don't forget Sekigahara, the eastern army should've lost, but the battle was lost all because the west's general wasn't exactly loved by his army. Hideyoshi's campaigns on Chugoku and Kanto also had unexpected outcomes.

[Kagemusha]

Don't forget Sekigahara, the eastern army should've lost, but the battle was lost all because the west's general wasn't exactly loved by his army. Hideyoshi's campaigns on Chugoku and Kanto also had unexpected outcomes.

Yes,but these werent against all odds. In Sekigahara both sides had chances. While Ishida Mitsunari had more troops in Sekigahara before final battle one reason for it was also that Tokugawa Hidetada was bogged down with 38000 men in besieging Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle. If these troops would have been present when the battle started the numerical superiority would have been on Tokugawa Ieasy´s side and inaction particularly of the Mori and their related contingents, Kikkawa and Kobyakawa would not made such a large impact on the battle.
For me the campaigns of Hideyoshi would be too broad of a term talk about within this instance as for example the surprise peace that was struck at the time strongest Western Clan Mori and Hideyoshi after the sudden death of Nobunaga, which freed Hideyoshi to confront Akechi Mitsuhide and beat him in order to succeed Nobunaga is hardly good material for the thread in hand so does speak.

[Paradox]

Yes,but these werent against all odds. In Sekigahara both sides had chances. While Ishida Mitsunari had more troops in Sekigahara before final battle one reason for it was also that Tokugawa Hidetada was bogged down with 38000 men in besieging Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle. If these troops would have been present when the battle started the numerical superiority would have been on Tokugawa Ieasy´s side and inaction particularly of the Mori and their related contingents, Kikkawa and Kobyakawa would not made such a large impact on the battle.
For me the campaigns of Hideyoshi would be too broad of a term talk about within this instance as for example the surprise peace that was struck at the time strongest Western Clan Mori and Hideyoshi after the sudden death of Nobunaga, which freed Hideyoshi to confront Akechi Mitsuhide and beat him in order to succeed Nobunaga is hardly good material for the thread in hand so does speak.

At first, the western army did outnumber Ieyasu's side, and Ishida Mitsunari was certainly confident of a western victory. Kikkawa, Mouri, and Koboyakawa had a VERY large impact on the battle IMO. When Koboyakawa defected, the Takahashi of Kyushu immediately switched sides to support the Koboyakawa out of fear and they weren't the only ones. Otani Yoshitsugu's death was because of Hideaki's defection in the first place, and he played a major role in the battle.

Kikkawa and Mouri also had a large impact on the battle, had it not been for Kikkawa, the Mouri would've advanced through Mt. Nangu and probably would have dealt some damage to the Tokugawa.

I think Hideyoshi's campaigns did have unexpected outcomes too, he did so much as to reach the home provinces of the Mouri, very close to occupying Aki. He overcame the Bessho, Ukita, Kikkawa, and many others in battle by either starving them to death and flooding them. I only included the Odawara campaign because of Mitsunari's flood strategy against the Hojo.

[Kagemusha]

At first, the western army did outnumber Ieyasu's side, and Ishida Mitsunari was certainly confident of a western victory. Kikkawa, Mouri, and Koboyakawa had a VERY large impact on the battle IMO. When Koboyakawa defected, the Takahashi of Kyushu immediately switched sides to support the Koboyakawa out of fear and they weren't the only ones. Otani Yoshitsugu's death was because of Hideaki's defection in the first place, and he played a major role in the battle.

Kikkawa and Mouri also had a large impact on the battle, had it not been for Kikkawa, the Mouri would've advanced through Mt. Nangu and probably would have dealt some damage to the Tokugawa.

I think Hideyoshi's campaigns did have unexpected outcomes too, he did so much as to reach the home provinces of the Mouri, very close to occupying Aki. He overcame the Bessho, Ukita, Kikkawa, and many others in battle by either starving them to death and flooding them. I only included the Odawara campaign because of Mitsunari's flood strategy against the Hojo.

I didnt say Mori,Kikkawa and Kobayakawa didnt have large effect on the battle. I sayd their contributions wouldnt have been so decisive had Tokugawa Hidetada arrived in the scene when he was supposed to. That would have turned the numbers of roughly 100000 men on Ishida´s side versus 80000 on Tokugawa´s side to 100000 Ishida against almost 110000 Tokugawa warriors.

I agree that Hideyoshi was successful on his campaign against Mori. But he was not outnumbered, but infact had lots of resources against Mori. Also it should be noted that the campaign never culminated in decisive battle against the main Mori army. Also in the Odawara campaign, it was infact the Hojo who were completely outnumbered atleast to 4:1, while Hojo had about 50000 men in their disposal, Hideyoshi had huge army of almost 200000 men in the siege.

[Paradox]

I'm curious about where you got the information about the amount of troops Hideyoshi had against the Mouri and Hojo.

[Innocentius]

100000, 80000, 100000, 50000, 200000

Those all sound like greatly overestimated numbers, especially for Japan. Are you sure your source is younger than the 19th century?

[Paradox]

If the source came from Geocities, I wouldn't trust it. I've seen those numbers on a Geocities article and I don't think it's accurate, it doesn't even cite a source.

[IrishArmenian]

I'm not too familiar with many historical battles but I am always in awe of the Fedayee victories under Zoravar Andranik, Kevork Chavush, Sepasdatsi Murat, etc. against the Ottoman forces-- talk about stalked odds.
Anyway, I think that there's one thing wrong with your theory, Rodion: the unpredictable nature of life.
That, along with other elements make commanding a tough, no-learning curve, straining and frantic business.

[Kagemusha]

Those all sound like greatly overestimated numbers, especially for Japan. Are you sure your source is younger than the 19th century?

Sekigahara and Siege of Odawara were together with Osaka summer and winter campaigns about the largest battles/ sieges in pre modern Japanese History. My information comes from various books, since i have been enthusiastic hobbyist of Japanese history for well over 15 years. These three are very well documented as they were culminations of the late Sengoku Jidai period, first the Odawara campaign was the point in which after no one could question Toyotomi Hideyoshis authority as the unifier of Japan. After the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi the Sekigahara campaign resulted in supremecy of Tokugawa Ieasy who took the title of Shogun and started the Tokugawa Shogunate and the Osaka campaign were Ieasy´s act to remove last threat to his Shogunate in form of Toyotomi Hideyori and his supporters. In these battles the forces were gathered from almost all corners of Japan and were very much different then the normal Sengoku period battles that consisted usually of no more then few thousand men on each side.
Innocentius how much have you studied Japanese history of that era? You can easily for example compare the figures how many men Hideyoshi dispatched to Korea in his invasion which is called Imjin War also and these troops were mainly only gathered from The Kuyshu daimyos. The thing about Japanese medieval history is that there are lots of documents still remaining unlike in many other countries, because no single event has effected Japan so much that those would have been lost, for example there is lot of original documents surviving and even personal letters between Daimyos, Iriki In documents, which partly can be found on net also are a good example of surviving original documents. If you want to further read about these battles there are lot of good books covering each. For example one i recently read:

Sekigahara 1600 by Anthony J. Bryant

or for General information about the era

Samurai Sourcebook by Stephen Turnbull

Also Osprey publishing has printed lots of good books concerning the era and if you want to find good online information here is your link:

http://samurai-archives.com/

[Innocentius]

Innocentius how much have you studied Japanese history of that era? You can easily for example compare the figures how many men Hideyoshi dispatched to Korea in his invasion which is called Imjin War also and these troops were mainly only gathered from The Kuyshu daimyos.

That, or I could just figure out that Japan is an island and that the world's population in the late 16th century wasn't very big.

The thing about Japanese medieval history is that there are lots of documents still remaining unlike in many other countries, because no single event has effected Japan so much that those would have been lost, for example there is lot of original documents surviving and even personal letters between Daimyos, Iriki In documents, which partly can be found on net also are a good example of surviving original documents. If you want to further read about these battles there are lot of good books covering each. For example one i recently read:

Well, there are pretty detailed sources and surviving documents and letters from Europe as well from this era, so I don't really see the difference.

[Kagemusha]

That, or I could just figure out that Japan is an island and that the world's population in the late 16th century wasn't very big.
Well, there are pretty detailed sources and surviving documents and letters from Europe as well from this era, so I don't really see the difference.

So you are claiming that the figures presented and accepted by majority of Historians are false,because you say so? Are you also saying that the figures of men participating in battles in Europe during 16th century are false? Well im not sure what to answer to your reply other then good for you.

[Innocentius]

So you are claiming that the figures presented and accepted by majority of Historians are false,because you say so? Are you also saying that the figures of men participating in battles in Europe during 16th century are false? Well im not sure what to answer to your reply other then good for you.

One should always be critical. Who are these historians of which you speak? How many are they? Are they by any chance Japanese? Are they by any chance nationalists? Did they by any chance live 60+ years ago? What other opinions on the figures are there? Who speaks in favor of those figures? Where do all these historians get their figures from? How are the men counted?

Figures of participants in Europan battles during the 16th century are most certainly false to a degree. The only way to know the real truth is to invent the time machine, go back in time and count.

History is what we make it, and if I say that only twelve men fought in Sekigahara, that's one version of the truth. The figure might have nothing to do with what really happened, but if I told some random person I met that Sekigahara was a skirmish in Japan with some twelve men involved, that would probably be what that person would regard as the truth (unless the person is of course clever enough to check it up, and find some sources and investigate them). Since you appear to know much about Japan in this era, might I ask how many people actually lived in Japan at the time? How many would have been able-bodied men? How many of those would the lords of Japan be able to enlist in their armies (how far did their authority reach)? How many would've stayed at home? How many deserters and casualties from starvation and disease would there have been pre-battle? Answer all those questions for me, and put forward some realiable sources ("Historians", and two books by western historians ain't good enough, I want to see documents from the 15th century), and I shall regard what you say as the truth, and I will fully believe in the figures that you present to me on Sekigahara.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or, to be honest, I don't really care. I'm not very interested in Japanese history other than the Mongol invasions. I just wanted to point out that you shouldn't just accept any figures presented to you by someone else.

[Kagemusha]

One should always be critical. Who are these historians of which you speak? How many are they? Are they by any chance Japanese? Are they by any chance nationalists? Did they by any chance live 60+ years ago? What other opinions on the figures are there? Who speaks in favor of those figures? Where do all these historians get their figures from? How are the men counted?

Figures of participants in Europan battles during the 16th century are most certainly false to a degree. The only way to know the real truth is to invent the time machine, go back in time and count.

History is what we make it, and if I say that only twelve men fought in Sekigahara, that's one version of the truth. The figure might have nothing to do with what really happened, but if I told some random person I met that Sekigahara was a skirmish in Japan with some twelve men involved, that would probably be what that person would regard as the truth (unless the person is of course clever enough to check it up, and find some sources and investigate them). Since you appear to know much about Japan in this era, might I ask how many people actually lived in Japan at the time? How many would have been able-bodied men? How many of those would the lords of Japan be able to enlist in their armies (how far did their authority reach)? How many would've stayed at home? How many deserters and casualties from starvation and disease would there have been pre-battle? Answer all those questions for me, and put forward some realiable sources ("Historians", and two books by western historians ain't good enough, I want to see documents from the 15th century), and I shall regard what you say as the truth, and I will fully believe in the figures that you present to me on Sekigahara.

Innocentius.Thank you for yet another sermon of yours about critical thinking here in Monastery. Do you really think i will start counting all the historians who have written about Sengoku Jidai period Japan? You must be kidding yourself, specially because it seems you know next to nothing about the subject yourself. All you had to do was to google "Iriki In documents" and you would have gained access to documents starting from 1135, but you failed to do so. Which tells a lot about your intrests to engage in this discussion.But lets give you the first figures:

According to Taiko Land Survey ordered by Toyotomi Hideyoshi the population of Japan was estimated by modern academics between 7-18 million, these estimates are based on Kokudaka, a feudal measure of income.

You can read more about it on The 'Cultural Atlas of Japan' by Collcutt, Jansen and Kumakura

With your attitude im not inclined to tell you anything else about the subject at hand since i refuse to spend my precious free time on people who are obviously here to boost their ego´s and being obnoxious. Im not here to teach you about anything, i was here to talk about what this thread was about. If you really think that you are the only person here who can think and observe issues neutrally, you seem to have a bad case of superiority complex or you are delusional. In either case have a nice day.

[Innocentius]

Wow, someone took this too seriously...

Innocentius.Thank you for yet another sermon of yours about critical thinking here in Monastery.

You're most welcome.

Do you really think i will start counting all the historians who have written about Sengoku Jidai period Japan?

No. I didn't even ask for that, but I wasn't expecting/demanding anything from you. I thought it was quite clear that I didn't really mean you should dig all those sources up - I just meant you should probably have checked them out before presenting any figures as facts (especially if they seem to be exaggerated, one of the most common historical errors in military history).

You must be kidding yourself, specially because it seems you know next to nothing about the subject yourself.

I never claimed that I did, did I? I even wrote that I'm not very interested in the subject.

All you had to do was to google "Iriki In documents" and you would have gained access to documents starting from 1135, but you failed to do so. Which tells a lot about your intrests to engage in this discussion.

Now, how was I supposed to know exactly what (seemingly random and unknown to me as a layman) Japanese phrase to focus on and Google? Of course it was very obvious to you who already knew it...

According to Taiko Land Survey ordered by Toyotomi Hideyoshi the population of Japan was estimated by modern academics between 7-18 million, these estimates are based on Kokudaka, a feudal measure of income.

You can read more about it on The 'Cultural Atlas of Japan' by Collcutt, Jansen and Kumakura

Great!

With your attitude im not inclined to tell you anything else about the subject at hand since i refuse to spend my precious free time on people who are obviously here to boost their ego´s and being obnoxious.

In my opinion, my post was written in a very neutral tone, but that's just me and it's very difficult to interpret the feelings in texts. And who's got a big ego by the way? "I know this, but my time is too precious to waste on telling you" - even though it was pretty obvious that I didn't really mean you should dig up all info about medieval Japan there ever was.

Im not here to teach you about anything, i was here to talk about what this thread was about.

And I never asked you to do anything else. All I asked was from where and when your sources originated, as the figures seemed almost outrageous. Further, I only pointed out some very basic elements on source criticism, since apparently you didn't care much for them.

If you really think that you are the only person here who can think and observe issues neutrally,

I can't, and never said I could. Where'd you get that from?

Man can never be truly neutral or objective, since the only thing we know is ourselves, and our own views on things. Thus, we can never achieve full objectivity, but that's more of a philosophical question.

you seem to have a bad case of superiority complex or you are delusional. In either case have a nice day.

Very much possible. And the same to you (even though it's ten PM).

[Paradox]

http://shogun.royalarmouries.org/press/biography.asp

Innocentius, read "The Alliance of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Toyotomi Hideyoshi" and "The Siege of Osaka Castle" parts, Kagemusha is right, and you aren't giving a good impression by denying something you know little to nothing about, research yourself, and you'll find the "truth" you seek instead of rambling about things that have nothing to do with the arguement.

[Paradox]

Now, how was I supposed to know exactly what (seemingly random and unknown to me as a layman) Japanese phrase to focus on and Google? Of course it was very obvious to you who already knew it...

This shows that you haven't read Kagemusha's previous post:

for example there is lot of original documents surviving and even personal letters between Daimyos, Iriki In documents,

[Innocentius]

http://shogun.royalarmouries.org/press/biography.asp

Innocentius, read "The Alliance of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Toyotomi Hideyoshi" and "The Siege of Osaka Castle" parts, Kagemusha is right, and you aren't giving a good impression by denying something you know little to nothing about, research yourself, and you'll find the "truth" you seek instead of rambling about things that have nothing to do with the arguement.

Are you being serious? I would've tried to keep a friendly tone (at least I thought I was doing so) but this is getting annoying:

What have I denied? Have I ever claimed I knew anything really? All I did was question the seemingly high figures of men in these wars. If being critical gives a bad impression of me, then I'm pretty happy I'm not giving a good impression, since that would probably mean to blindly accept "facts". How is Kagemusha suddenly "right"? Just because a webpage cites the same figures as he did, does that mean that's 100% correct, or could it possibly be so that those numbers are the popularly accepted ones since nobody really knows and everyone prefers if past battles were great and grand? And research myself about what? I put forward a simple question, that's that. You weren't even obliged to answer it in the first place. What truth am I seeking? When did I ever say I was seeking for the truth? Didn't I even write that we will never know the truth?

Nothing to do with the argument? Now, how is that possible? Sure, none of this has any relevance to the thread's subject, but since my question was the very reason this argument began, I can't see how it could be irrelevant. I put forward a simple question regarding source criticism, and you start speaking of how uneducated on the subject I am (which I am, and have no trouble admitting). It was Kagemusha who had the good taste to insult me and to rant about how bad a person I am (again, I am, but that hasn't got to do with the discussion). Also, the site you linked to doesn't present any sources that I can see. I'm sure the main site is very nice and all, but linking to a webpage isn't actually going to prove anything (which I never even asked you to do).

Thank you.

[Innocentius]

This shows that you haven't read Kagemusha's previous post:

And you apparently didn't read what I wrote:

Now, how was I supposed to know exactly what (seemingly random and unknown to me as a layman) Japanese phrase to focus on and Google? Of course it was very obvious to you who already knew it...

[Paradox]

So than if you saw it in his post than why didn't you go ahead and google it? Maybe if you had searched it, it wouldn't be so "random" to you. I never said you failed to keep a friendly tone, in fact, I think your post was neutral.

But since I am not obliged to answer your question, than fine...