- Thank you to Solveig for correcting me on certain questions. I want this
to be accurate as possible and that is another reason I wanted people to
look it over and tell me that I am wrong. If I am, then let me know. I
plan to do my best to present something accurate (which forces me to learn
more as well).
Corrections as pointed out to me:
>1. Who are the 'Three Great Daimyos' of the Sengoku Jidai (Warring StatesThe four great unifiers of Japan (according to Genroku period Japanese
sources) are: Takeda Shingen, Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and
Tokugawa Ieyasu. Technically, Tokugawa Ieyasu seized control AFTER the
end of the Sengoku period.
(Actually, most sources I have seen have said that Nobunaga, Hideyoshi,
and Ieyasu are considered the three 'Great Daimyos,' and would like to
know what other people think. I thought there was a special term for
these three Daimyous. Also, although Tokugawa Ieyasu seized control after
the Sengoku period he is still, IIRC, considered one of the great unifiers
of the time. Am I mistaken?)
>2. The war between the Taira and Minamoto families which saw the creationAhh. Actually, shougun was not the highest imperial title acquired by
>of the first shogun was:
> b. Gempei Wars
>Minamoto Yorimasa rebelled against the rule of the Taira clan and failed,
>but this prompted his cousin, Minamoto Yoritomo, to take up the fight.
>Yoritomo won the rebellion, but took the title of 'shogun' rather than
>overthrow the emperor, establishing a form of government that would last
>until the Meiji Era.
Minamoto no Yoritomo and only became important a bit later. However,
I don't know what the other alternatives on your test were. ALSO!
Minamoto no Yoritomo was most emphatically NOT the first shougun. This
office had been around for centuries by the time that Minamoto no
Yoritomo held it.
(Okay, the source I got that from was faulty then. Thank you for
correcting it. Actually, I should have realized it when I read through
it, but isn't Yoritomo responsible for giving the title the 'authority' it
carries later? If not, then what was so special about the Minamoto
>3. The Heian Period is named for what was then the capital of Japan.The capital never resided in Kamakura. Only the the headquarters
>Today, that city is known as:
> c. Kyoto
>Japan's capital has moved several times. It has resided in Nara,
>Kamakura, and Edo (later called Tokyo). The most affluent period,
>however, is usually considered to be the Heian Jidai.
of the Kamakura Bakufu ever resided there. Nor was it in Edo until
the emperor moved it there and the place was renamed Toukyou. To
the Japanese, the "capital" always refers to the court of the emperor.
The interesting period in this regard was the Nanboku period when
there were two competing capitals. (You can argue that Kamakura was
a capital <but not of Japan> briefly prior to the Genpei War. Some
historians argue that Minamoto no Yoritomo set himself up as an
independent king for a while. This was not unique. There was another
similar set up held at about the same time by I believe a Fujiwara in
the Touhoku region.)
(Okay, so what would one call the seat of the shogunate? Regardless,
wasn't it the effective seat of power despite the emperor's distance?
How do you describe this to someone?)
>16. In order to become shogun, a bushi had to be descended from whatDefinitely false. This was certainly not the case prior to Minamoto no
> d. Minamoto
>The title of shogun is granted only to those of the Minamoto clan. This
>was so important that Toytomi Hideyoshi could not become shogun because he
>rose from the ranks of the common Ashigaru. Tokugawa Ieyasu, in claiming
>the title, had historians research his geneaology to find a Minamoto
>connection. Some people claim that there is some doubt over to the
>accuracy of his claim, however, stating that the historians, after having
>presented their evidence, were not heard from again and the whole affair
>was swept under the table, as it were.
Yoritomo. Further, during the Kamakura Bakufu non-Minamoto including
princes of the blood held the office of shougun.
(Nod. See above. However, I know there was a stink over Tokugawa's
lineage, so if it wasn't strictly reserved to the Minamoto as I had been
taught, what was the reason behind Tokugawa's legitimacy vs. Toyotomi's?
Why did Tokugawa have to prove his lineage? I didn't think there was a
question about him being a member of the buke, so there must have been
more that was neccessary.)
Munetakashinou (prince of the blood)
Koreyasushinou (prince of the blood)
Hisaakishinou (prince of the blood)
Interestingly enough, the Houjou which were an offshoot of the Taira were
running the Kamakura Bakufu toward the end.
(Thank you thank you for everything! This is the kind of feedback I
want! That is why I want to post to someplace like this list before
going anywhere really public. You guys can set me straight!
- Joshua Badgley wrote:
>It is to chuckle. Shingen was good, but he was never a unifier, and I don't
> The four great unifiers of Japan (according to Genroku period Japanese
> sources) are: Takeda Shingen, Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and
> Tokugawa Ieyasu. Technically, Tokugawa Ieyasu seized control AFTER the
> end of the Sengoku period.
know of any source that so attributes him. He was never able to take out
Kenshin, who actually technically had more power and authority (as the Kanto
>Yes, he is. If it weren't for him doing the ultimate unifying, there'd have
> (Actually, most sources I have seen have said that Nobunaga, Hideyoshi,
> and Ieyasu are considered the three 'Great Daimyos,' and would like to
> know what other people think. I thought there was a special term for
> these three Daimyous. Also, although Tokugawa Ieyasu seized control after
> the Sengoku period he is still, IIRC, considered one of the great unifiers
> of the time. Am I mistaken?)
been no end to sengoku, no? Therefore his act of unification is the final act
Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Ieyasu are indeed the three unifiers.
If you want to talk about powerful and successful daimyo like Shingen, you
might as well throw in Kenshin, Date Masamune, and Mori Motonari, and a few
others I could name who did just as well.
>Actually his "highest title" was in fact Utaisho -- general of the palace
> Ahh. Actually, shougun was not the highest imperial title acquired by
> Minamoto no Yoritomo and only became important a bit later.
guard of the right. He held the post for about two weeks before resigning it
and going back to Kamakura, but ever thereafter he signed documents "Gen
Utaisho" or something like that, even after he became shogun. Why? Utaisho was
a title with oomph, and an imperial appointment a shogun was just an
>No, it was the Hojo regents who gave it the authority. That subject is an
> (Okay, the source I got that from was faulty then. Thank you for
> correcting it. Actually, I should have realized it when I read through
> it, but isn't Yoritomo responsible for giving the title the 'authority' it
> carries later? If not, then what was so special about the Minamoto
entire lecture in itself, but the readers' digest version is that if you want
to have power and authority, you have to *have* power and authority (I know,
but bear with me). So the regency was running the shogunate; but what was the
shogunate? Up till then, it had just been an ad-hoc military appointment. They
had to make it into something so they would be able to control something that
> (Okay, so what would one call the seat of the shogunate?Shogunal capital.
> Regardless,Describe what?
> wasn't it the effective seat of power despite the emperor's distance?
> How do you describe this to someone?)
The capital -- the emperor's city -- was Kyoto.
When the president's vacationing in Camp David, the capital is still
>Hideyoshi was born a peasant. He had no lineage. He did get adopted (in his
> (Nod. See above. However, I know there was a stink over Tokugawa's
> lineage, so if it wasn't strictly reserved to the Minamoto as I had been
> taught, what was the reason behind Tokugawa's legitimacy vs. Toyotomi's?
fifties!) by a Fujiwara noble, thus allowing him to take the title Kanpaku.
But by this time the shogun = Minamoto rule had become a rule. Hideyoshi
*couldn't* become shogun. Nobunaga never had the chance, either, as the Oda
were descended from the Taira.
>So he *could* be shogun. In fact, there are in existence two different
> Why did Tokugawa have to prove his lineage?
Tokugawa family trees, one going back to a Minamoto, and one (IIRC) to a
Fujiwara, "just in case." Prof. Elisonas has suggested that it's possible that
the whole "Tokugawa descended from the Minamoto" may have been a creation of
Ieyasu's to enable him to take the office, and it was so perpetuated.