Re: [SCA-JML] Test corrections
- 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.