Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question

Just a simple question about daimyo.

So each province/kuni had their own leading daimyo, or the kuni functioned as a family base...

Like the Uesugi has Echigyo, Tokugawa has Mikawa, Rokkaku had Omi.

Since the kuni are large and are split into districts, did the Samurai clans have a leader in each district to spread their influence?

Like, Kenshin could live at his castle (not sure where) in one distict and the others can be ruled by his loyal retainers?

Or did a province had just one single daimyo leader?

From 1336 up to about 1500/1520, each kuni had a leading daimyo : the shugo (see the list in Grossberg's Japan's Renaissance).
The shugo title appears almost up to 1570 but, in most cases, it is an empty one during the XVIth century and a kuni belongs either to one or to several Sengoku daimyo who do not possess the shugo title i.e Mino to Saitô and Izumo to Amako but Shinano, Mikawa, Harima or Aki to several warrior families. There are some exceptions : the Shimazu, shugo of Satsuma and Ôsumi, the Takeda, shugo of Kai or the Imagawa, shugo of Suruga
To take another example : Etchû and Noto are officially under two members (shugo) of the Hatakeyama family but, in fact, the first province is splitted between various vassals of the Hatakeyama among which the leading familiers are the Jimbô and the Shiina. Similarly, in Noto, the leading families, among others, are the Chô and the Yusa.
Hope I have been usefull

> Message du 07/11/10 20:39
> De : "konohawolfie"
> A : samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
>
> > Just a simple question about daimyo.
>
> So each province/kuni had their own leading daimyo, or the kuni functioned as a family base...
>
> Like the Uesugi has Echigyo, Tokugawa has Mikawa, Rokkaku had Omi.
>
> Since the kuni are large and are split into districts, did the Samurai clans have a leader in each district to spread their influence?
>
> Like, Kenshin could live at his castle (not sure where) in one distict and the others can be ruled by his loyal retainers?
>
> Or did a province had just one single daimyo leader?
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for the reply.

Looks simple..lemme make sure I have this correct.

Province control can be split with a main family's affliated vassals (from what I gathered, the result wasn't good)? And they can have their own castles too?

What about Takeda of Kai? He had the kuni all to himself?!

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Francois BOUTRY wrote:
>
> From 1336 up to about 1500/1520, each kuni had a leading daimyo : the shugo (see the list in Grossberg's Japan's Renaissance).
> The shugo title appears almost up to 1570 but, in most cases, it is an empty one during the XVIth century and a kuni belongs either to one or to several Sengoku daimyo who do not possess the shugo title i.e Mino to Saitô and Izumo to Amako but Shinano, Mikawa, Harima or Aki to several warrior families. There are some exceptions : the Shimazu, shugo of Satsuma and Ã"sumi, the Takeda, shugo of Kai or the Imagawa, shugo of Suruga
> To take another example : Etchû and Noto are officially under two members (shugo) of the Hatakeyama family but, in fact, the first province is splitted between various vassals of the Hatakeyama among which the leading familiers are the Jimbô and the Shiina. Similarly, in Noto, the leading families, among others, are the Chô and the Yusa.
> Hope I have been usefull
>
>
>
> > Message du 07/11/10 20:39
> > De : "konohawolfie"
> > A : samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
> >
> > > Just a simple question about daimyo.
> >
> > So each province/kuni had their own leading daimyo, or the kuni functioned as a family base...
> >
> > Like the Uesugi has Echigyo, Tokugawa has Mikawa, Rokkaku had Omi.
> >
> > Since the kuni are large and are split into districts, did the Samurai clans have a leader in each district to spread their influence?
> >
> > Like, Kenshin could live at his castle (not sure where) in one distict and the others can be ruled by his loyal retainers?
> >
> > Or did a province had just one single daimyo leader?
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "konohawolfie" wrote:

>
>
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Looks simple..lemme make sure I have this correct.
>
> Province control can be split with a main family's affliated vassals (from what I gathered, the result wasn't good)? And they can have their own castles too?
>
> What about Takeda of Kai? He had the kuni all to himself?!
>

No, Takeda Shingen's generals had castles throughout the province, see this map: http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6192/takeda2ot2.jpg

Yes, The Takeda were both shugo and owners of Kai province. Next to Kai, in Shinano, the shugo was nominally a member of the Ogasawara family but, in fact, the province was splitted between several clans : Ogasawara, Kiso, Murakami, Suwa, etc...

> Message du 15/11/10 00:01
> De : "konohawolfie"
> A : samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [samuraihistory] Re: Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
>
> >
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Looks simple..lemme make sure I have this correct.
>
> Province control can be split with a main family's affliated vassals (from what I gathered, the result wasn't good)? And they can have their own castles too?
>
> What about Takeda of Kai? He had the kuni all to himself?!
>
> --- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Francois BOUTRY wrote:
> >
> > From 1336 up to about 1500/1520, each kuni had a leading daimyo : the shugo (see the list in Grossberg's Japan's Renaissance).
> > The shugo title appears almost up to 1570 but, in most cases, it is an empty one during the XVIth century and a kuni belongs either to one or to several Sengoku daimyo who do not possess the shugo title i.e Mino to Saitô and Izumo to Amako but Shinano, Mikawa, Harima or Aki to several warrior families. There are some exceptions : the Shimazu, shugo of Satsuma and Ã"sumi, the Takeda, shugo of Kai or the Imagawa, shugo of Suruga
> > To take another example : Etchû and Noto are officially under two members (shugo) of the Hatakeyama family but, in fact, the first province is splitted between various vassals of the Hatakeyama among which the leading familiers are the Jimbô and the Shiina. Similarly, in Noto, the leading families, among others, are the Chô and the Yusa.
> > Hope I have been usefull
> >
> >
> >
> > > Message du 07/11/10 20:39
> > > De : "konohawolfie"
> > > A : samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > > Copie à :
> > > Objet : [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
> > >
> > > > Just a simple question about daimyo.
> > >
> > > So each province/kuni had their own leading daimyo, or the kuni functioned as a family base...
> > >
> > > Like the Uesugi has Echigyo, Tokugawa has Mikawa, Rokkaku had Omi.
> > >
> > > Since the kuni are large and are split into districts, did the Samurai clans have a leader in each district to spread their influence?
> > >
> > > Like, Kenshin could live at his castle (not sure where) in one distict and the others can be ruled by his loyal retainers?
> > >
> > > Or did a province had just one single daimyo leader?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Let me add one more thing : Takeda was the "master" of Kai through is numerous vassals as mentioned by Kitsuno

> Message du 15/11/10 00:01
> De : "konohawolfie"
> A : samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [samuraihistory] Re: Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
>
> >
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Looks simple..lemme make sure I have this correct.
>
> Province control can be split with a main family's affliated vassals (from what I gathered, the result wasn't good)? And they can have their own castles too?
>
> What about Takeda of Kai? He had the kuni all to himself?!
>
> --- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Francois BOUTRY wrote:
> >
> > From 1336 up to about 1500/1520, each kuni had a leading daimyo : the shugo (see the list in Grossberg's Japan's Renaissance).
> > The shugo title appears almost up to 1570 but, in most cases, it is an empty one during the XVIth century and a kuni belongs either to one or to several Sengoku daimyo who do not possess the shugo title i.e Mino to Saitô and Izumo to Amako but Shinano, Mikawa, Harima or Aki to several warrior families. There are some exceptions : the Shimazu, shugo of Satsuma and Ã"sumi, the Takeda, shugo of Kai or the Imagawa, shugo of Suruga
> > To take another example : Etchû and Noto are officially under two members (shugo) of the Hatakeyama family but, in fact, the first province is splitted between various vassals of the Hatakeyama among which the leading familiers are the Jimbô and the Shiina. Similarly, in Noto, the leading families, among others, are the Chô and the Yusa.
> > Hope I have been usefull
> >
> >
> >
> > > Message du 07/11/10 20:39
> > > De : "konohawolfie"
> > > A : samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > > Copie à :
> > > Objet : [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
> > >
> > > > Just a simple question about daimyo.
> > >
> > > So each province/kuni had their own leading daimyo, or the kuni functioned as a family base...
> > >
> > > Like the Uesugi has Echigyo, Tokugawa has Mikawa, Rokkaku had Omi.
> > >
> > > Since the kuni are large and are split into districts, did the Samurai clans have a leader in each district to spread their influence?
> > >
> > > Like, Kenshin could live at his castle (not sure where) in one distict and the others can be ruled by his loyal retainers?
> > >
> > > Or did a province had just one single daimyo leader?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good job Takeda.

I looked up some of the families' names that you and Kitsuno has mentioned, and it looked like were a ton of vies from Murakami and Osawagawa. Suwa became vassals when they were defeated.

Being a Lord (or ruler-Shugo) of large influence like Takeda must've been something nearly unheard of and only a few has done it.

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Francois BOUTRY wrote:
>
> Let me add one more thing : Takeda was the "master" of Kai through is numerous vassals as mentioned by Kitsuno
>
>
>
>
>
> > Message du 15/11/10 00:01
> > De : "konohawolfie"
> > A : samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : [samuraihistory] Re: Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
> >
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > Looks simple..lemme make sure I have this correct.
> >
> > Province control can be split with a main family's affliated vassals (from what I gathered, the result wasn't good)? And they can have their own castles too?
> >
> > What about Takeda of Kai? He had the kuni all to himself?!
> >
> > --- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Francois BOUTRY wrote:
> > >
> > > From 1336 up to about 1500/1520, each kuni had a leading daimyo : the shugo (see the list in Grossberg's Japan's Renaissance).
> > > The shugo title appears almost up to 1570 but, in most cases, it is an empty one during the XVIth century and a kuni belongs either to one or to several Sengoku daimyo who do not possess the shugo title i.e Mino to Saitﾃδｴ and Izumo to Amako but Shinano, Mikawa, Harima or Aki to several warrior families. There are some exceptions : the Shimazu, shugo of Satsuma and Ã"sumi, the Takeda, shugo of Kai or the Imagawa, shugo of Suruga
> > > To take another example : Etchﾃδｻ and Noto are officially under two members (shugo) of the Hatakeyama family but, in fact, the first province is splitted between various vassals of the Hatakeyama among which the leading familiers are the Jimbﾃδｴ and the Shiina. Similarly, in Noto, the leading families, among others, are the Chﾃδｴ and the Yusa.
> > > Hope I have been usefull
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Message du 07/11/10 20:39
> > > > De : "konohawolfie"
> > > > A : samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Copie à :
> > > > Objet : [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
> > > >
> > > > > Just a simple question about daimyo.
> > > >
> > > > So each province/kuni had their own leading daimyo, or the kuni functioned as a family base...
> > > >
> > > > Like the Uesugi has Echigyo, Tokugawa has Mikawa, Rokkaku had Omi.
> > > >
> > > > Since the kuni are large and are split into districts, did the Samurai clans have a leader in each district to spread their influence?
> > > >
> > > > Like, Kenshin could live at his castle (not sure where) in one distict and the others can be ruled by his loyal retainers?
> > > >
> > > > Or did a province had just one single daimyo leader?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Good Morning,I wanted to show this photo of this Japanese Bronze Temple
Bowl.It is etched with the Tokugawa Mon.It is very large 2ft tall and
wide.The base is also 2ft. tall.It was a gift from a friend frem the Ash
Housh in Devon England.She has passed away and the history as well.
I have been given an estimation that it is from around 1659-1750.
I am very intrested to know how this bowl was used.I have never seen
another like it and have been looking for the last 5years.
Thank's for your assistance Holly

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:11 AM, konohawolfie <Greywolf456@...>wrote:

>
>
> Just a simple question about daimyo.
>
> So each province/kuni had their own leading daimyo, or the kuni functioned
> as a family base...
>
> Like the Uesugi has Echigyo, Tokugawa has Mikawa, Rokkaku had Omi.
>
> Since the kuni are large and are split into districts, did the Samurai
> clans have a leader in each district to spread their influence?
>
> Like, Kenshin could live at his castle (not sure where) in one distict and
> the others can be ruled by his loyal retainers?
>
> Or did a province had just one single daimyo leader?
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

they was on the history channel last week




________________________________
From: holly lange <hollywoodlange1@...>
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 15, 2010 12:15:43 PM
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question

 
Good Morning,I wanted to show this photo of this Japanese Bronze Temple
Bowl.It is etched with the Tokugawa Mon.It is very large 2ft tall and
wide.The base is also 2ft. tall.It was a gift from a friend frem the Ash
Housh in Devon England.She has passed away and the history as well.
I have been given an estimation that it is from around 1659-1750.
I am very intrested to know how this bowl was used.I have never seen
another like it and have been looking for the last 5years.
Thank's for your assistance Holly

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:11 AM, konohawolfie <Greywolf456@...>wrote:

>
>
> Just a simple question about daimyo.
>
> So each province/kuni had their own leading daimyo, or the kuni functioned
> as a family base...
>
> Like the Uesugi has Echigyo, Tokugawa has Mikawa, Rokkaku had Omi.
>
> Since the kuni are large and are split into districts, did the Samurai
> clans have a leader in each district to spread their influence?
>
> Like, Kenshin could live at his castle (not sure where) in one distict and
> the others can be ruled by his loyal retainers?
>
> Or did a province had just one single daimyo leader?
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Perhaps someone out there knows the answer to this question, or where the answer might be found: If I were, say, part of the extended family or some low officer of the Imperial Court, what sort of credentials would I carry to prove my legitimacy? Would it be some sort of signed letter or some other sort of token? In other words, what would get me past the guards?

Thanks--

--Richard Burns





-----Original Message-----
From: gregory walker <grgrywalker@...>
To: samuraihistory <samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 12:37 am
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question




they was on the history channel last week

________________________________
From: holly lange <hollywoodlange1@...>
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 15, 2010 12:15:43 PM
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question


Good Morning,I wanted to show this photo of this Japanese Bronze Temple
Bowl.It is etched with the Tokugawa Mon.It is very large 2ft tall and
wide.The base is also 2ft. tall.It was a gift from a friend frem the Ash
Housh in Devon England.She has passed away and the history as well.
I have been given an estimation that it is from around 1659-1750.
I am very intrested to know how this bowl was used.I have never seen
another like it and have been looking for the last 5years.
Thank's for your assistance Holly

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:11 AM, konohawolfie <Greywolf456@...>wrote:

>
>
> Just a simple question about daimyo.
>
> So each province/kuni had their own leading daimyo, or the kuni functioned
> as a family base...
>
> Like the Uesugi has Echigyo, Tokugawa has Mikawa, Rokkaku had Omi.
>
> Since the kuni are large and are split into districts, did the Samurai
> clans have a leader in each district to spread their influence?
>
> Like, Kenshin could live at his castle (not sure where) in one distict and
> the others can be ruled by his loyal retainers?
>
> Or did a province had just one single daimyo leader?
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Tanuki <Cearb@...> wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps someone out there knows the answer to this question, or where the answer might be found:  If I were, say, part of the extended family or some low officer of the Imperial Court, what sort of credentials would I carry to prove my legitimacy?  Would it be some sort of signed letter or some other sort of token?  In other words, what would get me past the guards?
>

Well, tenjobito would generally, at least in Nara and Heian periods,
have gyotai--a fish shaped token. My understanding is that this was
one thing that symbolized your ability to enter into some of the more
private parts of the palace (or even just be up on the veranda vice
down on the ground).

In official attire, your outfit would be determined by your rank. For
most of the high ranking persons, though, I suspect facial recognition
was sufficient. If the guards didn't know you, they would probably
ask your name, which would be recorded and handed over to the captain
of the guard at the change.

Are those the kinds of things you are looking for?

-Josh

Josh--

That's exactly the sort of information I'm looking for -- thanks! Can you give me any more details about the gyotai, or point me to any good sources?

Domo--

--Richard




-----Original Message-----
From: JL Badgley <tatsushu@...>
To: samuraihistory <samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Nov 28, 2010 6:01 pm
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Credentials

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Tanuki <Cearb@...> wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps someone out there knows the answer to this question, or where the answer might be found: If I were, say, part of the extended family or some low officer of the Imperial Court, what sort of credentials would I carry to prove my legitimacy? Would it be some sort of signed letter or some other sort of token? In other words, what would get me past the guards?
>
Well, tenjobito would generally, at least in Nara and Heian periods,
have gyotai--a fish shaped token. My understanding is that this was
one thing that symbolized your ability to enter into some of the more
private parts of the palace (or even just be up on the veranda vice
down on the ground).

In official attire, your outfit would be determined by your rank. For
most of the high ranking persons, though, I suspect facial recognition
was sufficient. If the guards didn't know you, they would probably
ask your name, which would be recorded and handed over to the captain
of the guard at the change.

Are those the kinds of things you are looking for?

-Josh






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,
Does anyone have any information on this guy: Hiraoka Yorikatsu Born 1560. I have some info on him from Japanese Wiki. I heard that Tony mentions him in one of his books on Sekigahara. I am traveling right now, if anyone could quote or paraphrase, or if you have additional info I would be very grateful. Please also let me know your sources. Thanks.





Best
Paul




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Hiraoka were apparently a western clan. Samurai archives (dictionary) mentions Michiyori, based in Iyo province in the second half of XVIth century. Yorikatsu was an officer of Kobayakawa Hideaki at the battle of Sekigahara (Sadler, The life of Tokugawa Ieyasu). The Kobayakawa were based in the south of Aki province and were separated from Iyo province by the Inland sea but had a long and friendly relationship with clans of Iyo (notably Kawano/Kono and Murakami). I presume Michiyori and Yorikatsu were members of the same family or of branches of the Hiraoka, as well as Yoriyasu who, circa 1620 held a domain of 10.000 koku in Mino (Mass and Hauser, The Bakufu in Japanese history). As usual, the family had a special kanji : yori in this case.

> Message du 29/12/10 06:58
> De : "Paul Martin"
> A : samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : RE: [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
>
> >
> Hello,
> Does anyone have any information on this guy: Hiraoka Yorikatsu Born 1560. I have some info on him from Japanese Wiki. I heard that Tony mentions him in one of his books on Sekigahara. I am traveling right now, if anyone could quote or paraphrase, or if you have additional info I would be very grateful. Please also let me know your sources. Thanks.
>
> Best
> Paul
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you. I was looking for more specific information on Yorikatsu. I had heard that he was instrumental in the switching of sides during Sekigahara, but I need more specific info and a reliable source.

> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:49:15 -0800
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> From: BOUTRYFRANCOIS@...
> Subject: RE: [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
>
> The Hiraoka were apparently a western clan. Samurai archives (dictionary) mentions Michiyori, based in Iyo province in the second half of XVIth century. Yorikatsu was an officer of Kobayakawa Hideaki at the battle of Sekigahara (Sadler, The life of Tokugawa Ieyasu). The Kobayakawa were based in the south of Aki province and were separated from Iyo province by the Inland sea but had a long and friendly relationship with clans of Iyo (notably Kawano/Kono and Murakami). I presume Michiyori and Yorikatsu were members of the same family or of branches of the Hiraoka, as well as Yoriyasu who, circa 1620 held a domain of 10.000 koku in Mino (Mass and Hauser, The Bakufu in Japanese history). As usual, the family had a special kanji : yori in this case.
>
>
> > Message du 29/12/10 06:58
> > De : "Paul Martin"
> > A : samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : RE: [samuraihistory] Simple Sengoku Daimyo Question
> >
> > >
> > Hello,
> > Does anyone have any information on this guy: Hiraoka Yorikatsu Born 1560. I have some info on him from Japanese Wiki. I heard that Tony mentions him in one of his books on Sekigahara. I am traveling right now, if anyone could quote or paraphrase, or if you have additional info I would be very grateful. Please also let me know your sources. Thanks.
> >
> > Best
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
>
> Join the 2007 Samurai Fiction Contest: http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.htmlYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]