On Jun 29, 2004, at 7:52 PM, zevlord wrote:
> Hi all another questions on swords.
> Was just wondering if anyone knows much about the blades of the
> Samurai sword. Swords are classified into categories by the length of
> its blade if i'm correct, for example a katana is a katana due to its
> blade being over two SHAKU. But what about the style and shape of the
> blade, can a Katana be a Torii Sori style with a Unokubi � zukuri
> shape.� Also could you help my with this:
> "Koa Isshin Mantetsu with Buke Zukuri Koshirae"
> I think the Buke Zukuri Koshirae is some sort of mounting style. And
> I guess the Koa Isshin Mantetsu is the shape of the blade maybe? Any
> help would be great.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> � To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/
> �
> � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> � Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> how long is a SHAKU ???one shaku equals approximately 12 inches or 30 centimeters
>how long is a SHAKU ???Like most things, the answer is actually "it depends". There is a
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlo Tacchini" <TSUBAME1@...>
To: <samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 10:30 PM
Subject: R: [samuraihistory] Re: Another sword question
> Another possible theory is that Kodachi is only an older (or another)
> name for the companion sword that changed during the times. Once, the
> companion sword wasn't regulated by length-rules and it went from
> something like a long Tanto for collecting heads or close combat in full
> armor (IoroiDoshi) till to short swords, often in hirazukuri style. The
> worldwide known ShinogiZukuri style Wakizashi as a smaller replica of
> the main blade went in fashion later, even if ShinogiZukuri wasn't an
> obligation for such blades.
> So, a matter of time and names, or how we use the words rather than
> styles and length, in my opinion.
>
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> andrea Smith wrote:
>
> Re: Another sword question
>
> I think the difference is that the kodachi is a bit longer than a
> wakizashi, correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Mmupton1@... wrote:What's the difference between a Kodachi and a
> Wakasashi?
> -mattyboi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> May I take this opportunity of wishing all theThank you much, and God Save the Queen to you too!
> colonial members (joke!)of
> this list a happy Independence Day.
> Regards
> Clive Sinclaire
> May I take this opportunity of wishing all theThank you much, and God Save the Queen to you too!
> colonial members (joke!)of
> this list a happy Independence Day.
> Regards
> Clive Sinclaire
> What's the difference between a Kodachi and a Wakasashi?At work so will have to be quick
> -mattyboi
----- Original Message -----
From: zevlord
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 12:03 AM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: Another sword question
--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Mmupton1@c... wrote:
> What's the difference between a Kodachi and a Wakasashi?
> -mattyboi
At work so will have to be quick
A Kodachi is a small Tachi: Tachi Blade length being over 2 Shaku
Wakizashi is a smaller sword: Blade length being between 1 and 2
shaku.
However, kodachi is often used as a generic term for short sword, and
so may also be used to refer to a wakizashi. Sorry it's brief.
---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I am new to the group, and am completely ignorant in comparision to otherWell, I hate to tell you this, but there was no "discipline" or "spiritual way
> members vast knowledge of the samurai. I am mostly interested in the moral
> code and the discipline they lived by. If I am an annoyance to this group, I
> will terminate my membership immediately. However, if anyone has anything to
> share in relation to the Samurai's discipline, and spiritual way of life----
> I am all ears.
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen, as temporary list moderator,Dean Wayland
> I've had to reject two messages from a certain
> individual in the past day. Granted, these were
> emotional childish outbursts laced with the "f" word,
> but the underlying issue is that we weren't kind
> enough to answer what a "daimyo" is for the young man.
>
>
> Yes, I understand that if you do a google search you
> should find an answer in about .03 nanoseconds. Yes, I
> also understand that we are not a crutch for people
> who don't want to do research. That being said, here's
> a short answer that hopefully will suffice:
>
> Daimo: "Great Name" a feudal lord of the samurai class
> in pre-Meiji Japan. Daimyo were generally considered
> the pre-eminent ruler in their fief, and controlled
> everything that happened therein. Prior to the
> Tokugawa Shogunate, the Daimyo were essentially
> "warlords" controlling territory by force of arms,
> enlarging it as they could. Subsequently, they held
> their fiefs either by being granted them by the
> Shogunate, or with the Shogunate's permission,
> anyways. Daimyo had an army of samurai retainers,
> generally speaking, to maintain order in their domains
> and to fight wars when necessary. Once the Tokugawa
> period began, there was a minimum income to be
> considered a "daimyo"--I don't know off hand what it
> was, but I'm sure you can look it up somewhere.
>
> There's a basic answer.
> Hi, I've just been reading my back messages, and I feel thatalthough I
> understand why some folks feel the way they do about what theyconsider
> as simplistic questions, that they were unduly harsh on the chapasking
> about daimyo. Remember, that sometimes it takes a little courageto post
> in a field where you know nothing, and receiving such a hostilewould
> reception can kill a budding interest in a subject stone dead. I
> suggest that if you feel a questioner's enquiry is not worthy ofyour
> time and efforts to reply to, then, simply don't. Leave it tosomeone
> else, and if no one wishes to reply, so be it. Sometimes I finddealing
> with so-called "simple" questions makes me rethink my ownassumptions
> about the knowledge that I "think" I have in the subject beingincome
> considered, and thus helps me to master it:-)
>
> Finally to add a piece to Nate's answer re daimyo: the required
> during the Tokugawa shogunate or Edo era (1600-1868) to beconsidered as
> a daimyo was 10,000 koku. One koku was the amount of rice requiredto
> feed one person for one year, and served as a measure of wealthfor what
> was fundamentally an agricultural society. A koku is a fractionover 180
> litres of rice or about 300 pounds in weight. Will Adams, the firsthis
> Englishman in Japan, in a letter dated 1611 recounted that he and
> crew were each given an income of "2 pounds of rice a day", whichis 2.4
> koku a year. IIRC to be a samurai you had to have an incomeexceeding
> 1,000 koku, while the richest daimyo in the land Tokugawa Ieyasu,the
> first of the Edo era shogun's had an income of over 4 million kokua
> year!.hope
>
> I hope the chap who posted has hung around to read this, if so I
> you find this stuff useful.
>
> Yours
>
> Dean
> Tom Stewart wrote:I am mostly interested in the moral
>
> > code and the discipline they lived by. > Well, I hate to tellyou this, but there was no "discipline" or "spiritual way
> of life."I am trying to remember the book I read which dealt with the
>
> You've bought into the myth.
>Finally to add a piece to Nate's answer re daimyo: the required incomeSo far as I know, anyone holding a fief directly from the shogun with a kokudaka (rice assessment) of 10,000 koku per annum was ranked as a daimyo, but in certain large han the greatest of the domainal samurai held fiefs from the daimyo exceeding 10,000 koku -- I know of one who had 30,000 koku.
>during the Tokugawa shogunate or Edo era (1600-1868) to be considered as
>a daimyo was 10,000 koku.
>One koku was the amount of rice required toIn much of Japan (except the region immediately around Kyoto) the assessment in the Sengoku was in kandaka, which is to say in money terms rather than rice. I'm still digging into the story of the transition to the kokudaka system, which took place under Hideyoshi.
>feed one person for one year, and served as a measure of wealth for what
>was fundamentally an agricultural society. A koku is a fraction over 180
>litres of rice or about 300 pounds in weight.
>Will Adams, the firstThere was a difference between one's kokudaka and income. The kokudaka was the nominal productive capacity of the fief, while the tax revenues varied but were usually around 30% to 40% of the kokudaka. If you were a low-ranked stipendiary rather than a fief-holder your stipend might be reckoned in hyo of 0.35 koku, so that a man with a stipend of 100 hyo actually received 35 koku (when not required to make a "loan" to his daimyo or shogun). Generally, one whose stipend was stated in koku rather than hyo had higher status, but got no more. That is, a stipend of 100 koku would bring in about the same net income as one of 100 hyo.
>Englishman in Japan, in a letter dated 1611 recounted that he and his
>crew were each given an income of "2 pounds of rice a day", which is 2.4
>koku a year.
>IIRC to be a samurai you had to have an income exceedingNo. It is reckoned that the greatest number of shogunal housemen had stipends of only 30 to 70 hyo. Needless to say, this meant miserable poverty unless one found other ways to augment it. In 1700 in Okayama han, 93 samurai were recorded as having less than 10 hyo, and in 1840-44 there were more than 1,000 with less than 20 hyo. It was quite impossible to live on less than 10 hyo (3.5 koku of rice income) and impossible to do more than merely subsist on less than 20 -- all these men had to find some way of supplementing their incomes quite substantially. In some rural han, stipends as low as 4 hyo equivalent were recorded, although it is thought that these were men with only nominal samurai duties who really were farmers.
>1,000 koku,
>while the richest daimyo in the land Tokugawa Ieyasu, theThis was Iyasu's kokudaka, not his income. Recall that the entire direct expense of the bakufu was borne out of the shogun's lands, since he received no tax revenues from the han. Thus his kokudaka was not so munificent as might seem.
>first of the Edo era shogun's had an income of over 4 million koku a
>year!
> At 07:19 7/5/2004, Dean Wayland wrote:Dean Wayland
>
> >Finally to add a piece to Nate's answer re daimyo: the required
> income
> >during the Tokugawa shogunate or Edo era (1600-1868) to be
> considered as
> >a daimyo was 10,000 koku.
>
> So far as I know, anyone holding a fief directly from the shogun
> with a kokudaka (rice assessment) of 10,000 koku per annum was
> ranked as a daimyo, but in certain large han the greatest of the
> domainal samurai held fiefs from the daimyo exceeding 10,000 koku
> -- I know of one who had 30,000 koku.
>
> >One koku was the amount of rice required to
> >feed one person for one year, and served as a measure of wealth
> for what
> >was fundamentally an agricultural society. A koku is a fraction
> over 180
> >litres of rice or about 300 pounds in weight.
>
> In much of Japan (except the region immediately around Kyoto) the
> assessment in the Sengoku was in kandaka, which is to say in money
> terms rather than rice. I'm still digging into the story of the
> transition to the kokudaka system, which took place under
> Hideyoshi.
>
> >Will Adams, the first
> >Englishman in Japan, in a letter dated 1611 recounted that he and
> his
> >crew were each given an income of "2 pounds of rice a day", which
> is 2.4
> >koku a year.
>
> There was a difference between one's kokudaka and income. The
> kokudaka was the nominal productive capacity of the fief, while the
> tax revenues varied but were usually around 30% to 40% of the
> kokudaka. If you were a low-ranked stipendiary rather than a
> fief-holder your stipend might be reckoned in hyo of 0.35 koku, so
> that a man with a stipend of 100 hyo actually received 35 koku
> (when not required to make a "loan" to his daimyo or shogun).
> Generally, one whose stipend was stated in koku rather than hyo had
> higher status, but got no more. That is, a stipend of 100 koku
> would bring in about the same net income as one of 100 hyo.
>
> According to _Learning from Shogun_, William Adams (he never called
> himself "Will", noble a name though it be) held a fief with a
> kokudaka of 250 koku, comprising the villiage of Hemimura in what
> is today Yokusuka. This was quite a substantial property and
> implies a certain dignity to his station. Indeed, there is reason
> to believe that he wore the two swords of the samurai, although he
> almost certainly was not regarded as a samurai per se.
>
> >IIRC to be a samurai you had to have an income exceeding
> >1,000 koku,
>
> No. It is reckoned that the greatest number of shogunal housemen
> had stipends of only 30 to 70 hyo. Needless to say, this meant
> miserable poverty unless one found other ways to augment it. In
> 1700 in Okayama han, 93 samurai were recorded as having less than
> 10 hyo, and in 1840-44 there were more than 1,000 with less than 20
> hyo. It was quite impossible to live on less than 10 hyo (3.5 koku
> of rice income) and impossible to do more than merely subsist on
> less than 20 -- all these men had to find some way of supplementing
> their incomes quite substantially. In some rural han, stipends as
> low as 4 hyo equivalent were recorded, although it is thought that
> these were men with only nominal samurai duties who really were
> farmers.
>
> A swordsmith (who was not a samurai, of course) might have 100 hyo,
> and other valued specialist craftsmen often got 50 or more.
>
> >while the richest daimyo in the land Tokugawa Ieyasu, the
> >first of the Edo era shogun's had an income of over 4 million koku
> a
> >year!
>
> This was Iyasu's kokudaka, not his income. Recall that the entire
> direct expense of the bakufu was borne out of the shogun's lands,
> since he received no tax revenues from the han. Thus his kokudaka
> was not so munificent as might seem.
>
> Will O'Neil
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
> click here
> http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
>:HM/A=2128215/rand=491360975
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen, as temporary list moderator,Dean Wayland
> I've had to reject two messages from a certain
> individual in the past day. Granted, these were
> emotional childish outbursts laced with the "f" word,
> but the underlying issue is that we weren't kind
> enough to answer what a "daimyo" is for the young man.
>
>
> Yes, I understand that if you do a google search you
> should find an answer in about .03 nanoseconds. Yes, I
> also understand that we are not a crutch for people
> who don't want to do research. That being said, here's
> a short answer that hopefully will suffice:
>
> Daimo: "Great Name" a feudal lord of the samurai class
> in pre-Meiji Japan. Daimyo were generally considered
> the pre-eminent ruler in their fief, and controlled
> everything that happened therein. Prior to the
> Tokugawa Shogunate, the Daimyo were essentially
> "warlords" controlling territory by force of arms,
> enlarging it as they could. Subsequently, they held
> their fiefs either by being granted them by the
> Shogunate, or with the Shogunate's permission,
> anyways. Daimyo had an army of samurai retainers,
> generally speaking, to maintain order in their domains
> and to fight wars when necessary. Once the Tokugawa
> period began, there was a minimum income to be
> considered a "daimyo"--I don't know off hand what it
> was, but I'm sure you can look it up somewhere.
>
> There's a basic answer.
> Ryoshu Daimyo were caslte-less, as I read on another post. Wheredid they live? Amongst who, villages, farms? Who did they rule?
> 200-300 Daimyo families during the Tokugawa era. How many were inthe family? Who and why did they fight? Who trains Daimyo?
> Did they train their young?Of course.
> I realize the simplicity of the questions again, and maybe some ofthem don't make any sense -- but, I need this information. I'm