Oda Nobunaga and the Ikkou Ikki

After doing some reading on the Ikkou Ikki vs. Oda Nobunaga, I have
to wonder if anyone else would have been able to defeat them had
Nobunaga been killed at Okehazama, etc. The Ishiyama Honganji,
Enryakuji, etc. would have either required anyone who wanted to take
control of Japan to let them keep thier power, or would have gone to
war with them. It took Nobunaga 10 years of fighting, had Imagawa
Yoshimoto plowed over Nobunaga and went to Kyoto, would he have had a
chance against them? Most likely, he would have had to give up some
control or authority to please them, I dont see him being able to
defeat them the way Nobunaga did, and I dont see them idly sitting by
as Yoshimoto cuts into thier power and profits. Maybe Japan would
have ended up as a semi-theocracy?

Any thoughts?

--- Kitsuno <samurai-listowner@...>
wrote:

> After doing some reading on the Ikkou Ikki vs. Oda
> Nobunaga, I have
> to wonder if anyone else would have been able to
> defeat them had
> Nobunaga been killed at Okehazama, etc. The
> Ishiyama Honganji,
> Enryakuji, etc. would have either required anyone
> who wanted to take
> control of Japan to let them keep thier power, or
> would have gone to
> war with them.

This, I'll agree with.

It took Nobunaga 10 years of

> fighting, had Imagawa
> Yoshimoto plowed over Nobunaga and went to Kyoto,
> would he have had a
> chance against them? Most likely, he would have had
> to give up some
> control or authority to please them, I dont see him
> being able to
> defeat them the way Nobunaga did, and I dont see
> them idly sitting by
> as Yoshimoto cuts into thier power and profits.

Well, that's assuming Yoshimoto would have made it
past the Saito, Rokkaku, Asai, Miyoshi, et al. But
saying he did, who knows? Let's remember that Nobunaga
wasn't just occupied with war for that 10 years--he
was defeating people, yes, but then he was taking
their lands, getting stronger, etc...conceivably, if
Yoshimoto had taken Kyoto and environs and all points
in between, then HE would be the one getting stronger.
And eventually, conceivably, he would be the one with
the better generals, the bigger battalions, and would
be able to subdue the Honganji, et al.

Of course we all know that Yoshimoto was no Nobunaga,
so it's not bloody likely. I think with no Nobunaga,
it would have been much easier for a certain Tiger of
Kai to attack Yoshimoto from the rear and march into
Kyoto himself. And I think it's safe to assume that
the Takeda clan was no less talented general-wise than
the Oda, nor less spectacular in martial prowess. Who
knows?

I think you're point is not necessarily about
Yoshimoto, it's more that anyone stepping into the
breach would be hard pressed to subdue the monastic
armies, and would be forced to compromise at some
point--right? I'd agree that most likely WOULD
compromise--if the burning of Mt. Hiei was as shocking
as the chroniclers would have us believe, then it's
not likely someone else would have come up with that
extreme methodology. And being as the only other way
was to work with the various militant monastics, I'd
agree that would be likely. The religious groups had
secular power since before the Heian jidai--why stop
then?

> Maybe Japan would
> have ended up as a semi-theocracy?

Okay, now you're just being silly. Not even Yoshimoto
would have bowed to that one.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Nate Ledbetter
wrote:

> I think you're point is not necessarily about
> Yoshimoto, it's more that anyone stepping into the
> breach would be hard pressed to subdue the monastic
> armies, and would be forced to compromise at some
> point--right? I'd agree that most likely WOULD
> compromise--if the burning of Mt. Hiei was as shocking
> as the chroniclers would have us believe, then it's
> not likely someone else would have come up with that
> extreme methodology. And being as the only other way
> was to work with the various militant monastics, I'd
> agree that would be likely. The religious groups had
> secular power since before the Heian jidai--why stop
> then?

Exactly, I was just thinking in general, not Yoshimoto specifically,
but he was the easiest 2nd choice after Nobunaga. And keep in mind
that the Honganji, the Enryakuji, ikko ikki, etc were all over the
country - Omi, Ise, Aki, all over. They could cause major problems
for anyone who wants to take control. They were allowed to grow and
thrive because no one was really in control.

As for Mt. Hiei, having been there myself, I can't stress how much
sheer *audacity* he must have had to even THINK of attacking Mt.
Hiei. This is no hill, it is nearly a full mountain range. It is
HUGE. He must have been suffering from delusions of gradeur to think
that he could walk an army up the MOUNTAIN and burn it down, I can
almost guarantee that no one else would have taken that route. The
place is really huge, with cliffs and sharp drops all around, and way
way up there.

> > Maybe Japan would
> > have ended up as a semi-theocracy?
>
> Okay, now you're just being silly. Not even Yoshimoto
> would have bowed to that one.

C'mon, there are plenty of theoretical cases where this could happen.
Someone gets to Kyoto with the assistance of the Honganji, for
example and in return for the title of Shogun, the Shogun is "given"
monastic advisors and keeps funds flowing to the monasteries around
the country.

--- Kitsuno <samurai-listowner@...>
wrote:

>
> C'mon, there are plenty of theoretical cases where
> this could happen.
> Someone gets to Kyoto with the assistance of the
> Honganji, for
> example and in return for the title of Shogun, the
> Shogun is "given"
> monastic advisors and keeps funds flowing to the
> monasteries around
> the country.

Having monks as "advisers" is different from a
theocracy--though if a national government based on
religious beliefs is a theocracy, then wasn't Japan a
theocracy anyways? The Emperor is the head of state
because he's divine?

But I digress...I think if you take the Shogun out of
the picture, then there is a case for a
theocracy--monks ruling the country for monks, and not
"for" the Shogun or anyone else. The problem I see
with this is that, well, Japan's historically too darn
open to other religious viewpoints. Most theocracies
kick out other creeds in order to consolidate their
power. Can you see Jodo Shinshu getting rid of Tendai,
or vice versa? Hiei-zan would be pitted against
Honganji, not working with it. And also against
Miidera, and Kongo, and the two Zen sects...while they
(Rinzai and Soto) may not have been militant, I bet if
their existence was threatened, they soon would be.

While it may be easy to couch it in terms of Buddhist
vs. Non-Buddhist (Catholic, maybe), you don't see too
many Muslim theocracies (really the only I can think
of in existence these days, besides the Vatican) being
shared between Sunni and Shiite, do you?

Wow, digression...



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Indeed it would be almost impossible to imagine a theocracy in terms on a post-Revolutionary Iran per se, but the "theocratic" element plays a strong role throughout Japanese history. As has been mentioned, the Emperor was ("is" if you were to read some nationalist writers or some of nationalist elements you bump into around Hiroshima) an incarnate descendant of the kami. During the Heian/Kamakura/Muromachi jidai, the Kenmon temples (see Kuroda Toshio or Adolphson "Gates of Power") played a huge role in the formulation of government methods and activities, and the 'goso' were seen as an 'acceptable', if unwelcome, disturbance to the streets of the capital, in terms of expression of aims and objections. Their objections were listened to, not just because Kyoto was so poorly policed, but because the authorities feared the presence on the streets of the mikoshi (portable shrines). Of course, this didn't make for a theocracy (or "semi-theocracy"; can one have a state that is
'semi-communist' or 'semi-fascist'?), but the religious institutions held a large sway, and Buddhist/Shinto/Taoist/Confucian/Shamanist religiousity permeated society from the rituals of the court to the matsuri in the fields. When the Ikko-Ikki erupted in the 1480s (until the destruction of Nagashima and the Ishiyama Honganji, the Hokke-Ikko overwhelmed in the capital (1532-36), and Enryakui assisted the enemies of Nobunaga, they were then destroyed. Nobunaga undertook measures not witnessed since the Taira destruction of Nara, and for similar reasons; the sects had overstepped the mark and become too embroiled in the secular world, and interferred in their plans. This said, other than the Hokke-ikko of the 1530s, none of the sects marched on the capital with an eye to its capture and the installation of a national regime based upon any particular sect's beliefs. Even Nichiren in the 13th century did not oppose the Shogun because of his authority, but objected to the bakufu's
alleged slander of the Dharma. Opposition was one thing; outright theocracy (in terms of Iran, or at a push the Vatican City State) was a step the sects didn't (at least openly) contemplate.
M.Lorimer



Nate Ledbetter <ltdomer98@...> wrote:

--- Kitsuno <samurai-listowner@...>
wrote:

>
> C'mon, there are plenty of theoretical cases where
> this could happen.
> Someone gets to Kyoto with the assistance of the
> Honganji, for
> example and in return for the title of Shogun, the
> Shogun is "given"
> monastic advisors and keeps funds flowing to the
> monasteries around
> the country.

Having monks as "advisers" is different from a
theocracy--though if a national government based on
religious beliefs is a theocracy, then wasn't Japan a
theocracy anyways? The Emperor is the head of state
because he's divine?

But I digress...I think if you take the Shogun out of
the picture, then there is a case for a
theocracy--monks ruling the country for monks, and not
"for" the Shogun or anyone else. The problem I see
with this is that, well, Japan's historically too darn
open to other religious viewpoints. Most theocracies
kick out other creeds in order to consolidate their
power. Can you see Jodo Shinshu getting rid of Tendai,
or vice versa? Hiei-zan would be pitted against
Honganji, not working with it. And also against
Miidera, and Kongo, and the two Zen sects...while they
(Rinzai and Soto) may not have been militant, I bet if
their existence was threatened, they soon would be.

While it may be easy to couch it in terms of Buddhist
vs. Non-Buddhist (Catholic, maybe), you don't see too
many Muslim theocracies (really the only I can think
of in existence these days, besides the Vatican) being
shared between Sunni and Shiite, do you?

Wow, digression...



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.



---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

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

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Nate Ledbetter
wrote:

>
> --- Kitsuno
> wrote:
> >
> > C'mon, there are plenty of theoretical cases where
> > this could happen.
> > Someone gets to Kyoto with the assistance of the
> > Honganji, for
> > example and in return for the title of Shogun, the
> > Shogun is "given"
> > monastic advisors and keeps funds flowing to the
> > monasteries around
> > the country.
>
> Having monks as "advisers" is different from a
> theocracy--though if a national government based on
> religious beliefs is a theocracy, then wasn't Japan a
> theocracy anyways? The Emperor is the head of state
> because he's divine?

I meant it in the lightest sense (hence "SEMI-Theocracy) ;)
Could one have really united the country under one rule without the
cooperation or destruction of the Ikko Ikki? That was sort of my
point, or one of them. Meaning, in the invented theoretical case
above, if the Shogun is a puppet for the Buddhists, they have
control, and it therefore would be in thier interest to be theocratic
about things. Unlike all of the previous times, Japan was broken up
completely by independent Daimyo, and I guess you could look on the
Enryakuji, etc. in a similar way. That being the case, they are as
much an impediment to one uniting the country as an enemy daimyo. In
which case you either work with them or against them. And what
would "working with them" entail?

But all that is just a side question/comment to the original - which
was what would the most likely event be if someone else not as
completely and utterly iron fisted against the Ikko Ikki et all as
Nobunaga had tried to unify the country. Nobunaga didnt stop at
Enryakuji, it was policy for his armies to slaughter men, women,
children, and the old who were in any way associated with the ikko
ikki fortresses he brought down.

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Michael Lorimer
wrote:

> Indeed it would be almost impossible to imagine a theocracy in

terms on a post-Revolutionary Iran per se, but the "theocratic"
element plays a strong role throughout Japanese history. As has been
mentioned, the Emperor was ("is" if you were to read some nationalist
writers or some of nationalist elements you bump into around
Hiroshima) an incarnate descendant of the kami. During the
Heian/Kamakura/Muromachi jidai, the Kenmon temples (see Kuroda Toshio
or Adolphson "Gates of Power") played a huge role in the formulation
of government methods and activities, and the 'goso' were seen as
an 'acceptable', if unwelcome, disturbance to the streets of the
capital, in terms of expression of aims and objections. Their
objections were listened to, not just because Kyoto was so poorly
policed, but because the authorities feared the presence on the
streets of the mikoshi (portable shrines). Of course, this didn't
make for a theocracy (or "semi-theocracy"; can one have a state that
is

> 'semi-communist' or 'semi-fascist'?), but the religious

institutions held a large sway, and
Buddhist/Shinto/Taoist/Confucian/Shamanist religiousity permeated
society from the rituals of the court to the matsuri in the fields.
When the Ikko-Ikki erupted in the 1480s (until the destruction of
Nagashima and the Ishiyama Honganji, the Hokke-Ikko overwhelmed in
the capital (1532-36), and Enryakui assisted the enemies of Nobunaga,
they were then destroyed. Nobunaga undertook measures not witnessed
since the Taira destruction of Nara, and for similar reasons; the
sects had overstepped the mark and become too embroiled in the
secular world, and interferred in their plans. This said, other than
the Hokke-ikko of the 1530s, none of the sects marched on the capital
with an eye to its capture and the installation of a national regime
based upon any particular sect's beliefs. Even Nichiren in the 13th
century did not oppose the Shogun because of his authority, but
objected to the bakufu's

> alleged slander of the Dharma. Opposition was one thing; outright

theocracy (in terms of Iran, or at a push the Vatican City State) was
a step the sects didn't (at least openly) contemplate.

> M.Lorimer
>

Although they never marched on the capital or pushed theocracy, and
maybe never intended to - anyone who wanted to unify the country
would have to deal with them in one way or another, and I suspect Oda
Nobunaga was one of the few who would have been so iron-fisted.
Others might have tried to compromise with them, which might have led
to concessions for them, or even in a few theoretical instances, led
to political concessions that added to their political power base.

We all know that Nobunaga was an extremist, and utterly cruel when dealing with his enemies, perhaps the burning of Mt. Hiei was far too extreme solution, but is also neccesary mention that the Ikko-Ikki was a great obstacle between any daimyo and an effective shogunate. If Nobunaga had'nt destroyed the Ikko-Ikki, another daimyo would, we also could go as far as wonder: what if Nobunaga were killed trying to destroy them?, would hideyoshi become the next power on the land?


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

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

> I meant it in the lightest sense (hence
> "SEMI-Theocracy) ;)
> Could one have really united the country under one
> rule without the
> cooperation or destruction of the Ikko Ikki?

Okay, I can work with this...and my answer is no. Too
strong of a "national" movement (in the sense of it
being spread throughout the populace almost
nationwide, rather than being a political force in the
"national" capital), I think.

That being the

> case, they {the Enryakuji, et al} are as
> much an impediment to one uniting the country as an
> enemy daimyo.

Hence their destruction at the hands of Nobunaga.
While most still held some respect for their religious
position, Nobunaga simply saw them as an impediment to
political consolidation (under himself, of course!).

In

> which case you either work with them or against
> them. And what
> would "working with them" entail?

Good question. Um...most likely, confirming their land
holdings, possibly/probably giving them more, and
trying to convince them to at least not attack you
from behind, if not help against your enemies. Same
things you do to get another daimyo on your
side--convince him helping you is to his advantage
with land and stuff.

>
> But all that is just a side question/comment to the
> original - which
> was what would the most likely event be if someone
> else not as
> completely and utterly iron fisted against the Ikko
> Ikki et all as
> Nobunaga had tried to unify the country. Nobunaga
> didnt stop at
> Enryakuji, it was policy for his armies to slaughter
> men, women,
> children, and the old who were in any way associated
> with the ikko
> ikki fortresses he brought down.

I think either someone else (Shingen?) would have
eventually been just as ruthless. Hideyoshi isn't
played up as a bad guy because he wasn't nearly as
often as Nobunaga, but he could be when he wanted to
be. His destruction of the Negoro-ji isn't talked
about as much, because Nobunaga already set the
precedent and took the heat.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, Nate Ledbetter
wrote:

>
> > I meant it in the lightest sense (hence
> > "SEMI-Theocracy) ;)
> > Could one have really united the country under one
> > rule without the
> > cooperation or destruction of the Ikko Ikki?
>
> Okay, I can work with this...and my answer is no. Too
> strong of a "national" movement (in the sense of it
> being spread throughout the populace almost
> nationwide, rather than being a political force in the
> "national" capital), I think.
>
> That being the
> > case, they {the Enryakuji, et al} are as
> > much an impediment to one uniting the country as an
> > enemy daimyo.
>
> Hence their destruction at the hands of Nobunaga.
> While most still held some respect for their religious
> position, Nobunaga simply saw them as an impediment to
> political consolidation (under himself, of course!).
>
> In
> > which case you either work with them or against
> > them. And what
> > would "working with them" entail?
>
> Good question. Um...most likely, confirming their land
> holdings, possibly/probably giving them more, and
> trying to convince them to at least not attack you
> from behind, if not help against your enemies. Same
> things you do to get another daimyo on your
> side--convince him helping you is to his advantage
> with land and stuff.
>
> >
> > But all that is just a side question/comment to the
> > original - which
> > was what would the most likely event be if someone
> > else not as
> > completely and utterly iron fisted against the Ikko
> > Ikki et all as
> > Nobunaga had tried to unify the country. Nobunaga
> > didnt stop at
> > Enryakuji, it was policy for his armies to slaughter
> > men, women,
> > children, and the old who were in any way associated
> > with the ikko
> > ikki fortresses he brought down.
>
> I think either someone else (Shingen?) would have
> eventually been just as ruthless. Hideyoshi isn't
> played up as a bad guy because he wasn't nearly as
> often as Nobunaga, but he could be when he wanted to
> be. His destruction of the Negoro-ji isn't talked
> about as much, because Nobunaga already set the
> precedent and took the heat.

Well, the ikko ikki, etc. are a little different than a clan headed
by a Daimyo, they dont really have "lands" per se, nor do they really
have a "daimyo" who you can kill to send the armies scattering to the
winds. They are almost like a hydra, every time you cut off a head,
two more grow back - just like any good fanatical religious
movement. I think Nobunaga did the only thing that would have really
worked - wipe them off the map - because they had been independent
and growing for so long, I doubt they would have bowed to anyone,
hence the idle thought of a semi-theocracy - but not so much to teach
and force religion, but just so that they could consolodate political
power and thier own lands, profits, and holdings, etc.

--- Kitsuno <samurai-listowner@...>
wrote:

>>
> Well, the ikko ikki, etc. are a little different
> than a clan headed
> by a Daimyo, they dont really have "lands" per se,
> nor do they really
> have a "daimyo" who you can kill to send the armies
> scattering to the
> winds.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was
specifically thinking more of the established temples
like the Enryakuji, which DO have a daimyo (an abbot),
DID have lands, etc. You're correct, the Ikko-ikki
were more a localized phenomenon that spread
nationally, but they DID have a national HQ in the the
Ishiyama-Honganji, and a national leader in Abbot
Kenyo. I'll point out that once he surrendered to
Nobunaga, you don't hear too much about Ikko
uprisings.

I think Nobunaga did the only thing that

> would have really
> worked - wipe them off the map - because they had
> been independent
> and growing for so long, I doubt they would have
> bowed to anyone,
> hence the idle thought of a semi-theocracy - but not
> so much to teach
> and force religion, but just so that they could
> consolodate political
> power and thier own lands, profits, and holdings,
> etc.

Did he wipe them off the map? I think they just
accepted they weren't going to win. They continued to
exist--apparently strong enough that Ieyasu had to
manufacture a split in the sect later on, hence the
Nishi and Higashi Honganji temples...



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

In a message dated 9/8/2004 12:28:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, responding to
Kitsuno, Thus Sprach Nate:

> Well, that's assuming Yoshimoto would have made it past the Saito, Rokkaku,
> Asai, Miyoshi, et al.

Hey.
Assuming the Imagawa had won at Okehazama (and Nobunaga anyway, but
possibly also both the then-future Toyotomi and Tokugawa, killed, as were they
not on the same side at this time?) and continued on toward Kyoto, was the Asai
really among the clans they would have faced? Now, the Rokkaku, I
understand, being the daimyo in southern Omi. Would the Asai not have been too far
west? And the Saito all but out of the way completely? Or was it just that they
were other power-broking clans that would have to have been dealt with? Or
would the Asai have been trouble for them by virtue of being a Nobunaga ally?
And as far as the Ikko Ikki needing to be dealt with, it wasn't a
choice of cooperation. Either you wipe them out or they wipe YOU out. So in that
respect, I agree with what Nobunaga did.
Just my own thoughts. :-) Take care.

L8r
Tim


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

--- Eponymous13@... wrote:

> Hey.
> Assuming the Imagawa had won at Okehazama
> (and Nobunaga anyway, but
> possibly also both the then-future Toyotomi and
> Tokugawa, killed, as were they
> not on the same side at this time?) and continued on
> toward Kyoto, was the Asai
> really among the clans they would have faced? Now,
> the Rokkaku, I
> understand, being the daimyo in southern Omi. Would
> the Asai not have been too far
> west? And the Saito all but out of the way
> completely? Or was it just that they
> were other power-broking clans that would have to
> have been dealt with? Or
> would the Asai have been trouble for them by virtue
> of being a Nobunaga ally?

You don't have to be directly on the road to Kyoto to
be a problem. Look at Asakura Yoshikage for Nobunaga.
The Saito controlled the road to Kyoto--the Tokaido
and Nakasendo intersect at this wee village named
Sekigahara, which is smack in the middle of Mino. And
the Asai, well, they are close enough that they'd be
an issue if they wanted to be. As for allies--they
weren't allied to Nobunaga until much later, so that's
not it.

> And as far as the Ikko Ikki needing to be
> dealt with, it wasn't a
> choice of cooperation. Either you wipe them out or
> they wipe YOU out. So in that
> respect, I agree with what Nobunaga did.
> Just my own thoughts. :-) Take care.
>
> L8r
> Tim
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Can anyone give me some information about the battle at Mt.Hiei????

Edy



Nate Ledbetter <ltdomer98@...> wrote:
--- Eponymous13@... wrote:

> Hey.
> Assuming the Imagawa had won at Okehazama
> (and Nobunaga anyway, but
> possibly also both the then-future Toyotomi and
> Tokugawa, killed, as were they
> not on the same side at this time?) and continued on
> toward Kyoto, was the Asai
> really among the clans they would have faced? Now,
> the Rokkaku, I
> understand, being the daimyo in southern Omi. Would
> the Asai not have been too far
> west? And the Saito all but out of the way
> completely? Or was it just that they
> were other power-broking clans that would have to
> have been dealt with? Or
> would the Asai have been trouble for them by virtue
> of being a Nobunaga ally?

You don't have to be directly on the road to Kyoto to
be a problem. Look at Asakura Yoshikage for Nobunaga.
The Saito controlled the road to Kyoto--the Tokaido
and Nakasendo intersect at this wee village named
Sekigahara, which is smack in the middle of Mino. And
the Asai, well, they are close enough that they'd be
an issue if they wanted to be. As for allies--they
weren't allied to Nobunaga until much later, so that's
not it.

> And as far as the Ikko Ikki needing to be
> dealt with, it wasn't a
> choice of cooperation. Either you wipe them out or
> they wipe YOU out. So in that
> respect, I agree with what Nobunaga did.
> Just my own thoughts. :-) Take care.
>
> L8r
> Tim
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.




Eddy



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

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