ranks

What were the ranks of a samurai army?

--- Ijin Mibu <ijinmibu@...> wrote:

> What were the ranks of a samurai army?

Short answer: there weren't any, in the modern sense.

Since this question comes up about once every 2 months
or so, here's the canned "Beta" version of the
response, written by Tony, stealing my examples. :)

"There is no connection with modern "rank" as we know
it in discussing samurai armies.

The thing is, it is VERY important to divorce the
concept of terminology of MILITARY rank from samurai
-- they just don't operate on the same level. There's
rank, yes, but that's SOCIAL rank, not military rank.
It's the critical division between HAVING rank (e.g.,
a duke, a baron, a flunky) and HOLDING rank (e.g., a
general, a captain, a PFC).

The historical samurai army was a FEUDAL army, not a
modern one with rank structures in place. As a friend
of mine [that would be me--lt] once pointed out, you
don't "join" a samurai army as an "ashigaru 2nd class"
and work your way up to "1st samurai."

As a feudal structure, the army was vertical;
authority went up and down within the specific clan or
alliance affiliation.

The basic "rank" was taisho(which can be translated
variously as general, lieutenant, captain, commander,
etc.). Essentially, a taisho commands a body of men.
Period. It depends on his relationship with others as
how you define it. For example, on his own, you can
call Honda Tadakatsu a great general. But in terms of
his relationship to Tokugawa Ieyasu, he would be
typically called "one of Ieyasu's best generals," "one
of Ieyasu's best lieutenants," or "one of Ieyasu's
best captains." All of those refer to the JOBS
(generals command, and captains and lieutenants lead
but serve UNDER someone else), not to ranks.

I think people would generally be surprised at how
modern the concept of rank-structure in armies is.
Actually, the Romans were very rank/office set with
the way they did their legions (the first modern
armies, afterall), and after them it was centuries
before anything like it was recreated. I think that it
might be a factor of the "equality" of a republican
form of government that created that modern army, as
it was certainly not a typical feudal structurelike
that which pervaded Europe from the Normans on, until
Gustav Adolphus' "new model army" -- and even then it
was looser than we think of ranks today.

There's no denying that the chef outranks a busboy.
But neither chef nor busboy are ranks. They are jobs
and positions. The chef is, however, very important
and gets to tell people what to do. And busboys are
low-boy on the totem pole. It's like saying "would you
agree that the king outranks a knight." Well, duh.
King and knight aren't "ranks" either, precisely
speaking, but the relationship of their roles is clear
enough.

But those aren't ranks. They're JOBS. There's a
difference, and it's a fairly critical one. Ranks tend
to have a consistency. A lieutenant always has
X-number of people under him, a major X-number of
people, a general X-number and so on. A taisho can
have 50, 500, or 5,000.

The most basic level of "rank" -- that of kashira or
taicho -- doesn't even have a specific number of
troops to be led. It depends on the army makeup. A
taicho (lit. "group-chief") can have five people or 50
under him, depending on the job and the specific
assignment. In modern army terms, that could be
anything from a squad to a company to a platoon.

And, unlike the modern army, once appointed "ashigaru
taicho" one could just as quickly be removed from that
position. While such assignments are social
promotions, they are not MILITARY promotions like to
Corporal or Sgt. or Master Sgt, etc.

In any feudally structured army, ALL positions and
duties are held at the pleasure of the overlord in
question. There is no way to say "I'm a first
sergeant, you can't make me a private without due
cause and a court-martial." Even "permanent"
appointments (such as that of a taicho) in a Japanese
army were understood to be continued appointments that
could be withdrawn at any time (or magnified with
further postings) and not one's "right" to the
position.

That's one reason I fight so hard to eliminate the use
of "ranks" when talking about a feudal Japanese army.
Or, rather, when the term is used, I try to keep it
clearly a socio-political reference, or something
implying that someone HAS (as in "a taisho outranks
the common footsoldier") but avoid using terms that
imply a person HOLDS rank."


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Does anyone know any title of taiga drama that pictures Hitokiri?

Totok Sudarijanto
http://www.samurai.or.id
email: totoks@...

"Civilize the mind but make savage the body." - Chairman Mao

Wow i get it now. GOD BLESS

Nate Ledbetter <ltdomer98@...> wrote:

--- Ijin Mibu <ijinmibu@...> wrote:

> What were the ranks of a samurai army?

Short answer: there weren't any, in the modern sense.

Since this question comes up about once every 2 months
or so, here's the canned "Beta" version of the
response, written by Tony, stealing my examples. :)

"There is no connection with modern "rank" as we know
it in discussing samurai armies.

The thing is, it is VERY important to divorce the
concept of terminology of MILITARY rank from samurai
-- they just don't operate on the same level. There's
rank, yes, but that's SOCIAL rank, not military rank.
It's the critical division between HAVING rank (e.g.,
a duke, a baron, a flunky) and HOLDING rank (e.g., a
general, a captain, a PFC).

The historical samurai army was a FEUDAL army, not a
modern one with rank structures in place. As a friend
of mine [that would be me--lt] once pointed out, you
don't "join" a samurai army as an "ashigaru 2nd class"
and work your way up to "1st samurai."

As a feudal structure, the army was vertical;
authority went up and down within the specific clan or
alliance affiliation.

The basic "rank" was taisho(which can be translated
variously as general, lieutenant, captain, commander,
etc.). Essentially, a taisho commands a body of men.
Period. It depends on his relationship with others as
how you define it. For example, on his own, you can
call Honda Tadakatsu a great general. But in terms of
his relationship to Tokugawa Ieyasu, he would be
typically called "one of Ieyasu's best generals," "one
of Ieyasu's best lieutenants," or "one of Ieyasu's
best captains." All of those refer to the JOBS
(generals command, and captains and lieutenants lead
but serve UNDER someone else), not to ranks.

I think people would generally be surprised at how
modern the concept of rank-structure in armies is.
Actually, the Romans were very rank/office set with
the way they did their legions (the first modern
armies, afterall), and after them it was centuries
before anything like it was recreated. I think that it
might be a factor of the "equality" of a republican
form of government that created that modern army, as
it was certainly not a typical feudal structurelike
that which pervaded Europe from the Normans on, until
Gustav Adolphus' "new model army" -- and even then it
was looser than we think of ranks today.

There's no denying that the chef outranks a busboy.
But neither chef nor busboy are ranks. They are jobs
and positions. The chef is, however, very important
and gets to tell people what to do. And busboys are
low-boy on the totem pole. It's like saying "would you
agree that the king outranks a knight." Well, duh.
King and knight aren't "ranks" either, precisely
speaking, but the relationship of their roles is clear
enough.

But those aren't ranks. They're JOBS. There's a
difference, and it's a fairly critical one. Ranks tend
to have a consistency. A lieutenant always has
X-number of people under him, a major X-number of
people, a general X-number and so on. A taisho can
have 50, 500, or 5,000.

The most basic level of "rank" -- that of kashira or
taicho -- doesn't even have a specific number of
troops to be led. It depends on the army makeup. A
taicho (lit. "group-chief") can have five people or 50
under him, depending on the job and the specific
assignment. In modern army terms, that could be
anything from a squad to a company to a platoon.

And, unlike the modern army, once appointed "ashigaru
taicho" one could just as quickly be removed from that
position. While such assignments are social
promotions, they are not MILITARY promotions like to
Corporal or Sgt. or Master Sgt, etc.

In any feudally structured army, ALL positions and
duties are held at the pleasure of the overlord in
question. There is no way to say "I'm a first
sergeant, you can't make me a private without due
cause and a court-martial." Even "permanent"
appointments (such as that of a taicho) in a Japanese
army were understood to be continued appointments that
could be withdrawn at any time (or magnified with
further postings) and not one's "right" to the
position.

That's one reason I fight so hard to eliminate the use
of "ranks" when talking about a feudal Japanese army.
Or, rather, when the term is used, I try to keep it
clearly a socio-political reference, or something
implying that someone HAS (as in "a taisho outranks
the common footsoldier") but avoid using terms that
imply a person HOLDS rank."


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

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



SPONSORED LINKS
Samurai Japan Japan airline

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "samuraihistory" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------







---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

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

Would you (listmembers, that is) be so kind as to point out if there were
any formal or constant "jobs" within the japanese feudal military structure?
Do you know of any "essays" concerning how such "jobs" (or lack thereof)
affected ancient japanese warfare? Was there relevant differentiation
between the military system and the "social" system, or was the military
system "driven by" the social one?

Would this be off-topic, since the question concerns war related aspects of
ancient japanese history?

Thank you.

Thiago Sorrentino


_____

De: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
Em nome de james wilson
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 3 de março de 2006 13:40
Para: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Assunto: Re: [samuraihistory] ranks


Wow i get it now. GOD BLESS

Nate Ledbetter <ltdomer98@...> wrote:

--- Ijin Mibu <ijinmibu@...> wrote:

> What were the ranks of a samurai army?

Short answer: there weren't any, in the modern sense.

Since this question comes up about once every 2 months
or so, here's the canned "Beta" version of the
response, written by Tony, stealing my examples. :)

"There is no connection with modern "rank" as we know
it in discussing samurai armies.

The thing is, it is VERY important to divorce the
concept of terminology of MILITARY rank from samurai
-- they just don't operate on the same level. There's
rank, yes, but that's SOCIAL rank, not military rank.
It's the critical division between HAVING rank (e.g.,
a duke, a baron, a flunky) and HOLDING rank (e.g., a
general, a captain, a PFC).

The historical samurai army was a FEUDAL army, not a
modern one with rank structures in place. As a friend
of mine [that would be me--lt] once pointed out, you
don't "join" a samurai army as an "ashigaru 2nd class"
and work your way up to "1st samurai."

As a feudal structure, the army was vertical;
authority went up and down within the specific clan or
alliance affiliation.

The basic "rank" was taisho(which can be translated
variously as general, lieutenant, captain, commander,
etc.). Essentially, a taisho commands a body of men.
Period. It depends on his relationship with others as
how you define it. For example, on his own, you can
call Honda Tadakatsu a great general. But in terms of
his relationship to Tokugawa Ieyasu, he would be
typically called "one of Ieyasu's best generals," "one
of Ieyasu's best lieutenants," or "one of Ieyasu's
best captains." All of those refer to the JOBS
(generals command, and captains and lieutenants lead
but serve UNDER someone else), not to ranks.

I think people would generally be surprised at how
modern the concept of rank-structure in armies is.
Actually, the Romans were very rank/office set with
the way they did their legions (the first modern
armies, afterall), and after them it was centuries
before anything like it was recreated. I think that it
might be a factor of the "equality" of a republican
form of government that created that modern army, as
it was certainly not a typical feudal structurelike
that which pervaded Europe from the Normans on, until
Gustav Adolphus' "new model army" -- and even then it
was looser than we think of ranks today.

There's no denying that the chef outranks a busboy.
But neither chef nor busboy are ranks. They are jobs
and positions. The chef is, however, very important
and gets to tell people what to do. And busboys are
low-boy on the totem pole. It's like saying "would you
agree that the king outranks a knight." Well, duh.
King and knight aren't "ranks" either, precisely
speaking, but the relationship of their roles is clear
enough.

But those aren't ranks. They're JOBS. There's a
difference, and it's a fairly critical one. Ranks tend
to have a consistency. A lieutenant always has
X-number of people under him, a major X-number of
people, a general X-number and so on. A taisho can
have 50, 500, or 5,000.

The most basic level of "rank" -- that of kashira or
taicho -- doesn't even have a specific number of
troops to be led. It depends on the army makeup. A
taicho (lit. "group-chief") can have five people or 50
under him, depending on the job and the specific
assignment. In modern army terms, that could be
anything from a squad to a company to a platoon.

And, unlike the modern army, once appointed "ashigaru
taicho" one could just as quickly be removed from that
position. While such assignments are social
promotions, they are not MILITARY promotions like to
Corporal or Sgt. or Master Sgt, etc.

In any feudally structured army, ALL positions and
duties are held at the pleasure of the overlord in
question. There is no way to say "I'm a first
sergeant, you can't make me a private without due
cause and a court-martial." Even "permanent"
appointments (such as that of a taicho) in a Japanese
army were understood to be continued appointments that
could be withdrawn at any time (or magnified with
further postings) and not one's "right" to the
position.

That's one reason I fight so hard to eliminate the use
of "ranks" when talking about a feudal Japanese army.
Or, rather, when the term is used, I try to keep it
clearly a socio-political reference, or something
implying that someone HAS (as in "a taisho outranks
the common footsoldier") but avoid using terms that
imply a person HOLDS rank."


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

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



SPONSORED LINKS
Samurai Japan Japan airline

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "samuraihistory" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------







---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

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



---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

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




SPONSORED LINKS
Samurai
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Samurai&w1=Samurai&w2=Japan&w3=Japan+ai
rline&c=3&s=43&.sig=1zVKkuAEvNM6sIlV2euqLw> Japan
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Japan&w1=Samurai&w2=Japan&w3=Japan+airl
ine&c=3&s=43&.sig=kuTGQPUm-lNxqNTd3Kw3Kw> Japan
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Japan+airline&w1=Samurai&w2=Japan&w3=Ja
pan+airline&c=3&s=43&.sig=QIk_DL2VO1V9sSft8PxRvg> airline

_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



* Visit your group "samuraihistory
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory> " on the web.


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


_____




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

--- Thiago <tsorrentino@...> wrote:

> Would this be off-topic, since the question concerns
> war related aspects of
> ancient japanese history?

No, it wouldn't be off-topic--but can you please
clarify what you mean by "ancient Japanese history"?

Too often people completely misuse the word
"ancient"--there's nothing more "ancient" about Heian
or Sengoku Japan than there would be about William the
Conqueror's England or Ivan the Terrible's Russia.

"Ancient" could perhaps apply to something from the
400-500's AD at the latest. Information about that
time period is hard to come by, especially detailed
information. If you mean the "samurai" period--from,
say, 1000 AD to the 1860's--then "ancient" isn't the
word you are looking for, but someone may be able to
find something for you.

> Would you (listmembers, that is) be so kind as to
> point out if there were
> any formal or constant "jobs" within the japanese
> feudal military structure?

Here's where your question gets confusing--"feudal"
Japan wasn't "ancient".

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Hi.

The Japanese middle ages are generally considered to have gone from
about the time of the Genpei War to about the time of the battle of
Sekigahara. The Nara and Heian periods are frequently viewed as sort of
classical and may be viewed as ancient in the context of Japan.
Anything much earlier than about 700 CE is pretty much pre-historic.
The stone age ended in Japan sometime around 200 BCE to 200 CE. But,
Japan remained pretty much pre-literate for sometime afterwards.

It is pretty easy to find out the names and comparative ranks of
imperial and bakufu offices. These are given in tabular form in an
appendix to Kodansha Kogojiten. There arealso a few well known
household officials. There are also the titles held by leaders of the
ancient clans. Alas, these are not included in the tables that I just
mentioned.

To complicate things, the Japanese very seldom abandoned any titles or
offices once they came into use until a general reform of titles during
the Meiji Restoration in the nineteenth century. Instead, obsolete
titles and offices generally became ceremonial. In some cases, they
appear to have become freely assumable.

Sorry for the ambiguity. I did not use "ancient" to mean the historical
period raging from 400 to 500 A.D., but I meant the period within the
context of the list, the "samurai period" (again, I am not using the proper
terms - "[x] jidai", isn´t it?), just to mark it as "old", in opposition to
"recent".

Thanks again.
_____

De: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
Em nome de Nate Ledbetter
Enviada em: domingo, 5 de março de 2006 03:34
Para: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Assunto: Re: RES: [samuraihistory] ranks




--- Thiago <tsorrentino@...> wrote:

> Would this be off-topic, since the question concerns
> war related aspects of
> ancient japanese history?

No, it wouldn't be off-topic--but can you please
clarify what you mean by "ancient Japanese history"?

Too often people completely misuse the word
"ancient"--there's nothing more "ancient" about Heian
or Sengoku Japan than there would be about William the
Conqueror's England or Ivan the Terrible's Russia.

"Ancient" could perhaps apply to something from the
400-500's AD at the latest. Information about that
time period is hard to come by, especially detailed
information. If you mean the "samurai" period--from,
say, 1000 AD to the 1860's--then "ancient" isn't the
word you are looking for, but someone may be able to
find something for you.

> Would you (listmembers, that is) be so kind as to
> point out if there were
> any formal or constant "jobs" within the japanese
> feudal military structure?

Here's where your question gets confusing--"feudal"
Japan wasn't "ancient".

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

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



_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



* Visit your group "samuraihistory
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory> " on the web.


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


_____




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

--- Barbara Nostrand <nostrand@...> wrote:

The Nara and Heian periods are

> frequently viewed as sort of
> classical and may be viewed as ancient in the
> context of Japan.

Even if you do consider Nara or Heian "ancient", they
are still outside the scope of the question asked,
which was regading "samurai armies".

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Yes, warfare was still the province of the old aristocratic families. What would be interesting would be to find an explanation as to how warfare and armies were structured in the pre-Samurai periods. I am no expert on that aspect of society during that period, but I would suspect that blood and family ties would play more than a small part in this ordering.

Nate Ledbetter <ltdomer98@...> wrote:

--- Barbara Nostrand <nostrand@...> wrote:

The Nara and Heian periods are

> frequently viewed as sort of
> classical and may be viewed as ancient in the
> context of Japan.

Even if you do consider Nara or Heian "ancient", they
are still outside the scope of the question asked,
which was regading "samurai armies".

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

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



SPONSORED LINKS
Samurai Japan Japan airline

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "samuraihistory" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

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

Nate.

> Even if you do consider Nara or Heian "ancient", they
> are still outside the scope of the question asked,
> which was regading "samurai armies".

The question was actually:

> Would you (listmembers, that is) be so kind as to point out if there
> were
> any formal or constant "jobs" within the japanese feudal military
> structure?
> Do you know of any "essays" concerning how such "jobs" (or lack
> thereof)
> affected ancient japanese warfare? Was there relevant differentiation
> between the military system and the "social" system, or was the
> military
> system "driven by" the social one?

So then, he is asking about feudal structures. Further, the term
"saburau" which is the anticedent of the term "samurai" shows up during
the Heian period. More importantly, Wayne Ferris in "Heavenly Warriors"
argues for a continuity of military development instead of some sort of
disjuncture between the Heian period and the Kamakura period. Finally,
in terms of the actual question at hand, you should understand that
even pre-700 CE titles were still hanging around at the time of the
Meiji Restoration in 1868.

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

Hi.

The word "jidai" simply means "period" and gets stuck after the name of
the period in question. For example, "Jomon jidai" refers to neolithic
hunter-gatherer Japan. It is specifically named after a type of
pottery. In theatre, "jidai" appears as a prefix in "jidaigeki" which
specifies "period works" (lit. "period theatre") which are of more
serious or specifically historical intent than "chanbara" type movies
which are named after, believe it or not, the music that accompanies
them. So for example, the movie "Shinran" is a jidaigeki. Chanbara are
sort of costume action adventure films.

Hi.

A general characteristic of feudalism is that armies are organized
around individuals. Thus, you will see a lot of units being known by
their commander. In such a system, you will see comparatively little
systematic organization by military ranks. That is usually a feature of
non-feudal armies such as the Roman army or modern armies where the
military is divorced from the land. There is a Japanese drive to form
"ranks and levels", but this is expressed through a system of
appointments to office both in several different kinds of institution
which could and did exist at the same time.

1) The ancient uji offices which by the time you are interested in were
pretty much ceremonial. These titles are called kabane and there is a
monograph on them which you can find by a Worldcat search. In the time
you are probably interested in, these were the cap-ranks of the kuge
(courtier) class. The number of kabane was changed a couple of times.

2) The the ancient court ranks and offices. These are of interest to
the samurai and includes the title Sei-i-tai-shougun. All high-ranking
samurai aspired to court rank and office.

3) The kuge household offices.

4) The offices of the Kamakura bakufu, the Muromachi bakufu, and the
Tokugawa bakufu. Ones which are of particular interest are jitou and
the shugo. The jitou were basically local tax collectors and estate
managers. Their appointment was absorbed by the Kamakura bakufu. The
shugo were provincial constables whose office roughly paralleled the
imperial provincial governors. The shuo, and most especially after the
Onin-Ran evolved into the daimyou which you are probably familiar with
from the Sengoku period.

5) Buke (samurai) household officials. You frequently see these people
in movies set in the Edo period.

6) Buddhist temples could and did function as the equivalent of either
kuge estates or buke fiefdoms. They of course had their own
administrative structures.

Regardless these different systems co-existed and each of them provided
revenue streams or "pay grades" for the various people entitled to
them. According to the war stories, when meeting on the battlefield,
warriors of high rank would declare their names and various
entitlements to each other when they believed that their opponent was
of adequately comparable rank. These declarations are called "nanori".
This term also refers to one component of the names born by Japanese of
sufficient rank.

Hi.

1) Yes. Medieval Japanese armies were feudal. In general, and Japanese
feudal armies are not an exception, medieval military units are
generally known by their unit commanders. You can see this sort of
thing in the Sekigahara Kasen book which you can purchase at the
Sekigahara museum. The battle formations are given in terms of their
commanders and troop strengths. Similarly you will find lists of
military leaders in terms of troop strengths and incomes. Military men
could hold a variety of rank bearing offices from a variety of sources
including: the imperial court, the kuge families, the bakufu, and at
least later on through the military households. Not to mention those
who were employed by religious institutions.

> There's no denying that the chef outranks a busboy.
> But neither chef nor busboy are ranks.

The word "chef"is etymologically related to "chief" and derives from
the word for "head". It really is a kind of rank. It is also a job.

> A taicho (lit. "group-chief") can have five people or 50

Sounds like a bit of wandering there. 隊長 taichou is the leader of a
military formation called a 隊 TAI. It is also a modern word.

> In any feudally structured army, ALL positions and duties are held
> at the pleasure of the overlord in question.

Not quite so simple. A medieval unit commander can "own" his unit and
owe service to his overlord. Medieval commanders did not have quite the
personnel reassignment capability as that of a modern army. Regardless,
what was going on in Japan can be quite complex having to do with shiki
rights, parallel rank and appointment systems, and all sorts of other
stuff.

Barbara Nostrand wrote:

> > There's no denying that the chef outranks a busboy.
> > But neither chef nor busboy are ranks.
>
> The word "chef"is etymologically related to "chief" and derives from
> the word for "head". It really is a kind of rank. It is also a job.

Sigh. Etymology is irrelevant. I'm talking about the job.
Would it make any difference if I said "the cook outranks
the busboy," or are you going to find something from the
dictionary for that?

> > A taicho (lit. "group-chief") can have five people or 50
>
> Sounds like a bit of wandering there. 隊長 taichou is the leader of a
> military formation called a 隊 TAI. It is also a modern word.

Tell that to all those sengoku guys who were "ashigaru
taicho," and "teppo taicho," and "yumitori taicho"...

> > In any feudally structured army, ALL positions and duties are held
> > at the pleasure of the overlord in question.
>
> Not quite so simple. A medieval unit commander can "own" his unit and
> owe service to his overlord. Medieval commanders did not have quite the
> personnel reassignment capability as that of a modern army. Regardless,
> what was going on in Japan can be quite complex having to do with shiki
> rights, parallel rank and appointment systems, and all sorts of other
> stuff.

And how does ANY of that change the facts as I've stated them?


Tony
--

Anthony J. Bryant
Website: http://www.sengokudaimyo.com

Effingham's Heraldic Avatars (...and stuff):
http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/avatarbiz.html

All sorts of cool things Japanese and SCA:
http://www.cafepress.com/sengokudaimyo

Hi Tony!

> Sigh. Etymology is irrelevant.  I'm talking about the job.
> Would it make any difference if I said "the cook outranks
> the busboy," or are you going to find something from the
> dictionary for that?

Considering that a sous chef generally calls the chef "Chef" and not
"Joe" suggests that it is more like a rank than you suppose.
In contrast, your garage mechanics probably call each other by
nicknames.

> Tell that to all those sengoku guys who were "ashigaru
> taicho," and "teppo taicho," and "yumitori taicho"...

Tony. I am perfectly willing to believe you, but it would be nice to
cite a war tale or some other source so that folks such as myself can
go look at for themselves. However, from your examples, they sound like
small unit commanders. Incidentally, unit sizes are not universal even
in modern and Roman armies. The size of a Roman century was frequently
something other than 100. Regardless, "taichô" is not in Kodansha
Kogojiten. Incidentally, the definition for tai in daijirin 1st edition
suggests that a tai is a fairly small unit capable of unitary movement
on the battlefield. Interestingly, taichô appears to be a vague term.
Since people appear to be generally interested in ranks, possibly one
of the oldest ranks is gochô. The reason I am suggesting this isthat I
recollect seeing the go in gochô on flags in battle paintings.

> >  >  In any feudally structured army, ALL positions and  duties are
> held
> >  > at the pleasure of the overlord in question.
> >
> > Not quite so simple. A medieval unit commander can "own" his unit
> and
> > owe service to his overlord. Medieval commanders did not have quite
> the
> > personnel reassignment capability as that of a modern army.
> Regardless,
> > what was going on in Japan can be quite complex having to do with
> shiki
> > rights, parallel rank and appointment systems, and all sorts of
> other
> > stuff.
>
> And how does ANY of that change the facts as I've stated them?

Tony there are plenty of perfectly good books out there about
distinctions in land tenure. You appear to be suggesting that all of
these were appointive and held from above. I am pointing out that at
least in some feudal societies there is a distinction between various
sorts of land tenure. You see these with new fields, permanent
commendations, &c. If my books weren't off in a storage building, I
would cite you a specific source on this one, but can not at the
moment. Finally, taking your unit and switching sides and similar
independence was a fairly common feature of pre-modern and specifically
medieval warfare.

Regardless, one of the problems of feudally structured armies is that
you can not so easily separate Patton from his division or MacArthur
from his army. Even fairly recently, military units might be raised and
equipped by their commanders.

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