H381

Modern Japan

 

 

 

Distribution/Classification of Daimyo

 

 

Tokugawa Family 4.1 million koku (including 5,000 Bannermen or Hatamoto = or "Upper Vassals," aka Direct Retainers of Shogun)

--so, roughly the Tokugawa are 4 times the size of any other single Daimyo

 

Plus his Liege Vassals or Gokenin (aka housemen), numbering 22,000 and account for 2.6 million koku (smaller stipends than hatamoto)

--so, in effect, we really have 6.7 million koku on which theTokugawa can draw

--So, with these two together, the Tokugawa control approximately 25% of all Japan's land-based wealth

BUT WAIT!! That's not ALL

 

Fudai (or Vassal) or Hereditary Daimyo (some 150 houses with 60,000 samurai)

--his most loyal followers

--relied upon for most of his adminstrative officials

--strategically deployed to check least trusted "allies"

(150)

--quite a few fudai daimyo so none are especially large fief holders

--therefore, dependent on the Tokugawa for their office, wealth and/or prestige

6.3 million koku

 

 

 

 

Shimpan*(or Related) Daimyo

aka "collateral lines" or "cadet houses"

--very large and distinguished houses therefore not usually tapped for influential administrative offices or positions in the Bakufu

--so large, prestigious, powerful and potential rivals so kept at a distance

--one main purpose of these collateral houses was to provide an heir to the shogunate if necessary.

(21)

3.4

 

Sub-Total 16.4 million koku

 

Tozama (or Outside) Daimyo

--daimyo who had not been vassals of Ieyasu in 1600 so the least trusted

(108)

9.4

 

Total 25.8 million koku--Tokugawa and close allies control 16.4 million koku or over 60% of the wealth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Three Large Shimpan or "Successor/Cadet" Houses or Gosanke ( ???) were descendants of three of Ieyasu's sons:

 

1. Yorifusa (head of the Mito Tokugawa clan) located in Mito 350,000 koku

 

2. Yoshinao (Owari Tokugawa clan) located in Nagoya 619,000 koku

 

3. Yoshinobu ( the Kii Tokugawa clan), located in Kii (Wakayama) 550,000 koku

 

See also the chart from Noriko Aso's materials at: http://ic.ucsc.edu/~naso/hist159b/presentations/Tokugawa%20Polity%20pres/baku-han_structure.htm

Questions:

1. So what is key about this distribution of wealth and power in early Tokugawa?

2. What does McClain say about HOW the Tokugawa Shogunate governed? Were the Shoguns like European absolute monarchs? Could they be completely autocratic?

3. "All Daimyo," McClain writes, "were subject to various expressions of Tokugawa authority," (26) How did the shogunate regulate Daimyo behavior? What did the Daimyo get out of it?

4. What role did Neo-Confucianism play in Tokugawa Japan? Why do you think that the core tenets of Confucianism finally sunk deep roots in Japanese soil?

5. A system of sankin-kotai or Alternate Attendance on the Shogun in Edo evolved gradually and was systematized by the 3rd Shogun Iemitsuin 1635. What was it and how did it work? What was its impact?

 

 

 

Recap:

How did the Tokugawa manage the daimyo and keep the peace? Through an elaborate system of political controls which included:

1. Requiring all Daimyo to pledge an Oath of Loyalty and to accept the laws and regulations issued by the Tokogawa Shogunate.

2. Asserting control over Foreign Relations and placing City Magistrates to govern the cities of Edo, Osaka, Kyoto and Nagasaki.

2. Transfers and confiscation of lands from daimyo--some 213 incidents of Daimyo being stripped of all or part of their land, and some 281 transfers ordered in first 50 years of Baku-han system.

2. Demanding and receiving financial, material and labor contributions for "public" works projects which were usually improving Tokugawa lands, roads and castles. Heaviest burden fell on Tozama Lords.

3. Maintaining a network of inspectors (metsuke) and spies.

4. Issuing laws and decress regulating the behavior of Daimyo, Courtiers, Merchants, Peasants, etc.

5. The Sankin-kotai or "Alternate Attendance" System. Unanticipated consequences?

6. Encouraging Confucian education for all the samurai so they could become literate, loyal, and urbane administrators. But were there problems with this?