Talk:Oda Nobunaga/Archive 1

Japanese Names and Name Order

Quite a few name-order faux pas in this article. I've cleaned it up as best I can, tired as I am at this moment. I have a feeling this whole Japanese history series needs a good looking-at with respect to this. It's hard for us non-Japanese to get the brain around the fact that the family name is the FIRST name. --Gnoitall 05:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those were not faux pas. At least in Japanese, it's conventional to refer to him as Nobunaga. This serves to distinguish him from all his relatives with the Oda surname. When you look at the Japanese article, you see the full name in several places, for example, titles. But in running text the name Oda is usually followed by -ke, -gun, -ichimon, or some other encompassing term; or by a given name, quite often someone else's. In contrast, references to the individual are usually Nobunaga. Similarly, kings in the West go into history under given names like George or Louis. Even though we're discussing a general rather than a king, we know that Oda Nobunaga's predecessors, the Minamoto and the Ashikaga, were dynastic, and in the latter case, lasted centuries with the same family name (and their descendants are still alive) so the analogy to kings is appropriate. Fg2 08:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. That said, it's a strange and arbitrary distinction, I guess. We don't speak of Winston, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during World War II. References to dynastic given names at least have the additional clue of at least one reference to the "dynastic generation", like Edward I. Add to this that the shogunate was not supposed to be inherently dynastic and explicitly not royal; the Emperor still "ruled", the Shogun administered. So, to my shallow mind, the better precedent is that of a prime minister or even a "Lord Protector" (i.e., military dictator) like Cromwell, who, as you may note, is referred to by surname. And yes, I do understand that if you refer to "Nobunaga", whether in Japanese or English, either your listener will understand you immediately or else wouldn't be any better off if you were to use "Oda" instead. However, within the context of an article about a specific Oda, using the surname seems to me the superior usage. But I could opine all day. Can anyone cite some scholarly practice which favors the colloquial "given name" style or the formal "surname" style? Or better yet, is there an actual preference in the bulk of the Japanese historical articles here? (And yes, calling Suzuki Ichiro "Ichiro" bugs the crap out of me, even if there were perfectly valid "non-error" reasons to.)--Gnoitall 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's strange. Personally, I'm not sure what's right. Fg2 06:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW (a year later) I have tons of "scholarly" books in Japanese, and it is standard to call them by thier "given names" in the text after thier family name is established. In my biography of Chosokabe Motochika here he is refered to as "Motochika" and his father as "Kunichika" exclusively. It is the standard in Japanese, and in English academic works. The only time family names are used are when they are "introduced" into the text the first time, or where it is important to keep the names straight. As mentioned above, the surnames (or clan names) are only used when referring to a broader generalization like "The Akechi castle", "The Oda army", etc. --Kuuzo 09:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Add to this that the shogunate was not supposed to be inherently dynastic and explicitly not royal" I know you realize the first part is not true in practice, but you should realize that the second part is also not true in practice. The shogunate, for all intents and purposes, acted exactly like a royal dynasty, with all that implies. To speak of the emperor as a figurehead still does not quite get at just how little he mattered in the strategic calculus of the shogunate. He was a complete non-entity.71.37.35.186 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline?

The timeline thing on this page now looks very stubby. It contains a lot of unexplained information and gives people the idea that it's already complete. The timeline should be axed and broken up into more expandable units. --Euniana/Talk 18:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm rewriting that section entirely. Try not to edit the subsections until I'm done with them. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 02:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this looks better. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 19:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a question

Okay, this is just a little thing for me I guess, I just wanted the little bit on Hikaru no Go's special chapter extended a bit. I mean, I think the person Hikaru was playing could have been anybody, as well as with Tsutsui, but what about Akari? Was that the kotaishi, or was that Mori Ranmaru? (And so then why was Mori played by a female character???) The Tetsuo character (playing Oda) said, "You must flee, Oran!", if that helps anybody. The "oran" (Akari) then refuses to flee. This is why i'm confused on what character she played. She had a sword, and guarded his chamber.

JacksonXR75 asks this question: In the Oda Nobunaga article under the sub-heading and link to Incident at Honnō-ji ([1]) the article speaks of how Akechi Mitsuhide launched a coup against Nobunaga and simultaneously launched an attack on Nijō Castle as stated in this quote from the article: "Nevertheless, Mitsuhide suddenly had Honnō-ji surrounded in a coup d'état, forcing Nobunaga to fight him. Nobunaga lost and was forced to commit seppuku. At the same time, Akechi forces assaulted Nijō Castle.". After clicking on the link for Nijo Castle to research it further I found that it's article states that the castle was commissioned to be built about 19 years after Nobunaga's death by Tokugawa Ieyasu in 1601, and "The construction was completed during the reign of Tokugawa Iemitsu in 1626.". I was wondering how the Nobunaga article can cite that Akechi attacked a castle that according to the Nijō Castle article hadn't even existed yet? Is this a timeline error, or a historical fact error? Was there another castle in Kyoto that Akechi had attacked with that name, or was Nijō Castle already built at that time and then rebuilt later? Or could this just be a general error at the time of writing by a mix up of sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.86.105 (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Suicide Is Uncertain

Whether or not ODA Nobunaga committed suicide, at Honnou-ji, is unknown, and the article should reflect this fact. Oda Nobunaga, may have just burnt to death, in the fire that AKECHI Mitsuhide set. Either way there were no withnesses to Oda Nobunaga's death, and his body was not found, after the fire, and never recovered.

Michael 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I read a lot more sources dealing about how his death might be caused by fire instead. That's also portrayed in Samurai Warriors and Onimusha.

I can't speak for Onimusha, but he probably committed suicide - regardless, there were no witnesses, but since he wasn't killed in plain sight, suicide is the likeliest. --Kuuzo 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding that it is Historically consider mostly likely that ODA Nobunaga burnt to death in the fire. In any event, stating that it is likely that Oda Nobunaga committed seppuku is different than stating that he did committ seppuku. Armillary (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It has now been four years since this was brought up, and the article has not changed. Neither has the Incident at Honnō-ji article changed. Perhaps someone more involved with this article could remedy this? I'm also posting a comment on the other article's discussion page. RNavigator (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I'd just say it's unsourced, so delete it. Unfortunately, most of the article is like that; a large chunk of this appears to not be sourced at all, including his death. Looking through the edit history, what has now become the core of the article seems to have been added here five years ago, all without sources - it seems the user initially was trying to convert a dry-ish timeline into something more prose-friendly, but also added new material. At this point, there was not a single source cited anywhere in the article, although an external biography was linked to. And in the edit immediately prior to that diff, the suicide claim was added by an IP address, again sourceless. Prior to that edit, the claim had been that Nobunaga was murdered by Akechi, also unsourced.

So yeah, someone needs to go through this with a very fine-toothed comb and rewrite/source what can be sourced and delete what can't. I'd be kind of inclined to go at it myself, but I really only have a couple books that might help and I'm not at the library enough these days. I suppose I could start with The Making of Modern Japan and go from there.

-- Joren (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nagashino muskets

There was recently a change on this article, removing the statement "(Nobunaga had purchased the 3000 muskets from Italy; Japanese muskets would have pierced the armor but had less of a chance to kill)", and positing that the muskets were domestic. Does anyone have a source one way or the other on this? While I find it extremely unlikely that anyone in Japan would have any contact with Italy at this point in history, I also know that there were very few foundries in Japan capable of producing muskets. They would have had to be bought from the Dutch or Portuguese, I'd have imagined. LordAmeth 11:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of muskets from Italy, although Portuguese or Dutch might have brought them. Anyway, there were three famous musket foundry regions; Sakai, Kunitomo and Negoro, according to jp.wikipedia.org. Sakai is very famous and every story about Nobunaga mentions this town. They produced good quality and large number of muskets throughout the Sengoku period. As for the 3000 muskets Nobunaga purchased, I will try to look for sources. --LittleTree 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there is no source that shows from where Nobunaga purchased the muskets for Nagashino, but some clues:

• The number 3000 is questioned by historians. One of the most reliable source mentions 1000 muskets used in Nagashino. [2]
• Nobunaga ordered 500 muskets from Kunitomo in 1549. [3] (The year should be questioned, though.)
• Nobunaga had a musket corps of 500 already in 1569. [4]
• Nobunaga had Sakai under his control in 1569.
• There are notes that show Sakai received an order for 1000 muskets just after Sekigahara and another 1000 from Tokugawa before the Siege of Osaka. [5]

These clues suggest it was not very difficult for Nobunaga to prepare 1000 domestic muskets for Nagashino, and perhaps even more.　--LittleTree 01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello to everyone! Why are you spkeaking about muskets? It seems to me that Japanese fuse guns of that time where similar to European matchloks or harquebuses then muskets. It is well known that Nobubaga used "teppo" (guns) in the battle of Nagashino, but noone knows what kind of "teppo" they trully were. I suggest that we should change muskets to harquebuses. Any objections?--Alex Kov 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We are speaking of muskets because the translation of teppo, like most translations, is not 100% fixed and clear. Also, because as students of Asian history, we may not have the greatest knowledge of the detailed differentiations between Western firearms. In any case, I like to use "matchlocks," "guns," and "muskets" in addition to "arquebuses," just for variety and ease of reading. But I see your point, and I certainly won't argue it. Where did the "h" in "harquebus" comes from, incidentally? LordAmeth 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I am ignorant about those English words, and would not argue either, but would like to know the differences. So, "(h)arquebuses" are a kind of "matchlocks"? (There is an "h" at the head in my dictionary.) And muskets are another type of them? (However, the article says In the 16th century, the most common musket was the arquebus. hmmm... I am confused.) And, every one of the three articles tells "it" was brought in Japan in 1543, ... which type was actually brought in? Are you sure that it was harquebuses and not an older type of matchlocks? Here are pictures of the first gun in Japan (imported by Portuguese) for your info. [6][7]. --LittleTree 05:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

16th century Japanese firearms are most accurately described as arquebuses. The term musket can include, earlier included the arquebus, but contemporary history writers the term musket to indicate the longer, heavier flintlocks of the 18th and 19th centuries. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Atsumori

I notice in the "fiction" section it mentions "fictitious sources" stating that Nobunaga sung the Atsumori before Okehazama - according to the Shinchokoki (信長公記) (P.85 of the "modern Japanese" translation by Nakagawa Taiko) he performed that verse from Atsumori after hearing about the fall of Washizu and Marune. After which he let it be known that they would fight rather than prepare for a seige. Since this was written by Oota Gyuichi who was born in 1527 and served Nobunaga, he would have either witnessed this firstand or heard this from people who witnessed it firsthand, so I think it can be said that at least this time, it was true based on primary materials (as opposed to at Honnouji, where there were no witnesses.) --Kuuzo 08:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gyuichis work consists of 16 books. There are many disputes about the first (head book) that depicts deeds of Nobunaga before 1568, including Okehazama battle. Some scholars assume that the head book wasnt written by Gyuichi, but added by unknown editors in the beginng of the Edo period. So no wonder, that somebody suppose dancing and singing of Nobunaga before Okehazama battle to be the "pure fiction". I mean fiction of the Edo:s editors--Alex Kov 04:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the Shinchokoki right here with me, it says nothing of "singing and dancing", basically that he "performed" that section (for lack of an effective English word), which in terms of Noh is much more like reciting poetry, and is not exactly unbelievable. It doesn't even say how he did it, for all we know he could have been sitting down reciting it the way other "historical figures" have recited Shakespeare or other things in similar circumstances (In fact, that is probably more likely anyway - the Taiga drama etc. depictions of Nobunaga couldn't have come directly from the Shinchokoki since it doesn't describe the scene or setting, just the fact that it happened, so it was probably based on Edo era fiction, or maybe the Shinchoki, which is essentially historical fiction, and a more popular source for "dramatic" info on Nobunaga. Never having read it, I don't know how that "episode" is treated, if at all.) I think the "singing and dancing" concept is probably something lost in the thirdhand route it made its way into English, as I have yet to see any official English tranlation of it. --Kuuzo 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are engaged into Shinchokoki studies you may know the episode when Takeda Shingen was asking one traveling monk from Owari about Nobunaga. In this episode the monk told that Nobunaga like to dance as a godness and sing a song from Noh "Atsumori". Also, in the passage that decribes Okehazama battle it is written that Nobunaga "performed" (I think sang and danced) Atsumori before leaving Kiyosu. So, no wonder that Nobunaga might dance and sing before the battles. Perhaps, the "singing and dancing" concept is not a fiction. But the main problem in is that these passages are included in the head book, which probably werent written by Ota Gyuichi. Therefore the reliability of the concept is quite low.--Alex Kov 16:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree per se, but the way it is written in the fiction section is very unclear and deceptive in a way. It should be rewritten to clarify, be removed, or replaced with the Honnouji incedent in my opinion. As it is written in the "fiction" section, it appears to be stating a solid fact that it is accepted as fiction, which it isn't. Again, though, I think it is very safe to say that the incedent mentioned in the Honnouji can't be anything else other than fiction. And no, I haven't read the thing from cover to cover yet, I'm gettin' there. As for "danced", I can think of 3 or 4 fictional reproductions of the incedent, and I wouldn't call it a "dance", maybe a few steps and the wave of a fan. I think we can definitely agree that the facts are in dispute, but not that it is conclusively a fiction. I think it would be worth rewriting both 'episodes' into one section that both mentions the question of whether Ota Gyuichi wrote the head kan, and the fact that there were no witnesses at the Honnouji. That would clarify it best. I just removed that one section in the fiction section until it can be rewritten to clarify, I hope that is Ok. It seems the best choice. Info about the question of whether the head kan was written by Ota is useful for the article as a whole, and should be added, along with a source for that information. --Kuuzo 04:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Atsumori" is mentioned in the fiction section, as you said, and it is also mentioned earlier in the article, where it is not labeled as fiction. Maybe the problem is the word "sources" -- can you improve it? Fg2 04:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the "citation needed" tag to the fiction section (edit: it was removed), but it can't really be disputed that fictional movies and TV show that scene, so the statement itself is correct, however it leads the reader to believe that the entire episdode is therefore fiction, so that would need to be addressed. I think that section in "fiction" should refer to Honnouji rather than before Okehazama, because obviously there were no witnesses to the events inside the temple at that time. --Kuuzo 08:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude thats a tv show though... xD nothing to do with real life hence the word "Episode..." lol  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.237.133 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 

Shudo?

Why is this article in Category:Shudo - and has Shudo as a "See Also"? There seems to be no references in the article. -- SatyrBot 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The "shudo" category doesn't even have a description, and has no indication whatsoever what it is. If someone nominated that category for deletion, I'd back it up. --Kuuzo 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude thats a tv show though nothing off of real life

Nobunaga in Fiction

Nobunaga and Azuchi Castle are both referenced extensively in Mark E. Rogers' Samurai Cat stuff (there's already an article about that here: Samurai_Cat). Is that worth mentioning on this page? --WebMoose 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article don't mention the apearance of Oda Nobunaga in the Capcom's video game "Devil Kings" and another apearance in the game "Demon Chaos". Betum (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a little on Oda Nobunaga under the Fiction section on 2009 KOEI game "Nobunaga's Ambition:Iron Triangle". I found it to be follow the history presented in this article pretty closely. Jemsintherough (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oda Nobunaga website

There is an extensive website devoted to Nobunaga, though no supporting references are given. It's sometimes interesting. http://www.geocities.com/azuchiwind/oda.htm However, the problem is that it's difficult to be sure of what you read there. After checking a biography of Oda Nobunaga, 'Japonius Tyrannus', by Jeroen Lamers on the case of Sakuma Nobumori, one of the Oda commanders, one gets a very different understanding of why Oda did what he did. One gets a somewhat different take on the case of Araki Murashige, too.

A certain interpretation of Nobunaga's character may be found in the novel 'The Signore', by Tsuji, Kunio, which also tries to explain Nobunaga's interaction with certain others, such as Sakuma and Akechi Mitsuhide.

Oda Nobunaga's portrayal as a Villain in media?

Just wondering if there's anything in particular about his history that seems to brand him as a demon or demonic?

I might be looking at this mostly from a video game perspective, but pretty much every game he's portrayed in he's some form of demon or devil?

Is there a particular reason for that? Zelphi 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons. 1) He was a ruthless warrior. 2) He died before he completed his quest to unify Japan; it's hard to be a hero if you don't go out on a high note. Douggers 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He was also a Christian ;) --HanzoHattori 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he was actually a Christian. Nobunaga used Luis Frois to weaken the temples, making it easier for Nobunaga to consolidate power. Atleast that's how I've read it.Douggers 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just realised that Capcom really seem to hate this guy.Zelphi 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• No friend of Ieyasu could possibly be a Christian! Ieyasu is perhaps the best known opponent of kelishiana.

Sioraf (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobunaga's Life

In the English article, it seems like Nobunaga's life can be summed up as "took power in Owari, had a battle, wanted to unify Japan, then died," which is a huge oversimplification. Also, some of those subsections (Tenka Fubu, specifically) seem really long and go off topic a little bit. In the Japanese article, his life is broken down into more manageable sections. I'm not suggesting that we need as many sections as the Japanese article, but the current English outline doesn't give enough info.

Unless anyone has any complaints, I'm going to start breaking it up to make it more readable. It's going to take some time, though, because I don't want to lose any information that is already in the English article, and I want to add information from the Japanese article. If anyone wants to help, I'd appreciate it. Douggers (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WHAT IF NOBUNAGA ACTUALLY UNITED JAPAN? Does anyone else ever wonder what would of been different if japan had been united by the Oda clan instead of by Hideyoshi and later Ieyasu I wonder what policies he would of made and how long his rule would have lasted. That Mitsuhide Akechi he really did mess things up didnt he. —Preceding answer me i need answers unsigned comment added by 82.16.82.174 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rollback of 64.74.212.1

Can someone rollback the edits by 64.74.212.1? There is a history of vandalism from that IP address. Though his current additions don't seem like vandalism, they make little sense and add absolutely nothing to the article. Thanks. Douggers (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted, but not using rollback. Rollback is only for vandalism and one's own edits, and I agree with you that those edits don't seem to have been vandalism. So I did it the old-fashioned way. Fg2 (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, hey, that's one reason I don't have rollback. ;-) Thanks for the revert, though. Douggers (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

who is the vandal then?

copy and pasted

either this was written by somebody HERE originally or this entire article was copy and pasted from the interet word for word. I found like 18 copies on google, it's driving me nuts. Is this just a copy and paste job? I really really hate that. If that's all that the author can contribute then they shouldnt write the article. sorry this isnt signed, i'm not sure the format, i dont have a lot of time today ^^

There are lots of sites that automatically copy content from Wikipedia. They're supposed to write something like "This article comes from Wikipedia" but not all of them do. Check the bottom line of the web page. That's the usual place. Of course you can use Find to look for Wikipedia in the article.

But there are also times when Wikipedia copies from other sites. This is illegal, and when you find it happening, tell us so we can remove it.

By the way, to sign a comment, just press the tilde ~ key (on my keyboard it's SHIFT+` right next to the number 1) four times. When you write ~~~~ your user name (or IP address) and the date and time appear. There's a button for it above the edit box when you're editing—tenth from the left, midway between the square root (mathematical formula) and #R (redirect) buttons. The help text that appears when you hover over it is "Your signature with timestamp." Fg2 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oda.jpg

Image:Oda.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Stolen!

I was looking to cite a source for the article, and the website Absoluteastronomy.com took the Wikipedia page and used it without showing that it is of Wikipedia. This clearly defies the GFDL license!!!!! If anybody has an Absolute Astronomy account, please do something to the page. Thank you. -BlueCaper (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

At least now, that article—like all other articles I've checked—on Absolute Astronomy has a footer stating "The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.". Might have been added today, of course. -- Jao (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit note: March 26th: On some of the and reference

• I have added a tag next to an existing reference, and I am afraid I am raising a question about the reliablity (as an RS for Wikipedia; the site is still a respectful site for its intensive contents) of the given source as well.

The source mentioned on Geocities does indeed carry the whole blockquoted portion, but it is in very near match to a popular novel, Taiko, by Eiji Yoshikawa.

Here is the part that corresponds to the blockquote:

pp190-191 "Even if we could extend our lives by five or ten days,...."

• The article as of today (since a few years now) is tagged with for the following part:

"throwing the ceremonial incense at the altar"

Once again, this and the following sentence appears to me to be a rephrasal of the same novel as mentioned above, found below:

p102 "Nobunaga walked up to the altar,..."

In fact I do find sources that indicate Nobunaga's behaviour was more or less improper at the occasion of his father's funeral (eg. in ''Shinchō kōki''). Even it is not mentioned that he threw it to the altar, it is maybe not a serious problem. The bigger question is rather when the article coninues "This act alienated many Oda retainers, convincing them of Nobunaga's mediocrity and lack of discipline and they began to side with his more soft-spoken and well-mannered brother....", for which a citation is needed. Shinchō kōki does suggest indeed though, that Hirate Masahide was "disappointed" to make him decide commit a suicide.

• I could not find any source that can back up this part of the article as of today:

"One aimed a spear at him, which Yoshimoto deflected with his sword, but the second swung his blade and cut off Imagawa's head.", although ''Shinchō kōki'' does have a few lines of description on this account in a much less dramatic way.

There is a source to back the following, so I will be replacing the translation as well, per WP:RSUE in the near future: "The reunification is a rice cake. Oda made it. Hashiba shaped it. At last, only Ieyasu tastes it."

--Mantokun (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tenka Fubu

Can we get a source for a more competent translation of this? The current rendition ("spread the militarism under heaven") barely passes as coherent. I know that it roughly translates to "conquer all under heaven" (lit. "all under heaven, conquer") but of course my personal knowledge is not a source. Does anyone know where to look? -moritheil^Talk 10:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Role of Tokugawa Ieyasu vis-a-vis Nobunaga and Hideyoshi

The article states: "Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who unified Japan in 1590, and Tokugawa Ieyasu, who founded the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1603, were loyal followers of Nobunaga."

While it is true Hideyoshi was a loyal follower of Oda Nobunaga, the same is not true of Tokugawa. At no time was Tokugawa Ieyasu a follower of Nobunaga at all. Hideyoshi owed his rise from a poor peasant family to the position of samurai general to Nobunaga. And never did his loyalties waver.

On the other hand, Tokugawa was the head of the Matsudaira clan, with lands (Mikawa and other provinces) to the east and north of the Oda clan lands. He was able to remain independent of Nobunaga's control, perhaps by his diplomatic skills and by not engaging in unnecessary battles. Early on, Tokugawa and Nobunaga fought a few inconsequential battles (1560). But after that, their relationship was that of allies, not of vassal and lord. Each came to the aid of the other on different occasions, e.g., Tokugawa forces participated in Nobunaga's capture of Kyoto in 1658 and Nobunaga came to Tokugawa's aid when the latter was attacked by the Takeda clan in 1571 and again in 1575. Also, their combined forces defeated the Takeda clan in 1582 and conquered Kai province.

After the death of Nobunaga, Tokugawa supported a son of Nobunaga as his successor, and in doing so, came into opposition to Hideyoshi. They fought a battle at Nagakute (1584), which Tokugawa won but which did not resolve the issue. Once it was clear that Hideyoshi had succeeded as leader of the Oda clan, Tokugawa once again remained a distant ally. In the war against the Hojo clan which occupied the Kanto, Tokugawa contributed a 30,000 man force to the 160,000 man force of Hideyoshi. In exchange for Mikawa and the other lands controlled by Tokugawa, Hideyoshi agreed that Tokugawa would get the eight Kanto provinces at the conclusion of the campaign. This happened and Tokugawa moved his capital to Edo in the Kanto. Tokugawa never became a vassal of Hideyoshi and Tokugawa forces took no part in the conquest of the south of Japan nor in the ill-fated invasion of Korea. So, given the continued independence of Tokugawa through the Hideyoshi years, the article was also incorrect in claiming (as quoted above) that Hideyoshi unified Japan. In truth, only Tokugawa's brilliant victory at Sekigahara in 1600 unified Japan. A more accurate description of the situation from 1590 to 1598 would be that there existed an oligarchy consisting of Hideyoshi, the Madea, the Mori, the Tokugawa, the Uesugi and a few others, and that Hideyoshi was first among equals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FAMiniter (talk • contribs) 03:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Are there any scholarly sources we can cite on this? -moritheil^Talk 03:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

These are just personal views unsupported by modern historians. I can cite a half-dozen just out of memory that dispute your views that Ieyasu was never a vassal of the Taiko.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nicknames

Saw a recent IP edit that removed the following nicknames for Nobunaga.

• Demon King (魔王 Ma-Ō),
• Nippon Tornado,
• Fool of Owari (尾張の大うつけ Owari no Ōutsuke)

These seem kind of odd going in an encyclopedia article; I've never heard of any of these in my own reading. Do we have sources attesting to any of these? -- Joren (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't found any reliable sources for "Nippon Tornado" or "Fool of Owari". For Demon King (第六天魔王, Dairokuten Maō) there are a couple, in english you can see this webpage. Greetings! --Rage against (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

信長

織, 田(da "rice paddy") = Oda. 信 (nobu "trust, faith"), 長 (nagai "head, chief") = nobunaga. Does anyone know what the first character means? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The first kanji means "to weave", but is also used in conjunction with other kanji related to "organize" or "organization" (as in arrangement), as well as alot of biology and anatomy terms. The surname "Oda" can thus be translated to "woven rice paddies" or "organized rice paddies" or something along those lines. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Okehazama section should be largely merged with the Battle of Okehazama article

It's so very, very uneven here, also with several "citation needed" fact - and the battle's article is not even very big. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Map

The current description of the map as showing Nobunaga's holdings at the time of his death is inaccurate, since the map also shows Hideyoshi's gains. I was going to change the description to reflect that, but I think it might be better to just get rid of it altogether since it takes a fairly liberal definition of territory "conquered", including all Mori territory, for example. I just don't think it gives an accurate impression of Nobunaga's achievements at the time of his death. Thoughts? --Cckerberos (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)