Talk:Sengoku period

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 09:38, August 16, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Move article[edit]

Can we move this one to "Sengoku period" since all the other <foo> periods are lowercase? -- EmperorBMA|話す 23:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article rubbish[edit]

    • from a scholarly perspective, this article is rubbish ** interested persons should consult a proper resource, or else use at your own risk !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.240.92.137 (talkcontribs) . 08:39, 20 Jul 2006
    • One thing the author of the page mentions in the section pertaining to the Sengoku Period and modern culture is pretty obviously wrong. He states that the Lone Wold and Cub manga are set during the Sengoku period, but the entire storyline of the books revolve around the protagonist's, Ogami Itto's, struggle to bring the treachery of the Yagyu to the attention of the Shogunate. Considering that the end of the Sengoku Period led to the rise of the Shogunate, it is difficult to imagine how this could be true.** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sorokahdeen (talkcontribs) . 22:59, 23 Aug 2005

The above comment is false. The Sengoku period preceded the Tokogawa Shogunate, but was itself preced by the Minamoto and Ashikaga Shogunates.


I have struck out the above two unsigned and undated comments because they are no longer pertinent to the article as it stands. Spventi 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I unstruck them because you shouldn't modify others' comments. I've marked who wrote them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hototogisu[edit]

at 04:55, 28 July 2006 Spventi said;

coax is a perfectly good word, and there is no need to rephrase these in the first person, especially since the Japanese is ambiguous in this regard.
  • coax = persuade (a person) gradually or by flattery (The Concise Oxford); wheedle, cajole, persuade (Webster); This is not a perfectly good word for "nakashitemiseyo". (By the way, in my memory the wording was "nakasetemishou". Do you have a reference?)
    • First, it is not necessarily by flattery. Literary speaking it can be by any means - can be flattery, threat or authority.
    • Second, Hideyoshi as the top of Daimyo's, he used his authority and power rather than falattery.
  • It is partly true that the Japanese is ambiguous without having subjects, but not in this case. "koroshiteshimae" is surely an 'order'. Thus "kill it" is perfectly suitable here. But, when someone says "nakashitemiseyou", it surely means he himself will do that. It is not that he is telling someone else to do that. ("nakasetemiseyo" would mean different, it is a kind of order.) "Nakumadematou" is less clear. It can be either "I will wait" or "let's wait".

What is most important here is to describe the characters of the famous three. Nobunaga's temper and cruelty, Hideyoshi's self-confidence and ability, Ieyasu's patience. One would not see Hideyoshi's such character by describing him as saying "coax it." Ieyasu's "wait for it" may reflect his character, although not perfectly correct. By the way, hototogisu should be translated as cuckoo? Sounds strange to me. --LittleTree 20:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to pour water on your theories about Japanese, but there are several problems with your interpretations here, least of all that the three senryu, although they appear to be in the first person, are actually third persons' observations of the sentiments of their subjects:
  • "Koroshiteshimae" is not an order (actually, I think what you mean is "imperative form"; but whatever...). It may be nominally or grammatically so, but syntactically it (the ~え! form) is an expression of frustration. Hence it expresses the feelings of the first person or the subject of discourse. In this case, it embodies the sentiments of Nobunaga, so he is the actual subject.
  • 鳴かしてみせよ and 鳴かせてみせよ mean the same thing in Japanese, and they are not imperatives either. The よ suffix on みせる is an expression of volition and by definition implies the first person or the subject of discourse, so the subject of the action is not ambiguous—it is here Hideyoshi. The みせ(る) part means "I'll do something to prove that I can do it"—in the modern language, the form is still ~てみせる and is an indication of the speaker's determination, sparing no effort, to do something that another doubts he can do, that another is resisting, or that he should not normally be able to do. But again, this is a third-person observation. And since it's about getting a bird to sing, "coax" sounds perfect to me.
  • I believe your memory fails you: the construction "nakasetemishou" is not possible in Japanese. (In any case, see ja:ホトトギス#天下人とホトトギス. The poems are rendered there.)
  • The subject of "Naku made matou" is also not so ambiguous—the う suffix also indicates volition and expresses the sentiment of the first person/speaker or the subject of discourse: Ieyasu. Once more, though—and this is the common thread through this—it's an observation embodying the subject's attitude. I therefore think the third person narrative is fine here.
In my opinion, the translations look fine inasfar as they convey the meaning of the originals quite succinctly. HTH. In haste, Jim_Lockhart 04:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind attitude towards my poor English. In principle, I completely agree with your saying "third persons' observations" and "subject of the action is not ambiguous".
  • I perfectly agree with your explanation about Nobunaga.
  • I am fine with the current form of the third senryu, and your explanation is perfect. I just put "I will" so that it goes with Hideyoshi's.
  • If the wording "coax it" gives a feeling that the subject of the action is Hideyoshi to the native speakers, then I am fine without putting "I will" into the senryu. I just thought it would be taken as an "imperative" and also worried by JALockhart's saying "there is no need to rephrase these in the first person, especially since the Japanese is ambiguous in this regard". Are you really sure that everyone would understand that the subject of the action is Hideyoshi?
  • I am still afraid that "coax" is misleading. Does it mean "I'll prove that I can make it sing"? What do you think about the word is always explained with "flattery"? Wouldn't they think Hideyoshi is a flattering person?
  • I agree with you. 鳴かしてみせよ and 鳴かせてみせよ mean the same thing in Japanese. But there should be sources and it would be better to adopt the original wording.
  • みせよ is imperative. I don't know why you say "it is not". And thus, the wording is wrong because here in the senryu it is not meant imperative. I suppose you would agree that it should not be imperative here.
  • According to ja.wikiquote [1], the one for Hideyoshi is;
    • Nakazutomo nakasitemiseu hototogisu ("miseu みせう" is pronounced as "mishou", I suppose it is where my memory came from. it would be written as "みせよう" in modern Japanese and not as "みせよ")
In regard to succinctness, the current form is much better. I just worry that they (or the second one) may not convey the meaning of the originals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LittleTree (talkcontribs) . 06:57, 31 Jul 2006
Jim Lockhart was kind enough to address the linguistic aspects of your comments, so I will comment briefly on some of your other concerns.
First of all, the version of the Hideyoshi senryu found in Wikiquote is a variant and is different, for example, to that used in ja:ホトトギス#天下人とホトトギス, which is the version I prefer and for which a source is given. If you feel strongly that "nakashitemiseyo" should be changed to "nakasetemiseyo," fine; I have no problem with that kind of a revision.
On the other hand, the changes you made to the English versions of the senryu were clearly not improvements; moreover, your concern about the word "coax" is entirely misplaced.
Also, if you think "cuckoo" sounds strange, then the onus is on you to provide information that suggests otherwise. Every one of the several J>E dictionaries that I checked renders hototogisu as cuckoo, as does the entry in the Japanese Wikipedia.
Your help in trying to improve this article is appreciated, but perhaps it's safest to discuss your concerns before making arbitrary changes.
Spventi 00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
User:LittleTree wrote:

Nakazutomo nakasitemiseu hototogisu ("miseu みせう" is pronounced as "mishou", I suppose it is where my memory came from. it would be written as "みせよう" in modern Japanese and not as "みせよ".)

Indeed! Excuse me while I pull my foot out of my mouth. I was thinking in terms of modern Japanese for mishou; i.e., I was thinking みしょう not みせう!
That said, I think your worries about coax are overdone: though I'm sure Hideyoshi, resourseful as he was, also used flattery when necessary, his basic modus operandi was to persuade people—whether opponents or allies—to see things his way and cooperate. I think coax is fine for saying that because it does not necessarilly entail flattery or imply anything negative, regardless of what dictionaries say.
I'm also no longer so (cock-) sure that みせよ is not imperative; nonetheless I suspect it is an expression of volition, as みせう is. I wonder which is version of the poem is correct, or whether senryu with both endings are current: as the two sources cited here illustrate, the latter (みせう) might be true.
One final point about the translations: although in Japanese, characterizations or observations of what or how another person thinks are often presented in the first person, in English this does not work. I think that's why Spventi did not translate these senryu using the first person. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Spventi: "but perhaps it's safest to discuss your concerns before making arbitrary changes." - Indeedly. Sorry for my thoughtlessness.
I have no intention to suggest a change from "nakashite" to "nakasete," but would feel better if "miseyo" is changed to "miseu" or "miseyou" because みせよ cannot be an expression of volition.
The version in Spventi referred is modernized in wording, and both of the two sources say it was written by 松浦靜山, I would say みせう is the original. Plus, the explanation 「松浦靜山の『甲子夜話』にみえる川柳。おそらくはよみ人知らず」 sounds much more reliable than 「江戸後期の平戸藩主・松浦静山が詠んだ句」. Then, みせよう should be a more adequate modern Japanese word here than みよう. I suspect that it might be a typo or mistranslation. Now, here is a third source; a text book for junior-high ISBN 4-594-03155-2, in which the one for Hideyoshi is written as 鳴かぬなら鳴かしてみせようほととぎす.
Spventi: "then the onus is on you to provide information that suggests otherwise." - Indeedly. But I can't find an english word to express hototogisu. That is why I questioned. It is a family of cuckoo, but smaller. And it really sings. A popular bird next to uguisu who tells you the spring has come, while hototogisu being the one for the summer. Here is an illustration.[2] I was not suggesting to change the word, but just asking whether there was a better word to be used here. If not, it can stay as it is.
Spventi: "your concern about the word "coax" is entirely misplaced." and Jim_Lockhart: "I think coax is fine for saying that" - Hmmm. I withdraw. I trust you two than my dictionaries. One comment to Jim_Lockhart. Yes, he used flattery when necessary, especially in his early times, and I don't think it gives a negative feeling by describing him that way. That was not my worry. What I wanted to say was that it is only one face of him. You wrote "resourseful as he was", agreed.
Now that I accepted the word coax and the form without first person, I admit Spventi's saying "the changes you made to the English versions of the senryu were clearly not improvements." Sorry again.
One last question: don't you feel like making some mutial reference between this section and Toyotomi_Hideyoshi#Cultural_point_of_interest?--LittleTree 04:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't find the Hideyoshi article to be particularly well written or authoritative. What's more, the Cultural Point of Interest section is not only poorly written but factually inaccurate. So, no, I am not particularly interested in linking to it. Unless, of course, I have had a chance to copy-edit it myself someday. Then I might change my mind. <g>

I can appreciate your assertion about みせよ. I just did a search on the Internet, and all the Japanese pages have みせよう; none have just みせよ, so I just added an "u" in the article. But that leads to another interesting problem. If these are senryu, then the う results in ji-amari. So, is it wrong to call it a senryu? The other two are exactly 5-7-5 but みせよう makes 5-8-5. I wonder what MEXT's official stance on that is. <g> Spventi 08:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your feeling after the discussion we had. I hope you would be able to improve the Hideyoshi article one day.
The definition of senryu is not that strict, ji-amari is allowed. Moreover, this case is not too bad, for みせよう is pronounced as miseyō (mi-se-you, rather than mi-se-yo-u). Then, again, みせよう is only a translation into a modern wording of the original みせう (though it is still my hypothesis that it is the original), with which it was not ji-amari. --LittleTree 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The simple explanation (speculating here...) is that the original was みせう, since this would conform to the classical form, and that the みせよ(う) form has taken hold more recently because this seems natural to modern speakers (and is also parallel to the ~しまえ and まとう form in the other two). Just a guess on my part, mind you... Jim_Lockhart 13:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that this is a relatively "new" "poem", and the archaic form definately wouldn't apply if so. Also, I've always seen it in Japanese as nakasete miseyou (nakashite is a coloquial contraction, and so I think it should be changed), and it simply means "make it sing" - it doesn't specify "coaxing", in fact it doesn't specify means or intent at all ("coax" implies that you are using some positive means to make it sing, but depending on context, nakasete could be done via threat of violence - but if you are just looking to show Hideyoshi's "character" coax would fit, but I don't believe that "coax" is a literal translation, and nakasete miseyou alone doesn't even imply it). "Koroshite shimae" doesn't show "frustration", nor is it an order (as mentioned above), it is the ending -shimau -- which means "completely" - i.e. to completely destroy it - shimau at the end of a verb basically just means completely - tabete shimau "to eat it all", and depending on context can imply the act as violent, complete and total, or an accident (oops, I ate it all), or just gives it an unfortunate or negative connotation. The "miseyou" in all cases translates (albeit awkwardly) as "(I'll) show (you)", although it doesn't have such a concrete meaning in Japanese, like many additional verb endings. "naku made matou" is the short form of "naku made machimashou", which basicaly is just showing a decision to wait, i.e. "I'll wait until it sings." Suffice it to say, from first hand experience, Japanese never translates directly into English, the sentence structure and nuances don't translate directly, so a lot of (annoying) interpretation is required. For what it's worth, I'd translate it literally as: Destroy it, Make it sing (the miseyou really doesn't translate well), I'll wait until it sings. But I'd interpret it into English as: Kill it, Make it sing, Wait - putting in the names where ever it seems fitting. --Kuuzo 09:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Another saying (a kyoka or a comic tanka.)[edit]

Is anyone interested in the following 狂歌?

織田がつき 羽柴がこねし 天下餅 すわりしままに食うは家康
Oda pounds, Hashiba kneads, and Ieyasu eats the tenka cake.

--LittleTree 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Warring states period[edit]

The article having the title of sengoku period and having it begin with the words warring states period is bound to create confusion with the chinese warring states period. Also, according to the Textbook "Traditions and encounters: A global perspective on the past" by Bently/Ziegler, the word Sengoku is best translated as "Country at war". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.0.92 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I changed the English name back to "Warring States period" (from "Age of the Country at War"), because this is the translation that appears in Japanese-English dictionaries (e.g. the Kenkyusha Shinwaeidaijiten) and is used in most English language literature on Japanese history. In response to the points you raise (confusion with the Chinese Warring States period, "better" translation):
  • The fact that the period in Chinese history is also called the "Warring States period" is no coincidence, it has the same name in Japanese as well; this is probably deliberate, given that Japanese historians (who until the modern era often wrote their histories in classical Chinese) were likely to be well versed in Chinese history. In any case, Wikipedia has disambiguation pages to deal with confusion arising from different things having the same name.
  • It's highly debatable whether "Country at War" or similar is a better translation of sengoku than "Warring States" anyway. If the Japanese use of "sengoku" is a conscious reference to the period in Chinese history, then "Warring States period" (i.e. the name of the Chinese period in English) is a good functional translation. As to a literal translation, the character "国" (the goku in sengoku) in pre-modern contexts often means a "province", i.e. a "unit of administration in former Japan equiv. to modern prefecture" (Halpern, New Japanese-English Character Dictionary), rather than "country" or "nation". In English, "state" can also mean a "unit of administration inside a country", and in the sengoku period, the warring parties were (the daimyo of) such provinces or states; thus once could argue that "Warring States" is also an acceptable literal translation. Eljayess (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Japanese arquebus?[edit]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why a photo of Japanese arquebus of the early Edo era was added to this article. There is no mention of weaponry of any kind in the body of the article itself, and the Edo period is clearly NOT a part of the Sengoku period. My inclination is to remove the photo, although I do think it would be nice if it could be replaced with a more appropriate image. I think an image of the Battle of Nagashino would be nice if we could find one, but there is already an image of the Battle of Kawanakajima used in the Takeda Shingen article, so we could use that for the time being, as well. Any other suggestions or comments about this? Spventi 10:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Time-Span Conflict[edit]

The main article says the Sengoku Period lasted from the "the middle of the 15th century to the beginning of the 17th century", but the time-period chart says it ended in 1573, which is the late 16th century. The article itself goes on to state that the Battle of Sekigahara, which occured in 1600, was the last official battle of the Sengoku Period. Since the Azuchi–Momoyama period is considered a part of the Sengoku Period (it says so in both articles), I propose merging the two pages. Either merge the pages or resolve the time-span conflict. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Chinese warring states period[edit]

This was in the opening paragraph:

The name "Sengoku" was adopted by Japanese historians in reference to the Warring States period in Chinese history (Sengoku jidai (戦国時代) in Japanese) which preceded the unification of China.

This sounds completely irrelevant to me, and as currently worded, I think it makes things more confusing, not less. Yes, the Japanese use the same name to refer to the Japanese sengoku period and the Chinese warring states period. So? English speakers use the term "civil war" to refer to the American Civil War, the English Civil War, the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, etc. -- it's not surprising that they're all called "civil war". They're all basically the same thing (just in different times and places), so they get the same name. If the Chinese warring states period were also called "sengoku" in English, it would have some relevance, but it's not. So I don't see any reason to keep this line. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I think that this wording came about because of some rather flaky alternative translations that were put in the article, so in one sense, I agree that it might be appear to be superfluous as currently worded. One argument in favor of reinstating the sentence, however, is that it is factual. The Japanese of this era considered what was happening in their own nation to be analogous to what had previously happened in China and consciously adopted this name from the Chinese, using the same kanji. Frankly, I am inclined to revert the edit unless others disagree vehemently. Spventi (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

English name[edit]

I have changed the English name of the period back to "the Age of the Country at War", as this is the terminology used in Sansom's well-regarded (definitive?) history of Japan, and is the more accurate terminology. Sansom's book points out (I forget the page number, but I recall it is the first page of the chapter "Chronology of the Onin War and the Age of the Country at War") that while the name Sengoku is used in Japan as a reference to Chinese history, it doesn't make sense in a Japanese context, as the warring entities were not "states" but warlords. The above citation of Japanese-English dictionaries seems sketchy, as Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources written by historical specialists. I appreciate that it is sometimes called the Warring States Period in English, which is why I have added the sentence below with boldface. But the English translation given in the opening sentence should be one from a reputable source. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable People?[edit]

As like probably a few (or maybe many) of you, I come from the whole Koei/Capcom fanbase due to Samurai Warriors/Sengoku Basara and upon looking at the list of "Notable People" I look at this as a bunch of fans listing their favorite characters. There's about 5 people that aren't in the game(s). Although they may be in the game due to that good reason (of being Notable), it just seems a little coincidental.

Can I suggest we just scrap the section because just like many wars, there's tons of important people, and that list clearly does not due justice to a scholars point of view. Either that or someone with extensive time and knowledge fix it up so it features every figure during the war to be prominent. ???

This article has multiple issues?[edit]

This entire so-called encyclopedia has multitudinous issues and is an abject failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.255.246 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Casualties[edit]

How many died during the Sengoku Jidai? Is there anyway to find an estimate somewhere on the net? Thanks Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)