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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of 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, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 16:29, July 11, 2024 (JST, Reiwa6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
Is it important to the article to include the "koku" amount for the provinces? I cant find any relevance to the main article. Fred2614:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience reading works on Japanese history, giving the koku rating for the domains (藩 han, not the provinces, which are 国 kuni) gives an impression of their size, and thereby, an impression of the amount of soldiers/materiel they were able to field. Tadakuni21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming of course that the reader has a clue as to how much koku is required to field a a samurai/ashigaru, caus it isn't stated in the article. I know what koku is, but thats caus I read it elsewhere. This article doesn't even have a wiki-link to koku. I mean sure the figures look nice and professional and everything, but it doesnt have any relevance in this current state. All I see are a bunch of figures connected to domain-names (all of which are not active Wiki-links save one), but I see nothing to make those figures mean anything to the average reader. For instance, I know that Tokugawa Ieyasu, at around 1600, had domains that generated something like 2 400 000 koku (according to Stephen Turnbull), and Ieyasu could field an army of 100 000 at the time of the Battle of Sekigahara (including detached forces not present at the battle-site). If the article could be more specific regarding koku and how it affects field-strength than perhaps it could work, but not as the article is now. Just my opinion. Fred2606:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Point taken. To start I'll link the article to koku. Will see what else in terms of detail I can add (if anything) that will address what you've said. Tadakuni06:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead refers to "the Tokugawa shogunate", much of the rest of the article refers to "the former Shogunate". This appears to mean that there had been a recent change of shogunate, with supporters of the former shogun trying to reclaim it for him; if so, the change needs explaining. But it may just indicate that editors have different opinions about whether the shogunate still existed.
The "Background" section refers to "former Tokugawa retainers". Had these people stopped supporting the Tokugawa?
The final sentence of that section refers to "Toda Tadayuki, who also advocated surrender". Surrender of the castle, presumably; but to which side? And why "also"? who else had advocated surrendering it?
