| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | 1. Where did you get this?
| + | My way of thinking was that "muromachi" and "rest of muromachi" should end up on the same row in the list at the top, which is why I had it like this |
| − | 2. My host dad in Japan was a HUGE pre-Heian buff. He toured me around all the kofun, etc..will tons of great history I'd never heard before. He made me a list of all the reignal periods, all the year names, both Chinese and Japanese, including all the kanji. I can work on getting some of that up, soon. [[User:Nagaeyari|Nagaeyari]] 20:54, 17 September 2006 (PDT)
| + | |
| | + | ==Muromachi Period== |
| | + | |
| | + | ===XYZ=== |
| | + | |
| | + | ===ABC=== |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Rest of Muromachi Period== |
| | + | |
| | + | Not sure what looks better. |
| | + | |
| | + | There was a discussion about periods on the S-A forum [http://forums.samurai-archives.com/viewtopic.php?t=1939&sid=86f51d8b0183183af2eb93a81bce3ead] |
| | + | |
| | + | Maybe someone could fill in the article with information for pre-Nara periods.--[[User:Bethetsu|Bethetsu]] 20:53, 20 June 2007 (PDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | == Sengoku? == |
| | + | |
| | + | Why is Sengoku described as not included? I understand that much of it overlaps with the Muromachi period, but as far as I am aware it is on equal footing with the Azuchi-Momoyama Period in terms of being an "official" period; as far as I am concerned, Azuchi-Momoyama is even less official, being merely a part of Sengoku. |
| | + | |
| | + | I have also seen chronologies that list 1467 as the end of the Muromachi period (though not, of course, of the Ashikaga shogunate) in order to allow for Sengoku to be a full period extending from 1467- 1600/1603/1615. |
| | + | |
| | + | What do you all think? I really don't see why Sengoku should be singled out like this as not quite official enough or whatever, particularly when Azuchi-Momoyama is included. [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 01:48, 21 June 2007 (PDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | Did you read the link above? The footnotes in the article are a direct result of that discussion. |
| | + | Kitsuno and ltdomer talk about why the Sengoku Jidai is not an official period. Also, of the chronological schemes of 5 scholars given in Nelson's Dictionary, all have Azuchi-Momoyama, but only one gives "Sengoku," and he includes it within Muromachi. |
| | + | |
| | + | Aside from that, this is an outline, and it cannot deal very well with a "period" that is 40 years broad both in the beginning and end. I am hardly a Sengoku denier--in the page I wrote on the [[Osaka Campaign]] I put it in the Sengoku category, though I would certainly call 1615 Edo. But the issue and many of the people were Sengoku. That is the advantage of categories. But for an outline you have to make a choice and stick with it.--[[User:Bethetsu|Bethetsu]] 07:49, 21 June 2007 (PDT) |