Changes

In the Edo Period the term ''daimyô'' was standardized: it referred to a direct retainer of the [[shogun]] whose ''[[han]]'' (fief) was valued at least 10,000 ''[[kokudaka|koku]]''. There were cases where a retainer of a ''daimyô'' had a ''han'' of over 10,000 ''koku'', but they were not considered ''daimyô''.<ref>An example is the [[Ando clan|Andô]] 安藤 family who were retainers of the [[Kii Tokugawa clan]]. They ruled the 38,000 koku han of Tanabe in [[Kii province]]. </ref> The ''daimyô'' were tied to the shogun by a feudal bond between lord and vassal; they typically swore a three-part oath, swearing to obey all shogunal laws strictly, to keep their own house from wickedness, and to serve their lord (i.e. the shogun) diligently. The oath was sealed with blood, and ended with a formulaic statement, common in Edo period oaths, listing deities which would exact retribution against the speaker should he violate the oath. ''Daimyô'' required similar oaths of their retainers, in turn.<ref>[[Mark Ravina]], ''Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan'', Stanford University Press (1999), 35.</ref>

In the Edo Period the term ''daimyô'' was standardized: it referred to a direct retainer of the [[shogun]] whose ''[[han]]'' (fief) was valued at least 10,000 ''[[kokudaka|koku]]''. There were cases where a retainer of a ''daimyô'' had a ''han'' of over 10,000 ''koku'', but they were not considered ''daimyô''.<ref>An example is the [[Ando clan|Andô]] 安藤 family who were retainers of the [[Kii Tokugawa clan]]. They ruled the 38,000 koku han of Tanabe in [[Kii province]]. </ref> The ''daimyô'' were tied to the shogun by a feudal bond between lord and vassal; they typically swore a three-part oath, swearing to obey all shogunal laws strictly, to keep their own house from wickedness, and to serve their lord (i.e. the shogun) diligently. The oath was sealed with blood, and ended with a formulaic statement, common in Edo period oaths, listing deities which would exact retribution against the speaker should he violate the oath. ''Daimyô'' required similar oaths of their retainers, in turn.<ref>[[Mark Ravina]], ''Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan'', Stanford University Press (1999), 35.</ref>

Though the ''daimyô'' was nominally and theoretically the ruler of his domain, a great deal of the actual political and administrative work was done by ''[[karo|karô]]'' (House Elders) and ''[[rusuiyaku]]'' (officials overseeing matters in the lord's absence, in Edo, other major cities, or in the domain). While many ''daimyô'' certainly participated in policy discussions, and expressed opinions, desires, or orders, a great deal was often decided or performed by retainers, who then simply obtained the ''daimyô's'' formal [[seal]] of approval. Much as might be said about the shogun, the [[Emperor of China]] in many periods, or various other rulers throughout world history, it was arguably ritual and performative activity which more heavily dominated a ''daimyô's'' time, and his obligations and role as ruler.<ref>Yamamoto Hirofumi, ''Sankin kôtai'', Kodansha gendai shinsho (1998), 187-188.<

Though the ''daimyô'' was nominally and theoretically the ruler of his domain, a great deal of the actual political and administrative work was done by ''[[karo|karô]]'' (House Elders) and ''[[rusuiyaku]]'' (officials overseeing matters in the lord's absence, in Edo, other major cities, or in the domain). While many ''daimyô'' certainly participated in policy discussions, and expressed opinions, desires, or orders, a great deal was often decided or performed by retainers, who then simply obtained the ''daimyô's'' formal [[seal]] of approval. Much as might be said about the shogun, the [[Emperor of China]] in many periods, or various other rulers throughout world history, it was arguably ritual and performative activity which more heavily dominated a ''daimyô's'' time, and his obligations and role as ruler.<ref>Yamamoto Hirofumi, ''Sankin kôtai'', Kodansha gendai shinsho (1998), 187-188.</ref>

===Categories of Daimyô===

===Categories of Daimyô===