Changes

==Territory and Rank==

==Territory and Rank==

Though many ''daimyô'' continued to hold their ancestral territory as their ''han'', in theory all ''han'' were fiefs granted by the shogunate. The shogunate reserved the right to give and take away lands from ''daimyô'', and often made use of this power, reassigning a given territory to a different samurai clan, and assigning the former lords of that territory to a different domain elsewhere in the archipelago, or simply denying them a territory entirely. In the initial distribution of domains at the beginning of Tokugawa rule, many of the most powerful ''tozama daimyô'' were permitted to retain their territory - as it would have been too risky or difficult for the Tokugawa to attempt to deny the [[Shimazu clan|Shimazu]] or [[Maeda clan]]s their sizable and powerful strongholds - but explicit efforts were made to place ''fudai daimyô'' strategically as "blocks" or "guards" (押え, ''osae'', lit. "pushing" or "pressure") against the threats posed by these ''daimyô''. The [[Hosokawa clan]], for example, was placed in [[Kumamoto han]] in order to serve as ''osae'' against the Shimazu in [[Kagoshima]], and the [[Mori clan|Môri]] in [[Choshu han|Chôshû]] as an ''osae'' against all of Kyûshû. The [[Ii clan]] in [[Hikone han|Hikone]] similarly served as ''osae'' against the western provinces, and as "guardian" (''shugo'') over [[Kyoto]] (in addition to the shogun's own representative, the ''[[Kyoto shoshidai]]'', who oversaw the administration of the city). The [[Tanba clan]], meanwhile, served as ''osae'' against the northern provinces ([[Tohoku|Tôhoku]]).<ref>Yamamoto Hirofumi, ''Sankin kôtai'', Kodansha gendai shinsho (1998), 189-192.</ref>

Though many ''daimyô'' continued to hold their ancestral territory as their ''han'', in theory all ''han'' were fiefs granted by the shogunate. The shogunate reserved the right to give and take away lands from ''daimyô'', and often made use of this power, reassigning a given territory to a different samurai clan, and assigning the former lords of that territory to a different domain elsewhere in the archipelago, or simply denying them a territory entirely. In the initial distribution of domains at the beginning of Tokugawa rule, many of the most powerful ''tozama daimyô'' were permitted to retain their territory - as it would have been too risky or difficult for the Tokugawa to attempt to deny the [[Shimazu clan|Shimazu]] or [[Maeda clan]]s their sizable and powerful strongholds - but explicit efforts were made to place ''fudai daimyô'' strategically as "blocks" or "guards" (押え, ''osae'', lit. "pushing" or "pressure") against the threats posed by these ''daimyô''. The [[Hosokawa clan]], for example, was placed in [[Kumamoto han]] in order to serve as ''osae'' against the Shimazu in [[Kagoshima]], and the [[Mori clan|Môri]] in [[Choshu han|Chôshû]] as an ''osae'' against all of Kyûshû. The [[Ii clan]] in [[Hikone han|Hikone]] similarly served as ''osae'' against the western provinces, and as "guardian" (''shugo'') over [[Kyoto]] (in addition to the shogun's own representative, the ''[[Kyoto shoshidai]]'', who oversaw the administration of the city). The [[Niwa clan]], meanwhile, served as ''osae'' against the northern provinces ([[Tohoku|Tôhoku]]).<ref>Yamamoto Hirofumi, ''Sankin kôtai'', Kodansha gendai shinsho (1998), 189-192.</ref>

Further reassignments or disenfeoffments occurred particularly frequently in the first fifty years or so of Tokugawa control, with 281 instances of clans being moved from one domain to another, and 213 instances of clans losing ''daimyô'' status, and their domains, entirely during that fifty-year period. The latter was most often due to the absence of an heir; though shogunate policies were relaxed later on, initially, deathbed adoptions were not permitted.<ref>Schirokauer, et al. ''A Brief History of Japanese Civilization'', Wadsworth Cengage (2013), 131.</ref> The feudal bond was a personal one, between lord and vassal as individuals, not between the lord and his vassal's heir, nor between households, at least in theory, on one level. This was tempered, however, by the belief in patrimonial authority, that an enfeoffment was part of a household's patrimony, something to be passed down from generation to generation within the ''[[ie]]''. Other cases of attainder were due to lords being accused of rudeness, insubordination, or other sorts of violations of propriety or competence; roughly one-third of attainders in this fifty-year period were the result of this sort of personal failing on the part of the ''daimyô''. The emphasis here is on the personal bond between the shogun and his vassal, and on the personal behavior of the vassal. Only a very small number of cases of attainder, between three and twelve percent depending on definitions, were due to violations of policy, law, or administrative procedure.<ref>[[Mark Ravina]], ''Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan'', Stanford University Press (1999), 36-37.</ref>

Further reassignments or disenfeoffments occurred particularly frequently in the first fifty years or so of Tokugawa control, with 281 instances of clans being moved from one domain to another, and 213 instances of clans losing ''daimyô'' status, and their domains, entirely during that fifty-year period. The latter was most often due to the absence of an heir; though shogunate policies were relaxed later on, initially, deathbed adoptions were not permitted.<ref>Schirokauer, et al. ''A Brief History of Japanese Civilization'', Wadsworth Cengage (2013), 131.</ref> The feudal bond was a personal one, between lord and vassal as individuals, not between the lord and his vassal's heir, nor between households, at least in theory, on one level. This was tempered, however, by the belief in patrimonial authority, that an enfeoffment was part of a household's patrimony, something to be passed down from generation to generation within the ''[[ie]]''. Other cases of attainder were due to lords being accused of rudeness, insubordination, or other sorts of violations of propriety or competence; roughly one-third of attainders in this fifty-year period were the result of this sort of personal failing on the part of the ''daimyô''. The emphasis here is on the personal bond between the shogun and his vassal, and on the personal behavior of the vassal. Only a very small number of cases of attainder, between three and twelve percent depending on definitions, were due to violations of policy, law, or administrative procedure.<ref>[[Mark Ravina]], ''Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan'', Stanford University Press (1999), 36-37.</ref>