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>

[[Tokugawa Ieyasu]] divided the daimyo into two groups depending on their relationship to him at the time of the [[Battle of Sekigahara]] in [[1600]]. Those who were already his vassals at the time of the battle were considered ''fudai daimyô'' 譜代大名, (vassal daimyo).<ref> "Fudai" first meant generation after generation or a family tree, then someone one serving a lord generation after generation.</ref> All others were ''tozama daimyo'' 外様大名, or "outside lords." The ''tozama'' are often said to have been exclusively those who sided with Ieyasu's enemies at Sekigahara, but this is a misconception, and is strictly speaking incorrect. The ''tozama'' in fact included both the enemies of the Tokugawa, and those who were neutral in the Tokugawa-Ishida conflict, as well as the Tokugawa's most powerful allies; the latter were powerful enough to have not been ''subordinate'' to the Tokugawa in 1600, and should instead be seen as having been ''allies'' on a more or less equal basis with the Tokugawa.

[[Tokugawa Ieyasu]] divided the daimyo into two groups depending on their relationship to him at the time of the [[Battle of Sekigahara]] in [[1600]]. Those who were already his vassals at the time of the battle were considered ''fudai daimyô'' 譜代大名, (vassal daimyo).<ref> "Fudai" first meant generation after generation or a family tree, then someone one serving a lord generation after generation.</ref> All others were ''tozama daimyo'' 外様大名, or "outside lords." The ''tozama'' are often said to have been exclusively those who sided with Ieyasu's enemies at Sekigahara, but this is a misconception, and is strictly speaking incorrect. The ''tozama'' in fact included both the enemies of the Tokugawa, and those who were neutral in the Tokugawa-Ishida conflict, as well as the Tokugawa's most powerful allies; the latter were powerful enough to have not been ''subordinate'' to the Tokugawa in 1600, and should instead be seen as having been ''allies'' on a more or less equal basis with the Tokugawa.