Talk:Oda Nobunaga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WPMILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Japanese military history task force
Oda Nobunaga is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Japan To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Oda Nobunaga as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Ukrainian language Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Oda Nobunaga as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Classical Chinese language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Japanese Names and Name Order

Quite a few name-order faux pas in this article. I've cleaned it up as best I can, tired as I am at this moment. I have a feeling this whole Japanese history series needs a good looking-at with respect to this. It's hard for us non-Japanese to get the brain around the fact that the family name is the FIRST name. --Gnoitall 05:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those were not faux pas. At least in Japanese, it's conventional to refer to him as Nobunaga. This serves to distinguish him from all his relatives with the Oda surname. When you look at the Japanese article, you see the full name in several places, for example, titles. But in running text the name Oda is usually followed by -ke, -gun, -ichimon, or some other encompassing term; or by a given name, quite often someone else's. In contrast, references to the individual are usually Nobunaga. Similarly, kings in the West go into history under given names like George or Louis. Even though we're discussing a general rather than a king, we know that Oda Nobunaga's predecessors, the Minamoto and the Ashikaga, were dynastic, and in the latter case, lasted centuries with the same family name (and their descendants are still alive) so the analogy to kings is appropriate. Fg2 08:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. That said, it's a strange and arbitrary distinction, I guess. We don't speak of Winston, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during World War II. References to dynastic given names at least have the additional clue of at least one reference to the "dynastic generation", like Edward I. Add to this that the shogunate was not supposed to be inherently dynastic and explicitly not royal; the Emperor still "ruled", the Shogun administered. So, to my shallow mind, the better precedent is that of a prime minister or even a "Lord Protector" (i.e., military dictator) like Cromwell, who, as you may note, is referred to by surname. And yes, I do understand that if you refer to "Nobunaga", whether in Japanese or English, either your listener will understand you immediately or else wouldn't be any better off if you were to use "Oda" instead. However, within the context of an article about a specific Oda, using the surname seems to me the superior usage. But I could opine all day. Can anyone cite some scholarly practice which favors the colloquial "given name" style or the formal "surname" style? Or better yet, is there an actual preference in the bulk of the Japanese historical articles here? (And yes, calling Suzuki Ichiro "Ichiro" bugs the crap out of me, even if there were perfectly valid "non-error" reasons to.)--Gnoitall 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it's strange. Personally, I'm not sure what's right. Fg2 06:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
FWIW (a year later) I have tons of "scholarly" books in Japanese, and it is standard to call them by thier "given names" in the text after thier family name is established. In my biography of Chosokabe Motochika here he is refered to as "Motochika" and his father as "Kunichika" exclusively. It is the standard in Japanese, and in English academic works. The only time family names are used are when they are "introduced" into the text the first time, or where it is important to keep the names straight. As mentioned above, the surnames (or clan names) are only used when referring to a broader generalization like "The Akechi castle", "The Oda army", etc. --Kuuzo 09:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline?

The timeline thing on this page now looks very stubby. It contains a lot of unexplained information and gives people the idea that it's already complete. The timeline should be axed and broken up into more expandable units. --Euniana/Talk 18:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm rewriting that section entirely. Try not to edit the subsections until I'm done with them. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 02:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this looks better. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 19:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a question

Okay, this is just a little thing for me I guess, I just wanted the little bit on Hikaru no Go's special chapter extended a bit. I mean, I think the person Hikaru was playing could have been anybody, as well as with Tsutsui, but what about Akari? Was that the kotaishi, or was that Mori Ranmaru? (And so then why was Mori played by a female character???) The Tetsuo character (playing Oda) said, "You must flee, Oran!", if that helps anybody. The "oran" (Akari) then refuses to flee. This is why i'm confused on what character she played. She had a sword, and guarded his chamber.

[edit] Suicide Is Uncertain

Whether or not ODA Nobunaga committed suicide, at Honnou-ji, is unknown, and the article should reflect this fact. Oda Nobunaga, may have just burnt to death, in the fire that AKECHI Mitsuhide set. Either way there were no withnesses to Oda Nobunaga's death, and his body was not found, after the fire, and never recovered.

Michael 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I read a lot more sources dealing about how his death might be caused by fire instead. That's also portrayed in Samurai Warriors and Onimusha.

I can't speak for Onimusha, but he probably committed suicide - regardless, there were no witnesses, but since he wasn't killed in plain sight, suicide is the likeliest. --Kuuzo 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nagashino muskets

There was recently a change on this article, removing the statement "(Nobunaga had purchased the 3000 muskets from Italy; Japanese muskets would have pierced the armor but had less of a chance to kill)", and positing that the muskets were domestic. Does anyone have a source one way or the other on this? While I find it extremely unlikely that anyone in Japan would have any contact with Italy at this point in history, I also know that there were very few foundries in Japan capable of producing muskets. They would have had to be bought from the Dutch or Portuguese, I'd have imagined. LordAmeth 11:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of muskets from Italy, although Portuguese or Dutch might have brought them. Anyway, there were three famous musket foundry regions; Sakai, Kunitomo and Negoro, according to jp.wikipedia.org. Sakai is very famous and every story about Nobunaga mentions this town. They produced good quality and large number of muskets throughout the Sengoku period. As for the 3000 muskets Nobunaga purchased, I will try to look for sources. --LittleTree 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that there is no source that shows from where Nobunaga purchased the muskets for Nagashino, but some clues:
  • The number 3000 is questioned by historians. One of the most reliable source mentions 1000 muskets used in Nagashino. [1]
  • Nobunaga ordered 500 muskets from Kunitomo in 1549. [2] (The year should be questioned, though.)
  • Nobunaga had a musket corps of 500 already in 1569. [3]
  • Nobunaga had Sakai under his control in 1569.
  • There are notes that show Sakai received an order for 1000 muskets just after Sekigahara and another 1000 from Tokugawa before the Siege of Osaka. [4]
These clues suggest it was not very difficult for Nobunaga to prepare 1000 domestic muskets for Nagashino, and perhaps even more.　--LittleTree 01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello to everyone! Why are you spkeaking about muskets? It seems to me that Japanese fuse guns of that time where similar to European matchloks or harquebuses then muskets. It is well known that Nobubaga used "teppo" (guns) in the battle of Nagashino, but noone knows what kind of "teppo" they trully were. I suggest that we should change muskets to harquebuses. Any objections?--Alex Kov 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We are speaking of muskets because the translation of teppo, like most translations, is not 100% fixed and clear. Also, because as students of Asian history, we may not have the greatest knowledge of the detailed differentiations between Western firearms. In any case, I like to use "matchlocks," "guns," and "muskets" in addition to "arquebuses," just for variety and ease of reading. But I see your point, and I certainly won't argue it. Where did the "h" in "harquebus" comes from, incidentally? LordAmeth 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I am ignorant about those English words, and would not argue either, but would like to know the differences. So, "(h)arquebuses" are a kind of "matchlocks"? (There is an "h" at the head in my dictionary.) And muskets are another type of them? (However, the article says In the 16th century, the most common musket was the arquebus. hmmm... I am confused.) And, every one of the three articles tells "it" was brought in Japan in 1543, ... which type was actually brought in? Are you sure that it was harquebuses and not an older type of matchlocks? Here are pictures of the first gun in Japan (imported by Portuguese) for your info. [5][6]. --LittleTree 05:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atsumori

I notice in the "fiction" section it mentions "fictitious sources" stating that Nobunaga sung the Atsumori before Okehazama - according to the Shinchokoki (信長公記) (P.85 of the "modern Japanese" translation by Nakagawa Taiko) he performed that verse from Atsumori after hearing about the fall of Washizu and Marune. After which he let it be known that they would fight rather than prepare for a seige. Since this was written by Oota Gyuichi who was born in 1527 and served Nobunaga, he would have either witnessed this firstand or heard this from people who witnessed it firsthand, so I think it can be said that at least this time, it was true based on primary materials (as opposed to at Honnouji, where there were no witnesses. --Kuuzo 08:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/d/a/Talk%7EOda_Nobunaga_e964.html"