Talk:Ishiyama Hongan-ji War

The title of the article is wrong

It was not a siege (包囲) but a war (石山合戦). The siege lasted just 5 years from 1576 to 1580. Nobunaga could send his armies to siege the monastery only after clean-up of Echizen province.--133.41.4.47 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)--Alex Kov 10:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, while kassen is usually translated to "war", it technically just means "coming together (合う) and fighting (戦う)" and can thus refer just as easily to a battle, siege, or campaign. Not one of my English-language sources refers to this event as a "war." The Honganji was a single location, a fortification which was surrounded by enemy forces and attacked repeatedly (i.e. besieged). Any attempt to break down the Sengoku period into individual wars is problematic, and in any case simply not referred to in that way in English-language literature. But I do thank you for contributing that - if you have any reliable, scholarly English-language sources that do refer to it as a "war", I'd be curious to see them. LordAmeth 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I use no sources in English because they are rather unreliable. Many of them are just the re-interpretations of the Japanese works, offenly misleading. Even Turnbul writes "funny" things. So, better to deal with Japanese books.
2. The term Ishiyama kassen 石山合戦 (Ishiyama Honganji War) relates not only to operations in Osaka (including siege of 1576-1580) but also to pacifiation of the Ikko bands in Omi, Nagashima and Echizen (1571-1576). In 1570 Osaka suddenly struck Nobunaga when he was fighting Miyoshi's forces. Oda had no time to siege Honganji fortess, because there was a danger of Azai-Asakura attack on Kyoto. Therefore he retreated to the capital and besieged Azai-Asakura armies in Eizan. In the winter 1570 Nobunaga made peace with all enemies till the next year. So there was no siege of Osaka started in 1570. Probably you know the history of Oda, thus I see no need to write down here all facts about Ishiyama war.
3. If you want English sources look here [1] year 1576 and here [2]. There was not 10-year siege. So, its better to change article to Ishiyama War or rewrite dates of the Siege of Honganji from 1570-1580 to 1576-1580.

Bless you!--Alex Kov 10:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have certainly grown to appreciate that Turnbull is not the most reliable of sources, and I agree with you that, overall, Japanese sources can be more reliable. However, when it comes to translation issues, as to whether to call something a "war" or a "battle" or a "siege" in English, we must rely on what is typical in English language scholarship. 合戦、戦争、戦い、役、戦火、交戦 do not all translate neatly and easily as to which ones correspond to which English terms. That said, I've been thinking for a time about writing an article on Nobunaga's campaigns, or, "war", if you so desire, against the various ikki outposts. I do not think I will include that here, though, as this article is specifically about the battles fought directly against the Ishiyama Honganji itself.

You state that the siege began in 1576; I recognize that it certainly was not an actively constant process from 1570-1580, but surely there were skirmishes, or battles, or the very beginnings of siege in 1570? Or were Nobunaga's armies completely absent from besieging the Honganji until 1576? Were they completely absent from blockading the monastery fortress until then? LordAmeth 13:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

1. You know better then me that in English the words "siege" and "war" have different meaning. The same is in Japanese with the words 包囲 and 戦争. Its true that in Japanese medieval texts we can see the word 合戦 offen refers to "war" and "battle" at the same time. But in case of "siege" the word 包囲 is most frequently used in the sources. You may confirm it in "Shinchokoki", for example. So my point is that it is a big mistake to describe Ishiyama war (石山合戦, 1570-1580) as the "Siege of Ishiyama Hongan-ji".
2. The second point is that the siege of Honganji was the part of Ishiyama war and started in 1576. There was only one big battle near Osaka in 1570 in which Nobunaga forces retreated. Till 1576 Nobunaga had no time to resolve the "Osaka problem" and he had no even tiny armies to siege the central fortess of Honganji. The Osaka monks prefered to struck in the rear of Nobunaga by revolts rather than act openly. Thus Honganji citadel was free of siege till 1576.

So, the Siege of Honganji started from 1576 [3], while the War with Honganji started in 1570. You have to decide yourself what this article is about (war or siege) and correct its contents correspondingly. Bless you!--Alex Kov 06:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you very much for your help, and advice. I shall take this into consideration, and make the necessary changes at some point. LordAmeth 11:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I have begun looking at my sources again, and attempting to revise the article. But none of my sources indicate that the siege only began in 1576. Look at what I have already written. After the original retreat in 1570, elements of Nobunaga's army remained camped out outside the fortress. They worked with the Mori clan fleet to attempt to blockade the fortress, they watched the movements of the Ikki in order to warn Nobunaga of any necessary changes to his strategy, and they sought any opportunity to launch an assault on the fortress.

By 1575, even before you claim the siege began, Kosa (Kennyo) was facing shortages of food and supplies. A siege does not have to involve active direct assaults - more often than not in feudal Japanese sieges, the attackers simply surrounded the castle and blockaded it - this was going on at the Hongan-ji since 1570. A number of my sources list this as being Japan's longest siege, lasting eleven years; if you insist that that is not the case, then I do not know how to reconcile that with my own sources.

If you would like to provide me with your Japanese sources, if they are available, I would be happy to take a look at them. If my Japanese language skills were better, I could rely more heavily on those sources. But I encourage you not to discount English-language scholarship entirely. Japanese scholars, just like Western scholars, are secondary sources, and everyone jumps to conclusions, misinterprets evidence, or neglects certain sources. Turnbull may be a bit shaky, but I trust my other sources implicitly, and I'm afraid I cannot simply throw out what they say in favor of your assurances otherwise. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)