Hideyoshi's Rice Assessed Tax System

　 Historians today, unfortunately, divide Japanese history into four distinct sections. The division into ancient, medieval, early modern and modern eras is taken for granted in history textbooks and many history books. Early modern era is forcibly inserted between the medieval and modern eras. This division of history is common knowledge in Japan today. Moreover, the four historical divisions are not only asserted in Japanese history, but also in Western European history.
　 However, the four historical divisions are erroneous. This view of history perverts Japanese and Western European history and seriously damages the rational historical evolution. This is because the early modern era is only one period within the medieval era and cannot be considered an independent history. Early modern era should therefore be deleted from human history.This error is due to their failure to accurately grasp the nature of the medieval era and to understand the evolution of history.
　 The difference between the three and four divisions of history is not simply a matter of historiography, but an essential problem for humanity. Because the three divisions reveal the evolution of history, facilitate a precise understanding of history and (as will be discussed in Chapter 3) identify the root causes of the bipolar conflict between democracies and tyrants in the world today, and therefore work in their own way to dissolve the bipolarization. In contrast, the four categories do not have the power to point out the important problems of our time.
　 Today, well-known theories of medieval Japan include the 800-year, 500-year and 400-year theories of the medieval eras. All three are wrong in important respects. The common mistake of all three is that they have divided the medieval eras into two halves and deleted the latter part of it from Japanese history. And then the early modern era was invented to fill in the missing pieces. In the Japanese historical timeline, a vertical line is drawn at the end of the Muromachi period, marking the end of the medieval eras, and the beginning of the early modern eras beyond.
　 Why have researchers cut off the medieval eras in the middle of it? One of the grounds for this error was the rice assessed tax system established by Hideyoshi, who unified Japan: since the 12th century, the samurai continued to destroy the manorial system and took away all the manors owned by the nobility in the 16th century. Thus, the land and tax systems of the ancient dynasties disappeared at that time, and the samurai therefore had to invent a new land and tax system. The rice assessed tax system was the first land and tax system established by the samurai in their own right.
　 Researchers considered changes in Hideyoshi’s land and tax system to be the basis for historical division. Therefore, they judged that the manorial system collapsed, so the medieval eras ended, and land and tax system was established, so the early modern era began.
　 However, this was a sloppy division of history, because history should be divided according to the ruling body. Land and taxation systems was one of the instruments of domination, which changed several times in ancient eras and in the medieval eras at the convenience of the rulers. In other words, they might provide an opportunity to demarcate【periods】, but they cannot be the basis for demarcating【history】. As a result, the coherence of medieval history, and the rational evolution of history, was lost at the earliest opportunity.

Statue of Toyotomi Hideyoshi (painted by Mitsunobu Kano)

　This section will now refute these theories. The rice assessed tax system was merely a system, and the author will prove that it changed society at that time, but it did not change the nation.
　Hideyoshi surveyed the land across the nation, and gave each peasant a specific piece of land. Then he calculated the amount of rice produced in each field in a year, and decided the tax based on it. As a result, peasants worked hard on their land, accumulated a certain amount of wealth, and from that they paid an annual tribute to the feudal lord.
　In addition, Hideyoshi profoundly changed the way peasants paid taxes. He removed the vicious middlemen who were once intervening between peasants and manorial lords, and made peasants paid tax directly to the feudal lords. Therefore, tax payment methods were simplified and made transparent, and disputes over tax payment after the Momoyama period decreased sharply. This nationwide land survey and new tax system were all due to Hideyoshi’s power. No one but Hideyoshi could do such a daring thing. Hideyoshi was a strong individual.
　Until then, only a few peasants owned land and became rich farming, while many peasants did not own land. As cultivators of the manor, they provided the manor’s labor power and barely survived like slaves. However, Hideyoshi’s policy freed many peasants from the manor system and made them landowners. They were then able to use their labor power for themselves. It marked the self-reliance of peasants.
　Historians have been fascinated by Hideyoshi’s power and overestimated it, and have simply thought the old Japan disappeared and a new Japan emerged. Therefore, they believed that Hideyoshi, was a strong individual, or a despot; Japan had become a despotic state with Hideyoshi at the top, and that the system had turned to a centralized system, so Japan was no longer a decentralized state. As a result, they ended up fabricating a history of the early modern era.
　Well, the author would like to share something decisive. Hideyoshi, who systemized the rice assessed tax system, did not monopolize the national tax. Even though the land system had changed, Hideyoshi still collected taxes only from the fields in his territory, the Kansai region (one of the western parts of Japan). Tax-collection rights were divided among over 100 feudal lords at the time. As he was a medieval king who respected their lordship, Hideyoshi did not embezzle the taxes of feudal lords and did not intervene in the management of their territories. No matter how powerful he was, he never became like an ancient king, nor did he return the state to the ancient era. Japan in the Momoyama period was still a decentralized state and this was in the medieval era .
　The division and distribution of land to the peasantry was one of the achievements of medieval divisionism. Just as previous medieval kings had divided the country and given each piece of land to a feudal lord, and just as feudal lords had divided their fiefdoms and given them to the samurai, Hideyoshi further subdivided the land and gave each piece of land to the peasantry. This meant that most medieval people owned land and were self-reliant. In this respect, it can be said that Hideyoshi’s time was a period of establishment for medieval Japan, and that the medieval Japan was established through divisionism.
　“Changes in the land and tax system” and “Changes in the ruling system” are two different things. The revolutionaries who changed in the ruling system from decentralization to centralization were the leaders of the Meiji Restoration in the 19th century. That marked the time of death of medieval Japan. Therefore, the medieval era did not die in the Muromachi period. This era continued from the Muromachi period to the Momoyama period and then to the Edo period, and disappeared along with the Edo period. All three theories of medieval Japan are clearly wrong on this point.
　Whether the land and tax system were a manorial system or a rice assessed tax system, such things have no effect on the change of the ruling system. The above theorists have been wrong on two counts. One is the confusion between power and centralization. Power is the strength or weakness of authority, but centralization is the method of the state system. These two are completely different concepts.
　Hideyoshi had power and wielded it to change the tax system, but he did not use it to change the ruling system. He followed the decentralized system since Yoritomo.
　The other cause is the confusion between the ruling body and the means of control. Researchers do not distinguish between the two because they are indifferent to or ignorant of the difference. In fact, the concept of a ruling body has never existed in historical association. Therefore, the ruling body and the means of control are mixed up even today. As a result, researchers have misclassified history by relying on the rice assessed tax system.
　It was clear that Hideyoshi was not a revolutionary and his unification of Japan was not a revolution to change Japan history. The Momoyama period was one of the periods that belonged to the medieval era, but not the beginning of a new era. However, historians misinterpreted Hideyoshi's unification of Japan as the centralization of the state, and misunderstood that Japan in the Momoyama period became a centralized state. It was a confusion between power and centralization. As a result, they regarded the Momoyama period as the beginning of the early modern era and divided the history of Japan into four parts. It was a superficial judgment to fabricate the history of Japan.
　This error can be seen in Western European history, too. In Western European history, the history of the early modern era is advocated, and it is inserted between the medieval era and the modern age. Generally speaking, early modern Western Europe spans about 300 years, from the 15th century to the 18th century. (Early modern Japan is considered to have been from the 16th century to the 19th century.)
　However, just as the early modern era in Japanese history was a fake, it can be said that the early modern era of Western European history is also a sham. It is also a falsification of history.Take medieval France, for example. From the late 17th century to the early 18th century, Louis XIV wielded great power as king. He was called the Sun King and his time was known as the Age of Absolutism. Louis XIV built the Palace of Versailles, embellished his royal authority, and demonstrated his absolutism at home and abroad. He appeared like a tyrant, in control of the entire state. In fact, He sent his officials into the fiefdoms throughout the country, intervened in the rule of the feudal lords, threatened them. He was trying to weaken the feudal lords and strengthen his sovereignty.
　As a result, historians believed that Louis XIV was a tyrant, France a centralized state, and that the decentralized system, that had been in existence since the 10th century, disappeared.　This overestimation of Louis XIV is reminiscent of that of Hideyoshi.
　However, historical facts paint a different picture. The Bourbon dynasty certainly sought to centralize France. Louis XIV's harassment of the feudal lords meant that France was still a decentralized state, and that feudal lords maintained their lordship. Thus, the term absolutism is imprecise, as there was no such thing.

Storming of the Bastille(1789)
The storming of the Bastille marked the beginning of the French Revolution.

　Why, then, did Louis XIV pursue such a dangerous policy of antagonizing the feudal lords? The reason was because the Bourbon dynasty was facing a financial crisis. Louis XIV fought repeated wars with neighboring states, and was distressed by the huge costs of war. For a long time, the kings continued to oppress the peasants and collected harsh taxes. However, peasants alone could not fund a war. Therefore, Louis XIV was prepared to intervene in the feudal lords, knowing the risk. This was a challenge to lordship.
　And, this policy became a reality under the reign of Louis XVI. It was to strip the feudal lords of their tax exemption and to collect taxes from them. This of course caused havoc. The feudal lords never let go of it. The right to collect taxes in their own territories was the lifeline for feudal lords.
　Feudal lords had contractual obligations to their king called campaigns. That is why kings had granted feudal lords special privileges and tax exemptions for centuries. Until then, kings had made campaigns the duty of knights (feudal lords) and taxes the duty of peasants. But Louis XVI informed the feudal lords that they should both wage war and pay taxes. Naturally the feudal lords were outraged, as tax exemption was the mark of a feudal lord. If it disappeared, the duty of military service should also disappear. This is because the campaigns were about protection. If the king gave the feudal lord no protection, the campaign would disappear. The king alone would fight the enemy. Is that what you want? the feudal lords asked the king. The abolition of tax exemption would mean the disappearance of the feudal lordship, and the very foundation of the Middle Ages.
　Naturally、Louis　XVI met with fierce resistance from the feudal lords and eventually withdrew this policy. Nevertheless, Louis XVI remained determined to take taxes from the people. Then the king chose the city’s leading merchants as his next target. However, it was also a policy of the king to usurp the privileges of the privileged. As we will detail later, the medieval kings of France granted autonomy to the leading cities in the country. And in return, the city provided the king with commercial taxes and soldiers. It’s a give-and take.
　Therefore, the citizens were as privileged as the feudal lords, and they were exempt from taxes from the king. This time, however, the king ignored the privilege and tried to extort money from the merchants. It was a breach of contract and double taxation．Of course, they were vehemently opposed.
　It was the fact that feudal lords and powerful merchants, along with kings, formed the ruling class of medieval France for several centuries. Nevertheless, the king kicked them in the foot in order to get the money. It was a desperate act for the king to survive. Anyway, to betray his people seems to attempt to destruct decentralized system, and to return medieval France to an ancient state. However, it is a contradiction of history, and history did not allow it.
　The king’s forcible policies resulted in a split in ruling class of France and a decline in their cohesion. At the same time, it on the contrary brought unity between peasants and citizens, forming the anti-establishment movement. This major change in power in the country was an important requirement for the success of the revolution that was to come. In this respect, it can be said that the king is the one who destroyed the medieval era.
　The financially troubled Louis XVI could neither stand still nor move forward. To stop (accepting tax exemption as before) would lead to financial bankruptcy, France’s defeat and civil war. On the other hand, to advance (removal of tax exemption) would create a split in ruling class, and eventually bring about the fall of the Bourbon dynasty. He had no escape route. France had pushed the Middle Ages to its limits. In this respect, the early modern era (the age of absolutism) was one period in the medieval era that came closest to the modern era.
　Both Louis XIV and Louis XVI were still medieval kings, but not tyrants with absolute power. Absolute monarchy might have been their goal, but it was an illusion, something fundamentally untenable. The medieval era cannot overcome the medieval era on their own. It is the modern era that overcomes the medieval era. Therefore, the era of absolute monarchy was shoddy, and the name and content did not match at all.
　Therefore, the early modern era (absolute monarchy) cannot be said an independent history on a par with antiquity and the medieval era. The history of Japan and France is represented by the transition of ancient, medieval and modern era.
　Both Louis XIV and Hideyoshi exercised their power. With his dominant power, Hideyoshi changed the land system of Japan, but he did not try to change the medieval state system. He still recognized the feudal lords' right to collect taxes and maintained decentralization.
　On the other hand, Louis XIV and Louis XVI not only reformed administrative systems , but also attempted to abolish tax exemption, to destroy the decentralized system, and to promote centralization of the state.　In the end, it brought about an inevitable conflict between decentralization and centralization in France, and became the starting point of French Revolution.　
　Absolute monarchy toughened the spirit of the people. People angrily rejected the return of tyranny, and this time they did not merely seek to divide and weaken the royal power, but explicitly aimed at abolishing it itself. Indeed, people did not hesitate to kill or exile kings and feudal lords whom they once feared or sometimes even respected. People transformed their worldview. It was to eradicate the rule of men and establish the rule of law. The idea that the ruler of a state should be the law was a breakthrough in human history.　
　At the time, despotism, which had tormented people frequently since ancient times, finally came to its end. As a result, tyranny disappeared and democratic government was established, which was the collapse of the medieval eras and the beginning of the modern era. This is the second time in human history that the spirit has been strengthened. The French Revolution eventually spilled over into Western Europe and Japan, and they too began to modernize their states, eliminating the medieval kings and the feudal system. In this respect, the French Revolution was a revolution within a revolution.
　After 2,000years of fierce struggle against tyranny, humanity has finally achieved their dreams. It is a dream of people being freed from tyranny, a dream of　holding of equality and freedom, and a dream of being in control of ourselves. It was a great evolution in humanity.
　It is well known that Louis XVI was publicly executed. The leaders of the French Revolution abolished feudal domains and established prefectures in return, took away all legislative powers, administrative powers, and taxation powers held by the feudal lords, and centralized them under the central government in Paris.
　Napoleon, who put an end to the revolution, enacted the Napoleonic Code as a national law. All the feudal laws of France and the laws customary in religious and commercial circles were abolished. This marked the centralization of French law. Effectively, all citizens were equal under the law. The prototype for modern France had been established.
　Now the author returns to the story about decentralized rule in the medieval eras. Medieval rule can be divided into three types from the internal perspective of the ruling class. One is the case of the king with more power than feudal lords. This is the case when the power of the medieval king is strong and the power of the feudal lord was weak. This has led to the illusion that decentralization has disappeared and the state system has been replaced by centralization.
　Such examples are the ruling regimes of Hideyoshi and Louis XVI, mentioned above. And that illusion gave birth to the historical term absolute monarchy, forced the medieval era to disappear, and then created the false　history of the early modern era. This is the case where historical falsification is most likely to occur.
　The second is the case of the king with less power than feudal lords. This was marked by a weakened king, weakened ruling system, malfunctioning of land ownership rights, disorder, widespread selfish actions of the lords, and chaos. For example, this corresponds to the latter half of the Muromachi period. When thel power of the medieval king was gone completely, Japan turned into a state of war. It was a lawless age in which neither the decentralized system nor the centralized system of power existed.
　And the last one is the case of king and feudal lords with equal power. This was a relatively tranquil time when king and feudal lords recognized each other and ruled together hand in hand. Such example might be 18th century medieval Japan, or 13th century medieval France.

　These three types arose from the division of government inherent in the medieval era, and were the result of the division of state power into two: sovereignty and lordship. Of course, such a division did not exist either in the ancient era or in the modern era, because in both, state power exists as a single entity. This was an ancient king and a constitution.This also illustrates the duality of the medieval era.
　The author’s assertion that the early modern era is unnecessary in Japanese history and in French history is probably proved by the above explanation. The period of "King with more power than feudal lords" was only part of the medieval history, especially the late medieval. Historians, both in Japan and France, have been fascinated by this powerful sovereignty of the medieval kings and as a result, have made rash interpretations of history. It shows that they have vague notions about the medieval era.

Nobunaga’s Status Separation of Samurai and Peasants

　The　status separation of samurai and peasants, like the rice assessed tax system, also serves as a basis for the theory that the medieval era died in the Muromachi period. Again, this section will refute this basis and clarify the error of this theory.
　In ancient countries, all citizens were imperial subjects. However, in the 12th century, the division of imperial subjects began in the Kanto region. Yoritomo divided imperial subjects living in the Kanto region into the subjects （samurai and peasants）of a number of feudal lords. This marked the birth of medieval divisionism.
　In the Muromachi period, there were more than 30 feudal lords in Japan. Therefore, the Ashikaga shogun divided the Japanese people into more than 30 peoples of feudal lords. And finally, in the Edo period, the Tokugawa shogunate subdivided the people into 260 feudal territories. People who could be called imperial subjects no longer existed.
　Also, both samurai and peasants lived together in villages until the Muromachi period. A samurai owned his estate in a village, managed the peasants, and farmed. At this time, “A village ” meant a community of samurai and peasants.
　However, during the Sengoku period, the people were further divided. Oda Nobunaga, one of the powerful sengoku daimyo, wanted to increase his military strength and divided his people into two groups based on work. One was the samurai whose job was to fight. They became stationed in castle towns, away from the village. The other was the rice-growing peasants, who continued to live in villages.
　As a result, the village became a community of peasants. This division was widespread throughout Japan. In the Edo period, peasants were further divided into villagers and townspeople (merchants and craftsmen). This was because towns grew amid the development of commerce. The number of peasants left the villages, began to live in towns, and set up business, worked for various merchant families, created everyday items as artisans, and served in the residences of samurai families. Edo and many towns in Japan increased rapidly, building a large power.
　In this way, the ancient imperial subjects were finally divided into three types of medieval people: samurai, villagers, and townspeople. This was the establishment of the status system in medieval Japan.
　 　What kind of precision did the caste system work with in medieval Japan? There were some exceptions where the status system was not absolute, but not formal either. For example, highly capable peasants were hired by feudal lords, gained samurai status, and participated in the management of the fiefdom. Or wealthy merchants acquired samurai status with money. And there were times when samurai turned into doctors, scholars, painters, etc.
　The status system was indeed a system with three statuses, but in its operation, freedom of movement between statuses was allowed to a considerable extent. In particular, it was almost normal for peasants to turn into townspeople. The second and third sons of peasants and daughters in the villages went to the city and became peddlers, adopted sons of merchants, carpenters, indentured servants in samurai estates and others.
　Poor peasants had no choice but to leave their villages in order to survive. The town was attractive to the peasants because there were a variety of occupations and they could make a living, even if they were poor. Then the shogunate, fearing the devastation of the village, tried to stop the peasants from leaving the village, but it was impossible. In any case, the status system was one of the culminations of divisionism in the medieval Japan.
　However, researchers are completely indifferent to the history of divisionism. Without examining this continuum of history, they focus only on the Sengoku period. They then point out two things: the mixing of samurai and peasants in the Muromachi period and the separation of samurai and peasants in the Sengoku period, and insist only on this difference. And they drew a line between the Muromachi period and Sengoku (or Momoyama) period, naming the former the medieval era and the latter the early modern era.
　Their mistakes are twofold. One is to examine only a special era of time and draw conclusions, without looking at the continuum of history, and the other is to classify history by means of control, not by ruling body.
　They focus only on the status separation of soldiers and peasants during the Sengoku period, but neglected to go back to the Kamakura period and verify the division of the royal people that took place there, and further down to the Edo period, they did not take into account the emergence of another status as a townsman. Just as a hunter chasing a deer does not see the mountain, a historian who hunts for old documents does not see history.
　Next, the separation of samurai and peasant is not a revolutionary event that marks history. Because, it is only the means of control, not ruling body. It only changed medieval society somewhat. It is no more than that.
　If we treat simplistically the mixing of samurai and peasant as a piece of the medieval era, and the separation of the two as a piece of the early modern era, we must call the late Edo period as the medieval era, because at the time samurai and peasant reappeared mixed.
　In the late 19th century Western European powers had begun to advance into Japan for trade. And then not only samurai, but many peasants took up arms. And the two worked together to martyr themselves to the old regime or organize a revolutionary army. For example, peasants from Hachioji (Hachioji City, Tokyo) wore swords, called themselves the Shinsengumi, and fiercely fought alongside the old regime’s samurai against the revolutionary forces. In the Choshu clan (Yamaguchi Prefecture), also samurai, peasants, and townspeople took up arms and formed combat groups in order to fight against the Western powers. And the samurai intrigued such movements of the mix. Far from forbidding the mixing of samurai and peasant, samurai encouraged it. Nobunaga and Hideyoshi’s policy of separating samurai and peasant had been completely denied. Then, the mixing of samurai and peasant became a nationwide trend.
　In this respect, the Muromachi period and the late Edo period are the same periods of mixed samurai and peasantry. Then the late Edo period must be considered also the medieval era , the same as the Muromachi period .
　It is a contradictory historical transition. The medieval era appears twice, such as the medieval era - the early modern era - the medieval era. What do historians think of this improbable historical transition ?
　This is the result of misclassifying history based on means of control. Whether it is a mixing of samurai and peasant or a separation of samurai and peasant, both belong to medieval history. The two are the means of control which change many times in the medieval history, depending on the occasional decisions of medieval kings. Therefore, the separation of samurai and peasants is not a factor in classifying history.
　Social change and historical change are two different things. We must not confuse the two.

Self-reliance of Medieval Peasants

　Finally, the author will introduce another fallacious theory that medieval Japan died in the Muromachi period . This is the theory of peasant self-reliance. This is also a well-known medieval theory that has woven together early modern history with the rice assessed tax system and the separation of samurai and peasant.
　This theory can be summarized as follows.――In the Momoyama period, Hideyoshi established Rise assessed tax system, and allowed peasants to own their own farmland. So, this theorist thought that peasants became independent and no longer slaves. And he believed that this change had moved history, that the medieval eras had ended and the early modern period had begun.
　However, this theory is also false. This is because this theorist also interprets history in a short-sighted way. Peasant independence is wonderful, but it is not a revolutionary thing.
　It may be the historian's mission to focus on a single point of history and delve deeply into it, but he neglects a broad examination of history as a whole. The theorist does not trace history back to the Kamakura period, does not pay attention to the independence of feudal lords and samurai from ancient dynasties, and therefore does not notice their self-reliance.
　That's a real one-sided omission. The feudal lords and samurai were no longer the retinues of ancient kings and nobles, and set up their own national system, creating their own laws in eastern Japan. This independence of samurai was the first step toward the self-reliance of the medieval eras.
　The second stage was peasants' self-reliance. This came some 400 years after the self-reliance of the samurai. The impetus behind this was the collapse of the manorial system. During the Sengoku period , peasants were liberated from their manors and became free, and acquired farmland through the separation of samurai and peasant and Hideyoshi’s land survey.
　In the Momoyama period , peasants accounted for about 80% of Japan’s population and samurai did 10%. It meant that most of the Japanese people established lives at that time. This shows that the medieval era , which started with Yoritomo, were established as a whole.
　Therefore, it is not possible to draw history from the origins of peasants alone. Ignoring the self-reliance of the samurai and claiming the self-reliance of the peasants alone as an epoch-making history, and advocating the theory that the medieval era died in the Muromachi period is too one-sided and irresponsible.
　Furthermore, the author points out the flaws in this theory. It is that self-reliant people in the medieval era were not only samurai and peasants, but townspeople in the Edo period .
　Edo shogunate divided at work peasants into villagers and townspeople. Townspeople settled in towns and lived as merchants and craftsmen.
　 Samurai lived in samurai towns, peasants lived in villages, and townspeople lived in towns. The townspeople were merchants and artisans, under the control of the samurai family, and followed the laws of the samurai family.
　For example, the townspeople of Edo lived under the rule of the Edo shogunate. Tokugawa often issued miscellaneous instructions that would affect the lives of the townspeople in Edo in order to preserve the order they had created with their wits. It was basically harsh on the townspeople.
　Even so, the samurai allowed the townspeople to govern their autonomy as long as they did not disturb the security of Edo and did not violate the laws established by Tokugawa. It was town self-government. The townspeople created the town law on their own and ran the town according to the law. It was the same with village self-government. Of course, there was no dictator in the town.

Saruwakamachi Night View, Utagawa Hiroshige, 1856
At night, Saruwakacho is crowded with people after watching
a play Saruwakacho is a town where playhouses are collected
（Collection of the Art Institute of Chicago）

　In fact, the town’s administrative, judicial, police, and fire departments were run by influential townspeople. For example, regarding the judiciary, townspeople were in charge of disputes between townspeople themselves and tried to resolve them. It was a mediation, not a trial. And only when the mediation was not successful, the matter was brought to the shogunate court. Therefore, most of the problems that occurred in the town were solved by the townspeople through mediation. This is why the samurai judiciary was of such a small scale.
　Similarly, the security agencies of the Edo shogunate was also small, consisting of a small number of samurai police officers. This was because townspeople formed a neighborhood watch and were in charge of maintaining public order in the town on a day-to-day basis. Samurai police officers only handled big matters that townspeople could not solve.

Kitagawa Utamaro《Three beauties》

　The townspeople were also in charge of firefighting, and the firefighting team was made up of townspeople. In this regard, Edo was a huge municipality of townspeople, and the Edo shogunate was a very small government.
　The Edo shogunate did not collect taxes from the townspeople,　probably　because　they considered the economic activities townspeople’s duty, as it would enrich the territory. Therefore, the public money that townspeople paid was only for self-governing expenses for running their town, such as security, fire protection, road and well repair, and festivals.
　In any cases, townspeople were rulers of the town. Tax exemption and freedom enriched townspeople, developed a monetary economy, and helped Edo grow into a city of one million people. A number of wealthy merchants were born who ran financial and retail business.
　The shogun ruled the samurai and the townspeople separately in terms of work and housing. It was a typical divisionism reign. The samurai lived the samurai-style way of life in the samurai town, and the townspeople lived the townspeople's way of life in their town. And this form of domination was the same as the form in which the medieval king ruled over the feudal lords, and the feudal lords ruled over the samurai and peasants.
　Medieval kings recognized the feudal lords’ autonomy and did not interfere in the management of their fiefdoms, as long as they obeyed the laws established by the kings and faithfully performed their duties in the war. In the same way, the feudal lords did not intervene in their self-government, as long as the samurai, peasants and townspeople obeyed the lords’ laws, did not disturb the social order, and faithfully performed their respective duties (campaign, annual tribute payment, commercial activities). In this way, medieval rulers guaranteed the independence and freedom of the people.
　It marked the realization of medieval egalitarianism almost exactly and the completion of the divisionism of medieval Japan. In this respect, the samurai rule of the Edo period might be said one of the perfect forms of decentralized rule.
　On the other hand, in ancient countries people are not guaranteed independence and freedom at all. Although they obey the laws of the dictators, the people are not allowed to have municipality in return, cannot exercise self-government, and cannot get independence and freedom. That is tyranny. Hence the people hardly have the opportunity to get an autonomous way of life.
　However, the medieval eras were the medieval eras. This was because the independence and freedom of medieval people was incomplete: Outside their municipality was a land ruled directly by medieval kings or feudal lords. Peasants and townspeople cannot gain autonomy or freedom there. In that regard, their independence was limited and unfinished. It was also a medieval duality.
　Yet they clung to its imperfect autonomy, because it was irreplaceable, which they had earned at great cost over the centuries. Therefore, they managed the villages and towns stably, and maintained order, so that they would not give the medieval kings and feudal lords an excuse to intervene in their villages and towns.
　If the village had lost order and became disorderly, the kings and feudal lords would undoubtedly have intervened in the village, deprived them of their autonomy, and carried out punishment. Naturally, their independence and freedom would disappear.
　Everything was the equality of the two, and a promise was a promise. Failure of autonomy leads to loss of protection. Hence, samurai, villagers, and townspeople honed the spirit of autonomy and strictly acquired the spirit of law-abiding and self-governing.
　Now, the modernization revolution in 19th Century Japan turned the half-hearted autonomy of the medieval era into a complete one. The revolutionaries abolished lordship status, breaking down all the barriers between territories, villages, and towns, and united them into one land, one people, and one state power. It was the disappearance of divisionism. and the birth of the nation-state.
　At that time, Japan became one huge municipality. Importantly, two centuries of experience in village and town self-government played a decisive role in enabling national self-government (democratic politics and the rule of law). This was because democratization could not be achieved without the spirit of self-government and law-abiding spirit.
　As a result, all citizens, without exception, gained complete independence and freedom in their own country, that was, they could live anywhere in their country, and they were better off in any profession. It meant the abolition of the status system and the disappearance of the duality of the medieval era.
　Hence, historical shift in people`s self-reliance is shown as follows., ancient era when people era not independent---medieval era when people era independent halfway--- modern era when people era fully independent.It vividly expresses the evolution of history.
　This concludes the explanation of the theory of peasant self-reliance. And the author convinces that the early modern era cannot exist as an independent history in Japan. It is only part of medieval history.

Ieyasu's Forced Relocation of Feudal lords to Different Domains

　Thus far, the author has explained the fallacy of the theory that the medieval era died in the Muromachi period by showing three examples: the rice assessed tax system, the separation of samurai and peasant, and the self-reliance of peasants. As a final example, let us look at the forced relocation of feudal lords to different domains. This is also the basis for the theory.
　Regulation of the feudal lords was inevitable for medieval kings. Because, feudal lords were the squires of the medieval king, basically his allies, but they were also independent samurai with lordships. In some cases they could become enemies of the king. Therefore, successive medieval kings not only ruled over peasants and townspeople, but also devoted themselves to ruling feudal lords.
　Forced relocation was one of the king's policies to control the feudal lords. Medieval kings moved feudal lords who they considered to be allies closer to the shogunate to strengthen their defenses. For example, the medieval king would move feudal lords, who until then had a territory in the westernmost part of Japan, to be closer to the shogunate due to their loyalty, and gave them new territory there. On the other hand, they moved feudal lords they could not trust to the far north and west of Japan. This was risk minimization.
　In that respect, their forced relocation can be seen as a battle without bloodshed. Of course, the kings who could implement such hardline measures were the powerful medieval kings, such as Hideyoshi and Ieyasu, who controlled the feudal lords of the state by force. This was the new reality of land ownership rights.
　In contrast, land ownership rights in the Kamakura period were simple. For example, Yoritomo did not move the feudal lords, but he recognized as his fiefdom the lands that had been ruled by the lord for many years. This was because, rather than all feudal lords being loyal subjects, they were newly minted lords and therefore their territorial control had yet to mature. They were so busy controlling their people that they never dreamed of plotting a rebellion against the medieval king. Feudal lords were in the developing stage, and although they were rulers, they still lacked sufficient financial and military power. For them, the shogunate was their literal protector.
　In the 14th century, the Kamakura shogunate collapsed, followed by many disputes over manors. Instead of managing the manor, many samurai either eroded the manor or embezzled its annual tribute. The lord of the manor was now helpless and anguished. However, this turmoil soon subsided, as has already been said, by shugo daimyo, new feudal lords evolved from military governors. In the process of quelling the conflict, these feudal lords acquired many manors and newly developed estates. Their territories and powers became enormous. The feudal lords grew great with strengthened military and financial powers, with some of them even rivaling the power of the medieval king. They were no longer the rustic feudal lords of the countryside.
　The growth of feudal lords was a phenomenon unique to decentralized states. The power of a domain could grow or shrink depending on the management skill of the feudal lord and the power of its people. Therefore, it was quite possible that many feudal lords' powers could have soon surpassed the power of the shogunate unless there were restrictions or conditions put into place.
　The Muromachi period was a time of rapid growth in the medieval eras, marked by an imbalance of power and a precarious situation. Japan was tantamount to a kind of lawless land. This nationwide imbalanced system became even more decisive during the Warring States period.　 where feudal lords compete for territory. As a result, sometimes non-loyalists set up castles next to the shogunate's domains, and conversely, loyalists owned fiefdoms far west of Japan. It was an unfavorable regime for the shogunate. The purpose of the forced relocation was to sort out this unstable situation and restore order.
　This civil war lasted for 100 years, but Japan was finally unified by Hideyoshi. He was well aware of the power of the feudal lords through previous battles, so he devised a number of new measures to control the feudal lords. One of them was the proclamation of the Peace Decree. It was an order that force should not be used to solve the problem, but that it should be resolved through litigation. Those who disobeyed this order were slain by Hideyoshi's large army. In addition, he took weapons from villages throughout the country, which was to prevent peasant revolts, and abolished the status of pirates and ordered them to convert into samurai or peasants
　Another policy that Hideyoshi implemented was the relocation of the feudal lords, called Kunigae. It was an epoch-making territorial relief, and it greatly changed the form of fiefdom relief since the Kamakura period. During the Kamakura period, medieval kings devoted their energies to protecting and nurturing feudal lords. Because they had just been born as formal feudal lords. Therefore, the king recognized the lands they control as their fiefdoms as they were, and encouraged them to consolidate their control over the fiefdoms.
　However, in the Momoyama period, Hideyoshi greatly changed the purpose of the relief of the fiefdom. It was not to protect the feudal lords, but to control the feudal lords. Hideyoshi first divided the feudal lords into two, one for trustworthy lords and the other for untrustworthy lords. and gave the former land near Hideyoshi's domain, and the latter land in the distant western country. It was a change of fiefdoms, a transfer of lords. It was to harden Hideyoshi's defenses and strengthen his offense, and maintaining security throughout the country.
　The reason for this new relief was the deepening of the medieval eras, the expansion and the diversification of the power of the lords. This new relief was based purely on the loyalty and merit of the feudal lords. It was not about valuing the ancestral lands of the feudal lords. Precedents of territorial relief were no longer out of the question. It was quite reasonable, realistic and straightforward. In this respect, the territorial relief carried out in the Kamakura and Muromachi periods seemed outdated.
　A feudal lord was a samurai who owns fiefdoms, not a samurai who continued to maintain ancestral land. It was as simple as that. Whether the lord's territory was an existing land or a new land is secondary or tertiary to the samurai. Vital for him was to gain territory.
　It was important for the feudal lords to obey the change of state, because it was for the feudal lords to enter into a lord-subject relationship with the medieval king and gain sovereignty. It was decisive that he gained a fiefdom, even if the new land was small. Because to get a fiefdom was to remain a feudal lord with lordship.
　It was the difference between heaven and earth to remain a feudal lord or fall into a land thief. And if he turned into a land thief, his family and vassals would be lost on the streets. It was all due to one’s own merit and loyalty he served to the master. There were no excuses for that.
　Therefore, it can be said that the change of country was purely the fulfillment of the samurai family's bilateral contract. If his loyalty and merit had been great, he would have gained a large territory, but if it had been small, he would have gained a small territory.
　Ieyasu, who took over Hideyoshi's rule, continued this reshuffle, giving the trustworthy feudal lords territories neighboring the Edo shogunate, but also the western provinces, far from the shogunate, to those who were not. This policy was one of the main causes of the Tokugawa’s 270 years of peace.

Tokugawa Ieyasu portrait (painted by Kano Tanyu)

　Researchers cannot see straight. Researchers view the ancestral territories that feudal lords had ruled for decades or even hundreds of years as absolutes, and believe that the maintenance of these traditional territories brought about the self-reliance of feudal lords. Therefore, they emotionally perceive the removal of a feudal lord from the traditional land as a loss of resources for self-reliance, enslavement of the feudal lord, and turning him into a rootless wanderer.
　Unfortunately, today, researchers misinterpret the relocation of feudal lords. They regard it as a tyranny, and Hideyoshi and Ieyasu who carried it out as tyrants. This is an emotional judgement. They think in this way: ――Hideyoshi and Ieyasu wielded power and forced the relocation of feudal lords. And, the feudal lords obeyed their instructions, moving west and east; It showed them to weak men who obeyed reluctantly, like poor officials who moved from place to place to fulfill the role of local government under the orders of the king. Therefore, they say that Japan became a centralized state with Hideyoshi and Ieyasu at the top, and the Momoyama and Edo periods came to be in the early modern era.
　But this interpretation is erroneous, because historians mistake this relocation for an ancient policy. First of all, feudal lords and local governors were completely different race. Whether they moved to the east or west, or whether it was an old territory or new, as long as they were a feudal lord, they were the owner of the land, and had lordship over it. In fact, both Hideyoshi and Ieyasu, without doubt, respected their lordship and never intervened in their land.
　On the other hand, no matter how high the rank of a local governor, he was always just an official. They ruled over the royal subjects in the land where they worked, but that rule was only as an agent of the ancient king. As soon as they left the land, their authority was lost. There was no such thing as lordship in ancient states. Only the ancient king had state power.
　This is why feudal lords and local governors were completely different. That is also the difference between ancient and medieval rule. Therefore, the relocation of feudal lords was not an ancient policy. And, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu were not tyrants.
　Nevertheless, researchers do not seem to understand the real nature of decentralization, and even mock or sympathize with feudal lords who were moved to smaller territories. This reveals that they are examining the surface of things rather than their true nature.
　In the medieval eras, rights came with obligations. The king’s relocation policy had to be fair. If Tokugawa arbitrarily gave instructions to change the country, Tokugawa would receive protests from the feudal lords, and sometimes changed the instruction. For example, the Tokugawa shogun would consult with the feudal lord in question before relocating him, and in some cases agreed together on the territory of relocation. The Tokugawa shogunate seriously recognized their lordship and relocated feudal lords carefully.
　To summarize the above, the relocation policy was one of the ways for the medieval king to update the lord-vassal relationship with the feudal lords, and to establish order firmly. Both Hideyoshi and Ieyasu, who implemented this policy, were medieval kings and not tyrants, and both the Momoyama and Edo periods were medieval and not early modern. Thus, the existing view of history that regards the Japan of the Momoyama and Edo periods as centralized states should be corrected.

Superfluous Early Modern Era

　The Tokugawa shogun strove to maintain public order, and for that improved laws that previous samurai dynasties made in order to control the feudal lords.
　One of the control measures was the enactment of the samurai law. The Tokugawa shogun upheld the existing samurai law or greatly revised; they were, for example, marriage between feudal lord families required the permission of the Tokugawa shogun, or feudal lords could build only one castle (no more than two castles), or could not retain outsiders in their territory. These were policies to lock the power of the feudal lords to the status quo, or at least not to allow an increase in their military strength. The feudal lords complied with the policies, or were ordered to change their ranks, relocate, or seppuku (commit suicide).
　One was the institutionalization of Sankin-kotai (Alternate Attendance). The Tokugawa shogunate developed Sankin-kotai based on the Muromachi shogunate's daimyo monitoring system. In the Muromachi period, the Ashikaga shogun moved influential shugo daimyo from their territories to a location near the shogunate in order to monitor and keep these feudal lords in check. Tokugawa improved this system using the system of Sankin-kotai. Feudal lords across the state were obliged to live in Edo every other year, which required the feudal lords to go back and forth between their own territory and Edo. Feudal lords traveled from all over the state to Edo, or from Edo to their respective territories, accompanied by hundreds of samurai over several weeks.

Sankin Kotai (Alternate Attendance)

　Sankin-kotai was a system for the Tokugawa to confirm the loyalty of feudal lords and to observe their daily activities. At the same time, this system leveled Japan in many areas. This was because feudal lords left Edo and, in the process of returning to their own territories,communicated to the people of towns and villages, for example, about the fashions in Edo, the current situation of the shogunate, movements in other territories and so on. Dissemination of this information was of great help in the Meiji Restoration, when Japan turned into a nation-state.
　One aspect was the relocation of feudal lords. The Tokugawa shogun took over Hideyoshi's relocation of feudal lords and carried it out on a larger scale, and more relentlessly. Feudal lords moved east and west, creating a system of balanced power and ensuring peace for the Tokugawa.
　Finally, there was the system for heredity. The Tokugawa family solved the problem of heredity that often plagued the lineages of medieval kings. This was the establishment of the Gosanke, the three branches of the Tokugawa family. The Tokugawa family established a hereditary system whereby if a succession ended in the shogun’s family, the next shogun would be an adopted child from one of the two relatives of the Tokugawa family. This ensured that the Tokugawa never stumbled over hereditary succession and managed to smoothly complete handovers of power for two centuries without creating internal strife. Tokugawa did not give the feudal lords a chance to take advantage.
　Most of Tokugawa’s controls on feudal lords were not Tokugawa inventions, but rather those created by medieval kings several centuries earlier. The Tokugawa shogun used them as reference and enhanced them. This tells of an interesting and inevitable deepening of the medieval era, and a clear testament to the consistency of medieval history.
　Therefore, there is no reason to distinguish essentially between the Muromachi period and the Momoyama period. The two periods shared and were continuous with the ruling bodies of the medieval era--medieval kings, decentralization, lord-subject politics. Hence, it can be said that the medieval era in Japan continued for 700 years from the Kamakura period to the Edo period without interruption, and that there is no room to place the history of the early modern era anywhere in it.
　The early modern era has never qualified to be called history. This is because the early modern era does not have ruling bodies unique to the early modern era. The early modern era lacks a unique state system, a unique ruler, and a unique political form.
　The Momoyama period and the Edo period, which are called the early modern era, were constructed from the ruling bodies of the medieval era. The ruler was a medieval king, the state system was decentralized, and its government followed lord-subject politics.
　Besides the early modern era does not possess the unique concepts that an era should have, such as despotism, divisionism, or democracy. This explains that the early modern era is just part of the medieval era.
　Now then, at the end of this section, the author will take up three theories of the medieval era, point out the errors of these theories and prove the unnecessary need for the early modern era in Japanese history.
　First, there is the 800-year medieval theory, which claims that the medieval era lasted for 800years. This theory determines history on the basis of the manorial system, pointing to the beginning of the manorial system in the 8th century as the end of antiquity and the beginning of the medieval era.
　Next is the 500-year medieval theory. This theory distinguishes between ancient era and medieval era with the beginning of cloistered rule in the 11th century. The 400-year theory of the medieval era points to the end of the ancient era and the beginning of the medieval era as the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate in the 12th century, or the dispatch of Shugo and Jito to the regions by the Kamakura shogunate. And all three theories equally advocate the death of the medieval era with the collapse of the manorial system.
　This shows that they rely on such means of control as the manorial system, the cloistered rule, Shugo, Jito, the rice assessed tax system and the separation of samurai and peasants in order to classify history. Unfortunately, however, the means of control are a historical variable determined by the ruling body.There are countless means of control in the history of Japan, some of which have had a small impact on society, and some of which have had a large impact. Therefore, when history is divided on the basis of the means of control, then 100 historians will point out 100 different means of control, and concocting 100 different theories on antiquity and the medieval era. The above three theories are typical examples of this.
　Here is another reason for rejecting the three medieval era theories. Surprisingly, it is that historians divide history with double standard. They classify the ancient and medieval eras of Japan by the means of control, while the modern by the ruling body.
　Historians judge history by two different criteria. When they define ancient era and medieval, they make use of the means of rule, such as the manorial system, the cloistered rule, or the rice assessed tax system, but when they mark the beginning of the modern era, they do so with the establishment of a ruling body, namely, centralization, democracy, and constitution. Historians do not recognize the land system and the tax system as factors in the division of history when defining the modern era. This is arbitrary, unfair, and untheoretical. Double standards, or the confusion of the ruling body and the means of control, is the fundamental reason for their misclassification of Japan history.
　If people sincerely face history and examine it with the ruling body, they will come to understand Japan's history accurately. The true picture of the medieval era will appear in history textbooks, such as the fact that the medieval Japan lasted for 700 years, that the interesting period of the two capitals lasted for 400 years, that the samurai established a decentralized state, that the status system is one of the culminations of divisionism, and that medieval kings such as Hideyoshi and Ieyasu were not tyrants.