next »

[Tan_Binrui]

I would choose the West. And now, the explanation.

While Ishida Mitsunari was hated by a number of officers, the ones who disliked him were men who were written up during the Korea campaign. I have not seen a document that says that Kobayakawa and the others were very diligent in their work, and, thus, I have to assume that they really were lax in their responsibilities, because that's all that Mitsunari said about them to the Toyotomi.

Ishida Mitsunari was also no alien to making friends. He was very good at befriending the talented. We have the Uesugi, Otani Yoshitsugu, Shima Sakon, and others that were actually very effective during Sekigahara.

Otani Yoshitsugu is the most famous example, as their friendship was thicker than water, and thicker than blood. Yoshitsugu was a man struck with the rare disease of leprosy (sp?). This means that his body was wrotting (which is why Koei places him with a face mask in all of his appearances). There is a story that, during the Korea campaign, Yoshitsugu was entertaining a number of guests, one of them being Ishida Mitsunari. As customary, a single cup of tea was passed around for all to share, with the host (Yoshitsugu) starting. When he drank, puss from his face fell into the cup. He didn't notice until he passed it on, and the other lords were all disgusted, one by one, as the cautiously drank from the cup. When it came to Mitsunari, he took the cup, and drank all that was left of the tea, including the puss.

Thus was his dedicationg to Otani Yoshitsugu, and thus was his dedication to all he could call friend.

A mention of the lack of character and skill that those who defected to the West had.

When Otani Yoshitsugu was fighting at Sekigahara, he had gone blind from his illness, and was so weak that he had to be transported in a covered carriage the entire battle. Despite this, he was beating back greater numbers before the defection. When Kobayakawa defected, he raced DOWNHILL to smash into Yoshitsugu's troops. The leper, however, just spread his forces adequately, and began successfully defending against Kobayakawa's 10,000 soldiers (Otani had 900, with an ally of his lending him some two thousand more). There was a point in the fighting that Otani Yoshitsugu actualy began pushing the traitor BACK UP HILL. Only when another two of the enemy generals arrived with many more thousand to support did Otani Yoshitsugu begin to lose, at which point he commit suicide when the battle was lost (he would ask his assistant "is it lost?" many times throughout the fight, only recieving the answer he expected in the last moments).

Everyone here also already knows the skill of Shima Sakon.

So, to wrap up, while Ishida Mitsunari made enemies with talentless, honorless generals, he made great friends with those who stuck to their loyalties and did their jobs. Not once have a heard of a competent general who changed sides in that battle.

If anyone mentioned Masanori Fukushima, you're kidding yourself. He was fighting with another Tokugawa general during Sekigahara, and was still losing (I believe against the Uesugi general present).

Because of Ishida's honest nature (telling Toyotomi that people were lax when they were indeed lax), and his blunt personality (not charming officials into his camp, but instead depending on their skill and loyalty), he did make enemies. However, Tokugawa was a man who used sweet words to incite the foolish, and twisted what was a casual unrest into full hatred of Mitsunari.

I will say that, as a leader, Tokugawa did what was neccessary for him to win this battle. But if that's his version of neccessary (when Ishida Mitsunari was captured, he was executed by being burried up to his next and getting decapitated with a blunt saw), I'd rather die fighting such a brute than serve him in knowledge of victory.

[Hyatt_Hiyazaki]

Easteren Army because they have Tadakatsu Honda, and many others.  The Western Army do have honar, and alot of good things on their side, but they are eventually defeated.  And the Eastern Army led by Tokugawa eventually rule Japan and set up a goverment that lasts for about 200 years.

[Hyatt_Hiyazaki]

Maybe so. I need to check.
Oh...

That's because Hideyoshi didn't rebel against Nobunaga although he did after Nobunaga's death. But Nobunaga wasn't even able to unify Japan (though he almost did), and Hideyoshi wanted finish his work. After his death, I think Ieyasu's rebelion was unnecessay. Seriously, he could have left the land in the hands of Toyotomi.

Nope, because he relized that the Toyotomi did not have the leadership qualities needed to  unify Japan.  They also did not have a good system of governing like Tokugawa did.

[azn099]

Nope, because he relized that the Toyotomi did not have the leadership qualities needed to  unify Japan.  They also did not have a good system of governing like Tokugawa did.

Japan was already unified under the Toyotomi...

No they had the leadership. Mitsunari was perfectly capable of leading the Toyotomi until Hideyori came to age. The only fault with him was that he was not well liked. We don't know if Hideyori was capable of leading the Toyotomi. At Osaka castle, all Hideyori did was surrender, so we can't determine his skill by that. 

The Toyotomi had a fine system of governing. IMO it's true the Tokugawa had a better system of government but that is still no excuse.

Ieyasu had ambition. The main reason he rebelled was because he wanted Japan for himself. The entire rebellion Ieyasu did was all pointless and all it did was waste people's lives.

[Ping Pong]

While Ishida Mitsunari was hated by a number of officers, the ones who disliked him were men who were written up during the Korea campaign. I have not seen a document that says that Kobayakawa and the others were very diligent in their work, and, thus, I have to assume that they really were lax in their responsibilities, because that's all that Mitsunari said about them to the Toyotomi.

Yup. I wouldn't go as far to call Kobayakawa lax though. Alot happened in the Korea campaigns. They were the base for the future conflict. With men such as Ishida who wished to pull out and Asano who was for staying. Ishida's views/dealings on this campaign is pretty much what screwed him over retainer wise.

Ishida Mitsunari was also no alien to making friends. He was very good at befriending the talented. We have the Uesugi, Otani Yoshitsugu, Shima Sakon, and others that were actually very effective during Sekigahara.

Very true.

Otani Stuff

I'm a fan of Otani, personally. Take note of my avatar, but i'd have to differ with the whole 900 vs 10,000 men ordeal. Otani was a decent leader, but if I recall correctly. At the news of betrayal and the inevitable fighting. Otani ordered one of his servants to cut off his head and run off with it. I don't recall reading anything of the sort in any of the history books I own. I think such a task would be well noted.

[Ping Pong]

If anyone mentioned Masanori Fukushima, you're kidding yourself. He was fighting with another Tokugawa general during Sekigahara, and was still losing (I believe against the Uesugi general present).

Ummm...no. Fukushima Masanori was holding the Ukita men with other Eastern men before finally breaking Ukita's unit. Ukita being one of the main three men to contribute troops to the Western cause. One other betrayed [Kobayakawa] and the Mori didn't move.

Because of Ishida's honest nature (telling Toyotomi that people were lax when they were indeed lax), and his blunt personality (not charming officials into his camp, but instead depending on their skill and loyalty), he did make enemies. However, Tokugawa was a man who used sweet words to incite the foolish, and twisted what was a casual unrest into full hatred of Mitsunari.

Like a true leader would. Regardless of what Tokugawa did, you're still forgetting a few facts.

1. After Toyotomi's death, it was Mitsunari who jumped and started accusing Ieyasu of breaking vows to the Toyotomi. Causing the party to split into two, both preparing for war. Bit both parties came to a peaceful agreement. The Commissioners then admitted their error and apologized.
[Base note: Ieyasu had married off some of his daughters. Which Mitsunari claimed he did for 'political influence'.]

2. After Mitsunari's accusations failed against Ieyasu with the "Political Influence" ordeal. It is said Mitsunari went on to attempt trying to get Maeda Toshiie [Hideyori's guardian] to quarrel with the Tokugawa Ieyasu. Both men saw through thus his second attempted failed.

3. The two assassination attempts on Ieyasu.
The first in In 1599, when Ieyasu went to Osaka castle with Hideyori. The plot failed, onto the next one. The second plot was three months later when Ieyasu was called by the dying Maeda Toshiie. Ishida Mitsunari's plans were discovered and the generals prepared to kill him. Ishida Mitsunari fled to Fushimi, where Ieyasu convinced the men who pursued it was to keep Mitsunari in confinment. Following this Mitsunari was sent to Sawayama in Omi province.


Lets stop for a moment and discuss what happened after Maeda Toshiie died. This left the land in the hands of the four remaining Regents. The Mori, whom as one can see at Sekigahara didn't seem dependable. The Uesugi, Kagekatsu the current head was known to be somewhat ambitious. Next, the Ukita whom nobody knew where their loyalties lie at first. Then lastly, Tokugawa Ieyasu himself.

With Maeda Toshinaga returning to his lands as well as Uesugi Kagekatsu. This pretty much left the power in Ieyasu's hands. It is with this and the mounting consipirators against him that Ieyasu finally broke any major vows he took for Toyotomi. By removing Toyotomi appointed Commissioners, bringing back the 'hostage' system and depending mostly on generals for advice. Ieyasu was preparing for what I believe Mitsunari had been planning to do the whole time. Which was destroy the Tokugawa, even if it meant more lives and bringing the land to war. With Uesugi Kagekatsu finally rebelling only months after his leave. Then Ishida's little run west for support. This all pretty much lead up to Sekigahara!

I'd rather die fighting such a brute than serve him in knowledge of victory.

Brute? That was nothing and such acts were VERY common during the Sengoku period. A daimyo had to be as cruel or cruler then his neighbor. Men were crucified, noses/ears were cut off, villages burnt to the ground and villagers slaughtered, etc. Tokugawa Ieyasu was actually known to be pretty lenient at times.

[Tan_Binrui]

Ummm...no. Fukushima Masanori was holding the Ukita men with other Eastern men before finally breaking Ukita's unit. Ukita being one of the main three men to contribute troops to the Western cause. One other betrayed [Kobayakawa] and the Mori didn't move.

I apologize for the mix-up. My point does stand the same for the moment, as Masanori, with allies, could not overcome a single Western general. I believe Masanori grew into skill, but I never saw him as skillful in the beginning.

1. After Toyotomi's death, it was Mitsunari who jumped and started accusing Ieyasu of breaking vows to the Toyotomi. Causing the party to split into two, both preparing for war. Bit both parties came to a peaceful agreement. The Commissioners then admitted their error and apologized.
[Base note: Ieyasu had married off some of his daughters. Which Mitsunari claimed he did for 'political influence'.]

But Ieyasu DID make alliances with neighboring families, such as the Date, immediately after Hideyoshi's death. He also looked over those who weren't allied with him, alienating himself from those who were loyal to the Toyotomi. The suspicion of Mitsunari didn't begin until...

2. After Mitsunari's accusations failed against Ieyasu with the "Political Influence" ordeal. It is said Mitsunari went on to attempt trying to get Maeda Toshiie [Hideyori's guardian] to quarrel with the Tokugawa Ieyasu. Both men saw through thus his second attempted failed.

... Ieyasu took Fushimi and Osaka Castle after Maesa Toshiie died. These alone made the others look over his loyalties again, Mitsunari was simply the figure head to the complaints.

3. The two assassination attempts on Ieyasu.
The first in In 1599, when Ieyasu went to Osaka castle with Hideyori. The plot failed, onto the next one. The second plot was three months later when Ieyasu was called by the dying Maeda Toshiie. Ishida Mitsunari's plans were discovered and the generals prepared to kill him. Ishida Mitsunari fled to Fushimi, where Ieyasu convinced the men who pursued it was to keep Mitsunari in confinment. Following this Mitsunari was sent to Sawayama in Omi province.

If I'm not mistaken, there was only one. Following the failed attempt, it was actually Tokugawa's generals who planned on assassinating Mitsunari, who was indeed spared by Ieyasu.

Brute? That was nothing and such acts were VERY common during the Sengoku period. A daimyo had to be as cruel or cruler then his neighbor. Men were crucified, noses/ears were cut off, villages burnt to the ground and villagers slaughtered, etc. Tokugawa Ieyasu was actually known to be pretty lenient at times.

Although public execution and killing the captured was a common practice, burying a rival leader and cutting his head off with a blunt saw is something I look down on. As is boiling your enemies in oil (Takeda Shingen), and pouring molten liquid down their throats (Atilla the Hun). It's the lack of excessive barbarism that makes me respect people like Uesugi Kenshin and Ishida Mitsunari.


I will respond to the first half once I get back from the party I'm heading off to.

[Tan_Binrui]

I'm a fan of Otani, personally. Take note of my avatar, but i'd have to differ with the whole 900 vs 10,000 men ordeal. Otani was a decent leader, but if I recall correctly. At the news of betrayal and the inevitable fighting. Otani ordered one of his servants to cut off his head and run off with it. I don't recall reading anything of the sort in any of the history books I own. I think such a task would be well noted.

This is the only thing I wanted to respond to (there's nothing I disagree with in the other two). I read it in his biography in samurai-archives. Granted, I am no scholar when it comes to this time period, but that's all I have. It's possible I may be confusing the source, as well, and gotten this information from wikipedia. In which case I wouldn't doubt it being false.

[Ping Pong]

I apologize for the mix-up. My point does stand the same for the moment, as Masanori, with allies, could not overcome a single Western general. I believe Masanori grew into skill, but I never saw him as skillful in the beginning.

More then likely, yes. But you'd still have to give Fukushima some credit. He was dubbed one of the Seven Spears of Shizugatake. It was at Shizugatake, as well as during the Sekigahara that he proved being a brave warrior. In both battles, its noted he fought fiercly. In my own opinion, he didn't fight enough battles for me to judge his skills at commanding. But he was a well noted fighter, which should give him something.

But Ieyasu DID make alliances with neighboring families, such as the Date, immediately after Hideyoshi's death. He also looked over those who weren't allied with him, alienating himself from those who were loyal to the Toyotomi. The suspicion of Mitsunari didn't begin until...

Yes, he did make marriage proposals and alliances. However, he did so to strengthen his position and ensure his lands weren't attacked. The united 'land' was still pretty shakey. The Korea campaign and problems that came with it pretty much proved that. I still don't blame the man for ensuring the survival of his clan.

As for him alienating Regents, rather true and untrue. After Toyotomi's death Ieyasu dealt the majority of his time dealing with the conspirators and keeping on good relations with the Maeda. However, he did pay visit to Maeda and Maeda to him. While Maeda was alive, Mitsunari was off hatching plots. [discussed next quote!]

... Ieyasu took Fushimi and Osaka Castle after Maesa Toshiie died. These alone made the others look over his loyalties again, Mitsunari was simply the figure head to the complaints.

By the time Ieyasu forced Maeda Geni and Natsuka Masaie out of Fushimi. Mitsunari had already acussed Ieyasu of these things. As well as the first two assassination attempts having already happened. The first was done three months prior to Maeda Toshiie's call for Ieyasu. That event saw a second failed assassination attempt. During Mitsunari's accusations, Maeda Toshiie was still much alive. Sure, he was dying, but he was around. Mitsunari had been plotting long before Ieyasu took any real actions. Aside from marriage/alliances, of course.

If I'm not mistaken, there was only one. Following the failed attempt, it was actually Tokugawa's generals who planned on assassinating Mitsunari, who was indeed spared by Ieyasu.

There were two, to my knowledge. The first happened in early 1599, I don't know much details on it though. As for the second, it was Mitsunari who attempted to have Ieyasu killed. His plans were discovered by Kato Kiyomasa and others. It was then that these men planned to kill Mitsunari. But Mitsunari had fled and when reaching Fushimi, was under protection of Ieyasu.

Although public execution and killing the captured was a common practice, burying a rival leader and cutting his head off with a blunt saw is something I look down on. As is boiling your enemies in oil (Takeda Shingen), and pouring molten liquid down their throats (Atilla the Hun). It's the lack of excessive barbarism that makes me respect people like Uesugi Kenshin and Ishida Mitsunari.

In this time and age, I look down upon it as well. However, you'd have to think as they did back then. Such acts weren't as barbaric as we think now. Peasants were viewed as mere assests, you could say. Samurai weren't all too nice either during the time. Battlefields were slaughter houses and capture meant worse. In the Korea campaign the Japanese armies chopped off ears/noses of the Koreans since they couldnt send back 'heads' to Toyotomi. Just in an attempt to bolster their 'head count'. Kyoto still has the 'hill' they brought back to this day. Which is filled the noses/ears of the dead.

[Note: Fleeing men were cut down and killed. All dead were beheaded, etc. Those heads were then washed, perfumed, applied make up then impaled if important enough. Just to present it before the current army head. This happened up into the Edo period. About every garrison was slaughtered down to the last person. Heads were pretty much prizes back then that all men fought for. All samurai did this...]

Regarding Ishida and Uesugi.

Ishida was more or less always at Toyotomi's side. While he never did anything of major brutality, he never truely held power to do so. His own fief was rather small so he had little power. I'm sure like every other samurai, he did the above noted though.

Uesugi wise, I can't think of much. But then again, Uesugi never truely expanded his borders. He helped his neighbors when they were attacked, had a few clashes with the Takeda at Kawanakajima and finally fought Oda.

[Ping Pong]

This is the only thing I wanted to respond to (there's nothing I disagree with in the other two). I read it in his biography in samurai-archives. Granted, I am no scholar when it comes to this time period, but that's all I have. It's possible I may be confusing the source, as well, and gotten this information from wikipedia. In which case I wouldn't doubt it being false.

Ah, that would make sense. I skimmed through samurai-archives and still came up short on the claim. I'll go ahead and ask Kitsuno [the admin] what his source was when I have time. I've looked through the majority of my books though, still came up with nothing.

Also, don't use Wikipedia! Use the Samurai-wiki! 
http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=Category:Samurai

[Tan_Binrui]

Since Our opinions of Tokugawa's alliances are left to, well... our opinions, I feel that argument has run its course.

The assassination attempts may very well have been multiple, and I won't continue arguing against them.

I'll need to read more about the timeline of the claims and such, but for now I won't doubt your accuracy.

And that just leaves a simple comment on barbarity.

In this time and age, I look down upon it as well. However, you'd have to think as they did back then. Such acts weren't as barbaric as we think now. Peasants were viewed as mere assests, you could say. Samurai weren't all too nice either during the time. Battlefields were slaughter houses and capture meant worse. In the Korea campaign the Japanese armies chopped off ears/noses of the Koreans since they couldnt send back 'heads' to Toyotomi. Just in an attempt to bolster their 'head count'. Kyoto still has the 'hill' they brought back to this day. Which is filled the noses/ears of the dead.

[Note: Fleeing men were cut down and killed. All dead were beheaded, etc. Those heads were then washed, perfumed, applied make up then impaled if important enough. Just to present it before the current army head. This happened up into the Edo period. About every garrison was slaughtered down to the last person. Heads were pretty much prizes back then that all men fought for. All samurai did this...]

I know of the basic barbarity of all sword-based warefare, and I know full well of the head counts samurai wished to gain. In fact, head counts were so important that some of the important and lazy ones got a few to keep their reputation, and that would leave the fighting to their troops, relaxing in the main camp.

The cutting off of heads, and the treatment of the deceased by cutting off their noses and ears, is not so much my point. My point was the treatment of the enemy before death. How they were killed. The way a man dies reflects the view men have of him for the next generations. Treating Mitsunari so poorly in execution would be what resulted in a general disliking of his person. Had he been treated like a captured samurai, and beheaded in the more classical fashion, his name would not be so associated with arrogance, incompetence, or villainy.

Perhaps that is too harsh of a discussion. I don't assiciate his character with those words, and the only ones I know of who do haven't looked into him. But perhaps that is what I'm trying to get at.

Excessive barbarity was my problem, not simple barbarity of the times. There have been armies burried alive that numbered in the tens of thousands (Three Kingdoms Period; Cao Cao), but I see no fault in it because of his situation and the choice he had to make. With the same example, though, Cao Cao didn't bury Shen Pei (an enemy officer who defied him to the end) up to his neck and saw his head off with a blunt axe. Instead, he had him beheaded respectfully, and even listened to the man's last request (to be facing north in the direction of his deceased lord's kingdom).

That demands respect from me. Belittling one's self dignity by treating to the bloodlust of vengeance isn't something I respect in people. Not so much filial vengeance, but a vengeance wrought simply because they aren't on your side, or they actually fought against you. Such a thing is common place, as one who strives for power will ultimately have those who don't want him in power. Disrespecting them in the last moments of their life will not gain you any allies.

I feel I'm concentrating too much on simply his execution. Really, I have a problem with the mindset altogether. Uesugi Kenshim may not have made any attempts at increasing his territory, but what does this say of his character? Kenshin decided to respect aliances, and respect his rivals (even sending salt to Shingen when his people needed it). Ieyasu, on the other hand, works to preserve himself, even to the harm of his allies (like the Toyotomi).

I don't blaim him for hoping to safeguard his family. I do blaim him for how he went about it.

[hidemasa]

i would fight with the west because iyeasu ruined the peace the land belonged to the toyotomi betraying them is like betraying nobunaga if the western army won sekigahara then i think that they should torture iyeasu like cutting off his legs and stuff like that

[DynastySamurai]

Surpisingly i chosed Mitsunari cause its fair that he trying to protect the Toyotomi rule of Japan and if he was more respectful of his army then his army wouldnt have defected and wouldve have destory the eastern army.

[LuBu345]

I would join the West. They fought for honor, the Toyotomi were simply fighting to keep justice alive. If only Yukimura hadnt died at Osaka Castle...if only Hideyori hadnt died...if only the Toyotomi could have kept strong even after Hideyoshi's death...if only the battle of Sekigahara had been won by Mitsunari...

[looknohands]

...and if Hideyoshi hadn't slaughtered his nephew and heir in favor of his infant son, none of this would have happened...
Regardless, I see where quite a few people have sided with Ishida and the west as the "honorable" side.  What evidence do we have that Ishida was acting out of genuine concern for the Toyotomi cause?  The man is portrayed as having been a bit of schemer and had grown quite accustomed to having considerable influence with the Toyotomi; who's to say his intentions weren't merely to maintain his status and power within the Toyotomi government?  Had his forces emerged victorious, who's to say further civil unrest wouldn't follow as the Toyotomi still did not possess the title of shogun?  The Toyotomi state was held together by sheer power and Toyotomi's cult of personality.  It's obvious now that the daimyo lacked the necessary loyalty to the Toyotomi family to have ensured it's survival.  This is where Ieyasu's genius comes into play- long before Hideyoshi had united the land, Ieyasu was arranging for marriages amongst the daimyo to ensure an effective coalition should the need for one arise in the future.  These marriages and alliances were what allowed him to gain the upper hand against Ishida's forces and ultimately establish his own dominance of the land.
This much is clear: as soon as Hideyoshi died and ten people were placed in charge of running the country the Toyotomi state was doomed to failure.  How many of those ten can we point to and say (definatively, for that matter) that they were acting solely out of concern for Hideyori and not personal gain?
The simple fact is that you can't blame Ieyasu for taking advantage of a situation that the Toyotomi created.