Favorite Historical Samurai

Discuss historical events and information concerning any culture, time, or location in our world (or even the frontier beyond).

Unread postby Antiochus » Wed May 23, 2007 12:50 am

Yeah, but his power struggle with the Mori for the head of the Western alliance also killed its chance of victory. Mitsunari was a great administrator, but in no way a military leader and his rank was too low to command the respect of many older and more prestigious lords.

Mitsunari tried to fill the obvious hole left by Maeda Toshiie's death and this leaded him to his fall.
User avatar
Antiochus
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:29 pm
Location: Sherbrooke

Unread postby Jordan » Wed May 23, 2007 1:55 am

Antiochus wrote:Yeah, but his power struggle with the Mori for the head of the Western alliance also killed its chance of victory. Mitsunari was a great administrator, but in no way a military leader and his rank was too low to command the respect of many older and more prestigious lords.

Mitsunari tried to fill the obvious hole left by Maeda Toshiie's death and this leaded him to his fall.


I don't think that killed his chance of victory so much as the fact that many of the pro-Ishida generals at Sekigahara basically did nothing the whole battle. Even some Mouri generals who were pretty loyal to the Western cause (Mori Hidemoto had participated in a siege before the battle for instance), like Mori HIdemoto, didn't do much at the battle.

Mitsunari's men also didn't fight that badly at Sekigahara. When a bunch of Eastern Army officers charged them, he managed to repulse them, at least till Kobayakawa Hideaki betrayed.
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Unread postby Antiochus » Wed May 23, 2007 2:17 am

What I mean is that one side was leaded by an experienced general, that was the unquestionned leader of his army while the other was leaded by a younger unexperienced men whose authority was not accepted by all.

We got a big moral factor that affected the combativity of the soldiers and officers. Mitsunari was good, but not yet good enough for that campaign. If the western army had been led by someone like Uesugi Kagekatsu or Mori Terumoto, they would have had the influence to lead that battle.
User avatar
Antiochus
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:29 pm
Location: Sherbrooke

Unread postby FuguNabe » Wed May 23, 2007 2:54 am

I tend to agree with Antiochus's view of Mitsunari. I didn't think he was overall that able as a general but certainly a capable administrator under Hideyoshi. He had far too many despute with others under the Toyotomi flag and few held high respect for him to be able to be accepted in the long run I'll say.
Cynicism in my lyricism? Life has been series of questions and sessions of lessons to enhance my essence...

Knowledge is god as despite my iaido skills my pen is is mightier than my sword...

With a tongue to match my wit your mental death swift...
User avatar
FuguNabe
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:26 am
Location: You'd find me at some karaoke drinking and singing with ladies on the weekend

Unread postby Jordan » Wed May 23, 2007 5:13 am

I agree only that Ieyasu's advantage lay in the unity of the Tokugawa, and that Ishida Mitsunari's authority not being respected was indeed a factor in his loss at Sekigahara. As far as military experience went, I'd say that Terumoto probably had even less experience than Mitsunari. He relied extensively on the Kobayakawa and Kikkawa clans, far moreso than his father Motonari, in matters of the army prior to this.

Mitsunari didn't command that poorly at Sekigahara, and ultimately what led to his defeat was the indifference, indecisiveness and inaction of many of his allies. If his Mouri allies and the Chosokabe had moved, they could have pincered the Eastern Army on that side of the battle, which could have led to disastrous results. If Kobayakawa Hideaki had moved, it would have broken the stalemate on the other side of the fighting.

Before Sekigahara [the battle itself], I think that Mitsunari's only real mistake was in the handling of hostages at Osaka. All the castles his army besieged were bastions that necessarily needed to be dealt with. The way that the Western Army fought the Hosokawa was unacceptable though, but having Tachibana Muneshige assault Otsu was a good idea. :/
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Unread postby Antiochus » Wed May 23, 2007 11:51 pm

SlickSlicer wrote:I agree only that Ieyasu's advantage lay in the unity of the Tokugawa, and that Ishida Mitsunari's authority not being respected was indeed a factor in his loss at Sekigahara. As far as military experience went, I'd say that Terumoto probably had even less experience than Mitsunari. He relied extensively on the Kobayakawa and Kikkawa clans, far moreso than his father Motonari, in matters of the army prior to this.


I never said that Terumoto was more competent, I said that he had more influence than Mitsunari. The battle formation at Sekigahara clearly showed that the western army could have won the battle. Their main weakpoint was their own immobility (many of the contigents remained innactive).

Mitsunari was a great administrator, but lacked the experience and the prestige for a campaign wich involved all of Japan. Maybe things would have been different if Hideyoshi had made him a regent, but he probably though that Maeda Toshiie would live longer.
User avatar
Antiochus
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:29 pm
Location: Sherbrooke

Unread postby Koichi » Thu May 24, 2007 4:06 am

One of Tokugawa Ieyasu's great advantages over his rivals was his longevity. In 1600, he was not only the wealthiest, but the most renowned daimyo in the nation. From splintering off the Imagawa to fighting warrior monks, Takeda Shingen, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, his career was without equal. In the Western Army there were certainly some talented men such as Ukita Hideie and Konishi Yukinaga but they were younger men who didn't have the influence Ieyasu did. Ieyasu was able to network with other notable daimyo, as we saw in Sekigahara, those connections paid off.
User avatar
Koichi
Scholar of Shen Zhou
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 2:49 am
Location: NYC

Unread postby Antiochus » Thu May 24, 2007 4:14 am

I always wondered what would have happened if his only real threat amongs the Toyotomi loyalist, Maeda Toshiie had lived, what would have happened. He had both the experience and the prestige to keep Ieyasu at bay while keeping most daymios on the side of Osaka.
User avatar
Antiochus
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:29 pm
Location: Sherbrooke

Unread postby Jordan » Thu May 24, 2007 5:50 am

What I was sort of objecting to before was your claim that Mitsunari was inexperienced. He may not have had as much experience as Ieyasu, but he was no 'newb' when it came to warfare, in my opinion. He was clever, resourceful, etc. and I think his only fault was that, as you said, he lacked prestige and the commanders under him were often at odds with him and/or went inactive at the Battle of Sekigahara itself.

Again, I feel that Mitsunari's loss was primarily due to a lack of cohesion/unity among the Western Forces.
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Unread postby Gabriel » Thu May 24, 2007 6:09 am

My favs

Minamoto no Yoshitsune
Saito Musashibo Benkei
Miyamoto Musashi
Tomoe Gozen
Tadakatsu Honda
Yagyu Sekishusai Muneyoshi
You don't need to go to church to be saved, and you don't need to go to rehab to get off drugs. You just need to make the right decisions.
User avatar
Gabriel
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: TN

PreviousNext

Return to World History Deliberation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved