Why?

[Dwimmerlaik]

Are the Japanese not particularly fond of Oda Nobunaga? I realise this is a generalization but since I myself am somewhat admiring of his achievements I can't help but be puzzled by it...

------------------
To be happy it is necessary not to be too intelligent

- Flaubert-

[FwSeal]

My own impression has always been that Nobunaga, since almost the day he died, has a very complicated image in Japan. The Japanese historian Rai Sanyo (1780-1832) was pretty hard on Oda at times in his 'Nihon Gaishi'. Nobunaga is portrayed as a vicious, pitiless, and treacherous figure, contrasted (in Sanyo's work) against the nobility of people like Uesugi Kenshin. It might also be telling that Akechi Mitsuhide (the guy who, of course, killed Oda) went from treacherous villian to tragic figure (if not hero) at times in the Edo Period. A somewhat more recent take is akin to that in Yoshikawa's 'Taiko' - Nobunaga's actions are still pitiless, but rationalized. I think that Nobunaga also serves, fairly or unfairly, as a contrast to Hideyoshi, who is generally seen as a nicer guy. For me, it seems clear that Nobunaga was larger then life - both in his personality, ambitions, and actions. This makes his excesses stand out all the more.

[solypsist]

My own opinion is shaded by my first viewing "Throne of Blood" (I think that's the correct title) movie by Kurosawa. I was was first introduced, ever, to Nobunaga, but of course sympathized with Takeda. So later when I learned a little about feudal Japan, I was like, "So that's the guy who blew away Takeda's army with all those muskets.."
The movie (historical fiction) made an indelible imprint on my view of the actual history.

[Anssi Hakkinen]

Quote My own opinion is shaded by my first viewing "Throne of Blood" (I think that's the correct title) movie by Kurosawa. I was was first introduced, ever, to Nobunaga, but of course sympathized with Takeda. So later when I learned a little about feudal Japan, I was like, "So that's the guy who blew away Takeda's army with all those muskets.."[/QUOTE]I hazard the (semi-)guess that you're talking about "Kagemusha", Kurosawa's version of Takeda Shingen's death and its consequences (NOT a spoiler) and undoubtedly one of *the* samurai films.

I had an experience practically in reverse of yours, as I acquired the movie only after I had played STW (and absorbed information on the sengoku jidai) for some weeks. I grinned when I first saw Nobunaga's attendant Jesuits, and laughed out loud when I heard him command the arquebusiers to shoot the Takeda mounts first... The man was the original real-life camper/munchkin, and proud of it! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

I like to think Nobunaga rather as "efficient" than as "murderous". After all, some the most venerated figures of Western military history (like Caesar and his contemporaries, Charlemagne, and my personal hero Gustaphus Adolphus) have all been known to commit the occasional atrocity. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were "evil" people - it was the way things were done back then. And even if they *were* evil people, that doesn't degrade their historical significance, on the contrary.

(Note that I didn't mention Hitler...)

------------------
"The ancient rule declares that letters are the left hand and militarism the right. Neither must be neglected."
- Hôjô Sôun

[solypsist]

right. Kagemusha.

and yes, after playing STW foir a bit and then watching movies on feudal japan, i cant help but grin everytime i see those orange-robed jesuits....

[The Black Ship]

There is a parallel to the Nobunaga= bad, Shingen= good mentality in American military history too. Grant= bloody butcher, Lee= heroic martyr. People that have little interest in History will go with the popular sentiment, or should I say regurgitate the popular sentiment (who knows if they really understand).

It's sad but true http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

[FwSeal]

I think it really is difficult to decide just what was 'excessive' in 16th Century Japan and what wasn't. At the same time, it may be telling that even Tokugawa Ieyasu was chagrined at Nobunaga's treatment of the defeated Takeda (and sheltered a number of Shingen's nephews).
Of course, Shingen himself was hardly a saint: between 1560-1567, he ordered his eldest son, an uncle, and a number of old retainers to commit suicide on the suspicion of treason. More then once, he lured enemy daimyo into surrendering - only to have them killed afterwards (something from Nobunaga's book of tricks). Ironically, Nobunaga and Takeda would engage in a war of words between 1572-73, with each issuing statements listing the other's crimes... The truth of it, IMO, is that Nobunaga and Shingen were very much alike - both were ambitious, brilliant (and forward-thinking), and ruthless.

[edyzmedieval]

Yeah... That's the truth... Both Nobunaga and Shingen were geniuses in military commanding and strategy....

[Pindar]

Are the Japanese not particularly fond of Oda Nobunaga?



I worked in Japan for eight years. I never encountered any general dislike of Oda. NHK did one of their year long docu-dramas on him about five or six years ago. Odivously he is always contrasted and compared with Toyotomi and Tokugawa, but this is usually in terms of method and temperment rather than some kind of moral ranking.

[GoreBag]

My own opinion is shaded by my first viewing "Throne of Blood" (I think that's the correct title) movie by Kurosawa. I was was first introduced, ever, to Nobunaga, but of course sympathized with Takeda. So later when I learned a little about feudal Japan, I was like, "So that's the guy who blew away Takeda's army with all those muskets.."
The movie (historical fiction) made an indelible imprint on my view of the actual history.

I've still to see this movie, but I'd like to know historically accurate it is, being that it is a re-telling of MacBeth.

[Ser Clegane]

Wow - I did not even know we still had threads that are this old ~:eek:

[edyzmedieval]

Well, we have