PDA

View Full Version : Ieyasu and Nobunaga in Taiko



Matsudaira Motoyasu
02-19-2001, 17:58
I haven't read Taiko but I would like to know how are Tokugawa Ieyasu and Oda Nobunaga portraied(sp?) in the book.
I'm particularly interested in how Ieyasu is portraied before, during and after the Komaki campaign.
All info would be greatly apreciated.

Contubernalis
02-19-2001, 23:21
My 2 koku
I'm just now starting page 755 of Taiko and Nobunaga just died and Ieyasu really hasn't shown up yet except on the periphery.

the book seems to view Nobunaga as the man of the age, who had what it took to begin the unification process, despite his faults; but I have this sense that he is a great man because great men are his retainers.

As for Ieyasu, he seems like the little ally that could; a man with an army like a tiger who doesn't seem to much of a player (yet-there's almost 300 pages left). Which I find odd since I thought Ieyasu was the Julius Caesar of Japanese history?

The Black Ship
02-20-2001, 07:04
Hmmm....

Julius Caesar of Japanese history eh? Well then, using your analogy, Nobunaga could be Cornelius Sulla, and Hideyoshi could be Marius...or should I have switched those two?

Ieyasu is only a small role in the Taiko drama. I like the expression "the little ally that could" http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Contubernalis
02-20-2001, 09:06
Blackie
I'd say switch 'em. I finished the book this afternoon and Ieyasu does turn out to have a part (as the little upriser who couldn't...yet http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif).
Actually the similarities between Caesar, Marius and Sulla /Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu are kinda eerie (or do I just see what I expect to see?). But that's a topic for STWII: Rome vs. Kyoto!! hehe.

solypsist
02-20-2001, 09:33
you must remember that the book focuses on Hideyoshi, so there is only a small mention of Tokugawa (I can't spell his first name), and mostly in something that involves Hideyoshi/Nobunaga within the story-line.
I don't want to spoil anything for you, but you will glimpse a small part of Tokugawa's part towards the end of the book.

ShaiHulud
02-20-2001, 13:25
Hideyoshi did the yeoman's work of consolidating Japan. Ieyasu played a loyal second-fiddle til the Taiko died. He was clever enough to avoid dying in an era where choosing the wrong ally was usually fatal. Having fought with Nobunaga he managed to become, instead, a loyal vassal to him. He probably could have made a lot of money playing poker...He never over-played his hand.

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

Matsudaira Motoyasu
02-20-2001, 20:53
Just a quick question. When does the book end, at what point in time?
By the way, Contubernalis, why did you say Ieyasu was the little upriser that couldn't?
I was under the impression that it was wouldn't, after all, he was the victor of Nagakute, the only notable battle during the Komaki campaign and that he agreed to make peace, not forced to make it. Maybe I just misunderstood you, but could you shed some light on this?

solypsist
02-21-2001, 01:09
the book ends before Hideyoshi dies, or anything as final as you'd find in a history book. basically, Toyotomi has not quite finished uniting Japan; which is a weird place to end a book, but then events slow down so much after Nobunaga's death that there isn't much more to write about conncerning the the two men.

Anssi Hakkinen
02-21-2001, 01:16
On parallels: Hideyoshi used to be known to Western historians as the Napoleon of Japan. I suppose that's somewhat accurate in view of his abilities as a military commander, although he had no Waterloo. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

I still like the Japanese description best though:

"Oda Nobunaga piles the rice, Toyoyomi Hideyoshi kneads the dough, Tokugawa Ieyasu eats the cake." http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
"When you leave your gate act as though an enemy was in sight."
- Japanese proverb

FwSeal
02-21-2001, 03:48
Yoshikawa's decision to end Taiko when he did (although the version translated into english is abridged - I couldn't say what was ommited) is similar to one of his other, and more obscure works (also translated into English) - The Tale of the Heike. The Heike novel covers the early career and rise of Taira Kiyomori. In both cases - Hideyoshi and Kiyomori - we have figures whose later lives were marked by controversy. It may be that Yoshikawa, as far as 'Taiko' is concerned, thought it best to leave Hideyoshi's story on a high note.

Matsudaira Motoyasu
02-21-2001, 04:45
"Oda Nobunaga piles the rice, Toyoyomi Hideyoshi kneads the dough, Tokugawa Ieyasu eats the cake."

I've allways felt somewhat troubled by that saying. Being a big Ieyasu fan (wich basically says I'm biased), I sense that description downplays Ieyasu's importance in the history of Japan. What do you people think?

Anssi Hakkinen
02-21-2001, 05:32
I, being a Nobunaga / Hideyoshi fan, like the saying for the exact same reason. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif After all, it isn't as if Ieyasu's vaunted "Unification of Japan" was much of a challenge: he briefly beat up an internally divided collection of "loyalist" daimyô led by a former bureaucrat, waited for Hideyoshi's son to grow up and proceeded to burn his castle.

Now, I'm not saying Ieyasu was a glorified civilian administrator (like Octavian) - after all, he did fight his fair share - but the actual unification of Japan was long over and done with by the time he became shôgun.

------------------
"When you leave your gate act as though an enemy was in sight."
- Japanese proverb

FwSeal
02-21-2001, 06:26
My thought is that while Hideyoshi did unify Japan in the sense that he brought the realm under one sword (as they say), Sekigahara, if anything, displayed how tenuous his unification was. Ieyasu's great contribution was to establish a lasting peace. This was a process that continued through the reign of the third Tokugawa Shogun, Iemitsu. You could say that, while the last real war was fought in 1615, that the finishing touches of the unifcation of Japan continued through 1651 (when, following Iemitsu's death, the blows to the tozama - and han in general - came to an end).

Contubernalis
02-21-2001, 06:27
Motoyasu-
I called him "the little upriser that couldn't" because, in the book at least, he tries to use Nobuo as his rationale for becoming top dog. Hideyoshi then gets Nobuo to change sides. There's a great passage about the Tokugawa samurai realizing that they have fought and died for nought.
Having said that, I DO think that Ieyasu is a Great Man. He took on his shoulders the responsibility for the failure of their cause(which I don't think it was--I blame that double-crossing cur Nobuo) and then had the patience to wait until the time was right and the field was clear. That's how one gets the cake http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I have a deep interest in Roman history also, and the one thing about Roman Great Men is they had no patience. So they fought amongst themselves and wound up destroying the Republic.
The Daimyos seem like they are a more long-term minded people. They don't mind waiting for the perfect moment--like in a duel, where you stand and wait for "the perfect alignment" and then draw and strike.

I edited the mispelling of Tokugawa. I am SO ashamed. I need a geisha to pull me off a ledge.


[This message has been edited by Contubernalis (edited 02-20-2001).]

nokhor
02-21-2001, 07:02
i side with ansi on this one. i have always been biased towards the initiators of the New Way, who clawed their way to the top like julius or nobunaga rather than to the 'glorified civilian administrators' like octavian and ieyasu who seem lucky [and grudgingly talented and effective] oppurtunists.

Zen Blade
02-21-2001, 09:30
As a fan of Augustus (Octavius Ceasar... Anssi mentioned Octavian),

by saying "glorified administrator" you deny how important an administrator is.... Look at Takeda Shingen (in Japanese history), Augustus, and other civil-based characters (these two are the simplest as they have already been mentioned)...

Although they may not be military giants, they are extremely important. Why is Shingen remembered to this day in Kai and Shinano? It is because of his administrative and domestic abilities. Granted, they may be for military campaigns and such, but military conquests are at best a temporary morale or improvement in life. Domestic/admistrative progress is much more lasting, and thus much more difficult.

Look at Napoleon. Why is he most remembered to this day in France??? Because he nearly conquered the entire world? Or because of his Napoleonic code and the progressive reforms he brought along with him??? I would say that the primary reason is the latter.

-sorry about the long post, I hope it does not sound hostile as it is merely a defense of the "overglorified administrator".

-Zen Blade

------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG

Contubernalis
02-21-2001, 10:42
I think that there is a greatness in all the names discussed. Eating a cake can be hard--how many time in history has someone had it handed to them (not saying Ieyasu did, of course) and completely mess it up? I think that making something is only half the battle. Look at Alexander the Gaijin Great--he never finished what he started.
But I do think w/out Nobunaga, certainly Hideyoshi and probably Ieyasu would have never happened. What's that saying about standing on the shoulders of giants?

Speaking of Yoshikawa, has any one read "Musashi"? I'll have to get "the Tale of Heike".

Matsudaira Motoyasu
02-21-2001, 20:23
Ieyasu might not have been the unifier but he certainly helped both Nobunaga and Hideyoshi (especially the former) in their work. Also, that beating you talk about, Anssi-san, was actually a large scale campaign that wasn't as easy to win as may otherwise think. He made it look easy. That shows how good he was.
And, come to think of it, the unification wasn't really finished by Hideyoshi. There were still some big egos, daimyo that still had some degree of power and that Hideyoshi was unable to weaken them (or was unwilling). It would only be a matter of time before someone would start another Onin War. Ieyasu, however, was able to weaken them and to create a stable government.
But, as the Japanese themselves say, there were Three Unifiers, none of them did it alone.
Also, Ieyasu is known for having beaten both Nobunaga and Hideyoshi in battle, so he was far from being a glorified civilian administrator.

[This message has been edited by Matsudaira Motoyasu (edited 02-21-2001).]

Anssi Hakkinen
02-22-2001, 05:37
Whee, it seems my snipe at Ieyasu attracted the exactly right kind of attention... Nothing like a deviating opinion to start a good discussion. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Anyway, I admit I viewed the unification matter in an overtly military light, but I did that on purpose - attempting to emulate those old, grizzly professional soldier -types to whom the word "civilian" is a curse. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif However, it is worth noting that both Shingen and Napoleon made their civilian societies more efficient with the goal of making their militaries more efficient (as did Hitler etc.). Octavian, on the other hand, had Agrippa fight all his battles for him and *then* went about establishing Pax Romana. (I posted more anti-Octavian critique in a Roman thread some months ago, but maybe this isn't really a suitable topic of discussion in this forum.)

I'm not trying to denounce Ieyasu's accomplishments, but even you, Motoyasu-san, must admit that the campaign that led up to Sekigahara was a relatively simple affair compared to the constant wars and plotting that were the primary content of Nobunaga's entire life. Ieyasu was an able warrior (though not better than Nobunaga, no matter what the STW devs say! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif), but the military unification of Japan was not, as Dr. Turnbull might say, his.

------------------
"When you leave your gate act as though an enemy was in sight."
- Japanese proverb

ShaiHulud
02-22-2001, 09:13
My view of Tokugawa's importance is easily illustrated thus...

Phillip piled the grain, Alexander kneaded the dough, none there were to eat the bread.

Conquerors are found throughout history. Those who founded great nations are far fewer.

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

[This message has been edited by ShaiHulud (edited 02-22-2001).]

Matsudaira Motoyasu
02-22-2001, 20:25
You're right, Anssi-san. The unification wasn't his. Completing it was. As F.W. Seal pointed out, Hideyoshi's unification was very frail. It collapsed almost instantly. Now, I know you're going to say it was Ieyasu's fault, and from a certain point of view, yes, it was. But you have to admit that if Hideyoshi's unification had been more stable, then many of his closest retainers wouldn't have sided with Ieyasu just because they didn't like others that joined Ishida or Ishida himself. That's what I meant when I talked about egos.
You're also right in saying that the campaign that led to Sekigahara wasn't very complicated, but you must also remember that we are talking about a man that survived war against Nobunaga, Shingen and Hideyoshi.
Oh, and while on the subject, saying that one was better that another is a very tricky affair. What I said on my previous post was just a statement of facts. Ieyasu did beat Nobunaga on a couple of occasions while still in service of the Imagawa, very early in his life. Another example of Ieyasu’s skill as a warrior is shown at the battle of Anegawa, with the Oda and Asai clashing on the right while Tokugawa and Asakura grappled to the left of the field. To the right Nagamasa's men fought very well and the situation there was soon in doubt for the Oda. Meanwhile, the Tokugawa men were handling the Asakura roughly and once he felt in a position to do so, Ieyasu sent his men against the flank of the Asai forces. The hard-fighting Asai had no choice but to rereat and the day ended in Nobunaga's favor.
Now, it is difficult to compare, but in my opinion, Ieyasu was at least as good a warrior as Nobunaga.
Anyway, that's my 2 koku.
By the way, Anssi-san, how do you put those smiles on your posts? I sometimes think that when people read my posts, they think they're more serious then they're meant to be or that I may be a little pissed off by what others say.

Zen Blade
02-23-2001, 02:10
Oh!!
indeed it was such a sad day... Many brave samurai lay dead, blood flowing down the stream... sob, sob...

yeah, Ieyasu and his men did carry the battle that day at Anegawa. Everything I have ever read about that battle always emphasizes the Tokugawa's fighting men.

-also, remember Mikata-ga-hara... and the brave "open gate" castle maneuver.

-Zen Blade


------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG

Matsudaira Motoyasu
02-23-2001, 04:53
Oops!!!

I seem to have mentioned some sensible material related to our honourable moderator.

Yeah, Mikata-ga-hara. It was a no-win situation (Ieyasu was outnumbered 3 to 1 by Shingen), made even worse when the Oda contingent, sent by Nobunaga (about 1/4 of the army under Tokugawa's command), faultered and fled, leaving the Tokugawa men exposed to flank attacks.

Ahh. And the "open gate, gong banging, torch lit" castle manouver. Brilliant bit of trickery. It made the Takeda hesitate in the end and saved the lives of precious Tokugawa troops.

nokhor
02-24-2001, 03:58
but mikatagahara shouldn't have happened in the first place, nobunaga as well as ieyasu's senior retainers advised against a pithced battle and look what happened as koei put it 'he wet his kimono and ran for his life.'

as for the open gate maneuver, i think that was due to the fact that they couldn't close it in time and shingen's men suspected a trap where there was none, and ieyasu simply let the legend develop.

as for the philip-alexander-nobody analogy, i would reply that the states founded by selucus and ptolemy lasted longer than american history so far. and i am an american before i get flamed.

Matsudaira Motoyasu
02-24-2001, 06:24
I think you should get some facts strait, Nokhor.
First, what Nobunaga advised against was Ieyasu moving his headquarters to Hamamatsu, in Totomi, as it was closer to Shingen.
Ieyasu's retainers did advise against going head-on to battle, but as Shingen loomed nearby, it was either that or let them be sieged at Hamamatsu by the Takeda. If that had happened, they would have no way of warning Nobunaga and request help.
As for Ieyasu "wetting his kimono and running for his life", that is also incorrect as it is known that during the battle, when he saw a close retainer surrounded by Takeda troops, Ieyasu moved to help him but was stopped by another retainer that pulled him away and ordered a third retainer to take Ieyasu to safety, then going to battle himself. Although that retainer died, he did help the first retainer survive and escape.
As for the castle manouver, Ieyasu arrived at the castle with plenty of time to close the gate. He ordered Sakai Tadatsugu to bang a gong and other retainers to light the way to the castle, so that the remaining troops on the field could see were to go, as when the battle ended, it was almost dark.
From your previous post, you show that you don't like glorified civilian administrators. That seems to be the problem, as you apperantly believe that is what Ieyasu was. He was far from being one. He was a skilled warrior, as shown in the battles he fought during the Sengoku Jidai.
I think you've been reading Nobunaga's Ambition gameplay manual a bit too much. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
And the story of Ieyasu wetting his kimono and running for his life must have been some form of propaganda used by the Takeda after they failed to reduce Hamamatsu and kill Ieyasu so they wouldn't be embarrassed [Mikata-ga-hara: 28000 Takeda troops vs 8000 Tokugawa troops + 3000 Oda (that fled right at the begining of battle)].



[This message has been edited by Matsudaira Motoyasu (edited 02-23-2001).]

ShaiHulud
02-24-2001, 07:49
Nokhor..Ah, but Alexander built an edifice of which Seleucus and Ptolemy retained but the gables.

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

nokhor
02-25-2001, 09:14
motoyasu,

if you were offended, i apologize profusely, the 'wetting his kimono' thing was a reference to a similar thread a while ago.

great worm,

i wouldn't say gables, more like those little metal things they use to hold carpeting down in fancy places.

Matsudaira Motoyasu
02-27-2001, 21:14
No need to apologize, Nokhor. I was not offended. There were no ill feelings when I wrote my reply. I was simply saying that isn't a very correct observation.

Damn. I even put on the smilling face to see if my post wouldn't be seen in that light. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif Well, I guess it's the way I write. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Matsudaira Motoyasu (edited 02-27-2001).]