PDA

View Full Version : Why Tokugawa Ieyasu is a great man (long)



TheWay
03-23-2001, 11:22
I have read an earlier post about how Tokugawa is basically a little land grabber and not worthy of the shogunate. This is not true and there are many reasons.

Lets examine the other two men of the times and how Ieyasu supposedly pales in comparison to them.

Ah, Nobunaga. This was a great man, but basically deeply flawed too. A Japanese friend describes his greatest strength as thus (and which is also found in the *novel* Taiko): he is willing to embrace new concepts without compunction. His mass use of guns barricaded behind barriers against the Takeda calvary is legendary. His greatest skill in battle acknowledged by historians is his ability to gather information sources about his enemies and use tatics differently. But he is also "highly charged", and as a monk puts it to Hideyoshi in the book, he is not fit for running Japan. Unifying it yes, not running. His eyes are already cast against Korea and China, more an Alexander than a great ruler.

Hideyoshi is a fantastic character, one that more closely resembles the concept of a survivor in psychologist textbooks than any other person from that period. Even his concepts of life as climbing a mountain is closely replicated in such texts. He is shrewd, intelligent and a genius at giving battle - for example he was able to destroy the Hojo after nary a fight by setting kin against kin. He is quite an able administrator too, and he too has wild ambitions - Korea and then China.

However if you are willing to establish both characters as great, you might be willing to listen to their opinion of Ieyasu too. They both believed that he is a man of immense talents and a man to watch (behind their backs!)

Ieyasu was a hostage from youth at the hands of the epicurean Yoshimoto Imagawa, a man of limited talents but great ambition. He learnt to keep himself alive by supplication and keeping out of sight, while his weak and poor province Mikawa was run by retainers. Yet even at an age of 17 he kept runners around the country to inform him of events, a sign of his ambition, and patience.

When Yoshimoto was ambushed he moved immediately, returning to Mikawa and organizing his administration and troops. Did you know that eventually Mikawa troops are famed for their fighting powress even though they are few? Immediately this young but canny man realised that he had to hitch his stars to an alliance to stay alive - the fact that he sided with a relative unknown like Nobunaga meant he had the ability of reading the future quite well.

Anyway he was quite content to let Nobunaga run the show and contribute only some troops (still reorganizing the province). He understands people very well, he knows that Nobunaga is not one to stay under the banner of another, and will destroy anybody in his way, but more than that he knows that nobody in the region can withstand the ability of him (not Mino, not the Asai and Asakura).

He is canny enough to strike a deal with Takeda to grab Suruga, and fend off the attentions of this warlord for a while. He is also brave when the two finally met in battle, taking the fight to Takeda and forcing him to postpone his dreams of conquest. In other battles the men of Tokugawa under his leadership have reversed what could have been losing battles for the Oda.

Oh, and have you heard the story of how Ieyasu ordered the death of his own son to satisfy the ever suspicious Nobunaga?

Anyway, on to the battles with Hideyoshi. At that time he prob had 30,000 men while Hideyoshi had over 100,000, but he was grinning. He defeated the forces of Shonyu Ikeda, a general of Hideyoshi, comprehensively and was looking for more when Nobuto defected. Is this brave or what? Now Nobuto is just a pawn of his, but Hideyoshi looks upon him as a pawn too.

There is another aspect to Tokugawa that is immensely satisfying. He is serene, calm, patient and seems in tune with the "Way", an oriental concept I too am grasping with. He is immensely wise and intelligent at the same time. He does not possess great cruelty and does not enjoy wanton destruction. But because of his calmness and scholarly air (he reads confucious when nobunaga would have just used it to wipe his ass), he is seen as a cold fish. Yet after generations of turmoil a cool figure and voice of authority is just what Japan needs.

Other clues of his brilliance: turning a general of Ishida'a army against him and only showing his hand at the last minute, forcing administrative changes on the country etc, and so on.

Oh yeah, Nobunaga supposedly looks a bit like a Caucasian, Hideyoshi is monkey-looking and Tokugawa is fat, short and round-shouldered.

Minagawa Daimon
03-23-2001, 12:08
that was a good post, i dont agree with what you said "way" but i respect it, well done, sadly one who is too honorable cannot be the shogun due to the fact that some things need to be done underhanded, but nevertheless id still vote for II Naomasa as one of the most brave and honorable samurai during the Sengoku Jidai, as for the tittle of shogun,id have to vote for Takeda Shingen had that sniper bullet only missed its mark, Uesugi Kenshin would have been a great leader of Japan but he is not that ambitious to expand his domain and (i dont know if its fact or fiction) his life was prematurely ended by an assasins blade. Kantorai-shido Kenchikuka...

Zen Blade
03-23-2001, 12:48
Minagawa,

The Uesugi death via a ninja in the latrine, is pretty unlikely...
Kenshin was known to enjoy drinking a bit much, and he probably died to some alcohol-related disease. I have also heard about epileptic-like seizures...

But good post Way

-Zen Blade

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

Emperor Han
03-23-2001, 15:34
It is true that Uesugi Kenshin had some medical conditions. However, timing of his premature death leaves some question whether or not it is assasination ordered by Oda Nobunaga.

FwSeal
03-23-2001, 22:42
Good post, way!
The only point I'd argue there involves Shingen. It seems highly unlikely that Shingen's campaign in Totomi in late 1572-early 1573 (which included Mikatagahara) was in fact an attempt to march on Kyoto. Instead, Shingen merely seemed to be making another local gain. By the time of his death, Shingen had cut deeply into the Tokugawa's domain and fall of that house seemed only a matter of time. Even as late as 1574, Tokugawa's army was still in bad shape as a result of Mikatagahara. This contributed to the fall of Takatenjin Castle.
Had Shingen not died, it seems likely that Tokugawa would either have had to sue for peace or be destroyed. Morover, it seems that Tokugawa himself provoked war with the Takeda in 1571, making raids into Takeda territory in Suruga and attempting to strike up an alliance with Kenshin. He might have done well, as Nobunaga advised, to retreat to Okazaki and strike up a truce, as Nobunaga advised.

I'd also surmise that Kenshin's death was a bit more run of the mill then a ninja. He'd been ill for some time prior to his death, and a plausible theory has been made that he died of stomach cancer. Also, the now widely-held theory, based on surviving letters and other bits of evidence, that Shingen died of respitory illness seems more likely then that romantic idea that he was shot by a sniper at Noda. In fact, this supposition has helped call into question Shingen' most famous portrait. Attributed to Hasegawa Tohaku, the pictire features Shingen as a big, man, accompanied by a hawk and his sword. However, most of the other contemporary paintings of Shingen show him as a rather gaunt, unhealthy looking indivdual. In addition, the Takeda mon is nowhere to be found in the Hasegawa painting. One idea is that 'Shingen' is in fact a Hatakeyama lord (the Hatekyama being the lord's of Hasegawa's home province, Noto and whose mon actually apears to be painted on the scabbard of Shingen's sword in the painting).

Contubernalis
03-24-2001, 00:47
Seal-any idea where I could see those pictures of Shingen? (Besides going to Japan!)

I agree that Tokugawa was a great 'un, but I think the accomplishments of Nobunaga and Hideyoshi do surpass Ieyasu's. I see him as an Augustus, who is also great but Julius gets the praise. I doubt that had he not stepped up after Hideyoshi, the country would have found the stability it did. But his class stratification of Japanese society deserves some criticism, IMHO.

ShaiHulud
03-24-2001, 03:28
Every nation's history is littered with men who took a stab at greatness and died trying. Tokugawa is great because, like the vaunted few, he weathered adversity and prevailed. Nobunaga did not. Hideyoshi prevailed but provided no dynasty. Tokugawa, whether from war or intrigue, managed to do more than either of his former Lords.

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

Matsudaira Motoyasu
03-24-2001, 05:20
The Great Worm (with all due respect, ShaiHulud) is correct.
Also, Contubernalis, remmember that many of Nobunaga's and Hideyoshi's great accomplishments (mostly the former's) were achieved with the help of Ieyasu, who assisted them in their pursuits of total domination (and don't compare Ieyasu to Augustus in that staight forward manner; Ieyasu was a great warrior as well as a great administrator, while Augustus was a great civillian administrator).

Besides, if Ieyasu wasn't a great leader and man, then how could he have the loyalty of such honourable and able followers as Honda Tadakatsu and Ii Naomasa (to name a few).

[This message has been edited by Matsudaira Motoyasu (edited 03-24-2001).]

03-25-2001, 06:06
Tokugawa Ieyasu had a great qualities that deserve him the shogunate after all:

Courage and superb grasp of diplomatical and military skills.

Maybe in military skill Hideyosi was better but Ieyasu's hidden plans and great cunningness secured him the aimed title.

------------------
Honour to Clan No Fear.

Visit my resource centre at:[URL=http://terazawa.totalwar.org/]

Brown Wolf
04-09-2001, 01:43
isn't he the one that kicked out and killed all of the portugese?

------------------
"Failure is not an option"

Takeda Shingen
04-14-2001, 13:09
This is an interesting topic i recently saw a long series on Togukawa Ieyasu and it was very interesting.I feel as a few other's that Takeda Shingen had he lived would've become Shogun.And that's taking nothing away from Ieyasu how was a great man in his own right,it's really hard to put into words but that's how i feel.

Michael

Matsudaira Motoyasu
04-14-2001, 19:21
Yes, but Shingen would still have to beat Nobunaga and he would allways have Uesugi Kenshin breathing down his neck.
Also, I think that had Shingen not died, Nobunaga would probably have thrown his full military weight sooner than he did, because although Tokugawa was a somewhat minor lord compared to Nobunaga and Shingen, he was an invaluable ally (who had shown his worth for almost a decade by then).
Just a bit of info, Nobunaga only decided to give full assistence to Ieyasu (and the result was Nagashino) after Ieyasu threatened to join the Takeda and act as vanguard against the Oda (a bluff but an effective one since it was the kind of talk Nobunaga respected and it was a prospect that didn't please him very much).

To Brown Wolf, yes, he was the one that kicked out all and killed a few portuguese.
That had already been started by Hideyoshi and was continued by Ieyasu after some incidents that threatened the stability of the peace imposed by the Tokugawa bakufu.
To be truthfull, I'm portuguese and I don't care. He did what he had to. We and the Spanish, in the name of Christianity, did some pretty horrible sh*t too, as well as all other colonial nations at the time.

Brown Wolf
04-15-2001, 00:36
Quote Originally posted by Matsudaira Motoyasu:
Yes, but Shingen would still have to beat Nobunaga and he would allways have Uesugi Kenshin breathing down his neck.
Also, I think that had Shingen not died, Nobunaga would probably have thrown his full military weight sooner than he did, because although Tokugawa was a somewhat minor lord compared to Nobunaga and Shingen, he was an invaluable ally (who had shown his worth for almost a decade by then).
Just a bit of info, Nobunaga only decided to give full assistence to Ieyasu (and the result was Nagashino) after Ieyasu threatened to join the Takeda and act as vanguard against the Oda (a bluff but an effective one since it was the kind of talk Nobunaga respected and it was a prospect that didn't please him very much).

To Brown Wolf, yes, he was the one that kicked out all and killed a few portuguese.
That had already been started by Hideyoshi and was continued by Ieyasu after some incidents that threatened the stability of the peace imposed by the Tokugawa bakufu.
To be truthfull, I'm portuguese and I don't care. He did what he had to. We and the Spanish, in the name of Christianity, did some pretty horrible sh*t too, as well as all other colonial nations at the time.[/QUOTE]

Was it really necesary though? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

I personally don't know,

but http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/redface.gif many so called christians did do some horrible things in the colonies. it is a true dishonor to God.

Acutally it can be argued that the priest of that time were as far off from the actual religion as possible

------------------
"Failure is not an option"

[This message has been edited by Brown Wolf (edited 04-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Brown Wolf (edited 04-14-2001).]

Matsudaira Motoyasu
04-15-2001, 01:58
We cannot say that he was right or wrong. We will never be in the situation that they were at the time. Perhaps from both Hideyoshi's and Ieyasu's point of view, it was the only solution, or perhaps the most definitive. At the time, the Roman Catholic Church's interests were to gain more wealth, it wasn't really to convert the "barbarians" (although I'm not quite sure who were the most barbaric).
I think that when we compare what the Tokugawa bakufu did to the christians to what we (the portuguese), the spanish and all the colonial nations (and conquerers before them, such as the mongols) did to the indigenous people of many places in the world (also remmember native american indians), is almost nothing. Another difference is that they did that in their own country against intruders. In the other cases described, it was the intruders that slaughtered thousands of indigenous people.

Brown Wolf
04-15-2001, 11:13
Quote Originally posted by Matsudaira Motoyasu:
We cannot say that he was right or wrong. We will never be in the situation that they were at the time. Perhaps from both Hideyoshi's and Ieyasu's point of view, it was the only solution, or perhaps the most definitive. At the time, the Roman Catholic Church's interests were to gain more wealth, it wasn't really to convert the "barbarians" (although I'm not quite sure who were the most barbaric).
I think that when we compare what the Tokugawa bakufu did to the christians to what we (the portuguese), the spanish and all the colonial nations (and conquerers before them, such as the mongols) did to the indigenous people of many places in the world (also remmember native american indians), is almost nothing. Another difference is that they did that in their own country against intruders. In the other cases described, it was the intruders that slaughtered thousands of indigenous people.[/QUOTE]


You have a good point. It is very hard to tell who was really right. I know that on priest that started the mission in Japan during that time really liked Japan, but what would have happend after??????

And I would agree that the entire battle differences (Intruders being expelled rather than intruders taken over) are important, but of course I am not saying that any side was right in slaughtering people.

Personally I would like to learn more about the time period in Japan and the incident itself.



------------------
"Failure is not an option"