Japanese Samurai History - Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu

#6685 [2005-02-16 01:48:13]

Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu

by tokualyon

Hello,
This may be an odd question but between Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu,
who would you consider the better daimyo and why? This may include
genius in warefare, administration or simply how successful they were.
I know Ieyasu was the eventual unifier of Japan but is that simply
because of his superiority over the other two leaders or because of
their unfortunate circumstances, i.e. Nobunaga dying untimely at the
hands of his vassal and Hideyoshi having no family name or title able to
be passed on etc? Likewise how much was Ieyasu's success in creating the
Tokugawa Shogunate owed to the previous two sengoku jidai leaders?

Charlie Carroll

[Next #6686]

#6686 [2005-02-16 06:03:52]

Re: [samuraihistory] Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu

by holydemon13

Hey.
Just personal opinion, but without Nobunaga, the whole thing would
never have gotten started. So in my opinion, he was the most important, although
his death prevented HIM from being the one to complete the mission.
Hideyoshi, the one to actually UNIFY Japan, had an heir (Hideyori, Nobunaga's
grandnephew) but the people who succeeded him ultimately were too weak to be "regents"
until that child came of age. But his disarming of the people helped
solidify his hold on things. (Was Hideyoshi the one to disarm the people?) So
unified Japan was in place when Tokugawa was name Shogun in 1603. However, I
don't think necessarily it was a case of Ieyasu being in the right place at the
right time. From what I've read here on the list and elsewhere, it was a matter
of time before Ieyasu challenged Hideyoshi and took command of things,
especially after Sekigahara in 1600, which, to my mind, "sealed the deal" as it
were.
This may all be conjecture so anyone else have anything to add or
correct?
Take care, y'all. :-)

L8r
Tim

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Previous #6685] [Next #6710]

#6710 [2005-02-24 15:34:54]

Re: [samuraihistory] Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu

by cepooooo

On Feb 16, 2005, at 4:03 AM, Eponymous13@... wrote:

>
> Hey.
> Just personal opinion, but without Nobunaga, the whole thing
> would
> never have gotten started. So in my opinion, he was the most
> important, although
> his death prevented HIM from being the one to complete the mission.
> Hideyoshi, the one to actually UNIFY Japan, had an heir (Hideyori,
> Nobunaga's
> grandnephew) but the people who succeeded him ultimately were too weak
> to be "regents"
> until that child came of age. But his disarming of the people helped
> solidify his hold on things. (Was Hideyoshi the one to disarm the
> people?) So
> unified Japan was in place when Tokugawa was name Shogun in 1603.
> However, I
> don't think necessarily it was a case of Ieyasu being in the right
> place at the
> right time. From what I've read here on the list and elsewhere, it
> was a matter
> of time before Ieyasu challenged Hideyoshi and took command of things,
> especially after Sekigahara in 1600, which, to my mind, "sealed the
> deal" as it
> were.
> This may all be conjecture so anyone else have anything to add
> or
> correct?
> Take care, y'all. :-)
>
> L8r
> Tim

Agreed.
Nobunaga was the man. Hideyoshi was a great general, but his
country-bumpkin nature came out and he became a megalomaniac (=failure
in Korea... or was it China??), Ieyasu was an intelligent man but had
it 'relatively' easy.

One thing about Nobunaga that people do not discuss much: a few years
before being killed, he had adopted an Imperial Prince... who knows
what he was planning...

cepo

[Previous #6686] [Next #6716]

#6716 [2005-02-24 15:52:18]

RE: [samuraihistory] Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu

by Haynes, A (Angus)

>Agreed.
>Nobunaga was the man. Hideyoshi was a great general, but his
>country-bumpkin nature came out and he became a megalomaniac (=failure
>in Korea... or was it China??), Ieyasu was an intelligent man but had
>it 'relatively' easy.
>
>One thing about Nobunaga that people do not discuss much: a few years
>before being killed, he had adopted an Imperial Prince... who knows
>what he was planning...
>
>cepo

I disagree. Nobunaga was a fearsome man, but he lacked Hideyoshi's
governing ability, which in my opinion makes Hideyoshi the greater of
the three. If Nobunaga had not been murdered, I don't think the
unification would have gone nearly as smoothly. Nobunaga rubbed people
the wrong way, and out of fear I think you would have seen the powerful
clans rise against him in an effort to protect their autonomy, as
Nobunaga showed that he expected all the land to be directly under the
control of himself and his close retainers.

Hideyoshi on the other hand knew that the way to govern in the 16th
century was not to destroy everybody in your way, but to reward and
garauntee the lands of the powerful daimyo. Sure, the memory of
Nobunaga's ruthless actions earlier in the 16th century probably gave
the daimyo a reason to want peace, but still...

The marks against Hideyoshi were the two attempted invasions of Korea
and the fact that he did not have a realistic succession plan, thanks to
the forced suicide of his previous heir, who from the sounds of things,
may have deserved it... It's hard to forgive the Korean invasion, but if
he had lived for awhile longer we may not have seen a Sekigahara, and
perhaps a Toyotomi Bakufu?

Angus
_____________________________________________________________

This email, including any attachments, may be confidential or privileged, and is sent for the personal attention of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately . The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Rabobank Group. The Group is not liable for the effects of any virus which may be contained in this email.
_____________________________________________________________

[Previous #6710] [Next #6719]

#6719 [2005-02-24 21:51:03]

Re: Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu

by naomasa298

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "Haynes, A (Angus)"
wrote:

> I disagree. Nobunaga was a fearsome man, but he lacked Hideyoshi's
> governing ability, which in my opinion makes Hideyoshi the greater

> the three. If Nobunaga had not been murdered, I don't think the
> unification would have gone nearly as smoothly. Nobunaga rubbed

people

> the wrong way, and out of fear I think you would have seen the

powerful

> clans rise against him in an effort to protect their autonomy, as
> Nobunaga showed that he expected all the land to be directly under

the

> control of himself and his close retainers.
>
> Hideyoshi on the other hand knew that the way to govern in the 16th
> century was not to destroy everybody in your way, but to reward and
> garauntee the lands of the powerful daimyo. Sure, the memory of
> Nobunaga's ruthless actions earlier in the 16th century probably

gave

> the daimyo a reason to want peace, but still...
>
> The marks against Hideyoshi were the two attempted invasions of

Korea

> and the fact that he did not have a realistic succession plan,

thanks to

> the forced suicide of his previous heir, who from the sounds of

things,

> may have deserved it... It's hard to forgive the Korean invasion,

but if

> he had lived for awhile longer we may not have seen a Sekigahara,

and

> perhaps a Toyotomi Bakufu?
>
> Angus

There's been mention of the fact that without Nobunaga, the
unification would not have gained the momentum that it had but there
were certainly other daimyo who had the power base to achieve it.
Ieyasu had two options - the Oda to his west and the Takeda to his
east, and had previously come to an understanding with Shingen. If
Nobunaga hadn't happened, he may well have sided with the Takeda,
and what odds on a Shingen/Ieyasu alliance unifying Japan? Of
course, the same scenario may have played out after Shingen's death
with Katsuyori in place of Hideyori.

Hideyoshi's failing seems to have been that of a cult of
personality - a great deal of the loyalty that he acquired was to
himself personally rather than to his family, which unravelled with
surprising quickness after his death (helped in no small way by
Mitsunari's incompetance).

There's one outsider I sometimes speculate on - the Shimazu. They
achieved the conquest of Kyushu, but didn't have enough time to
consolidate their victories. They were well served by loyal
retainers, and in Yoshihisa, Yoshihiro and Iehisa had some of the
finest generals of the time. The previous shogunate had been built
on a Kyushu power base, so if the Shimazu had been able to
consolidate their gains, could they have been the ones to unify
Japan?

[Previous #6716] [Next #6730]

#6730 [2005-02-25 07:39:27]

Re: [samuraihistory] Re: Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu

by mieusedai

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Suebsahakarn" <shanesuebsahakarn@...>
To: <samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:51 AM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu

> Hideyoshi's failing seems to have been that of a cult of
> personality - a great deal of the loyalty that he acquired was to
> himself personally rather than to his family, which unravelled with
> surprising quickness after his death (helped in no small way by
> Mitsunari's incompetance).

I've always been quite frustrated by the fact that Hideyoshi had so many
obvious talents that did not pass onto his heir. I mean look at Hideyori...
he was spoiled his whole life! Hideyoshi, on the other hand, had nothing
when he started out and had no choice but to use his cunning and charisma to
gain his fame and fortune. Hideyori had it all to begin with, and doting
parents to boot. Maybe if he had started out in more abject circumstances he
may have developed some true leadership abilities. He lived too much of a
protected life, I think.

There's also the fact One, Hideyoshi's wife, was unable to bear children.
Okay fine, the Taiko ended up sleeping around a lot, but if One was even
half as fertile as Maeda Toshiie's wife... *chuckles* In any case, one of
the biggest failings of inheriting power by blood is that talent doesn't
necessarily pass on through genes.

The Korean invasion was a horrible idea, I agree. The Japanese history
volumes by (forgot first name) Samson -- they're a three volume set that
people here have recommended before as a good summary and starting point for
research -- speculate that Hideyoshi may have gone mad as he aged, maybe due
to a degenerative disorder of the brain. Of course, I'm not ruling out that
he was just plain drunk on his successes and figured, "Hey, if it worked
with Japan, it's got to work with mainland China!" *snorts*

I guess I'm just a bit biased towards Hideyoshi myself because, out of all
the figures of Japanese history, his story has always been the most
awe-inspiring to me personally. In my opinion, only an exceptional
individual could have transcended his class and rise up to become the
de-facto ruler of all Japan, even if that rule never continued past his
generation.

Dark Siren Sally
http://darksiren.net

[Previous #6719]