Sekigahara: strategy or cowardly

[devourment77]

What do you think about Sekigahara, (the battle where Ieyasu united japan and bacame shogun). Do you think it was cowardly to use Kobayakawa Hideaki's forces, who were allies with Ishida Mitsunari, and yet turned on Mitsunari half way during the battle. (Mitsuanrai was winning) OR do you see it as good strategy for Tokugawa, who were outnumbered, and chose to sway part of his enemies army to aid himself?

Personally, according to the art of war ("All warfare is based on deception") I think it was pretty clever of him.

[ZealUK]

Good strategy I say.

Didn't Ieyasu order his arquebusiers to fire on Kobayakawa Hideaki in order to spur him into action against Ishida Mitsunari? They must have made arrangements to change sides before the battle began.

Ishida had a stronger claim to the shogunate than Tokugawa Ieyasu as well. He had several powerful families backing him (Mori, Shimazu) as well as the notion that he was following on from Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Ieyasu had to win to secure the title of shogun for himself.

[Genji]

.

Ishida had a stronger claim to the shogunate than Tokugawa Ieyasu as well. He had several powerful families backing him (Mori, Shimazu) as well as the notion that he was following on from Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Ieyasu had to win to secure the title of shogun for himself.

ishida(like Hideyoshi) could never have become shogun he did not have the noble linage required.

[hobbit]

Of course it was good strategy - not the only time in battle where a group have changed sides to alter the course of events - there are no prizes for coming second in war.

[Zaphiel]

there is a difference between being a samurai and being a general......
as samurai you would call that cowardly
as a general you would call it a good strategy...just the way of Sunzi's Art of war!

[Holmgren-san]

I'd say it was a very good strategy. When you're in a battle of that size, and when the outcome decides the fate and future of a country--your country, you have to make some possibly costly decisions, whether or not others will look on it as cowardly. But again, I'd say it was a good strategy.

[devourment77]

there is a difference between being a samurai and being a general......
as samurai you would call that cowardly
as a general you would call it a good strategy...just the way of Sunzi's Art of war!

hmm i find this interesting.. because I always considered Ieyasu a samurai and a general. This is part of the reason I posted the thread. Ieyasu, as a samurai, use a very "non" samurai strategy in this battle. (which could be considered cowardly, btw the people of osaka hate him for a long time after this)

Although as a general, he fully ultilized sun tzu's art of war, which is based in deception.

I know samurai studied the art of war a lot, but they did not always practice it.

[Hai_hai]

I play the board game Risk. It's all about back-stabbing your allies, i.e. friends, when you need to.

[Lloromannic]

I play the board game Risk. It's all about back-stabbing your allies, i.e. friends, when you need to.

So is Shogun Total War

[not-I]

So is Shogun Total War

Yes! A great, classic computer game. The Mongolian Invasion expansion pack was very cool too. The game was well-researched and its battle calculations favored tactics and strategy based on Sun-Tse, which always included cunning and deception. I always found the stragegy map had taken a cue from Risk. And the realtime battles were great, with all the "morale" and "honor" factors.

"I will crush your no-dachi with my monks!"

[Lloromannic]

Yes! A great, classic computer game. The Mongolian Invasion expansion pack was very cool too. The game was well-researched and its battle calculations favored tactics and strategy based on Sun-Tsu, which always included cunning and deception. I always found the stragegy map had taken a cue from Risk. And the realtime battles were great, with all the "morale" and "honor" factors.

I never found the Mongolian expansion here in Mexico (not even on the black market) but yes it was and is a great game, I always played using the Imagawas.

[gsx1100s]

I never found the Mongolian expansion here in Mexico (not even on the black market) but yes it was and is a great game, I always played using the Imagawas.

Loved the game as well!
I also found the Imagawas a good start as well . the Takedas, (my favourite) were hard for geogaphical reasons. The Monks ....oooohhh I hated coming up against them.
The expansion pack is bloody hard to find in Australia as well. Second hand that is. A great game overall. Does anyone know of any similar P.C. based Samurai games?

cheers Michael

[devourment77]

yes shogun total war is kewl.. i am actually looking foward to rome total war as well.. even though i am a huge fan of samurai.... possibly playing with hannibal as my general and war elephants is just to kewl to pass up heh...

[Zaphiel]

hmm i find this interesting.. because I always considered Ieyasu a samurai and a general. This is part of the reason I posted the thread. Ieyasu, as a samurai, use a very "non" samurai strategy in this battle. (which could be considered cowardly, btw the people of osaka hate him for a long time after this)

Although as a general, he fully ultilized sun tzu's art of war, which is based in deception.

I know samurai studied the art of war a lot, but they did not always practice it.

well...in fact he was samurai AND general at the same time...but at the time of the war he knew(i don't really know what he knew but i think he knew) that when you have an army you'll have to look after your soldiers and that you're responsable for them...which means that you are a general in such times...so he acted like one...........hope you did understand it like i planed it!
as for the not art of war praticing samurais....well even in europe not every knight was like a gentelman.....