Kuroda Kanbei

The battle of Sekigahara is considered one of the most important battles in modern Japanese history. The battle was fought between Toyotomi loyalists of the the western army under Ishida Mitsunari against Tokugawa Ieyasu and his allies under the banner of the eastern army.

The battle ended with the defeat of the western army and the start of the Tokugawa Shogunate which destroyed the Toyotomi not long after that.
The comander of the western army was Ishida Mitsunari so he was ultimatly responsible for their defeat but was it really his fault? Or was the defeat due to untrustworthy allies, a hopeless sitiation or just bad luck?

In my opinion it was indeed because of Mitsunari but not because i think he was a bad general, Mitsunari's stratagy was actually pretty good, especially when you consider the fact that he wasn't even a soldier to begin with. Mitsunari's true shortcoming was that he shot himself in the foot long before the actuall battle took place.

I have three reasons for blaming Mitsunari.

Reason one. Mitsunari's character.
Mitsunari can be described as bluntly honest at best....and a complete jerkass at worst, the man simply was not a people person. In the past Mitsunari had made some critical reports to Hideyoshi about some big names or made a few unflattering comments about some which earned him some enemies. Wheter his comments and reports are justified i don't know but Mitsunari's past actions made several big names in Toyotomi side with the Eastern army instead of the western army because of they could not stand him.

One of those people was Kobayakawa Hideaki who betrayed the Western army during the battle(more about him in my second reason). Three other people where Kato Kiyomasa , Fukushima Masanori and Kuroda Yoshitaka(Kanbei ).
These three where part of the pillars of the Toyotomi and all great comanders who wielded much power so losing them must have been a big blow for Mitsunari .
Kato Kiyomasa and Fukushima Masanori where skilled generals with Masanori fighting at Sekigahara while Kiyomasa teamed up with Yoshitaka who was a great strategist to take down the Western forces at the island of Kyushu. Kuroda troops also served at Sekigahara and performed very well in the battle(wounding/killing Sima Sakon)

So Mitsunari's attitude lost three deeply respected Toyotomi veteran allong with their lands and troops. Its especially telling in the case of Yoshitaka who was said to be as close to the late Hideyoshi as his half brother. If a man so close to Hideyoshi decided to serve the Tokugawa instead of the Toyotomi then somewhere allong the line Mitsunari failed. Hard.

An example in his own army would be Shimazu Yoshihiro who Mitsunari offended during an argument he had with Ishida retainer Shima Sakon. As a result Yoshihiro and his soldiers didn't move an inch for most of the battle, Not that the Shimazu had that many soldiers but it could have been nothing but bad for the morale of the rest of the Western army.

Reason two. Trusting Kobayakawa Hideaki.
At Sekigahara Hideaki, familie member of Hideyoshi had one of the largest forces in the Western army, some 15,600 men to be exact (In comparison ''surpreme leader'' Mitsunari comanded a ''mere'' 4,000 soldiers) and was fielded at one of Mitsunari's flanks. During the battle Hideaki defected to the side of the Tokugawa(as planned beforehand) and attacked Mitsunari's forces which led to other officers defecting as well, which in turn led to the defeat of the western army.

Back in the Korean campaign Hideaki was the comander in chief. When Ishida Mitsunari came as part of the ''inspector force'' he reported Hideaki for Incompetence and Hideyoshi demoted him, took away much of his lands income and left him in disgrace for a while. During this period of disgrace one lord intervened on Hideaki's behalf.....one by the name of Tokugawa Ieyasu to be exact.

I don't know anything about the war of Korea so i don't know if Mitsunari's report was true or not but it doesn't really matter, what does matter is that Mitsunari gave Hideaki quite a good reason to despise him.

Didn't the thought ever occur to Mitsunari that Hideaki might still be a ''little pissed'' and that he had a debt to Ieyasu who was leading the opposing army?. I don't have a very high opinion of Ishida Mitsunari but he was a smart man, so he should have realised this.

So basickly the day Mitsunari decided to make that report on Hideaki was the day he lost Sekigahara

I know that most if not all of Hideaki's 15,600 troops where his own so Mitsunari couldn't have done anything about his huge number of troops but couldn't he just have divided some Hideaki's forces between his other comanders or better yet, not deploy them at all. The Mouri army didn't take part in the battle as they where guarding Osaka castle so couldn't he just have Hideaki guard the castle and have the Mouri present at Sekigahara. Granted, the Mouri wheren't all that trustworthy as they too had made a deal with Ieyasy but since Mouri Terumoto was the official leader of the Western army he probably would make sense he would fight with all he got if he was present at Sekigahara.

You could argue that Mitsunari believed that as a relitive of the late Hideyoshi, Hideaki would fight for the Toyotomi but with Hideyoshi having demoted and disgraced Hideaki that was probably just wishfull thinking, combine this with the fact that at the time, the whole Sekigahara conflict was not seen as Ieyasu trying to seize power but as an internal conflict within the Toyotomi goverment then any relation Hideaki and Hideyoshi had where completely irrelevent.

Reason 3. Mitsunari the general.

I said at the start of this topic that Mitsunari's strategy was solid, Mitsunari's reputation as a general however was not....in fact he didn't even have a reputation as a general!.

Mitsunari was a bureaucrat not a soldier and that was how he managed to get his position in the Toyotomi clan....So who the hell thought it was a good idea to put an inexperianced bureaucrat against the Tokugawa Ieyasu who had fought in most of Nobunaga's wars and some of Hideyoshi's as well!

Being a bureaucrat intruding on the army was exactly why Masanori and Kiyomasa despised Mitsunari so much and lots of people shared that view. Having an arrogant pencill licker as a general was bad far gaining ally's, bad for moral and bad for the western cause in general.

The Western army had a lot of comanders so why was Mitsunari apointed to lead the battle? Of the five regents, consisting of the most powerfull man in Japan there where three in the Western army: those being Uesugi Kagekatsu son of Kenshin, Mouri Terumoto grandson of the famous Motonari, and Ukita Hideie who comanded a grant 17000 soldiers at Sekigahara. The other two regents where Ieyasu the enemy and Meada Toshii who was dead.

The three regents on the Western side where leaders of the most powerfull clans in Japan and wheter it was on the front lines or from their castle they had seen their share of campaigns so wheren't they the best choice to lead the army? I get that Uesugi Kagekatsu wasn't in charge since he was fighting the Date clan but what stopped Mitsunari from giving controll of the army to Ukita or Terumoto? Terumoto was not the man his grandfather was but to be fair very few people could claim such a thing and those where already dead. So even if Terumoto was no Motonari wouldn't he with all his experaince be a better leader then Mitsunari? Also if Terumoto would have been present at Sekigahara and leading the troops he could not have accepted Ieyasu's deal because it would look really bad on him and his clan if he did. And how about Ukita Hideie? he was apointed regent by Hideyoshi, that has to count for something.

So i could be wrong here but newbie general Mitsunari leading the battle gives me the impression of a glory hawk who insists to on being the leader, when he has a whole army more qualified for the job.


So to summarise my opinion is that whatever good choices Ishida Mitsunari made where nullified by him pissing off a lot of people, him putting one of those in a crucial position and by chosing to be the general when he had about zero experaince.

So that was my story, it was a lot longer then i expected so sorry about that!
I'm no expert so please correct me where i'm wrong and give you own opinion on the whole thing.

Naomasa298

I agree with your general analysis. Mitsunari was personally responsible for alienating many generals who might otherwise have been loyal to the Toyotomi. With Mitsunari in the ascendance, they might well have felt their future looked rosier under the Tokugawa.

However, a point to note about the Mori. They were present at Sekigahara. Kikkawa Hiroie (3000 men), Mori Hidemoto (15000) and Kobayakawa himself were all Mori contingents. Kikkawa had previously indicated to Ieyasu that he would not participate in the battle, and when the crunch came, his army refused to move, thereby blocking Mori Hidemoto (who was willing to fight) from engaging, which removed another large contingent from the Western side. This was the second decisive factor. Had Kikkawa been positioned elsewhere, Hidemoto, along with the 6000 troops under Chosokabe Morichika, could have also engaged.

Why wasn't Terumoto made commander? Because he didn't want to be commander. He didn't exercise command and failed to make any impact as a leader. He wasn't even all that keen on being on the Western side in the first place, but it was thanks to Ankokuji Ekei that he was there. He wasn't a particularly good general either, besides being an ineffective leader.

Regarding the Shimazu - Yoshihiro himself was willing to offer battle and actually wanted to attack Ieyasu's position personally, but was convinced not to do so by his nephew Toyohisa. In the end, most of the Shimazu troops were killed retreating (straight through the Tokugawa lines!) and only a few made it back to Kyushu.

And despite all the defections, Ishida very nearly won. The outcome of the battle was uncertain until Kobayakawa, who hadn't moved throughout most of the fighting, finally decided to keep his word to Ieyasu (after the Tokugawa fired a volley in their direction to "remind" him of his obligations) and charged into the back of the Ukita. There was nothing particularly wrong with Ishida's plan and tactics, and he wasn't completely inexperienced at fighting. It was his lack of tact and poor political judgement that let down the Western side.

Ultimately, he was the only one who commanded enough political influence to be the coalition's leader, because he had done most of the work to build it.

Had Terumoto been more energetic and fully committed, or there had been a Toyotomi heir who was of age, or even if Ishida had been a little more savvy and deployed his men to account for shaky loyalty, things might have played out differently.

Rasputin1234

I recall reading somewhere that Mitsunari offered Hideaki Osaka Castle and the title of Kwampaku until Hideyori matured in exchange for Hideaki's loyalty, and figured that this would make up for their bad blood. Can't recall where though