Which Sengoku-Era Clan would you want to rule Japan?

Which Sengoku-Era Clan you would’ve wanted to rule Japan

  • Oda Clan

    Votes: 26 28.6%
  • Takeda Clan

    Votes: 3 3.3%
  • Toyotomi Clan

    Votes: 3 3.3%
  • Uesugi Clan

    Votes: 5 5.5%
  • Date Clan

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • Mori Clan

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Later Hōjō Clan

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Chōsokabe Clan

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Shimazu Clan

    Votes: 6 6.6%
  • Imagawa Clan

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maeda Clan

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Ōtomo Clan

    Votes: 6 6.6%
  • Asakura Clan

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Azai Clan

    Votes: 3 3.3%
  • Ashikage Clan (Shogunate restoration)

    Votes: 3 3.3%
  • Akechi Clan

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Imperial Clan (Imperial Restoration)

    Votes: 14 15.4%
  • Ikkō-ikki (Down with the Feudal System)

    Votes: 16 17.6%
  • (Insert Clan down below)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    91
So, if the Sengoku Jidai had a different outcome, where the Tokugawa doesn’t become the ultimate rulers of Japan, becoming the Tokugawa Shogunate.

Which Sengoku-Era clan you would’ve want to become the dominant clan of Japan? (Excluding the Tokugawa)
 
For me it would be the hojo because under them Kanti flourished and they did a lot of development work and were known for their good governance. A close second is toyotomi because for all his flaws compared to Tokugawa hidyoshi and his son were more flexible and would have not closed Japan thereby leading to a surviving Bakufu. At the same time I think the hosokawa surviving would be amazing since they basically maintained the ashikaga clan and did excellent work.
 
My vote goes for the Oda because I've always had a soft spot for Nobunaga. I agree that it took him a lot of luck to actually beat the odds and ascend from a minor lord to the most powerful man in Japan, but I still think he was genuinely brilliant in many ways. It's not just that he was a significant military modernizer (I don't think "innovator" would be correct word since he was obviously not the first Japanese lord to use firearms or ashigaru peasant armies, but brought those innovations and other to the next level by massifiying and integrating them into a cohesive military strategy) but he also genuinely understood government and economics. He patronised trade, abolished unnecessary monopolies, provided for open craftsmen guilds, promoted the construction of roads and bridges, etc. He was a thoughtful guy who knew how to govern. To be fair, so was Iyeasu and even Hideyoshi, but both of them were in a more precarious position than Nobunaga would have been, which perhaps partially explains why they couldn't afford to be as bold and unconventional in their approach...

Basically, Nobunaga is a rare figure in history. A person with both the will and the means to overturn the old way of doing things and forge a fully new approach - within limits, of course.

That said, I think everyone would want Japan to avoid Sakoku and develop extensive trade relations with the rest of the world (including Europeans), and while the Oda could allow for that, it would be a safer bet to goe with a clan that was located further to the west, like the Mori or the Shimazu.

Still... they don't have anyone as cool as Nobunaga :p
 
My vote goes for the Oda because I've always had a soft spot for Nobunaga. I agree that it took him a lot of luck to actually beat the odds and ascend from a minor lord to the most powerful man in Japan, but I still think he was genuinely brilliant in many ways. It's not just that he was a significant military modernizer (I don't think "innovator" would be correct word since he was obviously not the first Japanese lord to use firearms or ashigaru peasant armies, but brought those innovations and other to the next level by massifiying and integrating them into a cohesive military strategy) but he also genuinely understood government and economics. He patronised trade, abolished unnecessary monopolies, provided for open craftsmen guilds, promoted the construction of roads and bridges, etc. He was a thoughtful guy who knew how to govern. To be fair, so was Iyeasu and even Hideyoshi, but both of them were in a more precarious position than Nobunaga would have been, which perhaps partially explains why they couldn't afford to be as bold and unconventional in their approach...

Basically, Nobunaga is a rare figure in history. A person with both the will and the means to overturn the old way of doing things and forge a fully new approach - within limits, of course.

That said, I think everyone would want Japan to avoid Sakoku and develop extensive trade relations with the rest of the world (including Europeans), and while the Oda could allow for that, it would be a safer bet to goe with a clan that was located further to the west, like the Mori or the Shimazu.

Still... they don't have anyone as cool as Nobunaga :p
I dont know Hojo Ujiyasu did the same thing, the Mori clan also adopted many of those practices. Nobunaga was really lucky. Basically by the time he came to the scene the asakura, rokkaku, hosokoawa and miyoshi clans had exhausted themselves fighting each other. Kenshin basically bit off more than he could chew taking on both Hojo and Takeda who also basically exhausted their resources fighting the Uesugi.

Dont get me wrong Oda's victory against Yoshimoto Imagawa, or his defeat of Dosan or his crushing of Katsuyori and the Ikko Ikki is incredible but again by that point all his enemies were exhausted from fighting each other and that coupled with underestimating him lead to their defeats. It could have easily gone the other way to be fair. Heck had the miyoshi not pulled their stunt and continued to cooperate with the ashikaga clan/hosokoawa clan then nobunaga may have been stopped early on especially if Rokkaku was also part of the coalition with the Asakura's.

Basically a strong Hosokawa+ashikaga+rokakku+asakura+miyoshi coalition would have been too much for the Oda to handle while they were also simultaneously fighting the Imagawa.

FYI regarding Ikko Ikki they basically really upset the delicate power balance of the major daimyos surrounding the ashikaga clan weakening the military and economic strenght of those clans

I think Hojo did what Nobunaga did but the problem with Hojo was that they basically focused too much on defense and internal development and less on offense though again that is because they were busy fighting the Uesugi and their vassals for control over Kanto region. As for the shimazu, otome, mori, amagi, ouchi etc clans they too had spent so much time destroying each other that they had no choice but to rollover to Nobunaga and his successors and submit.

So yeah what Nobunaga did was revolutionary but he wasnt the only warlord to do so but what he had was really good luck and enemies who underestimated him + an excellent general staff to a lesser extent
 
Last edited:
Nobunaga was to me by far the most interesting charachter. His readiness to import western ideas, use them and improve them was incredible - a genius. I would have been incredibly interested to see what a Japan ruled by him would looked like in the longer term - especially if his heirs try to emulate his way.
 
I see a lot of vote for the Ikko-ikki. I can fully understand that people dont like the feudal like system - but to replace it with religious fanatics is really not a receipt for improvement in my book. Or am I misunderstanding the Ikko-ikki?
 
I see a lot of vote for the Ikko-ikki. I can fully understand that people dont like the feudal like system - but to replace it with religious fanatics is really not a receipt for improvement in my book. Or am I misunderstanding the Ikko-ikki?
The Ikko-Ikki are very much misunderstood, mainly because there is hardly anything on them in anything other than Japanese. I read a very fascinating post by someone who was much more knowledgeable on the subject on another website (so I probably can't link it), and he said that "Ikki" or autonomous regions would form in the absence of central rule. The analogy he gave were the Swiss Cantons. What we know as the "Ikko-Ikki" was an Ikki that formed in Kaga province, and over a period of 140 years, the Hongan-ji temple became the de facto "leader" of the Ikki. This leadership slowly became more and more centralized though it was still not as hierarchical as the rule of the Daimyos. The Ikko-Ikki, in his view, were not revolutionary anti-feudal peasants, but were simply an autonomous group of peasant communities and temples that had stopped paying taxes to the Shogun or to any other warlord. It's the typical divide between religious and secular authorities, just like in Western Europe.

It wouldn't really be possible for the Ikko-Ikki to conquer Japan because that was never an aim of the Hongan-ji, and the "armies" raised were little more than local militias, perhaps with jizamurai sponsors who would take charge. Hardly the mass armies being raised by the Oda, Toyotomi and Tokugawa later on.

If anyone is interested, a very good resource on Japanese history is the Japanese Wiki Corpus. Not sure if I can link but it's the first result if you Google it.
 
Last edited:

Paradoxer

Banned
Anyway to get compromise between imperial clan and shogunate? The shogunate becomes Japanese equivalent of parliament but made up of lords and samurai. They handle military, law enforcement, foreign affairs(militarily), and infrastructure. The Emperor handles more political, diplomacy, civic, religious, and has a mediator position in government(often actively avoids political issues within shogunate or overlap unless the situation becomes stagnant). The emperor also appoints diplomats and civilian government positions.

The Japanese government is divided into branches somewhat unofficially(officially they all tie together or overlap). The shogunate makes up samurai and daimyos/lords. The samurai and lords are also only people permitted to officer or advisor ranks. They become more open to peasant levies and militias but only for defense, cannon folder, and especially marine/navy units. The navy is only part of military and law enforcement not controlled by samurai directly. At most they are some of special or assistance forces in marine/merchant fleet which emperor controls but leaves mostly to management of guilds, traders, and local militias. Basically, use samurai class as professional standing army while levies/peasants and other classes fill in navy manpower and support roles for samurai on land.

Additionally, how could samurai class adopt or even embrace widespread use guns as part of their training along swords while weaving out archery. A trained soldier with gun is still better then majority of untrained masses especially in more rough terrain or small scale conflicts. The swords being used for close ranges or attached to bayonets which could make it good spear if for attack by Calvary.

Japan especially if successful in Korea and more open trade wise(more freedom for merchant class and wealth) many clans with money or merchant backing could fund colonial expeditions across the pacific especially if home islands are centralizing. Instead of killing rebellious elements emperor or shogunate sends them to take over islands or land across pacific to “redeem” themselves while having more autonomy. Same goes for sons and samurai who lack inheritance which often lead to conflicts in first place until they exhausted it’s manpower
 
Anyway to get compromise between imperial clan and shogunate? The shogunate becomes Japanese equivalent of parliament but made up of lords and samurai. They handle military, law enforcement, foreign affairs(militarily), and infrastructure. The Emperor handles more political, diplomacy, civic, religious, and has a mediator position in government(often actively avoids political issues within shogunate or overlap unless the situation becomes stagnant). The emperor also appoints diplomats and civilian government positions.
That's pretty much the Kamakura shogunate.
 
The Ikko-Ikki are very much misunderstood, mainly because there is hardly anything on them in anything other than Japanese. I read a very fascinating post by someone who was much more knowledgeable on the subject on another website (so I probably can't link it), and he said that "Ikki" or autonomous regions would form in the absence of central rule. The analogy he gave were the Swiss Cantons. What we know as the "Ikko-Ikki" was an Ikki that formed in Kaga province, and over a period of 140 years, the Hongan-ji temple became the de facto "leader" of the Ikki. This leadership slowly became more and more centralized though it was still not as hierarchical as the rule of the Daimyos. The Ikko-Ikki, in his view, were not revolutionary anti-feudal peasants, but were simply an autonomous group of peasant communities and temples that had stopped paying taxes to the Shogun or to any other warlord. It's the typical divide between religious and secular authorities, just like in Western Europe.

It wouldn't really be possible for the Ikko-Ikki to conquer Japan because that was never an aim of the Hongan-ji, and the "armies" raised were little more than local militias, perhaps with jizamurai sponsors who would take charge. Hardly the mass armies being raised by the Oda, Toyotomi and Tokugawa later on.

If anyone is interested, a very good resource on Japanese history is the Japanese Wiki Corpus. Not sure if I can link but it's the first result if you Google it.
I would be very interested for my part. If you could make a link I would be happy.
 

Paradoxer

Banned
What clans are most anti-Confucius or just did not take to influences as much if any? I bring this up because Confucius system and philosophy often screwed over traders, artisans, and merchant class when it came to general status in society especially if they lack land. Because in Confucius thought they did not “contribute” or own actual means of what they did directly.

Or which clans were most opposed to Chinese influence? Confucius description of merchants and warrior class(samurai) is often not always favorable especially on paper. A more respected and encourage merchant class is more navy can grow and more economically it can expand.

Confucius even puts peasants who work land in front of merchants and soldiers or try to(reality pokes many holes in that. Also explain why China has terrible track record in war). Any other philosophy influences that could take over in the place of Confucius/Han influence system?
 
Any chance they can make come back and reform? Also I thought Emperor power was not that influential during that shogunate either?
The Emperor himself wasn't but the court still had plenty of power during the Kamakura shogunate, at the time Japan was in a "diarchy" of sorts where the Imperial court ruled western Japan and the Shogunate the east (mostly Kanto and Tohoku) at the onset of this system the Court was arguably the senior diarch, being able to freely appoint a Shogun and greater saying in government of the provinces, this would change following the Jokyu war of 1221 where Retired Emperor Go-Toba tried to destroy the bakufu, this didn't work out as intended because Go-Toba wasn't the most popular guy in town and the bakufu managed to raly even non-Shogunate samurai to their cause, in the aftermath the bakufu managed to have a say in Imperial succession by sending a secretary to Kyoto and managed to make appointments of military officials in Western Japan, but the court still had rights and authority there, they just bickered heads whatever possible though.
Not sure how to restore this system after the Sengoku, it collapsed rather unintentionally as the Court relinquished fealty of Western (or just Kyushu, sources aren't exact) samurai to the Shogunate for the defense against the Mongols, which caused the shogunate to collapse half a century later and the brief restoration of the Imperial family, Emperor Go-Daigo's policies alienated one of his chief supporters Ashikaga Takauji that rebelled and established the Ashikaga (or Muromachi) Shogunate, Go-Daigo and his descendants would continue to fight Takauji and the Ashikagas for the next 60 years in the Northern-Southern Courts period (an earlier Sengoku), during this time both courts would sell off land and administrative privileges and rights to prominent nobles and samurai to win their financial and military support, leading to the rise of the shugo(-daimyo) and complete feudal-militarization of Japan, the Ashikaga eventually prevailed under a compromise that the Northern and Southern lines would alternate between the thrones, but immediately broke their promise and culminated in total submission of the court to the bakufu. So by the 1500s you had: Japan completely dominated by military feudal lords and the court was completely powerless as the bakufu has finally dismantled the court military capabilities and landless as marauding warlords had seized imperial and kuge estates following the collapse of Ashikaga authority, the Onin War that devastated Kyoto broke it even further, prominent courtiers went to the countryside to make a living by tutoring young samurai and the Imperial family himself was in poverty, having to sell calligraphy on the streets of Kyoto and wasn't even able to enthrone a proper Empress for 100 years! Commentators even note the "Imperial Palace" was barely distinguishable from regular housing.
Nobunaga and Hideyoshi surely tried to restore the fortunes of the Emperor and court, but be aware they didn't had Imperial Restoration in mind, that wouldn't benefit either of them and honestly neither had the authority nor means to re-institute direct court rule, rather their objective was to use the court as a mean of legitimacy, as restorers of order, having the court share power would just undermine their own objectives as although several nobles and princes were grateful and even supported them in person, the old kuge-bushi dichotomy was pretty much alive and the nobles would rather not equate themselves with brutish barbarians (Hideyoshi assuming the office of Regent was seem as pretty scandalous).
The Imperial Restoration of the 19th century was something truly special, but because it was possible due the introduction of Western ideas of rule, a monarch like the Emperor fit the mold, a technically appointed military dictator like the Shogun didn't.
 
Confucius even puts peasants who work land in front of merchants and soldiers
I do not understand very well, in what way the fact that Confucius places the peasants before the merchants is an aberration?
I want to believe that this is a brake on mercantilism, but I don't see how it would be a moral error or inconsistent with Confucius' philosophy.
 
Top