WI Battle of sekigahara ended with the western armies vicory

Say that due to some lucky reason Ishida Mutsunari is able to defeat Tokugawa Ieyasu. How would this affect the development of Japan. Without the Tokugawa shogunate in power how different does Japan develop now that it is led de facto by Ishida rather than tokugawa.
 
Bump come on no interest? I mean this is such a major turning point in history.
SO I think this is a good topic.
Anyway to rephrase question how is this victory possible and what would it accomplish.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Major turning point, but no one know what going to happen if it going to other direction

Ishida Mitsunari has been mocked as bureaucrats, how true this is ? will Mitsunari Japan less depending on Samurai ?

How does he gain victory ? did Kobayakawa defected ? it will means civil war later, if Kobayakawa still want to become Hideyoshi heir.

how much help Mitsunari get from great daimyo like Mori or Shimazu ? will they later rebel ? will they get semi-independent status ?

too many unknown.
 
Almost certainly another period of civil war later; Ishida Mitsunari is not the autocrat that Tokugawa Ieyasu is and will probably not be able to effectively suppress the daimyo.

Assuming that his faction wins that war and asserts control, they will probably not kick the foreign devils out as Tokugawa did, but neither will they give the Europeans the free reign that they had in the past; they have proven divisive and for that reason the Ishida will keep them on a short leash.

The result will probably be a Japan which is slightly less rigid and slightly more open than OTL; when they realize modernization is necessary they will already be halfway there and there will be much less resistance to it.

A Japan which modernizes earlier will become agressive earlier as well; a Japan which acquires Korea in the 1870s and defeats China in the 1880s will gain Manchuria before the Russians are ready to try for it, and the subsequent war will be butterflied away or at least vastly different than OTL.

Ishida winning in the end will lead to a slight Japan-wank (more so than OTL, that is); if there is instead an extended period of civil war then Japan's emergence will be delayed, leading to a slight Japan-screw, compared to OTL.
 
Almost certainly another period of civil war later; Ishida Mitsunari is not the autocrat that Tokugawa Ieyasu is and will probably not be able to effectively suppress the daimyo.

Assuming that his faction wins that war and asserts control, they will probably not kick the foreign devils out as Tokugawa did, but neither will they give the Europeans the free reign that they had in the past; they have proven divisive and for that reason the Ishida will keep them on a short leash.

The result will probably be a Japan which is slightly less rigid and slightly more open than OTL; when they realize modernization is necessary they will already be halfway there and there will be much less resistance to it.

A Japan which modernizes earlier will become agressive earlier as well; a Japan which acquires Korea in the 1870s and defeats China in the 1880s will gain Manchuria before the Russians are ready to try for it, and the subsequent war will be butterflied away or at least vastly different than OTL.

Ishida winning in the end will lead to a slight Japan-wank (more so than OTL, that is); if there is instead an extended period of civil war then Japan's emergence will be delayed, leading to a slight Japan-screw, compared to OTL.
alright so what happens is Kobayaka does not defect but dies in the battle shortly before Ishidas victory. Also in the battle Ieyasu dies. Then in the upcoming civil war like you said Ishida and his faction win one more time. So yeah a short civil war that leads to both the Toyotomi and Tokugawa clans being destroyed leaving only Mutsunari and his faction as the main rulers of Japan. Also yes Ishida will win due to his use of arquiebis and what you said will happen. However what I want to know is how differently does Japan change. If it is slightly or moderatly open to foreigners how different owuld Japan be?
 

Sumeragi

Banned
*Facepalms*

Has everyone who posted forgotten that Ishida Mitsunari supported Toyotomi Hideyori. Now, assuming that Ishida won, we'll be seeing a massive purge of all the anti-Toyotomi/Mistunari leaders, after which I suspect that the same policies that Tokugawa implemented will be similar done. The only main difference would most likely be the conflicts with the Christians. Given how rigid he was, he would either do a stampdown far worse than Tokugawa, or perhaps just ask for loyalty.

And here's the most important part: Japan would most likely never have been able to get the same kind of peace "treaty" that it did with Joseon under Tokugawa. The main reason Joseon decided on peace was how Tokugawa was willing to give apologies, and also the fact that Tokugawa himself never was involved in invading. Without this good relationship with Joseon, it'll be likely that Joseon will continue to be on a military standing, possibly making it open to European technology.

So, INSTEAD of the same old Japan-wank that this forum seems to be addicted to, we'll be more likely seeing a similar rate of development between Japan and Korea, with Japan most likely focusing on trading with the south to overcome its blocked trades with the continent.
 
*Facepalms*

Has everyone who posted forgotten that Ishida Mitsunari supported Toyotomi Hideyori. Now, assuming that Ishida won, we'll be seeing a massive purge of all the anti-Toyotomi/Mistunari leaders, after which I suspect that the same policies that Tokugawa implemented will be similar done. The only main difference would most likely be the conflicts with the Christians. Given how rigid he was, he would either do a stampdown far worse than Tokugawa, or perhaps just ask for loyalty.

And here's the most important part: Japan would most likely never have been able to get the same kind of peace "treaty" that it did with Joseon under Tokugawa. The main reason Joseon decided on peace was how Tokugawa was willing to give apologies, and also the fact that Tokugawa himself never was involved in invading. Without this good relationship with Joseon, it'll be likely that Joseon will continue to be on a military standing, possibly making it open to European technology.

So, INSTEAD of the same old Japan-wank that this forum seems to be addicted to, we'll be more likely seeing a similar rate of development between Japan and Korea, with Japan most likely focusing on trading with the south to overcome its blocked trades with the continent.

right I forgot Ishida supported the toyotomi clan. :eek: Sorry for the mistake.
Anyways would Japan be able to crush the Joseon. Just wondering. Cause of they don't sign a peace treaty may it be possible for the Joseon to become vassals of Japan or would that be unlikely?
 

Sumeragi

Banned
Anyways would Japan be able to crush the Joseon. Just wondering. Cause of they don't sign a peace treaty may it be possible for the Joseon to become vassals of Japan or would that be unlikely?
Aside from the Toyotomi invasion, at no time was Japan ready or able to consider another invasion. Also, you might want to read about the Joseon Tongsinsa to see exactly what kind of relation the two countries had.

Assuming that there was no peace between Japan and Joseon, we'll be looking at a highly militarized Joseon which would most likely be able to repel invasions, and this can butterfly into making Joseon strong enough and moderinzed enough to keep its own against a Meiji Japan.

What most people seem to blatantly ignore is that Japan had the capacity to invade (not plunder) against the continent only two times in its history: Toyotomi and Meiji~Showa.

I'll stop here before I go overboard.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
> Almost certainly another period of civil war later; Ishida Mitsunari is not the autocrat that Tokugawa Ieyasu is and will probably not be able to effectively suppress the daimyo.


Ieyasu was very good administrator, if Mitsunari even slightly less capable, even if he win another civil war, several strongest Daimyo (Date, Shimazu, Mori) might be able to emerge as semi-independent. capable of making treaties with Westerner without consulting with Central gov in Tokyo or Kyoto.
 
> Almost certainly another period of civil war.

I'd tentatively agree with this. The Western Alliance was more of an anti-Tokugawa pact than anything else. I don't really see everyone sticking together and just waiting to give baby Hideyori all the power.

we'll be looking at a highly militarized Joseon which would most likely be able to repel invasions, and this can butterfly into making Joseon strong enough and moderinzed enough to keep its own against a Meiji Japan.

No, we'll probably be looking at a Korea that is a Manchu tributary state, just as it became in real life.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
No, we'll probably be looking at a Korea that is a Manchu tributary state, just as it became in real life.
Not really. Joseon was in the position to defend against the Manchus even in OTL. Having a more militarized society would have tipped the balance into having Joseon more likely marching north than being a vassal state.
 

scholar

Banned
Ishida wasn't exactly a very popular leader at the time, Shima, the Mori, and several others were infinitely more so. And arguably more talented. A victory for the west would lead to a more fragmented rule, which arguably would allow the Toyotomi to exert their own influence. There will be a few purges, but since the divided nature of the rule would make it so that only the more agreed upon enemies are dealt with. The best early term solution they could hope for is that a new civil war doesn't break out. Isolating Japan from the west would also be far more difficult do to this nature which means that Japan can and would industrialize far faster than under the Tokugawa as Japan was already mass producing European firearms in larger quantities and in better quality than even the Europeans themselves.
 
Not really. Joseon was in the position to defend against the Manchus even in OTL. Having a more militarized society would have tipped the balance into having Joseon more likely marching north than being a vassal state.

Korea pretty much flailed around and made an ass of itself during both of the Manchu invasions. I suppose they could eat some magic kimchi, but otherwise this "more militarized society" you're talking about probably won't do too much good.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
Korea pretty much flailed around and made an ass of itself during both of the Manchu invasions. I suppose they could eat some magic kimchi, but otherwise this "more militarized society" you're talking about probably won't do too much good.
Your statement just showed your lack of knowledge.

Right before the invasions was the deposing of Gwanghaegun, who was a realist in keeping the military built up, the border fortified, diplomacy balanced. If there was someone who could have defended Joseon, it was him. However, among other things was the opposition of the Westerners faction stemming from his birth and also the focus on the military as opposed to the civilians, mainly because Joseon was at peace with its neighbors.

A Japanese threat would have not given the Westerners faction one of their causes for the coup, and a stronger military under Gwanghaegun would have meant the coup could hardly have succeeded.


Right before both the Hideyoshi and the Manchu invasions, Joseon had the chance to defend against its invaders. Sadly, it missed both chances. TO ignore the circumstances of the defeat of Joseon is to fall into the same kind of deterministic fallacy that many Prussophiles fall into: Mainly a country is not determined to succeed or to fail, since there are some points in time where everything can be changed.
 
Your statement just showed your lack of knowledge.

Right before the invasions was the deposing of Gwanghaegun, who was a realist in keeping the military built up, the border fortified, diplomacy balanced. If there was someone who could have defended Joseon, it was him. However, among other things was the opposition of the Westerners faction stemming from his birth and also the focus on the military as opposed to the civilians, mainly because Joseon was at peace with its neighbors.

A Japanese threat would have not given the Westerners faction one of their causes for the coup, and a stronger military under Gwanghaegun would have meant the coup could hardly have succeeded.


Right before both the Hideyoshi and the Manchu invasions, Joseon had the chance to defend against its invaders. Sadly, it missed both chances. TO ignore the circumstances of the defeat of Joseon is to fall into the same kind of deterministic fallacy that many Prussophiles fall into: Mainly a country is not determined to succeed or to fail, since there are some points in time where everything can be changed.

I don't mean to step on the Glorious Korean Empire dream that you've so clearly been nurturing, but this scenario isn't very likely. A Western Alliance victory at Sekigahara will result in a return to instability in Japan, perhaps resulting in outright civil war. Again, it's unlikely that this point of departure will lead to enough change in Korean society that the Manchu invasions will be halted. I have no doubt that, if you worked hard enough, a timeline such as the one that you're positing could be possible. But it's hardly likely.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
A Western Alliance victory at Sekigahara will result in a return to instability in Japan, perhaps resulting in outright civil war.
Which by itself would have kept Joseon on its toes. Any Japan which was not the stability-seeking Tokugawa would have frictions with its neighbor across the strait, and this in itself would result in massive butterflies within the palace politics of Joseon.

Again, it's unlikely that this point of departure will lead to enough change in Korean society that the Manchu invasions will be halted.
The first Manchu invasion had one of its reasons as the deposing of Gwanghaegun, and it had the help of anti-Westerners Factions who guided the invasion force. The continuation of Gwanghaegun as king by itself would have prevented the invasions altogether, and most likely fostered an alliance similar to the Joseon-Ming alliance before the rise of the Manchus. The Manchu invasions were not inevitable. Now, would Joseon be some kind of Empire? Most likley not. But it is certain it would have being able to keep its highly independent status.

The retention of one man as the leader of Joseon would have changed everything. To ignore this is to acknowledge that one does not have any idea of how the internal situation and domesitc politics of Joseon was like.
 
The retention of one man as the leader of Joseon would have changed everything. To ignore this is to acknowledge that one does not have any idea of how the internal situation and domesitc politics of Joseon was like.

Where's the [shrug] smiley?!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It's doubtful that a Japan wracked by civil war would have led to increased militarization in Korea. Your snide comments about how I don't know anything aside, the Manchus won't settle for a Korea that - if not a tributary state - isn't under their thumb.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
the Manchus won't settle for a Korea that - if not a tributary state - isn't under their thumb.
Any particular evidence of that? Before obtaining the "Mandate of Heaven", the Manchus were looking to establish at least an equal relationship, if not an outright alliance, with Joseon. The whole tributary relations was forced mainly because of the constant anti-Manchu stances that came about after the rise of the Westerners Faction. If Joseon had managed to keep relations good, at most we'll be seeing the just formal suzerainty that Joseon enjoyed with the Ming before the Hideyoshi invasions.
 
This thread is interesting for someone who has next to zero about Korean and post-Sengoku Japanese history like me, and it's sad to see it got halted just like that by unnecessarily confrontational gestures. At least try to be more subtle in looking down to others' alleged ignorance. Better yet, just refute people civilly.
 
Top