#sanboushi

[odaclan]

Nobukatsu's headship of the Oda family after Kiyosu Conference

The state of the Oda clan succession is kind of confusing, with various narratives flying around about what exactly came out of the "Kiyosu Conference". The latest research determined that the official heir is indeed Sanboushi, with Nobutaka and Nobukatsu intended to serve as guardians. The old fashioned narrative of Shibata Katsuie putting up Nobutaka as heir candidate while Hideyoshi supported Sanboushi against him is considered incorrect.

I have finally found more detailed info that seems to confirm the state of the affairs. This is a letter transcript from the 12th month of Tenshou 10 (approximately January 1583):

御状拝見候、よってこの表の儀、三介様御名代に相究め、若子様今日請け取り申し、供奉いたし候、当国不届の仁は曲事に相臥せ、ことごとく一篇に申し付け候条、その御心得あるべく候、はたまた委しき儀森勝申さるべく候、恐〻謹言、 　極月廿一日　 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　羽筑秀吉（花押） 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　惟五郎左長秀（花押） 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　池勝恒興（花押） 遠山佐渡守殿 　　　同　半左衛門尉殿 　　　　　　　　　御返報 I have read your letter. The Oda administration has decided to appoint Sansuke-sama (Nobukatsu) as the interim head, and as such he has assumed responsibility for Sanbōshi-sama today and joined the ranks of his vassals. Should there be anyone in Mino who does not accept this, we will bring to heel this individual for unlawfulness, and the whole province shall follow suit. Mori Nagayoshi will relay the further details. Respectfully submitted. 12th Month 21st Day Ha-Chiku Hideyoshi (signature) Kore-Goroza Nagahide (signature) Ike-Shou Tsuneoki (signature) In response to: Tooyama Sado no Kami-dono idem, Hanzaemon no Jou

The transcript is quoted from this post, and I unfortunately cannot find where the artifact is or what it looks like. Presumably this post's author took the transcript from a book.

At some point, I had found articles that claimed that Hideyoshi somehow flipped the Kiyosu Conference decision on a later date. He put up Nobukatsu as the actual new clan head, and sidelined Sanboushi. Wikipedia cites the source of this claim from papers from Aichi prefecture's historical archives.

However, we can see now that the claim is not entirely true. It is stated that clearly, the official head is Sanboushi. Nobukatsu is only serving as the interim head/temporary lord in his stead until he is of age. Still, even as just an interim head and not the actual new lord of the clan replacing Sanboushi, this would put him above Nobutaka. It does make sense why Katsuie and Nobutaka would be offended by this decision, and thus led to the Battle of Shizugatake.

Wikipedia claims that this decision to appoint Nobukatsu as the interim head was actually done in the tenth month, quite interestingly not very long after Hideyoshi wrote this exaggerated letter offering to commit seppuku and "follow Nobunaga to death". The cited paperwork (same as the above Aichi prefecture archive material) is unfortunately still paywalled and cannot be viewed online, so I cannot verify this.

Also, a note on the funny-seeming names in the signatures. It is common for people in this time to abbreviate their names and aliases or titles in that manner in letter signatures. "Ha-Chiku" is Hashiba Chikuzen, "Kore-Goroza" is Korezumi Gorozaemon, and "Ike-Shou" is Ikeda Shouzaburou.

Niwa Nagahide was granted the new surname "Korezumi" when he was promoted in 1575.

Tooyama Sado no Kami is Tooyama Toshikage 遠山利景, a lord who holds territory in Mino Province. Hanzaemon no Jou is his son. Notes in the article mentioned that Edo period chronicles from Iemitsu's reign claimed that the Tooyama family had already pledged to serve the Tokugawa at this time. However, since the original inquiry from the Tooyama side (to which this cited letter is a response) is nowhere to be found, we don't know for certain what's really happening here.

#oda nobukatsu #toyotomi hideyoshi #ikeda tsuneoki #niwa nagahide #oda hidenobu #samurai #sengoku #japanese history #sengoku jidai #sengoku era #sengoku period #warring states era #warring states period #warring states #hashiba hideyoshi #sanboshi #sanboushi #letter

[daeva-agas]

Ok, this clarifies a thing. This was a letter dated 12th month of Tensho 10 (probably January 1583 ish), describing that Nobukatsu has been appointed as "proxy" for Hidenobu/Sanboushi.

The letter is signed by Hideyoshi, Nagahide, and Tsuneoki. This confirms what was said in the Wikipedia articles sort of. Wiki said that those three made this decision approximately in the 10th month of that year, and that's what made Nobutaka throw a hissy fit and keep Sanboushi hostage basically.

I'm reaaally itching to know if there's more paperwork surrounding this issue. Wiki said that as of the 6th of the 10th month, Shibata is accusing Hideyoshi of violating the Kiyosu conference's decision. Don't know what made him think so. Then on the 15th, Hideyoshi put up that big funeral for Nobunaga, and not even Nobukatsu was in attendance supposedly, so I don't know if they're already in cahoots at this point.

After the funeral Hideyoshi wrote this long letter that's like "I'm loyal, I promise on my own life", and he even offered to commit seppuku and die, like... Okay, man, what would you do if Nobutaka said "Yes, ok, go die"?

The non-conspiracy reading of this is Hideyoshi basically using Nobukatsu as his shield against Nobutaka. He really was plotting A Thing, and because Shibata and Nobutaka are raising objections, Hideyoshi's alliance put up Nobukatsu as the proxy lord so they can take action against Nobutaka in his name.

I really want to know how they got Nagahide to okay this silliness. Tsuneoki seems to be already in cahoots with Hideyoshi since Kiyosu, and Shibata is more in Nobutaka's side. But Nagahide seems neutral, so...

#personal research #sengoku #hideyoshi

[odaclan]

Was Nobukatsu ever put forward as a potential successor of the Oda clan headship?

Alas, I missed the memoriam date for Honnouji, so I shall make do with discussing the Kiyosu Conference. To be fair, it was the Julian date of Honnouji that I  missed and, as such, the proper Gregorian date is not actually here yet, but be that as it may...

Something that I’m finding hard to pursue is the issue of what was going on in the “Kiyosu Conference”, where the future of the Oda clan was mediated and discussed. The common knowledge story is that Shibata Katsuie presented Nobutaka as the new heir, while Hideyoshi presented Sanboushi. Nobukatsu was present, but it’s rare to see anyone make a claim that he was presented as a potential successor during the meeting.

Despite modern perception that Nobukatsu was incompetent, it would seem that he was not viewed that way in his lifetime. A review on the Seishuu Gunki (War Chronicles of Ise Province) claim that Nobukatsu was presented in a neutral light and there was nothing deriding him for incompetence. Even if for some reason Tokugawa rule forbids chronicles to say bad things about a daimyou, I should imagine if he had a reputation of being a fool, it would be at least mentioned somewhere. There was no issue in Ota Gyuuichi writing “in his youth Nobunaga had the reputation of being a Fool” in the Shinchoukouki, after all. In which case, if Nobutaka was eligible for nomination as heir, then so was Nobukatsu. 

*Edit: Now that I have Seishuu Gunki, it turns out there were a few stories criticising him for making unwise decisions, but it’s all followed by comments that amount to something like “This is a common thing among samurai lords of this time”, so I’m not sure what to make of it.

So, was he ever a contender in this succession debate? Even in the “common knowledge” stories, when Sanboushi was named the new lord, there were narratives that mentioned that Nobukatsu would take priority in serving as Sanboushi’s guardian over Nobutaka. Meaning that he was still being valued rather highly, even if only due to the order of seniority.

There was a theory that someone had nominated him, and he was indeed named the lord of the Oda due to Hideyoshi supposedly changing his opinion at some point. It’s just that the cited source was a research paperwork from Aichi prefecture that, the last time I checked, was paywalled and I would be required to actually call the office in Japan to make inquiries. 

A few years ago, there was also a discovery of a letter bearing Nobukatsu’s signature and addressed to Hideyoshi. Historians speculated that the contents of the letter indicated that he desired to become his brother’s successor as lord of the Oda. However, due to lack of further information, this is still rather unclear.

As of now, the only detailed citation I was able to find was from James Murdoch’s book:  

A few weeks after the death of Nobunaga all his great vassals assembled at the Castle of Kiyosu in Owari to decide upon his successor. Nobuo (Nobukatsu), the eldest surviving son, was supported by Ikeda and Gamo, a young and brilliant captain of Omi, while Nobutaka’s claims were strongly and hotly urged by Shibata and a certain Takikawa, who had gained considerable reputation and influence during the campaign against Takeda of Kai at the beginning of the year, when he had been made Daimyo of Kodzuke. This Takikawa had an intense hatred for Hideyoshi, and this community of sentiment doubtless had much to do with the support he lent to Shibata’s view of how the feudal law of the Empire should be construed in the case they had to decide.

As might have been foreseen, Hideyoshi came forward as the champion of Nobunaga’s baby grandson, Samboshi. After a long and acrimonious wrangle it was finally decided that Samboshi should be acknowledged as head of the House of Oda, that Nobuo should act as his guardian, and that the administration of public affairs should be entrusted to a board of four—Shibata, Niwa, Ikeda, and Hideyoshi, who were all to rank as equals.

History of Japan by James Murdoch, book 2, pages 190-191

He did not quote or name any source for this, so presumably this was based on a Japanese text. Murdoch tends to only make direct quotes from texts of European origin. 

This means that at some point, there was a Japanese account that made this claim. It just either got lost in the 100 or so years since Murdoch’s writing, or fell out of favour in the public eye for whatever reason. I could not find any Japanese source that present this narrative yet. Considering all the strange narratives Murdoch presented in this very same book, it would make sense if this narrative was debunked due to the source being untrustworthy or being outright absurd. I still wish I knew what the original source was, for further research.

Also interesting is that this text claims that Takigawa (Kazumasu) is the one who hates Hideyoshi. Popular fiction usually depicts Shibata as the one who harbours dislike for Hideyoshi, probably due to the impression made by Battle of Shizugatake. 

Lastly, there is also the issue of a new theory claiming that “All of those are wrong, Sanboushi (Hidenobu) was unanimously agreed as the one sole heir the whole time”. I sure hope there’d be more easily-accessed documentation that I could find, because it’s impossible for me to track down and/or buy all the books that contain the information.

#oda nobukatsu #Oda Hidenobu #sanboshi #Sanboushi #Kiyosu Conference #Hashiba Hideyoshi #toyotomi hideyoshi #shibata katsuie #Takigawa Kazumasu #Ikeda Tsuneoki #Gamou Ujisato #Gamo Ujisato #Oda Nobutaka

[odaclan]

A 6-volume manuscript describing the events surrounding the Battle of Komaki-Nagakute was recently found in Nagoya. The book has a post script signed by one Oosawa Shigetoyo 大沢繁豊, though the article didn't seem to specifically say he was the author.

The manuscript was originally known of 20 years ago, but it somehow faded to obscurity and was only recovered again this year (2023). The person who bought it submitted it to the authorities for study.

This reminds me of that time when I discovered a strange document with the Buddhist seal that was signed "Nobunaga". This news really confirms that we won't know about the existence of historical materials unless the owner gives it up to authorities. There could be so much more out there that's just hidden in personally-owned archives, never to see the light of day.

Below is an illustrated portion of it, showing Hideyoshi, Nobukatsu, and Sanboushi:

The manuscript was believed to be from the earlier days of the Edo period (mid to late 1600s at the very latest), as the tendency of 1700s era manuscript is to refer to Ieyasu with his deified name, Toushou Daigongen. This manuscript still uses his normal name, "Ieyasu", and listed him as secondary to Nobukatsu to boot.

Sadly the article didn't say if there's new information contained in it. I can't read the brush scripts above the drawing either. I can only read that it mentions Azuchi in Oumi, and Nobunaga and Nobutada, and then Sanboushi and Nobukatsu. I'm assuming it's talking about the succession matter, since Sanboushi supposedly resided in Azuchi for a while after things were settled in the Kiyosu Conference. Azuchi wasn't entirely destroyed in the aftermath of Honnouji; only the tenshu was lost, but the other mansions were still serviceable.

I can somewhat better read parts of the "profiles" on the far left, because the strokes are clearer:

Nobukatsu-kyou: "First named Nobuoki, then (changed to) Tomotoyo, and lastly Nobukatsuー"

Ieyasu-kou: "Before receiving the first rank, Daijou Daijin, Minamoto [unreadable] Seiwaー"

Hideyoshi-kou: "Toyotomi Ason, Tenbun [unreadable]"

Hidetsugu-dono: "Common name Magoshichirou. His father was Kaitou County'sー"

The description of Nobukatsu's name change is very interesting, by the way. The story that I've heard online is that his name was Tomotoyo first, and changed to Nobuoki later. The only solid proof of this name change that I've seen is that circa 1574 his name was signed "Tomotoyo" in a letter (the artifact exist in museum archives). His subsequent or prior name changes is a bit fuzzy still.

#toyotomi hideyoshi #modern news #toyotomi hidetsugu #tokugawa ieyasu #komaki nagakute #battle of komaki nagakute #artifact #manuscript #japanese history #sengoku #edo period #edo era #sengoku jidai #sengoku era #sengoku period #oda nobukatsu

[daeva-agas]

Oh no, another bad faith interpretation. This guy is not even a historian, so I have the right to fight him because we're both reading secondary sources.

I don't like this over-reliance on Frois/European accounts unless there's literally nothing else, and no Japanese source contradict the writings. Even if the Japanese text had been censored by Hideyoshi's orders or something, all existing texts must be taken into consideration when trying to filter out the truth.

Frois is human. He could have written many of the things about Hideyoshi with a negative filter because Hideyoshi made the orders to expel priests and missionaries. People under duress and distress can write really really awful or insane things they would not have done had they been in a more pleasant state of mind.

Like, this says "Hideyoshi is bad because he makes lords leave their native provinces" (and presumably transfer them elsewhere). Your point being? The Tokugawa shogunate also still confiscate and reassign fiefs under whatever "law" they have put in place.

If you say Hideyoshi is bad for doing that, then so is the Tokugawa bakufu. Please provide better explanation for why one is bad and the other one isn't, else I accuse you of hypocrisy.

And again the Frois claim of there being 300 concubines or whatever. There's already flaws here because among the list of random women Hideyoshi supposedly "claimed" to be his concubine is Nobutada's wife. Well, I wish Frois had said who the fuck is this "wife", because then we might today settle the debate about who Sanboushi's mother is. Oda Nobutada's never has a formal "wife" listed in any genealogy, and if Frois meant concubine, yeah, we WISH he'd say who the hell that was. Otherwise, he might have just fucked up.

Frois is not God. His account can be wrong, even if he writes it multiple times.

The same passage says Hideyoshi "took" Nobukatsu's daughter as concubine too. But the Japanese account says he adopted that daughter in order to marry her off to someone else. Is it referring to another daughter? Is the info censored in the Japanese accounts? Is it actually in a Japanese account that I just haven't seen?

Example of Frois not being 100% accurate was him saying that Azuchi was burned down by Nobunaga's son. The diary/reports of a nobleman said that the person in question was all the way over in Owari when this happened. This is a conflicting account. So who's right?

#agas rants #hideyoshi

[daeva-agas]

(read right to left)

I screentoned this random old original Sengoku comic scene I made for practice some years ago. It's kind of relevant, since I was thinking/salting on cliche Taiga stuff lately.

Pre-Shizugatake, featuring a Nice Hideyoshi, Scary Nobukatsu, and Kanbei being Hideyoshi's moral support (kind of).

The "head of clan" Nobukatsu mentioned is the baby, Sanboushi, not himself. This is based on the new theories that says that Shizugatake happened because Nobutaka and Katsuie kidnapped the baby and plotted a headship takeover by holding him hostage.

In this scenario Nobukatsu is put in charge as the temporary head until Sanboushi can be retrieved.

#I still don't know if I believe the theory saying his name is actually Nobuyoshi #It's wild #original #doujin #manga #sengoku #Hideyoshi #Nobukatsu #Oda Nobukatsu #my lord #nobuspawns #my puppy #hahahaha #that tag #doesn't fit this one #but it's funny #my art

[daeva-agas]

*sigh* They ran with Akechi didn’t Honnouji plotline for some reason. I had thought the History Revisionist Army would just be there to save Nobu from being ded’d, but no? 

Akechi was like “HEY I’M HERE TO SAVE NOBUNAGA THO”

Like whot? 

And then in Kiyosu Kaigi, Nobu’s son showed up and is evil/possessed and like... uh???

This is so weird WTF, but the explanation is that Nobu’s son who has died saw(?) that Hideyoshi had “stole” the Oda’s power and prestige, and he was so angry about it that it summoned the evil History Revisionists who went back in time and possessed(?) him or whatever. It’s to the point that he wanted to try to harm his own son???? And Hideyoshi had to protect Sanboushi??? This is so messy, I am very confused, but sdkjghdfjkg k

Hey, at least I finally got Nobuspawn in a Musou title, even if it’s not Sengoku Musou main game.  

And once the history is restored, everything just goes POOF and disappears. Ugh. I probably should read the plot from the start, then. I just jumped straight to Honnouji because I’m curious, but now everything makes no sense. The “history” timeline actually jumps back and forth, and Yamazaki is actually one of the first battles. Which is like... what??? 

Touken Ranbu is always loosey goosey nonsense anyway... And oh ya later on, the Revisionists possessed Mitsunari in turn because you know. Why not.

#touken musou #touken ranbu musou

[daeva-agas]

Headcanon shitpost

My lord raising his son and his nephew, both named Sanboushi

Dunno how that happened maybe he was drunk that day

After a while he realized it was a bad idea and decides to call the big one Sanzou, and the small one gets to keep Sanboushi

Some time later he eventually calls the small one Songoku, in true troll Nobu fashion

Mostly because the mini one adores his cousin and follows him around

Won’t even explain why, and the brats don’t really care I guess, until the big one had to go to school and learns to read and find out about the Xi You Ji

A decade later the smol one grows up and his adult name may or may not have been “Hideyoshi” (it’s currently being read as Hidekatsu, but well... there are other opinions...)

#sengoku headcanon #nobuspawn #nobuspawns #shitpost

[odaclan]

Hello, why did Hideyoshi succeed in getting Hidenobu as Nobunaga's heir and not any of his other children who were of age to rule?

That was the narrative presented by one of the many many Taikouki (Hideyoshi biography) variations, I believe, and is actually presently being contested. So actually we don’t know if that was really what happened in the Kiyosu meeting.

One of the new theories presented said that Nobunaga's other sons were never in the running. All the senior vassals present at the Kiyosu meeting unanimously agreed that the new lord is Sanboushi/Hidenobu, being that his father Nobutada was already the official clan head and not Nobunaga anymore. Naturally, upon Nobutada's death, his son would replace him. Not his brothers.

The meeting was only meant to decide who Sanboushi's guardian should be (and the proxy lord, perhaps, until Sanboushi is of age), and other territory recalibrating (due to the panic, Oda vassals in the various outposts abandoned their stations, and other clans “stole” those territories).

Another theory put out is that Hideyoshi's championed heir was actually Nobukatsu, who did indeed become the new lord. Hidenobu only replaced Nobukatsu as the Oda clan head when Nobukatsu was exiled after angering Hideyoshi in the Odawara campaign against Hojo in 1590.

#anonymous #reply #hashiba hideyoshi #toyotomi hideyoshi #oda hidenobu

[daeva-agas]

＊WHEEZE＊

OH GOD 

I found it! I found the source for the whole Hideyoshi and Nobutada relationship. Basically the story is like this. Nobutada has many admirers. And seeing this Hideyoshi went up to him and said “You should put on a show that you’re really into me, and then those admirers will go away”. And Nobutada thought “huh good idea” and went along with it. 

BASICALLY IT’S THE FUCKING “FAKE BOYFRIEND TO STOP OTHERS FROM PESTERING ME” TROPE 

AND THIS IS ACTUALLY IN A BOOK THAT IS PRO HIDEYOSHI

IT’S ONE OF THE VARIOUS TAIKOKI (THERE’S MANY OF THEM) BOOKS

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHA

WHAT THE HECK, I KEEP ON SAYING THAT THERE’S SO MANY WEIRD EDO ERA FANFICS, I DIDN’T THINK I WOULD LITERALLY COME ACROSS AN HONEST TO GOD FANFIC TROPE

And then the writer just fizzles off with detailing how Nobutaka is always nice to Shibata, and that’s why during Kiyosu Conference Hideyoshi nominated Sanboushi as heir while Shibata nominated Nobutaka.

Help I’m going to die from laughing

Oh yeah. Source cited: Kawasumi Taikouki 川角太閤記

... Hm. I remember seeing this name before. I forgot what part of it was I looking at. I think it was something about Hideyoshi’s past. I can’t remember what about it was I reading though. 

Imagine Nobu catching wind of this rumour out of context and is like dafuq is going on

Imagine the other brothers very unhelpfully giving dumb/worthless responses when asked for confirmation

“Dad you know we never meet each other unless it’s New Year how would I know. Do you want me to go spy on them?” by Nobutaka

“Even if it’s true, who cares? Nothing to do with me” by Nobukatsu

Nobu: (ಠ_ಠ)

#personal research #nobuspawns #hideyoshi #bonus worthless comment #Dad are you jealous #from Nobufusa #aka Katsunaga the one who was stuck with the Takeda for ages #Totally no respect for dad #I actually have no idea when this is supposed to be happening #But i guess if it was a while ago Katsunaga isn't around yet #Ah well

[daeva-agas]

So, Kiyosu Conference (the historical event, not the movie) wiki has updated its contents with Shiba Hiroyuki's comments.

Basically he thinks that nobody disagreed that Sanboushi should be the heir. They just need to establish who would be the regents in his place because HE IS A BABY and where to put him. Go back to Gifu? Stay in Kiyosu? Rebuild Azuchi and go there? Make a wholeass new castle?

And then Shibata and Nobutaka rioted because afterwards Hideyoshi threw the decision out the window and planted Nobukatsu as the new clan head (and for some reason Ieyasu is 100% cool with this, and supported the decision). Like, this is so out of nowhere, of course people would riot LOL.

I mean, I can see how this fits the narrative of what happens after. Nobutaka maybe still likes his dumbass brother enough to not begrudge him, and instead raged at Hideyoshi because he IS behind the switcheroo. And the Komaki Nagakute happens because if it's true that Hideyoshi starts acting all high and mighty, as the actual lord of the clan Nobukatsu would be like WTF.

I have to check if that is also updated too. I... actually have no idea what the offense is. One version says Hideyoshi built Osaka, and was more or less asking for Nobukatsu's submission, but this version assumed that Sanboushi is the heir. There's a version I saw that involved Azuchi but I'm not entirely sure what happens there.

SEE I TOLD YOU, EVERYTHING IS WRONG IN THE SENGOKU NEWS RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO IS LORD ODA ANYMORE, WHAT THE HECK.

Anyway, Shiba-sensei said that Sanboushi/Hidenobu didn't actually become lord until after Odawara. Nobukatsu made Hideyoshi mad and got exiled, his own son is even younger tham Sanboushi, so like... emergency heir because vacant slot. Why the CHILD and not one of Nobunaga's other sons, I don't know. Maybe because Hideyoshi already got his head too far up his ass by that point, I dunno. It's not like Hidekatsu is exiled too, but wiki says he was given a different fief and Hidenobu was named the new clan lord. I want Shiba-sensei's book bit delivery is crap these days...

Incidentally Wiki also says Nobukatsu's son Hidekatsu is ALSO named Sanboushi as a child, you know. Same kanji and all. This is so weird, but there's no source cited, so as usual I consider that woo woo.

Also I guess when poor Hidenobu died young, the Tokugawa shogunate gave the headship back to Hidekatsu/his brothers/his dad, 'cause the presently recognized Oda partriarch today is Nobukatsu's descendant. By way of Hidekatsu's brother, because Hidekatsu died young too.

.............. um. Wait. There is a new theory that 信雄 is actually pronounced "Nobuyoshi" for some reason. Does that mean... his son's name 秀雄 is actually read "Hideyoshi"? That would be hilarious TBH.

Ise Sadatake wrote in his text Ansai Zuihitsu 安斎随筆 that in the palace record Oyudono no Ue no Nikki 御湯殿上日記 there is an account that states that "Oda Nobuyoshi came to court", and this refers to Nobukatsu. Sadatake also says that he knew a man named Yoshitada 雄忠, who is descended from Hijikata Katsuhisa/Yoshihisa, a vassal who was granted the 雄 from Nobukatsu/Nobuyoshi's name. This Yoshitada says the 雄 has always been read as "yoshi" since his ancestors' time.

Someone pointed out that Katsuhisa used to be named 雄良, so how the hell was that supposed to be pronounced? Right now it's identified as "Katsuyoshi", but if 雄 is "yoshi", wouldn't his name become Yoshiyoshi? Although... I did a search and apparently 良 can be read as "aki" in a name, so maybe his name was "Yoshiaki" before Yoshihisa.

... Ugh what do I do now? If I change how I say his name it's confusing, but I don't wanna call him Ochasen either. Imma keep Nobukatsu for now grrrrrr, why is this so confusing.

I love reading about Nobuspawns, though, can you tell???

Omake/WTF fantasy time (do not take anything after this seriously):

I know Sanboushi was supposedly sent to Gifu and whatnot after the Conference, but I did hear one version that Nobukatsu had wanted to keep him in Azuchi (implying he's the guardian and stuff). So so so. If the "Hidekatsu used to be Sanboushi" is true, doesn't mean the two Sanboushis are like... together in the same castle? Wouldn't that confuse the servants tho?

Did he purposely do that to have his own son as Hidenobu's double? Are baby-kagemusha actually a thing? I know "swapped baby" is a super common cliche in palace dramas... What a weird thought, but EPIC. Also, I just like the thought of the baby cousins growing up together. They got separated for a while, reuniting in Sekigahara's West Army, and then separated again after East won. So much dramatic angst to be had!!!

Also Wiki used to say that Nobukatsu actually didn't approve of Hidekatsu joining West, and wanting to either outright join East or stay neutral. More angst! Almost rivalling the Sanada brothers! (no, it's not)

I also like the thought that Nobukatsu finally relents because he has lingering regrets about his own brothers ahaha ha... ha... ha...

#personal research #agas rambles #nobuspawn #nobuspawns

[odaclan]

Wikipedia is not the best source to quote, I know, but it does provide citations, so there’s that, at least.

What EXACTLY happened in the Kiyosu “Conference”?? We don’t know, apparently.

There is now has a comment in Wikipedia saying that “Katsuie and Hideyoshi never disagreed that Sanboushi was to be the new clan head”, and that Katsuie demanding for Nobutaka to be made the new head was a narrative spun in the Kawasumi Taikouki 川角太閤記, written by one Kawasumi Saburouemon 川角三郎右衛門. This opinion is espoused by Shiba Hiroyuki, a professor at Toyo University. 

He had written a book about the “Conference”, as well as some other books on Nobunaga and Hideyoshi. In an interview, he says that there’s not much concrete material on the Kiyosu “Conference” and he wrote the book to unravel what the definitive texts actually says, and what are just-so stories without basis.

This book seems interesting, if only to see what his opinions are. I have no way of vetting whether or not it’s a solid opinion either way. If there’s no disagreement about Sanboushi, then what in the world caused Shizugatake? Did Hideyoshi just run up and declare himself in charge? How did that happen? Vaguely saying “he gained influence from defeating Mitsuhide” explains absolutely nothing.

#shibata katsuie #Hashiba Hideyoshi

[odaclan]

Is Oda Nobutaka's death poem historical? If so, why isn't it brought up more often? It seems like a pretty damning condemnation of Hideyoshi for Honnoji.

In the first place you were mistaken: It has absolutely nothing to do with Honnouji. Nobutaka’s death poem was tied to the succession conflict after Honnouji. Despite the Kiyosu Conference concluding with the decision of electing Sanboushi (Nobutada’s son) to become the new clan head, Hideyoshi did things that offended Nobutaka, and war was waged.

The actual poem:

昔より主を討つ身の野間なれば報いを待てや羽柴筑前

mukashi yorishū o utsu mi no Noma narebamukui o mateya Hashiba Chikuzen*

If it must be Noma where men killed their lord in ancient days, await your own comeuppance! Hashiba Chikuzen (Hideyoshi)

I’m assuming you were talking about this “lord” in the poem. This referred to the Heian era samurai Minamoto no Yoshitomo, who was betrayed by his vassals and died in Noma. He was buried in the very same temple Nobutaka committed seppuku. So this “lord” reference doesn’t mean Nobunaga, but Nobutaka himself.

Tokugawa vassals’ communication in the following year also had referred to Nobunaga’s sons as Hideyoshi’s “lords”. A letter sent out by Sakakibara Yasumasa condemned Hideyoshi for being ungrateful to his former masters, as he was “not satisfied with killing just one lord” (Nobutaka), but is now also trying to go after the other one (Nobukatsu). 

About whether or not the death poem is REAL, it’s entirely debatable. There’s two different poems recorded, and the second one does not mention Hideyoshi at all.

たらちねの 名をばくださじ 梓弓 いなばの山の 露と消ゆとも

Translation/interpretation for this cannot be found. For what it’s worth, the parts I do understand say this: “Mother’s name [ばくださじ]/Cherry birch bow/The dew of Mount Inaba fades”. 

ETA: “Even if I fade as the dew on Mount Inaba, I will not disgrace myself as a man born into a warrior family”. Interpretation taken from here.

Both poems are found in Edo era records, and no contemporary copies were ever discovered so far. There’s no way to verify that this is an accurate copy especially if it’s second-hand documentation***. 

Part of the reason for it to be considered “weird” is because the one who ambushed Nobutaka and brought the order of seppuku was his own brother Nobukatsu. Why would Nobutaka be angry at Hideyoshi and not his brother? There’s a bit of difficulty in determining what Nobukatsu’s status here, but at any rate, it can’t be immediately assumed that Nobutaka is upset with Hideyoshi because his brother is for some reason serving Hideyoshi. 

There’s a possibility that while bringing down the order Nobukatsu said bad things about Hideyoshi, but there’s also a bigger chance that the poem itself is recorded wrong or fake.

***) This matters because there is a tendency for people to view Edo era texts with suspicion these days. The Shinchoukouki, considered the most reliable account of Nobunaga, is also technically an Edo-era record (compiled in 1600s). However the author Ota Gyuuichi is an eyewitness, so the text is considered mostly accurate due to being a first hand account. The only problem being that if this was written much later, he might have forgotten the specifics, or got details mixed up

#oda nobutaka #oda nobukatsu #toyotomi hideyoshi #anon ask #ask reply #reply #anonymous

[odaclan]

@talesofmino replied to your post “Is Oda Nobutaka's death poem historical? If so, why isn't it brought...”

idk man, if I were Nobutaka I'd be pissed that Hideyoshi be swoopin in and being like "I will be leader now, screw your family!" That's a pretty valid reason to be mad at him more than his brother. His brother could've been strong armed into following Hideyoshi. I know my language isn't academic but I hope that makes sense.

Don’t worry, I understand what you mean.

There were stuff that I did not mention in the previous post because the ask was just about the poem. I didn’t want to confuse the reply with extensive material on the background of the battle, but actually the succession dispute is a big hairball that is still undergoing reevaluation.

The first issue is that the poem's authenticity itself is debateable, so we don't really know how Nobutaka feels about Hideyoshi.

That aside, people seem to have over-estimated Hideyoshi's authority at this point. In my post I said we shouldn’t assume that Nobukatsu is serving Hideyoshi. It's because that's not within Hideyoshi's rights to do that. As a senior vassal, Hideyoshi may have some sort of influence in deciding how the land inheritance should be divided (hence him being part of the Kiyosu Conference with the others like Shibata Katsuie and Niwa Nagahide), but otherwise he should not have the authority to order around Nobukatsu or the other vassals. If he somehow became powerful enough to manipulate others, I don't know what that "power" is and I didn't want to assume.

Another reason for this was there’s been a part of the historian community that is of the opinion that at some point in the dispute, Nobukatsu ended up replacing Sanboushi as the clan head. It’s just that there’s no consensus yet as to when the leadership was transferred. So not only do we not know who is actually in charge when the clash with Nobutaka happened, it’s also hard to tell why there were not more people who are fighting against Hideyoshi’s “insubordination/rebellion”.  

According to Wikipedia, what happened was that after Kiyosu Conference, Hideyoshi went and performed this very big funeral procession for Nobunaga but appointed Otsugimaru (a.k.a Hashiba Hidekatsu, a younger brother of Nobutaka’s that Hideyoshi adopted) as the mourner. This is a slight because usually it’s the eldest of the deceased person’s kin who serves as the mourner. In this case either Nobukatsu or Sanboushi should have been serving as the mourner.

Angered by this, Nobutaka essentially held Sanboushi hostage and barricaded himself in Gifu. This then led to the battles between the Nobutaka-Katsuie faction and “Hideyoshi’s faction”.

Assuming this is all true, again, the problem remains that how the power structure works here is very much fuzzy. The snubbing in the funeral procession is arguably Hideyoshi making a move to take over the Oda, but it’s not that simple. Why didn't any of the other Oda family member get offended and/or intervene? Why was this allowed to happen? Those questions are important to understand how this situation played out.

#talesofmino #reply reply #toyotomi hideyoshi #Hashiba Hideyoshi #hashiba hidekatsu #Oda Nobutaka #oda nobukatsu

[daeva-agas]

Nobuspawn Wiki page got updated.

A maaaaybe Nobuspawn got his lordship from Hideyoshi after Hideyoshi got his kanpaku title. Like Hide becomes big important dude, then he goes and you know, reassigns things. So it does not happen at the conference itself. Sanboushi was still nominally lord until all the squabbling dies down.

And then like “You know what since you surrendered to me nicely, I’ll make you Oda head. But you can only have Owari.”

SEE? I ALWAYS WONDERED WHY THE FUCK HIDE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONFISCATE AND REASSIGN TERRITORY. I mean, it’s not concrete so this is just a theory too, but well... it makes sense. I’ve been thinking that maybe the reassignment happens after the Kanpaku thing, and this guy agrees, which is great. It’s always validating to have someone else come to the same conclusion separately. 

Book here:

https://www.ebisukosyo.co.jp/item/507/

https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E6%B8%85%E9%A0%88%E4%BC%9A%E8%AD%B0-%E7%A7%80%E5%90%89%E5%A4%A9%E4%B8%8B%E5%8F%96%E3%82%8A%E3%81%B8%E3%81%AE%E8%AA%BF%E7%95%A5%E6%88%A6-%E3%82%B7%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%82%BA%E3%83%BB%E5%AE%9F%E5%83%8F%E3%81%AB%E8%BF%AB%E3%82%8B17-%E6%9F%B4%E8%A3%95%E4%B9%8B/dp/4864033013

#personal research #nobuspawns

[daeva-agas]

Tamaru Castle being the prototype of Azuchi made news again, but a paywall cut off half the text and that’s the part that is actually relevant to the news. DAMMIT.

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASM2455TGM24ONFB00G.html?

The Sanboushi being somehow sidelined in favour of Nobukatsu is not publicly known/accepted info yet. There’s this thing talking about his situation in Kiyosu conference, and the defense put out was “he probably has influence while acting as Sanboushi’s guardian”. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20190228195404/https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/local/nara/news/20190206-OYTNT50023/

Well. I happened across these because Otsuke, but... I wonder if there’s posts in defense of Katsuyori. He kinda had a reputation of being a failure too sometimes, though... because he died he doesn’t actually get the same “dumbass” label that Nobukatsu had. 

#personal research