Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Debate Challenge: Azuchi-Momoyama Alt. Hist.

Lucky_Luciano
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 8:51:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I strongly believe that Date Masamune, had he been born earlier and became the leader of his clan at the end of the Sengoku period, would had more probably unified Japan than Toyotomi Hideyoshi during the Azuchi-Momoyama period. The exact date can be negotiated; however as the purpose of the debate would to prove whether or not Date Masamune was a victim of being born too late to have a more significant impact on the unification of japan, I would place his succession in place of his father's, at 1560. In essence, Date Masamune would have been born in place of his father. This is over a decade prior to the beginning of the Azuchi-Momoyama period, but would occur in the same year that the Imagawa attempted to overthrow the Ashikaga Shogunate and Oda Nobunaga defeated them at the Battle of Okehazema, arguably one of the most deciding battles in Nobunaga's expansion leading up to, and through the beginning of, the Azuchi-Momoyama period.

Although the debate would be about what would have happened had Date Masamune been born in place of his father, all evidence referencing real history are acceptable as references to his character and as indication of potential expansion strategies.

I am posting this challenge in the forums as I want a high-quality debate and would like an opponent who is informed on the subject.
"Age is not important" - Airmax 2014
"Australia... is that a place?" - Airmax 2014
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 4:00:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 8:51:12 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
I strongly believe that Date Masamune, had he been born earlier and became the leader of his clan at the end of the Sengoku period, would had more probably unified Japan than Toyotomi Hideyoshi during the Azuchi-Momoyama period. The exact date can be negotiated; however as the purpose of the debate would to prove whether or not Date Masamune was a victim of being born too late to have a more significant impact on the unification of japan, I would place his succession in place of his father's, at 1560. In essence, Date Masamune would have been born in place of his father. This is over a decade prior to the beginning of the Azuchi-Momoyama period, but would occur in the same year that the Imagawa attempted to overthrow the Ashikaga Shogunate and Oda Nobunaga defeated them at the Battle of Okehazema, arguably one of the most deciding battles in Nobunaga's expansion leading up to, and through the beginning of, the Azuchi-Momoyama period.

Although the debate would be about what would have happened had Date Masamune been born in place of his father, all evidence referencing real history are acceptable as references to his character and as indication of potential expansion strategies.

I am posting this challenge in the forums as I want a high-quality debate and would like an opponent who is informed on the subject.

The difficulty with such a debate is counter-factuals. Historiography has enough problems determining which of various potential causes had a significant impact...

For instance, if Takeda Shingen had not taken ill would unification have been significantly delayed? The Tokugawa force was in trouble when Shingen fell ill. Now, had Shingen won against Ieyasu, what would have happened to Japan? Where's the Tokugawa Shogunate... It may be 'alternate history' , yet there's far too many counterfactuals for my liking.

That said, I'm actually not an expert on Azuchi-Momoyama Japan. I'm fairly knowledgeable about Tokugawa Japan, especially it's collapse, and there's likely very few on the site who could debate me competitively on what factors were behind the Meiji modernisation... but I'm not your opponent in this debate.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
Lucky_Luciano
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 5:24:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 4:00:03 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
At 12/10/2013 8:51:12 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
I strongly believe that Date Masamune, had he been born earlier and became the leader of his clan at the end of the Sengoku period, would had more probably unified Japan than Toyotomi Hideyoshi during the Azuchi-Momoyama period. The exact date can be negotiated; however as the purpose of the debate would to prove whether or not Date Masamune was a victim of being born too late to have a more significant impact on the unification of japan, I would place his succession in place of his father's, at 1560. In essence, Date Masamune would have been born in place of his father. This is over a decade prior to the beginning of the Azuchi-Momoyama period, but would occur in the same year that the Imagawa attempted to overthrow the Ashikaga Shogunate and Oda Nobunaga defeated them at the Battle of Okehazema, arguably one of the most deciding battles in Nobunaga's expansion leading up to, and through the beginning of, the Azuchi-Momoyama period.

Although the debate would be about what would have happened had Date Masamune been born in place of his father, all evidence referencing real history are acceptable as references to his character and as indication of potential expansion strategies.

I am posting this challenge in the forums as I want a high-quality debate and would like an opponent who is informed on the subject.

The difficulty with such a debate is counter-factuals. Historiography has enough problems determining which of various potential causes had a significant impact...

For instance, if Takeda Shingen had not taken ill would unification have been significantly delayed? The Tokugawa force was in trouble when Shingen fell ill. Now, had Shingen won against Ieyasu, what would have happened to Japan? Where's the Tokugawa Shogunate... It may be 'alternate history' , yet there's far too many counterfactuals for my liking.

That said, I'm actually not an expert on Azuchi-Momoyama Japan. I'm fairly knowledgeable about Tokugawa Japan, especially it's collapse, and there's likely very few on the site who could debate me competitively on what factors were behind the Meiji modernisation... but I'm not your opponent in this debate.

That's why I want to limit the counter-factuals and talk about a specific scenario.

However, I would be willing to argue that Date Masamune would have made a better Shogun than Tokugawa Ieyasu or Toyotomi Hideyoshi, your pick.
"Age is not important" - Airmax 2014
"Australia... is that a place?" - Airmax 2014
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 1:20:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 5:24:30 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
At 12/11/2013 4:00:03 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
At 12/10/2013 8:51:12 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
I strongly believe that Date Masamune, had he been born earlier and became the leader of his clan at the end of the Sengoku period, would had more probably unified Japan than Toyotomi Hideyoshi during the Azuchi-Momoyama period. The exact date can be negotiated; however as the purpose of the debate would to prove whether or not Date Masamune was a victim of being born too late to have a more significant impact on the unification of japan, I would place his succession in place of his father's, at 1560. In essence, Date Masamune would have been born in place of his father. This is over a decade prior to the beginning of the Azuchi-Momoyama period, but would occur in the same year that the Imagawa attempted to overthrow the Ashikaga Shogunate and Oda Nobunaga defeated them at the Battle of Okehazema, arguably one of the most deciding battles in Nobunaga's expansion leading up to, and through the beginning of, the Azuchi-Momoyama period.

Although the debate would be about what would have happened had Date Masamune been born in place of his father, all evidence referencing real history are acceptable as references to his character and as indication of potential expansion strategies.

I am posting this challenge in the forums as I want a high-quality debate and would like an opponent who is informed on the subject.

The difficulty with such a debate is counter-factuals. Historiography has enough problems determining which of various potential causes had a significant impact...

For instance, if Takeda Shingen had not taken ill would unification have been significantly delayed? The Tokugawa force was in trouble when Shingen fell ill. Now, had Shingen won against Ieyasu, what would have happened to Japan? Where's the Tokugawa Shogunate... It may be 'alternate history' , yet there's far too many counterfactuals for my liking.

That said, I'm actually not an expert on Azuchi-Momoyama Japan. I'm fairly knowledgeable about Tokugawa Japan, especially it's collapse, and there's likely very few on the site who could debate me competitively on what factors were behind the Meiji modernisation... but I'm not your opponent in this debate.

That's why I want to limit the counter-factuals and talk about a specific scenario.

However, I would be willing to argue that Date Masamune would have made a better Shogun than Tokugawa Ieyasu or Toyotomi Hideyoshi, your pick.

As I said before, I'm not your opponent - I know hardly a thing about Date Masamune. Defending Ieyasu's policies when I have no clue as to my opponent's cards in the debate would be madness!

I do look forward to reading your debate with whomever your opponent may be though, and if you have an interest in more modern Japanese history...
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it