The story of the movie revolves solely around Ishida mitsunari's demise , but u can watch Baragaki Unbroken samurai that came right after this movie by the same director , even the main actor that played Mitsunari is back in the role of another tragic character during the Edo priod by the name of Saito Hajime the chief of the Shinsengumi police in the late Edo Japan . Great movie done with the same style.
@@arustyitalianhairyasscheek5305 Thank you bro. Will watch. Just interested because Siege of Osaka is like the ending arc of this Tokugawa vs Hideyoshi rival.
Well, Vesty Steiner is absolutely wrong. Mitsunari might be a blockhead. However, to accuse him of having self-serving ambition is simply wrong. Mitsunari had never been Ieyasu's rival to begin with. He was a daimyo of less than 200.000 koku against the more than 2.000.000 koku Ieyasu. This caused the lack of confidence among western army generals. He knew his chance was slim, but the blockhead did it anyway out of the belief he was doing a righteous cause. Contrary to popular belief, he might not even be the only mastermind of Sekigahara.
you critcized only one point, which 1) doesn't make my whole argument "absolutely" wrong and 2) I never said they were rivals from the beginning and never accused him of wanting all the power for himself, I only criticized the way Mitsunari is often depicted in nowaday movies/series and even video games, as he's put in a much better light just like the Three Kingdom's Liu Bei. Ieyasu may have bribed a lot of Daimyo to join his cause and promised them land, titles etc but that's a pretty modern way of politics. Mitsunari was bad with people, a trait that also led the Shimazu to simply to nothing in the final battle as Mitsunari rejected all of Yoshihiro's advices and proposed tactics. only thing I didn't like about the Tokugawa Shogunate is the fact that they closed Japan's boundaries. who knows what would've happened if the Western Army won
@@vestysteiner9480 the event with Shimazu Yoshihiro's night attack is highly doubtful as it came from the late Edo era. Mitsunari was in a pretty good relationship with Yoshihiro while the Shimazu clan itself was pretty divided during Sekigahara. It was this situation that likely caused the unwillingness to move early as they only brought 1000 troops. They probably wanted to save it for the crucial moment. It's also not true that he's in conflict with Date as they had wine together prior to Sekigahara. Mitsunari tended to have a good relationship with outsiders, but not with Toyotomi clan's warriors. There's a lot of jealousy and rivalry between the clan bureaucrats and warriors. This was exacerbated during the Korean war because the war was a loss and the generals were not rewarded properly or even punished. Meanwhile, the bureaucrats who stayed beside Hideyoshi kept getting promotions during this period.
@@vestysteiner9480 Actually, I also believe that Mitsunari's loyalty was overblown. His closeness to Hideyoshi was exaggerated. They were actually in a lot of conflicts. From the order of the signatures of the bugyos, it's clear that he wasn't even the head of the bugyo. I tend to believe his involvement in Sekigahara was exaggerated because he didn't seem to be involved much in the initial preparation. He was under house arrest, so he was actually not involved in both hostage taking and the impeachment. The recent research even argued that he was not the mastermind, but just one of the mastermind. People exaggerated his role because they needed a scapegoat and wanted to distance themselves from the incident. He became the de-facto commander because of all the mastermind, he was the most well-connected. Judging from his networking, it's more likely that his bad social skill was a product of exaggeration. Personally, if I have to pick a villain, I'd pick Hideyoshi rather than Ieyasu. The downfall of the Toyotomi clan was a karma. The Korean war caused a fraction within the clan. The murder of Hidetsugu caused even more fraction. He picked some of the finest youths only to screw them in their later life.
no, this is not about a man "who believes in justice bla bla bla" and the "evil bad " Ieyasu who just wants power. I FUCKING HATE ppl and filmmakers who depict those Samurai completely wrong. Ieyasu may have been cunning, but he was taking power AFTER his former lords Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi died. Mitsunari ( who is this movie's main character) however, was an ambitious cruel old bureaucrate, who manipulated the sons of Nobunaga and Hideyoshi greatly. Plus, this fucking Kunoichi never existed, as Ieyasu never ordered the death of Mitsunari by a Kuniochi and they never had a romace. Movie is not bad, but as a fan of the Samurai and especially the Sengoku Period until the Edo Period, I just had to criticize that movie for some of its rather fictional depiction. And yes, Mitsunari's Western Army may have had a larger number in total, but the Eastern Army would have easily gotten to a stalemate even without the betrayal of Kobayakawa and some others , simply because Ieyasu's generals were exceptional skilled and experienced Samurai (Honda Masanobu,Honda Tadakatsu,Honda tadatomo,Ii Naomasa,Okita Toshizo, Kani Saizo etc.), while Mitsunari had lots of buraucrates rather than warriors.
this film is based on Ryotaro Shiba's book Sekigahara which was published in 1966, and I think it's a history book and not a fiction book, Mitsunari is not an old bureaucrat as you say, he was 41 years old at the time of the events of this battle,..
@@TheMagua09 well thank you then. I had no idea it was based on someone's book but it was still not completely accurate historically. And Mitsunari might have been 41and had a couple of pretty capable warriors but still a bureaucrate and a blockhead who was not on good terms with a lot of the Western army's Lords such as Shimazu Yoshihiro. Anyway, thank you again for telling me. I was probably overreacting haha.
@真田 幸村 - Crimson demon of war true :) although I think you meant to say that the eastern army had more unity overall. It's not that I don't like Mitsunari, especially because of more modern day depictions such as this movie or the Samurai Warriors Series (game) it's just that I prefer Ieyasu and the Eastern Army especially because I like a lot of their generals. Of course, the west also had some very prominent warriors that I like such as Tachibana Muneshige, Shimazu Yoshihiro or Sanada Yukimura/Nobushige for example :)
![ARGENTINA vs. BOLIVIA [6-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3wPtKNbAOA/mqdefault.jpg)
Great film!
Masterpiece! I wonder if there will be ever be a Siege of Osaka sequel.
@真田 幸村 - Crimson demon of war I really hope, it's been 5 years ;_;
The story of the movie revolves solely around Ishida mitsunari's demise , but u can watch Baragaki Unbroken samurai that came right after this movie by the same director , even the main actor that played Mitsunari is back in the role of another tragic character during the Edo priod by the name of Saito Hajime the chief of the Shinsengumi police in the late Edo Japan . Great movie done with the same style.
@@arustyitalianhairyasscheek5305 Thank you bro. Will watch. Just interested because Siege of Osaka is like the ending arc of this Tokugawa vs Hideyoshi rival.
2:41 Honda Tadakatsu on left
The antler helmet. I dint know he’s that old
Its look like telling the whole movie
Ieyasu becomes a first Shogun of Tokugawa Shogunate after he kills Mitsunari and Hideyori
He never killed hideyori
SEKIIKAHARA the movie ??!!... wow haha....
Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu 徳川家康 January 31, 1543 - June 1, 1616
do know if this movie will united states release
bought the movie when i was in japan, if you can fidn torrent online is better
does anyone know the backsound title ?
In the first part I don’t know it name,maybe it’s the original soundtrack of this movie. In 2:37 - 3:29 it name is Carl orff - o fortuna
Well, Vesty Steiner is absolutely wrong. Mitsunari might be a blockhead. However, to accuse him of having self-serving ambition is simply wrong. Mitsunari had never been Ieyasu's rival to begin with. He was a daimyo of less than 200.000 koku against the more than 2.000.000 koku Ieyasu. This caused the lack of confidence among western army generals. He knew his chance was slim, but the blockhead did it anyway out of the belief he was doing a righteous cause. Contrary to popular belief, he might not even be the only mastermind of Sekigahara.
you critcized only one point, which 1) doesn't make my whole argument "absolutely" wrong and 2) I never said they were rivals from the beginning and never accused him of wanting all the power for himself, I only criticized the way Mitsunari is often depicted in nowaday movies/series and even video games, as he's put in a much better light just like the Three Kingdom's Liu Bei. Ieyasu may have bribed a lot of Daimyo to join his cause and promised them land, titles etc but that's a pretty modern way of politics. Mitsunari was bad with people, a trait that also led the Shimazu to simply to nothing in the final battle as Mitsunari rejected all of Yoshihiro's advices and proposed tactics. only thing I didn't like about the Tokugawa Shogunate is the fact that they closed Japan's boundaries. who knows what would've happened if the Western Army won
@@vestysteiner9480 the event with Shimazu Yoshihiro's night attack is highly doubtful as it came from the late Edo era. Mitsunari was in a pretty good relationship with Yoshihiro while the Shimazu clan itself was pretty divided during Sekigahara. It was this situation that likely caused the unwillingness to move early as they only brought 1000 troops. They probably wanted to save it for the crucial moment. It's also not true that he's in conflict with Date as they had wine together prior to Sekigahara. Mitsunari tended to have a good relationship with outsiders, but not with Toyotomi clan's warriors. There's a lot of jealousy and rivalry between the clan bureaucrats and warriors. This was exacerbated during the Korean war because the war was a loss and the generals were not rewarded properly or even punished. Meanwhile, the bureaucrats who stayed beside Hideyoshi kept getting promotions during this period.
@@vestysteiner9480 Actually, I also believe that Mitsunari's loyalty was overblown. His closeness to Hideyoshi was exaggerated. They were actually in a lot of conflicts. From the order of the signatures of the bugyos, it's clear that he wasn't even the head of the bugyo.
I tend to believe his involvement in Sekigahara was exaggerated because he didn't seem to be involved much in the initial preparation. He was under house arrest, so he was actually not involved in both hostage taking and the impeachment. The recent research even argued that he was not the mastermind, but just one of the mastermind. People exaggerated his role because they needed a scapegoat and wanted to distance themselves from the incident. He became the de-facto commander because of all the mastermind, he was the most well-connected. Judging from his networking, it's more likely that his bad social skill was a product of exaggeration.
Personally, if I have to pick a villain, I'd pick Hideyoshi rather than Ieyasu. The downfall of the Toyotomi clan was a karma. The Korean war caused a fraction within the clan. The murder of Hidetsugu caused even more fraction. He picked some of the finest youths only to screw them in their later life.
no, this is not about a man "who believes in justice bla bla bla" and the "evil bad " Ieyasu who just wants power. I FUCKING HATE ppl and filmmakers who depict those Samurai completely wrong. Ieyasu may have been cunning, but he was taking power AFTER his former lords Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi died. Mitsunari ( who is this movie's main character) however, was an ambitious cruel old bureaucrate, who manipulated the sons of Nobunaga and Hideyoshi greatly. Plus, this fucking Kunoichi never existed, as Ieyasu never ordered the death of Mitsunari by a Kuniochi and they never had a romace. Movie is not bad, but as a fan of the Samurai and especially the Sengoku Period until the Edo Period, I just had to criticize that movie for some of its rather fictional depiction.
And yes, Mitsunari's Western Army may have had a larger number in total, but the Eastern Army would have easily gotten to a stalemate even without the betrayal of Kobayakawa and some others , simply because Ieyasu's generals were exceptional skilled and experienced Samurai (Honda Masanobu,Honda Tadakatsu,Honda tadatomo,Ii Naomasa,Okita Toshizo, Kani Saizo etc.), while Mitsunari had lots of buraucrates rather than warriors.
this film is based on Ryotaro Shiba's book Sekigahara which was published in 1966, and I think it's a history book and not a fiction book, Mitsunari is not an old bureaucrat as you say, he was 41 years old at the time of the events of this battle,..
@@TheMagua09 well thank you then. I had no idea it was based on someone's book but it was still not completely accurate historically. And Mitsunari might have been 41and had a couple of pretty capable warriors but still a bureaucrate and a blockhead who was not on good terms with a lot of the Western army's Lords such as Shimazu Yoshihiro. Anyway, thank you again for telling me. I was probably overreacting haha.
@真田 幸村 - Crimson demon of war yeah I didn't know that back then so I was overreacting a little bit
@真田 幸村 - Crimson demon of war true :) although I think you meant to say that the eastern army had more unity overall.
It's not that I don't like Mitsunari, especially because of more modern day depictions such as this movie or the Samurai Warriors Series (game) it's just that I prefer Ieyasu and the Eastern Army especially because I like a lot of their generals. Of course, the west also had some very prominent warriors that I like such as Tachibana Muneshige, Shimazu Yoshihiro or Sanada Yukimura/Nobushige for example :)