Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

radio_allah t1_j9of63c wrote

It's not actually that fascinating, because the biggest conclusion that can be drawn is that Ieyasu is a good opportunist with really good luck. But then every man's good luck is highlighted at a time of chaos and shifting power struggles. Someone fought someone fought someone before you, and then you grabbed the pie. It happens. Really nothing much to brag about.

Plus events naturally transpired so that there were two finalists duking it out for the Shogunate, and so there's inevitably going to be a king of the hill in the end. If not Ieyasu, it would've been Ishida Mitsunari, and if not Mitsunari it would've been someone else.

In short, it's a game of chance in history that eventually rolled out a name. And whomever that name belonged to, he was but an heir to fortunes rather than a creator of fortunes. And in a time of chaos like the Sengoku Jidai, there are lots of creators of fortunes.

4

Regulai t1_j9okd3l wrote

... The fact that luck exists in history doesnt make it some ubiquitous equal factor... You're basicslly going some luck always exists so luck is irrelevant in ecalutating events.... Which is pure nonsese of a statement to make.

Ieyasu's did just have some luck. He only had luck. Out of all the notable figures (who weren't total idiots) of the era he was the least exceptional, least talented winning in the end because his competion died of old age and not through any real ability on his part. That is notable in terms of luck.

Ishida actually makes for a great contrast because he was a nobody with every disadvantage who only had status at all because of his ability, but it wasnt enough to overcome his extreme disadvantage.

5