Hugh Cann

It gives a good introduction to the history although I venture to say that the telling of the conflict of interest between Ishida and Mitsunari has been skewed to present Mitsunari as with personal agenda. Frankly, this is at odds with what Japanese (nationals) historians will tell you and recorded history here in Japan. That he was in fact initially an unwilling player. Curiously there is almost no commentary in this sequence by the historians who are Japanese and there is a somewhat simplified telling of facts of the role and power of Tokugawa. Further in introducing Tokugawa's place, it is completely overlooked that as a child he was a pawn in the geopolitical power struggles of the time and that this strain of continually under threat of death left a deep yearning for the kind of power he very cleverly took as a matured leader. Furthermore, as far as the lead up to the Battle of Sekigahara is concerned, it is odd that despite what any Japanese historian will tell you, Ishida did not choose Skeigahara, he thought he had but it is acknowledged that Tokugawa had cleverly pushed him to a position that caused Ishida to choose a ground that suited Tokugawa's own battle tactics and overall strategy. The commentary correctly describes Ishida as disliked by the other Toyotomi loyalist daimyo, but neglects to mention this was because he was regarded less as a military commander but rather as a "politician" and as such his decisions were mistrusted. It is also well known that Tokugawa's advance planning had included persuading so-called Tokyotomi loyalist daimyo to switch sides at a strategic moment. Specifically Kobayakawa. It was not, as seems to be portrayed, a sudden turn of events. The communication that Kobayakawa sent as portrayed was the confirmation and acceptance of a proposal Tokugawa had beforehand printed to Kobayakawa. And even so, at the critical moment, Kobayakawa had wavered, still waiting to see which side had the prospect of winning, and only came to Tokugawa's side after failing to strike according to the order by Tokugawa as agreed, and Tokugawa thinking he had been himself betrayed, order his arquebusiers to fire on Kobayakawa, which had the consequence of frightening Kobayakawa into action as he had promised Tokugawa. I suggest these assertions are supported in the fact that again the historians who are Japanese seem to present little or no commentary about this part of history. In short, it seems to be trying to tell a story that actually was not real. I wonder why Netflix is telling the story this way. It seems simplistic. It is at odds with the recorded history (which as a veteran tour provider, I have spent. a lot of time and effort researching).

Bloody terrific. It lucidly paints a pastiche of struggle, of irony.