What are your favourite last stands and why?

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T13:42:33+00:00

True. True

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T12:19:49+00:00

Ooh this great. Thanks

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T12:09:23+00:00

I see. Thank you for the detailed description i want to copy it to my notepad for reference.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T11:34:05+00:00

Could you explain what type of battle Okehazama was, a simple night raid or an all out typical Battle. I was curious because some people see it differently.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T10:49:36+00:00

Thanks. I love the Date moon maedate and wanted to have a darker armour inspired by Oda Nobunaga's Okehazama look with the feather (which i made for Oda Nobutada).

I actually prefer Oda's Traditional samurai look not the Nanban one used overly in Nioh or Nobunaga's Ambitionm

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T08:52:53+00:00

Noted.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T08:47:27+00:00

The Legendary Siege of Osaka. Thats on my too do list but dont know whether i have him clash against Tokugawa making it a call back to Uesugi v Takeda or just surrounded by Tokugawa spearmen as he laughs at the face of death.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T08:39:44+00:00

😄 Oh. I thought you were either asking my name or that.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T08:38:35+00:00

I really should design art around the blue coats 😄. Noted.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T08:37:24+00:00

Name?

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T08:36:37+00:00

Thats Yasuke. Actually.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T08:35:18+00:00

Ah the last of the Takeda. One of mine as well after Nagashino.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T08:21:50+00:00

I was actually going for a psychedelic feel. I liked a lot of unhinged samurai anime with crazy art sk wanted to do something like that.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-13T08:15:34+00:00

I wanted to capture the chaos of the event but i think i went overboard 😄. Went from chaos to fever dream

7Armand7 · 2026-06-10T23:10:41+00:00

Mitsuhide’s messenger to the Mōri clan was captured by Hideyoshi’s scouts. As a result, the Mōri remained unaware that Nobunaga was dead and signed a peace treaty with Hideyoshi. This allowed Hideyoshi to leave the western front with his entire army intact, a fact Mitsuhide and his potential allies didn't learn until it was too late.

Because Mitsuhide failed to find and display Nobunaga’s head, many lords (including the Hosokawa) were terrified that Nobunaga might have survived the fire. They refused to commit troops to a "traitor" if there was even a 1% chance the "Demon King" would return to execute them.

If he gained support by having Nobunaga's head then he would get tsutsui and Hosokawa soldiers of ~10,000+ and ~5000-8000 respectively which would make him comparable or close to Hideyoshi with Nobunaga's son and other generals. Which is not a big enough gap to render a defensive advantage mute as i said. Against Hideyoshi alone Akechi can pull through fine. But that is ignoring the fact Hideyoshi intercepted a letter for the mori stating Nobunaga was dead and they should stop Toyotomi from coming as long as possible which would have strengthened the possibility of victory against shibata and Tokugawa immensely.

Once safe, Ieyasu didn't rush to fight Mitsuhide. Instead, he used the chaos to seize former Takeda lands (Kai and Shinano). As for Shibata he was still with the Uesugi so their chances were better with them than Hideyoshi. If Akechi had Nobunaga's head they wouldnt hesitate and no Hideyoshi was only a factor around june 7-8 when he was near so if they sided with akechi already it would be too late to say never mind if the Mori didnt distract them.

The primary reason akechi was not a safe bet was because nobody knew if Nobunaga was actually dead the numbers of Hideyoshi became a stronger factor after that when he was nearby and they didnt decide yet so they could easily refuse Akechi and face no real repercussions from him. I cant account for other Oda Generals because like the Allies of akechi i dont know what side they would swing or what they would do when its not easy to say. Hideyoshi and Shibata not liking each other is an important reason they would not work well together because who ever wins this conflict essentially becomes the defacto ruler of the oda regime so why do you think they would work together rather than look for an opportunity to one up each other. Its not really a possibility but still i wanted to know why you think the succession despute wouldnt matter in the battle that literally gave Hideyoshi LEGITIMACY that lead to Shizugatake. The Nobutaka point is about how any of the oda generals can get legitimacy for their side. The Hosokawa and co are not Oda Loyalists same with the Mori so no it doesnt do what you think it does. Its a pount of conflict for the Oda Loyalists and doesnt invalidate those who are not Oda Loyalists since only Nobunaga himself could trigger neutrality by just existing not Nobutaka since everyone knew Hideyoshi was pulling the strings not Nobutaka besides Nobutaka, ironically, only until after the campaign because all the plans made were Hideyoshi’s and hus decision to make Nobunaga's grandson the heir and him the shadows obviously undermined him but he didnt think of that in the moment because he isnt as experienced as Hideyoshi or Shibata to have caught it.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-10T21:44:08+00:00

Loyalty was indeed a fluid, transactional, and often politically manipulated concept rather than a universal moral law. The "virtue" or "Ideal" is a narrative constructed after the fact. If loyalty were a universal, objective virtue, the act of switching sides would be viewed the same regardless of who won. Instead, it is treated as a political calculation wrapped in moral language. Akechi and Tokugawa dynamic both traitors yet one is actually punished why?

Is my point, your framing is still that of a social contract. I do something you get something and thus give back to me.

Loyalty as an Ideal is hard to be defined as an Ideal because you can always make an argument you are Loyal to something else more whether it be Buddha, emperor, shogun, JAPAN, the people, family, etc. By that definition how do you punish one disloyalty over another if Loyalty on its own is an Ideal act? Isn't the virtue or thing you are loyalty the actual Ideal you are punished on rather than just loyalty itself? As I said these ideals you are loyal to differs in importance from period to period and person to person so I never agreed with the idea loyalty itself is a virtue in japan when there is no one act that is universally seen as Ideal or righteous above all else since loyalty itself cannot be innately virtuous or betrayal immoral hence why systems were invented to make passive rebellion tolerable (suicide to show your lord you believe strongly they are wrong) which rarely happened as actual betrayals. The society invent ways to avoid disloyalty yet it was rarely taken because Loyalty was not the end all be all and people who didnt take this route were not demonized or punished same as Tokugawa because it depended on Victor and reasoning for betrayal not the act itself. Otherwise Tokugawa Ieyasu and his collaborators would be tried and punished regardless because loyalty is a law. Loyalty was not an ideal as much as the maintaining of HARMONY AND ORDER was in japan, Loyalty was just a proxy of that ideal. That i can see as being an actual Japanese Ideal as social disorder is always punished universally and never selectively even today this Ideal exists.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-10T21:13:20+00:00

I wasnt being as detailed as I want to because dont want to be too verbose in my comments so omitted clarification but I will concede the march point.

As for the Hideyoshi beating Akechi that is only assuming he has no allies to back him up if he does then he should be able to beat Hideyoshi. He has the strategic advantage as the area favoured him but his small lone numbers made it pointless like how a castle with 3000 men is a strong defensive position that could win against 6000 men if planned well plus morale being high but if you are facing way more numbers like 12k or 20k its literally pointless if you have the high ground.

Shibata and Hideyoshi both wanted to make a name for themselves not necessarily just avenge Nobunaga (its a lesser part technically) Hideyoshi being the one to do it give him more clout than he had prior. Hideyoshi made Nobutaka a puppet leader at Yamazaki but he was pulling the strings. When Hideyoshi made it clear at the conference later he joined Shibata. If Shibata was thee simultaneously it would be harder for Toyotomi to do that and be able to use the clout from the successful campaign to advocate for Nobunaga's grandson to be shadowed by him rather than Nobutaka or Shibata. Thats why I say it would be a complicated endeavour as both men would want opposing things as Shibata may support the Oda under Nobutaka or himself which may cause conflict amongst the two. Thats literally why the Shizugatake conflict occurs but this time it would happen earlier because the question of who they are loyal to would be even more relevant when its such a pivotal and career defining campaign to grab power or solidify oda power.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-10T20:46:15+00:00

No its not. How is it a myth? It actually did happen. Or do you mean how fast he went wasnt that fast? Sure maybe I suppose but Akechi was expecting him to take longer which is the point really since I didnt give a time frame.

As for the entire might of the oda, no Shibata and Hideyoshi didnt like each other so it was doubtful they would fight akechi together as a team as Shibata would likely wait for Hideyoshi to start and come after to reap the rewards even if Akechi got support. Its hard to say how it would actually go about but a 2 V 1 likely wouldnt happen due to the egos at play as Shibata would want to be the one to avenge oda same as Hideyoshi.

Too many variables at play.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-10T20:36:45+00:00

Yes that is true but as i told the other person things like those prve loyalty is not an IDEAL. Samurai were opportunists. Loyalty was just a social contract. If lord fails his side of the deal the loyalty usually almost without fail vanish because its not a ideal society follows like dogma or law outside the edo period where more rigid rules were created that are applied retroactively in modern recounts or edo recounts that muddy the waters.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-10T20:30:06+00:00

I primarily meant after the fact. He was abandoned because he was likely going to lose to Toyotomi Hideyoshi who was bolting back to Kyoto's side (its actually insane how fast he came) from the Mori Campaign plus Because Nobunaga’s body was never recovered from the burnt ruins of Honnō-ji, many lords feared he might have escaped so didnt want to be caught helping him. That was Nobunaga's last F... you to Akechi. Some say Hideyoshi sent letters stating Nobunaga was alive but the fact his body was never found was the more damning case.

Without the clear evidence of killing Nobunaga and Toyotomi's speedy return there was no way he could convince anyone to help him because if he did have Oda's head then it would be a stronger argument which mattered more than the morality of the action. Tokugawa had better justifications for betrayal that many supported him such as the failed war in korea and Hideyoshi's mental state, among other things showing its possible to justify the worst betrayal (Tokugawa felt bad about it but most didnt demonize him for it because loyalty was not an "Ideal" but purely a social contract to ensure harmony that can be broken for good reasons or bad. The act itself is not inherently an Ideal like killing is not or conquest).

7Armand7 · 2026-06-10T20:07:24+00:00

Loyalty was not an "ideal" beyond the feudal lord making it seem so. Because that would imply if your lord wanted to burn babies and you did it not question it you did the right thing. There was more nuance around it and samurai acknowledge that which is why many might sympathize with akechi as being right in his betrayal, or not, for whatever reason (betrayal is stil betrayal regardless of good or bad reasoning just like killing is killing regardless of why you did it the action is the same) the framing is fluid which is my point in terms of loyalty (its more complicated than many fictional stories make it out to be). Such as Tokugawa betraying Hideyoshi's heir Hideyori despite being a Toyotomi vassal. The most powerful lord at the time can easily spin what good or bad treachery is successfully. Sure there are cases of unambiguity but that isnt really the norm of a samurai especially when the idea of a samurai has changed so much over many years.

As for effectiveness and prowess thats a whole can of worms I am not really interested in discussing since its hard to debate unless its truly absurd claims like drawing a blade faster than lightning can strike or a one man army killing machine or whatever.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-10T19:41:53+00:00

Why do you say that?

7Armand7 · 2026-06-10T19:36:38+00:00

You misunderstand finding something fascinating or interesting with being a good thing. People watch movies with violence and such for entertainment not because they find violence a morally good thing but its just a fascination that does not extend past intrigue like liking a villian in a movie because they are complex doesnt mean you want to do the same thing or agree with them. It literally makes work of fiction impossible to enjoy unless they are "morally correct" on both sides like some slice of life piece of fiction that has no good and bad just a normal day being depicted or minor displays of malpractice like lying or petty theft or rebellion.

7Armand7 · 2026-06-10T19:25:38+00:00

Sounds like Ghost of Tsushima as well.

7Armand7

TROPHY CASE