jomni wrote:Taira is Pro-imperial here because Taira no Kiyomori made his grandson the Emperor. Though other may claim that they are the anti-imperial because of their scheming.
Exactly. Which is why I mentioned it:
The Taira under Kiyomori and his allies were not fighting out of some great loyalty to the Imperial system or the dynasty. They were fighting- like they had in the earlier "incidents"- for their Dynastic power. The fact that by this venture they had managed to basically hijack official imperial succession and were defacto in control of the capitol gave them most of the resources of the Japanese state doesn't change that fundamental fact, and that certainly wouldn't be the case if this DLC included the big cross-clan melees that ravaged Kyoto in the years before it.
Likewise, the Minamoto fought the Taira-dominated Imperial government not out of some kind of antipathy to the Imperial line or government (as I mentioned before, they tried to position themselves as the rightful protectors of it) but because the Taira were the Taira, and Kiyomori in particular had been the bane of their existence. So they were looking to even the odds and Mochihito's ambitions coincided with theirs.
jomni wrote:Though Manamoto's backers would be the retired emperor Go-Shirakawa.
So are they pro imperial?
I am more or less indifferent on this count. Like I mentioned above, the key dividing line was not ideology (whether pro-or-anti-Imperial or Court v. Province) or even Clan (like how the Hogen rebellion saw Minamoto, Fujiwara, and Taira fight alongside each other against relatives of themselves) but dynastic. Even to a higher degree than-say- the North and South Courts period where you do have a decent-ish ability to define sides as "Pro-Imperial" or "Anti-Imperial/Pro-Shogunate."
But if I had a gun to my head and was forced to decide I would say that yes, the Minamoto probably have a slightly better claim to it. Not to say that the Imperial family wasn't above family disputes or getting involved in politics (Go-Shirakawa changed sides ruthlessly after all, including siding with Kiyomori and his allies during the Hogen rebellions when it was convenient). However, two things come to mind.
A: The Insei system- for all the partisanship and yes corruption I mentioned- was sort of a preserve of Imperial autonomy and power in an era where the imperial court was dominated by the various noble dynasties (Fujiwara, Taira, Minamoto, etc. etc. al.). It was an attempt by the dynasty to reassert control and get something closer to an actual imperial government (like this idealized version of the Taika reforms era). The people who held it- whether Go-Shirakawa or Go-Toba- were behind the big attempts by the Imperial house to break the authority of the nobles as a whole, and particularly the military governments of Kiyomori and the Early Hojo.
And both Go-Shirakawa and his favored heir came out *heavily* in favor of the Minamoto during this war, because they had a shared enemy. In essence these people believed that the best way to get an Imperial government going was to side with the anti-Taira rebels and use them to bring down Kiyomori etc. al. and their control over the court government.
And
B: The succession of Emperor Antoku wasn't just engineered by Kiyomori (this was nothing out of the ordinary for the period), but it stepped on a lot of the rules for imperial succession. And it seems to have done so in a way that was somewhat scandalous even for the period. Which is one reason why the start of the Gempei War was not anything the Minamoto did, but Prince Mochihito raising the banner of revolt for what he claimed was his rightful position.
Now it's somewhat hard to say how far this really went (given how arcane imperial succession rules were and how most of what we know is secondhand and anti-Kiyomori), and it certainly wasn't like imperial succession rules were holy and untouched. They weren't, and the Fujiwara had made swiss cheese out of them before (particularly Michinaga). But it certainly triggered a lot of resistance and saw large scale defections by most of the imperial household that weren't directly in favor of the Taira (or like Antoku Taira/part Taira themselves).
I don't mean to vilify Kiyomori or the Taira or paint the Insei Emperors or the Minamoto as shining, legitimate heroes. There was plenty of ambition and corruption on all sides. The issue I have is with the characterization of the former as seeking to preserve the ancient Imperial system. They weren't, and that's shown by how the first thing Kiyomori did after crushing the first salvo of Minamoto resistance during the Heiji Disturbance was... well, to behead people. But the second thing he did was to bring in a lot of his military loyalists from the provinces and pretty much upturn traditional court governance by appointing them.
All three sides- Minamoto, Tiara, and Insei- were basically seeking to change the current system to benefit themselves. The fighting was largely over who would get the honors.
And why I generally would probably side-step the issue altogether by keeping them listed as Taira and Minamoto.
jomni wrote:Here is our reasoning for Pro and Anti. Since the Taira has a tendency to actually uphold the corrupted imperial system that they exploit to their advantage, they are sort of pro-imperial. And the Minamoto winning the war ended up fully marginalising the Emperor and set up the Bakufu system ruled by the Shoguns
to prevent the exploitative schemes of the Taira. So they are pretty much anti-imperial.
Fair enough, and in terms of labeling the sides of the Gempei War as either pro or anti-Imperial, you could make the argument for either side and decide for yourself.
But on that note: as for upholding and exploiting the imperial government... basically everybody did that (or tried to). The only reason the Minamoto really stopped is because the Taira shut them out, killed off as many as he could justify, and exiled the rest to the provinces meaning that in any future confrontation they had to come in from the outside.
It was not only common, but practically traditional for the Emperor to be marginalized (hence why the Retired Emperorship was set up). The Taira had done it before Kamakura and the Fujiwara had done it before them, and the Emperors knew it all too well. What the Minamoto changed wasn't that so much as it was marginalizing the court government in Kyoto that had both ruled the country and been in the hands of various noble rivals of them (and in doing so they were-ironically- supported at first by the parts of the Imperial family that were not Very close to the Taira).
jomni wrote:The game actually has pro- and anti- sides for Minamoto, Taira, Fujiwara (for skirmish but not in campaign to keep it simple). That's why the factions used in the campaign has those prefixes.
Sorry, maybe I'm derping but I don't understand. How do you mean Pro- or Anti- sides?
And how would that affect the pre-fixes in the campaign?
I get the impression I'm missing something pretty obvious, so apologies for the stupidity.
jomni wrote:We are working on other maps. But no announcement yet.
Glad to hear, and looking forward to it.