posted 07-18-2000 06:08 PM               

I found this story a bit odd, considering that most weapons used around this time were normally produced locally. Does anyone know if it has any substance to it?

posted 07-20-2000 04:40 AM               

Since the two cultures never met in combat, the question can never really be answered directly. However, they each faced a mutual foe. The results of those conflicts might give us some idea of what would have happened if the Japanese Samurai and the European knight ever faced each other in battle.

When the Mongols invaded Eastern Europe, they repeatedly faced large armies led by European knights, and destroyed them utterly and with very little difficulty. But the two Mongol attempts to invade Japan were met and repulsed by forces led by the Japanese samurai.

posted 07-20-2000 02:45 PM               

My vague recollection is that the Mongols were forced to attempt an amphibious landing against Samurai on the beaches. This proved difficult, and the typhoon caught the Mongol fleet in the bay with the army still aboard.

Amphibious landings have always been troublesome, as Julius Caesar found in Britain despite the great tactical superiority of a Roman legion vs. Celtic tribesmen. Amphibious landings against Japanese defenders were difficult for the U.S. Marines in the Pacific.

The Mongols invading Japan had no room to spread out and use their customary tactics, so I don't think that this failure proves anything about the worth of Mongol vs. Samurai armies.

posted 07-20-2000 05:05 PM            

The story is that the Japanese tachi, which worked fine against Japanese armor, didn't fare as well when they attempted to cut throught the heavy leather Mongol garments/armor. They resorted to thrusting, with the result that many of the sword-tips kissaki snapped off.

Aside from the obvious immediate problem, this resulted in a sword that couldn't be restored by simply grinding or "polishing", as this would take the tip back into the soft metal core of the blade.

This caused the Japanese to reevaluate their sword-making technique, and to substitute a longer, thicker ikubi kissaki for the former short ko-kissaki.

This is the story. There are indications that the development of the ikubi kissaki was already underway prior to the invasion, however, though the invasion may have accelerated the process.

The Mongol_Invasion_of_Japan is a rather nice site on the invasions (I don't believe it touches on this question, however).

posted 07-20-2000 06:44 PM               

As for their training? Ah. Personally I think the Europeans were a heck of a lot more sophisticated than they usually get credit for. Certainly, there are ways to train even now that will easily prepare you to take out a modern kendoka. I'll leave you to your own conclusions about what this actually means on a battlefield...

Slightly branching off here. This is again later then the period you suggested, but then, so is the average person's concept of the samurai. It is my personal opinion that by the 16th century Europeans were well along their way to developing sophisticated mass troop strategies that the Japanese had not yet learned, nor were to learn for centuries, mostly due to the fact that they just didn't have very many massive battles. Tokugawa shogunate isolationism and all that. I would put money on a European army.

Especially a Swiss one. Swiss people used to be nasty buggers... I wonder what happened to them, anyway? How does one go from being a pack of crack military geniuses to a load of clock-making cheese eaters?

posted 07-21-2000 04:27 AM               

a kendoka has definitely nothing to do with the fighting skills and style of a samurai, especially one from the 13th century.

The japanese had also mass battles and also went outside their country (invasion of Korea then china I think). so there could be a ground for comparison.

In mass battle I don't know which side would have won, but the japanese bows were absolutely a match for the european ones - same distance and accuracy as well as power.

In single combat I think the japanese would have had a slight advantage not from armour or blade but from his mental state - he was raised with the thought of dying in battle and believed in coming back on earth, so I think he fought with much greater ferocity.

I don't know which were the better fighter, but I know which were more educated.

posted 07-21-2000 03:23 PM               

You own a copy of "Oriental Armour"? I loved that book, and am now going to try to find my own copy. Thanks for the inspiration and reminder.

To: Lance

Two thoughts: One, that Japanese strategy and tactics could be of a very high order during the century before the Tokugawas settled things. Nobunaga's use of fireams at Nagashino was just as devastating (and innovative) as anything that happened in early 16th c. Europe. He entrenched his musketeers, lined them up many ranks deep so that each row could fire in turn while the others behind him were reloading, and blew away the best cavalry in all Japan (the Takedas). The film "Ran" covers this battle, incidentally. Sometimes the real struggle was political, not tactical, but that applies to Europe also. The climactic battle of Sekigahara was largely influenced by treachery, in eerie parallel with Bosworth.

posted 07-24-2000 12:39 PM            

Swiss-made timepieces tend to be a bit more expensive - Rolex, Piaget, Breitling etc. This is a direct result of the Reformation. Parts of Switzerland turned Protestant, leaving the jewellers who had previously made delicate jewelled artifacts for the Catholic Church at rather a loose end. Ulrich Zwingli (one of the leaders of the Swiss reformation - his sword, looking rather like the A&A Schloss Erbach, is still in the National Museum in Zürich) advised them to turn their attention to the new technology of the time - clocks and watches - and so founded a world-famous industry.

posted 07-24-2000 05:00 PM               

The Japanese did certainly have a number of brilliant generals - this was, however, the exception to the rule. I know what everyone will say... so it was with European armies. Yet there were more brilliant European generals. This is due to no fault on the part of the Japanese, but Europe is simply bigger. And Japan did mount invasions of the continent, but this is simply not the same as over a thousand years of living immediately next to... well... everyone else.

I got more response to that swiss joke that I expected. Heh.

As for their mental conditioning, the samurai were indeed raised with the thought of death. But I think it is a mistake to assume that European knights were not. Life expectancy was abysmal, and the ideals of chivalry included dying for king, God and country. A glorious death in battle is a concept we had long before encountering the Japanese. True, it is an ideal, and not always the reality. But the Japanese warrior ideal of contempt for death is no less an ideal, sometimes followed, sometimes not - as evidenced, among other things, by many of the samurai who refused to commit seppuku when ordered to. Baresarks, Templars, the legends of the great kings and knights of Europe, the infamous ferocity of the warriors of many less developed nations - no, I for one do not believe the Japanese were one jot more ferocious than some Europeans (and note that I have said "some".) I do not wish to take away from the tremendous accomplishments of the Japanese, but neither do I wish to perpetuate the myth that our ancestors were brutish, unrefined and unskilled.

With the possible exception of monastic clergymen, at the time the Japanese certainly were more educated in general. A great comfort when a longsword is imbedded in your head, no doubt... ;-)

posted 07-24-2000 05:10 PM            

I also found a reference to this weapon in Bottomley & Hopson's Arms & Armour of the Samurai, where the description is as follows:

quote:

---

A curious weapon which survives in considerable numbers made its appearance at the end of the Nambokucho period and became much more common during the Muromachi period. The uchi ne originally took the form of a very short spear, with a shaft that was only about a foot (0.3m0 long and a small but heavy three- or four-sided blade. At close quarters it could be used for stabbing or thrown in the manner of a dart, while at longer ranges it could be held by the point and thrown in the manner of a knife. Later versions were fitted with exaggertated fletching to stabilize their flight, and a nock (frequently of ivory) which, because the weapon was a missile was purely decorative. Those that survive from the Edo period generally have a tasselled wrist cord through the shaft near the nock, indicating the tendency to use them more as a stabbing weapon than as a missile.

---

Finally there's a weapon called a yari-nage, illustrated as being about three feet long with "tassel" flights - but since this tiny scrap of information comes from the role-playing game Bushido, and I've seen it nowhere else, I'd recommend a pinch or so of salt, or further research into the name...

(Forgot to mention: in none of these instances is there any indication of whether these missile weapons were used on foot or mounted: since both are quite short, I suppose throwing them from horseback is at least feasible.)

posted 07-24-2000 05:31 PM            

--from the Mongol Invasion site I referenced above.

posted 07-24-2000 06:17 PM               

I feel obliged to defend the quality of Japanese strategy and tactics, although this is not an area I am most familiar with, and I absolutely agree that there is no reason to credit them with being superior in any general sense (as individuals or en masse).

Let me tell you a story...

The fourth battle of Kawanagashima is, as far as I know, fully the equal of any European or North American pre-20th c. battle ever fought. In sophistication of strategy , intensity and courage on both sides it rivals the greatest battles: Waterloo, Gettysburg, Malplaquet, Torgau, Chancellorsville. In fact, the strategies bear a great resemblance to RE Lee's masterpiece.

Takeda Shingen, with about 20,000 men, confronted Uesugi Kenishiro(?) (with 13,000)over Kawanakajima several times. The fourth time, they both went for broke. Takeda decided to divide his larger force, and sent 12,000 men on a night flank march over a mountain, so as to fall on the Uesugi flank in the morning. His remaining 8,000 moved up to hold the enemy attention and swing into action once the flank force had hit the foe. (This is similar to Joe Hooker's plan at Chancellorsville.) Uesugi found out what was up, and confronted with this trap, decided not to evade it, but break it open from the inside. He crossed a river leading to the Takeda holding force, leaving 3000 men facing his rear to keep the Takeda flank force at bay, and marshalled his men (10,00 or so) into a dawn assault. (Preview of RE Lee's response.)

In the morning, the Takeda flank force got into position, and found the Uesugi camp empty. Meanwhile, the Takeda holding force woke up to find a superior enemy bearing down on them, a foe they were supposed to be attacking slightly later. The Takeda scrambled into their armor, when the whilrwind hit. The Takeda general who suggested the flank attack was so mortified he grabbed a lance and charged the Uesugi ranks singlehanded (he didn't survive the battle). The attack was so fierce that the elite Usegi cavalry guard fought their way into the Takeda HQ tent, and the story goes that Takeda Shingen had to defend himself with his war-fan! (A war-fan, is, I think, a badge of rank, and not some arcane killing device).

By this time, the Takeda flank force had followed the noise of battle and came upon the Uesugi rear guard (unlike the Union army at Chancellorsville, which was curiously passive). With the advantage of a river, the rear guard fought until overwhelmed, inflicting heavy causualties. Finally, the Takeda flank force came up on the rear of the Uesugi main force and the Uesugi were crushed.

The fighting was, by historical record, remarkably intense. The Uesugi suffered about 70% casualties (killed and wounded), the victorious Takeda about 60%. By contrast, most European battles counted 30% losses by the loser as being pretty severe. For a battle in which neither side was trapped for slaughter, these losses, are, I think, unique. Unlike, say Chancellorsville, neither side suffered from lack of courage, lack of decisive leadership, or energy. The Uesugi rear guard held 4 times their numbers until destroyed. The Takeda holding force was surprised by superior numbers, but held on long enough to be rescued. The Uesugi main force nearly overran the HQ of the best army in Japan, commanded by one of its greatest generals ever. The Takeda flank force staged a night flank march (itself a difficult task), then moved to the sound of battle, fought across a defended river, smashed the Uesugi main force, and then conducted the pursuit.