Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris Evans
a) A two handed sword is ill suited for mounted combat because it is preferable to leave one hand free to hold the reins with which to control the horse - Also the long handle gets in the way and its general shape is ill suited to the retention of the sword - It is significant that in the rest of Asia, the Middle East and Europe the single hand sword prevailed for mounted warfare;
|
Tachi isn't a two-handed sword, Katana is. Find out the difference and you'll realize where you're wrong here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris Evans
b) Europeans were quick to adopt the curved sabre of the Middle East for light cavalry work, towards the end of the 18th century. By that time they were well acquainted with the Japanese sword, yet ignored it for military usage. Had it been a good weapon for mounted combat, am sure that it would not have been so overlooked - And by that time nobody understood cavalry, both heavy and light, better than the Europeans;
|
Because at that time the Katana had begun a dueling sword. Here we're in Edo time, no more wars to fight, rather duels. Hence the scarce fitting of the Katana to actual western needs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris Evans
c) when Japan modernized during the Meiji restoration European sabres and cavalry methods were adopted. Indeed, all Asian nations that modernized took similar steps. This was due to very compelling reasons.
|
The very compelling reasons were that a dueling Katana that reigned
for the 250 years of the Edojidai wasn't suited for modern battlefield cavalry
tactis. You're comparing a sword "freezed" for centuries to a modern army.
In this way is obvious that even armor and helmets were no more useful even if they were carried till a few decades before.
BTW you lack to quote that many swords in the so-called "Kyugunto" mounting (the western-style you refer to) had ancestral blade inside.
Is more a matter of mounting rather then blade shape.
It's easy to find asking any average collector out there or taking a look at
Fuller and Gregory's "Military swords of Japan 1868-1945" ISBN 0 85368 796 X
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris Evans
. Re understanding cavalry: I am sure that within the limited context of their own insular and feudal style of waging war, up to the Tokugawas, the Japanese understood the usefulness of cavalry to a degree- However, in a wider context, they lagged far behind other nations - There is far more to cavalry than being able to ride; For one, it has been observed that they lacked a true war horse and the terrain of Japan did not encourage mounted warfare, as say the vast expanses of Central Asia.
|
Rough terrain and lack of space for horsebreeding.
These are the reasons they didn't apply vast cavalry charges as we're used to think about. This is not lack of understanding, this is lack of needs.
I agree we're out of topic and warmly suggest you to open another thread on
the matter if you want to discuss further this very interesting matter.