Tachi versus katana in horseback fighting

[Chris Evans]

tsubame1,

My original post read as;

"If a soldier thinks that the swords of his enemies are of a superior design, then he will covet them, even if the steel that they are made from is not all that outstanding. Wellington, Murat, San Martin and a quite a number of other famous cavalry generals preferred Eastern swords during the Napoleonic era, simply because they perceived that their hilts and curved blades were better suited for that kind of combat.

In this regard, it is worth remembering that on all accounts the Japanese sword made for a very poor mounted weapon (they never understood cavalry)"

You took exception to this, and I tried to justify my views as best as I could within the limitations of a setting as this. You went on to say that the tachi wasn't a two handed sword, rather the katana was - This I disproved, as clearly the hilt of both could accommodate two hands.

As I sense that English is not your first language. Perhaps what you really wanted to say was that the tachi could be used with one hand. If so, I do not disagree. Any native Japanese sword, katanas included, can be used with one hand, and what is more, with either hand. This however does not make the upward curving grip ideal for mounted use, for the reasons that I have already given. It is not the blade shape that is the problem, but the hilt which was designed for foot combat, as explained to me by a Japanese expert. After all the native Japanese blade is remarkably similar to that of later Euro sabres, but that hilt was not copied by any nation that used cavalry in an evolved form - And this surely tells us something about its unsuitability.

As my remark "... In this regard..." makes amply clear, I was assessing the Japanese and their cavalry in the wider context. You appear to base all your arguments on the fact that their weaponry and cavalry usage sufficed for their needs - This is unquestionably true, but does nothing to support an argument that it was good.

What can be said about their horses, cavalry and cavalry swords can also be said about their bows, and armour. For example, everybody, from the Chinese to the Eastern Europeans copied the central Asian horse bow, but nobody as far as I am aware copied the Japanese bow, and for good reason. Same with their armour and cavalry swords. Japanese warfare unfolded in isolation from foreign influneces and as such shows all the negative effects of being shielded from fresh ideas and corrective inputs.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

tsubame1,

An afterthought: In my Japanese sword related books, there are many reproductions of paintings from the Kamakura period, when tachis were much used, depicting battle scenes. In not one of them is a mounted warrior depicted sword in hand. They all hold bows.

Could you help us out here with a period illustration? How do we know their preferred method of wielding their swords? It is a long time since I read the great classic of that era and maybe you can direct us to something substantial.

Cheers
Chris

[Montino Bourbon]

and especially a war-trained rider can control his horse with his legs. Certainly I never had trouble controlling MY horse with my legs in battle. I would consider a horse that was not thus trained useless for combat.

Imagine a man using sword and shield; how do you think that he controlled his horse; with a third hand?

A samurai drawing a bow would be in the same position. Thus, the use of a sword with both hands would be quite possible!

[Chris Evans]

Hi Montino,

Originally Posted by Montino Bourbon

A samurai drawing a bow would be in the same position. Thus, the use of a sword with both hands would be quite possible!

Absolutely true.

And yet at the same time we are told by no less than Musashi that it is not the way to go - Why? He tells us that because it is encumbering. Nor did any modern and evolved cavalry that I am aware of advocate a two handed sword, though all their military raiding schools tried to instill in their raiders the ability to control a horse without hands.

Probably the small Mongol pony that constituted the original blood-stock of the Japanese was an easier horse to control, especially by a diminutive Japanese raider. The Mongol archers for this very reason are said to have preferred mares, whereas the Euros had a liking for much larger horses, stallions which were more aggressive but harder to control. It would be interesting to find out if the Japanese also preferred mares. Of course, through endless warring, Euro cavalry came to understand by the middle ages the shock value of massed cavalry formations and the advantages of large and fearless war horses....

It is a well known fact amongst cavalry man that being dumped from a spooked horse, even when holding the reins, is a real probability. And many of the best light cavalry chose men of smaller stature so as not to tire out the horse too easily. A small man on a large horse in the middle of a battle does not add up to all that much control.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

(quoting Montino)

And yet at the same time we are told by no less than Musashi that it is not the way to go - Why? He tells us that because it is encumbering. Nor did any modern and evolved cavalry that I am aware of advocate a two handed sword, though all their military raiding schools tried to instill in their raiders the ability to control a horse without hands.

Musashi is very renowned for his skillfullness by martial artists but he was a painter, a writer, a poet too. His scripts and figure are highly misinterpreted by western non-specialized people.
Go-Rin-no-Sho, Hagakure, Kojiki, NihonShoki, in so many years I've found almost all the japanese literature used to sustain a misconception of some sort. Samurai didn't use a sword with both hands from horseback. Period.
The lenght of the nakago is misleading here. A tang lenght has purpose of balance and armony too. Most of the curvature of many Tachi was in the tang, for example. I can' say that in the heat of a fight once on a while Tachi could have been used with both hands in very close combat between two mounted Samurai. I say that this is so hard and unlikely that such exceptions shouldn't be take in account in a scholar discussion, if we want to consider this disussion of any scholar usefulness.
There are pictures in which a Samurai cuts a rain of arrows remaining safe.
There is a Koryu that teaches the cutting of a *single* arrow fired to
the swordman. Does this mean that is possible to use the Tachi/Katana as a shield against a rain of arrows in the heat of a Sengoku battlefield ? NO, it's impossible. Phisically impossible. The same way it's impossible to sustain that
Tachi was designed to be used with both hands from horseback.
Striking to left is, per sè, a difficult task already with a sigle (right) hand only,
go figure with two together. Striking to right means to shorten the reach of the arm/blade at about half the possible with a single hand/arm. This without any gain in power in both cases. On the contrary the left arm would slow the action of the right one. IMHO is this what Musashi meant in saying that to hold a sword with both hands by horse is "encumbering". The others are your assuptions from this statement, and worth for what they are, assumptions.
I attach a couple pictures of historical correct use of Tachi from horseback.
I'm asking Samurai Archives for more ancient ones and I reserve the right to add them later. if you want better and more insightful feedback about the matter by english-born experts feel free to move the discussion here :
http://forums.samurai-archives.com/index.php
I'll be glad to open one if you want. You need to register, but it's not neccessary to give a real name.

[Philip]

Hi, Carlo
Interesting comment you made,

"cavalry charges in Japanese history were always quiet [sic] slow..."

That helps explain something that has puzzled me for a long time. Years ago, a Japanese archery club came to Los Angeles and gave a demo of mounted archery with their traditional bows (nice Edo-period costumes, too!) but using local breeds of horses. I was struck at how slow the horses moved (and wasn't too impressed with the lack of accuracy, even at the very short distances to the targets, and the rather unsteady "seat" the riders had in their saddles and stirrups). The Japanese organization which sponsored the program said that the half-dozen shooters were masters who had trained at this for years.

I compare that with the mounted archery I saw in the Inner Mongolian capital of Hohhot (now part of the PRC) in 1981. Both men and women spurred their horses into a full gallop, rode far more aggressively, used stronger bows, and had a higher rate of fire. As a display of martial technique and bravado, this was far more convincing. I'm glad that I wasn't around in the Middle Ages to face Genghis Khan's boys on a battlefield...

You also mentioned the footsoldiers going in along with Japanese cavalrymen during a "charge". This reminds me of the tactics of the elephant troops of SE Asia -- infantrymen with spears or long handled sabers stationed around the elephants' feet to keep the enemy from darting in and doing nasty things to the lumbering beasts. If the Japanese had gallopped into the charge with the speed of the Mongols (or the Chinese, Manchus, and Tibetans, for that matter), it's hard to imagine that infantrymen could keep up with them.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Philip,

You also mentioned the footsoldiers going in along with Japanese cavalrymen during a "charge". This reminds me of the tactics of the elephant troops of SE Asia -- infantrymen with spears or long handled sabers stationed around the elephants' feet to keep the enemy from darting in and doing nasty things to the lumbering beasts. If the Japanese had gallopped into the charge with the speed of the Mongols (or the Chinese, Manchus, and Tibetans, for that matter), it's hard to imagine that infantrymen could keep up with them.

Interesting observations. It would seem that for most part the Japanese use of cavalry, on the battlefields, did not go beyond to that of the most basic applications of same. I often wondered if Oda Nobunaga tried to change any of this, as he was greatly influenced by European ideas - Mind you, by his days, warring in Japan was almost over.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Philip,
Interesting observations. It would seem that for most part the Japanese use of cavalry, on the battlefields, did not go beyond to that of the most basic applications of same. I often wondered if Oda Nobunaga tried to change any of this, as he was greatly influenced by European ideas - Mind you, by his days, warring in Japan was almost over.

Cheers
Chris

No, Oda Nobunaga swiftly get that the only use of cavalry in Japan was the already well-established one and didn't waste time and money in improving it. He smartly applied the use of archebusiers in alternate lines, that he already experienced as a target in his previous campaigns against the Ikko Ikki. AFAIK this was a revolution even for western standards, being at those times, no such a tactic in western armies.

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Philip

Hi, Carlo
Interesting comment you made,

"cavalry charges in Japanese history were always quiet [sic] slow..."
...OMISSIS...
I compare that with the mounted archery I saw in the Inner Mongolian capital of Hohhot (now part of the PRC) in 1981.

Nobody can beat the mongols in archery from horseback.

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

Nobody can beat the mongols in archery from horseback.

The mamluks did

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

The mamluks did

hehehe... this is a matter between you and Philip. I call me out

[ariel]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

hehehe... this is a matter between you and Philip. I call me out

Well, Mamluks were originally brought from the Central Asia and the Caucasus... Must have kept their Chingiz Khan-ian traditions

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

tsubame1,

My original post read as;

"If a soldier thinks that the swords of his enemies are of a superior design, then he will covet them, even if the steel that they are made from is not all that outstanding. Wellington, Murat, San Martin and a quite a number of other famous cavalry generals preferred Eastern swords during the Napoleonic era, simply because they perceived that their hilts and curved blades were better suited for that kind of combat.

In this regard, it is worth remembering that on all accounts the Japanese sword made for a very poor mounted weapon (they never understood cavalry)"

You took exception to this, and I tried to justify my views as best as I could within the limitations of a setting as this. You went on to say that the tachi wasn't a two handed sword, rather the katana was - This I disproved, as clearly the hilt of both could accommodate two hands.

As I sense that English is not your first language. Perhaps what you really wanted to say was that the tachi could be used with one hand. If so, I do not disagree. Any native Japanese sword, katanas included, can be used with one hand, and what is more, with either hand. This however does not make the upward curving grip ideal for mounted use, for the reasons that I have already given. It is not the blade shape that is the problem, but the hilt which was designed for foot combat, as explained to me by a Japanese expert. After all the native Japanese blade is remarkably similar to that of later Euro sabres, but that hilt was not copied by any nation that used cavalry in an evolved form - And this surely tells us something about its unsuitability.

As my remark "... In this regard..." makes amply clear, I was assessing the Japanese and their cavalry in the wider context. You appear to base all your arguments on the fact that their weaponry and cavalry usage sufficed for their needs - This is unquestionably true, but does nothing to support an argument that it was good.

If the good argument was "on all accounts the Japanese sword made for a very poor mounted weapon " you should :

a) provide evidences of these accounts. Who said this, when, where, which context was the account in ? Sources, authors and ISBN. Possibly pages. Thanks.

b ) read the reply as second post hereabove quoting someone that, frankly, knows much more then me and you together on japanese swords.

c) buy a Tachi and handle it. It's not necessary a horse if you ask the right person on how to handle it.

I've already explained why is difficult to compare japanese swords to western
ones as refer to handling. Correctly, all swords can be handled with one or two hands. The matter is how efficient the handling is. Tachi is better suited for a one-hand use on horseback, Katana for a two-hands by foot. This is the reason of the evolution from tachi to Katana.

If you feel my english is bad or if I'm arguing about details, or that I've misunderstood part of your assertions, well I apologize. I'm used to be charged of misunderstanding being not a native english speaker. This is the
reason because of I always quote sources and ISBN of books usually in english language.

[Philip]

Chris,
You raise some thought-provoking points.

Yes, most Asiatic soldiers were of short stature (though there were some pretty tall Indians, and British observers noted some northern Chinese, and Manchus, in the 19th cent. being of a size equal to or a tad greater than some Europeans). And yes, the typical north Asian horse was indeed pony-like in size, being descended from smaller native breeds (the so-called Przewalski horse being the most well known).

In Japan prior to the "opening" of the country by Adm. Perry in the 1850s, the horses appear to be of this north Asian type. I read an article in an old Encyclopaedia Britannica that pejoratively describes the poor fellows as being "misshapen ponies".

But I don't think a match in physiques, or geographic and zoological default, were what kept the north Asiatic horses in service for so long a time. After all, the rulers of China had access to the statuesque and handsome steeds of Central Asia (i.e. the "blood-sweating horses of Ferghana"), and were avid owners and riders of them from the Tang through Qing dynasties.

Those "misshapen ponies" have immense tactical advantages. Their stamina is phenomenal. They are extraordinarily rugged animals, able to stand up to immense privation and a harsh environment, as iron-hard as mules but far more worthy of use in combat. And all Asiatic mounted archers just love THE WAY THESE GUYS RUN -- their gallop is said to be smoother, less up/down "bounce" in their stride. Just what mounted archers need.

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Philip

Those "misshapen ponies" have immense tactical advantages. Their stamina is phenomenal. They are extraordinarily rugged animals, able to stand up to immense privation and a harsh environment, as iron-hard as mules but far more worthy of use in combat. And all Asiatic mounted archers just love THE WAY THESE GUYS RUN -- their gallop is said to be smoother, less up/down "bounce" in their stride. Just what mounted archers need.

Extermely correct. Bow was the primary weapon for Samurai as well, for centuries.
Can't provide pictures of the continental breeds but should be close to these japanese ones :

1) Hokkaido of northern Japan
2) Kagoshima of Kyushu
3) Kiso of central Japan
4) Miyako. Going back to the 13th century
5) The Noma. The smallest of the Japanese breed
6) The Taishu. Known as early as the 8th century and stands only "12 hands " high