Tachi versus katana in horseback fighting

[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

[Rivkin]

Gentlemen,

There is little to nothing reliable information available on early mongol warriors. The "pony" story is basically due to Marco Polo and those who based their description on his account. Archeological evidence of early mongol army was scarse, especially since so much was barbarically destroyed after the 1917 revolution in Russia due to the anti-weapon laws.

David Ayalon in his three part work on Mamluks extensively addresses the little information we have on differences and relationship between mamluks and mongols. It seems that earlier mamluks (Baibars) considered themselves to be part of Jelal-al-Din turkoman party that fought against mongols. However after Ayn-Jalat the feelings relax quickly to the point that Qalawun declares in his letter to french king "we and mongols are one nation". He also addresses such issues as language (uighur vs. kipchaq), yasa vs. fiqh and so on.

One should also mention that the depictions of mongol army differ greatly to the point that one must accept that it was composed from very different units of many different people (I remember that Il-Khanid chief commanders at different points were a jew and a nestorian christian, or the story of red haired georgian cavarly from kartlis tzhvoreba), resulting in a rather diverse fighting force. It seems that however their archery was of a different style than that of kipchaqs/mamluks - they used lighter, often biologically "poisoned" arrows and where somewhat more concerned with the rate of fire (even though mamluk standards of aimed fire of 3 arrows per two seconds seem to be rather impressive).
Concerning short stature - it is a rather controversial point. One should address Gorelik's work on mongols and steppe armies for this, but in a short version there is a lot of sources that "noble" steppe people, like "white turks" where of colossal stature

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by ariel

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

Well you're right about that, but also, remember that the mamluks had far better mounts than the mongols did.