Sword question... East and West

Longden, Hugh warned that these types of discussions rarely go anywhere (although I think this thread is Very informative and thought provoking and seems to be going Somewhere) and generate Heat. But now you've gone and FLAMED Hugh and Jim's armies with burning oil. Uh Oh.
smile.gif


Thanks guys, I enjoyed this thread so far. And I have not seen Any flames until just now.

Paracelsus, Mystic Shaman and Fighter of Battles of Words

[This message has been edited by Paracelsus (edited 01-18-2000).]
 
Next question, how much metal did they have available? Japanese steel was rare and actually poor quality; the amazing thing about the Katanas is that they could get the performance they did with really bad steel!

You think they folded and layered it umpteen million times for grins'n'giggles? You can match the performance of most classic Katanas with unfolded 1084 simple high carbon steel. A few pieces made by masters can perform on par with a modern A2 piece...

Physique may have been a factor. The Spartans trained a warrior class from a fairly young age. Some of the Greek track'n'field events from the original Olympics involved footraces in full bronze armor and shield...sprinting. Arg!

Next question, when did the Japanese get stirrups? That's what allowed heavy cavalry starting in the European middle ages. The Hoplites and Roman Legionaires (very closely related types) could withstand cavalry charges only because nobody knew what a stirrup was. The Japanese didn't have crossbows I don't think, nor did they have the massive longbows such as what dropped the French heavy cavalry in their tracks at Agincourt, aided by muddy terrain and good generalship.

There's a whole lotta factors here.

The Japanese didn't put handguards on their swords because they wanted flexibility of grip position...a Katana can be used "very close in" if necessary, in a role more like a long knife than a sword. At "hug range" a Saber turns very unwieldy, which is why an off-hand dagger got played with at various times. The Scots liked to have a dagger in the same off-hand as supported a modest (shrimpy by Greek/Roman standards) shield.

Heat and lack of plentiful metal definately affected the Filipinos.

The subject is endless.

On discipline: At Hastings in 1066, Harald the Saxon was set up on a good defensive position on top of a hill. He had 5000 tired veterans who'd just fast-marched with him down from a Viking raid in the north, and 5,000 local militia of dubious training but fair weapons. William the Norman had 10,000 fresh pros, including some mercenary cavalry but had to attack a fortified position on a modest hill.

Absolute crapshoot, either could have won it. The Normans sent horsemen and others up to the line to send harassing volleys of light spears...then they'd retreat. The poorly trained militiamen would come charging out to "finish off the retreating enemy" only to get cut off and slaughtered. Pros wouldn't have been that stupid, and could have won.

This is why orders in the military are taken so seriously all the way to the present.

Jim
 
The more I think about it, the more I think the very best man-for-man "pre-gun warriors" may have been the Welsh Longbowmen. European "heavy cavalry" were damned effective, but they got nailed hard at Agincourt plus the Mongols just shredded 'em in the Eastern European run-ins circa 1250ish I think it was...one of Ghengis's decendents got all the way to Eastern Poland or so. The Mongols used short heavy bows from horseback with minimal armor; they ran the heavy cavalry to exhaustion and then plinked 'em to death.

Jim
 
Paracelsus, I promise that my flames will be accompanied at least by some good sauce
smile.gif


Jim, according to a web search:
http://www.uh.edu/admin/engines/epi476.htm

stirrups were known to the Chinese at the time of Christ and to the Europeans (Charles Martel) around 732 AD, so I'd have to think that the Japanese samurai had them in the 13th century.

So it sounds like the horse mounted soldiers in your fictitious empire would probably have an edge over the foot soldier (be they Spartan or Roman trained). On foot may still be a different story tho.

I'll defer to you on the availability and quality of the steel. I don't recall seeing a lot of drawings or descriptions of steelwork for ancient China or Japan. That may put a damper on your Spartan/Roman shields too.

And no, I don't think there were any crossbows around, nor of course the longbow, but the Asians certainly did have a bow available, probably before the stirrup, tho this is not the issue, since you've already made the point that the Spartans could defend themselves against the arrow using their shields (if you have enough metal to make them).

Your mention of the use of the katana in close quarters was interesting, and I wonder if it has any bearing on the discussion, particularly in wooded battles and melees.

I don't have a problem with the idea of a phalanx being effective, I just wondered how often the situation would lend itself to allowing its formation.

And the dope on Hastings was also interesting, but in our case, remember that your hypothetical adversaries are equally competent and rested as yours. All that differs are the weapons and the methods of their feudal warlord master ... you.
 
Jim, your adversary is a traditionally armed Japanese army of the 13th century, so you don't have to worry about heavy calvary unless it's what you'd want for your troops.

Are your Spartans turning to Mongols or Welsh Longbowmen? Don't know a thing about the latter, but I wonder if the longbow requires a special wood not found in Japan?

And what will your troops turn to in close quarters (and just out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone ever got close enough to the Mongols to find out).
 
Guys, I'm not "picking" anybody. I'm pointing out the variables so far.

Prior to the Spartans making their famous stand, they went to one battlesite where they knew the Persians were coming. And saw that the geography for the kind of defense they needed to pull just stank. They walked away before the Persians got there, despite losing a potential Greek ally city/state.

Geography matters.

So do objectives and goals. The Mongols were pathetic at holding another army at bay from a fixed position...they needed to get out on the Steppes and harass somebody to death.

"Light harassing infantry" of that type CAN do a defensive fight, but only if they keep their nomadic base full of their women and children well hidden. That's what Cochise and Geronimo with 34 braves of that sort of "light cavalry" did to 5,000 US troops around 1868 if I recall. The Chiricauwa(sp?) Apaches used "home field advantage", detailed knowledge of their home mountains...same as the Seminole did in their Florida swamp.

This is a COMPLEX subject. The Hoplites always had lesser troops to the rear with less armor but using bows, javelins and heavy slings to throw crap at the enemy over the heads of the front-line phalanx. The Romans did the same thing.

Let's say we're talking open country, time limit of eight hours, each side has a home base to protect a mile apart. War's over when the other base is taken or there's no enemy left. 10,000 troops per side. I'd take 6,000 full-armor Hoplites, 3,000 Mongols or Comanche light horse (same basic idea) to harass/raid and fill in the flanks, and 1,000 Welsh Longbowmen to soften the other side up prior to the phalanx hitting 'em. Short of guns, the Welsh were the best shooters ever. The bowmen would hang back a bit, protect base. If things go bad, the Greeks knew how to retreat in order and them and the bowmen could hold the base even if outnumbered, leaving the Mongols to screw with the other guy's base or harass the enemy's rear.

That's assuming we leave out 14th century European heavy cavalry. Line 10,000 of 'em up on what amounted to "combat-bred Clydsdales" and they'd just run right over the top of the opposition to the goal. But if there's no goal, just simple extermination, half that number of Mongols would just plink 'em to death as they ran circles around 'em.

If the other side used 10,000 heavy horse-knights against my 3,000/6,000/1,000 mix, the Hoplites could form a dense wall and try and protect the longbowmen who actually hit back hard'n'heavy and the Mongols harassed their flanks and rear. It would be a real crapshoot who won at that point, with a slight advantage to the knights, especially if it was a "fixed goal to defend" situation.

If it's a longer campaign where supply lines are a factor, the Mongols were unmatched in raiding and hit'n'run stuff.

Now, that's using nothing but "historical type units". By the time of the US Civil War, "cavalry" started becoming something different: elite GROUND troops with better weapons, more ammo and not necessarily great horsemen, who used their rides to get where they needed to be and then fought on foot. Put Welsh Longbowmen on horses and you'd get the same effect. That wasn't done in the old days because European bowmen (even the Welsh) were considered "peasant troops" and peasants didn't ride horses for economic and social reasons. Change THOSE rules around and you could really chew up the enemy's rear with the kind of stuff that barsterd Nathan Bedford Forrest mastered for the Confederacy (and was soon copied). We still use something called "air cavalry" for the same thing, substituting air/chopper travel for horses to do deep-penetration raids of the Forrest type.

Jim

[This message has been edited by Jim March (edited 01-19-2000).]
 
A great summation of military history Jim.

Let me reiterate that the main question to which this hypothetical battle relates, is that the katana and its method of use was essentially unchanged for many hundreds of years ... why?

Given the technology of the time and the materials available in feudal 13th century Japan, were more effective arms and techniques possible? Jim has certainly explored more possibilities than even I imagined. Or did the katana wielding samurai represent the best of what could be developed under those conditions.

I don't deny that it's a complex subject. But given the urgency attendant in winning a war, you'd think that someone in all those hundreds of years would've tried some of these ideas, unless there were factors (resources, climate, terrain) that preclude their use.

The 'variables' actually simplify somewhat when you consider that English Yew wasn't available, so maybe longbows weren't feasible. Nor are the poor farm lands likely to support the growth or maintenance of a 10,000 Clydesdale sized heavy calvary.

In fact, there may not even have been enough metal to support the arming of 10,000 soldiers with shields sufficient to deflect a sword blow.

Given all these limitations, a warlord in 13th century Japan, even one imbued with western military savy (13th century vintage), would find his options restricted.

Does that leave him with the samurai and his katana?
 
As I have said, this can really get pointless, but if people want some basic information on arms, equipment, and tactics of Classic Greek, Macedonian, and Roman armies, I suggest that they order first John Warry's "Warfare in the Classical World", available for $17.56 from Amazon. It is probably the best basic discussion of Greek, Macedonian, and Roman warfare that I have seen. And, yes, Classic Greek is very different from Macedonian, as in Alexander. If this whets your interest, I would suggest Peter Connolly's "Greece and Rome at War", also available from Amazon, but rather more expensive at $34.97, but worth every penny of it! Connolly is a wonderful historian and artist with a real sense of his subject, he really brings the ancient battles to life.

Jim March, the Thebans beat hell out of the Spartans with the heavy phalanx, the Macedonians beat hell out of the Thebans with the heavier yet phalanx, and the Romans beat hell out of the Macedonians by taking advantage of the inflexibility of the very heavy phalanx.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
Hugh, I'm sure there were infinite variations on classical-world heavy infantry.

Back to Japan a sec: don't count out cultural influences on the apparant "slow development" of the Samurai. At one point, the Katana's guard (tsuba) tended to be very small because of a widespread feeling that it's dishonorable to "hide behind" a bigger one mebbe 3.5" to 4" or so across. That lasted more than a generation, as I recall.

You've also got a major emphasis on "respect for elders" and "respect for teachers" that may have had a stifling influence on development. The heads of the various martial schools (Ryu) were more or less the only ones seriously branching out into different tactics and skills, and some were more hidebound than the average Bishop. Invasions were few and far between; they would have forced new tactics and doctrine in much the same way as the Europeans forced gun development on 'em, which they mostly didn't want anything to do with.

Remember how the Shogun era ended: the Emperor's peasant gun troops massacred the main Samurai stronghold at what's now Kyoto in 1864 (or was it 1868? whatever
smile.gif
). That's exactly what the Bushido class feared for hundreds of years...

Jim
 
Thanks guys, this has all been very interesting (for me at least), and certainly any discussion that attempts to explore a valid point without digression or flames isn't pointless.

Jim, thanks for pointing out the cultural factors as well. It may be that the samurai/katana enjoys a reputation largely untested by large scale combat against differing styles.

I guess the Mongols had the best shot at this, but were largely blown away (and not by the samurai) in 1281.

Once guns were available of course, the issue became moot.

Always interesting to know where lies the Achilles heel, especially for seemingly invincible systems. Who knows, perhaps if history and culture had played itself out differently, the samurai cult might have given way to something startlingly dissimilar. What form that would've taken (if any) remains fascinating speculation for me. Thanks.
 
Thank-you Jim. That bit of Japanese history demonstrates very clearly the ideas I've been trying express. It is very difficult or impossible for we of the Modern Western Mind to fully understand the Ancient Mind in any culture, place, or time.

Tactics and armaments depend on the place, time, and characteristics of the opposition. No particular tactic or weapon is necessarily Superior to any other. The evolution of tactics and armaments is influenced very strongly by a whole bunch of factors.

To point out the futility debating the superiority or inferiority of any edged tool, consider the debates folks have here in the forums about the 'ideal' blade shape, grind, or type of steel for knives. There is no ideal hunting knife, or tactical knife, or Sword. Everyone has their own ideas about the perfect blade. These ideas depend on our individual backgrounds, experience, place of living, philosophy, beliefs, etc.

The 16th century Spanish were able to easily conquer the Aztecs with relatively few men. Many aspects of the Aztec's Culture contributed to their demise, including their view of the World, their religion, their way of making war, and their perception of the Spanish invaders.

It is true that the Spanish had guns and horses and armor. One might say superior war technology. But the sheer numbers of Aztec warriors could have easily overwhelmed the Spanish. But a European style of battle never occured. The Mindset of the Aztecs prevented them from killing off the Spanish.

Just one example: the Aztecs had practiced what were called 'flower wars' for centuries with their neighboring city states. Since they all belonged to One centralized government, these 'wars' were not battles over territory. They were battles of honor. The purpose was primarily for the capture of victims for sacrifice. The principle Aztec weapon was a curved obsidian blade something like a kuhkri. The object of a battle was not to kill the enemy, rather, to sever his Achilles tendons to disable him and make him easy to control.

The spread of technology of any sort and the use it is put too depends on the culture, place, and time that the technology is introduced. In Japan, the Katana sword and the cult of Bushido was considered for centuries to represent the highest form of the warrior way and combat. And it didn't change for centuries because the ancient Japanese took great pains to preserve it and not to be influenced by the Western World. That they did not have access to significant quanities of high quality iron ore probably also played a role. But so did their religion, history, and traditions.

Last thought, what do you think would have happened if the US Army had to face the Western American Indians in the final skirmishes (e.g. Chief Joseph and the Nez Pierce, the Comanches, etc.) after the Civil War (the War of Northern Aggression to Hugh) Without using gunpowder based weapons? Would heavy armor, longbows, catapults, or other examples of 'superior' Western Technology have made a difference? I don't think so. I think the US ARMY would have lost Big Time.

Paracelsus

[This message has been edited by Paracelsus (edited 01-19-2000).]
 
Jim, I was not talking infinite variations but hard, cold battles. The only name that I remember is Pydna where the Romans beat up on the Macedonian phalanx by having a cohort hit them from the flank. I think that the battle where Philip of Macedon beat the Thebans was Cynocephelae, but I acnnot remember which one was the one where Epaminondas and his Theban Sacred Band whipped the Spartans. Ah, well.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
My $.02

"Epaminondas and his Theban Sacred Band whipped the Spartans" at Leuctra in 371 BC.
 
Then again, a note on the Spaniards, small pox and influenza did in (according to some theories) as much as 90% of the Aztec population.

A good study on why European culture has emerged as dominant is "Guns, Germs, and Steel" Jared Diamond.
He attributes a greater part of the influence to germs.

[This message has been edited by Kkimo (edited 01-19-2000).]
 
KKimo, that is a great point. The spread of disease (both intentional and unintentional) by the newcomers from the Old World was probably the Most significant thing that shaped the history of the Americas post Columbus. Of course syphilis spread back to the Old world from the new world.

Hugh, thanks for the book references. The last post reminded me to mention: Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. The book explores all of the ideas expressed in this thread and then some. The history of the world has been profoundly shaped by geography, availibility of raw materials, culture, and disease.

Also notable is John Keegan's, A History of Warfare

Paracelsus

kkimo, LOL, you are faster with your edit inserts than I am a writing posts. But Jared Diamonds book is very good

[This message has been edited by Paracelsus (edited 01-19-2000).]
 
If we're talking about a hypothetical war between a European army just before the cannon came, and the average North American tribe on their home ground, I'd bet on the "Indians". Especially if we're talking about Indians after the Comanches, Sioux, Cherokee, Apaches and others became horsemen.

Why? Because most were Nomadic. They'd be able to play hell with supply lines and could hide and move their home base. They could trade geography for time and position, extending and then raiding the invader's supply lines.

There were some in the Eastern forests and even swamps who could have effectively used terrain to make life really nasty. See also Osceola and the Seminoles. Even without horses those guys would have been a headache and a half.

The only chance a very good Western general might have had would be to ally with some tribes against the others. That sort of thing happened.

Don't underestimate the Indian's flexibility. Cochise's tribe had been trading guns with Mexico for over a generation when they had a successful run-in with the US Army. They had their own gunsmiths and were damn good shooters, unlike the Lakota tribes. At the Little Big Horn site you can find rifle shells that were split all the way up the side from being fired in a rifle with more bore than what the cartridges were designed for...they weren't great shooters. They got lucky, cuz that moron Custer left his two brand-new Gatling guns with 10,000 rounds each back at the fort
smile.gif
. (The lesson: pack the BIG gun, even if it's a nuisance. CCW holders take note
biggrin.gif
.)

Infinite details.

Jim
 
And just so we complete the circle, don't forget that Toshiro Mifune showed us in "Red Sun" how a samurai can deal with an indian attack
smile.gif
(Loved that mosquito scene).
 
I agree with Paracelsus that different situations demand different weapons, tactics. The Japanese fought many wars, but only fought large massed battles in the open areas a couple of times, and all of those were lopsided slaughters. Japanese Samurai Fought much like european knights, in that whey fought as a group when necessary, but always preferred to engage in individual deeds of derring-do to distinguish himself under the eyes of his lord. This makes command and control difficult for the best general, and makes the kind of coordinated fighting on the level of a Greek phalanx or a Roman legion impossible
The european knight never made up more than 2% or so of a country's population. In Japan the Samurai class made up 8%. The classic Samurai warrior as we think of in the west is a wealthy man who fights primarily on horse, but can fight on foot as needed. Poorer Samurai fought on foot and while carrying a sword, their primary weapon was a spear.
The Katana is, in my opinion, the best sword design for use by and against opponents who are lightly armored or not armored at all. Against full plate armor, it would not be effective. Slashing weapons are most effective against leather or other non-metallic armor. Metallic armor, especially heavy metal armor is best attacked by stabbing weapons or impact weapons like maces or axes.
A word on Japanese bows, they are much larger than european bows normal sizes range between 8 1/2 and 11 feet in length. Pull weight is about 125#. The bow pulls 1/3rd of the way up from the bottom so it can be used while standing in the stirrups of a running horse. The arrows are long, common measurement is the distance between the archers shoulder points + 20". The arrows are about 4 times as heavy as european arrows with a heavy armor piercing point. Maximum effective range was 125 yards. In other words, short range armor punchers.
Yes, the Japanese had stirrups early. They had been long-time users of them whem Kublai Khan attempted to invade.

------------------
The thorn stands to defend the Rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict
 
Fudo, what's your opinion of the effectiveness of a metal shield and sword against a katana?

I don't believe there were many (any?)opportunities where this ever happened in Japan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top