Tachi versus katana in horseback fighting

[tsubame1]

Hi Chris, here we've room enough to discuss.

I'll reply to your posts with my suggestions :

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

In all the serious literature that I have seen, the distinction between the Tachi and the katana is about how they were worn/slung and not about hilt length. Tachi edge down, katana edge up. And I have never seen a tachi or katana with a one hand hilt nor any suggestion to this effect.

Sorry, PMs don't hold pictures so I've to bother you here again.
The cord at the end of the hilt is a retention cord to be wrapped around the whirst in order to avoid the loss of the sword when cutting. It's impossible to
wrap such a cord on both hands. Even if not all Tachi mounts have such a cord, the mounts has been engineered to have it. This is an evidence of its use as a single hand sword, no matter about the lenght of the Nakago. Don't be fooled by terms, think at the actual use (pictures attached).

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

From Wikipedia

Wikipedia isn't a scholarly accepted source.

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Form The Connoisseurs Book Of Japanese Swords by Kokan Nagayama:

This is a quiet good entry-level source but it's about Kantei, not about
Samurai fighting. Nagayama never quotes the reasons of the shift from Tachi to Katana, as to say the shift from horsback fight to foot one. Think about this :
why to change a weapon in such a shift if it wasn't needed ?
Katana was better suited for fighting by foot. Obviously Tachi were still produced and used, but the trend was changed forever.

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

I could give a number of other citations from respected authorities, but for lack of space will refrain from doing so. However, I'll add that the only Japanese native long-sword that I am aware of that was used with one hand (according to some sources) was the uchigatana, which appeared late in the Muromachi period. It complemented the Tachi when fighting afoot and is considered the precursor of the katana, as was worn edge up.

Uncorrect. The Uchigatana is simply another name for Katana.
In every period of japanese history there were blades of different lenght
to complement the Tachi, spreading from Tanto to Kodachi to Uchigatana.
The one-hand (shorter handle I prefer to say) sword you refer to is Chiisagatana. The fact is that in the older times there weren't rules or fashions to follow about weaponry as was in later times. Similar lenght blades
were mounted in Tachi style (I've handled several and have pictures of them
obviously). Backup blade to use when the mai sword was gone or if needed by
fighting afoot. Shorter handle.

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

That the double handed grip was a handicap was recognized by the legendary Musashi in 1645 when he wrote".

Musashi never fought by horse. His teaching is mainly about NiTo, two-swords, extremely useful in Edo period. Being this his experience it's obvious he applies HIS standards to the horsfighting.

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Note that Musashi was trying to correct the then prevailing practices, perhaps being influenced by Europeans

These are your assumptions that you have to prove with evidences.
In Musashi's time (as in any time of japanese history till to Meiji) there were no european influences about the use of swords. Guns. Armor, helmets, but not swords and even less swordfighting by horsback.

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

It will do us well to remember that the Tokugawas curtailed the maximum length of blades so as to prevent warfare and most long tachis were cut down to fit in with the peace time requirements. By the Meiji restoration most katanas were of the order of 70cm, considered to be the standard length. So if we examine the bulk of those strange swords, with a knuckle-bow attached to their longish hilts, we will find a rather short blade - Totally unsuited for mounted use.
Additionally, the tang of the Japanese blade follows the curvature of the blade and makes it impossible to fit a downward drooping hilt, as was generally considered desirable in a cavalry weapon by that era. The downward drooping hilt is essential when using the point as when the arm is extended the curved blade's point is aligned with the axis of the arm.

I'm not saying that the "adapted" katana/shortened Tachi were better cavalry swords then the standard wester-replica ones. If you re-read my previous post I quoted exactly the same : at Edojidai the japanese sword begun a dueling one, no more suited for use in moder cavalry tactics
So it's unfair to compare the two. And then I mentioned the armmor and heltms etc.etc.
I highlighted this because of they were still used by officers.

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

To my mind lack of needs equates with lack of application, which equates with lack of experience and thus of understanding.

In my mind lack of understanding of the cavalry use means they were poor horseback figters in THEIR envinronment. Absolutely not the case, either for
tactics and for weaponry. You probably meant lack of understanding of WESTERN or OTHERS cavalry tactics/use, that is irrelevant to the japanese
chained environment.

[tsubame1]

Sorry forgot pictures of the tachi whristlace :

[Philip]

Dear Tsubame-san
Thank you for your very interesting presentation. I had the opportunity to discuss tachi with a friend and colleague, Mr. Francis Boyd of Berkeley, CA -- you may know of him as a maker of very fine Japanese swords according to traditional methods, mainly in the styles of the Kamakura era. He has made quite a few tachi, and knows quite a bit about their use.

Francis does confirm that the tachi was "born" during the era of cavalry warfare. The length of its blade makes it well suited for use from the saddle, as compared with the shorter katana, which for fighting on foot. [Similarly, the "peidao" of China also follow this dichotomy as re blade length -- longer for the horsey guys, though the outward configuration of the weapon is similar in both cases].

I commented on the distinct upward (dorsal) curve of the tachi's tang and hilt, as so admirably illustrated in the photo you posted. While doing so I held one of his tachis in a two handed grasp similar to what I felt normal for a katana. Boyd corrected me, saying that for cutting at the gallop, a one handed grip was the norm (after all, you need to steer the horse with the left hand), and the grip that looked so odd to me was actually quite efficient for a thrust.

He showed me: rotate the tachi so that it's edge-up. The curve of the hilt harmonizes with your wrist angle for a thrust, the pommel is out of the way and the geometry of the hilt seems to balance the blade better. Try the same thrust with a dead-straight hilt, and you'll feel the difference.

Later, when I started collecting Vietnamese weapons and taking an interest in the dha sabers/knives of Burma and Thailand, I started seeing these same dorsally-canted grips. Colleague and fellow forumite Mark Bowditch told me that this was a very prevalent feature on dhas, as a whole. Some of the Vietnamese examples were pretty radical. A Vietnamese fellow who trained in martial arts confirmed what Francis had demo'd to me with his tachi.

[tsubame1]

Hi Philip, sorry I've not put a signature in my profile. I'm Carlo and don't deserve the -San , rather the -Kun, in friendly, even if maybe intense, discussions as this one.

Probably the issue that started the discussion is the difficulty to relate Tachi and Katana use to western swords terminology.
"Not a two hand sword" here doesn't mean "one hand sword".
The closest thing to japanese types of swords that come to my mind is the Oakeshott's "one-and-a-half-hand", more known as "bastard" sword, being the Tachi closest to one-hand but still suitable and, in effect, used also with two hands by foot, and the Katana closest to two-hands use but still suitable for one-hand too, comes to mind Iaido/Iaijutsu/Kenjutsu first strikes from unsheated sword that are always made with one hand only.

The same difficulty might be found to relate the Japanese horseback fighting with most of the other ones, that we can even call more evoluted but that I would like, rather, to call "suited to a different environment", meaning "environment" the summa of geographical (rough terrain), economical (lack of terrain to breed vast numbers of horses) cultural (absolute absence of personal shields) natural (sturdy and resistant horse races, 7 if I remember well, but not as swift as most others) factors that influenced either the develop of cavalry tactics and the cavalry troops equipment.

It's hard to call "cavalry charge" a Takeda one, even if it was renowned during all the Sengokujidai as the strongest japanese cavalry ever, if you compare it to Balaklava. Cavalry charges in japanese history were always quiet slow, accompained by running footsoldiers (Kerai, Ashigaru, whaterver) supporting the horseman (Samurai, Hatamoto, whatever).
Contrary to common knowledge, Nagashino is not an exception.
Balaklava is obviously more suited to our "collective imagination" then
Nagashino, as a cavalry charge.

So I can understand my counterpart's confusion in certain points as the shape of the sword needs to be related to actual use and tactics and can't be compared to use and tactics in much later times and other environments.
Japaneses fully understood the high value of cavalry, establishing a cast of
horsefighters, the Samurai, that ruled the country as the real power for 8 centuries. They developed cavalry according to their needs and situation.
Truly western-way equipped and trained Meiji cavalry never fought in Japan but in Manchuria and other continental countries as China or Korea, even Siberia in 1917 supporting the Zar. Really far from the environment (meaning as above) that started the development of Tachi from Chokuto and later Katana from Tachi. So any comparison to early cavalry and weapons to later
or western ones isn't, to say the least, fair if used to establish a hierarchy
of "better than...".

EDIT : the owning of a real Tachi helps for sure. I too own one, even if
not with Koshizori, and this made me able to experiment the same feeling before to put it in Shirasaya. Mounting too old and far behind any type of restoration.

[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

[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.