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.