Tachi versus katana in horseback fighting

[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