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

[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!

[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 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

[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.

[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 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.

[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

[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

[Philip]

Equine Museum of Japan -- that's a place I need to visit. By the way, did you know the Japanese, like the French and Belgians, like to eat horse meat? A friend brought back some horse jerky from Japan. Most Americans would think it is gross, I like it though. Cheval a la tatare is popular with those who can afford it. There aren't as many horses per capita in Japan so the meat is rather expensive. (Sorry guys for wandering off post, I can't resist talking about food!)

Thanks for the list of horse breeds. Are your pics in the same order as you list them in the text?

Some of the breeds in the photos are quite diminutive. I say that because recently I was studying some pictures of military officers in the imperial army of Vietnam during the 19th cent. Their horses are really short of stature. I don't know how the breeds common to SE Asia may be related to the ones we're talking about, Japan and north Asia. I'm not a zoologist, unfortunately, but am fascinated by the role of animals in human history.

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

1. I would like to add that one of the first things that the Japanese army did during the Meiji restoration was to import foreign war horse blood stock, and when they galloped off onto the battle fields of Korea, China and Manchuria, it wasn't on the native breed.

2. tsubame1. Thanks for posting those pictures. Do you know when they were painted? The one on the left looks 19th century... I have a painting, I believe from the Kamakura era, that depicts a samurai afoot, with a two handed grip on his tachi, so they were essentially a two handed sword as I said at the outset, though they could be used with one hand. However, as a Japanese expert explained to me, who was very conversant with Euro sabres, it is very difficult to effectively wield a Japanese sword with one hand (the hilt!) and this is why Musashi's advice was not taken up all that enthusiastically.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Philip

Equine Museum of Japan -- that's a place I need to visit. By the way, did you know the Japanese, like the French and Belgians, like to eat horse meat? A friend brought back some horse jerky from Japan. Most Americans would think it is gross, I like it though. Cheval a la tatare is popular with those who can afford it. There aren't as many horses per capita in Japan so the meat is rather expensive. (Sorry guys for wandering off post, I can't resist talking about food!)

Thanks for the list of horse breeds. Are your pics in the same order as you list them in the text?

Some of the breeds in the photos are quite diminutive. I say that because recently I was studying some pictures of military officers in the imperial army of Vietnam during the 19th cent. Their horses are really short of stature. I don't know how the breeds common to SE Asia may be related to the ones we're talking about, Japan and north Asia. I'm not a zoologist, unfortunately, but am fascinated by the role of animals in human history.

Yes Philip, the pictures are in the same order as captions, even if two are
side-by-side due to the format of the page, I assume. Those have to be read as RIGHT one first. I think that the horses are of different age and that the lack of a common scale for the pictures makes us not able to correctly
get the real dimensions.
Yes, horse meat is expensive, as bovine one. This get us back to the lack
of space for breeding and the need to have robust breeds able to grow in
mountain or anyway hard environment being the better plains used to feed
humans.
There is a 7th type of breed I've not posted because
there is room for only 6 attachments per post.
As you are intrested I attach it hereunder :

Misaki breed :

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

2. tsubame1. Thanks for posting those pictures. Do you know when they were painted? The one on the left looks 19th century... I have a painting, I believe from the Kamakura era, that depicts a samurai afoot, with a two handed grip on his tachi, so they were essentially a two handed sword as I said at the outset, though they could be used with one hand. However, as a Japanese expert explained to me, who was very conversant with Euro sabres, it is very difficult to effectively wield a Japanese sword with one hand (the hilt!) and this is why Musashi's advice was not taken up all that enthusiastically.

I'm not specialized in painting, I'm specialized in weaponry. If you have transmitted your suggestions to your japanese friend, being the Tachi used with two hands from horseback, you should have been already advised of your error by him.
More, even if the pictures are affectively (not late) Edo products, I would suggest that being the Edo the period of Katana, if the artist was in error in his depiction, as you tacitly suggest in your statement, he would have been portraied the horseman with a two-handle grip rather then the single-hand one. This is, IMHO, a further evidence that they were and are well aware
on how a Tachi was used *by horse*.

And now, to stop this mirror-climb you're making, you force me to remember that the responsibility of proving your assertion is yours.
As seems you'r familiar with Kamakura-era paintings, likely worthing thousand of dollars, please post a Kamakura Era picture depicting a Samurai cutting
with a Tachi using a both-hands grip from horseback.

[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.

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

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

I would contest that. By memory and not pretending to know the truth: First of all cilician armenians were allies of Il-Khanids and it is a very big question how many of Il-Khanids fighting in Syria were mongols per se and how many were armenians and so on. Second the "pony" story mostly comes from Marco Polo and one does not really know whether Il-Khanids used ponies or not. There are questions about mamluk horses as well - did they used as mongols many horser per rider or just one? It seems that mamluks had supply train with "horse food", while mongols relied on local grass - the reason why first things mamluks always did was to burn the grass.

Every book I have read on mamluk-Il-Khanid was is an example of how little is known about it. If mamluks were elite fighters and mongols were average soldiers amassed without any selection, why mamluks were so respectful and to some extent scared of them. If mongols were superior fighters, why the war was quite decisevely going the way of mamluks? What was the difference and similarity in arms and tactics ? All of these is usually answered using observations on authors (Marco Polo, Bar-Hebraus etc.) that were done in a completely different place, in a different time but also on "mongols". Timur's army imho is far better researched - western diplomats accomanying the horde and even Ibn-Khaldan himself.

[Chris Evans]

tsubame1

I made two assertions, both in the context of this great big world and not that of isolated Japan;

a) The Japanese sword makes a lousy cavalry weapon; and
b) they did not understand cavalry.

You objected to this, but so far apart from obviously not liking my assertions, keep on reiterating that the Japanese did what they did because that is all they needed. This does not amount to any kind of serious argument or support for your objection.

The very fact the Japanese discarded their native sword and horse in their cavalry once it caught up with that of the rest of the world, in the 19th century, and that nobody else either saw fit to adopt their sword or horse when cavalry was at in its golden age, despite adopting the Central Asian curved sabre is proof enough of my view. The onus is still with you to prove the opposite. And to labour the painfully obvious, how the Japanese fought amongst themselves, isolated from the rest of the world is irrelevant in this discussion, save to undesrcore the fact that they never grasped the potential of cavalry.

And there I rest my case.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi,


1. These are the swords that the modernized Japanese cavalry opted for:

http://hometown.aol.com/machood/meiji.html

2. This is what a Meiji era cavalryman looked like when mounted.

3. Here is an interesting thread re Japanese cavalry in pre modern times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Nagashino


Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

And this is how a 19th century Central Asian Tartar horse soldier looked like on his Mongol pony.

Cheers
Chris

[Valjhun]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi,
2. This is what a Meiji era cavalryman looked like when mounted.

This is not Meiji, but rather showa....

I'm following this debate with interest. It would be great to hear what Rich has to say.