| Author |
Message |
|
Timo Nieminen
|
 Posted: Wed 16 Nov, 2011 12:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Johan Gemvik wrote: | | Though not the best weapon for armourd combat, there are records of "normal sized" Japanese swords being blunted on purpose before battle. |
I'd like to learn more about this. What primary sources are available? |
All I can find is a modern source: http://www.tsuki-kage.com/faq.html (search for "sand"). The original looks to be post #6 on http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1563 . Whether this is mentioned, and a source given, in any of Obtata's books, I don't know.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
   |
 |
|
Colt Reeves
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Nov, 2011 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lancelot Chan wrote: | www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Um1EaoRRLRc#!
Some Japanese armored combat work demonstrated from 3:00. |
That looks pretty realistic and martial in spirit, though I found the most interesting part was at 4:42, when one guy used his helmet or hat as a buckler.
Do you have more info on this clip? I'm afraid I don't speak/read/write anything but English and all I can do is watch the action.
"Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown.
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown.
As my loss is grievous, so my hope is small.
For Iron, Cold Iron, must be master of men all..."
-Cold Iron, Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jess Rozek
Location: Burlington, VT Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Nov, 2011 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow... lots of helpful information already! I had no idea that katanas weren't used as battle swords... but weren't battles originally fought as a duel between samurai (of course when the samurai were established) and then finished as a military effort with the ashigaru? And, just out of sheer curiosity, where did the samurai carry the tachi or odachi?
Slightly related question (yes, I'm totally taking advantage of the combined amount of knowledge here  ), did ashigaru (foot-soldiers) carry just yari and naginata with them or did they also carry a sword or axe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas A. Gaese
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 100
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Nov, 2011 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Colt
The video provided by Lancelot is a demostration of armoured fighting kata's from the renowned Yagyu Shinkage style, one that is around the same age as the late 15th century Katori Shinto style. Both may have changed slightly over the centuries, but between the two styles, they are probably the closest thing to the original medieval fighting arts in Japan today.
Jess
Judging from period art (as im not well versed in Japanese field tactics) I'd say that the samurai engaged those from the opposite side similarly to how European Knights did, as they were initially armoured horsemen. The various foot soldiers probably had arranged themselves into formations in support of the Samurai and to engage in the opposing foot. The tachi was just an older style katana and was the typical samurai sidearm during battles. The odachi was used on foot by dismounted samurai and possibly well off foot soldiers.
During the Tokugawa dynasty, there were no more battles to be fought, as a conciquence the sword became more closely associated with the samurai class (even more than it had been before) and its design had been optimised for the unarmoured duel (like the European rapier). This is the birth of the typical katana as many know it today. it differed from the tachi in that they had different hilt styles and typically shorter blades with more of a " V " shaped cross section and near flat edge bevels. This made for the typical super uber sharp edges katana are known for, at the cost of durability. However, the loss in durability ment little as fights were short and far between, leaving plenty of time to polish and re-profile out any damage suffered during then.
The weapons of the Ashigaru consisted largely of yari, bows, and later muskets. To my knowledge some had swords, but this may had depended on their station. For instance some Ashigaru may have been lesser samurai who could not afford full armour and horses, or may have been higher retainers of samurai. Either way, some could afford decent half or even three quarter armours of sorts, and I have seen images of Ashigaru with naginata's and the like, so ya I guess its all fair play. Keep in mind the difference in quality, as the higher end stuff would always be strictly for the samurai, while poor foot and peasant militia often made do with minimal gear and occasionaly sharpened shafts of green bamboo.
Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Lancelot Chan
Industry Professional
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Nov, 2011 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jess Rozek wrote: | Wow... lots of helpful information already! I had no idea that katanas weren't used as battle swords... but weren't battles originally fought as a duel between samurai (of course when the samurai were established) and then finished as a military effort with the ashigaru? And, just out of sheer curiosity, where did the samurai carry the tachi or odachi?
Slightly related question (yes, I'm totally taking advantage of the combined amount of knowledge here ), did ashigaru (foot-soldiers) carry just yari and naginata with them or did they also carry a sword or axe? |
and one thing that ive always seen as quirky about japans style of warfare, virtually no axes, and not much in the way of clubs and maces
one notable exception is the tetsubo/ kanabo, which was essentially a studded club or an iron cudgel, the size varied but the most famous is the 2 handed version featured on deadliest warrior though i dont think they were quite that heavy.
though considering warfare started out as system of mounted archery
i would also like to point out that the katana isnt quite just an edo period weapon, it was used in the closing stages of the sengoku period (warring states era) by samurai on foot and ashigaru.
the transition to an army more dominated by foot soldiers meant the tachi was less useful, being harder to draw quickly, and of course better suited to cavalry action.
they probably still had tachi, but just switched them out with an uchigatana when fighting on foot but you might be right.
nicholas, while your mostly right about the early samurai, just to elaborate, unlike the frankish knights the samurai were largely mounted archers initially. this was aroundthe 10th to the 14th centuries after that, the bow was used by ashigaru in foot squads much like english longbowmen.
in the later warring states era, the yari became the cavalry main arm, but there are examples of much smaller matchlocks, whoes name suggests they were used by horsemen, by the time invasion of korea by hideyoshi in the 1590's the bow had largely been abandoned as a cavalry weapon of battle.
and it sounds like the main japanese tactic was to run up to a medium distance, fire a matchlock volley, then have the samurai armed with melee weapons charge the enemy.
that said, we should define what era of samurai we are talking about, much like which century of european knight we are looking at.
the toughest samurai armour is the tosei gusoku, this was the latest style, having the least number of plates in the breast,
according to our article on japanese armour, it mentions that the tosei gusoku also rested alot less weight on the shoulders, alot being transferred to the thighs.
its the kind you see in the movie the last samurai.
often riveted togeher to form what was essentially a solid cuirass, and some are known to have proofed breastplates.
this doesnt even include the styles of armour that copied the european style of back and breastplate.
as for defeating japanese armour.. go for the feet, they didnt have the sabatons of the later plate armoured knights,
although one website reckons that they occasionally had brass splints sewn into their animal skin boots to stop their feet getting cut.
another weak point for japanese armour is that some parts were still laced together, like the shulder guards, this makes then easier to damage and break through since the lacing can be cut by slashes or the edges of a thrusting dagger spear or sword. as one thrusts at the shoulders
the kote or armguards arnt usually as extensively proteciveas european plate, or even ottoman style plated maile armour. since they primarily dealt with slashes they are maile (which was usually not riveted) with a cloth backing with small plates sewn in, unlike plated maile it doesnt possess solid bauzbands for the lower arm the hands arnt as extensively covered , meaning broken fingers are more likely if contact with the hand is achieved, though most would argue that plate gauntlets with individual articulatable fingers are vulnerable to breakages due to the small size of the plates
like i said, they didnt make much use of crushing or high impact weapons.
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html heres an article on myArmoury on japanese armour styles
as for the knights i think we can agree that we are dealing with european full plate harnesses from 1400 onwards, like the gothic, milanese, and maximillian style of armour.
which, i think we can agree leaves quite alot less gaps.
|
|
 |
|
|
Colt Reeves
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Nov, 2011 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lancelot Chan wrote: | Dan, if you have seen how Yakumaru Jigen Ryu fights, you will DEFINITELY have no doubt about their idea of using non-heat treated and blunt nodachi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5dAUfTQjSw |
Ok, I realize there may be some validity to the practice, but I laughed through the first minute of that video. 
Not really that weird though, just a horizontal pell if you will, but the screaming/wailing bit makes it a bit humorous to watch.
And thanks Nicholas. Having a name to relate it to and use to hunt up further information is always nice.
"Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown.
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown.
As my loss is grievous, so my hope is small.
For Iron, Cold Iron, must be master of men all..."
-Cold Iron, Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
|
Lancelot Chan
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Nov, 2011 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That was my first reaction many years ago when I came to know this style. I still have a good time laughing from time to time now.
According to the info I received many years back then, the yell actually has combat value to scare the opponent on the battlefield. The prowess of this style was very well known, high mobility and high power. The key is on their footwork and that's why they wipe the sand with their feet every time after their practice, to not let anybody knew their secret.
Being able to hit with a stick that fast, was not easy. It was not arms strength they were using but the feet's power. I've only discovered this after I've practiced Chinese martial arts for years and realized what their legs were doing to help coordinate the attacks.
So while funny at first glance, it was not nonsense at all.
| Colt Reeves wrote: | | Lancelot Chan wrote: | Dan, if you have seen how Yakumaru Jigen Ryu fights, you will DEFINITELY have no doubt about their idea of using non-heat treated and blunt nodachi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5dAUfTQjSw |
Ok, I realize there may be some validity to the practice, but I laughed through the first minute of that video.
Not really that weird though, just a horizontal pell if you will, but the screaming/wailing bit makes it a bit humorous to watch.
|
Ancient Combat Association —http://www.acahk.org
Realistic Sparring Weapons — http://www.rsw.com.hk
Nightstalkers — http://www.nightstalkers.com.hk
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Nov, 2011 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lancelot Chan wrote: | Dan, if you have seen how Yakumaru Jigen Ryu fights, you will DEFINITELY have no doubt about their idea of using non-heat treated and blunt nodachi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5dAUfTQjSw |
What has that got to do with deliberately blunting your sword for combat?
|
|
|
|
|
Lancelot Chan
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Nov, 2011 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Lancelot Chan wrote: | Dan, if you have seen how Yakumaru Jigen Ryu fights, you will DEFINITELY have no doubt about their idea of using non-heat treated and blunt nodachi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5dAUfTQjSw |
What has that got to do with deliberately blunting your sword for combat? |
Well, not deliberately blunting a sharp sword, but using a sword that wasn't polished sharp and not edge hardened.
Because they were meant to be hitting against enemy's armor and swords altogether. Having a sharp blade, especially with hard edge, means they would very soon have turning a nodachi into a wakizashi during action... (broken)
Ancient Combat Association —http://www.acahk.org
Realistic Sparring Weapons — http://www.rsw.com.hk
Nightstalkers — http://www.nightstalkers.com.hk
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Nov, 2011 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Colt Reeves wrote: | | Lancelot Chan wrote: | www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Um1EaoRRLRc#!
Some Japanese armored combat work demonstrated from 3:00. |
That looks pretty realistic and martial in spirit, though I found the most interesting part was at 4:42, when one guy used his helmet or hat as a buckler.
Do you have more info on this clip? I'm afraid I don't speak/read/write anything but English and all I can do is watch the action. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzc3lsacKNI&feature=related heres a segment of okinawan kobudo being demonstrated.
in the form of timbe rochin plus other styles , which is shield of a sort, and either a knife or short spear.
though more commonly i see the timbei (shield,) as being held more like a aspis or target. rather than a buckler, the fact that while the traditional shield is a turtle shell, the fact that the rattan shield is often used makes me think its based off chinese tempei (rattan shield) and weapon techniques,
which are manifested alot more commonly in the korean military manuals like the muedobotongji and the muedobotongjis 16th century predecessor which was created after the japanese invasions where the koreans drew heavily on the chinese expertise and moves to develop a system for their army, since the koreans disdained swordsmanship as part of their confucian system they had close to no close combat capabilities and when the japanese did their thing i.e a mass of angry armoured samurai armed to the teeth and thirsty for kills, the koreans, generally just picked up and RAN in particular the rattan shield makes up a significant part of their demonstrations, since the korean techniques are designed with infantry squad maneuvers in mind, with men using swords and shields backing up long spearmen, who back up the swordsmen etc.
but in mainland japan, such dedicated shield use never developed.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Nov, 2011 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lancelot Chan wrote: | Dan, if you have seen how Yakumaru Jigen Ryu fights, you will DEFINITELY have no doubt about their idea of using non-heat treated and blunt nodachi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5dAUfTQjSw |
Utterly ridiculous, but probably the most realistic battlefield technique I have seen in martial art
Jokes aside, this is actually quite true. In a battlefield context, agression and momentum is a lot more important than convensional swordsmanship.
Rushing a foe untill he tips over, and then whacking him until he stops moving is the most likely way to kill someone. In a context like this, the weapon does not need to be fully optimized for armour penetration.
The same can be seen in early-high medevial europe, during the "age of mail". This period sees few, if any, dedicated anti-armour weapons. Swords have long striking blades and maces are not very common. Spears are good anti armour weapons, but in this period their design is not optimized for penetration either.
Consequently we can asume that these weapons where found sufficient for period warfare.
This changes with the introduction of plate armour and helmets that cover the face and neck.
Likewise, it could be asumed that japanese armour never became heavy enough to prompt the introduction of specialiced anti-armour weapons of the polaxe/roundel dagger/hand and half-sword/short hafted mace kind.
Further more it could be added that actually killing someone on the battlefield would not be extremely common as such. Battles where determined more by morale, momentum and manouvering than casualties, and an army would typicaly rout before loosing a large persentage of their forces.
Once this happened, deaths would be more due to curcumstances than weapon design or technique.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Nov, 2011 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | I find the idea of intentionally blunting a sword before combat to be hard to believe for a number of reasons. |
Philippo Vadi recommends using a special longsword sharp only near the tip in armoured combat, and pictures of special swords for single combat in armour are common in 15th centruy Latin Christendom. Since cuts were useless, why not use a sword which would take less damage and be gentle on your hands in spada in arma grip? But that's different from blunting a sharp sword.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Nov, 2011 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Very different. There are plenty of examples of blunt or edgeless swords. My problem is the claim that Japanese deliberately blunted the edge of a perfectly good sword rather than choosing a different weapon that was specifically made for the task.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Nov, 2011 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Johan Gemvik wrote: | | Though not the best weapon for armourd combat, there are records of "normal sized" Japanese swords being blunted on purpose before battle. |
I'd like to learn more about this. What primary sources are available? |
The only mention I have heard of blunted samurai swords is in a book by Don Cunninghan, he mentions Samurai police using purposely blunted wakizashi, this was because a criminal was to be captured alive if at all possible and this type of weapon was used like a truncheon. Samurai police had a variety of non-lethal weapons available.
Here is a similar weapon, it looks like a sword but upon close inspection it is actually a blunt triangle shaped blade which looks like it was made from a bayonet.
http://s831.photobucket.com/albums/zz238/estc...?start=all
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Nov, 2011 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: Armor Piercing Techniques |
|
|
| Jeffrey Faulk wrote: |
Samurai armour is technically a form of lamellar for the most part, although some forms of it have a solid metal breastplate as opposed to a lamellar breastplate.
. |
Actually early samurai armor was lamellar, later armor was laminar and then eventually plate was used, it really depends on which period of time you are talking about, before the use of firearms, after the development of firearms and finally the Edo period were both old and new styles of armor were used.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Nov, 2011 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | Jess, your assumption that the katana was the primary battlefield weapon of the bushi is incorrect. The katana is a street fighting weapon: the tachi, the field sword, was on average several inches longer, and most katana were cut down tachi (from the REAR, not the front! ). |
Actually the tachi was a long sword developed for horse mounted warfare, shorter swords like the uchigatana and katana were needed as warfare tactics changed and shorter swords were needed for fighting on foot. | Quote: | | most katana were cut down tachi |
in reality most tachi were cut down to a smaller size and made into what we now call katana, that is why the supply of original tachi is quite small but katana were also made as katana and were not ever tachi.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Nov, 2011 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nicholas A. Gaese wrote: |
During the Tokugawa dynasty, there were no more battles to be fought, as a conciquence the sword became more closely associated with the samurai class (even more than it had been before) and its design had been optimised for the unarmoured duel (like the European rapier). |
During the Edo period while it is true that the large scale wars were a thing of the past there was plenty of fighting happening, just in a different scale, I doubt that a samurai would have fought any duel "unarmoured", samurai had a huge variety of lightweight portable armor and armored clothing including hidden armor available and this type of armor was manufactured and worn right up to the end of the samurai era. If you take a close look at period prints you can see a lot of armor being worn under the clothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Nov, 2011 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jess Rozek wrote: | | did samurai use the same technique since lamellar, while still hard, is not as impenetrable as metal. Also, it seems there are more gaps in samurai armor than in knight armor, so how did that affect were samurai would cut to? |
Jess, the lamellar armor worn by samurai was composed of many small scales (kozane) which were lacquered and laced together into rows, the kozane were iron or alternating iron and hardened leather (rawhide) kozane.
When you see a suit of samurai armor it does look like there are a lot of gaps but when talking about lamellar armor worn by a samurai mounted on a horse you will find that those gaps would be quite hard to get to. there would be many over lapping layers of armor covering the most vital areas, it would not be near as easy as people seem to think it would be to approach a mounted samurai and deliver a fatal blow.
This image shows a samurai wearing a old style lamellar armour except he is pictured with out facial armor. He is armed with a tachi and a small sword and has a yumi (bow), the armor covers the vital areas, approaching a samurai such as this on foot no matter what weapon of the time you had would put you at a severe disadvantage, even to approach on horse back would be dangerous, there would be no easy way to attack someone armed and armored like this.
Here is another image from a book I own, you can see how hard it was for two mounted samurai to fight each other, not an easy task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Nov, 2011 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | Jess, your assumption that the katana was the primary battlefield weapon of the bushi is incorrect. The katana is a street fighting weapon: the tachi, the field sword, was on average several inches longer, and most katana were cut down tachi (from the REAR, not the front! ). |
Actually the tachi was a long sword developed for horse mounted warfare, shorter swords like the uchigatana and katana were needed as warfare tactics changed and shorter swords were needed for fighting on foot. | Quote: | | most katana were cut down tachi |
in reality most tachi were cut down to a smaller size and made into what we now call katana, that is why the supply of original tachi is quite small but katana were also made as katana and were not ever tachi. |
well if you want to be super technical. the thing which seperates the tachi from the katana are how its worn
'tachi, worn edge facing downward (like virtually every other sabre) and the scabbard suspended from the bely with a system of loops and cords, the names of which i dont know
the katana was a sword thrust through the belt, normally with the edge facing upwards.
since there are katana that are mounted very similarly to tachi. but the are just thrust through the belt and not hung from it.
the other part of the definition is that of the length of the weapon. since both tanto and shoto (this means short sword, includes both wakizashi and kodachi) were worn thrust through the belt with the edge up, but are not classified as katana/ daito,
for those who dont already know this, japanese blades are classified according to BLADE length (interesting since i dont think it includes the handle)
tanto are blades less than 1 shaku (one foot) long,
shoto are blades between 1 and 2 shaku,
between 2 and 3 shaku are daito, including tachi and katana
anything above 3 shaku long blades are nodachi or Odachi
(to give people a sense of scale, the hanwei odachi is only a little bit shortar than my entire body with a 49 inch long blade and , including the handle, is 67 inches long. thats about 5 and a half feet, im 6 foot)
the odachi was in pretty much every aspect, the japanese equivelent of the famous german zweihander.
just explaining a few semantics surrounding japanese blades.
btw, the nagamaki, is a katana length blade with a handle of nearly equal length, or possibly longer, naginata have much longer handles and usually shorter blades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic