Japanese Use of Cavalry

Please, anyone with any knowledge of Japanese cavalry
tactics/operational warfare, up to Sekigahara, please share with me.
I'm doing personal research into the subject, being a cavalry officer
in the US Army and an amateur Sengoku-Jidai buff. It's hard to find
anything here at Fort Knox, KY, even though it is the US home of
Cavalry and Armor...lots about European cavalry, but nothing about
Japan other than the Takeda "cavalry charge" at Nagashino, which is
always written about too simply. As I am sure you all know, it's hard
to find anything beyond introductory level stuff in English. Nihongo
ga dekimasu ga, Japanese resources aren't really available in
Kentucky. Thanks for the help.

Nathan Ledbetter

On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:38:07 -0000 Nate
<ltdomer98@...> wrote:

> Please, anyone with any knowledge of Japanese cavalry
> tactics/operational warfare,

snipped...
As I am sure you all know, it's hard

> to find anything beyond introductory level stuff in English. Nihongo
> ga dekimasu ga, Japanese resources aren't really available in
> Kentucky. Thanks for the help.

I'm afraid I'm not offering any specific help to your
enquiry. But I sympathise. I am an archaeologist, mostly
involved with castle studies in Europe. Very fruitful
comparisons could be drawn between the development of
European and Japanese castles, but their is no serious
recent work available in translation. The problems we face
are similar; where do we go beyond the work of Stephen
Turnbull?

What is really required is a project that can unite
academics and enthusiasts from Japan and the English
speaking world enabling a sharing of ideas and research.
This would depend for its success upon a significant
number of multilingual intermediaries. My guess is that
there are far more Japanese medievalists who speak/read
English, than English speakers who also know Japanese.

Jon Freeman

> Please, anyone with any knowledge of Japanese cavalry
> tactics/operational warfare, up to Sekigahara, please share with me.
> I'm doing personal research into the subject, being a cavalry officer
> in the US Army and an amateur Sengoku-Jidai buff. It's hard to find
> anything here at Fort Knox, KY, even though it is the US home of
> Cavalry and Armor...lots about European cavalry, but nothing about
> Japan other than the Takeda "cavalry charge" at Nagashino, which is
> always written about too simply. As I am sure you all know, it's hard
> to find anything beyond introductory level stuff in English. Nihongo
> ga dekimasu ga, Japanese resources aren't really available in
> Kentucky. Thanks for the help.

Did you take a look at Farris' HEAVENLY WARRIORS and the references he
cites there? Farris is at Univ. of Tenn. at Knoxville; they may or may not
have a good collection of Japanese works. Have you also tried the University
of Kentucky and their Japanese studies center?

Best, Mark Hall

>I am an archaeologist, mostly
> involved with castle studies in Europe. Very fruitful
> comparisons could be drawn between the development of
> European and Japanese castles, but their is no serious
> recent work available in translation.

That definately sounds fascinating - I've never been to Europe but I
have seen the remains of numerous Japanese castles - - would the
comparable developments you are talking about be related to the
physical construction, the materials used, or to the layouts of the
castle itself, type of location the castle is situated at...? I'd
definately be interested if you have any interesting thoughts or
insights on the subject.

CEWest

>
> That definately sounds fascinating - I've never been to Europe but I
> have seen the remains of numerous Japanese castles - - would the
> comparable developments you are talking about be related to the
> physical construction, the materials used, or to the layouts of the
> castle itself, type of location the castle is situated at...? I'd
> definately be interested if you have any interesting thoughts or
> insights on the subject.
>
> CEWest
>

Check out (at least the abstract):

Senda, Yoshiro (1999) A Formation of a Medieval Castle Town: A Comparitive
Study on the "Incastellamento" in Japan and Europe. Bulletin of the National
Museum of Japanese History 77, 85-112.

at-- http://www.nbz.or.jp/eng/medieval1.htm

Best, Mark Hall

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:23:24 -0000 Christopher West
<kitsuno@...> wrote:

my bit snipped....

> That definately sounds fascinating - I've never been to Europe but I
> have seen the remains of numerous Japanese castles - - would the
> comparable developments you are talking about be related to the
> physical construction, the materials used, or to the layouts of the
> castle itself, type of location the castle is situated at...? I'd
> definately be interested if you have any interesting thoughts or
> insights on the subject.

In a nutshell: the basic materials of stone timber and
earth employed in castle building were the same, although
the way in which they were used i.e. methods of
construction and layout were quite different.

The principle similarity is in a functional sense in that
both European and Japanese castles were the defended
residences of feudal lords, and therefore were
multifunctional complexes fulfilling administrative,
economic, residential, and probably only occasionally,
military roles.
I must say I am envious, as I haven't seen any Japanese
castles "in the flesh". Do you have any interesting
pictures?
Jon Freeman
University of Exeter

> I must say I am envious, as I haven't seen any Japanese
> castles "in the flesh". Do you have any interesting
> pictures?

I've uploaded 3 pictures to this list that I had on hand, available
at the 'files' link on the righthand side of the listserve homepage.
I can't find any other of my pictures at the moment, but these were
taken at the remains of a caslte in Saiki, Oita prefecture, Japan. I
don't remember the name of the castle, but I believe it predates the
Sengoku period. I have to assume that the remains are mostly
foundation, because I am under the impression that Japanese castles
used more wood than European ones. The 'viewfromcastle' picture is
just that - a view from the castle, just to give an idea of location.
it had a 360 degree view of the surrounding area, and the hike to the
top is a steep, winding and wooded road, ideal for defense.

It wasn't until I returned to the USA and took a Japanese Art History
class did I learn to take multiple pictures of the same
building/object from different angles for later study - that helped
me out later when I returned to Kyoto, but I have yet to return to
Kyushu to get more pics of the castles...

CEWest

If I can find a scanner, I have an extensive
collection of castle photos...between my wife and I
we've been to quite a lot of them.


Gifu-jo,Inuyama-jo, Nagoya-jo, Kiyosu-jo,
Hiroshima-jo, Takamatsu-jo (the remains in Shikoku),
Matsuyama-jo, Iwakuni-jo, Himeji-jo (of course...I
have only about 300 pictures of this one), Okayama-jo,
Osaka-jo, Nijo-jo, Ueno-jo, Edo-jo (okay, the outside
bridge), Okayama-jo, Hamamatsu-jo, Matsumoto-jo..I
think that's it.

Inuyama and Himeji are particularly good, as those are
not reproductions.

If this is something that would help someone out (and
you don't mind the occaisional headshots of me or my
wife) than I'll try to scan some; if someone already
has most of these, then let me know.

Nate Ledbetter




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

For me, the most interesting castles are the remains of the
originals. Omura castle in Omura, Nagasaki is amazing - all that is
left is the foundation and some walls, but one side of the wall is
about 50 feet strait up. I didnt have my camera with me at that
point, but I was able to climb up the side of the wall. The castle
itself wasnt really on a hill, but the foundation was build up so
high, it appeared that it could have been well fortified. Castles
like momoyama and osaka are interesting, but something about those
concrete monsters just don't fly with me... or maybe the kids
themepark within spitting distance of Momoyama castle turned me off.
Other notables such as the iceskating rink on the top of mt. hiezan
at the enryakuji come to mind here...

CEWest

Hi Nathan -

Thought I'd reply, not from any great scholastic viewpoint, but as an eclectically-read Sengoku buff like
yourself.

I think the first thing I'd say is that the samurai never employed cavalry 'units' such as you and I understand
them. This stems from the early samurai days, when the way of the warrior was 'the way of the horse and the
bow', and the mounted warrior would go to battle with one or more 'footmen' as we might call it, as much as
he could afford. The unchanging nature of samurai culture over almost the entire warrior period meant that
this practice was carried through from the upper strata of samurai to the low - armies were raised be levies,
holders of land having to supply themselves and a number of men, some mounted, some on foot, fully armed
and ready for battle, according to their wealth, which was determined by their income from landholdings. This
meant that even through to the late Sengoku days, daimyo armies bore a greater resemblance to early
medieval warbands than to organised military units.

The emergence of ashigaru - the lightfoot - in the Onin Jidai increased the proportion of footsoldiers to
mounted, and samurai armies swelled in size, but two armies, be they or 10,000 or 100,000 men each, would
not necessarily conform to the same proportion of horse and foot, nor to the disribution of arms within the
armies. Oda Nobunaga's armies, apparently, were known for their significant percentage of ill-trained
footsoldiers armed with long spears. Tokugawa armies evolved, I believe, with a significantly larger percentage
of 'reliable' troops at all levels (this might reflect the fact that Oda was a cruel commander who often turned
on his own retainers. Tokugawa never struck against one of his own without a valid reason, which would have
increased his attraction in the alliance stakes - you could trust him more than the others). What the ashigaru
did bring was a need to manage larger numbers of foot soldiers, which required their commanders to organise
them by weapon types, so we have the emergence of companies of spears, of archers, of gunners, etc. I
don't think any daimyo ever raised 'ashigaru cavalry' as a separate arm.

This meant that even among Takeda units, who were usually better organised and managed than their
enemies, and who seemingly favoured mounted troops, there would have been a large percentage of foot
among the horse, so that even the charges against the Nagashino barricades, as shown in Kagemusha, would
have in reality comprised of a mixed force of horse and foot, the footmen 'chasing' their mounted masters
into battle, rather than pure cavalry in a samurai 'Charge of the Light Brigade'.

Another factor is weaponry. Initially a horseback archer, the later, Sengoku mounted warrior was a spearmen
(I still don't understand why, in many translations, spearmen on foot are armed with 'lances' and spearmen
on horseback with 'spears'!), but significantly handled his weapon unlike his European counterpart. The spear
was wielded to left and right, not forward, and was never used in the couch position like a lancer. Therefore
the samurai never evolved cavalry in ordered, shoulder-to-shoulder charges, nor did they develop, as far as I
know, separate all-mounted units for use in pursuit, as heavy and light cavalry evolved in Europe.

My feeling is the pre-eminence of the Takeda cavalry, so often quoted, has more to do with Takeda morale as
a whole than any significant tactical advantage. The defeat at Nagashino of a well-led, well-armed and highly
motivated 'samurai' army by a rabble of 'peasants' armed with guns must have struck a blow against the
samurai psyche from which it never fully recovered.

Lastly, I think a key is in the word 'evolution'. European history has evolved many types of mounted warrior -
hussar, dragoon, lancer, etc., and tactics for their useage accordingly, which came about as different
countries developed their own systems, and then fought each other, so influencing their neighbours. The first
Hussars, I think, were Hungarian light cavalry, which their enemies copied as 'a good idea'. Napoleon raised
regiments of lancers after some unpleasant experiences fighting the Poles on his way to Russia, and the Brits
copied them off him. I don't think the US cavalry ever used lancers? We (the Brits) did right up until WW1.
The Poles still used them in WW2. The samurai 'suffered' in that they never had this process of cross-
fertilisation to introduce new concepts and ideas.

Just some thoughts.

Tom

tom.davidson@... wrote:

> (I still don't understand why, in many translations, spearmen on foot are armed with 'lances' and spearmen
> on horseback with 'spears'!),

Because people writing about them are careless.

Mounted people use lances, too. That's why the British cavalry has "Lancers."

When I wrote my books, I made a point of calling them all lances despite people's use of "spear" because a lance
you poke people with and a spear you toss.

I'm also one of the few people who still makes a distinction between "dagger" and "dirk"



Tony

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 00:03:01 -0800 (PST) Nate Ledbetter
<ltdomer98@...> wrote:

> If this is something that would help someone out (and
> you don't mind the occaisional headshots of me or my
> wife) than I'll try to scan some; if someone already
> has most of these, then let me know.
>
> Nate Ledbetter
>

Yes please, for my own purposes such pictures would be
great.
A collection of castle pictures is something I've been
amassing since I first got hooked, although I have no
originals of Japanese castles, so your offer is
particularly welcome!
Thanks
Jon Freeman
University of Exeter

--- "Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbryant@...> wrote:

> tom.davidson@... wrote:
>
> > (I still don't understand why, in many
> translations, spearmen on foot are armed with
> 'lances' and spearmen
> > on horseback with 'spears'!),
>
> Because people writing about them are careless.
>
> Mounted people use lances, too. That's why the
> British cavalry has "Lancers."

People ARE careless; as a Cavalryman myself, it
bothers me no end that people assume a "Saber" and a
"Sword" are the same thing. I proudly have a Cavalry
Saber hanging in my office, presented to me by my
fellow officers at 4th Squadron, 7th US Cavalry, Camp
Garryowen, Korea. I would NEVER have a sword in my
office. Swords are for whiny navy types.

Garryowen in Glory,

Nate Ledbetter
1LT, USA
D/2-81 AR Executive Officer



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Nate Ledbetter wrote:

>
> People ARE careless; as a Cavalryman myself, it
> bothers me no end that people assume a "Saber" and a
> "Sword" are the same thing. I proudly have a Cavalry
> Saber hanging in my office, presented to me by my
> fellow officers at 4th Squadron, 7th US Cavalry, Camp
> Garryowen, Korea. I would NEVER have a sword in my
> office. Swords are for whiny navy types.
>

Well, technically... "sabre" is a subset of "sword"....


Tony

--- "Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbryant@...> wrote:

> Well, technically... "sabre" is a subset of
> "sword"....
>
>
> Tony
>

Okay, okay...you got me there. But I still wouldn't
have anything but a Saber (I'm from the U.S., I know
we spell it wrong).

See you on the high ground,

Nate Ledbetter

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/

>
> See you on the high ground,
>

Typical cavalry, leaving the poor b. infantry down in the valley, taking all the punishment!

No, I'm not nor ever was in the military, whatever arm, I just couldn't resist the dig ;-)

As an off-topic aside, but in the spirit of this thread, I'm not sure if European heavy cavalry was armed with
swords, whereas the light were armed with sabres, but I could be wrong there.

Either way, in the Charge of the Heavy Brigade at Balaclava (Crimean War, a fantastic cavalry victory
overshadowed by the Light's disaster) the Russian greatcoat turned the points of their swords! Oh for a well-
made tachi then!

Nate - do you know why (and am I right in thinking) that the US never took up the lance? It seems to have
remained a frighteningly effective weapon in Europe right up to the mechanised era.

Tom

>
> Nate - do you know why (and am I right in thinking)
> that the US never took up the lance? It seems to
> have
> remained a frighteningly effective weapon in Europe
> right up to the mechanised era.
>
> Tom
>
>

Hey, that's what the Cav is for...taking the glory
while those poor grunts get the heck pounded out of
them!

As far as why the U.S. Cavalry never took up the
lance, I'm not entirely sure. I would never claim to
be an expert on cavalry history, though I am trying to
learn as much as possible (I'm reading a great book
right now, The Horse in Warfare...pretty good). I do
know that U.S. Cav historically has fought more as
dragoons than as anything else...probably because in
the Revolutionary War that was the easiest
organization for a militia to maintain, and warfare on
the North American continent has never really been
conducive to the grand cavalry battles as in Europe.
By the time the U.S. embroiled itself in conflicts
(The Mexican War, U.S. Civil War) firepower had caught
up with mobility and charges into the guns were not
advisable for cavalry or infantry. Mostof the U.S.
Army's 19th century combat (except for 1812-14,
1846-48, 1861-65, and 1898) consisted of Indian
(Native American) fighting. The Native American didn't
form orderly battle lines and march onto the field
like Napoleon's Grande Armee. Indians were hit-and-run
mounted archers, and to combat them the U.S. Cavalry
evolved into mounted riflemen and scouts. In the U.S.
Army today, cavalry is synonomous with scouts and
reconnaisance. Cavalry has always been more important
in the U.S. as a reconaissance force than as a
striking force (witness JEB Stuart's failure at
Gettysburg), Americans preferring to hit the enemy
with artillery than to charge in among them. Maybe
that's why we never developed "Lancer" units, but I
think it's because the U.S. Cavalry developed
primarily as an Indian fighting force. If we had a
unit of "Lancers" charge and Indian position, they'd
just run...with as much land as we had in the 19th
century, the Indians could just keep running and
running...

I hope this might help, though again I do not claim to
be an expert. Ask me about the M1A1 Tank or what a
modern Division Cavalry Squadron does, and I'll tell
you!

Scouts Out!

Nate



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/

At least in the 18th century, European cuirassiers and most dragoons were
armed with the "pallasch" or straight sword. Hussars used the saber. The
point of the straight sword was used most often, while the saber was
probably used more for slashing. Obviously, we are drifting far from Japan.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom.davidson@... [SMTP:tom.davidson@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 2:19 PM
> To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: Cavalry
>
> >
> > See you on the high ground,
> >
>
> Typical cavalry, leaving the poor b. infantry down in the valley, taking
> all the punishment!
>
> No, I'm not nor ever was in the military, whatever arm, I just couldn't
> resist the dig ;-)
>
> As an off-topic aside, but in the spirit of this thread, I'm not sure if
> European heavy cavalry was armed with
> swords, whereas the light were armed with sabres, but I could be wrong
> there.
>
> Either way, in the Charge of the Heavy Brigade at Balaclava (Crimean War,
> a fantastic cavalry victory
> overshadowed by the Light's disaster) the Russian greatcoat turned the
> points of their swords! Oh for a well-
> made tachi then!
>
> Nate - do you know why (and am I right in thinking) that the US never took
> up the lance? It seems to have
> remained a frighteningly effective weapon in Europe right up to the
> mechanised era.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> samuraihistory-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

If you are interested, I have pictures of Momoyama castle and Osaka
castle - depressing concrete reproductions - but good pictures
nonetheless. I can go ahead and post them to the 'files' area, which
is actually on the LEFT side of the yahoo groups webpage, not the
right side as I stated in an earlier post.

CEWest