Samura battle tactics

Hello, I just joined. I am an aficionado not just of Samurai history
but also of ancient warfare in general. I am a sansei, third
generation Japanese-American who speaks Japanese fluently (but read
very little) and have lived in Japan for 18 years.

I noticed that in studying classical Roman and Greek warfare, that
there is much information on group warfare: phalanxes, troop
organizations, siege weapons, strategy, but little on individual
combat.

Conversely, in studying Japanese warfare (with English books) there
are lots of info on individual combat but almost nothing on battle
formations, battle strategy, and group warfare. I realize this is
because traditionally Samurai called out their lineage to their
opponents and fought individually only with those who they considered
worthy.

I read that this practice began to change with the Mongol invasion,
as the Mongols couldn't understand Japanese, and that slowly, this
practice of calling out their lineage and past heroism began to fade.

So the question is, did the Samurai ever begin to form troop
formations such as the phalanx, maniples, in order to fight as a
group?

A book I recently read, "Carnage and Culture" implies that they did
not. That the reason western armies were so successful around the
world is because they employed these troop formations that rather
than focusing on individual combat.

Regardless, does anybody know where I can find info on Samurai group
strategies and troop formations rather than individual discipline and
man to man fighting?

Regards,
Richard

I'm not deeply versed on the subject of specific
formations and the like, but I do know I have about 8
jpg's of Japanese battle formations after firearms
started seeing regular usage, so I'm assuming these
particular ones were used in the short span from the
time Oda Nobunaga rose to power to when the Toyotomi
line was killed off. If you'd like, I can try and
send them to you personally.

Also, in the book "samurai warfare" there's a good
deal of paintings and plates of large Japanese armies
either going into or in the midsts of battle. The
book as well as several others also tell how battles
were generally fought, usually with the highest
ranking general (shokun, daimyo, whatever word you
want to use) watching from a nearby hill or some other
place to get a good overview of the field. Each
daimyo, and possibly highly celebrated warriors of
lesser rank, had a standard bearer to show where his
force was on the field, and the head general from high
atop his hill would send specifically chosen runners
(I forget what book it was but I did read a great deal
on the importance, training and ability of these
chosen message carriers) to relay messages/orders
between himself and each standard worthy leader.
Below that I think each leader was pretty much
responsible for his own type of organization amongst
his troops.

Wearing sashimono was obviously one way of keeping
order and telling who was who on the battlefield, and
the previously mentioned standards also helped. I
beleive I read that one of the reasons that there's
not much written on Japanese mass warfare is that the
Japanese never had any great literary generals like
the west did. Generals were too busy warring most of
the time so most of the accounts we have of battles
before the end of Sengoku Jidai are accounts written
by people not in the military. And this is not even
taking into the account the possible number of lost
records during such an unsteady time as the Sengoku
period.

I beleive Japanese warfare was very highly regulated
much like their wastern counterparts, I think it's
nearly impossible for a country with a history of so
much war to have gotten by just sort of "winging it",
and reading of genius minds like Hideyoshi Toyotomi, a
man who once had the perspective to use the seasonal
monsoons of Japanese to submerge a castle he was
beseiging, I just can't see the Japanese being so
inept at mass warfare as nearly everyone insists that
they are.

I am a full blooded american with nothing but
anglo-saxon roots, but it offends me to hear Japanese
warfare spoken of in such a negative fashion these
days. It used to be left at "the Japanese were more
specialized and better at personal combat whereas the
Europeans were better at keeping order and mass
combat", but even that is being challenged these days
by people who insist in the superiorty of European
fencing, unarmed combat and actually have the gull to
compare the european sword to the katana.

I could rant on, but I'll do that some other time.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Richard-
Seems like after 18 years it is time to start crunching those kanji! I
recommend the works of Sasama Yoshihiko. "Nihon Senjin Saho Jiten" has
some especially good entries on battle formations and tactics, along
with some enlightening bits on battlefield customs...
-t

Hi Tom, you write:

>Seems like after 18 years it is time to start crunching those kanji!<

Ha, ha, touche! I tried several times but I just couldn't get into it. Being a US army brat in Japan with Japanese looks, my Dad focused my education on being American. I may still get to reading Kanji someday. But meanwhile, how about briefing me on what you read. Did the Samurai have something equivalent to the phalanx? Did the front lines hold even and try to penetrate each other's defenses or was the battle similiar to what is usually shown on tv and film where the warriors inter-penetrate each other's lines and get involved in numerous man-to-man melees all over the field with no clear demarcation of sides? I'm thinking that was probably the case in Japan, that that was the reason why they needed the sashimono, so they would know who was on who's side.

Richard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Craz,

Sure please send the jpg's if they're not too big.
Regarding comparison's between European and Japanese martial ways, I think it's like comparing apples and tangerines.
But there are some things that can definitely be compared. The sword for one, as you mentioned. Most experts consider the Japanese swords as the best swords ever made, even compared with edged blades made under current technological specifications. And in my opinion, I consider the Greek phalanx under Alexander the most awesome and fearsome infantry battle formation ever created. Can you imagine facing a quarter mile front of 16 to 18 foot pikes, with spearheads five deep? Even if you get past the first one, you got four more in your face, not to mention from all sides. No matter how good the Samurai warrior was in individual combat, I think they would have shared the same fate as all those that Alexander confronted and destroyed. But, that's just my opinion. We'll never know as Alexander never got that far. It would also have been interesting to see how the Mongols would have fared in an all-out war against the Samurai. Since the Mongol invasion was thwarted by typhoons, there were only a few brief skirmishes in which the Samurai is said to have done well. A full on war would have changed the history of Japan as we know it.

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: CRAZ
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Samura battle tactics


I'm not deeply versed on the subject of specific
formations and the like, but I do know I have about 8
jpg's of Japanese battle formations after firearms
started seeing regular usage, so I'm assuming these
particular ones were used in the short span from the
time Oda Nobunaga rose to power to when the Toyotomi
line was killed off. If you'd like, I can try and
send them to you personally.

Also, in the book "samurai warfare" there's a good
deal of paintings and plates of large Japanese armies
either going into or in the midsts of battle. The
book as well as several others also tell how battles
were generally fought, usually with the highest
ranking general (shokun, daimyo, whatever word you
want to use) watching from a nearby hill or some other
place to get a good overview of the field. Each
daimyo, and possibly highly celebrated warriors of
lesser rank, had a standard bearer to show where his
force was on the field, and the head general from high
atop his hill would send specifically chosen runners
(I forget what book it was but I did read a great deal
on the importance, training and ability of these
chosen message carriers) to relay messages/orders
between himself and each standard worthy leader.
Below that I think each leader was pretty much
responsible for his own type of organization amongst
his troops.

Wearing sashimono was obviously one way of keeping
order and telling who was who on the battlefield, and
the previously mentioned standards also helped. I
beleive I read that one of the reasons that there's
not much written on Japanese mass warfare is that the
Japanese never had any great literary generals like
the west did. Generals were too busy warring most of
the time so most of the accounts we have of battles
before the end of Sengoku Jidai are accounts written
by people not in the military. And this is not even
taking into the account the possible number of lost
records during such an unsteady time as the Sengoku
period.

I beleive Japanese warfare was very highly regulated
much like their wastern counterparts, I think it's
nearly impossible for a country with a history of so
much war to have gotten by just sort of "winging it",
and reading of genius minds like Hideyoshi Toyotomi, a
man who once had the perspective to use the seasonal
monsoons of Japanese to submerge a castle he was
beseiging, I just can't see the Japanese being so
inept at mass warfare as nearly everyone insists that
they are.

I am a full blooded american with nothing but
anglo-saxon roots, but it offends me to hear Japanese
warfare spoken of in such a negative fashion these
days. It used to be left at "the Japanese were more
specialized and better at personal combat whereas the
Europeans were better at keeping order and mass
combat", but even that is being challenged these days
by people who insist in the superiorty of European
fencing, unarmed combat and actually have the gull to
compare the european sword to the katana.

I could rant on, but I'll do that some other time.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
---
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Turnbull's "Samurai Sourcebook" has some decent
diagrams for the more common formations.

As for any idiot who thinks Europeans were vastly
superior to the Japanese on the battlefield, they've
been filled with too much of the stupid Edo period
dueling crap that so many samurai geeks are. By 1575
the Japanese were using firearms on the battlefield to
greater effect than Europeans, and on a much more
massive scale. The only reason Europeans surpassed the
Japanese by the time the two civilizations re-engaged
in the 1800's is that the Japanese had 200 years of
peace, no warfare, so no reason to adapt and change
the way they did things. ONce they saw that need, they
did, and defeated a major European power shortly
thereafter (1904-05, Russia).

--- CRAZ <crazoftheages@...> wrote:

> I'm not deeply versed on the subject of specific
> formations and the like, but I do know I have about
> 8
> jpg's

warfare spoken of in such a negative fashion these

> days. It used to be left at "the Japanese were more
> specialized and better at personal combat whereas
> the
> Europeans were better at keeping order and mass
> combat", but even that is being challenged these
> days
> by people who insist in the superiorty of European
> fencing, unarmed combat and actually have the gull
> to
> compare the european sword to the katana.
>
> I could rant on, but I'll do that some other time.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Nate
Can you expand on your statement that Sengoku period armies were using
firearms 'to greater effect than Europeans, and on a much more massive
scale'?
What are your sources?
I agree that Japanese armies of this period were generally more tactically
sophisticated than their European counterparts throughout this period - at
least until the reforms of Maurice of Nassau in the Dutch Army and the
(slightly later) reforms of Gustavas Adolphus of Sweden.
Where the Europeans appear to have developed a definite advantage is in the
use of siege artillery, naval technology and naval artillery. Gustavus
Adolphus also used lighter, small-calibre field guns to give his infantry
added firepower.
Michael
BAJS; Asiatic Society of Japan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nate Ledbetter" <ltdomer98@...>
To: <samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Samura battle tactics


> Turnbull's "Samurai Sourcebook" has some decent
> diagrams for the more common formations.
>
> As for any idiot who thinks Europeans were vastly
> superior to the Japanese on the battlefield, they've
> been filled with too much of the stupid Edo period
> dueling crap that so many samurai geeks are. By 1575
> the Japanese were using firearms on the battlefield to
> greater effect than Europeans, and on a much more
> massive scale. The only reason Europeans surpassed the
> Japanese by the time the two civilizations re-engaged
> in the 1800's is that the Japanese had 200 years of
> peace, no warfare, so no reason to adapt and change
> the way they did things. ONce they saw that need, they
> did, and defeated a major European power shortly
> thereafter (1904-05, Russia).
>
> --- CRAZ <crazoftheages@...> wrote:
> > I'm not deeply versed on the subject of specific
> > formations and the like, but I do know I have about
> > 8
> > jpg's
>
> warfare spoken of in such a negative fashion these
> > days. It used to be left at "the Japanese were more
> > specialized and better at personal combat whereas
> > the
> > Europeans were better at keeping order and mass
> > combat", but even that is being challenged these
> > days
> > by people who insist in the superiorty of European
> > fencing, unarmed combat and actually have the gull
> > to
> > compare the european sword to the katana.
> >
> > I could rant on, but I'll do that some other time.
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

From: Nate Ledbetter <ltdomer98@...>

>As for any idiot who thinks Europeans were vastly
>superior to the Japanese on the battlefield, they've
>been filled with too much of the stupid Edo period
>dueling crap that so many samurai geeks are.
>

True, in the period of about 1575-1615 or so the Japanese possibly have
the largest modern army on the planet. Most impressive. More discussions
about this appeared on the sca-jml list recently.

>By 1575 the Japanese were using firearms on the battlefield to
>greater effect than Europeans, and on a much more
>massive scale.
>

Tactics for Spain and the rest of Europe were roughly the same as Japan,
i.e. musket and pike/yari. Japan had many fine generals as did Europe.
Certainly Sengoku had honed their treachery, err.. political skills as
well. I would hesitate about the much greater effect since many Western
armies had some form of drill in this period.

>The only reason Europeans surpassed the Japanese by the time the two civilizations re-engaged
>in the 1800's is that the Japanese had 200 years of peace, no warfare, so no reason to adapt and change
>the way they did things.
>

Remotely possible but I highly doubt that 200 more years of warfare
would have modernized Japan to the degree that happened in Europe. Japan
didn't have the access to resources that Europe had and if they had
expanded they may have experienced the same problems that Spain and
other previously great powers had. Also I would argue that Japan wasn't
a country until Meiji and that the individual provinces were still
thinking of independence and kicking out the Tokugawa, which is eventual
what happened. Of course this puts them on par with Italy and Germany
which are both fairly modern themselves.

>ONce they saw that need, they
>did, and defeated a major European power shortly
>thereafter (1904-05, Russia).
>
>

Lucky they didn't win WW2 then.

Jim Eckman

Agreed that the Japanese never used siege weapons
(cannons, etc.) to the extent that the Europeans did,
though they did appear on the battlefield (the cannon
from the Liefde, William Adams's ship, were used at
Sekigahara) and in sieges (Osaka Castle, 1615).

Tactical employment of arquebuses was well advanced in
Japan. Everyone is usually familiar with Nagashino
(1575) and the rotating firing system, and it is often
used as an example of this before it appears in
Europe. What most people do not realize is that this
wasn't nearly the first such instance--just the
largest stage for it. Rotational fire had occured as
early as the mid 1560's for sure (Ikko-ikki) and
Turnbull discusses it as early as 1560 in his Samurai
Sourcebook. At Nagashino we see 3000 (though some
recent scholarly debate has asserted the number was
closer to 1000) guns used in conjunction with natural
and man made obstacles (to me, the REAL genius of
Nobunaga at Nagashino) to create the perfect defense
against a mobile attack. That's what I meant by my
statement.

Nate
--- Pamela Grayer <m.grayer@...> wrote:

> Nate
> Can you expand on your statement that Sengoku period
> armies were using
> firearms 'to greater effect than Europeans, and on a
> much more massive
> scale'?
> What are your sources?
> I agree that Japanese armies of this period were
> generally more tactically
> sophisticated than their European counterparts
> throughout this period - at
> least until the reforms of Maurice of Nassau in the
> Dutch Army and the
> (slightly later) reforms of Gustavas Adolphus of
> Sweden.
> Where the Europeans appear to have developed a
> definite advantage is in the
> use of siege artillery, naval technology and naval
> artillery. Gustavus
> Adolphus also used lighter, small-calibre field guns
> to give his infantry
> added firepower.
> Michael
> BAJS; Asiatic Society of Japan
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nate Ledbetter" <ltdomer98@...>
> To: <samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Samura battle tactics
>
>
> > Turnbull's "Samurai Sourcebook" has some decent
> > diagrams for the more common formations.
> >
> > As for any idiot who thinks Europeans were vastly
> > superior to the Japanese on the battlefield,
> they've
> > been filled with too much of the stupid Edo period
> > dueling crap that so many samurai geeks are. By
> 1575
> > the Japanese were using firearms on the
> battlefield to
> > greater effect than Europeans, and on a much more
> > massive scale. The only reason Europeans surpassed
> the
> > Japanese by the time the two civilizations
> re-engaged
> > in the 1800's is that the Japanese had 200 years
> of
> > peace, no warfare, so no reason to adapt and
> change
> > the way they did things. ONce they saw that need,
> they
> > did, and defeated a major European power shortly
> > thereafter (1904-05, Russia).
> >
> > --- CRAZ <crazoftheages@...> wrote:
> > > I'm not deeply versed on the subject of specific
> > > formations and the like, but I do know I have
> about
> > > 8
> > > jpg's
> >
> > warfare spoken of in such a negative fashion
> these
> > > days. It used to be left at "the Japanese were
> more
> > > specialized and better at personal combat
> whereas
> > > the
> > > Europeans were better at keeping order and mass
> > > combat", but even that is being challenged these
> > > days
> > > by people who insist in the superiorty of
> European
> > > fencing, unarmed combat and actually have the
> gull
> > > to
> > > compare the european sword to the katana.
> > >
> > > I could rant on, but I'll do that some other
> time.
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and
> sharing.
> > > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> > Samurai Archives store:
> http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

One more input on the Nagashino battle,
There is one battle very similar to the Nagashino
bewtween Wu and Yiieh kingdoms during an ancient
Chinese civil war period (Spring and Autumn Period,
about 300 B.C. for this case)
It was the first time when crossbows were invented and
used to pin down calvary soldires of Wu armed with
long spears.It was also one of conflits when Suntzu
initially involved himself in earlier.
I thought that some of you may be interested.




Sincerely,





Changsub Lee




--- Nate Ledbetter <ltdomer98@...> wrote:

> Agreed that the Japanese never used siege weapons
> (cannons, etc.) to the extent that the Europeans
> did,
> though they did appear on the battlefield (the
> cannon
> from the Liefde, William Adams's ship, were used at
> Sekigahara) and in sieges (Osaka Castle, 1615).
>
> Tactical employment of arquebuses was well advanced
> in
> Japan. Everyone is usually familiar with Nagashino
> (1575) and the rotating firing system, and it is
> often
> used as an example of this before it appears in
> Europe. What most people do not realize is that this
> wasn't nearly the first such instance--just the
> largest stage for it. Rotational fire had occured as
> early as the mid 1560's for sure (Ikko-ikki) and
> Turnbull discusses it as early as 1560 in his
> Samurai
> Sourcebook. At Nagashino we see 3000 (though some
> recent scholarly debate has asserted the number was
> closer to 1000) guns used in conjunction with
> natural
> and man made obstacles (to me, the REAL genius of
> Nobunaga at Nagashino) to create the perfect defense
> against a mobile attack. That's what I meant by my
> statement.
>
> Nate
> --- Pamela Grayer <m.grayer@...> wrote:
> > Nate
> > Can you expand on your statement that Sengoku
> period
> > armies were using
> > firearms 'to greater effect than Europeans, and on
> a
> > much more massive
> > scale'?
> > What are your sources?
> > I agree that Japanese armies of this period were
> > generally more tactically
> > sophisticated than their European counterparts
> > throughout this period - at
> > least until the reforms of Maurice of Nassau in
> the
> > Dutch Army and the
> > (slightly later) reforms of Gustavas Adolphus of
> > Sweden.
> > Where the Europeans appear to have developed a
> > definite advantage is in the
> > use of siege artillery, naval technology and naval
> > artillery. Gustavus
> > Adolphus also used lighter, small-calibre field
> guns
> > to give his infantry
> > added firepower.
> > Michael
> > BAJS; Asiatic Society of Japan
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Nate Ledbetter" <ltdomer98@...>
> > To: <samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 3:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Samura battle
> tactics
> >
> >
> > > Turnbull's "Samurai Sourcebook" has some decent
> > > diagrams for the more common formations.
> > >
> > > As for any idiot who thinks Europeans were
> vastly
> > > superior to the Japanese on the battlefield,
> > they've
> > > been filled with too much of the stupid Edo
> period
> > > dueling crap that so many samurai geeks are. By
> > 1575
> > > the Japanese were using firearms on the
> > battlefield to
> > > greater effect than Europeans, and on a much
> more
> > > massive scale. The only reason Europeans
> surpassed
> > the
> > > Japanese by the time the two civilizations
> > re-engaged
> > > in the 1800's is that the Japanese had 200 years
> > of
> > > peace, no warfare, so no reason to adapt and
> > change
> > > the way they did things. ONce they saw that
> need,
> > they
> > > did, and defeated a major European power shortly
> > > thereafter (1904-05, Russia).
> > >
> > > --- CRAZ <crazoftheages@...> wrote:
> > > > I'm not deeply versed on the subject of
> specific
> > > > formations and the like, but I do know I have
> > about
> > > > 8
> > > > jpg's
> > >
> > > warfare spoken of in such a negative fashion
> > these
> > > > days. It used to be left at "the Japanese
> were
> > more
> > > > specialized and better at personal combat
> > whereas
> > > > the
> > > > Europeans were better at keeping order and
> mass
> > > > combat", but even that is being challenged
> these
> > > > days
> > > > by people who insist in the superiorty of
> > European
> > > > fencing, unarmed combat and actually have the
> > gull
> > > > to
> > > > compare the european sword to the katana.
> > > >
> > > > I could rant on, but I'll do that some other
> > time.
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and
> > sharing.
> > > > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and
> sharing.
> > > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Samurai Archives:
> http://www.samurai-archives.com
> > > Samurai Archives store:
> > http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> > > ---
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > > samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Nate
While I agree with the general thrust of your argument, I remain sceptical
simply because most english source material is rather vague and makes
sweeping generalisations. I reckon there is a great research project waiting
here for someone who's prepared to study Japanese sources and compare what
was happening in Japan with military developments in Europe.

> Everyone is usually familiar with Nagashino
> (1575) and the rotating firing system, and it is often
> used as an example of this before it appears in
> Europe.

No, this is just not the case. Rotation of ranks, firing by 'introduction',
'extraduction' or whatever you want to call it was already happening in
Europe. In fact it was the only effective way that ranks of
arquebusiers/musketeers could keep up a steady stream of fire. Volley or
'salvo' (ie firing all ranks together) could be devastating if troops held
their nerve, but was risky since there would now be a time lapse before they
had all reloaded.

> At Nagashino we see 3000 (though some
> recent scholarly debate has asserted the number was
> closer to 1000)

Even 3000 would still be a very small percentage of Nobunaga's army (less
than 10%). Most European armies would have had a higher percentage of
firearms than that. Perhaps it was the combination of arquebusiers with
archers plus obstacles (?).
Perhaps the heavy rain the previous night was decisive (remember the French
knights floundering in the mud at Agincourt?). Nobunaga's use of obstacles
may have been a stroke of genius, but even this has already been used in
Europe to great effect during the Italian Wars 50 years previous.
Michael

Richard O.,
I am not ignoring your question, I am just on a different jag right
now. when I can I will revisit what Sasama Sensei has to say on the use
of these formations...
-t