Samurai's and ninja's - the link?

Hi everybody,

My name 's Ben and I'm from Belgium.

I have a question concerning the link between samurai's and ninja's.

When I look at the web about this I generally get 2 different statements:

1) Ninja's didn't really exist, their are just a mysterious entity created
in Japanese (ancient) culture.
2) Ninja's are just like samurai's - exept that the ninja works when the
shogun can't doe something the legal way.
3) none of the above but - ...... (your story)

I don't really know a thing about it; so I'm asking you to please clear this
up for me.

Best regards,



Ben

Konnichiwa

Ninja had really existed ,but some descriptions in mangas and movies
are a little exaggerated.
Ninja was often called Shinobi (same kanji character is used in "nin"
of "ninja" and "shinobi",meaning "hide" or so. Many daimyo warlords
in Sengoku era had ninja corps.
Generally, their social status was much lower than samurai.But among
them,like Hattori Hanzou ,the most famous ninja who was the head of
Iga ninja corps, some ninjas were regarded as samurai.He was one of
the most important men of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the 1st Tokugawa shogun.

Ninja worked mainly as a spy and an assassin.Some say Takeda Shingen
and Uesugi Kensin,known as the warlords who used ninja effectively,
were killed by ninja.


Shinsei

In addition to this insightful reply, I'd like to add what I know of the
Ninja origin. From what I have read, Ninja began as militant
monks or warrior monks, who were pretty much hated by most of
the Samurai. In fact, it is said that Nobunaga had many battles
with these types of monks. Because of their zeal, militant
prowess, and great numbers; many of those in power regaurded
them as a serious threat. Out of persecution and thus the need
to be less obvious, the Ninja developed techniques which were
akin to today's stealth technology. They were later hired into
service to use these skills for the purposes of the Samurai.
They seemed to be a necessary evil. I say evil because the way
of the Ninja fully contradicts Bushido. It is a system without
honor. And many Samurai were defenseless, afraid, and
disgusted by Ninja tactics. The Samurai seek glory through one
on one victories over great opponents in open combat. While a
Ninja would sneak into one's home under the blanket of night to
namelessly slaughter whoever he was hired to kill. They were
also spies as before mentioned by sineism.
The only simalarity between Ninja and Samurai are that they
were sometimes both under conscription of a lord. Samurai are
more often regaurded as retainers but Ninja would sometimes
also be retainers instead of the more common mercenary Ninja.
Great Diamyos and Shoguns are usually rumored to have used
Ninja. This was not normally public knowledge until the
Tokugawa government was well in place. This is because it
was shameful for a great lord to stoop to such tactics in a world
dominated by Samurai with thier unique code of ethics. Most
would openly deny use of Ninja, but it seemed to be a common
practice. Ninja if caught by the enemy were certain to recieve the
most heinous death that his captors could imagine. They were
most often regaurded by the Samurai as despiccable and
disgusting.
From my experience with Japanese jidai (period) films, one
theory is that some Samurai were also Ninja(being of a Samurai
family but having the special mission of being Ninja) .
One thing I am absolutely certain of is that Ninja did exist. It
would preposterous to suggest that such a well documented
class of warrior did not exist. Ninja films have been in
Japanese cinema since the 1920's. If you go to any of the
weapon's or antique dealers in Japan you are likely to find an
authentic Ninja jacket. There are countless other examples as
proof of thier existence. The origin however is suspect ; clouded
by mystery and superstition. Hard facts are sometimes difficult
to find.
Hope that helps.

midorinotoradesu

--- In samuraihistory@y..., "sinseism" wrote:
>
> Konnichiwa
>
> Ninja had really existed ,but some descriptions in mangas
and movies
> are a little exaggerated.
> Ninja was often called Shinobi (same kanji character is used
in "nin"
> of "ninja" and "shinobi",meaning "hide" or so. Many daimyo
warlords
> in Sengoku era had ninja corps.
> Generally, their social status was much lower than
samurai.But among
> them,like Hattori Hanzou ,the most famous ninja who was the
head of
> Iga ninja corps, some ninjas were regarded as samurai.He
was one of
> the most important men of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the 1st
Tokugawa shogun.
>
> Ninja worked mainly as a spy and an assassin.Some say
Takeda Shingen
> and Uesugi Kensin,known as the warlords who used ninja
effectively,
> were killed by ninja.
>
>
> Shinsei

Hi Ben,
Regarding your post...Ninja most certainly DID exist in Japan and the
evidence that supports this begins to pick up around the time that the
Sengoku Jidai really started in Japan. The classic idea of Ninja however was
a recent image that was most commonly used in the Kabuki plays of Tokugawa
Japan from around 1700 onwards..Ninja were called by many various names, some
of those including; Kusa (Meaning 'grass' ...was used by the Hojo clan to
describe the men), Iga no Mono meaning 'Men of Iga province' was a general
term for the warriors from Iga that could perform Ninja activities, Shinobi
meant those using the Ninjutsu techniques either in infiltration or spying
activities or in battle. Indeed there are many terms for those men/women used
as Ninja by the warlords...Further 'proof' if you need it is the existence of
'Ninjutsu' techniques still contained in the syllabus of the oldest Japanese
Martial art school the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu which took form in
the 14th century and still contains the espionage teachings in its
curriculum...And then there are the teachings used in Ryuha like the Bujinkan
and Genbukan Ninpo Bugei that are said to be far older than the 1600's in
their history...
There is NO doubt that men using 'Ninjutsu' were used in Japan..The
histories written at the time contain mention of them also. The only real
'debate' here is whether to accept the modern idea of Ninja as the black clad
super magician killer spies..This is however a very recent role given the
Ninja to promote better audience attendance at Theatres in Japan and this
translated well into modern film and television...Ninja are described as
Samurai in the war tales..They wear the clothing that would help them to
blend in and not be noticed by their enemy..They are often described as
expert guides to the forests they lived in and are used as such by warlords
in the tales..They possess knowledge of infiltration tactics and battle
tactics that were required to win the battles or sieges they helped
with..However they are most often called Samurai and I believe that it is
most likely that a majority of them were men of great prestige in their own
communities...leaders of men that commanded a force large enough to be a
great help to those they supported.
Even the books written by these so-called 'Ninja' are dated as being from
the 17th century and at that time the term Ninja was in use by the authors of
such books as the 'Bansenshukai', and 'Ninpiden' for example, This proves
beyond a reasonable doubt that there WERE those who accepted the name and
title of Ninja.
Hope this helps to clear you on a few points..
websites to visit on this are; www.genbukan.com, www.ninjutsu.com,
www.e-budo.com, or the best one at www.ninpo.org
Have fun.
Abayo.
Ben Sharples.

Hi

I think we all know that the ninja in one form or
another did exist.

In fact there are several documents that have survived
from various Ninja Ryu-ha. Momochi Sandayu regarded as
onther of the most famous Ninja has left us with
plenty of evidence of his existance. In fact one of
this houses was until at least the late 70's still
inhabited by his descendants. It was also earlier in
the 20th century that a family member sold the
families collection of documents.

With regards to Ninja documentation there are three
very famous books.

SHONIKI- Correct Ninjutsu memories

In 1681, a book entitled Shoniki, was written by
Fujibayashi Masatake (also known as Notari Sanjuro
Fujibayashi). He was also a Samurai from Kishu. It is
also possible that these two authors Fujibayashi
Masatake, and Fujibayashi Nagato (Bansenshukai) may
have been related. It contains the secret teachings
of the Kishu Ryu.

BANSENSHUKAI - 10,000 rivers gather in the sea

The Bansenshukai (10,000 rivers gather in the sea)
was written in 1676 by Fujibayashi Yasutake a Samurai
from Iga Ueno castle. As the name is the same, as the
famous Fujibayashi Iga Ninja family, and it is one of
the most intensive books on the secret teachings and
tools written solely on the 49 Iga Ninja Ryu. It is
possible that the author was a relative of the
Fujibayashi Ninja family, if not one himself. But as
with all history this is only speculation.

NINPIDEN - Secret teachings of Ninjutsu
In 1653 Ninpiden was written by Hattori Hanzo
Yasukiyo. It is believed to contain the teachings of
Hattori Hanzo, the Ninja chief of Shogun Tokugawa
Ieyasu.

you can view and download the complete Bansenshukai
here http://www.robertk.com/Bansenshukai/

And at
http://www.ninpo.org/historicalrecords/historicalrecords.html
there are selected translations from the above three
books as well as Taiheiki, Kojiki and Azumakagami

Paul

--- fifthchamber@... wrote:

> Hi Ben,
> Regarding your post...Ninja most certainly DID
> exist in Japan and the
> evidence that supports this begins to pick up around
> the time that the
> Sengoku Jidai really started in Japan. The classic
> idea of Ninja however was
> a recent image that was most commonly used in the
> Kabuki plays of Tokugawa
> Japan from around 1700 onwards..Ninja were called by
> many various names, some
> of those including; Kusa (Meaning 'grass' ...was
> used by the Hojo clan to
> describe the men), Iga no Mono meaning 'Men of Iga
> province' was a general
> term for the warriors from Iga that could perform
> Ninja activities, Shinobi
> meant those using the Ninjutsu techniques either in
> infiltration or spying
> activities or in battle. Indeed there are many terms
> for those men/women used
> as Ninja by the warlords...Further 'proof' if you
> need it is the existence of
> 'Ninjutsu' techniques still contained in the
> syllabus of the oldest Japanese
> Martial art school the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto
> Ryu which took form in
> the 14th century and still contains the espionage
> teachings in its
> curriculum...And then there are the teachings used
> in Ryuha like the Bujinkan
> and Genbukan Ninpo Bugei that are said to be far
> older than the 1600's in
> their history...
> There is NO doubt that men using 'Ninjutsu' were
> used in Japan..The
> histories written at the time contain mention of
> them also. The only real
> 'debate' here is whether to accept the modern idea
> of Ninja as the black clad
> super magician killer spies..This is however a very
> recent role given the
> Ninja to promote better audience attendance at
> Theatres in Japan and this
> translated well into modern film and
> television...Ninja are described as
> Samurai in the war tales..They wear the clothing
> that would help them to
> blend in and not be noticed by their enemy..They are
> often described as
> expert guides to the forests they lived in and are
> used as such by warlords
> in the tales..They possess knowledge of infiltration
> tactics and battle
> tactics that were required to win the battles or
> sieges they helped
> with..However they are most often called Samurai and
> I believe that it is
> most likely that a majority of them were men of
> great prestige in their own
> communities...leaders of men that commanded a force
> large enough to be a
> great help to those they supported.
> Even the books written by these so-called 'Ninja'
> are dated as being from
> the 17th century and at that time the term Ninja was
> in use by the authors of
> such books as the 'Bansenshukai', and 'Ninpiden' for
> example, This proves
> beyond a reasonable doubt that there WERE those who
> accepted the name and
> title of Ninja.
> Hope this helps to clear you on a few points..
> websites to visit on this are; www.genbukan.com,
> www.ninjutsu.com,
> www.e-budo.com, or the best one at www.ninpo.org
> Have fun.
> Abayo.
> Ben Sharples.
> *****Hi!, Thanx for the info...But i didnt need

history info....just samurai pics thanx anyway........


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Hi!!

I got a question, if you were Takeda Katsuyori, what
would you do at the battle of Nagashino?, at this
moment, i cant find the way to fight that battle.

Edwin.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

In hindsight, it's obvious...you retreat. You have
15,000, the combined Oda-Tokugawa army has
38,000...you don't fight with that force ratio. I know
the Takeda cavalry corps was superior, etc., etc. It
doesn't matter. You have half your army engaged in the
North against Kenshin, why lose the other half against
Nobunaga? Retreat.

His generals were right

Nate

--- Edwin Angulo <mayalan@...> wrote:

> Hi!!
>
> I got a question, if you were Takeda Katsuyori,
> what
> would you do at the battle of Nagashino?, at this
> moment, i cant find the way to fight that battle.
>
> Edwin.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

It may be obvious from hindsight, however how effective were scouts and
scouting methods in determining the number of opposition forces? With no
radios, no airplanes, or any other ways to take in the big picture, how
would they know they are outnumbered? Would they have a general idea of
available troops based on who the opposing general was, or maybe count the
standards and estimate? I personally couldn't count 38,000 troops on my
fingers ;) so in a battle such as Nagashino, at what point does one realize
they are outnumbered? (not only that, but by the time you are close enough
to count, you have to contend with bullets and arrows.)

c.w.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nate Ledbetter [SMTP:ltdomer98@...]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:37 PM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Question to you all...

In hindsight, it's obvious...you retreat. You have
15,000, the combined Oda-Tokugawa army has
38,000...you don't fight with that force ratio. I know
the Takeda cavalry corps was superior, etc., etc. It
doesn't matter. You have half your army engaged in the
North against Kenshin, why lose the other half against
Nobunaga? Retreat.

His generals were right

Nate

--- Edwin Angulo <mayalan@...> wrote:

> Hi!!
>
> I got a question, if you were Takeda Katsuyori,
> what
> would you do at the battle of Nagashino?, at this
> moment, i cant find the way to fight that battle.
>
> Edwin.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.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
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- westce@... wrote:

>
> It may be obvious from hindsight, however how
> effective were scouts and
> scouting methods in determining the number of
> opposition forces? With no
> radios, no airplanes, or any other ways to take in
> the big picture, how
> would they know they are outnumbered? Would they
> have a general idea of
> available troops based on who the opposing general
> was, or maybe count the
> standards and estimate? I personally couldn't count
> 38,000 troops on my
> fingers ;)

I'm not an expert in samurai scouts. I've only studied
what has been written by others on how they employed
them. But I DO know scouting. I served as a tank
platoon leader in a division cavalry squadron, and
worked extensively with cavalry scouts. I'm now an
intelligence officer and my job is to gather
information about the enemy, using scouts to do so.
Yeah, radios, UAV's, etc are great, but the principles
of recon don't change. You'd have strategic and
operational recon (otherwise known as spies) and have
an idea of what the opposing force had. Katsuyori had
to know the available forces that Nobunaga and ieyasu
had, and would make a guess as to how many of them
he'd have to face.

Next you'd have tactical scouts, what we think of as
scouts. If I was surrounding an enemy emplacement,
you'd be darn skippy that I would not only focus on
that. I'd have scouts out in all directions, waiting
to report on that reliving force I KNOW would probably
be coming. You wouldn't have to count to 38,000,
especially not with a Sengoku army. Look at the
banners....yeah, that's hashiba's banner, and he has
8,000 men under him...I know that from my strategic
recon. Okay, that's Sakakibara, and he has 1000. The
banners made it easy, because not only could you get
an idea of unit size, you knew who was in command.
Nowadays I have to count vehicles, and maybe I'll get
lucky and identify a certain type of vehicle that is
only in at a certain echelon, and I can determine the
size.

so in a battle such as Nagashino, at what

> point does one realize
> they are outnumbered? (not only that, but by the
> time you are close enough
> to count, you have to contend with bullets and
> arrows.)
>
> c.w.

No, you're not. You've seen Kagemusha, I assume.
Remember the scouts from Ieyasu and Nobunaga? The
dingy little peasant spies and the monk? There you
go...there is your HUMINT. They observe and report
back...behind them, you have actual scouts, maybe your
tsukai-ban or another group, mounted for speed...it's
amazing how easy it is to sneak up on someone, even
mounted...and get away unnoticed. If I can do it in a
bradley fighting vehicle, he can do it on a horse.

My point is this: Takeda Katusyori had to know full
well how many men Nobunaga and Ieyasu had. He would
have had an idea of the composition, ie weapons and
the like. He would have known this all before 0500 on
the 28th of June when he launched his charge. He could
have retreated the night of the 27th. And he should
have, in my opinion. Yes, it's hindsight, but speaking
as a military officer, you simply don't attack 38,000
men when you have 15,000. Not unless they have spears
and you have tanks.


nate Ledbetter

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Nate Ledbetter wrote:

>
> My point is this: Takeda Katusyori had to know full
> well how many men Nobunaga and Ieyasu had. He would
> have had an idea of the composition, ie weapons and
> the like. He would have known this all before 0500 on
> the 28th of June when he launched his charge. He could
> have retreated the night of the 27th. And he should
> have, in my opinion. Yes, it's hindsight, but speaking
> as a military officer, you simply don't attack 38,000
> men when you have 15,000. Not unless they have spears
> and you have tanks.

Maybe he fancied himself a new Nobunaga, thinking of Okehazama...

Still pretty stoopid, though.

Tony

Nate is right 100%. You should have never gotten yourself into
that mess. Takeda jr. should have been happy with what he had
and made the fight come to him. Spread himself to thin without
thinking of the consequences. Consequenses that the shrewd
Nobunaga and Tokugawa would make him pay. Of course there
was no expecting the slaughter that was about to occur but the
reason for having great military advice is to use it.

Brandon
--- In samuraihistory@y..., Nate Ledbetter
wrote:

> In hindsight, it's obvious...you retreat. You have
> 15,000, the combined Oda-Tokugawa army has
> 38,000...you don't fight with that force ratio. I know
> the Takeda cavalry corps was superior, etc., etc. It
> doesn't matter. You have half your army engaged in the
> North against Kenshin, why lose the other half against
> Nobunaga? Retreat.
>
> His generals were right
>
> Nate
>
> --- Edwin Angulo wrote:
> > Hi!!
> >
> > I got a question, if you were Takeda Katsuyori,
> > what
> > would you do at the battle of Nagashino?, at this
> > moment, i cant find the way to fight that battle.
> >
> > Edwin.
> >
> >

__________________________________________________

> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> >
>
>
>

__________________________________________________

> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--- In samuraihistory@y..., Nate Ledbetter wrote:

> In hindsight, it's obvious...you retreat. You have
> 15,000, the combined Oda-Tokugawa army has
> 38,000...you don't fight with that force ratio. I know
> the Takeda cavalry corps was superior, etc., etc. It
> doesn't matter. You have half your army engaged in the
> North against Kenshin, why lose the other half against
> Nobunaga? Retreat.
>
> His generals were right
>
> Nate
>
> --- Edwin Angulo wrote:
> > Hi!!
> >
> > I got a question, if you were Takeda Katsuyori,
> > what
> > would you do at the battle of Nagashino?, at this
> > moment, i cant find the way to fight that battle.
> >
> > Edwin.
> >

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree sorry to be pessimistic but I find winning this battle is
almost impossible. Perhaps if Takeda Shingen was still around and
hadn't carelessly been shot by a lowly arquebussier (I think)Maybe
the battle could have been won, One of his famous quotes is "A man
with deep far-sightedness will survey both the beginning and the end
of a situation and continually consider its every facet as important."
If Katsuyori had taken his fathers advice he would not have charged
into the valley of death so to speak. Although he showed great
samurai spirit and followed the code of (Bushido) I.e to advance and
die in battle. He really was fated I am afraid to lose. Perhaps if
he had taken the castle at Nagashino earlier defeated Okudaira
Sadamasa and then spent time fortifying it and courting alliances
with other Daimyo then he may have held ground, but in the end the
superior Oda-Tokugawa army would have won out. Also the battle could
have been won if alot of what-if's happened, for example if the
messenger Torii Suneemon hadn't warned Ieyasu and Nobunaga the battle
would have been over and the Takeda could have perhaps swept onto the
kanto plain (I doubt but maybe) If accounts of the battle are true
then Katsuyori was in a difficult position he had a classic problem
facing any general How to use cavalry as defensive troops? in my
opinion he had no option but to become the attacker as he was
outnumbered out gunned, perhaps out planned? (Sorry all you Takeda
Loyalists) The use of arquebussiers behind screens with pike men and
spear men was I think innovative on a scale never seen before, (I
haven't found out who masterminded this scheme it seems like a
Nobunaga scheme, opinions?) Therefore in conclusion Katsuyori could
not have won the battle unless a number of what if's had occured and
he had taken the castle. He was undoubtebly a brave soul but all to
often in the history of the Bushi it seems that tragic heroes have a
place to play, they are there to be swept aside by the great warriors
who become myths then legends and eventually get to take the prize of
being remembered as they say history is not written by the losers, (I
wonder what Katsuyori would say if he was around, do we really have
any right to judge him, Poor Katsuyori)

Best regards Mark

Hi ,

This is Ben again - the samurai vs ninja guy ^-^.

I want to thank everyone that responded to my question. Some had exellent
info, others exellent sites; some had even both.
All of it was very usefull so once more,

thanks to you all!

best regards

Ben

Nate,

you are right, but as we know from history, many commanders did not
listen to their advisers,

Did you get any luck with your search for Nagashino information?

I have just got a book called Samurai by Mitsuo Kure, in hard back
with a lot of colour pictures of Samurai reenactors and text.
(similiar to his earlier Europa special.
In the UK it cost 30 pounds, which is I guess 43 US dollars.

There is some text on the battle, including the following. (para
phrasing)

Charged because enemy army threatened his rear.
Because Katsuyori was a young man and over confident in his army.
All Takeda Nija scouts had been killed before reporting depth of
enemy position.
Rainy season obscured view.
Most interesting he refers to documentation that says there were only
1500 gunners and not 3000, and possibly only 1000. so gunnery was NOT
decisive.
He discusses topography and excavations at the site as well as style
of warfare at the time.
After the first cavalry charge, its likely the samurai would have
dismounted and fought in the style traditional with the times, on
foot, supported by retainers. (this was done to avoid guns)
After all they now knew the problems in crossing the battle field on
horseback from the first failed charge.

If you need more info, let me know. I actually have the book with me
here at work.
Good excuse to start reading it, it was only published last week I
think.

Hope that helps

Kind regards

Rob
Warhammer Historical General Manager
robb@...

--- In samuraihistory@y..., Nate Ledbetter wrote:
> In hindsight, it's obvious...you retreat. You have
> 15,000, the combined Oda-Tokugawa army has
> 38,000...you don't fight with that force ratio. I know
> the Takeda cavalry corps was superior, etc., etc. It
> doesn't matter. You have half your army engaged in the
> North against Kenshin, why lose the other half against
> Nobunaga? Retreat.
>
> His generals were right
>
> Nate
>
> --- Edwin Angulo wrote:
> > Hi!!
> >
> > I got a question, if you were Takeda Katsuyori,
> > what
> > would you do at the battle of Nagashino?, at this
> > moment, i cant find the way to fight that battle.
> >
> > Edwin.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Rob:

Thanks, but I think I have all I need at this
point...just trying to package it. I'd forgotten how
hard translation was, I haven't done it in several
years. But I am chugging along.

I am interested about the claim of only 1000
arquebusiers...everything, including the Japanese
sources I have, says 3000.

nate

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

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

>
> Maybe he fancied himself a new Nobunaga, thinking of
> Okehazama...
>
> Still pretty stoopid, though.
>
> Tony
>

And I can fancy myself Erwin Rommel, but that doesn't
make it so. Glad you agree with me...now maybe if he
had the tank from "G.I. Samurai"....

nate


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

OK, just checked out the pages.
it says recent study has revealed that the actual figure was 1500,
and the original document states there were 1000
and there is proof that some one changed it to 3000 later.

There is no further detail about this in this section.

I have not started reading the book yet to see what other differences
on Samurai history there are!

On the subject of translations, I have a book in a slip case, in
Japanese. Published in 1969 First edition.

The title is Sengoku bushi jiten by Sasama Yoshihiko (translated by a
Japanese friend here at work).

My question, does anyone know if an English Language translation of
this book exists?
If so can you provide some details for me.

If not any detail on the book and if it is worth me getting it
translated. (Note looking at the book, and illustrations, I think the
answer is yes, I also assume it might be valuable.)

Much appreciated, and Nate if you want any other info on the other
book and its sources, just ask.

thanks
Rob

Rob Broom
Warhammer Historical General Manager.
robb@...

--- In samuraihistory@y..., Nate Ledbetter wrote:
> Rob:
>
> Thanks, but I think I have all I need at this
> point...just trying to package it. I'd forgotten how
> hard translation was, I haven't done it in several
> years. But I am chugging along.
>
> I am interested about the claim of only 1000
> arquebusiers...everything, including the Japanese
> sources I have, says 3000.
>
> nate
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I think that there is a great conceptual fallacy of
combining statsitical facts and tactical decisions
that affects both military practitioners and theorists
or historians.
Yes, it is important to obtain a good measure of
comparison on the size of troops. But, I would say
that the decision of whether or not taking offensive
or withdraw must be "independent of" information on
the troop size obtained through recon.

The troop size is only one of factors that the field
marshall has to consider for her or his tactical
decision. But, it is not the only factor that will
determine the success or the failure of any type of
tactical decisions that would be made by the field
marshall.

Yes, historically or statistically, in most of
battles, the larger sized troop have been quoted as
winners over the smaller sized troops. But,also in
many of famous battles directed by those 'famous'
generals, you would find that they often had to fight
against the more powerful or larger sized enemy
troops. I think that this is where we can distinguish
between competent and incompetent field marshalls.
Remember Nopoleon Bonaparte's 1805 Ulm-Austerlitz
campaign. Also Judah King Abijah's war againt Israel
King Jeroboam. (You will find plenty of such
references if you try.)

In general, I would say that the field marshall must
try to avoid facing and fighting the larger sized
enemy if possible because of there is more odds for
defeat. But, if his or her tactical decision
forces(you will need more interpretation for this
word) him or her to take offensive or defensive, then
he or she would need to excercise his or her ingenuity
with all efforts. That is why we train generals and
officers at the academy.


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

>
> --- westce@... wrote:
> >
> > It may be obvious from hindsight, however how
> > effective were scouts and
> > scouting methods in determining the number of
> > opposition forces? With no
> > radios, no airplanes, or any other ways to take in
> > the big picture, how
> > would they know they are outnumbered? Would they
> > have a general idea of
> > available troops based on who the opposing general
> > was, or maybe count the
> > standards and estimate? I personally couldn't
> count
> > 38,000 troops on my
> > fingers ;)
>
> I'm not an expert in samurai scouts. I've only
> studied
> what has been written by others on how they employed
> them. But I DO know scouting. I served as a tank
> platoon leader in a division cavalry squadron, and
> worked extensively with cavalry scouts. I'm now an
> intelligence officer and my job is to gather
> information about the enemy, using scouts to do so.
> Yeah, radios, UAV's, etc are great, but the
> principles
> of recon don't change. You'd have strategic and
> operational recon (otherwise known as spies) and
> have
> an idea of what the opposing force had. Katsuyori
> had
> to know the available forces that Nobunaga and
> ieyasu
> had, and would make a guess as to how many of them
> he'd have to face.
>
> Next you'd have tactical scouts, what we think of as
> scouts. If I was surrounding an enemy emplacement,
> you'd be darn skippy that I would not only focus on
> that. I'd have scouts out in all directions, waiting
> to report on that reliving force I KNOW would
> probably
> be coming. You wouldn't have to count to 38,000,
> especially not with a Sengoku army. Look at the
> banners....yeah, that's hashiba's banner, and he has
> 8,000 men under him...I know that from my strategic
> recon. Okay, that's Sakakibara, and he has 1000. The
> banners made it easy, because not only could you get
> an idea of unit size, you knew who was in command.
> Nowadays I have to count vehicles, and maybe I'll
> get
> lucky and identify a certain type of vehicle that
> is
> only in at a certain echelon, and I can determine
> the
> size.
>
> so in a battle such as Nagashino, at what
> > point does one realize
> > they are outnumbered? (not only that, but by the
> > time you are close enough
> > to count, you have to contend with bullets and
> > arrows.)
> >
> > c.w.
>
> No, you're not. You've seen Kagemusha, I assume.
> Remember the scouts from Ieyasu and Nobunaga? The
> dingy little peasant spies and the monk? There you
> go...there is your HUMINT. They observe and report
> back...behind them, you have actual scouts, maybe
> your
> tsukai-ban or another group, mounted for
> speed...it's
> amazing how easy it is to sneak up on someone, even
> mounted...and get away unnoticed. If I can do it in
> a
> bradley fighting vehicle, he can do it on a horse.
>
> My point is this: Takeda Katusyori had to know full
> well how many men Nobunaga and Ieyasu had. He would
> have had an idea of the composition, ie weapons and
> the like. He would have known this all before 0500
> on
> the 28th of June when he launched his charge. He
> could
> have retreated the night of the 27th. And he should
> have, in my opinion. Yes, it's hindsight, but
> speaking
> as a military officer, you simply don't attack
> 38,000
> men when you have 15,000. Not unless they have
> spears
> and you have tanks.
>
>
> nate Ledbetter
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--- Lee Changsub <knorr31@...> wrote:

> I think that there is a great conceptual fallacy of
> combining statsitical facts and tactical decisions
> that affects both military practitioners and
> theorists
> or historians.
> Yes, it is important to obtain a good measure of
> comparison on the size of troops. But, I would say
> that the decision of whether or not taking offensive
> or withdraw must be "independent of" information on
> the troop size obtained through recon.

Definitely NOT independent. All information is
integrated together and factors into a commanders
tactical decisions. Being outnumbered by a few, and
knowing you have better quality troops, and maybe
determining how to use surprise, mass, and economy of
force can mitigate these factors. Nobunaga did the
last three at Okehazama, in what I consider one of the
most brilliant battles fought by any commander
anywhere. However, Katsuyori didn't think it all
through. He was outnumbered by more than 2 to 1, not
by a few; granted his troops were probably more
disciplined and better trained, especially the
cavalry; however, and most crucially, he failed to do
ANYTHING other than what Nobunaga expected him to do.
Did he try to maneuver to get in Nobunaga's rear and
reduce him piecemeal, negating Nobunaga's force size?
No. He let Nobunaga make his preparations, and then
charged first thing in the morning right into the
defense Nobunaga had laid out. I will grant that
without the defensive preparations (and the river, and
the muddy ground...) it would have been much more
even, and as it was the idea that the gunfire
"slaughtered" the Takeda is a fallacy. But the point
is he did NONE of this. Those good commanders you
mention would not have done the expected, charge
straight up the middle at waiting arqubusiers.

>
> The troop size is only one of factors that the field
> marshall has to consider for her or his tactical
> decision. But, it is not the only factor that will
> determine the success or the failure of any type of
> tactical decisions that would be made by the field
> marshall.

Never said it was. The North Koreans have many more
men under arms than the South Koreans, yet I fully
believe the South Koreans would run over them
(provided NK artillery was negated first).

>

But,also in

> many of famous battles directed by those 'famous'
> generals, you would find that they often had to
> fight
> against the more powerful or larger sized enemy
> troops. I think that this is where we can
> distinguish
> between competent and incompetent field marshalls.

Yes, and many times those generals weren't exactly
given the choice, and maneuvered themselves into
success. As I said, Katsuyori did not.

>
> In general, I would say that the field marshall must
> try to avoid facing and fighting the larger sized
> enemy if possible because of there is more odds for
> defeat. But, if his or her tactical decision
> forces(you will need more interpretation for this
> word) him or her to take offensive or defensive,
> then
> he or she would need to excercise his or her
> ingenuity
> with all efforts. That is why we train generals and
> officers at the academy.

This is exactly what I am saying. Is it possible that
this could have turned out different? Yes, of course.
The prudent course would have been to retreat and
fight when the odds were better. Katsuyori had this
option. If forced to fight, could he have done better?
Without a doubt, yes. But then again, all of this is
in hindsight. My original point in my original post
was that given the information he should have had (and
if he didn't, he sure did not follow Sun Tzu's
precepts of using scouts and spies) he should not have
made the decision to fight. If he did decide to fight,
he should have done something, anything else. Rush the
castle and take it, then defend from inside. Determine
where Nobunaga was and attack before he could prepare,
or maneuver around and hit him from another side.
Anything. I wouldn't take my tanks on a frontal
assault of fortified positions with AT missiles and
artillery.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

My point was simply if somebody esle had been in
Katsuyori place, how he would have done better.
As for my use of word, 'independence', I meant
basically the same point you made as follows:

> All information is
> integrated together and factors into a commanders
> tactical decisions. Being outnumbered by a few, and
> knowing you have better quality troops, and maybe
> determining how to use surprise, mass, and economy
> of
> force can mitigate these factors.

As you say, all information must be 'Integrated
Together'. I want to emphasized that information on
enemy troop size should not be 'disproportionally'
taken too serisouly for a tactical decision. This was
what I meant by being 'Indepedent'. The use of
suprise, mass, and etc would be some of options
available to a field commander.

Katsuyori was lack of all these qualities. But, we may
analyze his situation and can get some lessons from
his defeat.

As for me, I am not a trained military historian. I
have background in political science, statistics, and
mathematics. I liked reading a lot of books on ancient
Chinese stategies and military history (both eastern
and western). Now, I am working on a Ph.D. in
mathematics. I intend to work on something
interdisciplinary in the future. Anyway, it was good
to hear from you.

ps. My father was also a Lietenant Colonel in the
South Korea Army. So, I have very friendly sentiment
toward the military figures.




Sincerely,



Changsub Lee

--- Lee Changsub <knorr31@...> wrote:

> As for my use of word, 'independence', I meant
> basically the same point you made

Apparently we agree, even though at first we didn't
realize it.

>

I want to emphasized that information on

> enemy troop size should not be 'disproportionally'
> taken too serisouly for a tactical decision. This
> was
> what I meant by being 'Indepedent'. The use of
> suprise, mass, and etc would be some of options
> available to a field commander.

I agree completely

>
> As for me, I am not a trained military historian. I
> have background in political science, statistics,
> and
> mathematics. I liked reading a lot of books on
> ancient
> Chinese stategies and military history (both eastern
> and western). Now, I am working on a Ph.D. in
> mathematics. I intend to work on something
> interdisciplinary in the future. Anyway, it was good
> to hear from you.

Good Luck to you!

>
> ps. My father was also a Lietenant Colonel in the
> South Korea Army. So, I have very friendly sentiment
> toward the military figures.
>

I've always been impressed with the ROK Army.
Expecially after being stationed in Korea, near
Munsan, myself. All I've seen from the South Korean
Army, and I'm sure your father was the same, has been
outstanding!!!

Nathan Ledbetter
CPT, US Army

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/