Argument !!!

I and my friend got an argument about that Samurai carrying musket. My
friend said that samurai never used any kinds of gun in the battle. I
need someone help me to clarify this. Thank you.

--- spy03td <spy03td@...> wrote:

> I and my friend got an argument about that Samurai
> carrying musket. My
> friend said that samurai never used any kinds of gun
> in the battle. I
> need someone help me to clarify this. Thank you.
>
>

Your friend watches too many movies. Guns were
introduced to Japan via both the Portuguese in the
1540's and the Chinese in limited fashion prior to
that. By the 1550's there were gun factories in
several areas in Japan, and by the 1570's they were
producing more guns than Europe. Tell your friend to
look up the Battle of Nagashino, 1575--the Oda army
used 1,000 to 3,000 guns, depending on your source, in
a rotating volley fire, sometime before this became
standard practice in Europe.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Guns were definately introduced but the experts here can tell you when

It basically stopped the one on one announcing your heritage battles

Rick

Martial Arts Ebooks Books DVDs and Videos Updated Solo Martial Arts Drills
http://kirkhamsebooks.com/MartialArts/index.htm



----- Original Message ----
From: spy03td <spy03td@...>
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 3:10:26 AM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Argument !!!


I and my friend got an argument about that Samurai carrying musket. My
friend said that samurai never used any kinds of gun in the battle. I
need someone help me to clarify this. Thank you.



---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---

Join the 2007 Samurai Fiction Contest: http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html
Yahoo! Groups Links

Well, spy03td (wish people would use their real names - what's the problem???), you may tell your friend that arguably the most famous battle in Japanese history after the Kamakura period was the Battle of Nagashino in 1575. It was famous for its use of 3000 matchlock guns (muskets) by the samurai led by Oda Nobunaga to vanquish the Takeda "cavalry".

Regards,
Barry Thomas
(Melbourne, Australia)

----- Original Message -----
From: spy03td
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 11:10 PM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Argument !!!


I and my friend got an argument about that Samurai carrying musket. My
friend said that samurai never used any kinds of gun in the battle. I
need someone help me to clarify this. Thank you.
.


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

On Apr 15, 2007, at 6:56 PM, Sensei J. Richard Kirkham B.Sc wrote:

> It basically stopped the one on one announcing your heritage battles

Actually, the Mongols pretty well did that.


Tony

> Well, spy03td (wish people would use their real names - what's the

problem???), you may tell your friend that arguably the most famous
battle in Japanese history after the

> Kamakura period was the Battle of Nagashino in 1575. It was famous

for its use of 3000 matchlock guns (muskets) by the samurai led by Oda
Nobunaga to vanquish the

> Takeda "cavalry".

Kind of off-topic, but to me Nagashino ranks as probably the most
overrated battle in Japanese history. The Takeda struggled on for
another 7 years - albeit heavily reduced in power - and the losses
suffered in the battle probably had a lot more to do with Katsuyori
being heavily outnumbered and in a poor strategic position than the use
of rifles by Nobunaga. The Takeda themselves had rifles, and I fancy
that they weren't idiotic enough to ride straight in to a wave of
gunfire ala the Nagashino scene in 'Kagemusha'. Katsuyori may not have
been as talented as his father, but I'm sure he wasn't as big a fool as
he tends to get credited for either.

Still, it probably is the most famous battle post-Kamakura, except for
maybe Sekigahara, which is far more interesting in my opinion.

-AngusH

______________________________________________________________

This email, including any attachments, may be confidential or privileged, and is sent for the personal attention of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Rabobank Group. The Group is not liable for the effects of any virus which may be contained in this email.

If this email contains marketing material and you do not wish to receive such material by email in future, please reply to this email and place the words "Remove My Details - Electronic Messages" in the Subject Header.

The Rabobank Group

Australia: 1800 025 484
New Zealand: 0800 500 933
______________________________________________________________


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

--- "Haynes, A (Angus)" <angus.haynes@...>
wrote:

> Kind of off-topic, but to me Nagashino ranks as
> probably the most
> overrated battle in Japanese history. The Takeda
> struggled on for
> another 7 years - albeit heavily reduced in power -
> and the losses
> suffered in the battle probably had a lot more to do
> with Katsuyori
> being heavily outnumbered and in a poor strategic
> position than the use
> of rifles by Nobunaga.

Poor operational and tactical position, actually.
Looking at the battle in the terms of long term
effects isn't where the importance of this battle
lies; the beauty (speaking as a military officer) is
the design of the Oda plan, integrating terrain and
man-made obstacles with the firearms to defeat the
strength of the opponent. Taking into account recent
research which indicates that the Oda had 1,000, not
3,000, arquebuses, and that at most 3 ranks could have
shot in the time it took the Takeda to move from the
woodline, across the Rengogawa, and up to the Oda
palisades (thus nullifying the common image of
"rotating" fire mowing down the Takeda, since it
wouldn't have actually done more than one "rotation"),
Nobunaga's use of terrain is that much more
impressive.

The Takeda themselves had

> rifles, and I fancy
> that they weren't idiotic enough to ride straight in
> to a wave of
> gunfire ala the Nagashino scene in 'Kagemusha'.

No one at this time had "rifles", as they hadn't been
invented yet. The arquebus was a smoothbore weapon.
And while the Nagashino scene in "Kagemusha" is
completely ridiculous, do not discount the effect of a
cavalry charge against unprotected arquebusiers. These
weren't machine guns, or even, as I said, rifles--one
shot, then you've got to take a significant amount of
time to reload. The distances involved clearly show
that even with 3 ranks firing "in rotation", at most
each rank got one shot off before the Takeda closed
the distance. Hardly a British gun square from the
Zulu Wars. Ordinarily, arquebus ashigaru weren't
behind palisades--at best they had nagaeyari (long
spears) protecting them, similiar to a European pike
and shot formation, but in 1575 this wasn't
necessarily standard yet. Add in the aura of the
Takeda Cavalry, and the fact that most ashigaru
(before Nobunaga made them a major factor in battle,
anyways) were poorly trained and disciplined, and
there was no real reason for the Takeda to expect they
couldn't succeed.

> Katsuyori may not have
> been as talented as his father, but I'm sure he
> wasn't as big a fool as
> he tends to get credited for either.

See above. Correct.

> Still, it probably is the most famous battle
> post-Kamakura, except for
> maybe Sekigahara, which is far more interesting in
> my opinion.

If what you want is political repercussions, see
Sekigahara. Tactically, it bores me, while Nagashino
fascinates me. No one ever talks about the Sakai
Tadatsugu raid behind the Takeda, or the actual siege
of Nagashino itself--fascinating maneuvers. The Takeda
operation was sound, actually, had the traitor in
Okazaki Castle not been uncovered.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

>Poor operational and tactical position, actually.
>Looking at the battle in the terms of long term
>effects isn't where the importance of this battle
>lies; the beauty (speaking as a military officer) is
>the design of the Oda plan, integrating terrain and
>man-made obstacles with the firearms to defeat the
>strength of the opponent.

Still, we are talking about a Takeda army that was outnumbered 2-to-1,
perhaps even more so. Numbers aren't everything of course, and it was
good strategy on the Oda's part in using the terrain as they did, but to
me it just seems that the Oda took the "obvious" strategy. As an army
coming to break a siege, they did what any army would have, or at least
should have, done.

>No one at this time had "rifles", as they hadn't been
>invented yet. The arquebus was a smoothbore weapon.

Aye, It's a bad habit that I should break.

>And while the Nagashino scene in "Kagemusha" is
>completely ridiculous, do not discount the effect of a
>cavalry charge against unprotected arquebusiers.

My problem is with the whole image of the samurai cavalry charge.
Supposedly mounted samurai dismounted in combat and didn't fight from
horseback and rarely, if ever, formed units of pure cavalry. This comes
from descriptions taken from They Came to Japan, the size of Japanese
horses, and comments by Prof. Karl Friday in several usenet posts.

>...Add in the aura of the
>Takeda Cavalry, and the fact that most ashigaru
>(before Nobunaga made them a major factor in battle,
>anyways) were poorly trained and disciplined, and
>there was no real reason for the Takeda to expect they
>couldn't succeed.

Aye, I agree, I'm sure they did expect to win, especially considering
that the Takeda and Oda both believed that the Takeda army was more
numerous. But it wasn't, not even close in fact, and they were
thoroughly routed.

>If what you want is political repercussions, see
>Sekigahara. Tactically, it bores me, while Nagashino
>fascinates me. No one ever talks about the Sakai
>Tadatsugu raid behind the Takeda, or the actual siege
>of Nagashino itself--fascinating maneuvers. The Takeda
>operation was sound, actually, had the traitor in
>Okazaki Castle not been uncovered.

I find the events around the actual battle of Nagashino more interesting
than the battle itself, but maybe that's just my taste in history, which
might explain why I prefer Sekigahara to Nagashino. The story of how
Nobunaga learnt of the siege and came to break it is interesting, as is
the damage to the Takeda caused by the battle. Maybe hindsight is 20/20,
but the actual battle itself, once it took place, heavily favoured the
Oda and they came out on top. I don't find much interesting about it,
but again maybe that says more about my tastes in history than the
battle itself.

-AngusH

______________________________________________________________

This email, including any attachments, may be confidential or privileged, and is sent for the personal attention of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Rabobank Group. The Group is not liable for the effects of any virus which may be contained in this email.

If this email contains marketing material and you do not wish to receive such material by email in future, please reply to this email and place the words "Remove My Details - Electronic Messages" in the Subject Header.

The Rabobank Group

Australia: 1800 025 484
New Zealand: 0800 500 933
______________________________________________________________


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

mr.ledbetter is correct!and its good to keep in mind sakai's night raids for
disturbing takeda camp.still the most important thing was that katsuyori was
addvised to the defence post or even leave the field.he did not!..thats
that...Jore

>From: Nate Ledbetter <ltdomer98@...>
>Reply-To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
>To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [samuraihistory] Rebuttal on Nagashino
>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>--- "Haynes, A (Angus)" <angus.haynes@...>
>wrote:
>
>
> > Kind of off-topic, but to me Nagashino ranks as
> > probably the most
> > overrated battle in Japanese history. The Takeda
> > struggled on for
> > another 7 years - albeit heavily reduced in power -
> > and the losses
> > suffered in the battle probably had a lot more to do
> > with Katsuyori
> > being heavily outnumbered and in a poor strategic
> > position than the use
> > of rifles by Nobunaga.
>
>Poor operational and tactical position, actually.
>Looking at the battle in the terms of long term
>effects isn't where the importance of this battle
>lies; the beauty (speaking as a military officer) is
>the design of the Oda plan, integrating terrain and
>man-made obstacles with the firearms to defeat the
>strength of the opponent. Taking into account recent
>research which indicates that the Oda had 1,000, not
>3,000, arquebuses, and that at most 3 ranks could have
>shot in the time it took the Takeda to move from the
>woodline, across the Rengogawa, and up to the Oda
>palisades (thus nullifying the common image of
>"rotating" fire mowing down the Takeda, since it
>wouldn't have actually done more than one "rotation"),
>Nobunaga's use of terrain is that much more
>impressive.
>
>The Takeda themselves had
> > rifles, and I fancy
> > that they weren't idiotic enough to ride straight in
> > to a wave of
> > gunfire ala the Nagashino scene in 'Kagemusha'.
>
>No one at this time had "rifles", as they hadn't been
>invented yet. The arquebus was a smoothbore weapon.
>And while the Nagashino scene in "Kagemusha" is
>completely ridiculous, do not discount the effect of a
>cavalry charge against unprotected arquebusiers. These
>weren't machine guns, or even, as I said, rifles--one
>shot, then you've got to take a significant amount of
>time to reload. The distances involved clearly show
>that even with 3 ranks firing "in rotation", at most
>each rank got one shot off before the Takeda closed
>the distance. Hardly a British gun square from the
>Zulu Wars. Ordinarily, arquebus ashigaru weren't
>behind palisades--at best they had nagaeyari (long
>spears) protecting them, similiar to a European pike
>and shot formation, but in 1575 this wasn't
>necessarily standard yet. Add in the aura of the
>Takeda Cavalry, and the fact that most ashigaru
>(before Nobunaga made them a major factor in battle,
>anyways) were poorly trained and disciplined, and
>there was no real reason for the Takeda to expect they
>couldn't succeed.
>
> > Katsuyori may not have
> > been as talented as his father, but I'm sure he
> > wasn't as big a fool as
> > he tends to get credited for either.
>
>See above. Correct.
>
> > Still, it probably is the most famous battle
> > post-Kamakura, except for
> > maybe Sekigahara, which is far more interesting in
> > my opinion.
>
>If what you want is political repercussions, see
>Sekigahara. Tactically, it bores me, while Nagashino
>fascinates me. No one ever talks about the Sakai
>Tadatsugu raid behind the Takeda, or the actual siege
>of Nagashino itself--fascinating maneuvers. The Takeda
>operation was sound, actually, had the traitor in
>Okazaki Castle not been uncovered.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________________
Ota käyttöön Windows Live Messenger ja sano kyllä kivuttomalle viestinnälle!
http://www.communicationevolved.com/fi-fi/