Tachi versus katana in horseback fighting

[Philip]

Hi, Carlo
Interesting comment you made,

"cavalry charges in Japanese history were always quiet [sic] slow..."

That helps explain something that has puzzled me for a long time. Years ago, a Japanese archery club came to Los Angeles and gave a demo of mounted archery with their traditional bows (nice Edo-period costumes, too!) but using local breeds of horses. I was struck at how slow the horses moved (and wasn't too impressed with the lack of accuracy, even at the very short distances to the targets, and the rather unsteady "seat" the riders had in their saddles and stirrups). The Japanese organization which sponsored the program said that the half-dozen shooters were masters who had trained at this for years.

I compare that with the mounted archery I saw in the Inner Mongolian capital of Hohhot (now part of the PRC) in 1981. Both men and women spurred their horses into a full gallop, rode far more aggressively, used stronger bows, and had a higher rate of fire. As a display of martial technique and bravado, this was far more convincing. I'm glad that I wasn't around in the Middle Ages to face Genghis Khan's boys on a battlefield...

You also mentioned the footsoldiers going in along with Japanese cavalrymen during a "charge". This reminds me of the tactics of the elephant troops of SE Asia -- infantrymen with spears or long handled sabers stationed around the elephants' feet to keep the enemy from darting in and doing nasty things to the lumbering beasts. If the Japanese had gallopped into the charge with the speed of the Mongols (or the Chinese, Manchus, and Tibetans, for that matter), it's hard to imagine that infantrymen could keep up with them.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Philip,

You also mentioned the footsoldiers going in along with Japanese cavalrymen during a "charge". This reminds me of the tactics of the elephant troops of SE Asia -- infantrymen with spears or long handled sabers stationed around the elephants' feet to keep the enemy from darting in and doing nasty things to the lumbering beasts. If the Japanese had gallopped into the charge with the speed of the Mongols (or the Chinese, Manchus, and Tibetans, for that matter), it's hard to imagine that infantrymen could keep up with them.

Interesting observations. It would seem that for most part the Japanese use of cavalry, on the battlefields, did not go beyond to that of the most basic applications of same. I often wondered if Oda Nobunaga tried to change any of this, as he was greatly influenced by European ideas - Mind you, by his days, warring in Japan was almost over.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Philip,
Interesting observations. It would seem that for most part the Japanese use of cavalry, on the battlefields, did not go beyond to that of the most basic applications of same. I often wondered if Oda Nobunaga tried to change any of this, as he was greatly influenced by European ideas - Mind you, by his days, warring in Japan was almost over.

Cheers
Chris

No, Oda Nobunaga swiftly get that the only use of cavalry in Japan was the already well-established one and didn't waste time and money in improving it. He smartly applied the use of archebusiers in alternate lines, that he already experienced as a target in his previous campaigns against the Ikko Ikki. AFAIK this was a revolution even for western standards, being at those times, no such a tactic in western armies.

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Philip

Hi, Carlo
Interesting comment you made,

"cavalry charges in Japanese history were always quiet [sic] slow..."
...OMISSIS...
I compare that with the mounted archery I saw in the Inner Mongolian capital of Hohhot (now part of the PRC) in 1981.

Nobody can beat the mongols in archery from horseback.

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

Nobody can beat the mongols in archery from horseback.

The mamluks did

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

The mamluks did

hehehe... this is a matter between you and Philip. I call me out

[ariel]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

hehehe... this is a matter between you and Philip. I call me out

Well, Mamluks were originally brought from the Central Asia and the Caucasus... Must have kept their Chingiz Khan-ian traditions

[Rivkin]

Gentlemen,

There is little to nothing reliable information available on early mongol warriors. The "pony" story is basically due to Marco Polo and those who based their description on his account. Archeological evidence of early mongol army was scarse, especially since so much was barbarically destroyed after the 1917 revolution in Russia due to the anti-weapon laws.

David Ayalon in his three part work on Mamluks extensively addresses the little information we have on differences and relationship between mamluks and mongols. It seems that earlier mamluks (Baibars) considered themselves to be part of Jelal-al-Din turkoman party that fought against mongols. However after Ayn-Jalat the feelings relax quickly to the point that Qalawun declares in his letter to french king "we and mongols are one nation". He also addresses such issues as language (uighur vs. kipchaq), yasa vs. fiqh and so on.

One should also mention that the depictions of mongol army differ greatly to the point that one must accept that it was composed from very different units of many different people (I remember that Il-Khanid chief commanders at different points were a jew and a nestorian christian, or the story of red haired georgian cavarly from kartlis tzhvoreba), resulting in a rather diverse fighting force. It seems that however their archery was of a different style than that of kipchaqs/mamluks - they used lighter, often biologically "poisoned" arrows and where somewhat more concerned with the rate of fire (even though mamluk standards of aimed fire of 3 arrows per two seconds seem to be rather impressive).
Concerning short stature - it is a rather controversial point. One should address Gorelik's work on mongols and steppe armies for this, but in a short version there is a lot of sources that "noble" steppe people, like "white turks" where of colossal stature

[Philip]

Equine Museum of Japan -- that's a place I need to visit. By the way, did you know the Japanese, like the French and Belgians, like to eat horse meat? A friend brought back some horse jerky from Japan. Most Americans would think it is gross, I like it though. Cheval a la tatare is popular with those who can afford it. There aren't as many horses per capita in Japan so the meat is rather expensive. (Sorry guys for wandering off post, I can't resist talking about food!)

Thanks for the list of horse breeds. Are your pics in the same order as you list them in the text?

Some of the breeds in the photos are quite diminutive. I say that because recently I was studying some pictures of military officers in the imperial army of Vietnam during the 19th cent. Their horses are really short of stature. I don't know how the breeds common to SE Asia may be related to the ones we're talking about, Japan and north Asia. I'm not a zoologist, unfortunately, but am fascinated by the role of animals in human history.

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, Mamluks were originally brought from the Central Asia and the Caucasus... Must have kept their Chingiz Khan-ian traditions

Well you're right about that, but also, remember that the mamluks had far better mounts than the mongols did.

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

Well you're right about that, but also, remember that the mamluks had far better mounts than the mongols did.

I would contest that. By memory and not pretending to know the truth: First of all cilician armenians were allies of Il-Khanids and it is a very big question how many of Il-Khanids fighting in Syria were mongols per se and how many were armenians and so on. Second the "pony" story mostly comes from Marco Polo and one does not really know whether Il-Khanids used ponies or not. There are questions about mamluk horses as well - did they used as mongols many horser per rider or just one? It seems that mamluks had supply train with "horse food", while mongols relied on local grass - the reason why first things mamluks always did was to burn the grass.

Every book I have read on mamluk-Il-Khanid was is an example of how little is known about it. If mamluks were elite fighters and mongols were average soldiers amassed without any selection, why mamluks were so respectful and to some extent scared of them. If mongols were superior fighters, why the war was quite decisevely going the way of mamluks? What was the difference and similarity in arms and tactics ? All of these is usually answered using observations on authors (Marco Polo, Bar-Hebraus etc.) that were done in a completely different place, in a different time but also on "mongols". Timur's army imho is far better researched - western diplomats accomanying the horde and even Ibn-Khaldan himself.