Is the katana overrated as a sword?

[teh.frickin.pope]

instead of blindly bashing on their cuirasses, vambrace or shoulder pads.

Who did that? Right good way to chip a blade I'm guessing.

[Carpathian Wolf]

That wikipedia article, which seems to be your only source, is frankly crap. It uses only one source, which not even dedicated to the subject. And it doesn't use any primary source at all.

I didn't claim wiki is the end all be all but it's somewhere to start from. You havn't provided anything much of a source.

Wrong. Samurais on this era fought as a horsearcher firing volleys of arrows as a group formed by family and clan members, and not as individual. Even during the Genpei war, nearly a 100 years before the Mongol invasion, we see old Samurais lamenting how men no longer fights a duel like man and fights in a group instead relying on their bows.

Then why did the Japanese freak out when the Mongols didn't answer their calls to duels and in the first battle got beaten back because of this?

Wrong. Moko-Syurai Ekotoba, a painting drawn on the order of Takezaki Suenaga, a Samurai who fought on the battle, shows Mongol army consisting mostly of light infantry with only officers riding horses. This is probably due to the fact that most of the army was composed of Korean and Chinese auxiliaries rather than the Mongol-Turkic cavalry.

So then the Japanese didn't beat the Mongols but some Chinese and Korean 2nd line troops?

Um, no they didn't. Everything suggests that Korean/Chinese infanty on this invasion were mostly light infantry, armed with bows and short spears. What do you think of the fact that 230 cavalry of Kikuchi Takefusa routed 2000 Mongols?

But you just said they weren't mongols...

You seem to ignore this part.

Except I posted it up so I didn't ignore it obviously.

What does it mean by "most likely"? It's not most likely, the Korean official record says that they withdrew because of heavy casualties, reinforcements and shortage of supplies! Have you actually read my post?

Also the storms which you are trying to downplay did most of the work.

No, like I already said, they decided to withdraw completely.

The fact for the battle of Bunei is this,
:The Mongols outnumbered the Japanese heavily
:Yet they could not rout the Japanese, and both side suffered heavy casualties
:They abandoned their objective of taking Dazaifu
If you can't call this a military victory for the Japanese, I don't know what is. The storm didn't do anything to force the Mongols to withdraw, it was the action of the Samurais.

You mean the Koreans and Chinese outnumbered the Japanese.

Dazaifu? The village? The article says they took it actually but didn't go any further, withdrew to their ships, ships sank in storms, they withdrew the rest back to Korea.

And? Are you saying the Japanese didn't had a military prowess because they fortified the coastline and stationed lots of troops?

Japanese won the battle of Koan because of sound strategy and preparation of the Shogunate, which is part of military prowess. If they didn't fortify the coastline, and allowed the Mongols to land, the storm wouldn't have had any meaning.

No i'm not saying it is because of that. I was just pointing out they had a very advantagous position.

Because you said "The Japanese were scared the crap out" when they saw Portugese guns, and you used it as some kind of evidence of retardation of Japanese military.

I didn't use it as evidence of anything. Don't be so defensive.

What exactly is "most mainland armies"? Chinese? Indians? Russians? Turks? French? English? Their organization and tactics vary greatly. And when the Japanese fought the Chinese during the Imjin war, they were more than capable of fighting them. Or what about Wako?

And the European nations clearly didn't think like you, since Japanese mercenaries were widely used in the southeast Asia by the Europeans before the Sakoku.

The Chinese (Ming) at the time IIRC were already in ruin and soon taken over by the Manchurians. But yea the mounted Samurai with bow, spear and katana wouldn't stand a chance against east Roman Kataphracts for example.

The Japanese being used as mercenaris by the europeans doesn't mean that they were capable at anything more than fighting south east asians which in all honesty were just one peg up above the likes of the aztecs and mayans who were still in the stone age and that they were easy to access for hiring.

Sorry, but thats just crap. First, we have the primitive tribal warfare in the antiquity. Then we see the form of organized military under the Ritsuryo system modelled after Chinese army. Then we see the Japanese adapting the mounted archery of the Emishi, and the eventual rise of Samurais. Then we see a great increase in foot archers, and in turn the cavalry dropping the bow and acting as heavy cavalry with a much more agile and flexible armor. Then we see the introduction of spear, and the core of the army shifting from cavalry into organized infantries using pikes. Then guns get appear, and soon the guns become the core of the army and pikemen retiring to a more defensive role. The Japanese style of warfare were always evolving. I say this again, Japan always had a war or fighting somewhere for hundreds of years. Naturally both sides would try to get the better of another, and naturally we see different tactics and organization ivolving. An army in 12th century and one in 16th century is completely different in tactics, equipment and organization and it would share very little resemblence, if any.

To me these seem like very slight variation when comparing the changes from a phalanx based military from the early Roman Republic to the late Roman Empire using the Kataphracts, scoutati etc.

In any case the Japanese for whatever reasons including the lack of good material just seem to me as inferior on a military level to just about any mainland army from english to russians to turks. With all things being equal a 2nd century AD Roman army would defeat any pre gunpowder Japanese army with ease I think.

I think the japanese bow for example is just crap and has a horrible rate of fire compared to the scythian, turk, hun or mongol bow. The katana again would only be effective on weak joints and soft armors. Even a peasant wearing some mail or even an iron cuirass would be capable of defending himself from the katana. I don't know just imagine 100 samurai facing off against 100 legionnaires and ask yourself how you think that would go.

I like the tetsubo and I find it to be one of the only weapons of the Japanese that could have matched a mainland army's weapon.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Now imo the gladius, thats an underrated weapon.

Don't you mean "overrated"? According to some fanboys, the fall of the Roman Empire was due largely to the abandonment of this magical weapon. Though they never stop to ponder why, if it was so superior, it was abandoned. I guess the Romans suddenly became dumb or something ...

[Juggernaut]

You havn't provided anything much of a source.

I've already brought the official Korean records. I can cite other sources like History of Yuan, Hachiman Gudo-kun and Moko-Shurai Ekotobba.

Then why did the Japanese freak out when the Mongols didn't answer their calls to duels and in the first battle got beaten back because of this?

They didn't. The fact of the matter is, this is just a myth. Not a single primary source actually says this happened. First of all, you don't seem to understand the nature of early Samurai duel. A duel would only happen if both men were of equal rank and social standing, and if one side thought the other as being lower than him, he would not even respond to the call of duel. See the example of Kumagai Naozane of Heike Monogatari or Kisanta of Gyoukei-Ki. Now considering they were fighting against complete foreigners, most of them on foot i.e low social rank by Japanese standard, it seems extremely unlikely that anyone would challenge a duel.

So then the Japanese didn't beat the Mongols but some Chinese and Korean 2nd line troops?

The detailed composition of Mongol army is not known, but they seemed to have been mostly formed by Koreans and Chinese. That didn't mean they were 2nd line. They were hardened veterans who fought in the Sambyeolcho rebellion, who even experienced naval landing operation. And Mongols were known to use local auxiliaries widely all over their empire.

But you just said they weren't mongols...

Sorry, I meant as in part of the Mongol army. The 2000 men Kikuchi Takefusa routed were most probably Koreans/Chinese.

Dazaifu? The village?

Dazaifu...A village? The headquarter of the provincial government, one of the largest city in Kyushu or even Japan for that matter at the time, a village? That's like saying Antioch or Alexandria a village.

The article says they took it actually but didn't go any further

Yuan did not pursue the samurai further inland to the defenses at Dazaifu.

No, they didn't. Even that article doesn't say it.

Also the storms which you are trying to downplay did most of the work.

They were already on their way back to Korea, so whether the storm came or not would not have changed the fact that they've withdrawn after deciding any more fight was too dangerous.

No i'm not saying it is because of that. I was just pointing out they had a very advantagous position.

Which they were able to utilise it for full effect. Using your advantage effectively is a vital aspect of military tactics, and it shows that the Samurais were entirely capable of using their brains in war.

I didn't use it as evidence of anything. Don't be so defensive.

If so, I'm having a trouble by what you meant by "My point is that they really didn't have experience with varied tactics or weaponry or technology. And when they did it scared the crap out of them. (Mongols, Portugese, Americans)"

But yea the mounted Samurai with bow, spear and katana wouldn't stand a chance against east Roman Kataphracts for example.

With all things being equal a 2nd century AD Roman army would defeat any pre gunpowder Japanese army with ease I think.

I don't know just imagine 100 samurai facing off against 100 legionnaires and ask yourself how you think that would go.

Frankly, I find this kind of comparison completely and utterly meaningless, on the same level of Superman VS Spiderman. There is simply far too many variable to consider, not to say completely unrealistic.

To me these seem like very slight variation when comparing the changes from a phalanx based military from the early Roman Republic to the late Roman Empire using the Kataphracts, scoutati etc.

Are you saying that a transition from a horse archer dominant army to a heavy cavalry dominant army, then to a heavy pike infantry dominant army, and finally to arquebus dominant army is just a "slight variation"? If so, we might as well say the English army during William the Conqueror and the English army during the English civil war had little variation.

I think the japanese bow for example is just crap and has a horrible rate of fire compared to the scythian, turk, hun or mongol bow.

OK, I don't even know where to start. First, I would like to hear why you think it's crap.

The katana again would only be effective on weak joints and soft armors. Even a peasant wearing some mail or even an iron cuirass would be capable of defending himself from the katana.

...Which you can say the same to pretty much any sword in the world. No European or Chinese sword can cut through mail or a cuirass unless it's a top quality sword used by a skilled user. The same applies to a Japanese sword. So I don't know what your point is. Just because Japanese sword wasn't a light saber that could cut through a battleship, it doesn't mean it was useless crap.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I've already brought the official Korean records. I can cite other sources like History of Yuan, Hachiman Gudo-kun and Moko-Shurai Ekotobba.

Please do.

They didn't. The fact of the matter is, this is just a myth. Not a single primary source actually says this happened. First of all, you don't seem to understand the nature of early Samurai duel. A duel would only happen if both men were of equal rank and social standing, and if one side thought the other as being lower than him, he would not even respond to the call of duel. See the example of Kumagai Naozane of Heike Monogatari or Kisanta of Gyoukei-Ki. Now considering they were fighting against complete foreigners, most of them on foot i.e low social rank by Japanese standard, it seems extremely unlikely that anyone would challenge a duel.

Sure are alot of myths. Who keeps making these up? Perhaps the Samurai asked for duels because it was the first time they had fought a outside power and wanted glory etc.

The detailed composition of Mongol army is not known, but they seemed to have been mostly formed by Koreans and Chinese. That didn't mean they were 2nd line. They were hardened veterans who fought in the Sambyeolcho rebellion, who even experienced naval landing operation. And Mongols were known to use local auxiliaries widely all over their empire.

Do you have something to confirm this?

Yes but this means that the Mongols weren't using their typical steppe tactic which they were good at. So in essense due to Chinese/Koreans being the majority and them not using Mongol tactics, the Japanese didn't defeat the Mongols in any sense other than a political one. It would be like me taking the Saxons in my country and sending them to Japan to fight, they get defeated, you beat Saxons, not Romanians.

Dazaifu...A village? The headquarter of the provincial government, one of the largest city in Kyushu or even Japan for that matter at the time, a village? That's like saying Antioch or Alexandria a village.

No, they didn't. Even that article doesn't say it.

My mistake I was thinking of Hakata.

They were already on their way back to Korea, so whether the storm came or not would not have changed the fact that they've withdrawn after deciding any more fight was too dangerous.

In which battle the 1st or 2nd?

Which they were able to utilise it for full effect. Using your advantage effectively is a vital aspect of military tactics, and it shows that the Samurais were entirely capable of using their brains in war.

I didn't say they were brainless.

If so, I'm having a trouble by what you meant by "My point is that they really didn't have experience with varied tactics or weaponry or technology. And when they did it scared the crap out of them. (Mongols, Portugese, Americans)"

Because they didn't have experience with varied tactics. A Roman Legion for example one day could be fighting the Gauls, and in the next campaign they are fighting the Dacians, and then the next the Parthians, and all 3 had very varied tactics and the Romans would adopt to deal with all of them.

Frankly, I find this kind of comparison completely and utterly meaningless, on the same level of Superman VS Spiderman. There is simply far too many variable to consider, not to say completely unrealistic.

Not at all. We're discussing the effectiveness of the Japanese military so we compare and contrast. It is completely normal to do.

Are you saying that a transition from a horse archer dominant army to a heavy cavalry dominant army, then to a heavy pike infantry dominant army, and finally to arquebus dominant army is just a "slight variation"? If so, we might as well say the English army during William the Conqueror and the English army during the English civil war had little variation.

HA to heavy cav to pike to pike shot. I don't know with the exception of gunpowder inbetween that there doesn't seem to be much more of a difference than cav to pike.

OK, I don't even know where to start. First, I would like to hear why you think it's crap.

Well simply put from the manner in which it was used, on horse back, it was too big. A recurve bow is just better. For it's size it's also alot more fragile than a welsh longbow. The yumi bow was made out of a composite of material while the longbow was made out of one piece and as far as I know the yumi bow didn't show any advantage.

...Which you can say the same to pretty much any sword in the world. No European or Chinese sword can cut through mail or a cuirass unless it's a top quality sword used by a skilled user. The same applies to a Japanese sword. So I don't know what your point is. Just because Japanese sword wasn't a light saber that could cut through a battleship, it doesn't mean it was useless crap.

Actually a long sword from europe weren't sharpened and were used to cause blunt truama more so than cutting. A european sword is tough enough and with enough weight behind it that even though it couldn't cut through mail, being hit by it would still hurt. You could also stab through the rings with it unlike the katana.

I'm not saying the Japanese were stupid, i'm just saying that their equipment would not work all that well outside of Japan. Maybe in asia but not in europe. The katana is useful against soft armors. I just can't see it as being effective to the same extent. The sword is too flimsy.

[Entropy Judge]

Actually a long sword from europe weren't sharpened and were used to cause blunt truama more so than cutting.

Really? Sounds like the Europeans were the morons now ....

Hmm. According to wikipedia, you're not talking about longswords:

However, all longswords were effective at cutting, slicing and thrusting and variations in form made only minor alterations in use.

Since you'd have to have a sharpened blade to cut and slice.
And you're not talking about arming swords:

The arming sword was overall a light, versatile weapon capable of both cut and thrust combat; and normally boasts excellent balance. Although a variety of designs fall under the heading of 'arming sword', they are most commonly recognized as single-handed double-edged swords that were designed more for cutting than thrusting

... So what are you talking about? And could you give a source?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Really? Sounds like the Europeans were the morons now ....

Hmm. According to wikipedia, you're not talking about longswords:

Since you'd have to have a sharpened blade to cut and slice.
And you're not talking about arming swords:

... So what are you talking about? And could you give a source?

It wasn't a metal square you were hitting with. Of course you could cut with it. But it wasn't this razor sharp thin piece of metal like the katana. It was very capable of causing blunt damage to an armored fighter. If you're wearing a helmet and a katana hit you in the side of the head you could shurg it off. If someone did that with a long sword it would leave the helmet with a dent and you on the ground.

[teh.frickin.pope]

... So what are you talking about? And could you give a source?

He may not know it, but I think he's thinking of the Estoc, a weapon specifically designed to pierce plate.

Later, swords specifically designed for facing heavier armor had narrower, much more rigid blades of diamond or hexagonal cross-sections that tapered to hard, sharp points. They were used to whack and bash at armor before stabbing and thrusting into joints and gaps. They were also employed as short spears and even warhammers, yet were still capable of cutting at more lightly armored opponents.

Saith the Arma

It wasn't a metal square you were hitting with. Of course you could cut with it. But it wasn't this razor sharp thin piece of metal like the katana. It was very capable of causing blunt damage to an armored fighter. If you're wearing a helmet and a katana hit you in the side of the head you could shurg it off. If someone did that with a long sword it would leave the helmet with a dent and you on the ground.

Here you underestimate the katana's weight(or overestimate longswords), it was just about as heavy as most european longswords, 2-3 lbs. And an object of that weight, swung at any considerable velocity is going to leave you with a severely wrung bell.
And, no most euopean swords were not razor sharp, but razor sharp blades need more maintenance. This does not mean that they were not very sharp though.

It was very capable of causing blunt damage to a mail armored fighter.

Fixed; banging a man in plate hard enough to cause blunt damage would probably nick your blade, possibly ruining the weapon.

[frontier-auxilia]

Who did that? Right good way to chip a blade I'm guessing.

Well maybe grunts in the midest of a battle somewhat mad with fear/ desperate/ aren't calm enough will try to aim a blow at any part they can get their enemies on. From what little reading i gather, people generally aim for the shoudler. So imo thats where the katana shines, being a fast and flexible weapon make it easy for a trained swordsmen to be unpredictable in their movement and quick to exploit enemy weakness. As such assessing the katana on its ability to rip open armor is a bit wrong as it wasn't made to be use like a mace.

@ thui. Huh i thought fanboy thinks the Roman army start suckin because they use non roman in their army and stop wearing lorica segmenta.

@ Carpathian: No the mongol invasion force that attack japan is not your standard steppe arch-type with 1/4 heavy lancers and 3/4 horse archers that shogun make it out to be. When the mongols launch their campaign into areas that involve the use of maritime transport (i.e Japan and southern china), Kublai khan field an army full on infantry, siege engines and ships as terrain in southern china just don't suit cavalry operation. Besides the Yuan army consist of a fair share of auxilaries to fill the bulk of their force.

[Entropy Judge]

So imo thats where the katana shines, being a fast and flexible weapon make it easy for a trained swordsmen to be unpredictable in their movement and quick to exploit enemy weakness.

And how does a long sword differ? It's approximately the same size as a katana, so neither has a truly appreciable speed advantage, and 'trained sworsmen' always exploit weaknesses - it's not like they're trying to batter the opponent's strengths ....

[Juggernaut]

Please do.

"He(Takezaki Toshinaga) saw a warrior riding on a gray horse, with a purple armor and crimson cape, leading around 100 cavalry. The warrior told him that he and his men broke the line of the criminals(the Mongols), despite taking heavy casualties. Then he chased down the bandits(the Mongols), and he himself took 2 head by sword and polearm..."

Moko Shurai Ekotoba

"And there, Kikuchi Jiro(Takefusa) divided his 100 cavalry into 2 squadron, attacked and rode the enemy down, taking many heads..."

Hachiman no Moko-ki

"The criminals(the Mongols) divided into 2 groups after Takefusa routed them. The larger group retreated to Susohara, and the smaller group ran to Tsukahara in Beppu... Then the criminals at Susohara regrouped and raised their banners and their battle cries..."

Moko Shurai Ekotoba

"Toshinaga and his three men were wounded, and their horses were shot. Then Shiraishi Rokuro Michiyasu, a Gokenin from Higo arrived at the scene with a large force, and forced the Mongols to withdraw to Susohara again. With his horse gone, surrounded by barbarians(the Mongols), he surely would have perished if Michiyasu did not arrive..."

Moko Shurai Ekotoba

"On winter october, we entered that country(Japan) and attempted to defeat it. However our army was disarrayed and they ran out of arrows, so they withdrew after setting fire to the countryside"

History of Yuan(note that they don't even mention about the storm)

Sure are alot of myths. Who keeps making these up? Perhaps the Samurai asked for duels because it was the first time they had fought a outside power and wanted glory etc.

Like I said, there isn't a single primary source that says the Japanese challenged for a duel. The only contemporary painting for the battle, the Moko Shurai Ekotoba shows Samurais fighting as a group, firing volley of arrows on horse. Who made the myth up? Who knows, it can be anyone. I don't know who made the myth "a knight who falls from his horse won't be able to get up", but the that myth is pretty popular. Or the "People in the middle ages didn't bathe" one.

http://img.blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ybi/1/7...0603054125.gif
(for some reason the file shows up as text on my PC. If you are having the same problem save the file to your PC and then change the extension to GIF)

Do you have something to confirm this?

The generals of the Mongol army, Hon Tagu and Kim Bangyon were those who crushed the rebellion, and the troops who participated in the invasion was the same troops used by them during the rebellion. Which means both the soldiers and their commanders were experienced in naval invasion.

Yes but this means that the Mongols weren't using their typical steppe tactic which they were good at. So in essense due to Chinese/Koreans being the majority and them not using Mongol tactics, the Japanese didn't defeat the Mongols in any sense other than a political one. It would be like me taking the Saxons in my country and sending them to Japan to fight, they get defeated, you beat Saxons, not Romanians.

The Mongols always used a large number of auxiliaries, and they were never formed solery by horse archers, especially during this period. And your whole point is that the Japanese would not be able to defeat a "mainland army". As far as I see, Koreans and Chinese are "mainland".

In which battle the 1st or 2nd?

The first. I don't think anybody is arguing that the 2nd invasion a total victory for Japan.

I didn't say they were brainless.

Sorry, that was the impression I was having.

Because they didn't have experience with varied tactics. A Roman Legion for example one day could be fighting the Gauls, and in the next campaign they are fighting the Dacians, and then the next the Parthians, and all 3 had very varied tactics and the Romans would adopt to deal with all of them.

You say they were weak because they didn't have any experience with varied tactics. But the fact is they did. Their tactics varied and evolved over time. And if your argument is true, the Greeks would have their asses kicked by the Persians in the Persian war. The Persians have fought with a huge variety of enemies before that: Scythians, Indians, Assyrians, Anatolians, Egyptians, Phoenicians etc. On the other hand, the Greeks didn't really had any experience of varied tactics at that time, and their way of war was far more simpler than any 16th century Japanese army. Yet they kicked Persia's ass.

Not at all. We're discussing the effectiveness of the Japanese military so we compare and contrast. It is completely normal to do.

No. It's just another "Knights VS Romans" or "Spartans VS Ninja" argument. The fact of the matter is: There simply is no way to know. There is far too many variables to consider, even including pure luck not to mention they were more than a 1000 years apart.

HA to heavy cav to pike to pike shot. I don't know with the exception of gunpowder inbetween that there doesn't seem to be much more of a difference than cav to pike.

...so you are saying that a horse archer abandoning their bows almost completely and starting to act as heavy cavalry is just a small difference? Or the infantry, who were previously used only for support role and irregular warfare forming the core of the army armed with pikes?

Well simply put from the manner in which it was used, on horse back, it was too big. A recurve bow is just better.

That's why they were made in a asymmetrical shape, so the user could hold the lower part of the bow to use it on horseback. Seriously, these people were not morons. They knew that using longbows on horse in a normal manner didn't work, so they came up with a new design.

For it's size it's also alot more fragile than a welsh longbow. The yumi bow was made out of a composite of material while the longbow was made out of one piece...

...Which meant that the yumi had greater power and range. A skilled user of yumi could hit a target 120m away. AFAIK longbow men could only expect to aim and hit a target upto around 70~80m.

Actually a long sword from europe weren't sharpened and were used to cause blunt truama more so than cutting. A european sword is tough enough and with enough weight behind it that even though it couldn't cut through mail, being hit by it would still hurt. You could also stab through the rings with it unlike the katana.

Other people have already said what I wanted, so I won't. But just one thing. A katana is entirely capable of stabbing someone.

I'm not saying the Japanese were stupid, i'm just saying that their equipment would not work all that well outside of Japan. Maybe in asia but not in europe.

You can say the same to any army in the world. Take for example the British in Afghan or India. Or the Romans against the Parthians/Sassanids. Most armies before the modern age were designed to work best on where they lived.

[bushbush]

nice work there Juggernaut, i was one of the people who believed in those myths. Thanks for the sources.

[Mithie]

You guys need to brush up on your history. The power of the katana lies not in the sharpness of the blade but in the vacuum that's created when it is unsheathed. Truly, a skilled samurai like Miyamoto could draw his katana so fast that the resulting vacuum vortex can cut through entire armies.

Also - somewhat irrelavent, but my great-granduncle has two pieces of a broken katana as a war souvenir; broken when he ran over it (and the Japanese officer's corpse) inadvertently with his truck.

Now that's quality.

[bushbush]

Also - somewhat irrelavent, but my great-granduncle has two pieces of a broken katana as a war souvenir; broken when he ran over it (and the Japanese officer's corpse) inadvertently with his truck.

Now that's quality.

made my day...

[Charontas]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the katanas issued to Japanese officers of WWII manufactured en masse and therefore inferior to the traditional katana?

[Carpathian Wolf]

"He(Takezaki Toshinaga) saw a warrior riding on a gray horse, with a purple armor and crimson cape, leading around 100 cavalry. The warrior told him that he and his men broke the line of the criminals(the Mongols), despite taking heavy casualties. Then he chased down the bandits(the Mongols), and he himself took 2 head by sword and polearm..."

Moko Shurai Ekotoba

"And there, Kikuchi Jiro(Takefusa) divided his 100 cavalry into 2 squadron, attacked and rode the enemy down, taking many heads..."

Hachiman no Moko-ki

"The criminals(the Mongols) divided into 2 groups after Takefusa routed them. The larger group retreated to Susohara, and the smaller group ran to Tsukahara in Beppu... Then the criminals at Susohara regrouped and raised their banners and their battle cries..."

Moko Shurai Ekotoba

"Toshinaga and his three men were wounded, and their horses were shot. Then Shiraishi Rokuro Michiyasu, a Gokenin from Higo arrived at the scene with a large force, and forced the Mongols to withdraw to Susohara again. With his horse gone, surrounded by barbarians(the Mongols), he surely would have perished if Michiyasu did not arrive..."

Moko Shurai Ekotoba

"On winter october, we entered that country(Japan) and attempted to defeat it. However our army was disarrayed and they ran out of arrows, so they withdrew after setting fire to the countryside"

History of Yuan(note that they don't even mention about the storm)



Like I said, there isn't a single primary source that says the Japanese challenged for a duel. The only contemporary painting for the battle, the Moko Shurai Ekotoba shows Samurais fighting as a group, firing volley of arrows on horse. Who made the myth up? Who knows, it can be anyone. I don't know who made the myth "a knight who falls from his horse won't be able to get up", but the that myth is pretty popular. Or the "People in the middle ages didn't bathe" one.

http://img.blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ybi/1/7...0603054125.gif
(for some reason the file shows up as text on my PC. If you are having the same problem save the file to your PC and then change the extension to GIF)



The generals of the Mongol army, Hon Tagu and Kim Bangyon were those who crushed the rebellion, and the troops who participated in the invasion was the same troops used by them during the rebellion. Which means both the soldiers and their commanders were experienced in naval invasion.



The Mongols always used a large number of auxiliaries, and they were never formed solery by horse archers, especially during this period. And your whole point is that the Japanese would not be able to defeat a "mainland army". As far as I see, Koreans and Chinese are "mainland".



The first. I don't think anybody is arguing that the 2nd invasion a total victory for Japan.



Sorry, that was the impression I was having.



You say they were weak because they didn't have any experience with varied tactics. But the fact is they did. Their tactics varied and evolved over time. And if your argument is true, the Greeks would have their asses kicked by the Persians in the Persian war. The Persians have fought with a huge variety of enemies before that: Scythians, Indians, Assyrians, Anatolians, Egyptians, Phoenicians etc. On the other hand, the Greeks didn't really had any experience of varied tactics at that time, and their way of war was far more simpler than any 16th century Japanese army. Yet they kicked Persia's ass.



No. It's just another "Knights VS Romans" or "Spartans VS Ninja" argument. The fact of the matter is: There simply is no way to know. There is far too many variables to consider, even including pure luck not to mention they were more than a 1000 years apart.



...so you are saying that a horse archer abandoning their bows almost completely and starting to act as heavy cavalry is just a small difference? Or the infantry, who were previously used only for support role and irregular warfare forming the core of the army armed with pikes?



That's why they were made in a asymmetrical shape, so the user could hold the lower part of the bow to use it on horseback. Seriously, these people were not morons. They knew that using longbows on horse in a normal manner didn't work, so they came up with a new design.



...Which meant that the yumi had greater power and range. A skilled user of yumi could hit a target 120m away. AFAIK longbow men could only expect to aim and hit a target upto around 70~80m.



Other people have already said what I wanted, so I won't. But just one thing. A katana is entirely capable of stabbing someone.



You can say the same to any army in the world. Take for example the British in Afghan or India. Or the Romans against the Parthians/Sassanids. Most armies before the modern age were designed to work best on where they lived.

So this is what i'm getting.

1. The Mongol Invasion was more so a Korean/Chinese invasion and the tactical ability which made the Mongols effective was never even in use against the Japanese. So the whole bragging rights of "we stood up to the Mongols and won" for example is non existant.

2. What made the Greeks effective against the Persians was their organization and the army that Philip II built. "Scythians, Indians, Assyrians, Anatolians, Egyptians, Phoenicians etc" had no were near that level of organization. Simple as that. Also it doesn't hurt that they had probably the greatest battle field mind in history to help them out either.

3. Okay we won't compare a Kataphract with a Samurai because as you say it is unrealistic. So let's compare a Samurai with an unamed type of horseman that happens to be covered in lammelar armor from hoof to crown, weilds a lance, a composite bow, a spathion and a mace. Who do you see as more effective.

3. Yumi bow may have been built asymmetrically but the fact is that it was still much harder to weild on horseback than a scythian/hun/turk/mongol bow. As for its effectiveness being superior to that of a welsh longbow...well I don't know if that's true without a source. Of course the tactics were also different using the bodkin arrow as they were shot into the air letting gravity to provide much stronger force.

4. Katana is a curved blade. Yes you can stab with a curved blade but a straight blade will always be better at that.

5. Yes most armies are created to fight best where they lived. I'm just saying that the Japanese were very limited on that. The Romans fought in the cold forests of Germania, the hot climate in Africa, the mountains in Dacia, the deserts of the middle east and so on and so forth. I didn't say that the Japanese army didn't evolve but you can see variations and adaptations in all these different conflicts that the Romans were in within the same span of time. The Japanese didn't have the variation of enemies and scenarios that provided them with the reason to do that.

[Rapax]

I find it a bit silly that you try to fault medieval japanese warriors for not being able to defeat enemies they historically never met or even could have met. You are essentially saying they couldn't do this or that just because they never had a chance to. How would you know how they would have fared? Answer, you don't, because it never happened. Instead you bring examples of Romans and Greeks who had no choice but to learn and to adapt to fight a variety of enemies. The japenese never had to, so that means they wouldn't be able to, yes? That is a very faulty line of thinking.
Do you think the Romans came out of thin air with a perfect army and fighting techniques? No, they learned, they adapted, often as a result of bitter defeat.
Keep some perspective before you fall out of the window with your asinine comparisons.

Also, notice how you were the one claiming the Mongols scared the crap out of them, were proven wrong by Juggernaut and now do a turnaround argument as if anyone had even wanted to give the Japanese "bragging rights" for defeating the Mongols?

[antaeus]

well obviously rapax, the katana is over rated because i could have defeated a samurai with a blunt metal pipe.

jeez

[Rapax]

Because Samurai didn't know the technology of a blunt metal pipe and hence would have been scared by it.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I find it a bit silly that you try to fault medieval japanese warriors for not being able to defeat enemies they historically never met or even could have met. You are essentially saying they couldn't do this or that just because they never had a chance to. How would you know how they would have fared? Answer, you don't, because it never happened. Instead you bring examples of Romans and Greeks who had no choice but to learn and to adapt to fight a variety of enemies. The japenese never had to, so that means they wouldn't be able to, yes? That is a very faulty line of thinking.
Do you think the Romans came out of thin air with a perfect army and fighting techniques? No, they learned, they adapted, often as a result of bitter defeat.
Keep some perspective before you fall out of the window with your asinine comparisons.

Also, notice how you were the one claiming the Mongols scared the crap out of them, were proven wrong by Juggernaut and now do a turnaround argument as if anyone had even wanted to give the Japanese "bragging rights" for defeating the Mongols?

I'm not faulting them. I'm just saying the Japanese didn't have the techniques and technology that could match up with some of the examples posted. I'm not saying Japanese were any less capable as humans. If you took Japan and filled it with Romans, and you took the Japanese to Italy, it isn't like the Japanese would be flinging dung at each other while the Romans invented a method to make the Japanese islands fly. You're blowing this way out of proportion.

I claimed guns scared the crap out of the Japanese. And guns scared the crap out of anyone. That was half their effectiveness right there.

I said that the Japanese technically didn't beat the Mongols since most of the troops were koreans and chinese and not using the Mongol's tactic at all.