A discussion on Japanese horse sizes

[Kissaki]

I am interested in having a serious discussion on the merits of Japanese cavalry, as pertaining to the horse sizes of native Japanese breeds. It is undeniable that Japanese horses are small -- there are eight breeds native to Japan, and all of them are ponies. But whereas just about everyone who is aware of this fact tends to downplay their suitability as warhorses (I have even heard claims that the mounted samurai were lead by the reins, by ashigaru into battle -- a patently absurd claim), I am of the opinion that such costly and high-maintanance beasts as horses would surely not be used if they did not confer a significant advantage.

In Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan Karl Friday mentions an experiment conducted in 1990, in which a 350 kg heavy and 130 cm tall pony was timed while carrying a rider and sandbags totalling 95 kg. The results were rather dismal:

"The poor beast dropped from a gallop to a trot almost immediately, and never exceeded 9 kilometers per hour. After running for ten minutes, the horse was visibly exhausted. To put these numbers in perspective: unladen thoroughbreads can gallop at up to 60 kilometers per hour, while the standard prescribed during the Meiji period for cavalry mounts carrying (unarmored) riders was 300 meters per minute -- about 18 kilometers per hour." (p.97)

I have a couple of issues with this. First of all, was the pony in the test trained for carrying the extra weight? A trained infantryman can carry 50 kgs of gear for miles on end, whereas someone not accustomed to hauling this kit would drop from exhaustion almost immediately. One individual is not the same as another.

Second, Friday is comparing apples and oranges with the thoroughbread and the Meiji pony. He speaks of an unladen thoroughbread at a gallop, whereas the Meiji mount carries a rider, and strikes me more likely as a canter rather than a gallop (it is not specified in the text). Of course a pony is not going to compare with a large thoroughbread, but I think the weak points are being exaggerated.

Karl Friday also lists the Japanese ponies as ranging from 109-140 cm in height at the shoulder, with an average height of 129,5 cm. He contrasts this with the average height of modern thoroughbreads, between 160-165 cm. But I am curious: why compare the ponies with such large thoroughbreads? In just a few paragraphs earlier, he was happy to contrast the Japanese bow with the Mongolian bow, so why not compare the Japanese ponies with the pony-sized horses used by the Mongols? If Wikipedia is anything to go by, these horses stand 12-14 hands tall at the shoulder (which by my calculations equals 120-164 cm), in other words only slightly larger than its Japanese cousins.

We also do know (and Karl Friday provides plenty of information on this) that samurai did ride horses into battle, fully armoured. Which necessarily means that the horse in the experiment of 1990 could not have been representative of a well trained war horse. But Professor Friday does make a convincing point with this remark:

"The combination of puny mounts, weighty armor, and the rarity of open terrain would have precluded sweeping charges and feigned retreats favoured by the steppe warriors, even if the Japanese had wished to fight that way. Instead, therefore, the bushi developed a distinctive, somewhat peculiar form of light cavalry tactics that involved individuals and small groups circling and maneuvring aroung one another in a manner that bore an intriguing resemblance to dogfighting aviators." (Ibid., p.107)

It is the bit about the rarity of open terrain which caught my interest. And also the fact that he goes on to argue convincingly, with examples, that they fought in this "dogfight" manner. Of course, this again requires quite a bit more strength and stamina than the "poor beast" of the 1990s experiment.

But the slightly smaller size and lack of open fields notwithstanding, the point I wish to make is that war horses had to be worth the trouble of feeding them. And even though the horses weren't as good as popularly envisioned, they weren't as bad, either, as the counter-trend would have it. I swear, each time a myth is debunked, an opposite myth appears. "Katanas were great!" "Katanas were crap!" "European arms and armour were super heavy!" "European arms and armour were super light!" I feel sure that the truth is in the middle somewhere, with these things as well as with Japanese war ponies. But I would like some input from the eminent knowledge banks here on the forums.

[shikken]

I spoke with my cousin who is a semi-professional equestrian earlier this weak on the comparison of ponies versus horses. Properly trained pound for pound a pony is stronger than a horse but only at a trot or for draft purposes. Stamina wise ponies are preferable to horses for carrying large weights at slow paces over long distances. Ponies tend to be smaller animals with shorter limbs, stockier bodies and necks hence these traits. Horses are faster and weigh more giving them greater inertia and can gallop and sprint much longer but they are far less sure-footed (due to be tall and long-limbed) than ponies making them unsuitable for rough terrain and mountains. Evolutionarily speaking this is why Japan has only ponies as native horses. This is somewhat comparable to a F1 race cart (horse) and a four wheel drive (pony).

Samurai cavalry tactics are built heavily around Japan's mountainous terrain where ponies are more suitable for climbing hills and performing flanking maneuvers. Large thoroughbreds by contrast are suitable for open fields or only slightly hilly grounds. Notably also Japan is heavily forested, again ponies are better suited for navigate the trees, roots and other hazards of the forest a decent pace compared to horses.

In an open field charge horses can mow down ponies but on hills horses are likely to stumble going up or down a hill or mountain, tire from their greater body mass and less well documented become mired in mud and soft dirt. A relatively unknown feature of Japanese ponies is that they wear a type of waraji partly because it's cheaper and partly because it improves traction even in muddy terrain. A samurai on his horse is thus less likely to get stuck in the mud than a knight on his horse especially if he's opted to wear heavy armor and put heavy armor or his horse.

[Durruti1936]

Kissaki, you raised some great points and sorry I'm late to the discussion. The breed of pony most associated with the samurai as their warhorse from earliest times is the Kiso
of which a few exist today:

http://voices.yahoo.com/kiso-pony-br...s-6727774.html

Notice the oft-repeated legend (probably a numerical exaggeration) that "some 10,000" of this breed are said to have equiped the forces of Minamoto "Kiso" Yoshinaka during the Gempei
War - he dominated the Kiso region of Shinano province where the ponies were sourced. It was probably one of the few surviving Kiso ponies that was used in the NHK TV company experiment
described by Karl Friday. Note also in the article that the Kiso breed was all but wiped out during WW2 by official order to make way for larger thoroughbred breeds and only survives because
a single stallion was left ungelded - not a great pool of typical medieval examples to use!

Karl Friday repeats the example of the pony test in his more recent book "The First Samurai - The Life and Legend of the Warrior Rebel Taira Masakado" but adds some further relevant notes:

"the early samurai favoured stallions raised in eastern Japan that were selected for their size and fierce temperament. They were stout, short-legged, shaggy, short-nosed beasts; tough, unruly
and difficult to control.

So they used angry stallions and had a greater pool to choose from and train than the 1990 experiment, interesting as it was.

The dogfighting analogy is also fascinating. Most of what we have to go on for the Gempei War until the 14th century are the semi-mythological war chronicles such as the Heike Monogatari. Taiheiki and others - translations by Helen McCullough worth getting hold of! In these chronicles you mostly have "battles" described in terms of personal duels between notable warriors with the main events swirling around them
and given scant description. These duels typically involve the warriors declaring their lineage and demanding a suitable opponent. A flurry of arrows would then ensue and if both survived they would close to
engage to take the opponent's head as a trophy for reward. This would indeed resemble an aerial dogfight as they circled to gain advantage. Strangely enough the tachi sword they all carried is rarely
mentioned - instead the usual outcome is one grappling the other to the ground and taking his head with the long dirk they all carried.

That's what you get in the romanticized chronicles that were only put in written form many years later - the reality of the overall battle may have been much different. We know that chinese group tactics
and formations were known in Japan from much earlier centuries. Cavalry wedge attack formation (described as either fish or dragon scales) and a V-shaped enveloping defensive formation ("cranes wing") are described in Hogen Monogatari chronicle covering the events of 1156 so perhaps that is how the wider battle was fought outside the exploits of "heroes"?

Modern Kiso ponies:

[Heiro de Bodemloze]

There was a rather lengthy discussion on this on these very forums a long time ago. Just before the release of Shogun 2 I believe. I'll see if I can't dig it up, it'd be great as a resource for discussion .

EDIT: I think this is it - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21683

[Nitta Yoshisada]

Thomas D. Conlan comes to the same conclusion as Karl F. Friday in his book 'Weapons and Fighting Techniques of the Samurai Warrior, 1200-1877 AD'. He is either citing the same experiment or NHK conducted a similar one ten years earlier.

Here is what the reviewer on amazon had to say regarding this:

"Also, the author repeats an unfounded conclusion about the speed of Japanese mounted warriors. He says that the medieval Japanese war horses were quite small--which is probably true when compared to modern horses. Selective breeding has increased the size of modern breeds throughout the world. Based on an experiment done in 1980 by a TV station, he concludes that mounted battles in medieval Japan would have been fought in slow motion at a trot or a canter. From his text, I conclude that NHK took a 12.3 hand pony weighing 770lbs and placed tack, rider and armor weighing 209lbs on its back. The pony had not been conditioned prior to the trial and could not sustain a canter. Lack of conditioning is a huge factor and the fact that the pony was carrying a load more than 27% of its own weight is another. Removing just 15 or 16 pounds to bring to load below 25% of the pony's weight and conditioning the horse before the trial would make a huge difference in both speed and the ability to sustain it. I submit that any horseman who rode his horse into battle would be aware of these factors, be he ever so medieval. I make this point because the illustrations include plate after plate of bowmen mounted on gorgeous muscular horses. The author asserts that artistic license must be in effect. Looking at the details of most of these horses, I'm not so sure. Many seem to be accurately depicted down to tiny details of the hooves and show hallmarks that denote a highly conditioned animal."

[miramira]

hi,

this thread is really fascinating, i am living in japan, and i am very interested in historial accuracy. sadly i dont currently have an internet connection or a computer fast enough to play Shogun2!