Samurai & sword polish during battle

[Mark Green]

Yes!!!!! all REAL swords are just used for dressing after our non leathal battles.

And I think that all arrows that could be found were reused in all Midieval battles.

Mark G

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Would it be common for soldiers to then collect whatever arrowheads were launched against them, repair and remove from broken arrows, and re-use in their own arrows? I can't see many of these being left on the field and unlike most other weapons they were launched never to be seen again unless you were the victors?

Most would have obviously been simple iron battle heads, but the number of other shapes seen makes me think the archers must have kept quite a few different shapes in his utsubo (quiver)

 

Ouch... a darn good question.

 

Again, guess it depends on periods and roles.

 

*Good* arrowheads aren't so easy to produce. Balance has to be as close to perfection as possible.

I think Mark is right in pointing out that re-cycling enemy arrows on the battlefield was a common practice of Ashigaru or other similar rank-and-files archers which role on the battlefield was just to trow as much arrows as possible to the enemy.

 

For more specialized archers, as mounted Samurai earlier then Sengoku or "sniper Samurai archers" that supported Teppo

Ashigaru during re-loading in later Sengoku, likely less probable.

 

An arrow is a complex item, which weight, balance and lenght follow rules tightened to the user needs, and variables as

different point shapes for different targets/distances play a role, just to make the things more difficult.

They weren't shooting for quantity but sniping for quality. Selected targets of high value.

Slow firing rate, higher accuracy.

 

Guess that re-cycling good arrowheads thru re-mounting after the battle was an option for everybody at everytime.

During the battle likely was more related to certain scenarios and periods, of course with due exceptions.

If you're running out of ammunitions you'ld trow even rocks to the enemy (Japanese slings are another good topic absolutely

not fitted to this board :D )

 

And to close the off-topic post hereunder very early arrowheads that shows how much they were elaborated already

in ancient times.

 

[John A Stuart]

In Conlans new book it is mentioned that 2/3s to 3/4s of battlefield fatalities were caused by ballistic weapons, mostly arrows, before the musket. I suspect that it was quite a cottage industry in retrieving spent arrows and reconditioning them to be sold to re-arm whoever was around in the aftermath. John

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

When we see "porcupine-like" Samurai in scrolls/printings, it's not totally due to artist's immagination...

[kusunokimasahige]

They highly likely collected all yanone and other weapons left behind, or even during battle gathered ammo by pulling arrows out of the dead..

 

sadly by 1579 the Yumi was less and less in use, though several ashigaru and samurai outfits used the bow to cover the teppo units. Th most elaborate arrows were probably not used in battle.

 

I know the SCA well, my friend Anthony J Bryant made a great site of how to make your own proper samurai armor. http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/

 

The SCA battles are always very full contact, in contrary to most re-enactment battles except for the Hastings one and some saxon viking ones..

 

when we display with the Romans we cannot engage foes due to the sharpness of our weapons and the weight of our armour... (ie a scarcely clad celtic group is not able to withstand the full brunt of a cuneus (wedge) without sustaining heavy casualties...

 

KM

[Mark Green]

This is me at war.

Mark G

[roninjje]

I think what we are forgetting is that the sword was rarely used in the battle. The primary weapon was the bow, followed by naginata or yari, followed by the sword.

[Bungo]

what's with the sticker ?

 

milt

[Mark Green]

The sticker has my info. If I get knocked out, or killed, for real, they know who I am, and who to contact. Safety first!!!!!

Mark G

[Mark Green]

And I totaly agree with JJ, The sword was a last resort weapon. If you are close enough to kill someone with your sword, they are close enough to kill you!!! These swords are huge razor blades. You just get touched in an area with no armor, and you are opened up in a big way.

So, Although there were many people killed by swords. The Yari is QUEEN of the big battle.

I am a spear fighter in most big melee battles. I 'kill' 10 times as many people with my spear than I would if I was fighting with my sword and shield.

Arrows do good work as well.

Samurai armor was designed from the early times to be arrow defence. It changed very little in 400 yrs. Guns, made the armor change from leather, to steel.

Hence the huge change in swords at about the same time. Shinto swords had to cut through much tougher armor. Shinshinto swords had to cut through steel. That is why the weight of swords nearly doubled.

It is allways fun to let people hold my early 1500s wak in one hand, and my shinto Tomoyuki in the other. I just say, "before guns, after guns".

Mark G

[Bungo]

just curious, in your re-enactment battle, how do you register a " kill " ? What 's the criteria , a light touch of your yari point ? How about arrow ?

 

milt

[Mark Green]

We should likely take this off the list. I would be glad to tell all.

email me at dgreen7@bellsouth.net

 

Mark G

[Jean]

Mark,

 

I notice on your armour a "fleur de lys". Where does it come from?

[Jean]

Some Heraldic - fleurs-de-lys

 

At the origin, French Kingdom (coat of) arms was :

 

"D'azur à un champ de lys d'or" (bleue covered with gold fleurs-de-lys), later, it became :

"D'azur à 3 fleurs de lys d'or" to celebrate the Holly Trinity

Bleue covered by 3 gold fleurs-de-lys,

 

We often refer to "le Dauphin" when we are talking of someone who is considered as a leader' heir (political party, kingdom ...) because the French kingdom heir (coat of) arms were :

 

"écartelé aux I et IV d'azur à trois fleurs-de-lys d'or ; au II et III d'or au dauphin d'azur pamé d'azur barbé, crété de gueules."

 

Split in four part, in 1 and IV bleur covered by 3 gold fleurs-de-lys, in II and III gold covered by a bleue Dolphin with red fins

 

http://svowebmaster.free.fr/drapeaux_Dauphine.htm

 

In heraldic :

 

Azur= Bleue

Or= Gold

Sinople= Green

Sable= noir

Gueule= rouge

 

 

 

That post was intended to teach Milt about Fleurs-de-Lys

[kusunokimasahige]

Guns, made the armor change from leather, to steel.

 

Not true, the oldest genuine armor pieces found are already made from iron, "steel" i have not seen yet, nor leather...

 

The thought that all samurai armor was entirely made out of leather is a misconception, just like the thought Imperial Roman armor was made out of leather.

 

just for the fun of it.. some pics of our Roman group:

 

 

 

 

KM

[John A Stuart]

Being a fan of all pre-gun warfare I love seeing these pics. I've met a few members of SCA and they can be quite fastidious in their gear, even some foregoing the off the rack stuff and making their own. It really takes anachronism to the limit seeing legionnaires with modern folk and Japanese bushi with medieval knights looking on. Precious. Great work guys. John

[Guido]

This thread is becoming more and more interesting. French Samurai, whaddayanow?

 

But since we're discussing polishing techniques: do you guys care to see a picture of my group reenacting the Kamasutra (I'm under the table to the left, and I'm definately not going to discuss in public what *we* consider a "kill")?

[Brian]

And that's the last and final word on the off-topic on this one. Mark himself already asked people to take it to pm.

The next off-topic in this one, gets to make an involuntary $50 donation to the forum. Care to test me?

 

Brian

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

It changed very little in 400 yrs. Guns, made the armor change from leather, to steel.

Hence the huge change in swords at about the same time. Shinto swords had to cut through much tougher armor. Shinshinto swords had to cut through steel. That is why the weight of swords nearly doubled.

It is allways fun to let people hold my early 1500s wak in one hand, and my shinto Tomoyuki in the other. I just say, "before guns, after guns".

Mark G

 

Not sure it exactly followed these steps...

Your sword is not expected to cut thru steel brest armor.

[Brian]

Unlocked. Carlo's point is a good one, and getting the thread back on track to discussing sword useage and armor etc. Anyone want to expand on the changes in armour and sword styles/shapes?

Please keep it on track.

 

Brian

[kusunokimasahige]

As i read in dr Stephen Turnbulls books the changes in sword shape/construction had more to do with the decline of the O yumi and a gradual development in techniques than with the changes in armour due to the introduction of Teppo.

 

Even the Koryu sword techniques major striking points are the places where the armour is virtually non existent, ie the inside of the legs groin area, the armpits, neck, and underside of the wrists.

 

I will try to ask Trevor sensei of Toraba what his views are on the subject.

 

KM

[John A Stuart]

Hi All, I have to take issue with Mark's statement ( Shinto swords had to cut through much tougher armor. Shinshinto swords had to cut through steel. That is why the weight of swords nearly doubled. ), sorry Mark, but, Mongol armour was leather and proved problematic to the effectiveness of swords made prior to their invasions causing a reworking of the template for contemporary swords. This is documented. At the time the Japanese warrior wore the laminate armour typically associated with the samurai, which, had it's origin on the mainland centuries before. The boiled leather of the Mongols was tough stuff. This style of Japanese armour, for the most part, persisted during the senkokujidai with a few modification due to European influence creating full steel plate do to withstand projectiles from teppo. After the campaigns against Osakajo peace for the most part ruled the land and armour acquired a primarily ceremonial role. Swords did not have to be changed to meet new armour challenges. The swords of this shinto period became straighter (less sori) to facilitate a quicker nuki and this was against unarmoured opponents (with a few exceptions). With the advent of the shinshinto period there was a renaissance of earlier styles of swords and still not having to stand against armoured opponents were heavier due to the newness of their manufacture as compared to swords of 500 years earlier which had lost much metal through polishing. Too, swords produced in this era still had their own distinctive characteristics. It might be interesting to note that through legislation a lot of koto tachi and katana had been shortened, thus lighter while sword lengths in the shinshinto period could be made longer due to the relaxation of laws. These koto period swords were still much prized and hadn't had to be used against armour anymore. Shinsengumi fanatics can attest to how the factions were outfitted. John

[stekemest]

But can the higher weight of shinshinto swords really only be explained by the polishing and shortening of earlier Katana/Tachi? I have seen Koto and Shinshinto swords similar in size and breadth, and the Shinshinto often felt much heavier. I doubt this is only because of polishing?

 

Regards

Peter

 

PS: I hope this is not off topic, to be honest, I dont even know what the topic is at the moment...

[John A Stuart]

Not totally. It depends on the era of sword that is being reproduced. Heian era swords being thinner with large funbari would be lighter while Nambokucho era swords being much heavier, little funbari and thick. John

[Bugyotsuji]

The Korakuen Gardens were built ostensibly as pleasure gardens in order to keep the Tokugawa central authorities smiling, but many of the garden's features had a secret secondary defensive function. One such feature is a small zigzag bridge over one of the streams, made of 砂岩 sandstone which was particularly suited to mass sword sharpening.

 

Photo borrowed from here:

http://www.geocities.jp/onyadosuzume/ne ... ruki3.html

[Mark Green]

Hi gang.

While it is obvious that your swords was not expected to chop through steel armor, it sure would help if it could. Plus, you sure want to cut someone where the armor is less effective, but that doesn't mean you will have the chance. If my sword has a good chance to cut through your armor, and yours doesn't. Good luck!!!

Yes, armor in Japan, as well as everywhere else in the world, followed missle weapon tec. In Japan that changed very little, until the gun came around, and then changed very little again due to peace breaking out, and the Samurai putting the gun away.

The mongol armor gave the Samurai problems accross the board. The samurai bow was less than half as powerful as the Mongol bow. That was why the Mongol armor was better.

Not long after the Mongol invasion, the Samurai, and sword makers got together with a new plan. Swords for war changed.

Durring the Nambokucho wars, as durring all great periods of war the swords became much more stout. Swords made for war!!! But Japanese swords, are always made to be ready for war. And as large and powerful as Nambo era swords are, I would bet if you held 50 uncut swords of that era, next to 50 swords from the Shinshinto era, you would find a big weight defference. I feel this may have a bit to do with the armor of the time.

While a few swords may have been made for 'gun slinger' Samurai, for unarmored combat I doubt that they were many. War could break out at any time, and most Samurai tried to stay ready for this. Plus, If I were a gun slinger duelist, I would want a sword that could chop the other guys sword in half, as long as I could move it fast. The sword that absorbs most of the kenetic energy, will be the one that breaks, or takes the huge chip. A bit of extra weight would help with this a bunch.

I have a late period Korekazu that was made with a nice bulge in the Monouchi. I have never seen any other sword with this, but others may have been polished out. This is not a flaw, but was made that way. I would say the reason for this woud be added weight at the sweet spot. I can think of no other. An experiment? maybe, but it does make sence.

So, I may be wrong about the weight and stoutness of swords due to armor change, but Im not sure. It most likely was due to the need for your sword to live through combat of the time????

Fun topic guys.

Mark G

[kusunokimasahige]

Indeed an interesting thought,

 

I have several other points to make, cuz this is of course not an argument but a debate about the subject on weight and sharpness of the nihon-to.

 

In my view,

 

-the biggest problem with the mongol army was the way they fought, not in small groups which you can single out easily or even challenge to a duel fight, but in large massess and rank-file.

 

-The Mongol army did have different armour than the samurai, thats true, but not all made of only cuir bouillé, also a lot of metal was used (plate-iron)

 

-The Mongol army made heavy use of gunpowder and horse archery, apart from the composite bow.

 

-The Mongol army was most succesfully attacked by raiders who took the fight to the ships (second invasion)

 

Personally I do not think that the Japanese sword makers actually came together to discuss and invent some kind of new sword.

 

might the idea of cutting through armour, and weigh-up the sword stem from the helmet-cutting tests of the era?

 

Also, in accounts of Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea, the different battle tactics are well described with some references to the Mongol invasion.

In this case they fought combined Chinese/Korean forces.

 

 

KM

[Brian]

The Mongolian invasions most certainly did lead to discussion and re-evaluation of the Japanese sword. Remember that they would have lost if it were not for the Kamikaze.

Read "The Japanese Sword" by Kanzan Sato, page 54 and 55 for reference to the edict that was sent out by the Bakafu to improve military strategy and equipment, and the resulting creation of the ikubi-kissaki no tachi, and the influence on tanto from then on. It seems to have influenced everything from the shape, to the hamon from there on.

 

Brian

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Remember that they would have lost if it were not for the Kamikaze.

 

Hi Brian.

 

Mmmm.. You should read "In Little Need of Divine Intervention" translated by Conlan.

 

Available here : http://www.amazon.com/Little-Need-Divin ... 188544513X

 

I agree on the rest you stated.

[Mark Green]

I feel, that without a doubt, the Mongols would have been on the beach to stay, if the storms had not wrecked the fleet. They may have swept Kyushu in short order. Maybe all of Japan, although I feel the Bakafu would have quickly adapted, and Japan is so wonderfully easy to defend. Their bigest problem of the time, was that they had no navy. This seems crazy to me, for an island nation.

I doubt that the Mongols had much cav. with them. Horses are way too hard to transport by sea. But lets remember, the Mongol army had pounded through everyone! Their commanders were well trained by real war. Most young Samurai of the day, had seen little or no, real combat. Believe me, there is a very big difference.

As said above, the Samurai way, was hero combat. The Mongol way, was high density inf. tatics. With lots of great toys. Like things that explode. Their wars vs the Chinese were hard fought, and mostly siege.

I do feel that the Samurai would have learned, and in a short time would have given the Mongols fits. It would have been very tough for the mongols to stay in supply. Had the Bakafu gone to a scorched earth policy.

It is a war that could have lasted for decades, had devine intervention not happened, (TWICE!!!!)

Just think of what Japan would have become if they had embraced the power of a navy in the 13c. Look what they did in 50 yrs. when they finally got a clue.

It is a sure thing that the equipment used by Samurai after the mongol invasion, were improved in a big way. Brian is way correct on this.

:lol: Luv ya'll

Mark G