Mounted Samurai

[RogerCooper]

Mounted Samurai are classified in Meshweh as being Horse Bow. However, Samurai were armored and made major use of close combat weapons. I would think that Elite Cavalry makes a better classification for most.

[David Kuijt]

Interesting.

Can you find some battle descriptions where cavalry had direct interactions with infantry?

The fact they wore armor is evocative, but not enough by itself -- the Middle East and Silk Road are full of examples where horsebow had armor and hand weapons.

[RogerCooper]

On page 21 of Stephen Turnbull's Samurai Warfare, has a discussion and a print showing the Kumade (pole arm) being used to bring down a horseman. The following print shows Samurai using swords (and bows) against infantry in close combat.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Battle_of_Ichi-no-Tani_Folding_Screen_by_Kano_School.jpg

[David Kuijt]

On page 21 of Stephen Turnbull's Samurai Warfare, has a discussion and a print showing the Kumade (pole arm) being used to bring down a horseman. The following print shows Samurai using swords (and bows) against infantry in close combat.

That painting was done in ca. 1650 -- which means that all the armor, weapons, and fighting techniques illustrated are strongly likely to be anachronistic. The army lists for the Sengoku Samurai (the closest thing we have to 1650 in the army lists) already include cavalry armed with yari (spears and polearms) as JavCav.

I'm looking for textual descriptions of battles or military maneuvers or training. Screens from within the time period they were describing would be as good (although not always useful -- Japanese battle screen scrolls focus on individual acts of heroism, not on how the battle was fought by groups). 17th century paintings of 12th century battles are no good as documentation of 12th century fighting styles or armor, although they are sometimes useful for 17th century stuff.

[RogerCooper]

Stephen Turnbull's Samurai Warfare has an example on page 21 of an infantryman killing a Samurai with a rake. And the early Samurai were not carrying swords for decorative reasons.

I am working on a scenario based upon the battle of Ichi-no-Tani, which was decided by a surprise attack from the rear, something which makes more sense if you view Samurai as Elite Cavalry,

These early Samurai armies are blurry. The Samurai sometimes act as typical horse archers, at other times they charge in for the kill immediately. They clearly have large numbers of infantry, but the contemporary chroniclers barely talk about them. There were armed attendants to Samurai, who fought on foot using similar armor to the Samurai. Some infantry fought as individuals with polearms, but there is also an account of shield wall of peasant conscripts.

We know more about the Sengoku period, but we also know those armies were different from the earles armies.

[RogerCooper]

John Greer in The Armies and Enemies of Ancient China has the following take on early Samurai armies

10% Armored cavalry, samurai
10% Armored cavalry, shugen
10% Armored infantry
70% Leather armored and unarmored infantry (untrained shugen)

He has 4 illustrations.
Imperial bodyguard who is unarmored horse archer.
Armored cavalryman with bow and sword
Armored infantryman with a rake and sword
Armored infantry officer with Naginata

In Triumph terms, maybe
20% Elite Cavalry
10% Raiders (guys with Naginata)
10% Light Spear (guys with rake)
10% Horse bow
50% Horde

[David Kuijt]

I am working on a scenario based upon the battle of Ichi-no-Tani, which was decided by a surprise attack from the rear, something which makes more sense if you view Samurai as Elite Cavalry,

(a), cool, and (b): why does that make more sense? Surprise attacks from the rear happen all the time with Horsebow armies also?

These early Samurai armies are blurry. The Samurai sometimes act as typical horse archers, at other times they charge in for the kill immediately. They clearly have large numbers of infantry, but the contemporary chroniclers barely talk about them.

Same thing happens all the time with W.European (Medieval) descriptions -- the nobles were the ones supporting the writers, so they got all the press -- contemporary chroniclers rarely mention the massed infantry except as the colorful background for the heroics of the knightly class.

There were armed attendants to Samurai, who fought on foot using similar armor to the Samurai. Some infantry fought as individuals with polearms, but there is also an account of shield wall of peasant conscripts.

We know more about the Sengoku period, but we also know those armies were different from the earles armies.

[RogerCooper]

The original Samurai, back when they were fighting the Emishi, may well be viewed horse bow, and were quite effective against tribal warriors. However, by the time of the Genpei war, they were wearing elaborate armor and carrying long swords as well as long bows. There is no sign of traditional horse bow tactics in Japan, which would not have worked well in mountainous Japan. On the other hand sometimes Samurai did operate as horse bow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Em ... otoba5.jpg
(these guys were fighting Mongols)

While at other times they mixed shock tactics in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genpei_Wa ... no_ran.jpg

They were certainly different from the steppe horsemen



Did the large bows of the Samurai give them greater range on horseback? Did the elaborate equipment of the Samurai make them less mobile? Did they fight differently depending on the situation?

The existence of a specialized anti-cavalry weapon, the Kumade (war-rake), indicates that cavalry frequently closed in on infantry.

[David Kuijt]

Did the large bows of the Samurai give them greater range on horseback?

Greater range than the much better bows of the Mongols, Mamluks, etc.? Not likely. Samurai bow were asymmetric -- much longer on the top than on the bottom. They were not composite recurve bows. There is no evidence of any range advantage, and the truth is probably the other direction.

Did the elaborate equipment of the Samurai make them less mobile?

I'm really not sure where you're going with this.

Samurai armor changed quite a bit during the nearly a millennium between the Emishi wars and the Sengoku period. Which period are you describing as "elaborate"? And note that the horse is doing the mobility part. And also note that the Timurids, Mamluks, and many others had horse archers that fought (and are classified) as horsebow, who wore armor quite similar in effect and weight to Samurai armor (although they definitely didn't look the same).

The existence of a specialized anti-cavalry weapon, the Kumade (war-rake), indicates that cavalry frequently closed in on infantry.

I think you might be reading a bit too much into that.

Infantry are almost always converted farm workers, in Europe or Asia. And many times they are using converted farm tools -- the bill hook, to use a European example, or the flail (threshing flail). And a war rake is likely to use much less metal than a yari, katana, or o-dachi, and less skill to make one, and the farmers are going to be much more familiar with how you use one. Any of which suffice as an explanation for the use of kumade, and none of which are related to a purported increased effectiveness against cavalry vis-a-vis spears (yari), bows, or any of a hundred other commoner weapons.

And I'm not sure how infantry armed with kumade would be significantly more effective against Elite Cavalry than against Horsebow (which I'm assuming is where you are going with that) -- Elite Cavalry and Horsebow both attack infantry by slaughtering them with archery. That's why they evade when doubled.

Yari (poking spears) are more effective for close-order infantry (fighting cavalry or not) than war-rakes, surely. They were certainly VASTLY more common as infantry equipment than kumade, throughout Japanese history.

[RogerCooper]

Indeed, the Yari (spear) makes sense as a primary infantry weapon. But there does not seem to been widespread use of the spear until the Sengoku period.

Benkei armed himself with seven weapons, and is often depicted carrying these on his back. In addition to his sword, he carried a broad axe (masakari), a rake (kumade), a sickle (nagigama), a wooden mallet (hizuchi), a saw (nokogiri), an iron staff (tetsubō), and a Japanese glaive (naginata).[2]

Everything except a spear.


(This is 19th century, but you can see him carrying all the weapons)

But maybe the illustrations of open order infantry wielding Naginatas are misleading and the account in the Shomonki of close order infantry with shields is more reflective of the actual battles.

As for the Yumi (bow), the Japanese had smaller symmetrical bows (hankyu). Here is one interpretation of why the Japanese used the Yumi

The asymmetrical design enables a mounted warrior to pass the bow more easily over the horse’s head to aim and fire. However, benefits to this style of bow were apparent even before the advent of mounted warriors in Japan. Reduced handshock and a larger draw-length for the bow are also afforded by the asymmetry.

(Royal Collection Trust).

There needs to be some logical reason to use the Yumi as opposed to the lighter bows used by all other horse archers. Better range/penetration as the expense of longer reloads?