Questions on medieval (ca. 1100-1600) Japanese equipment

I have a few questions for our historical scholars (in this case, namely Kissaki) about old Japanese war equipment:

1) How powerful was the Japanese yumi (asymetrical composite longbow) compared to, say, the English longbow? How did it compare to its European colleague in terms of range, power, draw strength, armor defeating capabilities, etc.?

2) How effective was Japanese armor against the weapons that were used against it? On the flipside, what weapons did the Japanese use to defeat armor?

3) Were most yari (spears) used pike style (packed formations with massed spears pointing outwards) or were they used more differently? On the same topic, did samurai ever couch with their yari? Were yari even capable of doing such a thing?

4)  Does anyone know why the Japanese were hardly ever known to use held shields (such as the viking round shield or the roman scutum) in combat?

I'm gonna take a shot at these, mostly to test my deductive reasoning.

1) How powerful was the Japanese yumi (asymetrical composite longbow) compared to, say, the English longbow? How did it compare to its European colleague in terms of range, power, draw strength, armor defeating capabilities, etc.?
No idea.  I imagine it wasn't too heavy, since is was drawn past the head, so that the string arm was half-extended behind the archer.  You don't have nearly as much strength in this pose as you do in Western archery techniques.  Also, the Japanese were, on average, physically smaller and weaker than the Europeans.  It was also not designed to defeat the level or armour that European bows were.

2) How effective was Japanese armor against the weapons that were used against it? On the flipside, what weapons did the Japanese use to defeat armor?
The armour was as effective as they could make, but not up to European standards.  Their maille was loosely woven to stop cuts (they relied on silk to stop arrows) and they didn't have the raw supplies for mass production of metal armours.  This would explain why the japanese focused mostly on extremely sharp, curved, cutting weapons while Europeans seemed to favour weapons designed to stab or crush.

3) Were most yari (spears) used pike style (packed formations with massed spears pointing outwards) or were they used more differently? On the same topic, did samurai ever couch with their yari? Were yari even capable of doing such a thing?
Most japanese poles I've seen were too short to make effective pike formations.  I've also never seen anyone discuss intricate mass formations in ancient Japan.  It's my understanding that Japanese armies would place more import on being a "warrior", rather than a "soldier".

4)  Does anyone know why the Japanese were hardly ever known to use held shields (such as the viking round shield or the roman scutum) in combat?
If my supposition of the Japanese preferring cutting to thrusting or crushing weapons is correct, using a shield hampers you from wielding weapons two-handed in order to produce the strength required to cut through the straw or leather armour.  Also, when your opponent has less protective armour, striking first and hard is often a more effective strategy.  Only when his armour becomes strong enough that you can't trust your first blow to neutralize him do you start to consider bringing extra protective gear to help you survive long enough to inflict lethal damage.

Also, the physiology and tactics of the Japanese were not as conducive to shield-wielding as with the Romans and Norse.  The Romans used shields in formation, which increases their effectiveness many fold, and the Norse' bulky physiology allowed them to wield large, heavy shields as offensively as they did defensively.  Also, since the Norse were sea-faring warriors and the ship-to-ship weapon of choice was the bow, having a large shield was a very wise move.  The Norse penchance for axes can also be attributed to their shields, since a heavy, hooking weapon is the kind of think you need to get past a large center-boss shield.

The Japanese, on the other hand, are naturally small and lithe and were perhaps better off emphasizing speed and agility rather than size and brute force.  These two assets, speed and agility, seem to be the driving factors of the Japanese arms and armour that I've seen.

You're reasoning makes a lot of sense to me Eogan

13 Spider Bloody Chain said:

I have a few questions for our historical scholars (in this case, namely Kissaki) about old Japanese war equipment:

1) How powerful was the Japanese yumi (asymetrical composite longbow) compared to, say, the English longbow? How did it compare to its European colleague in terms of range, power, draw strength, armor defeating capabilities, etc.?

Click to expand...

Modern day yumi are anywhere from around 70 lb and lower. You can get practice yumi as low as 20 lb, I think. For the greatbows used in war I've heard figures between 80-120 lb, and even one claim of 150 lb. I doubt they were anywhere near that draw weight, however, as they didn't have the same armour to defeat as Europeans did. 80 lb sounds reasonable to me (mind you, I'm not an archer), with few bows being stronger than that.

2) How effective was Japanese armor against the weapons that were used against it? On the flipside, what weapons did the Japanese use to defeat armor?

Click to expand...

In Japan, same as anywhere else, armour was made with weapons in mind and weapons made with armour in mind. The O-yoroi is the Japanese version of Gothic plate. Not the same quality, mind you, even in the cases where the O-yoroi included imported plate. It did offer ample protection, however, and would have to be defeated in the same manner as full plate harness: close quarter combat, where it would be easier to slip a weapon through weak or unprotected spots. The yoroi-doshi was a particularly thick tanto designed to be able to stab through most armour available (though not plate). The O-yoroi would also be more vulnerable to bows and firearms than the Gothic plate.

Most samurai didn't have O-yoroi, though. Most troopers didn't have that great armour at all, especially the ashigaru. For the most part, yari worked just fine. Now, yari are often seen as 6-9 foot spears, but in battle many formations used 12-21 foot yari, or pikes more than spears. Yari had a variety of spear heads. Some kama yari resembled the European bill, and probably had similar function. And with such long poles, you don't have much accuracy in stabbing anyway, so what you do is to supplement stabbing with beating down on your opponent. On the end of a long pole, you get a lot of force into the spearhead that way.

As for swords, they were not designed to defeat armour. The katana may have had the most prestige (though its elevated status was more a development after the Sengoku period), but on the battlefield it was reduced to a sidearm. There are ways to overcome armour with katana, but they are limited as the halfswording options are limited. There were (and are) "helmet splitting" tests (kabutowari), but there is no instance of a sword ever having split a helmet. The record is a 13 cm gash (roughly 5"), and in these tests the performer is allowed to use all his might -- something you would never have the opportunity to do on the battlefield. See for yourself:

http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html

3) Were most yari (spears) used pike style (packed formations with massed spears pointing outwards) or were they used more differently? On the same topic, did samurai ever couch with their yari? Were yari even capable of doing such a thing?

Click to expand...

Apart from shooting at eachother with bows and firearms, pike formations was their favourite thing. The higher ranking samurai were about as disciplined as the European knights, and often charged on their own, hoping to win glory in battle. They were therefore quite difficult to control. But most of the army consisted of ashigaru, and they didn't want to play samurai any more than they had to. Most bushi had the presence of mind to stay in formation rather than charge out on their own.

As for tactics, the Japanese had very intricate formations at the start of a battle. But once it commenced, tactics were extremely basic. Once engaged, it is difficult to get orders through. This was also the case in Europe, and battlefield communication has always been a headache.

4)  Does anyone know why the Japanese were hardly ever known to use held shields (such as the viking round shield or the roman scutum) in combat?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know. They did have pavises, but for some reason they didn't use shields. Maybe because of their reliance on pole weapons, which were too long to wield one handed. But they did have axes, maces and clubs available to them, which would have been excellent coupled with a shield. They did not, to my knowledge, develop warhammers like those of Europe, but perhaps there wasn't such a great need. In any case, their lack of shields is something that has always puzzled me. It's not like they never invented them, as early Japanese warriors did use shields. But this was way back in antiquity. For some reason they abandoned their shields, but I couldn't say why.

Eogan said:

No idea.  I imagine it wasn't too heavy, since is was drawn past the head, so that the string arm was half-extended behind the archer.  You don't have nearly as much strength in this pose as you do in Western archery techniques.  Also, the Japanese were, on average, physically smaller and weaker than the Europeans.  It was also not designed to defeat the level or armour that European bows were.

Click to expand...

The fact that they are smaller and physically weaker is a non-issue when it comes to archery. Their technique for drawing the bow is different, and you're supposed to use your breath rather than your muscles, anyway. This goes for most things. My Iaido instructor, of Japanese descent, practices 2000 pushups and 2000 situps every morning. I asked him once how many he could do, and he said "no limit". This was because he uses his breath to do them. I'm not at that level yet, but seeing is believing. He doesn't tire in the least, and doesn't even break a sweat. It is the same principle as the 1000 cut warm up we do. At first it was extremely tiresome to my forearms, but as I got used to it it simply became a test of patience. Not that I grew appreciably stronger, but my muscles got used to it. Sparring with swords I can go on almost indefinitely, but give me boxing gloves and I'm winded after a minute. It's all about what the body is used to.

Another reason physiology is a non-issue is the example of the Mongol war bow, which has a greater draw weight than the English longbow -- and fired from horseback at that. Mind you, I'm going by memory as far as the draw weight goes, here.

Most japanese poles I've seen were too short to make effective pike formations.  I've also never seen anyone discuss intricate mass formations in ancient Japan.  It's my understanding that Japanese armies would place more import on being a "warrior", rather than a "soldier".

Click to expand...

Most Japanese poles you've seen were probably made after the Sengoku period. Come Edo period, the need for pike formations was no longer there, and guards or watchmen had no use for such long weapons. Outside formation, shorter spears are preferred.

If my supposition of the Japanese preferring cutting to thrusting or crushing weapons is correct, using a shield hampers you from wielding weapons two-handed in order to produce the strength required to cut through the straw or leather armour.  Also, when your opponent has less protective armour, striking first and hard is often a more effective strategy.  Only when his armour becomes strong enough that you can't trust your first blow to neutralize him do you start to consider bringing extra protective gear to help you survive long enough to inflict lethal damage.

Click to expand...

I would think that with a shield, you drastically reduce your opponent's chance to land that decicive first blow. Especially when not wearing much armour. I find the explanation of two handed weapons much more plausible, but of course this would not be the case if they used shorter yari. But then, battle yari were quite long.

Also, the physiology and tactics of the Japanese were not as conducive to shield-wielding as with the Romans and Norse.  The Romans used shields in formation, which increases their effectiveness many fold, and the Norse' bulky physiology allowed them to wield large, heavy shields as offensively as they did defensively.  Also, since the Norse were sea-faring warriors and the ship-to-ship weapon of choice was the bow, having a large shield was a very wise move.

Click to expand...

Once more, physiology isn't that dramatically different, and again it is a non-issue. You should also remember that the samurai were first of all archers, and compared with the European knights they were remarkably defensive in their warfare. If the samurai could decide a battle with arrows alone, they would. One more reason to use shields. Of course, the defensive nature of their warfare might explain their use of pavises rather than shields.

The Japanese, on the other hand, are naturally small and lithe and were perhaps better off emphasizing speed and agility rather than size and brute force.  These two assets, speed and agility, seem to be the driving factors of the Japanese arms and armour that I've seen.

Click to expand...

A full suit of Japanese armour was no lighter than its European plate equivalent. Sometimes heavier, in fact. Now, like I said, most Japanese didn't have that much armour, but a full O-yoroi (even without imported plate) could weigh 60-70 lbs. Because the components of the Japanese yoroi didn't have the strength of European plate, they had to have more of it to achieve approximately the same effect. The Japanese samurai armour was big, bulky, and designed for protection rather than speed. If speed was the goal, you'd think they'd make both sode and haidate smaller, fitting more snugly to the body.

Here are a bunch of neat links to Japanese stuff:

http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/sites.htm

Including an online armour manual:

http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/index.html


Edit: Armour. I meant armour, not samurai (see struck-out word).

Mmmm...I can feel the delicious knowledge seeping into my brain.

Many thanks to Eogan and Kissaki.

yessssss, thats why I love coming to this forum 

ive learned so much since i have started reading these pages. i feel like im a bit more knowledgable now

Another reason physiology is a non-issue is the example of the Mongol war bow, which has a greater draw weight than the English longbow -- and fired from horseback at that. Mind you, I'm going by memory as far as the draw weight goes, here.

Click to expand...

According to Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, your average Mongol would actually be stronger than your average English yeoman, since they had a better diet.

Fake edit: I actually looked this up before I hit the "post" button, and it turns out that the author compared the Mongols with Chinese peasants. Whoops. Still, wouldn't this still lessen whatever racial differences might exist? According to the same book, the Mongols were described by Western scholars as being short but tough.

I can't think of any of those steppe tribes/people that have ever been called soft. 

I'll take a stab at the non-use of shields.  In the beginning the samurai were mounted archers.  If you compare a suit of armor from of say the Gempei period or earlier to one of the Sengoku period(or even the Onin wars) you'll see a lot of differences.  Only the left arm was armored so the right was free to draw a bow. The shoulder guards were quite large and hung more to the back than over the shoulders.  I would assume for greater protection when riding away after completing a firing pass.  The helmets also generally had large sweeping neckguards.  Check out this image and you'll see what I mean.  http://www.iz2.or.jp/english/fukusyoku/wayou/36.htm
I would assume they just didn't consider shields worth the hassle.

It's still odd they didn't adopt shields or bucklers as they evolved more into infantry.  Kissaki's suggestion that it's a result of their preference for polearms seems quite reasonable.

I just remembered an odd type of shield used by the samurai.  It's name eludes me at the moment.  Horo???  It was a piece of silk worn on the back and when riding it would fill with air and balloon out making it tense.  Was supposed to have been effective at catching arrows.

I've yet to run across any figures for draw weights on Japanese bows.  However quite a few English longbows were recovered from the Mary Rose and they varied between 80 and 150 lb draw.  Mongol bows ran between 120 and 150 lbs.  The Mongols also had special bows for long range archery competitions that could go up to 175 lbs but they were too fragile and sensitive to weather changes for daily use.  Considering two very different types of bows from two very different cultures have the same draw weights I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese bows were also in this range. 

North asians are usually stronger then south, due to the harsh surroundings and their culture, hard countries breed hard fighting men similar to the norse, they had to be to survive. I'm not so sure about Mongolian diet though, on the ride they eat nothing but dried meat and horse blood. Diet in asian countries are actually very limited I've noticed. Like when I go for holidays to south-eastern countries, I had to order 3-4 meals to make up the usual amount I eat, and they always thought I ate like a horse.

Their years spent riding horses makes them short though, however I've met quite a few Mongolians and they are actually quite tall which makes me wonder...

Incredibly strong people even today, not many of them around though. In fact Mongolian unarmed martial arts is wrestling rather then actual strikes, and their bows are near impossible to draw back... for me ne ways, I'm too 'civilised' heh.

In comparison to Japanese, I would say their bows have a lower draw weight - they were focused on melee after all. Their opponents relied on offense rather then defense so I wouldnt say a powerful bow is needed in Japan.

Also, none of their armanents were suited for let's say, an invasion of Europe, their katanas were made to cut bone but not plates of steel. It's a very unique and isolated culture, mostly fighting against themselves. When the mongols invaded despite the lack of reinforcements in mongolian forces, the Japanese suffed heavy casualties due to the alien-ways-of-war.

As for shields - I cant say their culture encourages the use of shields, they seek death in battle, and honor in death, hiding behind a shield maybe considered dishonorable no? I dunno, I'm not japanese. So their tactic is fierce and crazy charges. This is reflected in WW2 as well, Japanese soldiers armed with a katana come out from bushes to slice the heads off the enemy commanders.

Subotai said:

Their years spent riding horses makes them short though, however I've met quite a few Mongolians and they are actually quite tall which makes me wonder...

Click to expand...

I don't really know if riding in horses would make them short -- other asian ccultures arent known for their heaight, but they didn't ride horses as frequently. At the same time turkish cultures rode horses frequently (at least the military) and I don't believe that they are considered to be short.

perhaps, but it makes sense my previous theory - not much exercise of legs during youth - shortness, i dunno lol
tallest man in the world at the moment is a mongol so I dunno

the mongol/north chinese/siberians i met seem to always be around the 6ft+ mark, which is even above european standards, also asians seem to be quite big in western countries, in sydney ive noticed ne ways

As for the Japanese, I wouldnt say they are physically weaker, its true asians arent really warriors in this day and age but even a singaporean ex-soldier i met had arms that could crush my head 
I'm sure the majority were quite strong back in the seppuku period where peasants had to be trained to fight in such a lawless period of their nation's history.

Subotai said:

I'm sure the majority were quite strong back in the seppuku period where peasants had to be trained to fight in such a lawless period of their nation's history.

Click to expand...

Yes, I also have fond memories of the seppuku period, where anyone and everyone would kill themselves for whatever reason was in vogue that week.



Just kidding  . You mean Sengoku. The warring states period.

LOL!

Yeah Sengoku, it gets confusing

Subotai said:

In comparison to Japanese, I would say their bows have a lower draw weight - they were focused on melee after all. Their opponents relied on offense rather then defense so I wouldnt say a powerful bow is needed in Japan.

Click to expand...

Well, like LCJr said, the samurai started out, in history, as mounted archers. And the art of the bow always remained close to their hearts. Perhaps someone can tell me whether bow size has any significance, all else being equal? Physics was not my strongest subject, I'm afraid.

Also, none of their armanents were suited for let's say, an invasion of Europe, their katanas were made to cut bone but not plates of steel.

Click to expand...

Swords aren't meant to cut through plates of steel -- this is the same everywhere. Other weapons were designed to fill that gap, such as hammers and maces. The katana was not a samurai's primary weapon on the battlefield at any rate, preferring either bows, pole weapons or firearms (when available).

As for shields - I cant say their culture encourages the use of shields, they seek death in battle, and honor in death, hiding behind a shield maybe considered dishonorable no? I dunno, I'm not japanese. So their tactic is fierce and crazy charges. This is reflected in WW2 as well, Japanese soldiers armed with a katana come out from bushes to slice the heads off the enemy commanders.

Click to expand...

The samurai daydreamed about glorious death in battle -- as did European knights. Both knights and samurai could dash headlong and recklessly into battle, but they did not seek to die. They wanted to win, of course. If hiding behind a shield was considered dishonourable, it does not explain why they hid behind pavises, and does not explain why they put on as much protection as they could afford. A samurai prized his armour far more than his weapons. And even such a fanatic as Yamamoto Tsunetomo (who was considered by his own contemporaries to be extreme and fundamentalist) quotes in his Hagakure:

helmet is usually thought to be very heavy, but when one is attacking a castle or something similar, and arrows, bullets, large rocks, great pieces of wood and the like are coming down, it will not seem the least bit so.

Goes to show that a samurai valued his protection. As for Japanese soldiers of WWII, they took the samurai culture beyond what the samurai themselves did. Partly because the army allowed Japanese men of humble descent to finally get a chance to play samurai (those who were actual descendants of samurai tended to enlist in the Navy because of this), and partly because of the indoctrination by the Japanese authorities. The samurai did not feel like killing themselves just because they were taken prisoner or lost a battle (how many samurai would be left if that was the case?). Samurai enjoyed living and being alive same as everyone else, and were generally not that keen on committing seppuku. If they had done something shameful, they would rather cover it up than face the consequences. They had survival instincts, too.

Kissaki said:

Perhaps someone can tell me whether bow size has any significance, all else being equal? Physics was not my strongest subject, I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

I assume by that you mean the same bow material, bowstring, and design. I think that the main problem with such a question is that most of teh diversity in bow strength comes not from its size, but its design. But I'll try my best

I don't know if a larger compound bow is any more powerful than a smaller one, sorry. It would seem to me that with a compound bow, if it was even possible to make on the size of say a longbow that it actually wouldn't work too well due to a hgher probability of stress fractures.

With say a simple wodden shaft however, it is my belief that a larger one is stronger, though most likely only to a certain extent. Why is this? I must admit that I actually am not sure why -- I would hypothesize that it is due to the greater amount of force needed to bend the shaft through the action of pulling back the bowstring to fire (or release? whatever it was called back then) with the optimal power and aim. When the string (and attached arrow) is released the shaft will naturally go back to its stable state, flinging the arrow forward with approximately the same amount of force that was required to bend it.

So, why would a larger one make the stronger bow? Larger shaft = more force to pull back to the optimal distance.

Not 100% sure of this, but pretty darned sure.  Hope it helps a bit

Kissaki, what you say seems to make a lot more sense about Japanese weaponry and tactics, it's true that they found shooting at an enemy was as honourable as killing one face to face, unlike European knights. Perhaps that's why they dont use shields. They were ranged soldiers as well perhaps?

Ezias said:

I would hypothesize that it is due to the greater amount of force needed to bend the shaft through the action of pulling back the bowstring to fire (or release? whatever it was called back then) with the optimal power and aim.

Click to expand...

Actually, the shorter bow would be harder to pull because you are pulling it into a tighter arc and stacking would increase the draw weight considerably.

But assuming you're talking about two simple (ie. non-recurved) bows that both have the same draw weight at, say, a 28" draw, then the longer bow would be more powerful.  At least to a point.  A longbow has greater torque than a short bow, but the short bow has greater acceleration.

It's like racing a sports car and a semi:  on their own, the sports car will win everytime, but hitch a full trailer to the back of each vehicle, and the sports car will be greatly slowed while the semi will be barely effected.  Depending on the weight and drag of the trailer, eventually you would be able to come up with a vehicle that properly combines torque and acceleration to best pull it.  Too much acceleration, and it won't be able to overcome the trailer's inertia, and too much torque and it will simply be too slow.

Continuing with that analogy, an arrow is the "trailer" that a bow must drag, and long bows are much closer to the perfect balance of torque and acceleration than short bows are.  Someone better at physics than me could probably give you a ratio of draw length to bow length for optimizing torque and torsion.

Of course recurve bows bypass this by using a backwards curve to increase torque while still keeping the acceleration of a short-bow, which is why they get so much more power than a simple bow of similar length and draw weight.

Eogan said:

Actually, the shorter bow would be harder to pull because you are pulling it into a tighter arc and stacking would increase the draw weight considerably.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the main problem I had with what I was saying -- as i was ttyping it i was thinking of attempts to break/bend shorter sticks compared with longer sticks. hence my knowing that I wasn't totally correct   And I also really like your analogy -- though I'm not sure that the accelleration would in fact be greater on a shorter bow. Not saying you're wrong, jsut that I'm not sure about that part. You probably are right, but I don't feel like going into all the calculations to find out