I have no idea, this is the first time I've heard of it.
I can appraise antique Japanese armor and swords, I'm not a historian (at least I don't consider myself to be one).
EDIT: Come to think of it, there were many factions in Japan, so what ashigaru would have been paid would have varied anyway.
That was the case in pike-and-shot-era europe and in ancient macedonian armies, so I don't see why not. It just makes sense that men in a pike block be paid more if they're at the front to discourage the formation from contracting as it advances.
Hankyu and Daikyu are both yumi (弓). In "hankyu" (半弓) we have the kanji "half"(半) and the kanji "kyu" who can also be spelled "yumi" and simply mean "bow". In daikyu we have the kanji "tai" (大) wich mean "tall" or big and the kanji yumi again. Daikyu just mean "longbow" and hankyu "shortbow". They are not really category of specific weapons in fact, remember that most modern categories are modern construction.
Japanese did make a big use of shields called "tate", but those were used to form mobile shield wall where archers fire in defensives positions and advance behind them. Those shields look more like pavise or mantlets to us, but this was the evolution of shields in japan, it didn't disappear. In melee combat, japanese didn't really need hand shields at the contrary of other culture who relied on them because of the lack of efficiency of their own weapon, like europeans knights who's swords were more used like hammer than to actual cutting. They rely on swordstaff called "yari" which were as good for trust than for cut, and were more efficient than spears. During the Imjin war, in the few moments of melee fighting between chinese troops and japanese, we see japanese swordstaff trusting and piercing handshields of chinese swordsmen during the charge in the same manner phalanx pierce roman shields during macedonians war. In fact the chinese were about to rely more on haldeber after this encounter than swordsmen with shields and officers still import from japan japanese blades of swords and swordstaff and glaives (naginata) alike. Those weapons need 2 hands to be handled well and for the longest of them ("nagae yari", long swordstaff) they needed to be used in formations in order to be effective.
Yet Yari were not used like macedonian spears or modern europe spears. They form one to 3 row of spearsmen when ordered to fight infantry who are not as close than european tercio for example, in fact they are very mobile, but they must kneel and be immobile in line to stop cavalry. In infantry vs Infantry, they smack their enemy in a coordinated strike, pushing the blades togethers, melee never last long anyway and most of the time, it's the first charging who win.
Japanese, like many other people, used what was available to fight depending of their ressources. When Ikko Ikki marauders attacked Kyoto, noblesmen of the court cut down bamboo in order to arm citizens militias (machi-gumi) with bamboo spears. Peasants used many kind of weapons and we sometime see true war axes in hand of monks warrior. Yari were more reliable than other weapons because of political situation: war were now about to seize actual land rather than track down foe's kinship, but to do that, the ground was to be hold against cavalry and only trained spearmen could do that. From Onin war to the end of Warring states period, yari techniques on battlefield evolve greatly. Yari became longer and were massively used in line formation quarter called "yari blanket" (yari fusuma). Samurai footmen still used short yari in a less "formation" tactic like (but that don't mean they fight totally alone, in fact they fight in group, one keeping safe another back and protecting each other and helping to have opportunities to take a head) and were ordered to flank those long yari lines were the lenght of the yari became a disadvantage.
To import horses is big deal, more in statement of the warring state. Warlords have very few knowledge of outside world (and don't have really much time to dedicate to it) and could not make commands of specific thing. Instead, they rely on the offers of their own merchants, and if someone bring something interesting, they would make a command of it. The horses of today if they have the size, or even greater size than horses of this era, they are less strong and very less wild. Warriors like wild like horses because those bit people and smack them in battle and even if they were not as fast as the mongols one, they provide a great fighting plateform from where a spearmen could fight much alike an infantry men with some head ahead. The saddle was very stable as for the horsemen. In battle, horses units were in fact mixed with infantry followers. Knight were in fact "big infantry men" in much way than a tank. When charging, they scatter the enemy and disorganize his formation in order for the footmen following men kill isolated and scattered foe's in group and taking up the heads for them and protecting the knight and the horse when in danger. The operation begin with a fear like action, cavalry men riding around the enemy and suddenly charging one flank or another to break their formation, this was called "atenori" or "hit and run", then when enemy was brought by confusion with those successives attacks, knight will push their horses in middle of their ranks followed by infantry, this late action called "noriki". For spearmen it was very difficult to follow because nagae yari were more heavier than short spears and they have to provide a good formation in order to stop an actual charge, cavalry still can stop and easly flank them or attack elsewhere where the nagae yari were not anymore since they don't ride in wide formation like other country cavalry, but in very small teams of five or 10 horsemen and followers on foot.
In melee combat, japanese didn't really need hand shields at the contrary of other culture who relied on them because of the lack of efficiency of their own weapon, like europeans knights who's swords were more used like hammer than to actual cutting. They rely on swordstaff called "yari" which were as good for trust than for cut, and were more efficient than spears.
One detail concerning which I may intervene.
European middle-ages swords are good cutting weapons too ; and falchions, scimitars may even outclass Japanese swords in cutting ability but loose in trusting ability compared to Katana/Tachi.
European swords were never blunt ; weren't used to hammer with the blade. Against armor, one would much rather use a warhammer mace or other blunt weapon, since it is great at delivering blunt force trauma through armor. If one is struck with a sword, they much rather used it this way ;
Halfswording, to trust into precise gaps of the armor.
Or held it by the blade, to strike with the guard where the center of balace was, therefore using it more like a mace with hooking ability.
By the way, halfswording unlike popular misconception also exists in Japanese swordsmanship. It is called "Soete Waza" favored in armored combat or close quarters (tsubazeriai) situations.
Tsubazeriai being this situation, where you keep hold of your tsuba against your opponents, making it so that if he attacks, he'll hit your swords guard, giving you relative safety from his sword. I say relative ; not speaking of kicks, grappling, or indeed of soete-waza that were dead efficient at this range.
Obvious to note that your sword won't stay that low usually, if the opponent tries for example a high cut (Shomen Uchi) you raise your sword as to meet the strike.
Generally, this range is too close to allow a cut that'd be immediately incapacitating as you'd strike with the strong of the blade. Hence part of the relative safety.
There is a misunderstood usually in many forums about about warfare and war techniques on battlefields, where there is no accordance with historical research. People usually think because they see those videos were there is "martial experts" trying on the execution of an ancient technique based on pictures of ancient manuals of martial art. But this are biated sources because there is very few thing allowing to tell that those techniques were actually used and in fact in accounts of battles from european to japanese, according to the relate of the deeds, but mostly to the descriptions of wounds and the progresses of archeology, the battlefield have another face than those manuals. You should read "Le dimanche de Bouvines" (the Sunday of Bouvines) of George Duby or "Vikings" of Régis Boyer are any work of René Grousset, those people being specialist of Middle Age and above all who don't make "battle history" (histoire bataille" like some anglo-saxon still doing nowaday. In middle age actually we assume that swords were in fact very blunt and used in this manner on the fields while in japan, accounts of sword fight usually can be resumed as a tentative of one strike kill with the men attack the base between neck and shoulder or the neck itself or the face, for yari usually they try (we have to say try, because they mostly don't succed) to thrust to the face, and sometime to armpits, while we have founded on unearthed battlefields evidences of strikes on the face with the pommel of the yari and loose wounds on arms (see works of Thomas Conlan).
Those ancient martial books are biaised sources and the people who tryied to reenact their techniques are mislead because 1) They forget about the commercial use of the book and the school. Those books in europe were not secret like the one in japan, but in the same manner of japan, they were used in private school were the professor was trying to get an auditory. By more the techniques look "flashy" by more they bring attention to them, but on battlefield those techniques were altmost unsused because of the simple tension and confusion of the situation. 2) In the case of japanese, those draw techniques are mostly Edo period techniques were in fact the idea was to fight in duels and brawls, but they were no battlefields. 3) Those books were not very diffused as for the techniques, in fact we see sometime in Japan commendation to a warrior because he began attending a sword school or else because mainly warriors train in their home with simple way (cutting bamboo, sparing wood swords, etc...). In Europe, techniques began to spread with court sword which were mostly design for duels.
Also is to be considered the use of those schools by the power, most in Japan. The case of the Jigen-ryu of Satsuma is very fascinating: After submitting to Hideyoshi in 1587, the Shimazu of Satsuma were to "justify" in someway their defeat in order to keep their retainer loyalty. One of the mean used in that objective was to attribuate the responsability of the defeat of the Sendai river on the same year to the said inefficience of the Taisha-ryu (School of the style Taisha). Following the years and after Sekigahara, the daimyo Shimazu Iehira was very impressed by the Jigen-ryu of the master Togo Shigekura and decide to settle which of the Taisha-ryu and the Jigen-ryu was best. Jigen-ryu was adopted after the victory of Togo in a "Taryu-jiai" (settle duel) against his Taisha-ryu opponent. Now why the Jigen-ryu was adopted? One can think that its because of the result of Taryu-jiai, but that nonsense because there are many schools aside of Jigen-ryu which could have be given the privilege to fight such duel, but only Jigen-ryu was allowed to do so. That because of the nature of the Jigen-ryu: his main training is to stroke violently a wood stake with very big screams. Its an incredible way to let off steam. The entire teaching of the school in fact is about self control and rigid restraint and that's something very important in time of peace in a province filled with violents and turbulent warriors. Did the Taisha-ryu was really ineffective? Apart from the Taryu-jiai (where in fact they could have win as they loose, and even perhaps this was pre-arranged to have the Jigen-ryu win by the authorities), the reason said of Taisha-ryu ineffectivness was because of the defeat of Sendai river, but that was not a true motive. Battle of Sendai river was lost because Shimazu were largely outnumbered and they didn't were able to lure the very well trained and experimented army of Hideyoshi like they lure the Otomo or the Ryuzoji. But because on an era where success decide of the fortune of one man, a daimyo like the Shimazu could not afford to be too much ashamed or his violents retainer will turn on him, thus he have to find an explanation in order to not loose the face.
And this is where we really see the nature of those martials school, in the same way that the Yagyu school were very prized because of their diplomatic use, martial schools have political goals, not martial. It was a manner to restrain warriors and not to really train them. All of those techniques displayed are precisly choregrafied because it is a way to restrain the violence of the warriors, it was not in fact by the most a true subject to war display, and when it was true fighting techniques, those were only some effective in duels and brawls situation in a time of peace, but not in battlefields where its common drills and manoeuvering who decide the fate of the army... and its courage. It is a fact to remember for ALL ancient wars because peoples (on forums most likely) give too much credit to techniques, like for to know if hoplites held spear forehead or not, this debate is meanless because in fact there was very few killing in actual combat, mostly because actual combat didn't last long, people were to run away very quickly.
About the sharp comparison. No, europeans were never great smithworkers, the only moment we have something a bit ahead of other culture is with celtic metallurgy, and today it is astonishing to see that those sword, by all the sharp they have, are very fragiles (like all very ancient weapons in fact, and those scenes of sword sparing in movies are purely fantaisy because swords of that era are too fragile to not broke when parring, this was one of the main explanation of the extent use of the shield in europe). In medieval time, only the wealthier have the means to import fine steel and pre-sharped fine blades, but most of the sword are in fact kinda of blunt, and even sometime have the tendency to twist in battle (but those swords were much more resistant than the ancients ones) while even rusty japanese sword were as cutting than the sharped sword of medieval knight. One appreciation that corroborate this statement is the trade. Europeans sword were never renowed and exported outside of europe itself and in fact they have the tendency to import steels and blades from outside while japanese swords were very exported in China and Corea and renowed as very reliable weapons.
This is also due to the different use of those weapons. In medieval europe, where the norm was to capture knights to ransom them, killing weapons were not sword or even axes but dagues and dirk which were renowed as "infamous" weapons attributed to routier and throat-cutter. When war became more deadly, close quarter weapons evolved to foil swords in order to thrust and make actual kill. It does happen in the same time of the Sengoku-jidai and a fine comparison can be held with the contemporary account of the passage of Hasekura Tsunesaga in France where the french are astonished by the sharp of japanese blades saying that "it would cut a paper by the simple force of a river stream". This kind of depiction of sharp swords exist elsewhere in europe: on mythological swords!
Quite a lot of writing, I may prefer clearer, and more explicit words rather than excessive rambling. Let's go thought.
First, those Kenjutsu techniques are not based on "manuals", for they are taught in Kenjutsu Dojo, from generations of teachers to generations of teachers. Some changes in interpretation are true, but they are not to be rediscovered from scratch.
Generally, ancient European blades were indeed not as sharp as Japanese swords ; knowing how much effort was put into sharpening one blade in Japan.
However, the reason why they were not as sharp was simple ; whilst Japanese blades had hamon, differential hardening, and used that "pig iron" as so called by detractors on the edge generally ; that allowed great hardness and edge retention European swords did not ; therefore not as good at edge retention.
They were therefore not as sharpened (thought with with enough time you can sharpen any piece of metal to a great degree, however, if too soft it will loose the edge. If too hard, brittle).
However ; if Longswords were dependent on blunt trauma as you suggested. Then ; why not favor simply a hammer ? In fact, the very fact that Longswords are weighting on average between 1100g and 1800g which is definitively light compared to the weapon's size, and it's close-to-the-handle balance would not allow to deliver great blunt trauma therefore, for me, proving how much cutting was important.
The technique using a sword like a hammer was called Mordhau, and since the point of balance is near the handle allowed for much better blunt power. Exactly what makes sense, strike with the point of balance where the most power would be delivered.
Nice point in there ;
This is also due to the different use of those weapons. In medieval europe, where the norm was to capture knights to ransom them, killing weapons were not sword or even axes but dagues and dirk which were renowed as "infamous" weapons attributed to routier and throat-cutter.
However, the main reason why knights did not die as much was not ineffective weapons, as much as the incredible protection their armors gave them against the most dangerous types of attacks (trust, cuts to the torso, stomach, neck, head ; all very well protected). The best armor's protection way outclassed weapon capacity.
For example just on the picture right up there. Give me the best sword you have, and train me in cutting for ten years. I can't, just, definitively, even then can't kill him with my best strike for I'd barely glance, or dent some steel and break my blade unless I strike a weak point. And weak points won't be generally to parts that would kill the person.
Even further, the difference in hardness between Japanese and European blades was not that important.
Generally, later-era European blades with spring steel had very durable blades, with negligibly worse cutting power, but the kind of blades that were very strong and resilient. And, older types of blades, whilst softer, were definitively great cutters and rather resistant ; since softer blades would bend rather than break.
The last time I saw this argument was before 2010.
The debate on "sword sharpness" is a bizzare one. As Goutlard said, metal is just metal. You can sharpen iron down to an atomic point regardless of how it's made. It just depends on what you want it for and the vast majority of the time, excessive sharpness is impractical and can actually make cutting more difficult.
Japan was a depopulated backwater comparable to the philippenes, taiwan and parts of indonesia until about 1750. The idea that Sengoku japan was anything special on the technology front is an extremely modern idea, and not one that's actually given any credence in east asian scholarship or even pop culture.
Japanese swords suck. When I trained martial arts, the sensei told me that left-handed samurai never existed => Japanese swords suck.
Wonder what they did in sieges when they climbed up spiralling tower staircases and felt like "God Shinto, if only I were holding my sword in my left arm right now, I wouldn't be as hampered by this bloody wall to my right!"
All the sharpness in the world, were it any different, won't make a difference if you hold it in the wrong hand.
Japanese swords suck. When I trained martial arts, the sensei told me that left-handed samurai never existed => Japanese swords suck.
Wonder what they did in sieges when they climbed up spiralling tower staircases and felt like "God Shinto, if only I were holding my sword in my left arm right now, I wouldn't be as hampered by this bloody wall to my right!"
All the sharpness in the world, were it any different, won't make a difference if you hold it in the wrong hand.
Also... now a lot of people will think that Japanese armor was made of iron instead of hardened steel thanks to him not having researched the subject properly.
I know this is a reply to a post from like centuries ago in internet time. But I've engaged some people in general discussion on another forum and they've shown interest in me passing on this question further. So could you maybe provide a bit more info on this? As in, what percentage of samurai armor was hardened steel, in what periods and why? I imagine that you would know this because, well you know everything really. Also I imagine there are period records or something.
Also... now a lot of people will think that Japanese armor was made of iron instead of hardened steel thanks to him not having researched the subject properly.
I know this is a reply to a post from like centuries ago in internet time. But I've engaged some people in general discussion on another forum and they've shown interest in me passing on this question further. So could you maybe provide a bit more info on this? As in, what percentage of samurai armor was hardened steel, in what periods and why? I imagine that you would know this because, well you know everything really. Also I imagine there are period records or something.
I would first like to make it clear that Japanese armor was made in different qualities, namely loan armor and owned armor, loan armor can be divided into two groups, ashigaru grade, and samurai grade.
These three groups of armor were of a different quality in both a metallurgical sense, as well as their construction method.
I'll start with ashigaru loan armor, from what I've personally seen and read is that these armors were of poor mass produced quality, the plates are crude in shape (as can be seen on the inside of a cuirass) and were a one size fits all, they were made of pure wrought iron plate (or hardened rawhide, Japanese armor of all qualities could be made of hardened rawhide).
Those made in the Kanto area (the area around Tokyo) have some slag inclusions (that's a bad thing, if you have a lot of these and they are somewhat large they will make steel brittle), this is because of the somewhat different smelting method used in that area compared to the South of Japan were iron and steel was almost slag free (as far as that's possible with non modern iron/steel).
From what I've seen, the amount of slag inclusions present in Japanese iron and steel is pretty much inconsequential, for comparison, large slag inclusions are very commonly present in large quantities in old European iron and steel, although this too might be quality related, as there are known cases where the slag in European iron/steel is no big deal.
As for samurai grade loan armor for the rank and file samurai infantry, I don't have much to go on here, metallographic research on these things is lacking (or I just haven't seen it yet).
From what I've seen, antique loan armor for samurai looks like decent quality, and it makes sense for it to be somewhere in between ashigaru armor and owned armor in quality.
As far as the iron/steel these armors are made of... I can only speculate here, I think it would make sense for it to be mild steel, and if it is, then they would most likely have hardened the steel as knowledge of the hardening process was common knowledge among Japanese armorers.
About owned armor for the kiba-musha (the Japanese equivalent of the European knight), this is very high grade stuff, the Chukokatchu seisakuben mentions it's hardening through tempering and quenching, this is normal, just like for swords.
The hardness varies a lot and depends on the school of armorers, like the Haruta school made very hard armor of thin plates while the Myochin school made them somewhat soft but thicker.
Individual plates were made of two piece construction, one outer piece that is made of hardened steel and faced the enemy, and another that was made of wrought iron or a low carbon steel plate (or perhaps even mild steel, this could no doubt be different for different schools and maybe even individual armorers or time periods).
The Leeds Royal Armouries have done some research into this, the link to their page with the results no longer exists (or I just can't find it), but the info still exists on the internet, I will post it here:
THE METALLURGY OF JAPANESE PLATE ARMOUR
The question:
Compared to European armour, a very limited amount of Japanese armour has been examined metallurgically. Documentary sources, such as the text of Sakikabara Kōzan published in 1800, suggest that, particularly with the introduction of firearms in the 16th-century, Japanese armourers went to considerable lengths to increase the protection offered by their armour.
Could metallographic examination of some stray plates donated for scientific analysis, tell us more about the metallurgical quality and effectiveness of Japanese armour?
Results of analysis:
This section of armour is of composite construction, comprising an outer face of steel (shown as the dark-etching phase in the micrograph above) and an inner lining of pure iron (the bright phase, ferrite). The steel is distinctly harder and tougher which would help prevent the penetration of projectiles, whilst the softer iron behind is ideal for absorbing the energy of the impact.
The content of slag inclusions is exceedingly low compared with other traditionally produced ironwork and the ferrous plate is protected from corrosion by numerous coats of lacquer.
Significance:
This armour has clearly been constructed from two different carefully chosen and skilfully worked materials, such that even with a thickness of about 1mm the armour would provide the best possible level of protection for the wearer.
A piece of cheaper armour, examined at the same time was constructed entirely of soft iron containing many slag inclusions so the quality of armour may be very variable.
Output:
The results of this recent research were first made public in a series of talks that accompanied the Royal Armouries Shogun exhibition in 2005. A broader research project looking at the metallurgy of Japanese armour is now planned.
There was also a mask that was sold by a well known antiquarian that has the inscription: "Yoshiazu of Morioka made this in hard steel for Shimizu", https://www.pinterest.com/pin/335236765984591029/
As for differences during time periods, 16th century and later armor doesn't show any significant differences that I'm aware of, as for older armor... who knows?
Most antique armor dates from the 16th century and later, so metallographic research tends to focus on those armors.
I do not expect there to be much of a difference because the hardening process was well know in Japan throughout the history of samurai armor.
Whilst we are on the topic of armor do you have any idea how the above relates to weapons? Were they private purchase, loan, both? And if so which would be which?
Whilst we are on the topic of armor do you have any idea how the above relates to weapons? Were they private purchase, loan, both? And if so which would be which?
Well, samurai infantry would have been provided with loan armor because of how expensive they were and they would conveniently be uniform in type and color that way, so the samurai infantry groups would be wearing the same armors, although there may have been one or two variations for color schemes (possibly due to different large orders made at different times).
But they would buy their own swords, possibly yari as well, although yari could also be ordered in great numbers by their lord (when I say lord, it doesn't have to be the daimyo, any kibamusha will do), such yari could have a number inscribed on the tang.
Those swords and yari could be a private purchase arranged by the low ranking samurai himself, or his primary weapons like yari or guns could have been ordered in large numbers by his lord so they would all be the same, but still be of very decent quality.
So the quality of those weapons was good, but not always the best a swordsmith or gunsmith could make.
And of course the weapons that were made to custom order for the kibamusha would always be to the highest standard the smith was capable of... unless the kibamusha had serious financial problems.
I've occasionally seen suits of armor that had all the telltale signs of being loan armor, and yet they had matching haidate, this fact would without a doubt make them owned armor for kibamusha, these armors (that I've seen at least) have all been late Edo period armors and so I speculate that they would have been owned by poor kibamusha as quite a few lords were poor back then and even entire domains were bankrupt and in dept for millions of gold pieces.
So to put things in perspective...
-A 16th century ashigaru would recieve cheap loan armor and loan weapons from the lord they served, these were always poor quality regardless of what weapon it was, like loan guns with a barrel of a simple one piece construction, a pair of swords that were made in bundles, and mass produced yari and bows that were all cheap and simple.
-High ranking samurai (kibamusha) would almost always own the best quality available, like high quality guns with barrels of triple piece construction (three layers of steel plate welded in piled construction for extra strength).
The maximum quality of blades would depend on the location were the samurai made his purchase, important places like central Japan sold high quality blades that are made of multiple pieces of steel in piled construction, while remote places like Satsuma had to do with with blades of only two piece construction, thus limiting their durability.
-The samurai infantry that served the kibamusha would have something in between regarding the quality of their weapons and armor, like gun barrels of two piece constuction.
With bows you can see something similar, low quality for ashigaru would often be reinforced with only a few coils of rattan, samurai infantry would have had stronger bows with more rattan coils for greater durability, and the rich would have bows with many rattan coils.
That's more or less it... in pretty big lines at least.
And as always there were the occasional exceptions here and there, especially with bows (probably because they were cheaper).
I remember one guy once theorizing that the japanese didn't wear shields because they are a short people, and therefore, harder to hit with arrows, as the samurai warriors can stand closer to the ground.
Besides the obvious problems with this assumption, the greeks were one of the shortest people of Europe, and their favorite combat style consisted on using a large shield and a spear.
Regardless, if the japanese indeed fought mostly using the katana, not having second hand weapon (like a shield, or even a wakizashi or tanto) would be a disadvantage, as the blades are light and balanced enough to be easily wield with one hand. However, as it was discussed multiple times already, their main weapons were in fact polearms and bows, both of which require two hands to be fully effective.
That might have changed after the Tokugawa shogunate, but it wasn't like they were fighting any actual wars by then, and other than repressing rebels, combat was probably very ritualized, so practicality was the least of all concerns.
Now, would someone kindly explain me how the Mongolian invasions influenced Japan's military?
