|
Besides the palisades used by troops equipped with matchlocks, why was the individual shield so absent from Japanese warfare during the Sengoku Jidai?
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
The real answer is we aren't sure. It probably had a bit to do with the fact that guns and horses were fairly common in the sengoku period and guns make shields fairly obsolete. Really all we know is that the Japanese hadn't used handheld shields with any regularity since the Heian period, as to why is a question, with many inferences that can be made, the primacy of two handed weapons and horse archery, the usage of shoulder guards, and the usage of fairly complex and comparatively heavy armor. Of course there is the idea that shields were seen as cowardly which might have been in and out of popularity, but I think that this is more likely revisionist crap, because it stinks of sengoku jidai style logic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
uinfuirudo posted:sengoku jidai style logic. Soo... coldly rational and inclined toward treachery? I assume you meant Tokugawa/Meiji style Bushido logic. I think it was fairly similar to the European phasing out as armor advanced ahead of weaponry, shields became less useful. A lot of infantry fighting was with polearms (in which case two hands on the pole and extra length tended to beat out shields) or archery from horseback, which also needed two hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Has there ever been a major warrior culture that has abandoned some piece of equipment because it is cowardly? Since I can't imagine any such culture existing for very long.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Has there ever been a major warrior culture that has abandoned some piece of equipment because it is cowardly? Since I can't imagine any such culture existing for very long. Umm... the Spartans refused to build walls?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Umm... the Spartans refused to build walls? Not so, they wanted to abandon Athens and the rest of Greece and build a wall across the ithmus during the second Persian invasion. It was more that they didn't need walls, being landlocked in rugged terrain. While the Athenians did need walls. Hence Themistocles' amusing deception during the rebuilding of Athens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Has there ever been a major warrior culture that has abandoned some piece of equipment because it is cowardly? Since I can't imagine any such culture existing for very long. America and offensive biological weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Nah that's just more a case of too much at stake to risk escalation. Nukes are old, nukes are predictable, hence they get kept. gently caress up a superflu, or get into a race for superflu, and you risk losing absolutely everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:a case of too much at stake to risk escalation "a case of too much at stake to risk escalation" is approximately "Cowardly"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Has there ever been a major warrior culture that has abandoned some piece of equipment because it is cowardly? Since I can't imagine any such culture existing for very long. Explosive bullets after the Geneva convention? Less because it's cowardly and more because it's believed to be overly cruel, but there you go. I think the key is that it has to be perceived as inessential.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Has there ever been a major warrior culture that has abandoned some piece of equipment because it is cowardly? Since I can't imagine any such culture existing for very long. Edo period Japan with firearms maybe? Although it probably had less to do with the perception of cowardice and more so the fact that it's harder to keep peasants under control if they all have guns. *This is not a gun rights post*
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:Edo period Japan with firearms maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:Contrary to popular belief, no.  Thanks! I've heard this myth parroted all over the place by so many different respectable people. Really surprising!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:
 (See also, any time anyone starts talking about the Persian Wars or the Ottoman Empire vs. the West.) Firearms: A Global History to 1700, touches on this, explaining how firearm use ties in with the kind of warfare each group of people is fighting at the time, and the type of terrain in which they live, etc. Great stuff, and refreshingly racism-free.Edit: Also, Geoffrey Parker claims that Nobunaga invented volley fire about 20 years before Maurice of Nassau. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:I think the reason this myth persists is because military historians really like believing that IN EXOTIC NIPPON people were all backward and hidebound and poo poo, unlike us Westerners. Well, Maurice just copied the Romans anyway, so  
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Well, Maurice just copied the Romans anyway, so Heh, they saw them doing it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:
There is so many strange myths about warfare in Japan that I could write a whole book on the issue. So many of those myths are about gunpowder ("Samurai detested firearms because they considered them cowardly! Because it makes complete sense that a warrior caste that established their social hegemony through being badass horse archers for centuries would hate everyone who doesn't fight hand-to-hand combat!").
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:He said he did, but in my opinion there is mo way you can get volley fire from Roman drill. (My pet theory is that some Dutch people saw Nobunaga's troops doing it, but I'll never be able to prove that.) I dunno, someone obsessed with Roman tactics would know that they all threw their pila in unison, usually to stop an enemy charge. I don't think its such a big leap to volley fire. That said, who knows really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:
The book I linked in my first post talks about how early cannon chiefs were often the bellmakers who had made the cannon, and it technically belonged to them. That, combined with the technical skill needed to employ a cannon gave them more prestige and status than your standard soldier. Regarding religion, the patron saint of artillery (among many other things), St Barbara, is still celebrated by artillerymen in the US Army and Marines. As far as I know no other branch celebrates their patron saint. Some of the traditions include a skit on the Genesis of artillery, inducting notable artillerymen into the Honorable or Ancient Order of Saint Barbara, reading the legend of Fiddler's Green, brewing artillery punch with items including dirty socks and powder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I dunno, someone obsessed with Roman tactics would know that they all threw their pila in unison, usually to stop an enemy charge. I don't think its such a big leap to volley fire. That said, who knows really. That is not what volley fire means. Volley fire is more of a reloading/movement drill, where the first line fires and then moves to the back of the formation to reload. Then the former second line fires, moves to the back etc. Apparently, the Romans used something similar with their skirmishers. It does sound a little unusual that readying a spear you hold in your left hand should take as much time as reloading a 17th century musket, though. But on the other hand, why should he lie about getting it from the Romans? Heh, getting it from the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:Contrary to popular belief, no. Well wait, I knew that the federal government kept their firearms, I thought that they just had a super aggressive policy against any of the peasants or local lords using them, which seems pretty normal for a government concerned mainly with preventing any uprisings. I remember reading somewhere that they also had some big sword bans for a large portion of the populace too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Wasn't there an aversion to crossbows during the early medieval times?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:12
|
|
Mans posted:Wasn't there an aversion to crossbows during the early medieval times? I think your confusing this with the Popes attempt to ban them for use at least against European armies.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Well wait, I knew that the federal government kept their firearms, I thought that they just had a super aggressive policy against any of the peasants or local lords using them, which seems pretty normal for a government concerned mainly with preventing any uprisings. I remember reading somewhere that they also had some big sword bans for a large portion of the populace too. ...Federal government?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Well wait, I knew that the federal government kept their firearms, I thought that they just had a super aggressive policy against any of the peasants or local lords using them, which seems pretty normal for a government concerned mainly with preventing any uprisings. I remember reading somewhere that they also had some big sword bans for a large portion of the populace too. There were several attempts to remove weapons from large parts of the population, starting in the 16th century. They were usually aimed at specific groups, such as the monasteries or peasants. The sword hunts were clearly political tools and were used by all of the primary unifiers of Japan (Nobunaga, Toyotomi and Ieyasu), and meant to remove threats to the centralized government that was rapidly being created. The most radical decision was made by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who sent out edicts that proclaimed the separation of classes into samurai (which includes, despite some people's belief, ashigaru) who were allowed to carry weapons, and everyone else who didn't. Peasants and monks had been a constant source of uprisings against local lords, so disarming these groups was seen as a necessary action against a highly likely threat to Toyotomi's rule. A generation later the Tokugawa regime would solidify this separation even further by removing any circumstances that would allow a person to change class: it was 100% heriditary to be allowed to carry weapons. But other sword hunts were conducted against samurai caste people as well, to defuse the pressure from masterless samurai or lords of questionable loyalty. Again, we can clearly see them as political tools to keep the central authority safe by disarming potential threats. Later on, when warfare was more or less unknown, the right to carry swords became a social siginfier for the samurai caste. A sign saying "I'm of a higher birth than you", more or less. When the relative wealth of samurai (whos income was directly related to rice harvests from their fiefs) decreased compared to that of the growing bourgeoise (who were making poo poo-tons of money on expanding trade and manufacture), this signifier became a lot more important for the samurai. This is the point where a lot of the bushido revisionist philosophy starts to appear, by puffed up beaurocrats who have an advantage in social capital but not in actual wealth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Thanks for clearing that up! I knew there was some kind of weapons ban.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Soo... coldly rational and inclined toward treachery? I assume you meant Tokugawa/Meiji style Bushido logic. yes, I was particularly meaning to refer to edo jidai, as in edo jidai writing. Edit: I agree, I believe that the main reason though for the sengoku period would have been that guns were adapted relatively quickly by the Japanese making shields pretty much obsolete. IRC the Japanese(Oda Nobunaga in particular) were pretty advanced when it came to gun making and tactics beyond what even the Swedish were doing until the 30 years war. uinfuirudo fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:But on the other hand, why should he lie about getting it from the Romans?  glorious Antiquity*~* (read: Byzantine military manuals), then it's incomparably better than all this grimy Late Medieval poo poo. I don't know exactly when it was, but at some point during this period Venice payed a classics professor to tell them how to build triremes, which marked the first and last time you could make money off of being a Classics professor. Hi, Eggplant Wizard, how ya doin'?Also, I'm not saying he deliberately lied, I'm saying that he may not be too clear on his own thought processes and, again, he's weeabooing hardcore over Rome. [ Insert dumb sex joke here ] HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
I haven't read anything by Maurice, only secondary sources, but what I got out of it was that he took Roman training techniques and things like marching in step, not volley fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I haven't read anything by Maurice, only secondary sources, but what I got out of it was that he took Roman training techniques and things like marching in step, not volley fire. But marching in step must surely have been around? Since how the hell would you organize a tercio properly otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:"a case of too much at stake to risk escalation" is approximately "Cowardly" First, that is the opposite of what he meant. He wasn't saying it was cowardly not to use the weapon, but that it would be cowardly to use the weapon. Second, following the Geneva Convention is cowardly now? What? e: not you hegel, baloogan. semicolonsrock fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:But marching in step must surely have been around? Since how the hell would you organize a tercio properly otherwise? The people in tercios and seventeenth/early eighteenth century lines of battle were much farther apart than you think they are, and than they would be later--for example, French regulations during the Nine Years' War had RANKS four paces, about twelve feet, apart, and FILES three feet or more apart. You need room to (1) swing and carry a 15-to-21-foot long pike, if you have a pike (2) load your matchlock without setting the gunpowder of the guy next to you on fire with the length of slow match you're swinging around (3) perform the countermarch and other evolutions between the ranks of the people behind you. People start closing up once the flintlock is introduced, but it takes a while. Edit: What Maurice of Nassau invented may have been stopping in unison, not the cadenced step. The sources are unclear. I am inclined to think the first, because of the whole parade ground issue. Edit 2: semicolonsrock posted:Second, following the Geneva Convention is cowardly now? What? HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:Explosive bullets after the Geneva convention? Less because [the use of such ammunition]'s cowardly and more because it's believed to be overly cruel, but there you go. I think the key is that it has to be perceived as inessential.  Ed. 3: Confused ranks and files again, only caught it days later. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:Good stuff Thanks, I figured that they would keep a close formation such as Phalanxes did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:First, that is the opposite of what he meant. He wasn't saying it was cowardly not to use the weapon, but that it would be cowardly to use the weapon. Last one to make explosive, hollow-point, poison-tipped bullets is a rotten egg!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Thanks, I figured that they would keep a close formation such as Phalanxes did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:horses won't charge an array of sharp objects pointed toward their eyes or chests. This thoroughly is wrong, and I'd like to hear where you heard this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Seems the WW2 thread is going down, but claimed not by Hitler obsession but the old chestnut of the morality of the first A-Bombs. Was fun while it lasted.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
At least no one brought up the bear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
What bear is this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This thoroughly is wrong, and I'd like to hear where you heard this. Alot of TV shows do "tests" with horses that are not trained as warhorses and therefore use their horsy instinct to shy away from things. That said though, would a knight really want to charge a dense block of men when he couldn't burst out the other side and set up another charge?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:40
|
|