"How were Samurai mounted archers deployed?" Topic

Would a group of mounted archers be protected by mounted spearmen or swordsmen when attacking? The archers would be occupied and not watching their front or rear.(Just got the TAG mounted archer set and I need to know what I need to add in mounted figures.)

Which century would we be talking about?

Griefbringer

This'll be good

Popcorn, anyone?

I'll throw this in, just to get things going. What did they need protecting from? Your spearmen and swordsmen aren't going to stop incoming missiles, and samurai carried their own close combat weapons anyway.

I reall really wanted to say on horseback, but I'm not that much of a smarta*s.
I really can't say, as that was never a problem when I played 6th edition with my Samurai. Do any of the current rules sets say any thing? What about horse archers in other armies?
I would assume that if the list says that they have alternate arms, you could include some in the unit, but see no reason to dedicate other forces to to them, other than as you would normally deploy.

What did they need protecting from?

Connard, I was assuming he meant flanking attacks, and am trying to respond as such.

Popcorn, anyone?

I don't think that the 13th century Samurai had popcorn.

Pass me the rice cakes, please.

Griefbringer

"I don't think that the 13th century Samurai had popcorn."

No, but the Aztecs might have. In a fair fight, I think the Aztecs would win over samurai given that they were armed with popcorn.

I've read about a dozen books on warfare during this period and I don't recall reading anything on point. I do recall that mounted archers were some of the elite troops of that period and could cause a lot of destruction.

Don't you love a cynic, or seven.

Who are you kidding? Aztec popcorn infantry would be cut to pieces before they even got close to ricecake flinging samurai. Sure their quilted cotton armour would absorb the body hits but a stale rice cake on the proboscis would drop the most determined foe.

Then there's the wasabi….

Think 1571 at the top of Mt. Hiei, the last of the warrior monks are defending the Enryakuji Temple. Oda Nabunaga sends his mounted archers around the left flank and behind the naginata wielding warrior monks. Would the archers need mounted swordmen or spearmen to defend them during this move. Think gaming and historically.

Mounted Samurai archers don't need protection or screening. Think of them as gunships. The can skirt foot units, putting arrows into them with near impunity. It helped distinquish the Samurai from the lower castes and lowly foot soldier. Come 1274 the Mongol's showed what can happen when you take a bunch of lowly foot soldiers, give them bows and press them into tight formations. Gone is the concept of the Elite taking a single, precise shot – replaced with a sun-darkening cloud of arrows. Samurai are fine with dying, just so long as it is dignified and at the hands of a worthy enemy and not rabble. These Shashu no Ashigaru were not worthy opponents!

So soon the mounted archer was replaced by the Mounted Spearman in the 1400's! Charging the light foot with a speed unrivaled and striking hard was the Samurai answer to the indignity of volly fire from arrows.

All was well and good. Samurai were supreme, foot soldiers were scum, easily sent running and screaming. Well, until those blasted Christians showed up with their blasted firearms! 1550 comes and brings new ways for the lowly to try and rise above their position. Soon charging Samurai on their fine horses, wearing their brilliant armor and wielding their spears with pussiant skill were finding themselves, their armor and their horses filling with large caliber holes while their blood spilled and mixed with animal blood and mud. "OK," said the Samurai, "who invited that noise to the party?"

So again we see a change in tactics. The Samurai started to breed for smaller stature. They switched from the standard sized horse to ponies breed for speed. With much advanced Chinese medicine the Samurai built up their strength and donned even heavier armor. Soon they became Dwarven Mutant Samurai Hammer-Gods who ruled the battlefield until Japan was forced open by Western Nations in 1856.

I hope that answers the question sufficiently. I've spent a lot of time doing scholarly research on this topic with 1st degree sources, and while the data conflicts with much that has been written by that fraud Turnbull, this, I assure you, Is The Gospel Truth.

Well, if CorpCommander said it, it has to be true.

:-)

"Don't you love a cynic, or seven."

Now the infamous Seven Cynic Samurai were a heavy-handed bunch armed with rice cakes, wasabi and the occasional blue fin sushi roll.

Back to the question at hand: Horse archers don't need much protection. The horse gives them the speed to avoid all but other mounted troops, and the Samurai horse archer typically carried at least 3 blades: a long tachi, short(er) wakizashi, and a metezashi (horse-hand dagger). Sometimes there was even a longsword worn thru the belt like a modern katana.

13th century is just in time to meet the Mongol invasion, with lots of archers on foot, so you're still seeing mostly 'pre-samurai' tactics. The professional warrior is a force to be reckoned with, wearing armor that is highly effective at stopping arrows. Most foot troops of the time were armed with some variety of pole-arms, not ranged weapons, so the horse-archers could close in and hit a target with aimed fire, then ride away.

There's a great scene in a recent anime called 'Sword of the Stranger' here in the US, where a chinese foot archer takes a shot at a galloping horse archer. Chinese archer misses, the horse archer's return shot does not.

By 1571 you wouldn't be so likely to see mounted archers, as the mounted samurai archers of earlier periods had started to switch gears and become heavy cavalry going for charges with spears. With the increase in numbers of non-samurai and low level samurai footmen mounted archers had less of an impact. Individual samurai mounted archers could not measure up to the volleys of massed ashigaru shooting, but they could still make an impact by charging into said massed ashigaru archers and routing them.

Previous to that the mounted samurai archers operated a bit differently from the great horse archer heavy armies on the mainland. Unlike the Mongols, Parthians or Turks they were not as fond of using the superior speed of their horses to initialize large scale hit and run attacks or feint retreats to set up ambushes. You don't see the great steppe archer tactics in Japan. Instead they usually operated in slower mixed formations where they had access to nearby support by foot soldiers. These soldiers carried their gear, banners and decapitated heads, but they also helped fend of enemies who got too close to their bow armed master. Japanese cavalry units were usually not the 100% mounted units you see in wargames.

A Japanese history teacher once told me that the easiest way to visualize it is by comparing it to tank warfare. You have two tanks, each supported by infantry. The tanks manouver around to get a good shot at the enemy's weakest armour without exposing their own. The infantry keeps the tank safe from being mobbed up in close quarters and taken out of action.

Samurai horse archer typically carried at least 3 blades: a long tachi, short(er) wakizashi, and a metezashi (horse-hand dagger). Sometimes there was even a longsword worn thru the belt like a modern katana.

Tachi and katana were both long swords (daito).Tachi were always worn suspended from cords (sageo). Katana were the direct descendants of tachi, and could be worn either tachi style, or pushed through the obi. As cavalry became fewer on Japanese battlefields, the tachi style of wearing a sword died out.

Swords worn tachi style were hung with the cutting edge (yakiba) down, usually by mounted men. A moment's thought will clarify why. Katana worn through the obi always had the yakiba facing up, the better to facilitate a first cut.

I spent over 20 years in kendo and iai, so I presume to speak with some authority but I suppose someone who once read an Osprey will be along shortly to tell me I'm talking cobblers. It's the way of the internet :)

I suppose someone who once read an Osprey will be along shortly to tell me I'm talking cobblers. :)

Or not as the case may be!!!!!

Well, there's always a first time :)

Most of what was said is true. The only thing I could object to is that obsidian weapons and popcorn could take on Samurai tamahagane steel.

Also keep in mind that the Japanese frequently mix troop type in ways that don't quite translate to most sets of wargame rules.

The only thing I could object to is that obsidian weapons and popcorn could take on Samurai tamahagane steel. Also keep in mind that the Japanese frequently mix troop type in ways that don't quite translate to most sets of wargame rules.

As with the Aztecs too, Mike.

Ralph

The original question was, I think, about 13th C Samurai.

These were armoured mounted archers. They were almost always accompanied by retainers on foot so were not as mobile as contemporary horse archers.
At this time swords were not particularly important (the deep sword cult was much later), but swords and, more often, polearms (the naginata) were used in melee. The bow was the key weapon. the spear/lance yari became popular much later.
There weren't any separate mounted spearmen etc.

The obvious answer is "on horses".

Japan is a very mountainous country. Horses eat a great deal of fodder. Not as many horses possible in many of the provinces as most would like. When the armies were small and professional, that percentage went up. It was never large compared to most Asiatic horse armies.

Did Aztecs even have horses?

Did Aztecs even have horses?

Not before Europeans introduced them to the American continent.

However, the Incas did have llamas, which should give them a distinct advantage (especially in spitting contests).

Griefbringer

"No, but the Aztecs might have. In a fair fight, I think the Aztecs would win over samurai given that they were armed with popcorn"

Sounds like an upcoming episode of Deadliest Warrior

The Aztecs were horseless because in a huge famine generations before all the "Nephite" horses were eaten….

So based on what I read, that is if I remember it correctly. The monks held their own in the final battle until the mounted archers hit them from the left flank and got around behind them. Is this wrong?

Mined ewe, if someone wants to correct the dreadful sentence construction in that middle paragraph I won't stand in their way…

Unfortunately, the book I got that information out of is buried pretty deep in moving boxes, so I can't get to it easily (it's "Swords and Hilt Weapons" by Connolly, link ). I do remember there being 3-4 blades, though I may be talking out my ass about a long blade worn thru the belt. definitely wouldn't be the first time… In fact, I think it was another short blade, like a Tanto.

Roughly

The three sword 'suite' (its Japanese transliteration escapes me atm) was a tanto – a dagger with a blade typically 12" or less, wakizashi – a short sword with a blade between 12" and 24", and a katana which was worn through the obi. Wakizashi were generally worn through the obi with the katana. Tanto tended to be shoved through the obi in the small of the back, handy for removing the head of a fallen enemy!. At least that's how I was taught to wear them. The two larger swords were usually only carried together by followers of two sword ryu. However, Japanese art seems always to show them worn together.

The early tachi swords would be worn, usually, on their own. Earlier samurai had enough to carry with a bow, quiver, sword and possibly a polearm. Extra swords would be a little superfluous :)

There are always exceptions, of course.

Did Aztecs even have horses?

No they didn't. The similarity with the samurai is with the existence of mixed troop units being hard to translate into a rule set.

Ralph

We seemed to get off track here a few times, but I do appreciate the help. It turned out to be a good thread, with lots of useful info. I think I'm going to add three mounted swordsmen to my archers and leave it at that. My army is mostly TAG and they don't have any spearmen with their cavalry. The Curteys cav don't look as though they would mix well and the only other mounted spearmen are Perrys', which I haven't seen mixed with TAG to this point. All of you thanks again. TIG

"the only other mounted spearmen are Perrys', which I haven't seen mixed with TAG to this point"

Here you are, sorry I haven't got any pictures of a mounted TAG next to a mounted PM, but I might get one later today.

picture

tigrifsgt,

As one of the "derailers" allow me to help you here. Size-wise the TAG and Perry's fit well, with the Perry's being slightly more slender.

I have cavalry units made of TAG and Perry figures. They fit fine. However, the figures are from different eras and wear different armor. No one has ever remarked upon that fact until I bring the anachronism up. I can live with this, but mileage may vary.

Ralph

I can live with it also. The "I ONLY USE PERRY" people will probably get ticked off, but I really don't care. I thought of using the Perry figures for my cav, but, the archers being the main stay, Perry doesn't have any mounted archers. And, TAG doesn't have any mounted spearmen. So I guess ,based on your recommendation , I'll add three yari men also. Setsuko, thanks for the picture. Wonder where Diruuti and Kenshin were during this discussion. Also, is there a detailed account of the final stand on Mt. Hiei with maps that someone can recommend?